Aspies For Freedom

very well put!

Agreed - there's an common idea when human evolution is mentioned that any step is the "next step", or the "better option".

In reality, especially when you look at human evolution, is that evolutionary "branches" were quite common - in fact at one point there were three separate species of human co-existing. The only reason that only one exists now is that homo sapiens sapiens, or modern man, killed off or starved out the others.

The spectrum gene doesn't represent an evolutionary "advance", just an evolutionary branch. There's nothing saying we have to be "better" to be a part of evolution.

I think of this as the "myth of progress." It seems to permeate everything, not just evolutionary discussions. Some one wrote a book with this title last year, but I've been using those words to describe it for many years.

I think of this as the "myth of progress." It seems to permeate everything, not just evolutionary discussions. Some one wrote a book with this title last year, but I've been using those words to describe it for many years.
[/quote]

There is a "better" in terms of evolutionary fittness. A "better" trait is selected for and maintained. But "better" in this context does not carry with it a moral connotation of superiority or even preferableness - although both may get assumed at some point. Most humans today would argue that standing upright is "better" because that it is cultural norm and the circumstance that fits our environment and have even assigned a certain amount of intellectual and moral supperiority to standing upright compared to our crouched cousins and ancestors.  Despite the fact that we built our environment to suit that characteristic and not because we objectively choose that standing upright was "better".
[/quote]

Actually, the idea of progress connotes movement toward a goal; that there is some more desirable end state and each change brings us closer to it. Similarly, describing evolutionary change as taking the "next step" connotes movement toward a goal.  But change is only change. Perhaps it is because I am a pragmatist that I see all life as, essentially, pragmatic: whatever works.  The goal is constant and unchanging, not an end state toward which life strives.  Bear in mind that this may have been a random opportunity for me to riff on something that is a personal peeve rather than much of a reflection on anything that has been said here. And forgive me if that is required.

Actually, he wasn't doing half as bad as I do it. I just can't help it. Once a point is made I begin testing it and the words come out as if I'm under some sort of automation.

Sorry, if anyone "feels attacked". On the "Asperger's explained: I'm sane thread", I may have been a little hard on that fellow.

Just wanted to point out that "would not increase reproduction" isn't the same as saying "would decrease reproduction".

In that sense, she's correct - there's nothing to suggest that autistic people have more children, or are more likely to have children.

And there's no such thing as "genetic equality" or "genetic superiority". For example, mosquitoes continue to exist, and no-one is saying that they are "genetically equal" to humans...

I do think that we are the equal of Neurotypicals, but trying to argue it from an evolution perspective is self-defeating.

I'm saying that she may have meant "may have about the same amount of reproduction". Just because something's not a higher number doesn't mean that it's a lower number.

My point was that survival has little to do with superiority or equality, and that it's ridiculous to use evolution as "a relevant barometer to your beliefs".

For example, the Incas were a highly advanced society for their time, and they were entirely wiped out by the Spanish. Likewise, if Autistics were wiped out via pre-natal testing plus abortion, we would still have been the equal of anyone else.

In other words, evolution isn't a good tool to use to argue Autistic rights.

I believe in equality, but it's much better to argue it as a human rights issue than a "genetic equality" debate.

I think at the end of the day, the actual number of Autistic people reproducing is irrelevant, as it's obviously enough to be self-sustaining - it doesn't have to be "more than" or "less than" NT's to be more than the critical amount needed for survival.

More aspects than reproductive percentage come into play here too - for example, if the theory that autism is passed on via a "dominant" inheritance pattern is proved true, this could account for a lower reproductive rate being needed to survive.

While I like your idea, I can't bring myself to believe it, as Autism has other traits than just thought patterns - for instance, sensory issues and motor skill issues are common, and neither of these has much to do with "logical intergrity".

Also, as Autism is apparent from a very young age, this also leads me to believe that it is not due to logical vs emotional thought patterns.

As far as "normal" parents having autistic children, I tend to think that once the genetics of Autism are determined, it will be seen to have a much wider set of behaviours than is currently considered to be on the spectrum. Many researchers have also introduced the idea of "autistic inhibitory genes" that could allow someone to be a carrier with being Autistic themselves. Personally I tend to think these don't exist, but I thought I'd throw it out there...

The main reason that I believe in genetic Autism is that both myself and my partner can trace the "Autism gene" back through 3 generations of family (my grandfather, my mother, and myself), which would imply that it's a direct inheritance gene. I'd be curious to find out if others can do the same...

I personally disagree, only because I think that the autistic geneset covers a much wider set of behaviours than is currently promoted. For example, I tend to think that "NT with AS traits" people probably have the autistic gene or genes, and it just effects them in a different way than to others.

I think the level of "affectedness" probably has more to do with how quickly and how well the person develops coping mechanisms - not that I'm saying that functioning level is the persons fault, but that it has many factors that are more complicated than just genetic makeup.

I actually don't think an IQ score says much about what a person is capable of. It's a measure of one very narrow trait - the ability to solve theoretical logic puzzles.

Also, I don't think that developing coping mechanisms quickly necessarily has to do with your innate abilities - it could be circumstantial, it could be because the person isn't bothered by health problems or other issues, it could be based on how interested the person is in socialising as a child, or it could be entirely random.

That's fair enough - after all, there's no actual genetic explanation yet, so we're all just guessing, really...

Not so sure about this one, just because if there's only one parent on the spectrum, their child can still be Kanner/low functioning - which wouldn't be possible if one of the parents was (NN).