PHILOSPHICAL DEBATE! I NEED YOUR OPINIONS!

Post Reply New Topic

(The flashy title is sure to get attention!)

This is a theory that isn’t new, has likely been on this site before, but shall be tested again! There are some on the planet that think AS and some other high functioning cognition disorders are evolutionary experimentations and not mere genetic black sheep in a world of white wooly ones. This is an intriguing idea, as exploring different ways around the same problems is simply what evolution does. The one specific disorder I am referring for this theory is AS, Since I happen to be diagnosed with it, and can personally relate to it. I suppose you could make this argument/debate apply to any cognitive disorder of sorts if you tweaked it. If this thread doesn’t get killed too quickly, we might even get to that point.

The evolutionary cons of AS:

- Have a tendency to be loners, not fitting in with the rest of the group. This is a major disadvantage for many ‘pack’ animals in the wild that rely on groups for protection.
- Have a tendency to not care about others, or do so at inappropriate times. This complicates and often wrecks group connectedness and communication. AS folks usually end up being rejected from their groups if they haven’t voluntarily left already.
- The “special interests”/obsessions of some AS folks are often seen as useless, a waste of energy, etc.
- The impact of AS abilities in homo sapiens society at large is largely ignored due to it’s “uselessness” unless it makes money/reveals more resources and ideas for future use.
- Despite being ideal for loner life, AS humans can too vulnerable, afraid, unsure, or incapable to survive without some outer interaction.

The evolutionary pros of AS:

- Do much better in isolation than many others of our species.
- Short of no contact, many AS folk are very efficient when left in their adaptive niche of choice. NT’s often need more attention and outside contact to function in their niche they have carved out in comparison.
- Often think ‘outside the box’ (or so deeply into the box it’s a new shape altogether), presenting new ideas, problems, questions, and scientific methods that could possibly save our species from extinction.
- Because of impaired or delayed emotional/instinctual feedback, AS folk fight less with their own populace on what to do specifically and place more emphasis on outward issues of interest.
- There is often a lack of rank or class within the few social structures AS folk can sustain, leading to far less rivalry than ‘normal’. More gets done, instead of people butting heads.

So... I ask these questions to you many floating brains of Wrongplanet:
Why would Evolution make us ‘black sheep’ so cognitively separated from the rest of the flock?
Is this cognitive step one of many before a physical one occurs, truly making us a subspecies?
Is this a corrective step to eventually cancel out the old version of Homo Sapiens?
Is AS truly a disease which has failed to be cured in time, dooming mankind to a slow decline in fertility (as many of us aren’t interested in having children), eventually causing extinction?
Is Homo Sapiens going nomadic and roaming again if AS truly is an evolutionary safeguard against overpopulation on a global scale?

(I would source all this information if I could remember all the websites I've visit over the past month. Needless to say, I'm been reading excessively on this idea for some time.)

I don't think we are black sheep. I just think that our traits are not as valued in modern society as they may have been in times gone by. It seems that nowadays there is more focus on EQ rather than IQ whereas in the past I think we would have been respected more. I think that we are important in society because through our different way of thinking we bring insight in many areas of science and technology that NTs simply do not have. In particular, our repetitive nature gives us the perseverance to discover things that no NT would ever have the patience to discover.

Also, many people with AS are inclined to and able to procreate (bizarre as I find this urge) so it's unlikely that we will become extinct!

I think AS is a disorder but that said, it's a disorder that has most likely been pivotal in the scientific and technological development of mankind.

Thank you for your opinion!

Are you gonna tell us you're opinion once more people have posted?

Possibly. I had to leave so I could do laundry and eat something that wasn't caffinated. My personal opinion is that we are simply another life form that will eventually change the earth so much that we are no longer compatable and get replaced by something else that looks really interesting and exotic. We're due for an ice age at some point any way, so I'm enjoying the "Summer" before anything gets too cold.

In short, I don't actually give a ****.

I mostly really enjoy thinking of complex theories to keep my intellect entertained. I get bored so easily. I was hoping we could subvert into a new subspecies by using genetic engineering to introduce chlorophyll into our systems, making up immortal plant people. I'd be a giant supersmart daisy. YAY!

I have an issue with the idea that AS is an experiment, I think that science does not have the tools to create autism or AS. Unless super smart aliens from another world are involved (which I doubt as I think that they are unlikely to have visited earth) I can not see how it could be an experiment.

I suspect that in today's world that some forms of autism are harder to hide, but I am sure that a large number of people with ASDs are living under the radar maybe not even aware that they have an ASD.

_________________
Health is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity I am not a jigsaw, I am a free man !

Diagnosed under the DSM5 rules with autism spectrum disorder, under DSM4 psychologist said would have been AS (299.80) but I suspect that I am somewhere between 299.80 and 299.00 (Autism) under DSM4.

It is not a disorder at all.
It is not new.
It is not going away.

The thing we have in common around here is a lack of herd-instinct. We do not instinctively understand it and are not bound by it. (We can’t dish it out or take it.) Independent variables include (are not limited to) intelligence and compassion -- an Aspie might have both, either or neither, in varying degrees.

A sociopath is that rare individual who understands how herd-instinct works, can use it to manipulate others, but is not bound by it himself. He possesses intelligence without compassion.

Most people are mindless sheep and simply do whatever the rest of the sheep are doing.

Asking us to be like sheep is impossible, the attempt is harmful and, if it were possible, the big picture consequences would be undesirable. [I've said before -- rather than teaching Autistic toddlers to lie and conform, we should be teaching fascist toddlers to show compassion and to tell the truth.]

All of the major advances in society came from Aspies. Not only technological inventions in the usual sense, from the wheel to the internet; All of the important philosophies, religions, revolutions, were started by rational, compassionate people, then hijacked by rational, non-compassionate, intolerant people (fascists).

All of the rules that are decent and fit to express in written or spoken language were made by rational, compassionate people. Most of the unspoken rules are unspoken because no decent person could say them aloud. They can not stand the light of day. Those are the rules we have the most trouble with. They make no sense to us because they make no sense.

The sheep just mindlessly follow until they hit a brick wall, then they turn around and mindlessly follow someone else. The world has always and will always need a few people who are not connected to that instinct. We are not a disease; we are the cure. We see problems and offer solutions. Sometimes the sheep will run with them. More often, they want to kill the messenger or whistle-blower.

Autism only becomes a disorder when co-morbids exasperate each other. It just makes everything MORE, for better or worse.

For example, having a low IQ can be more manageable when the individual has a strong herd-instinct and is eager to please. One who lacks both intelligence and herd-instinct is the classic, unreachable Autistic.

Having a high IQ is more of a gift when combined with a lack of herd-instinct. Those are the wizards. The prophets. The Einsteins.

A person who lacks herd-instinct and has an ordinary IQ would not have a problem if people didn’t create a problem. If you appeal to the “little professor” and make reasonable demands, anyone over the age of eight can appreciate the wisdom and chose to cooperate.

Trying to turn an Aspie into an NT, and teaching him from an early age to lie and conform, is like trying to put a cat on a leash. It will just break his mind and make him unfit for any role.

Evolution is just a natural consequence of the fact that if you breed a lot, your descendants are more likely to be around later. With that in mind it's not possible for Aspies to be favoured because they don't breed as much and don't contribute to overpopulation -- evolution won't care about overpopulation until it's pushed to the limit and there is not enough food for people to survive.

What do you mean by "evolutionary experimentations"? The word "experimentation" seems to indicate that some group of people (or aliens, I suppose) is trying this out intentionally to see how those with autism fare in the world. I don't think that's what many here believe. Perhaps "evolutionary step" more accurately describes the opinion? Therefore I will state my opinions about autism as an evolutionary step.

It's fair to say that autism is a variation, probably based in genetics. That said,
The entire notion of AS or autism as an evolutionary step is completely unanswerable. Populations don't intentionally decide to evolve in a particular direction. Rather it happens as environmental factors allow it.

Science has demonstrated that evolution does not happen along a gradualistic (i.e. linear) scale. Rather, it more closely follows the pattern of "punctuated equilibrium" as laid forth by Stephen Jay Gould in the 80s. That is to say, there are long periods of stasis within a particular population, followed by periods of very quick speciation (very quick in this case being something like 50,000 years). Such periods of change appear to be related to environmental factors (natural disasters, temperature changes, etc.), something that puts the basic assumptions about the viability of the species at risk.

So take Tahitiii's premise for a moment about the "herd instinct" being common to autism (not sure I personally agree with this, but let's just assume it's correct for the sake of argument). If environmental conditions were to suddenly change that were to favor reproduction for those who did not have a herding instinct, those with autism would have a distinct advantage over those with a herding instinct when it comes to passing along genetic material. So it's possible that there could be a sudden "explosion" of autistic people over, say, 4 or 5 generations. Speciation could eventually occur, particularly if the autistic and non-autistic populations become physically separate gene pools.

The point is that autism can't possibly be the human species attempting to evolve. That's simply not how evolution works.

As far as long-term evolution is concerned, I think it's just a natural part of human diversity.

We need both male and female. One is not more necessary than the other. If we get an imbalance, it would naturally correct itself within a generation or two.

I would say that herd-instinct is the left leg of the species and that Asperger's is the right leg, except that we don't need as many out-of-the-box types as we need sheep. That doesn't make one less necessary than the other.

In the short-term, I can imagine short-sighted people wanting to eliminate what they perceive to be trouble makers. It wouldn't have much of a long-term effect on the gene pool (assuming that the species survives at all) but it could be a disaster for those living at that time.

To add my thoughts here to the basic ideas, evolution doesn't "care" about anything. Evolution is a process, and what counts is differential reproductive success. In other words, if your genes combined with your environment lead to a greater rate of reproduction for yourself and your offspring on average, then over sufficient time and assuming no factors change, your genes will spread far into the genome for your species.

Aspies are clearly human by all the standard definitions in biology. We may not feel human, we may not get treated the way we want, but individual humans aren't known for being particularly nice to those who are different from them in any way.

Some researchers argue that modern information economies offer more chances for reproductive success for Aspies than ever before in history, thus leading to the so-called epidemic of autism and Asperger's. Since AS/ASDs are probably genetic but involve many genes and likely epigenetic phenomenon as well, it's not currently clear how the mating patterns of Aspies and NTs affect the rate of AS/ASDs in a given population.

Evolution has created a great many "black sheep", or rather there is a lot of variation in human neurology and psychology. What role genes play in this is still being sorted out. It's nature via nurture, but how and to what extent is still unknown for everything from AS/ASDs, sociopathy, personality disorders, and most other neurological or psychiatric conditions.

Finally, there is no good data on the rate of any of these conditions 1,000, 5,000, or 10,000 years ago, so we cannot analyze where evolution is headed. And we cannot predict what external pressures may be applied to the human race in the coming centuries or longer, so again, we cannot predict. In sum, as Niels Bohr said: "prediction is difficult, especially about the future".

We could have "AS states" instead of "US states". What if everyone in the US has AS and they could be divided by general special interests (meaning the special interests are somewhat related though not specifically the exact same interest) into fifty states. Each state would have a specific goal, like, automobile manufacturing, crop growing, textiles, and each aspie could move to the state that correlates with their special interest.
It could be the next step in evolution. People would be so busy doing what they want to do, their special interest, they wouldn't have much time for distractions. They might not consume nearly as much.
The states could all trade with each other.

In all honesty, I think that these kinds of statements and questions are the kinds someone only comes up with when they misunderstand evolution.