Neanderthal Theory - any credibility?

Page 2 of 4 [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

McAnulty
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 258
Location: Montreal

05 Jun 2012, 6:13 pm

I think a combination of genetics and environmental factors is then only explanation that makes sense, and this seems to be the consensus of the scientific community.



bnky
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 486
Location: England

05 Jun 2012, 6:50 pm

Sirunus wrote:
The fact that the Eurasian population have higher rates of autism...

Where did he find this so-called "fact"? I've read that the distribution of ASDs is homogenous throughout the human race. ( I do wonder how they discovered that, of course)



deltafunction
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jun 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,094
Location: Lost

05 Jun 2012, 7:24 pm

Blownmind wrote:
deltafunction wrote:
considering how small the Neanderthal population was (10,000 max) compared with the human population (30,000 in the area at the time?)... and who knows how many occurrences humans breeding with Neanderthals happened... The length of time that has passed and the growth of the human species would, most likely, make the percentage of Neanderthal dna in humans much smaller than it would be for the first generation. So if we weren't looking at any other factor except for Neanderthal DNA causing autism, then cases would get milder and milder until autism didn't exist at all.

Well, thats where evolution comes in. The strongest attributes survive. :D


Lol, so where are the Neanderthals today, hmm? Clearly they were the strongest race of the two :P (just kidding, but Darwin is crying at the moment)

Sirunus wrote:
The article implies that white people became the superior race thanks to the Neanderthal blood in them, and even says the success of Western Civilization that dominated the globe came from the Neanderthal blood European people had in them at the price of autism and other neurological disorders. It also struck me as treating Sub-Saharan Africans like almost a different species, even saying white people might be more closely related to Neanderthals than to black people.


Lol yeah, that definitely seems like a stretch to me. Does that mean that African-Americans are immune to Autism, unless they are mixed somewhere along the line? I know a kid who has it, and besides, anything you look up on internet will tell you that they are most likely to be misdiagnosed as having Oppositional Defiance Disorder when it is really autism.

Honestly, I don't think the theory is even worth discussion since it has no proof at all, but hey, this is fun.



Zinia
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 344

05 Jun 2012, 9:36 pm

Blownmind wrote:

Whats the percentage of Neadnerthal in each race? Do they correlate to the IQ graphs?


No, not even close. As I said before, the study of Neanderthal DNA in various races consisted of studying FIVE people of different races. I think that's pretty loose evidence to start assigning amounts of Neanderthal DNA in various races.

Also--that graph wouldn't even support the argument at ALL since "Hispanic" people are basically European and Native American, and Native Americans migrated out of Asia WAY after Neanderthals supposedly injected their DNA into the species.

And IQ IS just a number.



deltafunction
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jun 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,094
Location: Lost

05 Jun 2012, 9:43 pm

In my opinion, IQ is biased anyways towards Eurasians, or specifically, North Americans and Europeans. If you had to create an intelligence test, wouldn't you want to score the highest too?

Lol, but if you're looking for some sort of evidence that one culture is a superior race, I'm sure there are statistics out there to help you out.


_________________
Your Aspie score: 93 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 109 of 200
You seem to have both Aspie and neurotypical traits


Blownmind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 825
Location: Norway

06 Jun 2012, 1:53 am

Moonpenny wrote:
People who are severely affected by autism are far less likely to breed than other members of the population; people affected by AS are probably rather less likely to breed. This would mean that conditions like severe regressive autism would largely be 'bred out' after hundreds of thousands of generations, and only AS would still be occurring, possibly in reducing numbers.

Perhaps people severly affected by autism was what we would consider mildly affected hundres of thousands of generations ago, and what we see today is actually their version on mildly affected..? Beauty changes, perhaps autistic people were considered the most beautiful sought after people at one point...?

Moonpenny wrote:
But if in most cases activation is needed, and the conditions for that activation weren't present aeons ago, then the genes could have been passed on silently. Only when the conditions were right for activation would the disorders become visible, and the better those conditions, the greater the numbers of individuals involved.
We have no way of knowing if the conditions for an activation like that were or were not present aeons ago. At some point, personality had nothing to do with evolution / how humanoids breeded, thats a fairly new idea. Rape has not always been taboo. And like you suggest, dorment genes might have been passed on silently and evolution hasn't had any way of weeding those genes out.

Moonpenny wrote:
If this theory, or some version of it, is right, it means that in recent decades we've been experiencing those conditions very acutely and that's part of the reason (along with increased likelihood of diagnosis) for the apparent increase in autism. It also means we can't really blame the Neanderthals. The genes were perfectly all right when they had them!

Psychology is only seconds old from an evolutionary viewpoint. There have been loners / village idiots / eccentric people around way before psychology was born. Neanderthals, apparently, did not hunt socially, so they did not need those abilities. When it comes to the genes being perfectly all right when they had them, I suppose that would be correct, but a mix of genes does not always produce the correct result, and evolution weeds out the bad results. If at some point, somehow we got mixed in with Neanderthals, then there are bound to be some "start up problems" in our infancy, which we still are in, and evolution is still chopping down the weed.

deltafunction wrote:
Blownmind wrote:
Well, thats where evolution comes in. The strongest attributes survive. :D

Lol, so where are the Neanderthals today, hmm? Clearly they were the strongest race of the two :P

"lol" all you like, but if some part of neanderthal DNA survived(which some here say is generally known), it was obviously not as pure Neanderthal, only certain attributes have survived.

(I get that many look at this theory as bullcrap and a joke, but to those I say; "everyone once thought the world were flat". I look at theories like this with sceptisism, but I don't write them off completely just because its the general consensus of world, unless I see proof.)

-----------

I read this Neanderthal theory 1-2 months ago, and laughed. It's like conspiracy theories, I thought. They have taken well known facts, twisted them and found correlations statisticly that does not really prove anything. But the more I see people laughing about it now, the more I feel the need to take it seriously. ...there is something wrong with me. :P


_________________
AQ: 42/50 || SQ: 32/80 || IQ(RPM): 138 || IRI-empathytest(PT/EC/FS/PD): 10(-7)/16(-3)/19(+3)/19(+10) || Alexithymia: 148/185 || Aspie-quiz: AS 133/200, NT 56/200


Ellingtonia
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 200

06 Jun 2012, 2:40 am

It seems probable that there was some interbreeding between humans and neanderthals, but from what I can tell any talk of this giving the 'hybrids' an evolutionary advantage or causing autism seems to be merely speculation.

A quote from Richard E. Green, one of the authors of the study: "The scenario is not what most people had envisioned. We found the genetic signal of Neanderthals in all the non-African genomes, meaning that the admixture occurred early on, probably in the Middle East, and is shared with all descendants of the early humans who migrated out of Africa. The signal is sparsely distributed across the genome, just a 'bread crumbs' clue of what happened in the past. If there was something that conferred a fitness advantage, we probably would have found it already by comparing human genomes."



deltafunction
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jun 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,094
Location: Lost

06 Jun 2012, 5:46 am

Blownmind wrote:
deltafunction wrote:
Blownmind wrote:
Well, thats where evolution comes in. The strongest attributes survive. :D

Lol, so where are the Neanderthals today, hmm? Clearly they were the strongest race of the two :P

"lol" all you like, but if some part of neanderthal DNA survived(which some here say is generally known), it was obviously not as pure Neanderthal, only certain attributes have survived.

(I get that many look at this theory as bullcrap and a joke, but to those I say; "everyone once thought the world were flat". I look at theories like this with sceptisism, but I don't write them off completely just because its the general consensus of world, unless I see proof.)

-----------

I read this Neanderthal theory 1-2 months ago, and laughed. It's like conspiracy theories, I thought. They have taken well known facts, twisted them and found correlations statisticly that does not really prove anything. But the more I see people laughing about it now, the more I feel the need to take it seriously. ...there is something wrong with me. :P


I'm not so sure what's so great about the Neanderthals that makes people think they were genetically superior. Out of the theories of their demise, some are that they could no cope with a changing climate, that they had to compete with humans when humans migrated to the same area, and they had lost, that there was a genocide by the humans, that their running ability was worse because of stocky limbs, and that they inherited a pathogen from humans and though humans were immune, they were not. Sure, there is also a possibility of extinction by cross-breeding, but that's just one of the theories.

And yes, if a species dies off because of competition, that is evolution at its work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neandertha ... hypotheses


_________________
Your Aspie score: 93 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 109 of 200
You seem to have both Aspie and neurotypical traits


Sirunus
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 69

06 Jun 2012, 6:25 am

bnky wrote:
Sirunus wrote:
The fact that the Eurasian population have higher rates of autism...

Where did he find this so-called "fact"? I've read that the distribution of ASDs is homogenous throughout the human race. ( I do wonder how they discovered that, of course)


I kind've took his word (and my friend's) for it. Apparently there are studies saying that Sub-Saharan Africans have lower rates of autism. If anyone can shed any light on this, I would be grateful.

But my friend really wants to believe that he is some sort of throwback to the Neanderthals and is convinced that autism came from them as well as Western Civilization. He always talks about certain subjects like he is an expert where he clearly has limited knowledge. Whenever I pointed out flaws in the autism-Neanderthal theory, he responded: "Are you a geneticist?"

Also, I have read from a couple of sources that genetic differences between different racial groups only accounts for around 15% of human genetic variation. The rest of human genetic variation occurs within racial groups. Compared with Chimpanzees, our closest living relative, there isn't much genetic variation amongst humankind.



Blownmind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 825
Location: Norway

06 Jun 2012, 7:43 am

deltafunction wrote:
Blownmind wrote:
deltafunction wrote:
Blownmind wrote:
Well, thats where evolution comes in. The strongest attributes survive. :D

Lol, so where are the Neanderthals today, hmm? Clearly they were the strongest race of the two :P

"lol" all you like, but if some part of neanderthal DNA survived(which some here say is generally known), it was obviously not as pure Neanderthal, only certain attributes have survived.

I'm not so sure what's so great about the Neanderthals that makes people think they were genetically superior.
(...)
And yes, if a species dies off because of competition, that is evolution at its work.

I don't know why you quoted me before writing the part about superiority, cause I never called them that, I simply stated that the strongest genes survies, aka what is known as evolution.
If a species dies off, but a hybrid of that species survive, that would mean the hybrid is strongest..


_________________
AQ: 42/50 || SQ: 32/80 || IQ(RPM): 138 || IRI-empathytest(PT/EC/FS/PD): 10(-7)/16(-3)/19(+3)/19(+10) || Alexithymia: 148/185 || Aspie-quiz: AS 133/200, NT 56/200


McAnulty
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 258
Location: Montreal

06 Jun 2012, 7:57 am

About Sub Saharan people not having as much Autism, I have no facts on it, but many of the people I know from Africa have told me that they don't have much access to doctors over there and they don't go to medical professionals as quickly for things, they tend to go only when someone is seriously ill. It may be possible that because of their culture even when they come here they may not run to the doctor when they think something is different about their child. I wonder how they can correctly state the percentage of people with Autism when the culture is unlikely to look for such a diagnosis.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

06 Jun 2012, 8:13 am

I dont think it is an issue of genetic superiority at all.However neanderthals lived for milliniums in cold and inhospitibal climates,so they had to work so hard just to survive and this may have given them an edge later on down the line because they may have evolved better work habbitts as a matter of survival.civilization developed in the middle east,africa and the metaterainien sea because of warm climates and the easy availability of recources.however siberian people like huns and turks came southwest to escape the bitter cold and with there strenth conquered everything they encountered.also goths,alans,scythians,bulgars living in what would be today the ukraine with there strenth conquered rome and once these people made so strong by the freezing cold of russia got there hands on the technology of rome,greece,persia,syria etcc.....these factors gave way to hundreds of years of northern european domination and also the ottoman empire as well and the rise of islam because the turks were from siberia like the huns likely an exiled tribe of mongols.the original inhabitents of turkey were greeks.it was mainly because constantinople was the biggest city the turks conquered and so after that istambul became the central artery of turkic culture hence modern day turkey.the original homeland of the turks was southwest siberia before coming west.you see this factor in the US as well.industry developed in the northeast because it needed to because it is cold and to hilly and rocky for farmland to be profitable.in the south you have flat fertile land and warm climate and even the cold midwest is flat and the farmland is fertile.so the south and midwest didnt need to develop better technology for its survival


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


Sirunus
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 69

06 Jun 2012, 12:34 pm

I think the Neanderthal-autism link theory rests maninly on this article:

The Neanderthal theory

What do you guys think? I haven't read the whole article yet, but I've seen it being ridiculed a couple of times.



friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

06 Jun 2012, 7:21 pm

Firstly, let me out myself as a Young Earth Creationist.

I have consumed much scientific media, but am admittedly not considered a scientist.

From my informal perspective, reconstructed hominid remains all tend to resemble blacks, whites, asians, or animal.

To say that whites came from the remains, which look most white, is not a revelation to me.

FWIW, I am not considered very neurotypical. 23andme has a test for the presence of Neanderthal genes, and mine shows just a fraction of a percent above normal. This doesn't seem to be a very strong correlation.



Sirunus
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 69

08 Jun 2012, 3:24 pm

How could one know that autism was inherited from the Neanderthals when we know so little about autism in the first place? We know that autism is probably at least partly genetic, and we know that it's not just one gene that causes autism but a combination of different genes. But environmental factors also to appear to play an important role, such as the amount of hormones present when you were inside your mother's womb. So firstly, you would need to explain why environmental factors appear to have an affect if autism is purely genetic. Second, not only would you need to identify all the genes that cause autism, but you would need to trace them all back to the Neanderthals. Third, purebred Africans would not get autism at all if this were true.

A lot of the proponents of this Neanderthal-causes-autism-theory (and calling it a theory is giving it too much credit) appear to have a racist agenda. They imply that people with Neanderthal genes are genetically superior to purebred Home sapiens, aka Sub-Saharan Africans, aka black people. One such article on neanderthalproject.com makes comments like "we hybrids rule the planet," and makes disparaging comments about black people such as "just look at Sub-Sahara Africa and you tell me." He refered to black people as our "pure Home sapien cousins", almost like as if they were a different species from us. The guy even had the gall to claim that because of Neanderthal genes, white people's brains work more efficiently than black people's! There seems to be some underlying autism supremacy movement behind all this too. Because they believe the genes that cause autism that was inherited from the Neanderthals made us superior, they believe that autistic people are genetically superior to neurotypicals. They believe that because white neaurotypicals carry Neanderthal DNA and thus autistic DNA, that they are superior to pure neaurotypicals, the people that don't have any Neanderthal genes and apparently never get autism. And who are these pure neurotypicals? Black people.

There appears to be clearly a racist agenda behind some of the proponents of this so-called theory.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,561

10 Jun 2012, 8:23 pm

Sirunus wrote:
How could one know that autism was inherited from the Neanderthals when we know so little about autism in the first place? We know that autism is probably at least partly genetic, and we know that it's not just one gene that causes autism but a combination of different genes. But environmental factors also to appear to play an important role, such as the amount of hormones present when you were inside your mother's womb. So firstly, you would need to explain why environmental factors appear to have an affect if autism is purely genetic. Second, not only would you need to identify all the genes that cause autism, but you would need to trace them all back to the Neanderthals. Third, purebred Africans would not get autism at all if this were true.

A lot of the proponents of this Neanderthal-causes-autism-theory (and calling it a theory is giving it too much credit) appear to have a racist agenda. They imply that people with Neanderthal genes are genetically superior to purebred Home sapiens, aka Sub-Saharan Africans, aka black people. One such article on neanderthalproject.com makes comments like "we hybrids rule the planet," and makes disparaging comments about black people such as "just look at Sub-Sahara Africa and you tell me." He refered to black people as our "pure Home sapien cousins", almost like as if they were a different species from us. The guy even had the gall to claim that because of Neanderthal genes, white people's brains work more efficiently than black people's! There seems to be some underlying autism supremacy movement behind all this too. Because they believe the genes that cause autism that was inherited from the Neanderthals made us superior, they believe that autistic people are genetically superior to neurotypicals. They believe that because white neaurotypicals carry Neanderthal DNA and thus autistic DNA, that they are superior to pure neaurotypicals, the people that don't have any Neanderthal genes and apparently never get autism. And who are these pure neurotypicals? Black people.



There appears to be clearly a racist agenda behind some of the proponents of this so-called theory.


Children of those Indigenous Subsarahan Somalians whom lived among Indigenous Africans in the Subsarahan desert sampled for archaic dna, whom are suggested to have little to no archaic neanderthal DNA, are diagnosed at high levels of Autism Disorder both among those whom are refugees in the US and Sweden. So obviously this isn't an issue of individuals among Subsarahan Africans, that are immune to the potential of Autism Disorder because they lack archaic neanderthal DNA.

While it was mentioned earlier in the discussion that there were limited numbers of archaic neanderthal dna sampled, there was a later study done last Summer, studying over 6000 genomes world wide, that is used as the basis of the 23andme test that estimates archaic Neanderthal DNA.

1 to 4 percent archaic DNA was sampled across the globe, with little to no archaic neanderthal DNA sampled in the Subsaharan, but those differences in archaic DNA run mostly in the range of a median percentile range of 2.2 to 2.8. The 23andme estimates are based on ancestry per the samples that have already been taken per different geographical locations. The actual archaic DNA per individual is not measured, in the 23andme estimate, it's just an estimation based on the greater, but still limited samples taken across the globe in select locations.

It wouldn't be surprising for the 23andme test to report an estimate of 2.6 from a person from, Finland and the actual percentage to come out as 3.0, if a test was actually done, which is the difference between close to a median score and what is considered close to the 99th percentile. And of course it could go the other way too with a lower score of 2.2 if someone was actually measured.

Beyond this autistic like traits, and similiar genes that have been associated with autism disorder in humans exist in other species in the animal kingdom. Neanderthals did not breed with mice but both humans and Neanderthals share a common rodent like ancestor that lived about 75 million years ago. Autistic like traits have been reported in Bonobos, so it's possible they could be reported in neanderthals if we had any actual neanderthals, whose behavior we could study, but we don't.

The disorder of autism is a human construct, but the autistic like symptoms can be observed in other animals. Unless Neanderthals could speak as modern humans do, per inherent ability and culture, they could not be diagnosed with autism, as well as any other animal, because it is a social/communicative disorder per human construct, that is measured by studying the behavioral impairments defined specific to human Social/Communication Impairments and Restricted Repetitive Behaviors.

We have no way of knowing what the specific social/communication skills were that neanderthals or Cro-Magnon man possessed, but since Bonobos are studied as having autistic like traits, as well as mice, we can probably safely say if we could go back in time we might observe similar autistic like behaviors in Neanderthals, and Cro-Magnon man, if for no other reason than the fact that all those species shared a common rodent like ancestor, 75 million years ago.

But, we will never know the specific social/communication impairments that any of these archaic hominids had issues specific to a modern human diagnosis of the human construct of Autism Disorder, because we have no idea what their specific normal abilities in social/communication skills were. We understand those behaviors to a degree in Mice and Bonobos, only because we can observe them.

The Neanderthal Theory of Autism, is a bit confusing, because the data used in an attempt to provide evidence for the theory, from the Aspie Quiz, is limited to a registration process that does not provide a clear registration category for classic autism. The categories are PDD/HFA/Aspergers. Logically PDD would be shorthand for PDD NOS, since otherwise it would be an umbrella category covering the other two categories listed.

The theory attempts to extrapolate lack of interest among ethnic groups that take the test, as evidence that aspie traits are not as likely among those groups. While African Americans that actually take the test score close to as high as caucasians, the fact that they are not equally represented per US census demographics, among those that either aren't familar with what the word "Aspie" means or haven't come across it in the limited venues of links available on the internet, is used as evidence of a lower likeyhood of Aspie/Neurodiversity traits.

This inference is extrapolated to indigenous Africans, per an ancestry link, as evidence that indigenous Subsarahan Africans have a lower level of neurodiverse traits as well. Since that "interest" information is based on a subjective methodology, I don't accept it as partial evidence for the theory, that relies on the hypothesis that the neurodiverse traits will be found at low levels among indigenous Africans, with little to no archaic Neanderthal DNA.

Per the children of Indigenous Subsarahan Somalian refugees diagnosed with high rates of autism in Sweden and the US, that genetic aspect that the theory relies on has been refuted, per the data as it actually exists.

It's much stronger data to refute the hypothesis, than a suggestion that because African Americans aren't particularly interested in taking the Aspie Quiz, that one is going to find lower results of Aspie/Neurodiversity traits among Indigenous Subsarahan Africans, whom are studied as a geographical group as having little to no archaic Neanderthal DNA.

Beyond this the author suggests that since there is no interest of a request among Middle Eastern countries for a translation of the internet quiz, that they also likely do not possess strong Aspie/Neurodiversity traits .

Not likely many in those cultures have any idea what an "Aspie" is, or what neurodiversity is because it is not part of the cultural languages. In fact awareness of those terms is restricted in the US, as limited to a significant degree to online autistic communities.

There is a cultural stigma of any type of psychological diagnosed disorder among those in the African American Culture as a whole, reported by the National Association of Mental Illness NAMI, for a variety of cultural reasons. It is part of the reason that some individuals in that subculture would not likely be interested in a quiz associated with self diagnosis of any disorder associated with a psychological diagnosis.

And of course there is not much if any realistic opportunity, at this point in time, for actual indigenous Subsaharan Africans to take the test whom have low access to the internet, as well no translations for the many languages that exist among those in various Subsaharan African Countries.

The Aspie Quiz is a respected measure of what it measures, but at this point in time there is absolutely no evidence that the collected results, provides data for evidence of a reduced measure of Aspie/Neurodiversity traits among Subsarahan Indigenous Africans.

The behaviors associated with Social/Communication impairments and RRB's have been identified in all cultures studied in the world. At present per actual community wide scans, the Amish are studied in the US as having the lowest prevalence rates of ASD's per a 1 in 295 prevalence, and when statistics were reliant on actual medically diagnosed cases, the prevalence levels were estimated at 1 in 15,000.

Access to diagnosis and/or screening methodology makes a difference, but apparently culture may make the biggest difference, in an actual autism spectrum disorder, not archaic neanderthal DNA, or Northern European Heritage, since those in Amish country are mostly of Northern European descent, as well as likely having high levels of archaic neanderthal DNA, per the estimates provided by the 23andme organization.

The school wide prevalence scans of 1 in 38, in South Korea, are one of the few comparable statistics to the 1 in 295 statistic in the prevalence scan in Amish Country. It is dramatic in difference. The difference in ethnicity is apparent, but the differences in cultural environments, appear to be the factor that may have the largest impact per actual prevalence numbers.

Somalian children diagnosed at high rates with Autism Spectrum Disorders in the US and Sweden certainly provide evidence of either the difference that access to diagnosis makes, or cultural environment. A scan could be done in Somalia to attempt to determine in part, how much the two cultural environments impact that indigneous population, per autism spectrum disorder diagnoses.

An aspie quiz if adapted and language translated as a peer reviewed tool, could be used as an interesting tool, as well, to measure behavioral differences among similar aged demographics of these Somalian children and adults living in each culture, beyond the standards of an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis.

There is definitely an element in Northern Europe of disdain for migration of those in the Middle East and Subsarahan countries, which obviously in part is a conflict in cultural differences, some of which are religious in origin.

However there is no evidence that it is an issue specific to genetics. As mentioned in another thread, per those that attempt to blame crime and violence on darker skin color/ethnicity/genetics/ and or geography, Anthropolgoists/Sociologists have defined 25 societies in the world as peaceful ones per their lack of internal and external violence as well as their ability to share resourcess.

Among those 25 societies, 6 were among Indigenous African Societies. The rest were spread out evenly across the world, however 24 out of 25 had one thing in common. There were all individuals living in developing countries with dark skin. Only one society identified per caucasians living in the US, not too suprisingly the Amish.

For those individuals that may attempt to make these problems of cultural conflicts as one of genetic/ethnic/geographical basis per violence, crime, and productivity, the 25 "pro-social" societies rated by anthropologists/social scientists in the world as peaceful provide greater evidence that these conflicts identified in Northern Europe have cultural instead of genetic/ethnic/geographical origin.

http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/