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]

So... in the eyes of our society, being NT is actually better. No surprise there!

I also worry about calling AS an evolutionary step. I am better in some areas and worse in others. Some of the ways I'm better are helpful only to me and therefore no one else would really consider it an asset...  I say different not better, not an evolutionary advancement.

I also think it lessens the AS cause if we run around saying, "I'm better than you, now respect me and stop putting social skills in job ads."

PS- does any one else hate it when people make a thread or two as their first posts and then completely disappear?

^ wow... sorry, I really mucked up those quote tags!

[/quote]
I also worry about calling AS an evolutionary step. I am better in some areas and worse in others. Some of the ways I'm better are helpful only to me and therefore no one else would really consider it an asset...  I say different not better, not an evolutionary advancement.

I also think it lessens the AS cause if we run around saying, "I'm better than you, now respect me and stop putting social skills in job ads."

PS- does any one else hate it when people make a thread or two as their first posts and then completely disappear?
[/quote]

I, for one, am not saying that AS is "better" (or necessarily worse) only that the condition confers *some* advantages, therefore stays in the population. It is hard to imagine that being heterozygous for sickle cells disease is "better" - you have a 25% of passing on a fatal disease to your child (assuming you marry another heterozygote). Not too many people are going to line up for that.  However, there are some biological advantages to having one sickle gene which explains why it remains in the population.

very right Liz mom, I apologize if I conveyed that. The original poster had the superiority complex, not you.   Sorry.

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.

No apopligies necessary. Your is an interesting POV and well worth veering for.

As a scientists, I suppose, I don't believe that evolutionary "progress" is directed toward a goal. The physical world is set in motion and we are all along for the ride. What is an advantageous adaptation today may very well be a death-sentence in the future. "Progress" can only be viewed in terms of how we got to where we are now and not to look into the future toward some unknown, even more superior goal.  So I think we agree...

very right Liz mom, I apologize if I conveyed that. The original poster had the superiority complex, not you.   Sorry.

Oh, I certainly have a superiority complex. I am a bad-*** scientist and world-class mom. But it has nothing to do with my neurological status (or lack thereof) .

Yes.

I think it was about 45% of our members that have posted last time I checked the statistics, many of those who don't post will often lurk.

Perhaps a part of the problem is that the construct of Asperger's is unclear, having been researched originally some 1/2 century ago by a Viennese scientist who collected a group of like personalities in a sort of "boy's home" only to observe the outcome many years later.

It could be that the model is wrong. Or, perhaps the model was derived as a catch-all category for those persons who couldn't be easily labelled and categorised. For example, in the U.S. the term PDD-NOS or {pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified was the category used until the 1990's. Surely, a whole category of people couldn't have been invented overnight, such as global warming couldn't just have begun last Friday.

I agree with you on the tribal point. However, hypothetically within every tribe there was an odd duck that perhaps was smarter, or operated in a more socially circumscribed manner.

It's hard to say that one type of personality evolved from another, or that the social type is less evolved, since there are always exceptions to every rule.

I believe that the Buddhists call this ying and yang. But there is a little of ying in yang, and a little of yang in ying!

I'm sort of pre-vole myself.

It may appear that society is becoming increasing competitive, complex, and urbanised. In some ways that makes us more social, and in some ways it doesn't. We become more isolated in our competition, more contentious, less attached to our community, and less sexually reproductive.

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

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.

No, there is simply no evidence at all for this claim. Your views, however neat they fit into your worldview, are not scientific.

Also, aspies differ just as much as everyone else on religion, ethics, politics, wealth, and most every other area.

What?

We, as humans, are a social species; no point in denying it. We have been for the past 10, 20 million years, at least. There is nothing original about the AS personality type, and there are no AS values.

The fact that something is natural, does not make it good. Rape and murder is natural. So is altruism, to some extent.

We are who we are, and in a social species, we are abnormal. This does not in any way degrade us, but devising scientifically unsound hypotheses will not do us any good.

Come back when your ideas have been published in a peer-reviewed journal of biology.

Totally wrong. There is evidence that humanity has been social from the start, i.e., from before it diverged from the other primates.

Evidence, please.

Evidence, please.

Narcissism is something else entirely, and narcissists may well be very social and extroverted.

Simen, you're easily perceived as rude.

I know, I know. On this forum. I'm not perceived as rude elsewhere. How come?

I wasn't rude, though, just honest.