Why is aspie separatism/supremacy controversial?

Post Reply New Topic

Dominant genes for blue eyes could exist by that criteria, yet despite the long history of alleles for blue eyes, so far as can be observed no dominant allele for blue eyes exists. Most recessive genes are not detrimental yet remain recessive. I see no reason to expect that any genes responsible for Autism will suddenly become dominant just because they can be reproduced by someone who is characterized by two copies.

Frankly, for much of human history, most instances of Autism would not have produced a reproductive dead end. Autism is not fatal in and of itself, nor does it prevent reproduction. It is probably more of a barrier now than historically as it is much more common now for people to arrange their own marriages and for selection to be based on personality, compatability and other areas where our social deficits stand a good chance of presenting a barrier or challenge to reproduction. Autism is likely to have often reduced the reproductive fitness, and thus fecundity of effected individuals, but it is unlikely to have ever universally destroyed fecundity in every effected (symptomatic) individual.

Can you explain why that mathmatical probability has not produced dominant blue eye genes in all of the time blue eye genes have existed?


I see no reason why this would be a general rule. Are blue eyed genes selfless?

Well why not try modelling this in your head with the recessive genes for sickle cell anemia. Imagine people with variant kinds of sickle cell alleles start to breed exclusively together. For any one offspring, either they will have sickle cell disease or they will only inherit a single recessive sickle cell allele or they will not inherit any sickle cell alleles. The original "split off" population began with 100% of its members having one or another recessive sickle cell allleles, however, viable offspring would never have more than one such recessive allele, and some off spring would have none. Those with two would not be viable. This does not cause sickle cell alleles to suddenly become dominant, and is likely to result in the sickle cell population being relatively unfit when compared to the now sickle cell free general population.

Not exactly. The founder effect does not make alleles turn from recessive to dominant, nor does it make alleles anymore reproductively fit.

Thanks for the clarification. I do think it's an interesting idea that literacy - and more recently, the tremendous amounts of easily available data - may change the balance of benefits between neurotypical flexibility and the autistic or Asperger's propensity towards focus.

I also agree with you regarding the importance of parental influence, especially early on.

Slow down Pandd : There is a whole culture field that exists irrespective of the genetic predisposition that selects from it. I have book in my attic that belonged to my father. It is there
irrespectively of whether I have the ability to read and comprehend it or not. There a old prints which if I brought out to the light , I would appreciate them again. There are some CD's which apparently will be playable for a few thousand years. All those states of meaning exist as potentialities.

Furthermore It's not simply a passive field of information its an active one , it has an existence beyond the original individual genetic imperative that created it. This acts upon us, and our parents teach us to select from the field . If we are learning impaired in this respect ,we may have to figure out what those rules are abstractly and intellectually , it doesn't come naturally, and I guess if we are doing that we are some way writing our own rules rather than whatever seamless process NT's seem to be able to integrate them into their systems . We are aware of writing our rules in a way they are not.

I was giving this as an example of how we could be valuable and what might happen if suddenly people deeply aware of these processes demonstrated it as an applied skill. It changes the power balance.

Also, Pandd- I can think of at least one culture where hunting, preparation etc of food was not required nor was it expected. That was a product of some very bad memetics. I will debate that one with via PM, (so as not to disturb the some people on the thread too much) if you like.

Its the jew part of you that complains? In contrast what it was said earlier, theres no need of violence. Its all about reproduction and time. You lose out evolutionary, by simply having less kids then the average. In our todays type of society, this could correspond to, 1.2 kids for NTs and .... 1.3 for aspies. Wheit 100k years, or what ever it takes, and you have near 100% aspie society at the end. See, nothing sinister.



You are making a little mistake here. Autism is just one aspect of the brain. You can maintain brain diversity even if everybody was aspie. You can have ADHD, dyslexia, narcissism, psychopathy or whatever, and have autism. To be exact, some issues can be technically totally incompatible, but these are very rare( it could be in my example list).


This is in the short term, what happens over 100k years will not change much.

Last edited by omicron on 18 Mar 2010, 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

We report a 12-year-old male who met criteria for a pervasive developmental disorder (Asperger's syndrome) and a chronic tic disorder. The child also has an X-linked cognitive impairment (MRX23). The presence of tic symptomatology, pervasive developmental disorder, and fragile X syndrome has previously been reported. Since no singular etiology for Asperger's syndrome has been found, the possibility of other cases of Asperger's syndrome occurring with concurrent abnormalities on the X chromosome should be considered by clinicians
From sage journals online.

No, your next sentence does not address the respective point at all. Your next sentence suggests that there are multiple genes which must each be effected before Autism occurs, but it certainly does not establish that this is necessarily the case, much less establish that it cannot be the case that Autism can occur whenever any one of a number of genes are anomalous.

Not really, as the genes could then be relatively common in the population, with Autism being triggered by inherited loading from parents, or a mutation in any one of a huge number of genes combined with a strong inherited loading.

And how do you think inherited variance comes into existence in order to be inherited?

Aspergers Syndrome evidently does not occur in around 1% of the population. The oft cited approximately 1% (usually ranging from .6% to just over 1%) refers to all ASDs as a group, and only a sub-section of that group is comprised of people with Aspergers Syndrome specifically.

Or to genes associated with Aspergers, (without Aspergers or its traits themselves actually being advantageous, which explanation I offered earlier if you will recal)l.
In fact since AS is not universally fatal, and is not incompatible with reproductive viability, if mutations that cause AS are a relatively common form of non-fatal mutation, mutation is not an entirely unreasonable explanation for the ongoing existence of Aspergers, or its prevelance.


Aha, but while nothing I have said requires that currently typical neuro functioning and development was universal 100,000 years ago, your reference to some time when no one was offended by plain speaking occuring at the time when the human species was universally Autistic is clearly erroneous if there never was such a time.

Well, if you are the victim, either you defend your self or you let them kill you. To be clear on the "who started what", the Americans interfered in the region in the first place, and they are surprised, that people there want to be suicide bombs to kill Americans. Do you see many fundamentalists wanting to suicide-kill .... the swiss?

And i like your metaphore

None of which counters the point that cultural traits outside the scope of the genetically plausible simply cannot become pervasively established (at most they will be transient or have very shallow penetration).


None the less, if X is incompatible with the genetically determined scope of plausibility, then X cannot occur in respect of the particular genotype it is not compatible with.
None of which is actually contrary to anything that I have stated. The fact remains that not everyone with Autism has the insight or the personalty traits to observe themselves writing their rules, and not everyone without Autism is completely oblivious to these things.


I do not see that it does change the power balance, nor is any change in power balance necessary for us to be valuable. Nor evidently is being valuable necessarily an evolutionary advantage. Mother Teresa was arguably valuable to many, but she does not appear to have been reproductively successful.


Stating your case here would not derail the thread, and would be consistent with the current discussion. If you think you know of a human culture where there were no provisions for the acquiring, preparation and consumption of nutrician, then by all means name that culture.

So people can have Asperger's and other conditions at the same time. That has no bearing on the discussion.


I was using 1% as an order of magnitude estimate. When undiagnosed aspies are included, it's likely higher. In either case, it's still orders of magnitude higher than could be supported by a theory that most cases of Asperger's are from de novo mutation.


Ah, another straw man, then. I never said anything about "universal" in that context.

Nothing sinister but nothing plausible either. Take a look outside of your social circle at who really is reproducing at a faster rate.

Last edited by Janissy on 11 Mar 2010, 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That's an interesting point. Much is made of assortative mating and the rise in autism diagnoses (and it may just be a rise in autism diagnoses rather than in the syndrome itself) but assortative mating is a very new and not even global phenomenon. The Love and Dating Forum is full of Lonelyhearts who can't find a girl (but can find a job) and also those who are asexual and don't see what all the fuss is about and have no intention whatsoever of having a mate, let alone children. Back in the day, the ability to earn a living would have gotten a male paired up by parental assignment (or however it worked) and protestations of asexuality would fall on deaf ears and not got in the way of being obligated to be paired up.

You challenged the association of Asperger Syndrome with fragile X, claiming it might be the case that Autism is correlated to fragile X, while Aspergers Syndrome specifically is not, so I provided a well sourced quote to the contrary.


No it is not at all likely that Aspergers Syndrome occurs at a higher rate than 1% of the population. Not all prevelance research is actually based on diagnostic rates and so does take into account undiagnosed people.


Most cases is not necessary, merely a rate sufficient to offset relative reproductive disadvantage.


Your semantic pedantism not withstanding, the point remains and it's no strawman. There is no reason to believe that NTs were ever relatively uncommon in comparison to Autistic people since the time human beings developed speech, and so no reason to believe that there was ever necessarily a time when people particularly valued those who indiscriminately said what they meant and meant what they said...

Historically maybe not, but you still have to bring food to the table, it can interfere with that. Prehistorically, i doubt women where oppressed that much. A theory goes, that our brain has the same function as the tail of the peacock. The huge human brain was, basically useless, if you compared maintenance costs, fragility, and what it really bring to you. But, the brain is very fragile, if your genes suck, they will have an amplified negative effect on your brain (on average), so if perverted females selected the smartest males, by proxy they selected the best genes. If we have a huge brain today, its because of the perversion of the females, until recently, our brain simply can't be directly attributed to selective pressure of the environment. You can keep this in mind about the probability of us speciating over sexual selection. Look at the poor peacock.

Yes, autistics fertility is greatly reduced but not eliminated.

We talk in the context of sympatric speciation. Blue eyes are forced down by the environment. Here, genes compete in complex ways, between two groups, with not being clear witch is more fit(a premise for speciation to occur).

If you believe in simple equality, then speciation is your future. I rather believe, in aspie supremacy, so you get one all aspie species. Sexual selection will just throw its weight in, traditional NT women will be at a disadvantage at some point.



Because its not(oversimplifying). In the context of sympatric speciation, with important "hybridization" it is. You can as well revert back to recessive, once speciation is achieved. Any way these things if correct, are second and third order effects. I just wanted to convey the idea, that other then the main explanation(sexual selection) of sympatric speciation they are higher order effects.


you misunderstood, that IS about founder effect, not about dominant genes. I was talking about two issues here. Its not about "sickle cell disease" like genes to become dominant, its about them getting out the gene pool.

How do I tell whether people outside my social circle are aspies or not?

Its not important what really is happening today(totally unsustainable), but what the very long term trends are doing. Like global warming trends, if you look the jumpy details, you can't extrapolate anything.

From a political point of view.... leave your brain at the door. Do you believe, it would be beater to promote the idea that we are speciating? Supremacy isn't exactly NT friendly. But speciation is much stronger then just talking about supremacy or trying to explain all the complexities about our situation.

In a very short, simple and concise message, we pass across that we are very different but not ret*d. In popular imagination, mountains and oceans are barrier for speciation. In one small phrase we say autism is as great of a barrier as oceans or mountains and we aren't diseased. Diseases don't speciate. Even if you still believe its a disease, you get out that autism is reeeaaaallllyyy far away. We are so far away and detached from the "Human condition"(exaggerating), that we are speciating. Automaticaly, a curebee, becomes a genocidal bastard. We throw in more complicated explanations, "sympatric speciation", "nuptial song mutation", and "first time there only one human species" to impress. We could make a internet viral out of it, since its so bold and surprising statement. No need that people actually believe it, only the PR effect about our rights its important here.

I think theres quite a few of aspies that hold that we are equall, equality being one prerequisite for speciation theory. So we will not be lying at community level.

Homo sapiens autisticus
Aha, in your faces Ph.ds, you mist that

What do you think? I think we could dig a story like that, or in general on social networks.
Do you know science fiction stories where new human species sprawn out on there own and coexist with the "earlier form"?