The Neanderthal theory of Autism

Post Reply New Topic

It is completely fanciful. It takes assumption chaining to an extreme level. That person is right is stating that it is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is merely a hypothesis.

It also continentally misses out everything that does not show ASD in a positive light or does not fit with being from Neanderthals in their minds. I suspect it borne out of a sense of superiority.

I suspect your opinion on the theory is borne out of a sense of inferiority.

What negative traits of ASD's does it not account for?

Last edited by chawieman on 22 May 2009, 6:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Suspect away

Can someone who thinks this is a credible text explain why the claim that Neanderthals had dandruff did not sufficiently raise their doubts such as to cause them to pause and check further the arguments being presented before investing their belief in the wider idea posited?

Pop Quiz:
What is the basis for premise that Neanderthals had a gait that was distinctive from anatomically modern humans?


No amount of "crank-like" behavior of blaming the "status quo" and "establishment" or any other positing of ad hominen attacks on the character of those who reasonably doubt this extraordinary and poorly argued claim changes the fact that it is an extraordinary and poorly argued claim. If you choose to believe any poorly argued and extraordinary claim that takes your fancy, fine. But it is less than reasonable to be angry or hostile towards those who prefer to not invest their belief in just any ol' far-fetched, fancy-filled, poorly reasoned/evidenced/argued just-so folk tale posing as "science" that comes their way.

Well I think that Rdos included that dandruff thing even if it is not true about neanderthals simply because in aspie-quiz he was trying to find all possible commonalities between aspies and that is one thing that he noticed as perhaps being possible. Do not let something silly and irrelevant (which I used as proof foolishly in my debate against you, but which Rdos does not use as proof for his theory since he has more than enough) cloud your judgment of the possibility of the entire theory.

Answer: Different anatomical structure, different bone size and structure from homo sapiens. Probably because of different hunting strategies and environment. Correct Professor Pandd?

Just because it is an extraordinary claim does not mean it is false...Newton's and Galileo's theories were just as extraordinary right?

And I am sorry if I am angry or hostile or attack characters, but this is due to personal problems (I should really learn to be more understanding and tolerant) and should not be grounds for automatic dismissal of my arguments or the likelihood of the theory.
Sorry I could not keep debating with you Pandd, if you wanted me to I am not sure but it was a large drain of many hours of time.

I believe that this quote is usually used in reference to intelligent design theory and other hypotheses which are literally extraordinary. Nevertheless, I tend to agree in this case.

We as humans have a tendency to believe the studies that demonstrate something that we want to believe, forgiving any of the evidence and potentially murky waters as something that can "cleared up" with enough study. If we don't favor the results of a particular study, we have a tendency to write it off as inherently flawed.

Really? Because I understood the context was that certain things were true of Neanderthals, and that his study found these things were highly associated with people with ASDs, and these associations (including the dandruff association) constituted an evidential basis for the argument as a whole. Unless it is true of Neanderthals, why would it be evidence of anything to do with Neanderthals?

Your citation of it derivative from rdos's assertion that it is so, might be evidence of a lack of objective and reasonable consideration of the presented information on your part before you easily accepted it as a gospel truth, but it is also indicative of the quality of reasoning and/or honesty of the author in formulating and arguing their idea.

The entire theory is constructed of this kind of nonsense though. For instance, there is a persistent linking of atypical gait in Neanderthals and atypical gait in modern day people with AS, with rdos interpreting this as some kind of meaningful link yet.......




Indeed. The only reason why any modern person would have atypical gait that has any meaningful connection whatsoever to the gait of Neanderthals would be if they shared the easily observed anatomical skeletal structural differences. Is there any dispute whatsoever as to the fact that atypical gait associated with modern ASDs does not coincide with Neanderthalic anatomical skeletal structure?

Extraordinary claims require at least an ordinary amount of evidence. But this claim about Neanderthals and modern day ASDs, is very poorly argued/evidenced.

I was not directing my comments at you in particular.

Well, I don't think it is "fanciful." Not yet proven =/= "fanciful," either. But I agree there are a couple places the article could use more support. I also really hate endnotes rather than footnotes, and thankfully, the formats for most of the legal reading I do has footnotes rather than endnotes. But now someone will tell me I am being entirely too picky.

Why do you assume ASD (or rather, that itself being a negativity and really should more properly be ASC), nees to be 'shown in a negative light?' Is there something *wrong* with showing ASC in the positive light that it is ?

Moreover, I sense a neurotypical ... Only neurotypicals them and haw about heirarchies, due to the left linear proposenties and perseverations. This leads them to see the world as one in which either neurotypicals are superior and ASC inferior, or they get all bent out of shape and emotional fears flood forth drowning their limbic system with the envious possibility (in their minds) that *gasp* ASC might be superior and they might be inferior.

Savant auties don't see it that way, however, since the default for us is associational, not heirarchial, thinking. That means we tend to see the possibility of neurotypicals and ourselves (even our animals to whom we have a special ability to relate) are equals, not one *better* or *worse* than the other. I suspect that was the problem for the Neanderthals, as well, and the cause of some hybridizing romps in the horses' hayroom of the interbreeding type.

I not only have rare, unique savant abilities in language (left) and art (right), but got put thru the left-brain law school experience that for a savant autie can only be described as a language boot camp; so I can understand and engage in the heirarchial thinking by imposing more global processing inhibitions on my right-brain local processing default style -- if I exercise a little concentration. But that does not mean I see the Neanderthal, or autie/Aspie equality equation vis-a-vis neurotypicals as heirarchial. I think neurotypicals get entirely too caught up in this feeling they have to be superior, and they just need to chill. It is no secret among those who take LSATs, that neurotypicals have been trying to get rid of the logical games and analogies sections of the test for as long as they have been somewhat unable to engage in an associational thinking style -- but they need to try. The world is a much better place when we all work toward our common human survival rather than one group fighting the other for heirarchial ranks that don't really matter, and more certainly are even counterproductive for the survival of humans.

The theory should have been updated with newer findings. The current version is over two years old.

I have more or less discarded all the anatomical traits that are still in the theory. They have too small correlations, and visible traits offer perfect ways to select out alien traits. Therefore, most of these links have long been broken because of strong negative selection.

I see that people here are missing the best evidence. The hunting groups in Aspie-quiz. These are directly related to life-style differences between Hs and Hn. And the best thing is that these traits were researched as experimental traits, were discarded as not so good, and later proved to belong together with improved trait-grouping methods. Even better, new traits that were deemed as possibly linked to Valerius Geists "Neanderthal Paradigm" proved to be related to Aspie hunting.

I also often wonder what psychiatry really are doing. How come that nobody tried links between personality-traits and "psychiatric disorders"? Why have nobody found that ONE factor (and its inverse) underlies both personality traits and many psychiatric traits? (no, it is not the g-factor).

i am an.........animal.........

Rdos is here guys!! !! !! !! !! !! Yahoo!

Not. I've been a member here for a long time, and just happened to visit the forum.

Don't know if it is relevant, but did y'all read about the claim that humans ate Neanderthals?

Humans Ate Neanderthals Into Extinction, Scientist Claims

Sounds much more reasonable than the previous cannibalism ideas. Hs were real bastards!

I'm part Neanderthal! YAY! *raises a clenched fist in pride*

(Just messing, I know that is a massive oversimplification! )