To make the breakthrough that we all need to gain status in the eyes of society we need the cause of autism. I can give you that at least in its high functioning Asperger's form.

The conventional model of human evolution sees a species formed from a single sociable human personality. Variation from this "normal" personality is seen as "disorder" ie. something has gone wrong. I think this model is wrong.

Everything points to a species formed from two evolutionary personalities. One is neurotypical or from an evolutionary perspective "tribal". The other personality is its predeccessor and evolved pre language in an unsociable single-family existence. This personality is seen as autistic. Both personalities make up the species today. This is the reason for the variation we see in the world. It gives us the difference between Catholic and Puritan values. It gives us Republican and Democrat. It gives us poverty in Africa and wealth in the West. All born out of two evolutionary personalities.

The Asperger personality is entirly predictable from evolutionary cause.
Quite simply it isn't naturally sociable because it didn't evolve to be sociable. Observations of lack of imagination and excessive honesty all come from a pre language evolution. Without language you can have no stories to imagine and no sentences in which to tell a lie. The Asperger personality has to access all concious thought as language is all learn't. We see a tendency therfore to look away or upwards when talking in a similar way to when the neurotypical mind tells a lie.

As a population the Asperger personality is going through one of its low points in evolution. With the wealth generated in Western society the "tribal" sociable mind has become dominant. This has all happened before. In times of plenty "tribal" values dominate. In times of austerity Asperger or as I prefer "original " values dominate. It will turn and the "original" personality will regain its position in society. This won't however be without effort on our parts to establish our personality as normal.  

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.

I agree with Lizmom23!

*smiles*

i agree, too =)

If we're so superior, why do we have to keep saying so?

Because we don't live in the movies, like if mad scientists figured out a way to make everyone shrink like Pat Kramer (Lily Tomlin)

I also then to agree with Lizmom23, they can not hold us back forever!

To me it’s quite simply, it’s all to do with evolution – we have to evolve and change in order to survive, and most autistic people I know seem to have more complex brains, and maybe even superior minds!

very well put!

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.

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 personally don't see much differences between people on "different ends of the spectrum". There are just some few ability-differences that can divide them significantly in functionality.

I think what Amanda Baggs writes here might be an eye opener:

http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=79

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.

Great link, Erkolos!

And I meant that the book was "published" last year -- no idea when it was "written."

[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

I agree as well. Not to mention that our environment changes as well.  What was a positive adaptation/mutation in previous societies may not be one today. And vice versa.

[/quote]
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".