Eye Contact and Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

Hello, first time poster, long time lurker. I hadn't gotten around to making some sort of formal introduction, but to shorten a rather long story I came to the conclusion several years ago that I fit all of the criteria of what would be categorized pre DSM-V as Asperger's. It was an epiphany reading the descriptions of this syndrome as though they were excerpts from my life story, though I have not sought an official diagnosis as at this point in my life (I am 34) I don't think it would be of much relevance. At any rate, moving on to the point of this post...

In my reading about the Autism spectrum I have come across those who have theorized that it may be the next step in the evolution of humans. That there are many traits about Autists which would be more ideal for the sort of logical, large scale cooperation between people that would be required for mankind to come together. Where the pettiness of emotion has less of an influence on people's decisions.

This leads me to another potential evolutionary benefit that I have come to notice in my life. Like most of you on the Autism spectrum I have a tendency to avoid eye contact in conversation with people. I find it uncomfortable and unnatural, though I am consciously aware that neurotypicals expect this behavior and I have conditioned myself to be able to perform a passable version of eye contact when I choose to do so (though the lack of emotion in my expressions still seems to unnerve them).

The benefit that I have noticed as a byproduct of this tendency to avoid speaking directly to people's faces is that I don't contract common transmittable diseases like the flu at the same rate that others seem to. I realize that this is entirely anecdotal, but on multiple occasions where colds/the flu have worked their way through my family as well as the office that I work in I have avoided becoming sick, and there is little doubt in my mind that this is because I avoid talking to people face to face.

I did some searching before writing this post to see if there was any mention of this but was not able to come up with anything. So I was wondering if anyone else has had this experience or is aware of this having been researched?

Many people on the spectrum have difficulty with social situations, many have no friends to speak of and lead pretty solitary existences, me for one, which is hardly a good basis on which to build large scale cooperation between people.

Autism is not the next step in evolution, you're falling into the trap of assuming that everyone with autism is an super smart aspie. Autism is a very broad spectrum and while there may be a small percentage of people at one end of the spectrum who do fit into your image there are others, at the other end of the same spectrum, who can't speak, who injure themselves and who defecate in their pants. Most people on the spectrum fit between those two extremes. The autistic spectrum is not exactly an inspiring template for a brave new future.

Welcome to wrong planet.

Autism and its Aspergers sub catagory is in my experience is a variation of bieng human that contains both strengths and impairments. If the Autism is the next step in human evolution there should be more autistics today then in the past. Look at the prevelance rates, they are going up much faster then any evolutionary procces that I have read about. Some popular people have claimed this is caused by mutations caused by poisoning. The consensus is much expanded diagnostic criteria. There is some evidence emerging that autism was always around in the same degree but not recognized. While I agree with the expanded diagnoses explanation I also think our multasking, social media world is more Autistic unfriendly making people with the same severity literally less functioning today then even a few decades ago. This inderectly relates to eye contact. In some cultures eye contact has always been considered rude and invasive. If Autism were an evolutionary process lack of eye contact should be becoming more accepted, if anything the opposite is happining, lack of eye contact is still widely considered in the western world a sign that something is wrong with a person.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 14 Oct 2016, 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

They theorize this because they want to feel better about themselves and prefer to think of themselves as superior to others rather than as disabled. However, they usually have very limited understanding of how evolution works. Their ideas about evolution probably come from watching too much X-men.


It is totally irrelevant for evolution whether a society composed of only autistic individuals would be better in whatever way. If genes that are a risk factor for autism make individuals more likely to have a lot of children they will become more prevalent. If they don't, they won't. Evolution doesn't work towards a certain goal. What might be better for the future is not relevant. Who is more likely to survive and reproduce right now determines which genes get passed on into the next generation.
If autism is getting more prevalent right now or seems to be getting more prevalent this can have a lot of reasons. It could be that the application of the diagnostic criterion changed or that more people seek diagnosis if they feel like there's something different about them or their children and that mild cases were less likely to be diagnosed earlier on. It could be actually getting more prevalent but this could have epigenetic (and possibly non-adaptive) reasons or autism-risk genes could be beneficial in individuals that carry some of them but are not autistic themselves. (just to name a few possible reasons, this list is not complete)


Less contact with people lowers your risk of transmittable diseases. I don't think eye contact itself has a huge influence on this but having a smaller social circle, spending more time on your own, disliking hugs etc. and a lot of other things many autistic people do could lower this risk.
However, evolutionary this is only relevant if getting infected with transmittable diseases lowers people's chances of survival and reproduction more than autism does. In 1st world countries the chances to die of an infection before or during your reproductive phase is not extremely high and autism doesn't completely rule out this risk (and it might pose an additional risk of dying of an illness because some autistic people avoid seeing a doctor more than most NTs).

Some problems with the "autism is the next step in evolution" idea.

1. From a purely "natural selection" perspective there are not inherently "good or bad" traits or any "purpose", it just describes cause and effect in regards to procreation. In war-torn Africa brute strength might be a more effective trait, while in more civilized countries intelligence may play a bigger role.

The 'teleological evolution' idea, in which everything is evolving to some more complex state with some purpose behind it is more philosophical than purely scientific.

Also, as far as eye contact goes, most people don't consciously "think about it", it's something that people tend to do sub-consciously by biological instinct, but which AS people might have a harder time doing due to impaired intuition. Likewise I doubt most people are consciously "judging" people for not making eye contact, it's more of a sub-conscious emotional response because lack of eye contact tends to have subconscious negative associations (sometimes it implies a lack of interest in the person, or deceitfulness for example).

Interestingly though, in some Asian countries, making eye contact with a superior is considered rude; I've also heard that some people with high-functioning autism in the West wouldn't be considered "autistic" by Asian standards, possibly because their cultures tend to be more naturally rigid and formal than Western ones.

Prior to my diagnoses I had the opportunity to work with young Korean people. I found them much easier to work with then my fellow Americans because of thier regidity, formality, quietness , and the very respectful way they treated people. I do believe a whole lot of what is viewed as impairments are not impairments but are defined that way not because the people lableing impairments are NT but because of the Western culture they grew up in.

Not making eye contact with someone does not mean you are not talking face to face with him or her. I'm not convinced that not making eye contact is the sole reason why you've eluded catching the flu.

How does intelligence play an important role in "more civilized" countries? There are anecdotes all over Wrong Planet, including in this very thread, about how instinctual social behavior trumps logic and intelligence. That whole sentence was one of the silliest things I've read on here in a while.

Eye contact is culturally determined. In the West, it's expected more, while in many East Asian countries, for example, you don't make as much eye contact.

Evolution is about maximising the chances that your genes are passed on, and the theory that something that makes it hard to pass your genes on is the next step in evolution is simply ridiculous.