Is the L&D section representative of natural selection?

Post Reply New Topic

We can't know, and I don't see a thorough study being done for a long time to collate that with facts and figures. Still I wouldn't recommend only believing something IF it's backed by a study. The definition of Asperger's does say a lot, as much as many aspies hearing from psychiatrists and neurologists that actually landing a significant other is at the very top of Aspie difficulties - true, they could be talking out the side of their necks on that, but when general information - as well as watching how geeks and atypicals tend to fair in society - I think we can trust the inference reasonably that aspies have a harder go of at least landing anything for long-term relationships. We're we to try and gauge that further on the quality of the relationships, that's where the conversation completely changes and that's so unknowable that people are better of just coming to their own conclusions based on their own best inferences.

true that the possibility of it being romantically harder for aspies than NTs cannot be discounted, and it is worth looking at closely in terms of improving ourselves personally or helping other aspies to gain the skills they need. but it is absurd to apply a scientific theory to a phenomenon that we cannot even prove exists in the first place.

it is definitely reasonable to think that aspies may have difficulty in commencing or continuing relationships, but there is no baseline for discussion, and the whole discussion is nebulous and anecdotal. it is rather like trying to discuss whether cold weather is responsible for canadian children being smarter than american children. we don't even know if the basic premise is true, so any argument about the cause cannot be accepted at face value.

I hope AS gets weeded out
the weak die and the strong live on
its like that with every creature, why are a bunch of single men (some who can't work) suddenly seen as useful?
some women are in the same boat too

my point is, people with AS are humans, and strong humans survive, most AS people aren't strong so why should they be seen as important or worthy for continuation in the genetic pool
cause...its rumoured some inventors and such had the same disorder? (even though I don't think anyone with AS has fallowed up to said level since, even if the rumours are true)

I have a better question for you: Why are you (and others) trying to apply the laws of natural selection to a species (Humans) who live so far separated from nature that very few of even the highest-functioning of them could survive in the natural world to begin with?

That is like saying that Great White sharks don't reproduce in captivity because they're an evolutionary dead end. It's false. Great Whites don't mate in captivity because *they are in freaking captivity.*

Please be more mindful to use the correct parameters when you are judging the value (or lack thereof) of my life, your own, and everybody else on the spectrum. I'm a little touchy about that, as you can no doubt tell.

Natural selection can not be applied to compromised species who live in artificial habitats. It's as ridiculous as trying to apply natural selection in a attempt to figure out which french fries are tastiest.

--Wren (who is hoping she used enough shiny emoticons to finally draw some attention to good science).

why are we so special that we escape the basic laws of nature?
cause we have ipods?
dildo's? femininsm?

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... z14GXUHxag

Also the " but the rate was 10 times higher among those without a high school degree" would harm males' chances much more than females' chances in getting married, a housewife has the option of not having a job.


and there was a study I read on a pdf showing that only 10% of aspie men get married and 0.something% of autistic men get married while the %s are much higher for women, but I am failing to find it again.

interesting, definitely. the study has a few issues:

the study explained its own limitations with screening women.

the initial screening was a test of only 20 self-reported questions.

the test showed what percent of single people may have ASD... NOT what percent of people with ASD are single. 'tis backwards.

lastly, if we accept the study at face value, then we could conclude that natural selection is definitely not happening, because the results show that autism rates are not declining. in order for natural selection to be occurring, the rates would have to decline in the population over time. the rates are static.

Why do we escape the laws of nature? Look around you. We escape the laws of nature because we are the only species capable of it. We escape the laws of nature because we have the capability and motivation to do so. Ipods, dildos, and feminism are all proofs of my point, not yours.

Next time try harder please. I put a lot of thought into my posts, I'd appreciate a better response than rhetoric.

There's should be no differences in the symptoms between male autism and female autism , autism is autism. I don't think the tools are more poorly adapted for identifying autism in female adults.





If the majority of one gender is succeeding to pass on the genes then the condition's rates will remain.

actually, the tools are poorly adapted for diagnosing women, which is very firmly established in the research. you may disagree with it, but the gender bias in diagnostic tools has been shown to exist (even the authors of the study you presented made that clear).

http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/89/1/41.full
http://www.yale.edu/yrurp/issues/yrurp_ ... df#page=78
http://escholarship.bc.edu/cgi/viewcont ... on/tecplus


...which disproves the idea that natural selection has any effect at all.

If you actually understand the issues as presented in the DSM, you would know that romantic relationships do not have to be mentioned specifically because those issues effect all social interactions. If you take for example the difficulty in processing and picking up non-verbal signals and body language, these are very much in play when asking women out. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to suggest on this forum, asking a women out and not being rejected is not pure trial and error because woman gives out signals that they are interested in the man in 80% of the times that she accepts. At least according to one study I've read.

Also I have never said that it women with AS don't have difficulties nor that men have it harder. On the contrary, AS women have trouble reading the signs that a man could be a potential abuser and may be more likely to end up in abusive relationships. Additionally, predators who notice the difference may target them as soft targets. In that case the awkwardness could be like painting a big bullseye on your backside saying "victimise me".



Incorrect, that figure is significant. Using the figure of 4.5% of single men being aspies, I've just estimated that AS males are at least just over 4 times more likely than NT males to be single. Other numbers I used for that calculation was the 1 in 150 figure for how common ASD's in the general population, the 4:1 male to female ratio for people with ASD's and the fact that men make up approximately 49% of the general population. With those 4 numbers, you can actually calculate the likelihood of AS men being single or never married with respect to that of NT men.

I believe this actually refers to 16 studies that were carried out by Leo Kanner and other professionals from the 1970's to early 90's in Europe/UK, USA and Japan which looked at the progression of people with Autustuc spectrum disorders into adulthood. The average (mean) of these studies combined showed only 6% of those tracked in these studies were married according to Professor Patricia Howlin (2005) book Aspergers Syndrome: Preparing for Adulthood that I'm quoting that figure from now.

See occasionally I know something useful

i bolded the place where you said that men have an especially difficult time.

your calculation doesn't work, because you still do not have any statistics that indicate what proportion of aspie people are single. no comparison is possible without any applicable data. it is not a question of mathematic calculation - it is a question of raw data.

your calculation could be compared to taking a random population of fish, determining which ones are red and which ones are blue, diagnosing some of the fish as bottom-feeders, then deciding that a certain percentage of bottom-feeders must always be red. in short, it doesn't work. the only way to determine the proportion is to analyze the red bottom-feeders.

it is an inaccurate and backwards attempt to analyze the survey information.

i do agree that the rates of singlehood could likely be higher amongst aspies as compared to the general population - i just don't think that a scientific theory should ever be applied to nonexistent or shoddy data, and that is all we have under consideration at the moment.

romantic and sexual experiences are one aspect of social relationships, but not the only one. and if a person only had problems in that area, it is unlikely that they would be diagnosed as ASD. strangely, people somehow treat it as some kind of determining factor of ASD here on WP. romantic/sexual problems and ASD are not always hand-in-hand.

so... that would be before the addition of asperger syndrome to the DSM. N/A, unfortunately.

That's not necessarily true. It would be true if the condition affected men and women equally, but that doesn't *seem* to be the case for ASDs. What I've read -- and what I've seen with my own two eyes -- is that ASD affects males at about a 4:1 ratio to females.

When only 20% of a total population are reproducing at a normal rate, the reproduction rate of the total population is clearly going to be effected negatively, and for something to have a negative impact on reproduction is what natural selection is all about.

natural selection refers to whether a trait has increased, decreased, or stayed stable in the general population. a trait that continues at the same rate in the general population cannot be considered selected against. if rates of green eyes do not diminish or increase, then green eyes are not negatively or positively affected by natural selection. natural selection does not ultimately consider the success of the individual organism - it considers the trends of certain traits and populations.