The Neanderthal theory of Autism

Post Reply New Topic

No?

And, for example, the Kretschmer's theory of "Cyclothymic" and "schizothymic" personalities and his relation with maniac-depresssive disorder and schizophrenia?

You misrepresent what I said. The point of scientific study is to find the truth. Therefore to have to include the good the bad and the ugly. You can’t just put positive spin.

I never said there was anything wrong with showing ASD in a positive light. I'm pro-advocacy.

However Neanderthal theory does not really take into account LFA.


What?

We are talking about survival here not subtle social issues. You need to be able to hunt, etc. You are talking as if the all of the modern challenges we face to day would have arisen back then. We don’t really know fully what early modern humans were capable of.


That is nice an all but not everyone on the spectrum is a savant, it actually rarer. Your point about hierarchal/antisocial, etc not really holding much water. Who says you can’t be both? You are making assumption that both Neanderthals and Autistics are universaly egalitarian. I just don’t buy that. The most I can say is we (modern humans as a whole) have some similar behaviours to bonobos and also chimps, as well as unique ones. Stereotypically bonobos are more egalitarian and chimps not very. We run the gauntlet of both. We are both extremely violent and oppressive, and also capable of being peaceful and considerate at times.

It depends on personality as to who someone views as equal or not. Different people on the spectrum have different personalities.

NT is actually an ideal, there is no such thing as NT really. It is just a term to describe a person without neurodevelopment differences.

Not true. The Neanderthal theory views LFA as the consequence of gene admixture between widely different species. Therefore, LFA is not a specific, curable, condition, but many different gene incompability issues involving many genes. This prediction actually have lots of support in recent genetic research about LFAs since no single mutation seem to be able to explain large parts of LFA.

I do not consider this good evidence by any stretch of imagination, because the lifestyle you posit for Hn is far from plausible.

Why so? Already in the 1970s Valerius Geist wrote a paper on this subject based on the known evidence. There isn't exactly anything new that makes this less plausible.

Because at the maturation rate for anatomically modern humans, even where calories are plentiful, 1-3 reproductive females would not be sustainable and would fail to adequately achieve population replacement levels. Of course you have posited even slower maturation rates (than characterizes anatomically modern humans) and are positing an environment where calories are hard-won and might often be less than adequate much less plentiful.

Maturation rate is not part of the Aspie hunting traits.

But if we should discuss the issue of reproduction in Hn, I can handle that too. Slower maturation rate goes with longer life-spans. This is a simple relationship that all species need to obey. The reason why Hn had slower maturation rates and longer life-spans is related to seasonal food availability. Instead of going out hunting in mid-winter, Hn survived the lean season by hibernation (or being generally inactive). This is also why Bipolar and SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder) are related to ASCs. The ADHD-traits generally are related to passive hunting traits. To save calories when doing passive hunting, there is a need to turn down energy comsumption, which can be done by shutting down unneeded brain processes. Also part of ADHD is the fast transition back into active mode when something interesting in the environment is detected (a possible prey animal).

Besides, pandd, food availability is primarily related to population density. It is very probable that Hn had low population densities, and thus had enough resources to thrive. I even propose that Hn had superior abilities to stay in balance with their prey animals compared to Hs. Hs evolved in a tropical environment towards an opportunistic species that have no inborn mechanisms to stay in balance with their prey animals. Hn probably actively planned and controlled both their own reproduction (females were in charge of reproduction, not males as in Hs) and their prey animals.

But is posited as part of your argumentation and therefore needs to be consistently applied to everything argued therein and its implications reasonably accommodated.


Aha, so are the females heavily pregnant in between mid-winters and therefore dependents rather than producers during the periods when calories are accessible, (putting an unreasonable strain on the single to few reproductive age males), or pregnant instead during mid-winter time and therefore metabolizing their way through more resources than at other times, right when you claim their bodies are metabolizing less resources?

This passive hunting gig is nonsense too. What exactly is passive about jumping onto the back of a bucking mega fauna? Passive is not a word I feel appropriately encapsulates the likely hunting methods of Hn.


This is nonsense of course.

Why would they have low population density if the carrying capacity of the land supported higher density? Why if their population density was low in response to limitations in carrying capacity would it make sense to describe low population density resulting from marginal carrying capacity as "thriving" rather than struggling?

This argument is entirely self-contradictory. Either this is a creature not sufficiently fecund to take advantage of the carrying capacity of its environment (and therefore failing to thrive due to net fecundity issues) or one whose net fecundity (ie it's ability to thrive) is being constrained by the carrying capacity of its environment.

You can tell this from the fact that Hn appears to have died out whereas Hs does not appear to have done the same?

This is an example of you positing your speculation as though it is fact. Where is the evidence for any ability to stay in balance rather than simply not having the means to overcome environmental constraints? Where is the evidence for active planning and control of reproduction, or for females controlling reproduction?

While we are here, and since you posited the wisdom of Geist as supporting your idea, what is your response to the following of comments


and to the fact that

Hmm, maybe the more natural environment for the Hn slipped away with the ending of the ice ages? With an environment less suited/familiar to them, the Hn where much more vulnerable in all respects.



In how far can you predict how your offspring will be in prehistoric environment? Maybe these Hn/s hybris where the result of rape after conquest?
And wait a second, do not the proposed hybrids, the ASD-people, have all sorts of motor problems?

Boycott GEICO!

ruveyn

Maybe, but what that would not indicate is some superiority in balancing one's resources, but rather a failure to adapt.

It might be worth pointing out that hs has been able to move into and exploit all kinds of environments, including climates requiring "cold adaptation", and in many instances seem quite able to balance their resources. Human groups vary substantially in their attitudes toward their environment and their practices within it. The human treatment of resources is far more influenced by cultural/social factors than it is by biological givens.


Within the context of discussing rdos's theory, at least as far as rdos went. The very basis of rdos's argument is environmentally adapted differentiation. The result of hybridization would be a creature ill-adapted for either life-way.

This would not make them any fitter to survive. As for conquest, I find that highly unlikely.

Why, other than reducing the already slim likelihood of survival, would it matter if they did?

Interestingly, one of the novels I identified with strongly as a teen is Sir William Golding's The Inheritors which describes a lethal confrontation between Hn and Hs as seen through a Neanderthal's eyes. Even though Golding never took an interest in autism, the Neanderthals show some traits of it - they have an incredible eye for detail, and are disconcerted by any change in their surroundings, however small. The novel ends with the one surviving Hn baby being adopted by a Hs woman, and probably contributing to the gene pool when it grows up.

One problem I would have with this theory is the figures for rates of autism amongst different races as being "evidence".

You have to keep in mind that (typically) caucasians are the wealthiest people in most parts of the world. Perhaps the reason that diagnosis rates among Africans are so low is the same reason why diagnosis rates among the Amish are so low.

Poverty, lack of access to neuropsychologists, lack of acceptance towards people with disorders, much bigger issues to worry about than mild forms of autism, etc.

In asia, the highest rates of autism diagnosis are found in Japan, which is notorious for excluding foreigners. They also happen to (on average) be the wealthiest asians, with the highest amount of resources available to them. I wouldn't be surprised if South Korea follows shortly behind with autism rates.

As for Native Americans, the situation might be a little different in America. But in Canada, the "poverty effect" could be balanced out by the "delinquent effect". Native children who aren't delinquent aren't very likely to be diagnosed, because many of their parents can't afford to get them assessed. Those that are delinquent are more likely to be picked out by their school, and diagnosed. Many of the autistic children in group homes up here are Native. They are often put together with the FAS children.

I think americans and canadians eat and live unhealthy, with a lot of artificial substances and medications, and a lot of the autism there is environmentally based, while autism in Japan is the result of the people being an isolated, homogenous population for centuries.

Germany has a fairly low rate of autism and germans are neither homogenous or traditionally "unhealthy" in their lifestyles.

I don't think autism has just one cause since it can be inherited as well as developed as the result of a difficult birth or even an accident in childhood. Japan probably has the highest rates of inherited autism while USA/Canada have the highest rates of environmentally caused autism.

Americans and canadians are probably to a much higher degree than others damaging themselves and their children through lifestyle. In Sweden, Italy etc and many european countries, concepts like "slow food" and natural diets as a reaction against american lifestyle has become very common. I was brought up with the idea that americans eat and live unhealthy and keep an internal hygiene inferior to that of traditional swedish people and I can confirm this is generally true, since I have american born relatives and my sister used to live there as well.

It even shows physically. Take a blonde american girl from Minnesota, with a last name like Andersson or Larsson, she will have more pink and glossy skin, as well as appear more "bloated" overall than her ancestral relatives in Sweden. I can see a clear difference. I believe what affects this also has an effect on autism.

Theorizing that autism is the result of Caucasian interbreeding with Neanderthals seems a little far-fetched. Humans may have interbreed with Neanderthals but the evidence is far from conclusive. Anyhow, Caucasians evolved in a colder environment, did cold cause autism? Is autism an adaptation to the cold? Using this premise to argue that autism is an adaptation seems off, since Neanderthals were less intelligent and were killed off by modern humans. What a great adaptation!

This is totally idiotic. Autistic people aren't going to be able to recognize Neanderthal faces better than human faces. Do we look like Neanderthals? This is like saying "let's see if autistic people are shorter?"

I have to agree with the person who said offending people of African descent doesn't invalidate a theory, but there are other holes in this theory. Seems pretty ridiculous to me.

Things to consider:


When this was first written, next to nothing was known about the neanderthal genome.

When it was last updated, nearly 6 years later, still next to nothing was known.

[notice that in the section about "how to prove or refute the theory", the concept of actual, direct analysis of neanderthal genes versus human genes is not mentioned even once]


The only referenced citation to nuclear DNA in the whole report was from a study that found ZERO evidence of neanderthal DNA in modern populations.

Basic analysis NOW has been done on 63% of the genome, and still no statistically significant gene crossover has been found.


I'm not saying it's impossible, but as someone already pointed out in the thread, "The point of scientific study is to find the truth"... And it seems that the most pertinent scientific studies that have been done on the subject, and the fact that these studies were not yet published when this was written, are being largely ignored in this discussion.