What is the evolutionary 'value' of an aspergers population?

Page 1 of 4 [ 49 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

swbluto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: In the Andes, counting the stars and wondering if one of them is home to another civilization

03 Apr 2011, 5:11 pm

Let's imagine a society where every individual has aspergers syndrome. How would that society fare? How would its economics be different? How would its societal structure be different? How would lifespans be affected? AND, most importantly, could it be self-sustaining or would the entire population slowly, but eventually, completely die off?

From these questions, maybe we can infer the 'evolutionary value' of the typical aspergers individual. That is, are there redeeming qualities / upsides to possessing aspergers within an "evolutionary context" (As opposed to a "neurotypical context", which itself values conformity and emotional-based relations and interactions, whereas an "evolutionary context" would more or less value the procuring of resources and proliferation and support of offspring.)?

Here are my ramblings, hehe:

It seems that one of the evolutionary advantages of neurotypical thinking is the possession of empathy and understanding what another person is thinking/feeling; If you can understand how they're thinking/feeling, and you also know how they'll react to certain actions of yours, you can "influence people/situations" in ways that you desire. Technically, I would call it 'manipulating people / situations', but normal people would think that implies a one-sided Machievallen approach that produces benefit for one side and a loss for the other side, but there are mutually beneficial actions/arrangements or what have you.

Ultimately, the best in this regard would know how to best manipulate / influence others, which in turn can produce the max benefit for themselves. I mean, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, so team-working is obviously maximally evolutionarily advantageous, and those best at assembling / directing / influencing groups of individuals would be best poised to benefit from that influence. One example one might think of is the CEO of a typical company -- Typically skilled in lying and social influence, wields tremendous social power over the social group that is its company's employees and is correspondingly very wealthy.

So, it would seem a "completely individualistic society" would lack the "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" benefits of team-work, and I would think a completely aspergian society would have less "cooperation" than a completely neurotypical society; However, maybe I'm wrong, maybe there'd be aspergian groups with influential aspergian leaders in a completely aspergian society? Anyway, assuming there'd be less cooperation, it would seem individuals who possessed a greater understanding of others would be "more evolutionarily valuable", and so a neurotypical society would be "better" (Richer, more cooperative, etc.) than an aspergian society. However, I would still think a clearly aspergian society could still thrive, as aspergers have the same instinctive drives as regular humans, right? They'd still grow food and still acquire resources, just in a less productive way. However, a completely aspergian society might lead to an autistic evolutionary dead-end, and eventually die off as all the offspring by the ... what... 10th to 20th generation have classic autism and die off from being unable to feed themselves.



momsparky
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,772

03 Apr 2011, 6:54 pm

Your entire premise is based on the assumption that people on the spectrum are a much more homogeneous group than they are, so therefore I have real difficulty entering into this discussion.

However, I was recently watching a sci-fi show where one of the characters said that Man had stopped evolving because we are now able to change our environment rather than having to evolve to adapt to it. While I don't agree with this premise, I do think that the collection of assets and liabilities that people on the spectrum tend to have seem to work well when they can make their environment suit them, rather than the other way around.

As a species, we're not pioneers anymore - but we are still growing and reaching out and learning. I can see where all kinds of differences will help us do so.



Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

03 Apr 2011, 9:05 pm

The evolutionary value is in neuro-diversity, not necessarily AS alone. Having variation in the way people think increases the number of ways problems can be perceived and addressed, as well as increasing the potential number of concepts and philosophies a society can have, and ultimately has the potential to steer society, or human survival in the direction of optimization.

Let us take schizophrenia. For the most part, this is a negative disorder. It exists today because it does not inhibit it's own propagation, and in the context of human society, it does not compromise the survival of the species.

Never the less, at worst it can be completely debilitating, and at best it causes episodes of psychosis in which suffers are subject to paranoia, hallucinations, and delusions.

But are there any positive elements? Frequently, yes. Somewhere on the fringes of sanity, before outright psychosis, a person with schizophrenia may have more of an ability to incept ideas and realize concepts that most of us cannot.

There is a question I heard a particular psychiatrist used to ask his patients with schizophrenia, to help him gauge their level of functioning. "What do an apple and a banana have in common?"

Most people would reply "They're both fruit." And generally speaking, those only mildly afflicted by the disorder tended to have the same reply, however, the most common response from those who were severely afflicted and in the throws of psychosis were "They both have peels."

That's very true, an apple and a banana both have peels, but most people wouldn't think to reply in such a way.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

03 Apr 2011, 9:19 pm

swbluto wrote:
Let's imagine a society where every individual has aspergers syndrome. How would that society fare? How would its economics be different? How would its societal structure be different? How would lifespans be affected? AND, most importantly, could it be self-sustaining or would the entire population slowly, but eventually, completely die off?

It could be self sustaining if enough Asperger's people could grow crops. If there are a handful of individuals who can grow carrots and raise livestock, the colony could survive until an asteroid came along, unless they figure out a way to deflect it before it hits.

Quote:
From these questions, maybe we can infer the 'evolutionary value' of the typical aspergers individual. That is, are there redeeming qualities / upsides to possessing aspergers within an "evolutionary context" (As opposed to a "neurotypical context", which itself values conformity and emotional-based relations and interactions, whereas an "evolutionary context" would more or less value the procuring of resources and proliferation and support of offspring.)?

There's always redeeming qualities in every individual.
Quote:
Here are my ramblings, hehe:

It seems that one of the evolutionary advantages of neurotypical thinking is the possession of empathy and understanding what another person is thinking/feeling; If you can understand how they're thinking/feeling, and you also know how they'll react to certain actions of yours, you can "influence people/situations" in ways that you desire. Technically, I would call it 'manipulating people / situations', but normal people would think that implies a one-sided Machievallen approach that produces benefit for one side and a loss for the other side, but there are mutually beneficial actions/arrangements or what have you.

It depends on the nature of the person doing the manipulating. Are they self serving or community minded or self serving with community mindedness, meaning altruistic? Doesn't have to be Machievallen though there always seems to be a Prince in a population somewhere and he will rear his ugly head and try to use people for his own gain if they allow it.

Quote:
Ultimately, the best in this regard would know how to best manipulate / influence others, which in turn can produce the max benefit for themselves. I mean, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, so team-working is obviously maximally evolutionarily advantageous, and those best at assembling / directing / influencing groups of individuals would be best poised to benefit from that influence. One example one might think of is the CEO of a typical company -- Typically skilled in lying and social influence, wields tremendous social power over the social group that is its company's employees and is correspondingly very wealthy.

Yup, that's the basic corporate economy. Does it have to be that way for success or can someone invent another way, kind of like a stone soup, with the person who wants the soup adding a delicious stone while everyone else adds unsavory morsels like carrots and potatoes. One person's mediocrity could improve as each individual adds their own input. Aspies could manage this mode of invention and product development. There could even be an overview committee to help projects along by insuring they aren't inherently flawed.

Quote:
So, it would seem a "completely individualistic society" would lack the "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" benefits of team-work, and I would think a completely aspergian society would have less "cooperation" than a completely neurotypical society; However, maybe I'm wrong, maybe there'd be aspergian groups with influential aspergian leaders in a completely aspergian society? Anyway, assuming there'd be less cooperation, it would seem individuals who possessed a greater understanding of others would be "more evolutionarily valuable", and so a neurotypical society would be "better" (Richer, more cooperative, etc.) than an aspergian society. However, I would still think a clearly aspergian society could still thrive, as aspergers have the same instinctive drives as regular humans, right? They'd still grow food and still acquire resources, just in a less productive way. However, a completely aspergian society might lead to an autistic evolutionary dead-end, and eventually die off as all the offspring by the ... what... 10th to 20th generation have classic autism and die off from being unable to feed themselves.

Aspergia could thrive if each Aspie adds their own input without interference from others while the oversight committee checks the work and approves the final product. This would work in a society of highly individualistic innovators who aren't so keen on direct cooperation.



mikeseagle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,641
Location: Dark Side of the Moon

03 Apr 2011, 9:26 pm

Chronos wrote:
The evolutionary value is in neuro-diversity, not necessarily AS alone. Having variation in the way people think increases the number of ways problems can be perceived and addressed, as well as increasing the potential number of concepts and philosophies a society can have, and ultimately has the potential to steer society, or human survival in the direction of optimization.


I was struggling with the right to answer the OP but this sums it up. A society of AS people alone may not survive, but neither would a society of NT's survive either. Its the diversity that makes the society stronger and more resilient. Diversity plays a bigger role in evolutionary terms than everyone being the same.

Quote:
There is a question I heard a particular psychiatrist used to ask his patients with schizophrenia, to help him gauge their level of functioning. "What do an apple and a banana have in common?"

Most people would reply "They're both fruit." And generally speaking, those only mildly afflicted by the disorder tended to have the same reply, however, the most common response from those who were severely afflicted and in the throws of psychosis were "They both have peels."

That's very true, an apple and a banana both have peels, but most people wouldn't think to reply in such a way.


They both have peels is a very good answer. The kind of thinking I like. A answer that is not common and shows me a different way to think about the world around me :)



swbluto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: In the Andes, counting the stars and wondering if one of them is home to another civilization

03 Apr 2011, 9:50 pm

Chronos wrote:
Most people would reply "They're both fruit." And generally speaking, those only mildly afflicted by the disorder tended to have the same reply, however, the most common response from those who were severely afflicted and in the throws of psychosis were "They both have peels."


Oooooo.....oOOOOOOoooo....ooooOOOOOOooooo....I love these questions.

Tell me, what psychological type can you infer from these answers: They both have seeds, both seeds from each fruit is black, they both came from a tree, they both will severely hurt in high velocity collisions, they contain fructose, and they're both sweet?

[I want to know if I immediately qualify for schizophrenia.]



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

03 Apr 2011, 10:08 pm

The apple seeds are dark brown. They both contain fructose is a good answer :lol:
If you like both the apple and the banana, you might qualify for a vegetarian lifestyle and healthy eating habits.



Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

03 Apr 2011, 10:17 pm

swbluto wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Most people would reply "They're both fruit." And generally speaking, those only mildly afflicted by the disorder tended to have the same reply, however, the most common response from those who were severely afflicted and in the throws of psychosis were "They both have peels."


Oooooo.....oOOOOOOoooo....ooooOOOOOOooooo....I love these questions.

Tell me, what psychological type can you infer from these answers: They both have seeds, both seeds from each fruit is black, they both came from a tree, they both will severely hurt in high velocity collisions, they contain fructose, and they're both sweet?

[I want to know if I immediately qualify for schizophrenia.]


Actually your ordinary banana doesn't actually have seeds. The "seeds" are sterile because the domestic banana is a hybrid of a wild edible banana that is too seedy to eat in any efficient manner, and an inedible banana with tiny seeds.

To increase the number of edible domestic bananas they usually have to graft a clipping unto a root stalk.

And apple seeds are usually brown.

So it would be a person who doesn't know as much about fruit as they think they do.

If you think you may have schizophrenia then I advice a full medical workup and then an evaluation by a psychiatrist who specializes in schizophrenia.



LP0rc
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 114

04 Apr 2011, 12:24 am

The original post establishes a false dichotomy of two uniform groups. This is a vast oversimplification and the worst kind of generalization.

NTs are no more a uniform group than those on the spectrum.

There is a benefit to diversity of behavior within the species, and we on the spectrum are a part of that diversity.

Faced with a sudden challenge to personal survival, some individuals will flee, some will attack, some will cower motionless, some will collaborate, some will blog :)

Depending on the situation, some of these behaviors will be successful, some will be neutral, and some will fail miserably. For the individuals the results are meaningful in an immediate manner. For the species, the mixture means regardless of the situation, some will survive.

If you are looking for an evolutionary reason for Aspies, it is in that diversity. As outsiders in our own society and working on intellectual empathy we are better able to bridge the gaps between two opposing groups. We can handle the abstract better than our peers.

Yes, in a weird way, I am making a point that Aspies are a natural evolutionary development for the pressures of social interactions and conflicts between different social and cultural groups.



swbluto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: In the Andes, counting the stars and wondering if one of them is home to another civilization

04 Apr 2011, 12:44 am

LP0rc wrote:
The original post establishes a false dichotomy of two uniform groups. This is a vast oversimplification and the worst kind of generalization.


And you're suggesting that there aren't relatively common deficits for autistic groups? You're joshing me, right? The DSM-IV clearly states a relatively uniform set of criteria that characterizes autism.

As far as diversity goes, of course there's going to be diversity within all different types of subpopulations (neurotypical subpopulation and autistic subpopulations), but that doesn't preclude the existence of certain fundamentally similar characteristics/deficits that characterize the majority of each subpopulation. It's like giving a random half of the population a red hat that they permanently wear, and calling them "red hatters"; Of course there's going to still be variation within the red hatters group, but there are differences that are going to distinctly set them apart. The differences in the autistic group is just going to be a little bit more fundamental and profound in how it affects interactions, cooperation and relationships within the group.



emuman100
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 555

04 Apr 2011, 1:05 am

If I would hazard a guess, I would say the AS population would offer technology and art. I remember someone on this forum said it was probably the AS person to sat and chipped away to make an arrowhead while everyone else was socializing around the fire.



Surfman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,938
Location: Homeward bound

04 Apr 2011, 5:05 am

Thinkers , shamans, medicine people, designers, inventors, scientists, artists, musicians, breeders and activists



momsparky
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,772

04 Apr 2011, 8:29 am

swbluto wrote:
LP0rc wrote:
The original post establishes a false dichotomy of two uniform groups. This is a vast oversimplification and the worst kind of generalization.


And you're suggesting that there aren't relatively common deficits for autistic groups? You're joshing me, right? The DSM-IV clearly states a relatively uniform set of criteria that characterizes autism.


I agree with LPOrc - first of all, it's rare for any given person to have all of the criteria in the DSM-IV - even within that criteria it states "A total of six (or more) items from (A), (B), and (C), with at least two from (A), and one each from (B) and (C)." There's a fair amount of variation right there. Second, the DSM limits itself to the distinctive and disabling characteristics of autism - there's a lot more to it than that!



Kon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 728
Location: Toronto, Canada

04 Apr 2011, 8:37 am

Less time for social stuff means more time to create, discover, invent stuff? You need people that are not constrained by social conventions. But I guess, it's a continuum and too much can cause problems as in severe ASD.



swbluto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: In the Andes, counting the stars and wondering if one of them is home to another civilization

04 Apr 2011, 9:25 am

momsparky wrote:
Second, the DSM limits itself to the distinctive and disabling characteristics of autism - there's a lot more to it than that!


That's the point. Those are the "fundamental homogenous characteristics" that characterize autism that every autistic individual possess. That *does not* mean there isn't variation in the population in their expression of autism, and certainly not in their expression as individuals.

Do I need another example in place of the "red hatters" group? Let's take girls. They all have a cervix and they have certain distinctive characteristics that set them apart as a group from the other half of the population, but they still possess variation. Can we treat them as a distinctively different subculture as a whole as opposed to a group of males?

The author of "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus" appears to think so. For some reason, society seems to agree.



starygrrl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2009
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 795

04 Apr 2011, 9:34 am

Kon wrote:
Less time for social stuff means more time to create, discover, invent stuff? You need people that are not constrained by social conventions. But I guess, it's a continuum and too much can cause problems as in severe ASD.


Bingo.

The reality of human beings evolution on a societal level is actually harder to understand than human beings on an individual level. The reality is autism spectrum disorders, apsergers in specific, may seem to be out of place on an individual level with society, but when taken into account that many of the things that come with ASDs, especially high functioning ones, which is either high creativity or highly systematic (or both). In some ways it is evolution pushing the boundaries, the very fact is this form of evolutionary analysis may have not been fully examined yet. People with both AD(H)D and ASD are especially hard to pin down. Because the reality is social evolutionary theory is a rather new concept. Social evolutionary theory is says that humanity is much more complex than simple reproduction, or reproduction is harder may be more inclined for specific roles. Basically there is a societal support structure which perpetuates humanity as a species even further than otherwise.

Which gets down to autistic spectrum. People on the spectrum who are mild are in convergence of the creative and systemizer, which when it gets down to it is ideal for tool creation amoung other tasks. It may explain why some autistic children are more interested in the parts of objects, as supposed to the objects themselves. Or the synthesia that is often common (look up how Tesla came up with inventions or even the HFA child who is doing physics). While these may be extreme examples, it can even happen on a lower level. Basically autism was designed from an evolutionary perspective for tool creation or advancement. It is important from a social evolutionary perspective and part of our evolutionary biology. The difference is autistics are extreme specialists, but this has a role in the perpetuation of the species. If you think about how extreme specialism fights off disease, makes life cleaner, ends up as teachers, and perpetuates both knowledge and invention. Basically, it may well be written into the DNA of humanity to produce people on spectrum, the DNA is imperfect because it is not always good at it. Basically it may not always get contributers, but that happens with NT too.

In fact I may even go a step further in the fact that if there is any increase in autism and ADHD in society, it may be a direct result in a biological reaction to certian types of mental stimulation in daily life increasing. Basically certian hormones and other triggers are being released during the reproductive cycle.

I am not sure if autism is an evolution of humanity, but rather something that was always part of humanity and part of our existing evolutionary DNA, and not necessarily an obsolete one. But that is the problem with treating it as a pure disability, it is more of an asset/deficit disability. The asset is invention is an important part of humanities survival. Not saying all people with autism are engineers, but rather our interest focus may be an important part of our contribution to humanity. Survival of the species is not based on reproduction alone, sometimes it is based on specialization (orgin of species). We are the latter, we may allow means of specialization within humanity that allows from our continuing survival.

Somebody summed up autism best: Highly Specialized Humans. From the social evolutionary perspective we are part of what is known as the "support structure" that has genetically allowed humans to thrive better than those who are based on reproduction alone.