AS and other type of humans.

Post Reply New Topic

I thank you all for replying to my posts.

@ TPE2

Yeah sorry about this, I believe it not because I have no evidence but rather because my evidence is extremely long and consisting of small details that I cannot all remember and may not be seemingly relevant without understanding the whole, and may not be seemingly relevant at all to some people. I admit there are some places where I have faith in the theory where at first it would seem illogical, but when seen in context of the whole everything fits together in a way that makes the truth of this theory fairly obvious to myself.

And yes, there is evidence of neanderthals as south as the middle east, in fact it was one of the prime hybridization grounds.

@everyone who cares

While this part is harder to bring some points up about, the "proof" that autism comes from neanderthal genes would be if we look at the lifestyle of a neanderthal. Living up north during the ice ages where there was little food, and their main diet consisted of meat. Because of the scarce food supply, neanderthals likely had to live farther apart from each other, living in only very small groups of a few members. This was to make sure the balance of animals was preserved. Since neanderthals lived in smaller groups, they did not need social skills to interact with large numbers of other people and strangers like the cro-magnons likely did because they came from the south where it was beneficial to live and hunt in large groups. Living up in the north, it must have been hard to survive. And I realize, Pandd, that I have no proof of this, but it seems likely to me. This is where common aspie traits like awareness of the environment, even to the level where they get overstimulated, come in and we see that the neanderthals likely possessed them too. To hunt in the snow for many hours in dense forest would result in the neanderthal's senses being extremely keen to survive, their sense of smell and hearing much above the normal human of today. Do aspies not commonly have excellent senses of smell and excellent hearing, commonly possessing perfect pitch, and possessing excellent peripheral vision?
Also why is it that aspies commonly possess a different or awkward gait? Oh yeah must be those damn mirror cells again, of course it isn't that they have a different body structure.
Why are aspies and autists commonly hypo-glycemic or hypo-gluten or whatever, and cannot eat sugar or wheat? The answer lies in the neanderthal diet, which did not have those foods. What would wheat allergy have to do with mirror cells? bah...
Another aspie trait is the getting it done factor, the desire we all seem to have to do what it takes to do a good job that is lacking in NT's. This was likely necessary living during an ice age, where everything was a life or death situation.
And although many may disagree with me here, it is my belief that aspies commonly possess greater morality than the NT's. Also a very important survival factor living up north where everyday your life was tested and every member of the tribe was vitally important. There was no NT ripping people off or lying, as this would lead to everybody's death.
The greater attention to detail of aspies was also important, as it was intelligence and awareness that was important to survive as a neanderthal, not social skills and the ability to dominate others in the social arena.
Seeing as there were fewer members of the tribe and tribes did not commonly communicate with each other, each tribe had to create their own technology. This is where the aspie special interests comes in. The aspie special interest is probably not just a way to escape from the social world since they have no social skills as NT psychs commonly believe. Special interests were the route to great technology that each neanderthal tribe created for themselves. I mean, today we have things like anime and computer games that aspies get obsessed with. But back then those didn't exist. The only things to get obsessed about were animals, wood, rocks, plants, etc, all things that if studied enough would lead to technologies.
The reason technology didn't spread until after the cro-magnons arrived is because their social skills probably linked the tribes together or just assimilated neanderthal hybrids into their tribes, and they shared the technology en masse.

Well the aspie of today is not that much more intelligent on average than the NT, because there are so many random factors with each new generation of aspie and cro-magnon hybrids. A very unlucky aspie could inherit the social skills of a neanderthal but the problem solving ability and small mindedness of a cro-magnon, as evident on this site. A lucky NT could possess the social skills of a cro-magnon alpha but the awareness and sensitivity and creativity of a neanderthal, evidence of which may exist on this site and is evident in the world at large.

Well there is very little evidence that autists are more intelligent that neurotypicals, but that is only if you do not consider the fact that pretty much anyone who created anything original from history was likely on the spectrum IMO if you look at their life and habits. But no one will ever want to prove that, I mean even aspies like to discredit other aspies who believe in such things, and they firmly believe in NT superiority...

@ oppositedirection

Well I don't think the renaissance was the only time that technology rapidly increased, like look at the stone age and iron ages. I don't know what age the african tribes of a hundred years ago were at but I don't even know if they had copper or bronze or anything. Just the common knowledge of metalworking is a pretty big technological leap.

Also I don't think that study really proves anything at all, and the researchers seem to be relying on guesswork as much as I am. They say many genes are responsible for autism, and this does not disprove the theory. It also does not prove that there is more to it than genes, simply the interaction between genes which in my opinion is the same thing. Also they say abnormal connection in the brain during early development could be the cause, but could the genes not themselves code for these abnormal connections? They also looked at the genes of AS and normal people and noticed that the AS people had genes in common with each other. This does not prove anything, but it is interesting.

On the religion of the neanderthals: I wouldn't say that religion has too much to do with level of intelligence, but IMO there is more to religion and spirituality than it just being a complex social ritual that bonds people together. The effect that a belief in God or simply something greater that could be praised through rituals could be the very thing that could give the neanderthal peoples the willpower and drive to survive. They wouldn't have had much else to live for really. From what I've seen the way NT's practice religion is very rarely an actual belief in something spiritual but rather they just follow the social ritual. But aspies who are spiritual (and I believe you yourself are a spiritual person oppositedirection even if you do not know it yet, or deny it) seem to experience it on a deeper and individual level that really enriches their lives. Of course many aspies since they consider themselves so intelligent and scientific they go without a belief in spirituality that could so strengthen their souls and deepen their experience of life.

@ pandd hehe I like your arguments but they're kind of annoying, like a swarm of mosquitoes that no matter how many times you swat there will always be more.

What I mean by being separated by a million years is that neanderthals and cro-magnons did not interbreed with other and only interbred within their own species for this long. They did come from a common ancestor before they split off to live in different environments. The relevance of the skeleton to AS only is relevant if you consider the likelihood that neanderthals had brains similar to today's autistic people of the world.
As to giving birth to earlier forms of humans, I think it is more likely that the more recently introduced traits (in my beliefs the neanderthals) would come up more frequently than older ones such as those of a simple minded ape or homo erectus, since negative traits from them have been weeded out by now but the neanderthal ones are still a common part of some human's genomes. I guess it is possible that AS could come from homo erectus but I think it is far more likely that it came from the neanderthals, seeing as how they probably lived, where they lived, and how AS affects the human population today.

No I can't.

I have the original, typical lack of social ability as described by AS and classical and thus I cannot communicate any better (just worse if anything) with others on the spectrum.



So you're actually non-autistic? I see. Well, no, I don't actually because that's making it confusing.

Why are you talking of 'we'/'our'?

I'm autistic and if you're NT, I do not feel particularly 'we' when you talk about autism.



No. Where did you get that idea?

It was our pleasure. Thanks for posting yourself.


Part of understanding the whole is to track implications of component arguments and compare them to each other, so that mutually contrary evidence is not mistaken for accumulative evidence.

The balance between exceeding the carrying capacity of a hunting-gathering group's range, and falling below sustainable population levels for any hominoid means that group size and population density would not be sufficient to explain the disparities between autistic social engagement and non-autistic social engagement.

What would seem likely to you, might be significantly altered given the knowledge you might gain from pesky studying if you did not consider it beneath you.

I can assure you that coming into contact with any strangers at all was not a common life event for most hominoids (including non-Neanderthal ones) at the relevant time in history.

Evidently, the more marginal an environment, the more advantageous inter-group relations are.

Most significantly, have you considered if this is an evidence in favour of this argument then the technology argument you presented earlier referencing non-development in the Americas falls apart. Either the people who crossed the Berring land-bridge were well adapted to the cold harsh environment as people without Neanderthalic (or autistic) tendencies, while Neanderthals failed to achieve this, or Neanderthalic/autistic ancestry cannot explain why Americas and Eurasian technologies did not develop apace.

Yet I somehow think that instead of realizing only one or the other can be true (and that together, neither argument is made any stronger by the presence of the other), you have interpreted these two contrary arguments as two evidences supporting the theory just as if they both could be true at once.

By "normal human today" do you mean an urban human as opposed to those who still practice the kinds of lifeway that results in senses keened for survival in the context of such a life-way? Since the development of these skills can be linked to environmental feedback, the fact that people not raised in a hunting/gathering culture do not develop these skills is no adequate measure by which to judge "normal human senses".

There is a strong association between AS and sensory dysregulation. This is not the same as senses better adapted for hunting, nor is there regularity in how this dysregulation manifests in individuals, relevant to hunter/gathering adaptivity. Some autistic people have exceptional skills with pitch and some an exceptional lack of skills. Many people with Autism use periphery vision because their foveal vision is simply not adequately functional, probably due to excessive acuity.

Being overwhelmed due to sensory stimulus is probably significantly less adaptive while out hunting and gathering than it is in a class room or the shopping mall. I am surprised this is less than obvious.

Neurotypical people have functionality of attention so that irrelevant environmental stimulus can be "filtered" to avoid an active distraction from tasks of importance. This functionality is huge advantage in a hunting/gathering context, or any environment where one might have to perform tasks relevant to survival. This is an area where we are deficient, as evidenced by the sensory overwhelming that so many of us experience.

Evidently, hunting in dense forest without snow is probably harder as snow facilitates very clear tracks to follow.

Because they are experiencing dysfunction that has implications for their gross motor-functioning.

How is this relevant to Neanderthals who were actually rather agile and did not conform to the stereotype of lumbering hulking ape-like cavemen that is so pervasive in popular media and imagination?
It's less than clear what you are arguing here. Suffice it to say that mammals generally show a very good ability to adapt to their particular bodily configuration, in many instances even to changes that occur suddenly and post-developmentally. This can occur in the absence of any models of their own species (no mirror cells needed) and despite the fact that their brain is not genetically pre-configured for the particular sudden body modification (such as amputation of a limb).

Nothing about Neanderthalic ancestors can explain awkward gait in modern day autistic persons.
Why do they suffer from being cross eyed more than is usual in the average population? Why are we not all hypo-whatever?


I have no idea what your obsession with mirror cells is. You do understand that if theory A is untrue, this does not prove that contrary theories are true? And further that the mirror cell theory as I understand actually is not necessarily contrary to this "autism is atavistic Neanderthalism" theory?
For most of human history, no one's diets included these foods.


This is yet another example of the clear cherry picking needed to support this theory much like the sensory argument. Excessive passivity is a symptom of AS, with many not being able to get on get things done, or even get started. That this failure to get on most predominately strikes what needs to be done but does not take our fancy (rather than what does take our fancy but does not need to be done) is not a survival advantage in the context of a hunting gathering subsistence life way. Quite the contrary in fact.

As contrasted to those who only have ancestry from non-Neanderthal ancestors who also lived through the ice-ages?
The majority of hominoid history, everything was a life or death situation. Hunter gatherers do not produce surplus, so for any hunting gathering life way, it is always life or death. Did you think non-Neanderthals were getting their dinner from the local pre-historic 7/11? The Flinstones is a cartoon, not an accurate representation of non-Neanderthalic ancestors.

I wish to highlight to you how very silly and obviously without merit this particular argument is, not because I think you are stupid to believe it, but because I do not think you are stupid enough to believe it, independent of an underlying motivation that is influencing all your reasoning on this theory. The above argument is incredibly silly. I am astonished you would not readily recognize that non-Neanderthals were hunter gatherers, or that all hunter gatherers live on the edge of subsistence (ie life or death situation) all the time. I think that independent of your desire to believe, you're a lot smarter than this. It is genuinely not a case of others failing to see, it is that others are simply being more objective than yourself about this particular theory.

Again, all hunter gatherer life ways are precarious, and rely on inter-dependence to succeed. What you are positing as a cause of Neanderthal morality applies no less to non-Neanderthals.

Greater attention to detail is a grossly misleading simplification. Non-verbal communication is entirely overlooked by many of us, and evidently exists as a huge array of small, inter-related details. Attention to detail is not actually particularly adaptive to a subsistence life-style. Ability to adaptively acquire attention for relevant details is. We fail at this as a group compared to non-autistic people.

Quite aside from this fewer members and non-communication notion being highly unlikely, this premise is entirely inconsistent with the archeological record.
No, it is very obviously an implication of attention dysregulation.

This notion is just not supported by the archeological record.

Right. Or someone with two highly social parents, could from nowhere suddenly inherit the DNA of non-social Neanderthalic ancestors?

LOL. So it's all about personal, self-esteem or intelligence issues on the side of the non-believers? Is this true of every faith based belief I refuse to take up, or just the one's you happen to have invested your faith in?

I suspect from your comments that you lack understanding of technological development. It is not linear. Roman age England was much more technologically advanced than was chronologically later Medieval England. Technology in Africa, as is true elsewhere has arisen, been "lost", and has diffused to other regions to form part of the technological "bank" by which the technological advances that you are referring to in Europe, were facilitated.

Actually, this theory falls apart if, disparate, non-allelic genes are found to commonly cause autism. My understanding is that in fact the latter has been shown to be empirically supported.

It does require sophisticated cognitive processes.
They had reproduction to live for. Are spiders religious or do they have really great dates to look forward to? Religion is not needed to produce survival behaviors. In fact the repression of survival behaviors among life-forms is more exceptional than their manifestation.

I cannot help that there is so much wrong with this theory. If it is any comfort, I am not bothering with everything that could be argued, merely giving the quickest most expedient responses; in reality much more could be argued for every argument that I did make.
This theory has not been proven and is strongly and actively disputed within anthropology, particularly within the archeology and evolutionary biology sub-fields.

Whereas the likelihood of inter-breeding is significantly reduced if you consider as much, since it increases behavioral reproductive isolation, in addition to biological incompatability.


This would be more than counter-balanced by the reproductive disadvantage potential for any Neanderthalic autistic genes, coupled with the much more pervasive ancestry of earlier homonid ancestors. Only a minority of people alive would have Neanderthalic ancestry, but 100% (Neanderthals included) would have common early homonid ancestry.


Yes it is equally possible, despite the behavioral arguments you claim substantiate your belief not applying. This Neanderthal theory is more smoke than mirrors, requiring inaccurate representations of modern autistic people and their traits, inaccurate comparisons between Neanderthal life-ways and non-Neanderthal life-ways, and a great deal of unsupportable speculation and outright fantasy (such as Neanderthals suffering from dandruff).

@ Sora
I'm not really NT, but I consider myself NT lots of the time since I socialize real well and pass as normal in the social world, but I guess I have mild AS that I somewhat overcame, but I still get overstimulated a lot, and I also have bipolar, ADD, executive dysfunction etc. So no not NT.

And I got the idea that aspies have excellent senses from reading this site over the past couple years, reading up on gifted children on the internet, and data from rdos' aspie quiz.

@pandd
I don't think my evidence is mutually contrary, but I guess I will have to explain how it is not because I was not clear enough. I wish you would just believe the damn theory and feel good about it though, so I wouldn't have to type anymore. I don't know how many counter arguments I can make before I burn out because I hate to argue, although I do like to be right. I would like you to be right as well, but you are very resistant. Of course this sounds ridiculous, but really the theory is a lot easier to believe once you make that leap of faith, and everything else will fall into place, just like with God (heh). I will state that I am a feeler personality and not really an objective rationalist, so I am sorry for all the fallacies I make. I don't know that just because I am making fallacies though has anything to do with the overall argument or theory being wrong, so maybe just look at the good points that I do make and consider them.

I think it could in fact. What if the best balance of neanderthals was like 2 or 3 in a tribe that covered 20 square miles? A ratio like this could definitely make up for the disparities between autistic and NT social engagement. Not severely autistic of course as I think that it is possible that severe autism occurs when neanderthal and cro-magnon genes within a person's make up fail to connect in a way effective for the organism, sort of like a random mule for every few good hybrids that are born.

I am not against studying and do not consider it beneath me, but I think most "studies" done by "professionals" are just BS to make them more money and give people false hope, especially in the field of autism, where everyone seems to be clueless, especially the big leading AS specialists.

While the more marginal an environment, the more advantageous inter-group relations are may be true, AS people with other AS people do have great relations with each other once they spend a lot of time together and those are the main people they socialize with. NT social relations are not really beneficial to survival at all, they are more status based, and the average ASer possesses communication just as beneficial in life or death situations as an NT.

And while I admit that the point about technology not being created in the Americas is horrible proof I just made up, it is still a possibility, although it definitely does not point to any conclusion whatsoever or even can be considered a piece of evidence.

Neanderthals probably did not have a hard a time as living in the north as those who crossed the Bering Strait, only because they had been at it so long though and were better adapted, what I mean that it was hard to survive is more like they didn't have a lot of fun and life was probably painful much of the time.

Another point I would like to make is that you are just looking at my arguments and trying to discredit each one with out looking at the likely scenario. I could say, "Prove to me that dinosaurs ever lived, all I see is bones that could just be the effect of the earth squeezing carbon together." However it is obvious that of course dinosaurs once walked the earth, and it would be wise to have faith that this is true, even if a living one with organs and skin cannot be presented to you.

By normal human today I would mean the average person with very little neanderthal ancestry, to a pure African black/asian tribesman, even if they were hunters. A person with a naturally enhanced sense of smell and hearing and peripheral vision would have the capacity to be a better hunter than someone who isn't, and it is my belief from reading about gifted people, the experiences of those with asperger's, bipolar, ADD and ADHD, and rdos' aspie quiz that enhanced senses are a common aspect of being on the autistic spectrum.

I doubt neanderthals were frequently overwhelmed by sensory stimulus, as being outside in nature does not overstimulate an aspie nearly as quickly as those other places you mentioned, especially large amounts of strangers or people not known well to the aspie, the greatest overstimulaters of all. Neanderthals when tired of hunting could go sleep in their cave and play with their creations, a good way to wind down and maintain the right level of stimulation.

The neurotypical person's functionality of attention would be an advantage for hunter gathering in most parts of the world and for most other things, but it is my belief that the neanderthal's mental structures (autistic) were an advantage in surviving up north during an ice age, where every single thing had to be noticed and learned about to maximize survival.

And on aspies possessing a different or awkward gait, it is not my opinion that this gait is actually a hindrance in movement, rather just a difference, so it would not be a dysfunction but rather a difference in my eyes. And where do you get the idea that neanderthals were agile? Did you just make this up? How unlike you...tut tut tut. It is far more likely that the Cro-magnon style of hunting lead to them being more agile and athletic, using throwing weapons rather than the neanderthal beat-down method.

And I did not know that aspies are more commonly cross eyed, but there is evidence from Rdos' aspie quiz and this site that those on the autistic spectrum frequently have food allergies that are not as common among NT's.

My obsession with mirror cells is simply my frustration, disdain and humor towards such a stupid theory that does so little to explain differences other than social ones among those on the spectrum and makes them feel like defective NT's.

As to excessive passivity among the AS, this is more to seeing the stupidity and pointlessness of many NT acts that have nothing to do with our survival or interests that we are frequently required to perform and suffer through in this society. Not being able to do things that do not take our fancy pertains more to stupid NT things such as paperwork, homework, cleaning, going and getting food when enough is available, going out and earning income to buy things we don't need, etc. When it comes to life and death survival it is simply my belief that I cannot argue with proof that aspies are more in tune with personal survival and the survival of others in everyday situations where NT's take no notice.

As to life being precarious for all hunter-gatherers, I am just guessing that it would be even more precarious for the neanderthals where animals and plants were even more scarce than down south, and there were fewer members in their tribe.

Non-verbal communication is not what I meant when I meant attention to detail. In fact I have found that many aspies who cannot read body language actually notice a lot more than NT's do regarding factors such as eyebrows going up, and things other people are doing with their bodies, it is just that it means nothing to them socially.

As to aspie special interests being an implication of attention dysregulation, wouldn't it seem more likely that their attention would not be focused into such a potentially useful area, especially if it is just a defect of mirror cell misfiring or whatever that dumb theory is? However maybe if you explained more about what attention dysregulation was I could think up something that would show how the neanderthal theory is more likely.

Someone with 2 highly social parents having asperger's is possible, although unlikely. It would be likely that one of them is actually on the spectrum but is extroverted, and has learned enough about social interaction and possesses a great personality that they are a success socially. Or they could just have unrepresented neanderthal social traits that could by wild chance be activated in their offspring.

While it is not all about personal, self esteem or intelligence issues on the side of the non-believers, these are all very common issues not only on this website but in humanity at large. You are not unintelligent, in fact I think you are very intelligent, but you probably possess a personality type which relies on taking in an abundance of facts before making any judgments at all (which I do respect as intelligence) and have either not read the neanderthal theory in its entirety and looked for more evidence than that which is offered on rdos' site or you just possess a genetic makeup that is almost entirely cro-magnon with only sensory/social neanderthal genes. If some of the other generalities made about people on the autistic spectrum that can be read about on rdos' site applied to you perhaps you would be more accepting of this theory. I mean with all the differences people on the spectrum have (here are some from rdos' site: being logical, being punctual, being conscientious, excellent vocabulary, special interests, unconventional, hypo or hyper sensitive to pain, odd sleeping patterns/odd gait, different concept of time, acute senses, especially of smell and taste, etc) (and even considering the fact that it is a spectrum) it would occur to me that their is something larger at work here than just genetic dysfunction.

I do not lack a lot of understanding of technological development, but I am wondering if you are indeed wrong about Roman age England being more technologically advanced than Medieval England. And while it may not be linear, it seems to me that in the areas where neanderthals once inhabited technology advanced the fastest.

There is NOT so much wrong with this theory. It is NOT smoke and mirrors. Pick out anything that doesn't make sense and I will explain it to you until either you believe or I give up. I admit the dandruff thing was stupid, and neanderthals probably didn't suffer from dandruff, but aspies commonly do and it may be because of being in environments of a different air quality than the neanderthal natural environment. I was using it to illustrate that aspies have some common physical differences than NT's which may or not be apparent to you or provable by me. You must really like to debate and that is cool I guess.

I know I've seen her say that... it was at a seminar she gave. I downloaded it on the web at one point. She was being glib, but also making a point. However, I think one subtext of her comment is that the dynamic between AS's and NT's is mutually beneficial.

Whoah, ...seriously. Okay, collecting myself.

Now, please don't hold it against me if I admit that I simply skimmed some of the later posts. Chaw, I got the general idea from your first couple of posts; and as you ask forgiveness for your incongruities, I'm asking for yours as well as I've had a glass of Italian Chianti. Excellent.

Anyway, I'd like to say, as far as to whether you are autistic or not, I don’t know. I think I am pretty mild, but I've been diagnosed and the psychologist seems to be a really knowledgeable specialist, and an aspie himself... he also believes that the instances of aspiness in the general population are around 2-3%. He also believes that it is not a spectrum that eventually melds with NTs. In other words, you are or you aren't. I digress.

Regarding the Neanderthal theory: I like it. I don't know if it's true, but there is something there. Now, for some reason, when I was 15 (I'm over double that age now), after watching a documentary about Neanderthals I said to my mom, who is a psychologist, that I thought Neanderthals are what we call schizophrenic, and that Neanderthals bred with humans and that's why there is such a thing as schizophrenia. I think my mom thought my theory was cute (after all, I probably just seemed to her to be a spacey blonde kid with a bowl haircut). Not sure how I came up with that, since the documentary had nothing to do with schizophrenia.

Over time I have discovered that one of my super powers (I like that term for AS special abilities) is an innate understanding of systems. How systems work and balance and evolve... this covers quite a lot, but then again, I suppose that's why its a super power (okay, this is the Chianti talking). I absorb tons of information that I am not even conscious of, and can intuit how parts of the system work, or came to be. I can also go backwards and develop systems for tackling complex problems; if I didn't help firms make tones of money off of this ability, which I can almost do in my sleep, I probably wouldn't believe, or understand, my own abilities. Sorry, this is not a post to toot my horn; I only bring this up because I wonder, Chaw, if this is what you are struggling to describe when you talk about your "proof."

I also want to caution you, because sometimes I am wrong.

Almost as soon I suspected that I was an aspie in any real serious way (which is only about half a year, though I've actually wondered for longer than that), I had the notion that aspieness evolved from Neanderthals or another archaic branch of hominid. Now, I'm sure there are a lot of reasons I believe this, but I would have to spend weeks breaking it down, and then probably a lifetime to prove it (and as interesting as it is, I’ve got plenty of other stuff on my plate). At the same time, I also accept that this could easily be an Atlantian syndrome (my term); that is, we are looking for a hidden exciting reality, when the truth is much more mundane (by the way, I think Atlantis is the Americas... I'm just saying, and yes Cro-Magnons, Europeans, apparently migrated to North America before anyone, and we call them the Clovis people, but I digress).

As far as breaking down the theory a little, I think one of the most compelling connections to be made between Aspies and pre-Cro-Magnon hominids, is simply the lack of theory of mind. Interestingly, dogs have theory of mind, but chimps do not, or have very little, and actually, I believe that the Homo Sapien Sapien theory of mind ability is one of human’s most recent evolutionary developments. It almost proves itself (any theory mentioned in this thread, that is) based on acceptance that we, lacking theory of mind, do so because we have some genetic throw back.

Thom Hartman (sp?) wrote about ADD a long time ago. I actually read his book after it came out, coincidentally, and he expressed an intuited belief that ADD was a throw back to earlier versions of Homo Sapiens; from prior to the development of agrarian societies. Apparently the scientific community, after much mocking for many years, is now expressedly stating that Hartman was right all along. Isn't ADD and autism related in some way (I'm actually not sure, but I have read that it is). In any case, after Hartman being validated, Neanderthal, or other archaic hominid, mental states being expressed as a syndrome today doesn't seem terribly far fetched to me.

I've read that it's been mathematically proven through genetic research that humans today possess Neanderthal genes and genes of one other archaic hominid (as of yet unknown). I can't recall where I read that, and I've actually searched for it, but can't find it, but I know I have read it. It's a recent finding. I've also read that recent findings are that Autism rates are oddly equal among all peoples (unlike many other mental syndroms and such); which sort of goes in the direction of disproving the Neanderthal theory (possibly).

Chaw, as interesting as all this is, remember, even your intuition may be wrong, even if it feels right. Keep an open mind. Also, I want to caution you against some of your more explosive notions; those of superiority, either implied or expressed, especially. These are not useful, and in a greater sense, in my belief, are simply wrong. Though I'm giving you a bit of a pass, generally speaking, because you seem pretty genuine, in that you are trying to understand Autism, and I don't think you have an agenda like some other wackoes that have floated around.

But, even if the theory were proven wrong, it has some feel good qualities, and helps to put an object, or a face, to our reality; which can mean a lot.

I suppose it was my turn for a long post.

It would not be, and according to the archeological evidence, it was not.

Such a low population density would simply not be sustainable.


No AS or autism specific studies are needed to establish the unsoundness of the arguments that I made this comment in reference to. AS specific studies have nothing to do with establishing that 2-3 homonoids spread over a 20 square mile range, does not come close to sustainable population, even if it is 3, and two of them are reproductive females (below replacement level reproduction), or all 3 are male (insufficient for effective hunting).


Which is irrelevant since we are discussing inter-group relations (relations between rather than within groups), with whom not much time is actually spent.

There is no evidence Neanderthal social relations were any better adapted for survival anywhere at all, and the continued existence of one and no evidence of the continued existence of the other is only evidence either way. Of course there is no evidence that such relations were substantially varied between Neanderthal and non-Neanderthal, to any greater extent than modern day human social relations vary inter-culturally.

This does not mean anything relevant that I can see. Non-Neanderthal human ancestors crossed the Berring land bridge, and this is cold hostile terrain at its coldest and most hostile. Clearly, any advantage Neanderthals had in cold hostile terrains as cold climate adapted persons (as this theory alleges), was marginal since it non-Neanderthals were able to also exploit the very same cold climate terrain successfully.


That 's not accurate at all. The overall theory is highly unlikely superficially. Looking into the evidence (since things are not always as they appear) the "evidence" consists of unsound arguments, that just do not stand up to objective consideration. Perhaps there is a reason the individual arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. Perhaps in this instance the appearance of unlikelihood is an instance of things being what they appear.

No, it would not be wise at all.


This is an erroneous gross over-simplification. People with AS have dysregulated sensory integration. This can mean that ordinary stimulus is experienced as intense and painful, while other stimulus might (very dangerously as it happens) fail to be experienced sufficiently urgently. There is no overarching pattern of functional or adaptive benefits relevant to hunting and gathering associated with this.

Actually there can be plenty of stimulus out in "nature". There is nothing whatsoever about the manifestation of dysregulation of senses that is consistent with describing them as an adaptive advantage in the context of hunting gathering life ways. While one can choose to distort what is really occurring in this regard to then give an appearance of plausibility, when what is really going on is considered, it just does not add up.

No, in a hunter gatherer life ways, one's time is dictated by happenings not entirely within one's control. If you did not get meat yesterday, then you have to hunt now, not relax at whim.
This is contrary to the actual cognitive profile and functioning of people with AS. Non autistics would have the advantage where noticing everything relevant matters because they are better at filtering out the irrelevant and attending to the relevant.

Actually there is an optimal way to move and awkward gait places one at increased risk of injury and unnecessary "wear and tear" degeneration.

Both of which evidently become much more significant dangers, with a much increased scope of opportunity to occur when one's only mode of transport is their feet, and one walks to hunt and gather their dinner, and to move through their range as they deplete resources locally.


From various media including reliable sources.

Of course not.

Indeed.

None the less, the fossil demonstrates that Neanderthals, despite tending to thicker more muscular, shorter stature forms, were agile and physically adept. They certainly were skilled in fine motor skills. Ask anyone who has attempted to recreate Mousterian style tools.

All of which still leaves us back at there not being any logical association between awkward gait in a modern human and Neanderthals (whose gait would have necessarily been efficient given the importance of bi-pedal mobility in their life-way).

Food allergies are very common, and further the entry of the kinds of foods you are claiming modern people with AS are allergic to due to not being in the Neanderthal diet, were not in the diet of non-Neanderthal human ancestors at that time either.

We are not typical from a neurological perspective so we cannot be NTs of any kind. As for defective, do you know a perfect, flawless human? I have never encountered one, nor compelling evidence of the existence of one.

Not in my instance, nor in the instance of others I am personally familiar with. On the contrary, to many of us this is a very real and persistent impediment to achieving necessary tasks that we can see the point of.

No it does not only pertain to such things. It can and has in my experience pertained to important things like eating or even sleeping.

This ignores the evidence. The crossing of the berring land bridge was not achieved by Neanderthals, and the population density sustainable in this environment would be the same as that in areas inhabited by the most cold adapted Neanderthals. During glacials, areas you might tend to think of as temperate, are in fact cold and hostile. We are talking about being cold enough long enough to lock up huge volumes of water in frozen land based glaciers, such that the Berring Strait became a land-bridge.


Of course not. Because the truth of the theory is more important than being realistic. Non-verbal communication is a bunch of highly relevant details, if we are so hot at crunching relevant details, then we would not have an issue in that area. It must be true then that saying we are "good with details" is in fact a misconstruction, being a grossly misleading over-simplification at best.

Which demonstrates a failure to have associated the detail of the cue with the detail of meaning.

In reality, I can be the last to notice many details, and the reason some people think I am good at picking up details is that the details I do pick up, tend to be ones others most often do not. They are often significantly less useful as well. This is dysregulation rather than superior capacity/ability.

No, it would seem likely that our special interests, and fixation of attention would often be focused on areas whether or not there was some particular or apparent potential usefulness for being fixated in that area, and in fact this is precisely what happens.

Neither of my parents were autistic, nor have any of the traits you or this theory claims are Neanderthalic. Both are highly social and always were according to all family reports and in one case a best friend from the first day together at school. I know other people whose immediate familial history follows similar patterns.

I do not know how you think DNA transmission occurs but if two parents between them do not have DNA from Neanderthals coding for behavioral traits, then no matter what other DNA from Neanderthals they might have, they cannot pass to their children Neanderthalic DNA coding for behavioral traits.

And never mind that doing what you suggest I have done (thinking/systemizing my way through information) is associated with AS while "feeling one's way" through information on the basis of emotion is associated with non-autistic people.

The generalities as you are construing for the purpose of this theory are not accurate of others with AS either so far as I know. Not according to what is routinely reported here, and not according to studies. Even though if grossly over-simplified they could be described in ways consistent with the theory, in reality these features when more than superficially described are not actually consistent with how they are being construed for the purposes of this theory.

I evidently score very high on the AS and very low on the NT scales according to rdos's measuring of them, so according to rdos's measures, my sensory profile is the AS sensory profile that is described by rdos's data. I assure you it would not serve me well if I needed to hunt and gather my dinner.

Which you claim in my case must be from Cro-Magnum ancestry.....

The fact is many with AS are are not punctual, and among those who are, not being punctual is often a cause of excessive anxiety,for other not sticking to a strict schedule (including doing things at fixed time) can make them anxious or is necessary to functioning.

We are not all punctual, some punctuality for some with AS is the result of excessive (dysfunctional) anxiety or need for routine, and even among the non autistic people can also be punctual.

I will not deconstruct each of the items since that's not entirely relevant but what I will say, is that dysregulation of information neuro-handling could indeed produce all the results you refer to.

Indoor plumbing a regular feature of medieval England's houses of the rich and aristocratic?


And yet these are not the coldest areas, nor were they during maximal glaciation. There are good reasons why technology developed around the Mediterranean and areas socially and economically connected to this region. None of them require or substantiate Autistic Neanderthals.
chewie, there is nothing that is right about it so far as I can see. If you expect to explain all this, then you've got a lot of explaining to do.

Lots of people suffer dandruff, including non-autistic people. The air quality is different to that of the Neanderthal's contemporary homonids too.


I really like accuracy and truth; you must enjoy faith presumably.

Why do you believe this?

Discovery Channel

Mixtli, yes I believe you are right in almost everything that you posted. Especially the schizophrenic theory that you came up when you were fifteen. This is quite amazing. How you knew this I'm guessing is either instinct imprinted into you from your neanderthal genes or an intuition from higher beings/your spirit guide if you believe in that kind of stuff. I do in fact have schizophrenia as well but it is extremely different than what people commonly believe it to be. My belief in schizophrenia is that it is a purge of all unethical thought patterns and turns the "sufferer" into a being of a higher morality/consciousness through taking the communicative symbolism of the unconscious that is normally only experienced consciously in dreams and making it visible in waking life, manifesting in "hallucinations" and "delusions" and also an increase in very real psychic phenomena thereby giving the schizophrenic an opportunity to cleanse themselves of all immorality and fully embrace their Jungian shadow.
Please don't label me a wacko now, lol.

@Pandd... I'll get to you later...

Mixtli, chimps teach their young. This necessarily requires advanced theory or mind as I understand the concept. Chimps engage in advanced political behavior, requiring sophisticated theory of mind. I am dubious of Discovery Channel's claim in this regard. It is not plausible.

Haha! When it said "occipital bun," I thought of Sarah Palin.

You see, no studies have been done about any dandruff or any occipital bun in relation to autism, schizophrenia, or any other disease.

So, where this info comes from is just outer space to me.

Well, I admit I am getting my information from the discovery channel on this one, but the show I watched was quite clear that teaching was fundamental difference between chimps and humans, and actually, chimps imitate and do not teach. The show also stated that chimps are actually quite inventive, individually, but the reason that they lack significant culture, and an evolving knowledgebase, is becuase they do not have the teaching urge as humans do. Though, I suppose there may be studies showing that chimps do teach, but I'd imagine that this would be in the context of a presumption that they do not teach; in other words, if they do teach, the level at which they do it is very low.

Not an expert, just stating what I know.


Chaw, I've read of a recent hypothesis that places the schizophrenic spectrum square opposite the autistic spectrum. That is, autistics tend to lack a deaper interpreted meaning to the things in the world around them. In other words, we simply see things in their logical sense, not a symbolic sense. Like you imply, schizophrenics are extremely symbolic to the point of lacking reason. I've actually never heard of a schizophrenic autistic, but then again, what do I know.

I'm pretty sure of one thing though, no spirit guide, higher beings, or neanderthal genes are sending me messages that give me any insight. Though, if you are schizophrenic, maybe I can translate your notions to the autistic world... actually, I'll pass, I'ts a little heady for me right now. I'll just say that the neanderthal topic is entertaining at the moment, that's all.

You know a lot, because what you said about symbolism and reason makes perfect sense.

But, you cannot be a schizophrenic autistic because the diagnostic criteria states that if you meet the criteria for schizophrenia you cannot be autistic.

We had a young lady here on the boards who claimed to be both autistic and schizoaffective. I'm not sure how she got diagnosed that way. But, I'm not a diagnosis expert either.

So far as I know, the evidence for teaching was gathered incidentally.

pandd...

Fair enough, I am just translating what I saw on the discovery channel. The personalities on the show were supposedly the top experts, and the show was from last year. Not to say that you are incorrect, and I am actually curious from where you have gotten your information. In any case, if they do teach, the level of theory of mind and teaching is very low, it seems.

On the show they demonstrated that dogs did better on theory of mind tests than the chimps. Although they made the point that chimps are much more intelligent/ inventive.

Chimps may be our closest cousins, but dogs are our best friends.... hmmmm. Though I bet most AS people are cat people -not too many mirror neurons there.