AS could also be representative of an alternate brach of Human development.To put my Perspective into light imagine modern day Homo Sapien and Homo neanderthalis. Im not comparing NTs to neanderthals but I am implying that down the line we might evolve into our own sub species. Homo Aspergergian[/font
Well I don't believe all Aspergers are unsociable.
You are right not all are. It comes down to learnt behaviour. From my model of evolution there should be a desire for friendship as I am proposing that our best friend and friendship predates the existence of the single family from where the Asperger personality evolved. If we take the tribal or neurotypical personality as the norm the Asperger pesonality can be indistinguishible introvert or extrovert dependant on learnt behaviour. Obviously indistinguishible doesn't attract any attention it is the introvert and extrovert that does. Both latter cases come from under learning and over learning tribal characteristics. The theory I propose in "Autistic Shoes : Evolution of Behaviour" unifies aspergers and evolution. The answer is so simple yet as radical as proposing the world was not flat 700 years ago. These things arn't immediatly accepted. A species formed from two natural personalities. It is radical stuff I know.
I agree that Aspergers is evolutionarily influenced, but my reasoning is a little different.
I think that Aspergers represents the "in-between" state of NT and classic autism. Imagine, for example, that NT carry two copies of a master sensory gene (SS). At some point, the gene aquired a mutation (M). Two copies of the mutated gene (MM) produces autism. One copy of the original gene, and one mutated one (SM) produces Aspergers. Clearly, autism is not going to increase reproduction and will not be selected for by natural selection. BUT, as it the case with a number of recessive diseases, the heterozygous condition confers an advantage, therefore the mutant gene stays around. Two copies of the sickle cell trait is lethal. But one copy reduces malarial infection. Two copies of the cystic fibrosis gene is lethal. But one copy confers resistance to tuberculosis. So two copies of the yet-to-be determined mutated sensory gene cause severe problems, but one copy results in advantages - and therefore stays in the population. I'll go further and say that as we have moved from a society of hunter/gathers/farmers/etc to a society where security is derrived from economic success, benefits from Aspergers type is increasing, producing even more ASD in the population.
why wouldn't aspergers/autism increase reproduction? this statement denotes/insinuates that people on the spectrum do not have sexual interests or needs. I think this is a crock. One does not need to be overly social to procreate or even be in a relationship and have children. obviously, we have been here since the begining and we are still here on this planet, and so our very exisitance is proof that we are genetically equal, or better, than our NT counterparts. You speak of us as an extinct species; historical in nature; yet, we are the innovators of ideas and art; individualist thinking; both philosophical and ingenious.
maybe you are the mutation; living vicariously off our genius for eons...
myspace.com/mikegeorgemusic
I agree that Aspergers is evolutionarily influenced, but my reasoning is a little different.
I think that Aspergers represents the "in-between" state of NT and classic autism. Imagine, for example, that NT carry two copies of a master sensory gene (SS). At some point, the gene aquired a mutation (M). Two copies of the mutated gene (MM) produces autism. One copy of the original gene, and one mutated one (SM) produces Aspergers. Clearly, autism is not going to increase reproduction and will not be selected for by natural selection. BUT, as it the case with a number of recessive diseases, the heterozygous condition confers an advantage, therefore the mutant gene stays around. Two copies of the sickle cell trait is lethal. But one copy reduces malarial infection. Two copies of the cystic fibrosis gene is lethal. But one copy confers resistance to tuberculosis. So two copies of the yet-to-be determined mutated sensory gene cause severe problems, but one copy results in advantages - and therefore stays in the population. I'll go further and say that as we have moved from a society of hunter/gathers/farmers/etc to a society where security is derrived from economic success, benefits from Aspergers type is increasing, producing even more ASD in the population.
why wouldn't aspergers/autism increase reproduction? this statement denotes/insinuates that people on the spectrum do not have sexual interests or needs. I think this is a crock. One does not need to be overly social to procreate or even be in a relationship and have children. obviously, we have been here since the begining and we are still here on this planet, and so our very exisitance is proof that we are genetically equal, or perhaps, better, than our NT counterparts. You speak of us as an extinct species; historical in nature, or an odd mutant gene, lucky to be alive; yet, we are the innovators of ideas and art; individualistic thinking; both philosophical; and ingenious, in nature. we are the purveyors of ideas.
maybe NT is the mutation; living vicariously off our genius, for eons...
myspace.com/mikegeorgemusic
why wouldn't aspergers/autism increase reproduction? this statement denotes/insinuates that people on the spectrum do not have sexual interests or needs. I think this is a crock. One does not need to be overly social to procreate or even be in a relationship and have children. obviously, we have been here since the begining and we are still here on this planet, and so our very exisitance is proof that we are genetically equal, or better, than our NT counterparts. You speak of us as an extinct species; historical in nature; yet, we are the innovators of ideas and art; individualist thinking; both philosophical and ingenious.
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.
Just wanted to point out that "would not increase reproduction" isn't the same as saying "would decrease reproduction".
are you smoking crack cocaine??? really, just read back what you just stated, ok?
i disagree whole heartedly; you are talking in semantics; mosquitos are a perfect example, ironically; they are a nuisance to society, yet, they function and procreate, never the less, and continue to do so...
more children or less children is an irrelevant analogy; this is an NT concept of mass/dominance/ majority rule; facicious and derogatory in naute, in my opinion...the fact is, if you consider the theory of evolution as a relevant barometer to your beliefs, than we as aspergians are still here, stronger and better than ever, and it appears that our intellects and ingenuity are the common thread to human growth and "evolution" if you will...
myspace.com/mikegeorgemusic
While I love the "disorder-or-evolution" debate (having always personally believed that autism is not necessarily a disease), all this focus on "do autistics breed enough for it to be evolutionary?" talk is overlooking the likelihood of emotional inducement. In the reading I've done, I haven't gotten the impression of strong evidence of heredity--why do so many supposedly "normal" parents have autistic children (even allowing for the likelihood of un-diagnosis in earlier generations coupled with this generation's tendency to over-diagnose, doctors generally are still at a loss to pinpoint any definite cause)? Personal observation of myself and others has me leaning toward early-infancy emotional components/incidents. This is not meant to imply overt parental abuse; these episodes are often subtle and occur too early for verbal/conscious cognition and memory, but which were still offensive enough to the infant's instinctual emotional-logic to cause long-term personality affectations; it is a logical response to an emotional disturbance, resulting in the creation of a behavioral predisposition reinforced over time. Or to simplify, the only "disorder" autistics are guilty of is trying to apply logical integrity to a world where the status quo is emotional irrationality, made even more irrational by it's constant compulsive insistence on it's own validity. Autistics are people who realized much earlier than most (infancy)that "the inmates are running the asylum", that they inhabit a world which is mostly illogical and unfair, and the "disease" is just their naturally individuated unconscious behavioral response (tics/outbursts/withdrawal/compulsions, etc.)to such upsetting news, combined with rational (from their perspective) conscious attempts to impose logic and order on their treacherous environment.** Normals don't figure out that the inmates are running the asylum until they're 40 and their devastated reaction is called a perfectly normal "midlife crisis". Of course, all individuals have experiences and realizations throughout life which disturb and devastate them,and all individuals adapt behaviors to try to make these insights bearable. I think the key difference is that most people instinctively repress and hide painful knowledge from themselves, and being the majority, this defines "normal" (i.e. "Well, if everyone else says the emporer has clothes, I will convince myself to say it too, and even believe it, regardless of the fact that he is plainly stark naked. This lie is easier and less frightening than taking responsibility for telling the truth, and anyway FITTING IN is more important than making sense, because all the people that I'm supposed to FIT IN with say so!"). Whereas autistics, even when they are acutely aware of the difficulties of being different, cannot bring themselves to utter the lie, in fact maybe his incredulity at everyone else's dishonesty seems to compel him to scream a little louder "BUT THE EMPORER HAS NO CLOTHES!" --please forgive my sloppy metaphor, but I'm sure you all know what I'm saying.
The evolution-hypothesis still applies, but I agree with the poster who said that evolution occurs through the perpetuation of ideas more so than genetics; and I like the idea of a world where people have evolved to be overly rational and overcome petty emotions, to only be capable of saying what they really mean, to scream when they feel the need to scream, or to bang their head in frustration at willfull stupidity, whenever the occasion calls for it.
Anyway, if anyone is still reading, please forgive me if I've offended anyone and for rambling on so in my first post, I am so glad to have found your group. All of the existing literature is so obtuse and condescending, even worse so when the authors attempt to make it "accessible". Did anyone notice how Oliver Sacks constantly harps on his subjects' "inability to grasp humor or empathy", UTTERLY OBLIVIOUS to the examples of empathy being demonstrated by his subjects and their deadpan jokes and puns that go right over his head? I suspect it is he who is incapable of grasping humor or empathy.
"Why don't you like looking people in the eye?"
"They don't understand."
"What don't they understand?"
"ANYTHING."
---an LFA poet who's name escapes me now
Evolution is determined by what pans out and what is old news. But there is little or no clue as to what is going to be a success.
So, if AS wasn't a success, we should not hold it against whatever natural forces have made it so. If one day, there are no people with AS, and it wasn't through human interference, so be it. It just 'is'. We are still human.^_^
Let's not get too enamored with this "superiority" or "master race" idea, for example there are plenty of AS/autistic people who do not have an advantageous intellect.
And, the bigger threat is: chavs are outbreeding us and will want to fight us 
The Asperger personality didn't just happen over night its always been there. In 1652 it was the personality that formed the Quakers. Their beliefs are all based on the Asperger personality.
I'm full of fascinating useful facts. Well at least I think they are.
I find that most interesting. I have no idea if you can substantiate what you say, with links to evidence, but I DO know that there are/were a LOT of Quakers in my father's family tree. So I will file that nugget under "interesting" too and see if it has any mileage in the longer-term.
Thanks for all your replies. Taking Victor13d' s comments. The reason why I have the Asperger personality before the tribal personality is simple. If it had come after we would have all inherited tribal characteristics. Convention thinks "disorder" ie these characteristics have been lost. It makes much more sense to think they wern't there in the first place than somehow the brain malfunctionioned and rather carlessly lost them.
Saint: Thanks. Asperger wasn't quite the great hero everybody thinks he is. His work was based on eugenics which wasn't one of the sounder branches of science. The Asperger personality didn't just happen over night its always been there. In 1652 it was the personality that formed the Quakers. Their beliefs are all based on the Asperger personality.
I'm full of fascinating useful facts. Well at least I think they are. The tribe and the Asperger personality did come together and the Aspie formed the special place of religious leader to the tribe. This was after the minds were formed. We still live together today. Well just about.
Sarahjoke: An Aspie with a superiority complex is called a Narcessist. They have even got a separate disorder for that.
The Aspergic personality or "original mind" as I prefer is superior in some things and inferior in others. I have it as older than the tribal mind for purely logical reasons. Just because something is older doesn't mean it is better or worse. For instance a mark 1 ford escort was actually better than the mark 2 which rusted rather a lot. Sometimes its the other way round. As for the age thing its a bit like a 75 year old going out with a 78 year old. Time is almost irrelevant. One of my special stregnths is the ability to see patterns and I can see a pattern in the species that says two personalities form it. By the way my user name come from the name of a book if it seems a little odd.
I can't see any reason to think Quakers had anything to do with autism. Your logic loop really went off the track.........................I almost quit reading the post!
I'll second the great link
Great link, Erkolos!
And I meant that the book was "published" last year -- no idea when it was "written."
A friend of mine has a son with dx's of severe autism /severe ADD and he is in the US
Note to Simen, in the US you can't have an ADD and autism diagnosis at the same time.
I have to say I agree with EvilZakkie on this. My husband and I went to a sensory integration dysfunction workshop (our son has sensory issues) and some of the things on the list we do -- not many but there was some. So perhaps us both having some traits came together and made our cute little boy
[quote=EvilZakkie]
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.
If this is in response to my friends son, I'm not sure. It might be severe ADHD / severe autism I'd have to ask her .I"m not sure if there is really that much difference between ADHD and ADD but I know he has both.
I'm not well-informed about that, might it vary from state to state?