Autism - Next evolution of man?

[Paladin-X]

According to this reference, they've found a significant increase in neurons in the prefrontal cortex: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22068992

If you look at the evolution of man skulls:
http://www.infovisual.info/03/019_en.html

You'll notice that the skull has been transforming from a flat-top rear jutted formation, to a skull more accommodating of the larger and larger prefrontal cortex of modern man. This area of the brain is responsible for our main cognitive functions. Our ability to "think" per say.

An increased density of this region, suggests to me, that Autism is merely an evolutionary improvement of the brain. The reason that it is considered a disability or disorder, is because "modern man" does not know how to properly aid in the developmental growth of "post-modern man".

Thoughts? Rebuttals?

 

[Saru Inc]

are you saying in 80 years people's social skills and ability to empathize will have gotten worse? gasp how can this be

and I've looked into this theory before, (I'm studying to be neuropsychologist) I thought about it, but I don't see it as an evolutionary involvement due to my interactions with autistic children. However I will say I don't take any evolution seriously so I'm not going to take a picture of what a man ape, then coffee man, then us and extrapolate that to what we will look like.

Besides, hippies are all reporting the Ford's SUV's are single handedly destroying the ozone layer and we will all be dead in 20 years like in the day after tomorrow.

What is cool though, is the Asian kid who can see in the dark perfectly but is practically blind in the day light, Its like the platypus. IF its evolution, its just pointless. I mean, humans are out in the day time, and really? Poisonous hind spurs and they sense their prey's electrical signal under water? Platypi are truly counter culture.

 

[Paladin-X]

Evolution aside, that is a poor generalization of an Autistic person's capabilities. There are many on the Autism spectrum that learn to develop both social skills and the ability to empathize with others. Not that you stated it directly, but there is a general belief that Autistic individuals lack empathy, which is a false assumption.

*** Societal rant ***
There are those who simply do not understand the need to demonstrate empathy as others might; there are those who may want to demonstrate empathy, but do not know how; there are those that are so sensitive to the emotions of others, that they simply retract into their own worlds, to protect their sensitive psyche from the intense emotions of others (which also leads to the intense physical rocking, hand flapping, etc motions to engage). Interestingly enough, these viewpoints on empathy are not much different than most people. The difference, is in the behavioural reactions they exhibit. Furthermore, the reactions appear inappropriate only because A) they are not understood by others, and B) they are not taught to behave in a more socially acceptable manner, in a way that they can understand, and that can still fulfill the coping needs required.

Is it truly that the Autistic person has failed to learn to communicate/develop social skills in such a way that makes sense to the general public? Or is the non-Autistic individuals (parents, doctors, teachers, etc) that failed to devise a way to teach the desired communication/social skills to the Autistic individual?
*** /end Societal Rant ***

Now, I can understand your apprehension regarding the leaps I've made with the increased brain/skull size of an Autistic person and the various shapes of skulls shown in the evolution of man. I found it to be an interesting visual to a theory I was entertaining.

I will not comment on your other remarks as they are both non-conducive to the discussion, and quite frankly I agree with the statements on their own.

Coming back to my argument of evolution and a lack of developmental skills taught by 'normal' people (or Neuro-Typicals as an Aspie might say), some of the biggest strides being made in the developmental assistance of Autistic individuals, are other Autistic individuals. One such person is Ron Davis, Autistic and Dyslexic, who discovered a unique way to overcome his own Dyslexia, and thus able to assist others in the same fashion. Using some of these theories and personal insight, he has further created methods for assisting Autistic individuals overcome their challenges.

 

[Apone]

There is no reason for the majority to ever cater to the needs of a minority group... the only reason that we do this is because empathy has proven itself an evolutionary advantage-- if we don't kill/fight each other all the time, then more humans get to make babies, and if we love and care for someone despite their disabilities, then the population explodes.

Autism aside, simply not being like everyone else is a disability in an evolutionary sense, because people won't relate to you as deeply. It's actually absurdly obvious in everything down from the sense of exhaustion you get dealing with difficult people/people you don't understand/are disabled to the fact that the most beautiful face in the world is actually a combination of the most perfectly common features possible. Overcoming a personal disability doesn't make you 'stronger' in an evolutionary sense, unless the overcoming somehow makes you capable of things that are advantageous in your environment... but more often than not, you just become normal but with an interesting story to tell... and this doesn't pertain at all to the people who can't overcome their disabilities.

AND not sure if you already know this or not, but evolution isn't a linear progression, it's trial and error. The reason we're here isn't because we have 'more' or are 'higher' or 'more improved' than all the other animals, that's a Christian corruption of the theory. We are dominant because we have the right traits in the right combination for this kind of environment.

I can't imagine how something like 'increased neurons in the prefrontal cortex' is an asset in natural selection, because most autistic people need extra care, and harsh as it is, would probably die off if we didn't live in a caring and compassionate society... or if the environment shifted so that people were incapable of providing them with care. If there's some sort of catastrophe where suddenly the ability to communicate with other people becomes some kind of disadvantage, I suppose that autistic people might gain the upper hand. Fox News doesn't count.

I think it was David Foster Wallace who remarked that the best way for animals to prevent their own extinction now is to be cute and provoke an empathetic response in people... we all care about the pandas and the whales, but no one cares about all the disgusting bugs that drop out of existence every day. Another way for a species to prosper is agriculture-- they can offer themselves up as food and accept whatever kind of life they can get before we eat them... but yeah, you'll definitely get to reproduce and you'll definitely get to live for a while. Autistic people can't be food (right now), and I suppose that in a way, having someone tend to your needs is some kind of advantage-- but to what end, exactly? And how does this make them more suited to this environment than other humans, if this is your theory?

It's not like autistic people are good at reproducing... you actually need communication for that. I suppose if a lot of autistic people were making impressive breakthroughs in science/medicine/art/etc. then you might have a stronger case, but most autistic people live lonely, isolated, difficult lives, and caring for them is about making their lives 'as good as they can be'... I can't see how that is in any way an evolutionary advantage.

 

[Paladin-X]

Very intriguing arguments. Your second paragraph is very true and profound indeed.

First I must ask, where does this assumption that Autistics do not have empathy come from?

Secondly, to play a little devil's advocate and start a little controversy... To contend with your first argument, Hitler and Osama Bin Laden had empathy for the people they fought for. And speaking of Christian corruption. What about the crusades? Even earlier, the Romans demonstrated a twisted sense of empathy towards the Jewish leaders when they decided to crucify Jesus. My point is only that your argument can go both ways, to save or damn. I see it more as a balance, than what pushes more towards survival or extinction. Now I am being pedantic and arguing semantics (I promise I am not intentionally being condescending, if I come across as much in saying...) but empathy and compassion are not the same thing. (I think I might've even confused the two in my earlier argument....).

The right traits definitely helped mankind. Of those traits, I believe that intelligence is a key player amongst those traits. Hence a 67% percent increase in the cognitive functional part of the brain equates to the potential superior intelligence. Trial and error is an apt description of evolution. And within the hypothetical context of Autism as the next evolutionary step, this is why some thrive better and some struggle. It is not simply an overnight process. It could still take hundreds of years to perfect.

I think when I say Autistic, the vision that comes to mind are those that appear (forgive my insensitivity) retarded - rocking, hand-flapping, drooling, uncoordinated movements, screaming, tantrums, gibberish, etc. There are "high functioning Autistics" or Asperger's syndrome. Most of these individuals are of average to genius level intelligences.

Perhaps in the survival of the fittest sense of evolution, my theory falls short (though I'm not quite ready to yet give it up). Who knows what man went through during other stages of evolution? Maybe they simply threw their evolutionary babies over a cliff thinking them to be "retarded" or some such. Who is man to decide natural selection? Perhaps it took a little creativity and a mother's unfailing love and loyalty to her offspring to help them succeed.

Sidenote: It almost seems irrational to rationalize that natural selection uses logic to predispose evolutionary progression.

But as you said, evolution is not linear. What if the evolutionary progress is setting up a new 'race' of human beings. An improved thinking type? Again, a near 70% increase in brain neurons in the area of the brain responsible for conscious thinking suggests that this creates potential for superior thinking capabilities. Without given the environment, skills, and support to reach this potential, clearly they will fail. Some succeed despite this, those with Asperger's.

The CDC reports that 1 in 88 children are diagnosed with Autism. These are just the ones they catch. The CDC has reports where they found some autistics that slipped through the system. In any case, these numbers are in regards to the more obvious cases. Again, what about those with Asperger's? They appear normal as any other child, reaching all the key developmental milestones as any other child does, but have their own unique set of challenges that are more prominent in teen/adult stages. How many were not diagnosed (or even misdiagnosed with other disorders)?

Your final paragraph is interesting. How does evolution occur if it requires those of the next evolutionary step to procreate those of that evolutionary step? At least this is the question I have assuming that you mean that it would require Autistic people to reproduce to create more "Autistic" people (in the context of evolutionary progress).

As for famous Autistics...

It is rumoured that Albert Einstein, Mozart, Sir Isaac Newton, and others may have been diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum had such a diagnosis existed in their times.

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-autistics-known-today.php
http://autismmythbusters.com/general-public/famous-autistic-people/

 

[Peppermint]

I can't imagine how something like 'increased neurons in the prefrontal cortex' is an asset in natural selection, because most autistic people need extra care, and harsh as it is, would probably die off if we didn't live in a caring and compassionate society... or if the environment shifted so that people were incapable of providing them with care. If there's some sort of catastrophe where suddenly the ability to communicate with other people becomes some kind of disadvantage, I suppose that autistic people might gain the upper hand. Fox News doesn't count.

From a purely theoretical standing point, given that evolution is a continuous, ongoing process, the current state of autistics could be just that, a current state.

It's not like autistic people are good at reproducing...

Granted, but healthy people can carry genes that result in autism in their offspring.

 

[5r6jhd]

I don't have time for a full in depth comment at the moment, but here's my two cents worth, regardless.

My father is Aspergers and my brother is autistic...having lived with this my entire life, do I see it as the next evoloution of man? Absoloutely not. Do I think people with autism can be intelligent? Yes, highly so.

 

[Cornerstone]

A lot of social ettiquette is always changing and what is the "right" thing to say or do in any given moment will be the "wrong" thing the next.

In reality it is all nonsense.

I've known one person with Aspergers and he was fine to talk to on a one-to-one basis but was clearly out of his depth around big groups and teenagers who were chomping at the bit to project and, well, he was the perfect easy target. He did, even one-to-one, get carried away talking about his own interests and seemed oblivious that the other person was alive and not just a pair of ears.

Is the next stage of evolution possibly one where people are more authentic to their true selves? I hope so. In this sense, many Aspergers appear to be ahead of the curve because they do what they like to do and don't worry (or are oblivious) about potential stigma anywhere near as much so called "normal" people. That is the positive side. The social problems that I described (bare in mind I knew only one person but he matched all the symptoms and told me he had Aspergers) can't be a good thing. To be oblivious to the needs of your fellow species-members is in no way a progressive trait so I'd have to disagree.

Some aspects of the condition though, sure...they will have to be the traits of future humans. These mind games and hidden feelings will kill us one day because when it gets too bad it seems to manifest as paranoia. If I'm judging everyone and not being true to myself, everyone else must be judging me...but people assume that others ARE being true to themselves when, in reality, they just aren't.

Sense do I make? I so hope.

:behindsofa:

 

[Apone]

First I must ask, where does this assumption that Autistics do not have empathy come from?

I wasn't saying that they don't, I was saying that empathy is the main reason that other people take care of them. I really don't think that empathy plays a role in political decisions, except perhaps in terms of manipulative people making decisions to cater to irrational human impulses.

I suppose that in the rare case that someone is a savant, then yes, this is advantageous for the human race… but if everyone were a savant then it would be disadvantageous, and the human race/autistic race would probably perish. Perhaps it is to the benefit of the human race that these savants exist, but as for autism being the future of the human race, I'd have to say no.

But yeah, if it's somehow headed in some larger direction, then I suppose it's possible… fixation/obsession can result in productivity, depending on whether they're fixated on computer programming or suicide. But again, most autistic people are not Einstein… and the human race didn't succeed because of intelligence alone-- in fact, there is quite likely our organizational structure and ability to capitalize on certain ideas/talents that allowed us to progress… ideas in action, not the ideas themselves.

 

[acd]

Perhaps I'm an idiot, but Temple Grandin comes to mind as someone who is not helpless and utterly dependent upon others and extremely successful in contributing to the world..
I just don't think this is such a crazy idea..
But then again I also wonder if hermaphroditism is the future... it's not ridiculously uncommon for people to be born with both genitalia..
Could be..What if people were all autistic hermaphrodites in the future?
/Keanu Reeves stoner face

 

[Billy]

Sounds like someone needs to brush up on how evolution works. Not all mutations are beneficial and I have a hard time seeing how autistics could outbreed non autistics.

 

[Apone]

Perhaps I'm an idiot, but Temple Grandin comes to mind as someone who is not helpless and utterly dependent upon others and extremely successful in contributing to the world..
I just don't think this is such a crazy idea..
But then again I also wonder if hermaphroditism is the future... it's not ridiculously uncommon for people to be born with both genitalia..
Could be..What if people were all autistic hermaphrodites in the future?
/Keanu Reeves stoner face

In order for a species to evolve, those traits must be favored, to the extent that people who possess those traits are able to reproduce at a better rate than people who do not possess those traits. Do you think that autistic hermaphrodites are favored?

 

[acd]

In order for a species to evolve, those traits must be favored, to the extent that people who possess those traits are able to reproduce at a better rate than people who do not possess those traits. Do you think that autistic hermaphrodites are favored?

Totally!
Don't you ever watch Maury Povich?!

;-p

 

[Billy]

Totally!
Don't you ever watch Maury Povich?!

;-p

They film maury about 45 mins from me lol they give away free tickets all the time

 

[acd]

They film maury about 45 mins from me lol they give away free tickets all the time

zomg let's go!

 

[Paladin-X]

A lot of social ettiquette is always changing and what is the "right" thing to say or do in any given moment will be the "wrong" thing the next.

In reality it is all nonsense.

I've known one person with Aspergers and he was fine to talk to on a one-to-one basis but was clearly out of his depth around big groups and teenagers who were chomping at the bit to project and, well, he was the perfect easy target. He did, even one-to-one, get carried away talking about his own interests and seemed oblivious that the other person was alive and not just a pair of ears.

Is the next stage of evolution possibly one where people are more authentic to their true selves? I hope so. In this sense, many Aspergers appear to be ahead of the curve because they do what they like to do and don't worry (or are oblivious) about potential stigma anywhere near as much so called "normal" people. That is the positive side. The social problems that I described (bare in mind I knew only one person but he matched all the symptoms and told me he had Aspergers) can't be a good thing. To be oblivious to the needs of your fellow species-members is in no way a progressive trait so I'd have to disagree.

Some aspects of the condition though, sure...they will have to be the traits of future humans. These mind games and hidden feelings will kill us one day because when it gets too bad it seems to manifest as paranoia. If I'm judging everyone and not being true to myself, everyone else must be judging me...but people assume that others ARE being true to themselves when, in reality, they just aren't.

Sense do I make? I so hope.

:behindsofa:

Interesting comments!

The theory of evolution aside and even within the context of Autism as a developmental disorder... What if the problem a person with Asperger's has with connecting to and empathizing with their fellow man easily, was due to a difficulty to connect to the personae (the masks we wear to protect our egos). There is a much higher record of males diagnosed with Aspergers, than women. What if this was due to the way women more easily confide their true thoughts and feelings to others than men? (The ability for women to connect more easily on an intimate level allows the Asperger woman to more easily connect with others, increasing the probability of developing an appropriate level of social skills. This does not mean all women work this way, only that far more women than men, do.).

 

[Barnabas]

I'm going to go with a solid no

 

[5r6jhd]

I've been mulling this over all of yesterday, and despite people in this thread being very eloquent and having some interesting ideas, I still can't see how this would ever work. Having lived with autism and taught children with autism, all I see is disaster.

OP, could you maybe pinpoint what characteristics of an autistic person (granted, there are many different sorts on the autistic spectrum) you feel would be beneficial?

Whilst a lot of people with autism are highly intelligent, there are often a host of other problems that either prevent them from using their intelligence effectively. While you could teach someone with Autism empathy, how to read facial expressions and emotions, how to communicate with others and etc etc it's never going to come naturally to them. I just don't see it...

I know a good few people with Aspergers and autism...some of them only have it very mildly, but some of the problems that they can have I wouldn't really wish on anyone.

edit: I'm sorry if some of my questions have already been answered, I haven't read this thread in 24 hours!

 

[Paladin-X]

I wasn't saying that they don't, I was saying that empathy is the main reason that other people take care of them. I really don't think that empathy plays a role in political decisions, except perhaps in terms of manipulative people making decisions to cater to irrational human impulses.

I suppose that in the rare case that someone is a savant, then yes, this is advantageous for the human race… but if everyone were a savant then it would be disadvantageous, and the human race/autistic race would probably perish. Perhaps it is to the benefit of the human race that these savants exist, but as for autism being the future of the human race, I'd have to say no.

But yeah, if it's somehow headed in some larger direction, then I suppose it's possible… fixation/obsession can result in productivity, depending on whether they're fixated on computer programming or suicide. But again, most autistic people are not Einstein… and the human race didn't succeed because of intelligence alone-- in fact, there is quite likely our organizational structure and ability to capitalize on certain ideas/talents that allowed us to progress… ideas in action, not the ideas themselves.

Not to suggest that Autistics are royalty or anything, but throughout history, have Kings, Queens, Pharaohs, etc etc had their every basic need catered to by others? Actually that doesn't just fall to royalty, the early American south comes to mind or even the rich. Heck Paris Hilton! (I know I'm going to pay for that comparison! ). There are other animal structures that also exhibit similar behaviours. But who says that Autistics truly need to have their basic needs cared for them for their whole lives? Within our current understanding of Autism (which is still very limited) suggests you may be correct that this theory is bunk. However I wish to explore other possibilites and challenge our current understanding. Hmm...

The opposers thus far, prefer to take the stance of what was and what is, will always be. Most Autistics have thus far required massive amount of extra care and many are unable to lead independent lives currently. Therefore, they will always be this way. Is my understanding of your stance accurate?

 

[5r6jhd]

Not to suggest that Autistics are royalty or anything, but throughout history, have Kings, Queens, Pharaohs, etc etc had their every basic need catered to by others? Actually that doesn't just fall to royalty, the early American south comes to mind or even the rich. Heck Paris Hilton! (I know I'm going to pay for that comparison! ). There are other animal structures that also exhibit similar behaviours. But who says that Autistics truly need to have their basic needs cared for them for their whole lives? Within our current understanding of Autism (which is still very limited) suggests you may be correct that this theory is bunk. However I wish to explore other possibilites and challenge our current understanding. Hmm...

The opposers thus far, prefer to take the stance of what was and what is, will always be. Most Autistics have thus far required massive amount of extra care and many are unable to lead independent lives currently. Therefore, they will always be this way. Is my understanding of your stance accurate?

It's really hard to say regards level of care, as there are so many "degrees" of autism, if you will. Most people don't need life long care, to be honest with you. I have taught autistic children and teens who couldn't even talk and had difficulty communicating in any way...I can understand how they might need life long care.

I see no reason for people with autism to not lead normal lives, most of the people I know with autistic spectrum disorders do, but that doesn't mean they don't need help. I think you would agree with me on this.
I went to school with a kid with Aspergers....a sweet kid, but very misunderstood. He went and got therapy for facial expression recognition and how to deal with people socially etc and since high school has come on in leaps and bounds. He is much more appropriate physically, he can read people better and is doing very well for him in university doing some sort of science degree.

My father wasn't diagnosed with Aspergers till he was 50, and that explains the disaster of a person he is today. Not that I think all people who go undiagnosed will end up like my father, but treatment could have helped.

I completely agree with you about "Exploring other possibilities". I am very passionate about mental health and intellectual disability research, I just don't know if I would agree with the thought that this could be the next big evoloutionary move.

I apologise for the patchyness of my posts, my 2 year old seem to need me every five seconds and I keep losing my train of thought. Feel free to ask me to clarify anything I may have glossed over.