Interesting article

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/opinion/21wang.html


Makes me wonder if autism isn't partly an ancient brain not easily adjusting to modern life.

Very interesting, thank you.

Agreed, this is pretty interesting, especially since I'm blind as a bat. I'm amazed I got to third grade without glasses, I can only see about five inches in front of my face clearly.

Not sure I agree about autism being an ancient brain in a modern world, though. Social instincts and being able to understand the intentions of others were probably even more vital in older times than they were today.

cooool articllleee

I don't really buy into the "autism or adhd was adapted to ancient life" thing, but I could be wrong. The whole idea of ADHD being a hunter-gatherer thing was a metaphor that got carried away.

As for near-sightedness, I was apparently nearsighted for two or three years, but I have no recollection of having issues with my eyesight. I remember the glasses pretty clearly, however.

I'm not thinking that profound autism is a "ancient brain" thing. But some autistic traits are not necessarily maladaptive in certain contexts. At least part of my difficulties with focus and sensory issues would not be issues at all in a culture where task switching and media saturation are not major components of daily life.

If ancient, then an oldie but goody.

ruveyn

I see it that way too. I find this obsession with social interaction just as an intense/narrow interest as any of my obsessions. It's useful but it seems in modern society it's gone way overboard and is becoming maladaptive, in some ways. Unfortunately, it seems I have to pay attention to it if I want to survive/work. We are almost forced to accept the extraverts "social obsession". I honestly, don't get it as I'm perplexed, repulsed and afraid of it.

I didn't mean profound autism.

I just can't take this seriously, though. I know how these ideas started and they were all about metaphor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_vs._farmer_theory

Interesting article.

Not sure I agree with the ancient brain theory though. I do think that autism as a genetic trait is probably inherent in us as a species from way back but I do not think it was a gift of evolution. Evolutionary traits are usually better defined. We have a spectrum with no refined characteristics. It's definitely a genetic variation but not one designed for a specific purpose.

I'm not trying to invoke the whole "autism is great any time but now" delusion. I'm just wondering if the traits that form autism have always been around. In their milder forms they might offer some advantages in certain situations - enough so that the genetics underlying the traits aren't selected against. In it's more severe forms, I can't see any circumstance where it would be advantageous.

I have difficulty believing that autism suddenly appeared in the last century. It is plausible that something environmental has exacerbated its expression, but it seems likely that the genetics of it has been around much longer. If this is the case, then it must be at least not detrimental in enough cases to prevent its elimination from the gene pool.

I do agree with this. Autism and autistic traits have been around for a long time.