Is the L&D section representative of natural selection?

Post Reply New Topic

i have a problem with the natural selection idea... natural selection does not involve the hand of nature reaching into the gene pool and removing unpopular occupants. it involves the reduction of certain characteristics in the gene pool because they lead to decreased success in reproduction or survival.

we have 0 proof that rates of ASD are decreasing in the general population, therefore there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that people with ASD do not mate due to natural selection. we keep cropping up; since we aren't going anywhere, then logically our traits are either neutral or selected FOR.



my theory: i think that a small number of people complain very loudly about being single, and that skews our perception of how many people with ASD are actually truly single. as of now, there are 40,956 members on WP - how many of these people are actually single or will ultimately remain childless? we have not heard a "boo" from the majority; just the complaints of a vocal minority.

also, i think that single aspies probably spend more time in forums overall, though i have no evdence to support that idea.

A quick slash with Occam's Razor for the win. Congratulations.

why thank you, thank-you-very-much. i can conjure up baseless theories out of thin air!

you posted as i was composing my comment, so i missed it. well-researched science in there, and very thought-provoking:



but i also had to giggle at the:

It's called intuition, and you're probably absolutely correct!

Occam's Razor doesn't require an empirical base, just sound reasoning--which you provided a great example of. Nods to you.

thank you veddy much. i don't trust intuition too much. sometimes i am wrongwrongWRONG. science seems more reliable to me.

I would say yes, in that the whole game from the ground up has a sizable background hum of eugenics - everywhere. Its not an aspie thing, its not an NT thing, its a human thing. Most of us have been alive long enough to know that there are still 'niche' positions that deviate from the rules - which typically fall to people with a very specific vibe, look, personality, fill a certain need of a certain personality type in the opposite or same sex, something that a person either has or doesn't have, something that enough of us would never in our lives trade ourselves for anyway.

What I do like about it - there are a lot of people here, many very attractive, it reminds us of the details - ie., yes, being 'different', even with close to normal social skills but perhaps serious executive functioning issues such as short working memory (brain RAM) or other complex things that have accentuated their lives or personalities along different ends; it pretty much helps all of us understand a) what we are, b) what we aren't, and c) what the bottom line really is in the broader world around us. That at least is good at helping us dissolve and unravel a lot of the really nasty carricatures and pejorative images that have been jammed down our throats and etched in our minds from our childhoods on through our early adulthood.

The reasons why AS/autism aren't genetic positives: a) the myriad of challenges, ie. even with intelligence intact or above average the break in instinct would be a big problem if left to 'have' to revert back to the wild, nature seemingly wishes humanity to not lose that capacity, and b) the traits, genetically, amplify negatively, or at least as far as I know the gene pool seems to just inherently know this, in a rather mechanical/unconscious way, and thus guides men and women's biases according to what it deems hard enough to survive and be a hammer rather than a nail. Thus yes - difference, unless its difference a super-alpha direction by genetic standards, typically is only found beautiful by either outliers or those who have had experience to bring them into outlying category.

At the same time though obviously, like the rest, we're all still people, have hopes, dreams, ambitions, dynamic personalities, and very few people out there in the world would I think call any particular group refuse or life unworthy anymore as, in this modern world, we all have things that we can bring to the table. Being able to flip on an alpha switch and regulate other people is still an asset but its not quite as life-or-death as it would have been when we were chasing Bison or picking mushrooms. So, here we are. I would argue in a lot of senses, even living much more interesting lives than most. If you think about it our curses have some big silver lining in that we can constantly do, for those of us who are single and without children we will have time and resources to keep developing in ways where other people have, sometimes involuntarily, had to shut themselves off to deal with life. For those of us who have had the opportunity to gain wisdom from our struggles we'll also be able to hear from friends about the troubles of their relationships, or about domestic abuse one way or another, messy divorces and think "With the grace of God go I" because we made our life partner choices later, on better ground, and with better results.

So, lots of reasons for us to still keep our heads up.

If its functional in the 'socially normal' or more conformed personality type than I'd agree. However to clarify that its not a metric linked to success - ie. a lot of very successful and attractive NT's even, who are stellar human beings, can have this problem because they're a bit too odd/unique and either perhaps are a bit intimidating socially or simply don't have flirtation and things of the like strongly infused in their mode of behavior.

Just like that you can have very attractive men and women, we'll assume we're discussing NT's to keep it in perspective, who can be very attractive, very successful, and very self-sufficient, but be seemingly undateable over almost subliminal details - usually not what they do but what they don't, behavior that has been cooked out of them by life experience or even just their own neural makeup. You also have people who are very soft, very moody, pretty far from what we'd standardly think of as Darwinian seal of approval, who do great simply because their behavior and emotional/personality types just happen to fit the age-old motif.

As aspies, all around, I think uniqueness is the biggest problem. When your mind is on another paradigm, either successful or unsuccessful, the best you can hope is that you 'accidentally' end up going in parallel with the main program, which is an issue that goes far deeper than social skills or whether someone can hold a job, dress well, or remember to shower.

Especially if you ARE the sort of Aspie with the capability to function relatively normally socially, or is able to conform (although I'm definitely one of those people who believes in Aspies' uniqueness and not one of those people who feels they SHOULD or MUST conform because I feel it's going down the road to curebieism), but are struggling in love... while I haven't done so myself, a geographical and sociological perspective leads me to still suspect that there is merit in recommending they look into more developing nations, or those less developed than their own. There, you are going to be higher status and more desirable for reproduction. Sometimes you're seen as lower status because of being in a particularly hard environment, because the area (e.g. a huge city/metro area) is a hard one because of the competitiveness and striving for high status. If not going abroad, and for most people that isn't going to be practical, there might be a difference if you look into more disadvantaged areas (economically, health-wise etc.) of your country. I have seen a heck of a difference along these lines at least in online contact.

Nah, it just so happens that the guys who complain about not being able to get girls usually can't do so for a reason other than autism, but those people make up 90% of the L&D forum.

There are also plenty of Aspies who do "get girls", but they tend to have less need of a forum telling them how to do so.

See?

well, i think we still cannot even confirm that aspies are more likely to be single than NTs, much less whether or not it is for any evolutionary reason. any trends that we think we perceive are based on the rantings of an internet forum - not any sort of actual evidence.

while it may seem reasonable to assume that ASD, with its attendant social difficulties, leads to lower rates of reproduction, we have no data to support that idea at all.

all we have under consideration is each person's individual situation, and the solution (if desired) must be approached from an individual perspective.

basically, nature doesn't care if an aspie is single, and doesn't care to prevent aspie reproduction either.

EXACTLY.

As I know dozens of Aspies, I can say some do get girls but they are a minority, so it's certainly far less than the general population. Those who do get girls are the younger ones who maybe had more support growing up, not the older ones - often the more independent ones - who by reason of era didn't have a diagnosis, or that support growing up.

that's not scientific. that's an evaluation of your social circle.

approximately half of the aspies i personally know are in a relationship right now. about half of the NTs i personally know are in a relationship right now. no difference. this is also not a scientific analysis; it's an evaluation of my social circle.

it could be the case that aspies are less likely to have reproductive success, but right now we have no idea if it is true or not.

The fact that ASD's continue in the general population indicates that some Aspies do manage to find partners, have relationships and get married. However, aspies are less likely to find them than the general population is, especially male aspies. If you don't believe that then just take a look at the definition of AS in the DSM and think about how the social deficits and difficulty in processing non-verbal body language. Also think about how that would especially effect men, given the fact that they are usually the ones who are expected to make the first move and ask the lady out.

logically, yes - aspies may have lower rates of reproduction, but once again.... it is unproven. the criteria do not explicitly deal with romantic or sexual relationships - you are taking a leap that is not supported by any actual data. a person can be socially awkward in some ways, yet still have sex. really.

i disagree that it particularly for men. you think it is harder because men have to ask women out? i could just as easily say it is harder for women because women are expected to be more sociable in society all of the time, therefore if a woman is antisocial in a social environment then men will reject her as a potential mate. neither generalization is a fair assessment as to who has it harder overall.

men and women both have difficulties, and you have no basis to imply that it is harder for men. every single aspie has their own struggles, so when you try to ascribe more difficulty to one gender over the other it divides us and diminishes the other gender's experiences.