ADHD and Autism-- Neanderthal Traits in Homo Sapiens?

[Arken]

While looking for the Basque article in the other thread, I came across this fascinating site (http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm) which gives an incredible argument that disorders like autism, Asperger's syndrome and ADHD are actually recessive Neanderthal traits from human/neanderthal hybridization which occasionally surface.

Now I realize that the hybridization theory itself is questionable, but I would love an evaluation of this argument from some of the more knowledgable people on this forum as it sounds very interesting.

[Rational BAC]

Fascinating site---Plan to go through it when I can

One thing that is immediately striking is the picture of a typical Neanderthal woman---or soon to be woman.

Not a half bad looking broad. If they looked like that, then no doubt there was a little or a lot of "fooling around" between species.

[pz]

Jebus, but that is awful. It's a collection of anecdotes heaped together to 'support' a ridiculous umbrella theory that autism/Asperger's is a result of neandertal hybridization.

For an example of the absurdity of the logic there, take a look at this:
Neanderthals most likely had fur. Without fur they would most likely not be able to survive in Finland in between ice-ages, nor in Europe during the ice-ages. There is no indication they had advanced cloth, which they wouldn't need if they had fur. There is a genetic difference called congenital hypertrichosis, which essentially is fur in modern humans. The reports of this "disorder" seems to indicate an origin from guanchos from the canary-islands. The first documented case seems to be Petrus Gonsalvus, whom was born 1556 on Tenerife. Another case is the Aceves family from Mexico. Mexico's population has Spanish roots, and Spain colonized the Canary Islands. It's also common with more body-hair in Europeans, and especially in people with autism.

That's pathetic. To paraphrase: Neandertals were probably furry. Why? Because they lived someplace cold, and we don't have any bolts of cloth from 50,000 years ago (we will not mention the Inuit, because they are a counterexample that messes up the hypothesis). Some modern people have lots of body hair, and autistic people tend to have more body hair (they assert).

One unfounded speculation + one random observation + one unsupported assertion = 'evidence' that autistic people are descended from neandertal. Repeat a few dozen times.

The author is clearly ploddingly dedicated and has worked hard to selectively assemble fragments of observation, but it's garbage.

[Amen-Moses]

What a complete pile of horseshit!

Amen-Moses

[MortalWombat]

Hey, maybe they're on to something. Some of the characteristics of autism are avoidance of eye contact, no fear of apparant dangers, apparent insensitivity to pain, and difficulty in interacting with others, which are all undeniable characteristics of every Neanderthal fossil found.

[Arken]

Well, thanks for the information and the debunking. I thought it was a fascinating hypothesis but since this is totally not my area, I had no idea how valid any of it was.

[roxrkool]

It's not my field either, but I also thought it was rather interesting theory.

[Xixax]

Originally posted by MortalWombat
Hey, maybe they're on to something. Some of the characteristics of autism are avoidance of eye contact, no fear of apparant dangers, apparent insensitivity to pain, and difficulty in interacting with others, which are all undeniable characteristics of every Neanderthal fossil found.

This gave me a chuckle... thanks.

[Walross]

Some of the "facts" listed by the author (such as the idea that Neandertals had domesticated the dog 135,000 ya, and other animals 100,000 ya, and that bone tools are "more primitive" than stone tools) are so blatantly silly, and stretch her credibility far enough that I didn't bother to read the rest of the article. If the thrust of her argument rests on similar assertions, then I am sure there is nothing to it.

Too bad. I was intrigued by the idea.

Walross

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by Walross
Some of the "facts" listed by the author (such as the idea that Neandertals had domesticated the dog 135,000 ya, and other animals 100,000 ya, and that bone tools are "more primitive" than stone tools) are so blatantly silly, and stretch her credibility far enough that I didn't bother to read the rest of the article. If the thrust of her argument rests on similar assertions, then I am sure there is nothing to it.

Too bad. I was intrigued by the idea.

Walross

Actually evidence of hominids coexisting or even cooperating with canides goes back 1.5 million years but it isn't clear exactly who domesticated who! ;)

Amen-Moses

[Walross]

Hi Amen-Moses,

I'd love to see some links. Everything I've ever read list the domestication of the dog at 12 - 14 Kya.

Even if that is the case, the domestication of the other animals listed is fairly well documented as being around 10 Kya, NOT the 100 Kya that the author asserts. It also doesn't do anything for the author's other problematic claims. Regards,

Walross

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by Walross
Hi Amen-Moses,

I'd love to see some links. Everything I've ever read list the domestication of the dog at 12 - 14 Kya.

Even if that is the case, the domestication of the other animals listed is fairly well documented as being around 10 Kya, NOT the 100 Kya that the author asserts. It also doesn't do anything for the author's other problematic claims. Regards,

Walross

It all depends on how you read the evidence, personally I don't think humans ever actually knowingly domesticated dogs at all, dogs and humans live in symbiotic relationships everywhere on the planet and virtually every major find involving hominids in the last 2MY or so also includes dog (or rather wolf at that time) evidence as well.

One interpretation of the evidence is that dogs scavenged at homo campsites or came along afterwards when the homos had left and picked at the remains but another interpretation is that from a very early stage (probably during the early ice ages) dogs and humans realised how useful they could be to each other and gradually developed the relationship we see today. Specifically when hunting the megafauna which we know homos did would be extremely difficult without the help of dogs and similarly even a pack of dogs would find it difficult yet together they can cooperate to kill easily, i.e the dogs can drive the huge beasts towards the homo built traps and both species get an easy meal whereas hominids on foot would find it difficult in the extreme to drive a herd of anything (why do you think we sit on horses whilst herding or get dogs to do it for us!). Similarly without humans to trap and kill the huge beasts the dogs would find it extremely difficult to finish one off unless it was already weak or sick.

Compare the difference between dogs and cats, dogs truly become one of the family and see humans as family members as well, seemingly with zero effort on either side. Cats use humans but never really become family members in the same way, "cat rescues family from fire" is not a headline I would expect to see very often!

I cannot accept that such a close relationship is only a few thousand years in development, I reckon dogs have been domesticating us for a hell of a lot longer than that. ;)

Amen-Moses

[Amen-Moses]

After a bit of digging around I found that my dates were a bit off.

Wolves (the grey wolf) came to Eurasia around 1.7MYA during a major ice age probably across the pack ice, if the Wolf/Coyote DNA split is dated at around 1MYA then the Wolf/Dog DNA split is dated at around 128KYA or earlier, i.e by that time dogs and wolves had become separate breeding groups.

By 14,000 years ago there are 5 separately identifiable dog breeds (from fossil evidence, earlier dogs are virtually identical to wolves) presumably the post ice age period allowed for rapid changes to occur in regionally isolated groups.

From around 7,000 YA noticable changes occur in dogs that could only have come from selective breeding.

The only missing link at present is whether Neanderthals may have had a similar relationship with wolves as Homo-Sapiens (and possibly earlier hominids like Cro-Magnon). They co-existed for around 700KY after all so it is possible that when Homo-Sapiens-sapiens made an appearance around 100-70KYA that they encountered an already hominid friendly canine lineage.

Amen-Moses

[Walross]

Thanks for the info A-M. You've gotten me curious enough to do some digging of my own. Regards,

Walross

[Nic Tamzek]

Dunno about autism, but has it ever occurred to anyone else that ADHD is the product of normal Homo sapiens kids being put in a highly unnatural environment?

I mean, really, it's not like kids have been sitting quietly in classrooms and chugging down ritalin for millions of years...

[glycolysis]

You know its hillarious, because I fit those claims. Hairy, red headed, blue eyed, low if any melanin, high pain tollerance, anti-social, and to kick it off, adult ADHD. If I were only a savant, I could be a case study or something of the sort.

Is it possible that these are nordic traits...lol.

Of course not, homosapiens were wooing the neanderthal chicks. Thats the only logical explanation.

OT: Kids should not take ritalin. When I was diagnosed I researched this pretty extensively and it appears there is a chance that methylphenidate can actually retard development in parts of the brain. If anyone has a kid on it look up the studies on pubmed and the likes. If the child really has ADHD, try gingko and L-tyrosine. Tyrosine must not be taken around the consumption of other proteins, as it will not be effective.



:boohoo:

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
Compare the difference between dogs and cats, dogs truly become one of the family and see humans as family members as well, seemingly with zero effort on either side. Cats use humans but never really become family members in the same way, "cat rescues family from fire" is not a headline I would expect to see very often!

You might have already come across this one, but its triffic. Patrick dug it up in a recent thread. The long and short of it is that domestic dogs have been bred , possibly accidentally, to be able to read our social cues better than our closest ape relatives, and better than wolves, and it ISN'T a learned trait.

The Domestication of Social Cognition in Dogs. Science 298,1634-1636, 2002

Edit: Bugger. Not available online. Disabled bad link. It was a good article, it really was.

Another edit: This is the abstract on pubmed. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12446914&dopt=Abstract)

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
You might have already come across this one, but its triffic. Patrick dug it up in a recent thread. The long and short of it is that domestic dogs have been bred , possibly accidentally, to be able to read our social cues better than our closest ape relatives, and better than wolves, and it ISN'T a learned trait.

The Domestication of Social Cognition in Dogs. Science 298,1634-1636, 2002 (http://dusk.geo.orst.edu/lydia/doggies_science.pdf)

I have and it doesn't surprise me in the least, dogs (or wolves) share many social traits with humans and I can easily see how a symbiotic relationship could arise very easily when both species are thrown together into an ice age.

Grey wolves typically hunt small prey as did early hominids but in an ice age situation both species are at a distinct disadvantage unless they can cooperate to enable them to hunt larger prey. A cooperating wolf pack would be essential for ice age hominids to trap and exploit woolly rhinos or mammoths (both of which we know were hunted by early homos). Almost all European bone finds dating to the ice age periods show two distinct traits, one is fine cut lines indicative of flint tools and the other is gnawing by canides. I don't think this is coincidence, I think men and wolves hunted together for thousands of years, possibly only seasonally to start with, to bring down the large herbivores. Man were the killers and wolves the herders, once men had hacked off enough hide and meat for their own use the wolves would then scavenge the left overs.

Evidence from hominid camp sites dating back hundreds of thousands of years show that bones from kills were discarded close to the camps and that these bones were then gnawed on by canides, I reckon that gradually over thousands of years man and wolf came to trust each other, wolves are fantastc guards and would indicate to the men when cave bears or lions were on the prowl and men in their turn using fire and weapons would be able to defend the wolves from the larger indigionous predators.

Eventually the man-friendly wolves would become a different species from those who were man-wary and the rest is history so-to-speak.

Amen-Moses

[rdos]

pz:
What else would you expect? We don't have any full-blooded Neanderthals roaming around, so any evidence for hybridization must be built on current behaviors. Maybe you should pounder how the social differences in autism could arrise without speciation or hybridization?

The discussion of fur is not central to the theory. The social differences in autism is.

MortalWombat:
You just don't seem to understand anything about autism, so further debate with you is worthless.

Walross:
I do present genetic evidence for the animal domestication / symbiosis claims. Dog, cattle and goat all have LCAs in the 100 - 200 ky range, and they clearly originated in Eurasia. I'd think the genetic evidence would be far more important than morphological changes in these animals. There is no need for symbiosis to create any morphological changes.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by rdos
pz:
What else would you expect? We don't have any full-blooded Neanderthals roaming around, so any evidence for hybridization must be built on current behaviors.

And without said roaming Neanderthals to compare with, how can modern behaviour help in this? And how do we know anything so specific as 'autism' about their behaviour?
Maybe you should pounder how the social differences in autism could arrise without speciation or hybridization?

:eek:

Erm, how about a screwed-up brain? Does that need speciation or hybridisation?

A main characteristic of autism is the inability to read others' moods, facial expressions and so on. Well, chimpanzees can do that; normal humans can do it too. So one would expect that a side-branch of the human lineage could do it too. That is, there's no reason to think that Neanderthals couldn't operate at at least the chimp level of emotional intelligence. So why should they be 'autistic'?

MortalWombat:
You just don't seem to understand anything about autism, so further debate with you is worthless.

It's called 'humour'. And the fact that the observations so conveyed completely undercut your idea means... you'd rather not talk to him. Hmmm. Have you met Volker.Dormann over in Science and Skepticism?

TTFN, Oolon

[pz]

Originally posted by rdos
pz:
What else would you expect? We don't have any full-blooded Neanderthals roaming around, so any evidence for hybridization must be built on current behaviors. That isn't evidence. It's a concatenation of unfounded assertions to arrive at an unwarranted conclusion.

If there are no neandertals around, how can you compare their behaviors to that of modern humans to determine similarities? What I see on that site is that you make them up.Maybe you should pounder how the social differences in autism could arrise without speciation or hybridization?

The discussion of fur is not central to the theory. The social differences in autism is. The discussion of fur is but one example of the appallingly bad reasoning used on that site (yours, I presume?).

For an example of 'social differences', look at this, for instance:Creativity is related to predatory traits, and therefore it's logical to propose Neanderthals were more creative than HSS

or this:Neanderthals were living at the same place while modern man often live as a nomad. People with AS need structure and have little tolerance for changes. Neanderthals also lived in small groups of 8-25 individuals.

or this:Researchers believe that Hemochromatosis originated at least 40,000 years ago in the area we now know as Ireland with a single ancestor. This means this ancestor was a Neanderthal, since Neanderthals would have had great advantage for efficient absorption of iron.

or this:Many people with AS are face blind. The most likely reason for this is that the specialized circuit for analyzing faces is adapted to recognize Neanderthal faces rather than modern human faces.

This is all just plain bad logic and even worse science.

It is not logical to assume that neandertals were more creative, nor is it true that predators are more creative, nor is it true that you can even call neandertals 'predators' in any sense that distinguishes them from modern humans.

Neandertals almost certainly did not tend to live in one place, more than did modern humans. They were hunter-gatherers who probably pursued big game. Even if they were more sedentary, that is not grounds to suggest they did so because of a brain pathology.

A putative origin for hemochromatosis 40,000 years ago does NOT mean it had to have arisen in a neandertal. Also, hemochromatosis is advantageous in an iron-poor diet -- if neandertals were the meat-eating predators you claim, and if they had hemochromatosis, this would be exactly the kind of diet that would kill them at an early age.

The claim that "face blindness" is caused by a specificity for neandertal faces is an outright confabulation. Recognition circuitry in the brain is built by early experience, not by genetic hardwiring. Also, neandertal faces were not that different from our own. We can recognize 'faceness' in crude cartoonish emoticons, so it certainly is not true that we have such high specificity that we would be unable to appreciate expression in neandertal faces, or that they would be unable to recognize it in us.

These are just a few random examples plucked out of that website, and they are all incredibly, obtusely, unscientifically bad. The whole site is that poor, though, and represents a very comprehensive example of how not to do science.

[Wounded King]

I'm not sure where the need for hybridisation comes in, why couldn't these be traits belonging to the common ancestor of both Hom. sap. sap. and Neanderthal man, which subsequently lost/modified in Hss.

This seems in large part an exercise in hand waving and 'Just So' storytelling. Some of the links between the proposed Neanderthal lifestyle and autism are very tenuous indeed.

[DMB]

I once worked with a woman I was convinced was a Neanderthal throwback. She was very short (less than 5 ft), stocky and muscular, with almost no neck, and a large head with broad nose, beetling brows and undershot chin. She also had the most strange pungent odour that I can ever recall in another human being. You would have though that such a person would not be sexually attractive, but she had a permanent retinue of hungry men and happily bonked every night away.

[Wounded King]

Maybe she wasn't very picky?

[rdos]

Creativity & predatory traits. Why wouldn't that be related? It's almost self evident that a predator needs to be smarter than a prey to get food.

Neanderthals and territorial. That's claimed by several antropologists. The group size is from the same field, but I guess you don't believe them either?

Hemochromatosis. I certainly could be wrong, but hemochromatosis is far more common in European descent than anywhere else, and there where basically no European AMH 40ky ago.

Faceblindness. Apart from being slightly faceblind myself, and speaking from personal experience, there is a web-site which descrbes this. My face recognition circuit immediately made a "hit" as I saw the Neanderthal child. Your theory that face recognition is learned in childhood certainly fails to explain why the majority of Asperger's are face blind.

So if it's bad logic, and your own explainations have no basis at all in science, how do you know that your interpretation is right and mine is wrong?

As for Neanderthals being predators, I guess you cannot have read the analysis of their diet. They were on the same diet as lions. I have no idea how they could be your standard hunter/gatherers with that diet.

And exactly why do you think Neanderthals had any kind of pathology? Have you read theory, or did you just extract random quotations? It doesn't say that Neanderthals had a pathology. It say that autism is differences in various behaviors, and that these differences are perfectly functional. Therefore, Neanderthals too were perfectly functional.

[rdos]

Well, the theory that ADHD and autism are "screwed-up brains" have been prevalent for several decades now, and nobody have found any screw-up yet.

Besides, with a prevalence close to 10% at some places, I have no idea why evolution haven't eliminated those screwed-up brains. At least, I know of no other condition which is proposedly so maladaptive, and yet are found in 10% of the population.

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by rdos
At least, I know of no other condition which is proposedly so maladaptive, and yet are found in 10% of the population.

Heart disease?

[pz]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Heart disease?
Religion?

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by pz
Religion?

Hmm. Stupid, sure, but maladaptive? I don't see that religious people are less reproductively successful. In fact, don't they statistically outbreed us?

By the way, are we including heritability in our definition of adaptation here? There are a hundred things that hurt our reproductive prospects, but aren't inherited genetically.

[pz]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Hmm. Stupid, sure, but maladaptive? I don't see that religious people are less reproductively successful. In fact, don't they statistically outbreed us?
It has already been specified that our presumptively maladaptive trait must be "found in 10% of the population". If you are going to declare any property found in a significant fraction of the population to be adaptive simply because it is found in a significant fraction of the population, you've defined away any disagreement.

The point is that religion is a bad thing that cripples rational thought -- in that sense, it is analogous to autism. It's an example of something that turns brains to mush (or takes advantage of brains already as dumb as mush) which obviously has not impaired people's ability to breed.

By the way, are we including heritability in our definition of adaptation here? There are a hundred things that hurt our reproductive prospects, but aren't inherited genetically. I'm merely following the example of rdos's site, which is clearly not constrained by evidence (or the absence thereof) of heritability in the examples used.

OK, clearly not constrained by evidence, period.

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by pz
It has already been specified that our presumptively maladaptive trait must be "found in 10% of the population". If you are going to declare any property found in a significant fraction of the population to be adaptive simply because it is found in a significant fraction of the population, you've defined away any disagreement.

Don't panic, pz. I'm not about to declare religion an adaptation. I just don't think you can call a trait maladaptive unless it hurts your reproductive prospects, which religion doesn't seem to do. If a trait occured in the human population that causes peoples brains to atrophy, but somehow let them breed more than ordinary people, its still adaptive.

[pz]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Don't panic, pz. I'm not about to declare religion an adaptation. I just don't think you can call a trait maladaptive unless it hurts your reproductive prospects, which religion doesn't seem to do. If a trait occured in the human population that causes peoples brains to atrophy, but somehow let them breed more than ordinary people, its still adaptive. But that's my point -- you are basically saying that any group of people who are breeding successfully can't be said to be carrying any maladaptations, which isn't true. Religious people could be proliferating like mad, but that doesn't mean we can point to the religious trait and say that it must be adaptive.

Also, the definition you are using now would mean that your suggestion of heart disease is not maladaptive.

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by pz But that's my point -- you are basically saying that any group of people who are breeding successfully can't be said to be carrying any maladaptations, which isn't true.

I didn't think I was saying that, was I?

Religious people could be proliferating like mad, but that doesn't mean we can point to the religious trait and say that it must be adaptive.

I agree. I didn't even mention the word adaptive. However, if we could statistically isolate the religious trait and show that it doesn't cause the bearer to be at a reproductive disadvantage then you can't say it's maladaptive either.

Also, the definition you are using now would mean that your suggestion of heart disease is not maladaptive. [/B]

I suppose it isn't, if it doesn't affect the reproductive prospects of the bearer.

[pz]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus

I suppose it isn't, if it doesn't affect the reproductive prospects of the bearer. Let's get back to what rdos is actually saying -- "maladaptive" has a more specific meaning that isn't really appropriate to what he's trying to get at.

What he's really trying to argue is that here is this putatively bad trait, and he is expressing incredulity that it could possibly be present with such high frequency, unless it actually had some advantage to the people carrying it. This is obviously false. It's a kind of panadaptationism -- next thing you know, we'll be hearing that male pattern baldness is actually a good thing, and that females have been selected for the presence of a hymen.

[rdos]

pz, your last post finally made some sense. That is exactly what I was arguing for. Autism (and Asperger's) wouldn't be part of our genome if they didn't have some *large* advantage up to recent times. That's exactly the case. The advantage of autism is creativity & superior skills in several areas of science. Yes, you read correctly. Einsten had autistic traits. Nikolai Tesla had *extreme* autistic traits. The list is actually very long, and it includes many of the famous scientists. That's also the reason why far more autistics are born in high-tech areas like Silicon Valley.

The earlier discussion of heart disease is not really relevant. Heart disease doesn't affect reproductive success. Autism surely does, at least in today's society.

Besides, it's certainly true that a group of people can be maladaptive, and still breed happily. In fact, maladaptive traits like warfare and infanticide seems to bread happily in Hss.

pz: The point is that religion is a bad thing that cripples rational thought -- in that sense, it is analogous to autism.

Are you saying that Einsten had crippled rational thought???

[Nialler]

I see it describes itself as "The Neanderthal Theory of......"

Having seen the rubbish it espouses, and having noted the repeated mis-spells, I'm assuming that the adjective "Neanderthal" applies to the theory in the pejorative sense and is a comment on its quality.

[Wounded King]

Another argument, which seems reasonable to me, as a reason for the marked increase recently is that these higly maths and tech adept but socially deficient individuals are much more succesful reproductively now, when their skills are very much at a premium, than might might have been at any time in the past.

Is this 10% figure linked to a specific gene or to the whole spectrum of autistic disorders? How long has this been the figure?

[ps418]

Originally posted by rdos
pz, your last post finally made some sense. That is exactly what I was arguing for. Autism (and Asperger's) wouldn't be part of our genome if they didn't have some *large* advantage up to recent times. That's exactly the case.

Its not that simple, for a variety of reasons. One reason is pleiotropy. Supposing there are indeed numerous genes predisposing for autism, it is quite possible, indeed almost certain, that they would play a variety of roles and have a variety of effects that have nothing to do with autism. It could well be, for instance, that the same genes that underly variance in autism phenotypes underly variance in other phenotpyes as well, and it is those other phenotypes that are/were selected for. In other words, even if genes predisposing to autism were maintained by selection, it is not necessary to assume that Autism phenotypes themselves were ever selected for.

Same thing with, say, schizophrenia. It definitely has high heritability. I would certainly assume that it is evolutionarily maladaptive. Yet it occurs in about 1% of all populations. This is a far higher incidence that autism, btw. In this case also, there need not have ever been selection for schizophrenia. It may just be that the genes that predispose to schizophrenia confer some other advantage, totally unrelated to schizophrenia, that maintains them in the population.

Patrick

[ps418]

The advantage of autism is creativity & superior skills in several areas of science. Yes, you read correctly.

As a blanket statement, this is incorrect. We need to keep in mind that autism is a spectrum disorder, with greatly variable symptoms and severity. I've worked with several autistic patients, and none of them were Einsteins. They typically did not respond well to teaching, they prefered to be alone, they had very poor verbal skills, and they seemed almost totally unable to to read the mental states of others. Of course, I work in an inpatient mental health care facility, which means I see the lower functioning autistics. However, what you are describing as a norm is actually a very small subset of high-functioning autistics.

Patrick

[Donnmathan]

Perhaps there has been some research I've missed since my last Anth. course in college, but I was under the impression that no solid evidence for Sapiens / Neanderthal interbreeding has ever been found. I know there was a LOT of speculation, but never anything to show any real proof, possibly excepting the one burial site that Jean Auel used so spectacularly in Clan of the Cave Bear ...

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Nialler
I see it describes itself as "The Neanderthal Theory of......"

Having seen the rubbish it espouses, and having noted the repeated mis-spells, I'm assuming that the adjective "Neanderthal" applies to the theory in the pejorative sense and is a comment on its quality. :D :D :notworthy :notworthy

[rdos]

First, it is very clear that the phenotypes that are selected for, is exactly the same one's that are manifested in autism. For instance, "special interests" in DSM, is basically the same as "intense focusing abilities" and it is what makes scientists successful. Without that trait, they would not put down years of work on small areas. The only difference in autism and proffesionals is which topics are in focus.

As for the proportions. The smallest group is clearly low-functioning autistics. A decade ago, this was basically the only group. The Asperger group is several magnitudes larger, and many of these people are undiagnosed. Finally, people with autistic traits comprise a large part of the population, possibly even a majority.

Schizophrenia has many links to autism, so the same reason that keeps these traits in the population, keeps the autistic traits as well.

The number of genes. David Comings believes several hundred genes are behind the psychiatric spectrum (mostly ADHD,, autism and Tourette). He already have a list of more than 100.

Whether autistic people respond well to learning or not is largely dependent of the methods used. We know Einstein was a failure in school, and autistics fail for the very same reasons. Unappropriate methods.

[Jesse]

rdos:
We know Einstein was a failure in school, and autistics fail for the very same reasons. Unappropriate methods.

That's a myth. Einstein was rebellious in school, but his grades were generally pretty good, especially in math and science (his grades in the humanities were worse). See:

http://members.fortunecity.com/alberteinstein/e=mc2/einstein_truth.htm

The blurb for an exhibit on Einstein at this (http://www.amnh.org/education/school_group/) American Museum of Natural History page (near the middle) also says, "Letters and documents from his personal and political life will also be on display, including his report card (showing excellent grades in physics and algebra)". And apparently some old report cards of his are displayed in the Einstein Scrapbook (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801872030/internetinfidels), prompting one amazon.com reviewer to say "much better grades than what I heard".

[rdos]

Of course. Typical of autistic children's school results are uneven results. Einstein is a perfect example of this, just as I am. I had top grades in mathematics and physics too, and poor grades in humanities. We also belong to the same temperament group, INTP.

Besides, I also have a MSc in electronics, which I wouldn't be able to get with some people's "brain-sallad" theories. I'm Asperger myself, in case some here think I don't know what I'm talking about. IOW, the Neanderthal theory builds a lot on personal experience, as well as from experience from various Asperger lists.

[rdos]

Here is from the site about Einstein:
http://members.fortunecity.com/alberteinstein/e=mc2/einstein_truth.htm

"To be sure, the father of relativity fought against authority."

To be against authority & hierarchal systems is typical autistic.

"He hated rote learning"

That's basically what I mean when I refered to "unapropriate learning methods". This is because of the bottom-up approproach of learning many (dyslectic) autistics prefer. Einstein did too, obviously.

"He admitted to havinga bad memory, and his grades were not always perfect."

Typical of this learning style as well.

"Other Einstein myths persist: that he was dyslexic, that he had attention deficit disorder. There is no evidence of either, Schulmann said."

There obviously is, because the above learning style is typical dyslectic & autistic.

[Doubting Didymus]

Rdos. What's your definition of maladaptive?

[Jesse]

rdos:
To be against authority & hierarchal systems is typical autistic.

It's also typical of most creative original thinkers in history, so that's not saying much.

"Other Einstein myths persist: that he was dyslexic, that he had attention deficit disorder. There is no evidence of either, Schulmann said."

There obviously is, because the above learning style is typical dyslectic & autistic.

Again, pretty weak evidence, since it's hard to imagine any intelligent original thinker not being stifled by a curriculum of mostly rote learning. There is no evidence of reading difficulties or inability to understand human motivations ('mindblindness') in Einstein, as far as I know.

Anyway, my understanding is that autism and ADHD are a sort of extreme end of a continuum, and that at lower levels they blend smoothly into common traits of people who are good at right-brained skills like mathematics and visual thinking...is it really useful to label these common traits with names for more extreme disorders? I've also read that the traits of low-level "autism" are commonly associated with traits of low-level "ADD" or "dyslexia", which makes the use of such terms seem even more questionable.

[RufusAtticus]

So Einstein was a Neanderthal? I didn't know they were Jewish. :confused:

[Quetzal]

Originally posted by rdos
Of course. Typical of autistic children's school results are uneven results. Einstein is a perfect example of this, just as I am. I had top grades in mathematics and physics too, and poor grades in humanities. We also belong to the same temperament group, INTP. However, Myers-Briggs is uncorrelated with mathematics success. I am also INTP (middling I, pathological NT :D , split down the middle P/J). I had atrociously crappy scores in math and physics, but maxed out language and life-sciences. Go figure.

[Claudia]

I've also read that the traits of low-level "autism" are commonly associated with traits of low-level "ADD" or "dyslexia", which makes the use of such terms seem even more questionable.
I have also read somewhere (I do not rememberwhere) that dislexia was completely language dependant, and that you find almost no Spanish speaking dislexic, a lot more French speaking, and even more English speaking,

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Jesse
Again, pretty weak evidence, since it's hard to imagine any intelligent original thinker not being stifled by a curriculum of mostly rote learning. There is no evidence of reading difficulties or inability to understand human motivations ('mindblindness') in Einstein, as far as I know.
From collected quotes from Albert Einstein (http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html):

"Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love."

"The only real valuable thing is intuition."

"A person starts to live when he can live outside himself."

"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."

"The fear of death is the most unjustified of all fears, for there's no risk of accident for someone who's dead."

"No, this trick won't work...How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?"

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties [...]"

"...one of the strongest motives that lead men to art and science is escape from everyday life with its painful crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of one's own ever-shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from the personal life into the world of objective perception and thought."

... and so on. Yep, Einstein was obviously autistic or ‘mindblind’ ... :rolleyes:

See also that page for evidence of rote-learning-stifling, too.

TTFN, Oolon

[rdos]

I think you got the concept of mindblindness totally mixed-up. At least if we are talking about autism. It's not at all the case that people with autism cannot understand the motivations behind society. Many actually are very good at this. The problems with not understanding others mostly appears in conversations, and are caused by some missing instinctual mechanisms. The ability to read facial expressions is one such thing, another is two interpret & use correct intonation. This has nothing to do with understanding the things Einstein understood. In fact, autistics, building their world-view based on details, would & should understand this much better than anybody else.

I didn't know that dyslexia was language dependent, but it sounds very reasonable, since it's probably caused by certain language constructs. After all, it seems like the innate language mechanism in autism is slightly different, which does account for slower language development. They have to struggle a lot more with it than ordinary children.

And to Jesse:
Creative & original thinkers ARE Neanderthal, and if brought up in the wrong environment, would be classified as Asperger.

[Jesse]

rdos:
And to Jesse:
Creative & original thinkers ARE Neanderthal, and if brought up in the wrong environment, would be classified as Asperger.

All of creative thinkers in history were Neanderthals? Are all ordinary homo sapiens sapiens incapable of original thought? By the way, why is it that Neanderthal tools and art were so much less creative and diverse than those of cro-magnons?

[rdos]

You should ask why innovation comes from hybrids, and not from original Hss (basically black Africans).

Besides, it's incorrect that Neanderthal tools were less diverse. They varied greatly between different places at the same time. That is indicative of rare contact between Neanderthal groups. Hss simply copied innovations already part of Neanderthal groups, and brought them together. He was essentially unable of original thought, and compensated for this lack by extensive imitation strategies. Despite 100,000 years of opportunity to invent civilization, Hss failed to do this on it's own.

I know you feel bad about Hss being a imitator unable of original thought, but it fits perfectly with the "follow-the-herd" mentality of non-autistics.

[Jesse]

rdos:
You should ask why innovation comes from hybrids, and not from original Hss (basically black Africans).

So you would predict there's never been an autistic black African, or a black African with ADHD? Also, do you think Asians have less neanderthal genes in their gene pool and thus less creativity, since they tend to lack the distinctive physical characteristics you mention like red hair, blue eyes, lots of body hair, etc.?

rdos:
Besides, it's incorrect that Neanderthal tools were less diverse. They varied greatly between different places at the same time. That is indicative of rare contact between Neanderthal groups. Hss simply copied innovations already part of Neanderthal groups, and brought them together. He was essentially unable of original thought, and compensated for this lack by extensive imitation strategies. Despite 100,000 years of opportunity to invent civilization, Hss failed to do this on it's own.

No, it's pretty obvious that Hss were not just copying Neanderthals. Neanderthals were around for something like 150,000 years, but the huge explosion of innovations that seems to mark the birth of the modern mind only started about 50,000 years ago. For example, there has been no known art of any kind found before about 40,000 years ago, and I don't think any art has ever been found in Neanderthal settlements--and yet you are claiming every creative artist owes his creativity to Neanderthal genes, and that Hss innovations were based on copying Neanderthals? It doesn't make any sense.

I suggest you check out the book The Prehistory of the Mind (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0500281009/InternetInfidels), which has a good rundown of the types of artifacts produced by various kinds of hominids in prehistoric times and what it tells us about how their minds may have worked. A few "puzzles" he points out about tool use in "Early Humans" on p. 121, which includes neanderthals:

--Why did Early Humans ignore bone, antler and ivory as raw materials?

--Why did Early Humans not make tools designed for specific purposes?

Microscopic analysis of the edges of stone tools has shown that the stone artifacts of Early Humans were typically used for a wide range of tasks. Moreover there appears to be no relationship between the form of a tool and its likely function. Handaxes, or simple flakes, appear to have been used as general-purpose tools, such as for woodworking, chopping plant material, cutting animal hides and removing meat. The generalized nature of Early Human tools is particularly noticeable for spear points. These show hardly any variability in size and shape across the Old World, although many different types of animals were hunted. As we will see in Chapter 9, Modern Humans of the Upper Palaeolithic--40,000-10,000 years ago--made an immense diversity of spear and projectile points indicating that specific types of weapons were made to hunt specific types of game.

--Why did Early Humans not make multi-component tools?

Hafting involves makeing a shaft, ensuring the end is the appropriate size and shape, acquiring the binding and resin and then using these to achieve a secure attachment. It is a time-consuming business, but transforms the effectiveness of hunting weapons. From the evidence of the fracture patterns of the Levallois points from the Near East, it is clear that Early Humans had mastered the technique. The odd thing, however, is that these hafted tools remained so few in number and with so few components. If one stone flake can be attached, why not create artifacts with multiple components which, in view of their dominance among later hunter-gatherers, appear to have been considerably more efficient? So if Early Humans had mastered the art of combining different types of raw materials to make composite artifacts, why did they stop at making such simple tools? The most complex tool that Neanderthals made is unlikely to have had more than two or three parts.

--Why did Early Human stone tools show such limited degrees of variation across time and space?

Perhaps the most startling feature of the stone technology of Early Humans is its limited degree of variability. In Chapter 2 I quoted the archaeologist Glynn Isaac who remarked on the 'shuffling of the same essential ingredients' of Early Human technology for more than a million years of 'minor, directionless change'. Other prominent archaeologists have also stressed this puzzling aspect of Early Human technology. For instance, Lewis Binford has written how we have collections of handaxes 'from many different environments in Africa, western Europe, the Near East and India, and, except for possible minor variations that can be understood in terms of the types of raw materials available for those artifacts' production and distribution ... no patterned differentiations convincingly covary with grossly different environmnents.' Large-scale statistical analyses of handaxe shape have supported such views. Similarly with regard to the period after 200,000 years ago, Richard Klein, one of the authorities on the behaviour of archaic H. sapiens in South Africa, has described how their toolkits have little to distinguish them from those of Neanderthals living in the Near East and Europe.

Later (p. 126) he compares Neanderthal tool use to that of modern hunter-gatherers:

As I have discussed, Neanderthals appear to have mastered very complex sequences of stone tool production. yet in spite of this technical proficiency, the range of tools appears remarkably narrow, and to have made a limited contribution to coping with the glaciated landscape.

It is important here to appreciate the type of technology that modern hunger-gatherers such as the Inuit (Eskimo) use to survive in glaciated landscapes. These modern hunter-gatherers are as reliant upon a highly complex technology as they are upon their detailed knowledge of the natural world and an extensive series of social alliances between groups. They have tools with multiple components and various complex facilities, including those for storing foodstuffs to cope with seasonal shortages. To make their tools they use a wide array of raw materials, notably bone and ivory. Many of their tools are 'dedicated' to very specific tasks (see Box p. 127). As I noted above, there is no evidence that Neanderthals, or indeed any Early Humans, had such technologies.

In the Box on p.127 referred to above, he quotes an expert on the number of components that go into an Inuit harpoon:

The stone point was attached to the toggle head of bone with a peg, and the distal end of the ivory foreshaft fitted into a hole at the base of the harpoon head. The proximal end of the foreshaft fitted into a hole in the top of the bone socketpiece and was held in place by thongs which passed through a hole in the foreshaft and through two holes in the wooden shaft. At the base of shaft was a bone counterweight held with pegs. The harpoon line was attached to the harpoon head through two holes, and it extended through two holes in a bone clasp. A third hole in the clasp was fitted over a bone peg wedged into the shaft. The line continued on to another bone clasp to which the end was tied. The floats were held by a single line which ended in a toggle bar where it was attached to a line leading from the harpoon head. The double floats consisted of two blown-up sealskins which were bound together at the middle, presumably with a thong, and had thongs which closed the openings at the head of each. A section of wood which served to join the floats at the front was forked at the ventral surface in order to fit over a strap across the rear decking of the kayak... The harpoon was launched with a throwing-board and was readied for throwing by the fitting of two bone pegs in the shaft through matching holes inthe throwing-board. The throwing-board consisted of a strip of wood with a bone inset at the distal end held in place with a series of bone pegs.

In contrast, Neanderthals never in their history seemed to have produced anything more complex than a stone spear point attached to a wooden spear.

On p. 134, Mithen goes on to talk about puzzles involving the social intelligence of Early Humans (the first two might fit with the 'autistic' theory, but the total lack of art or decoration or ritualized burial does not):

--Why do the settlements of Early Humans imply universally small groups?

--Why do the distributions of artifacts on sites suggest limited social interaction?

It is not only the size of Early Human occupation sites that is very different from those of Modern Humans. They also show very different distributions of artifacts and bone fragments. Rather than being found in patterned arrangements, such as arround heaths or huts, artifacts and bones are found in seemingly randomly distributed piles of knapping and butchery debris.

--Why is there an absense of items of personal decoration?

A characteristic feature of all Modern Humans, whether they are prehistoric hunter-gatherers or 20th-century business people, is that they use material culture to transmit social information. As I have noted already, this is an essential part of our complex social behaviour--it is unimaginable how sufficient social information could be passed between people living in large groups without the help of material culture. Yet we have no evidence that Early Humans were doing this: no beads, pendants or necklaces, or paintings on cave walls. There are a few pieces of bone that are claimed to have been pierced by Neanderthals, but it is likely that the piercing was done by the canines of carnivores. And a few pieces of red ochre found in Early Human sites in South Africa may imply body painting. Yet if they do, then the absence of any actual artifact for body decoration in more than 1.5 million yeas of prehistory becomes even more bizarre.

--Why is there no evidence for ritualized burial among Early Humans?

This is a puzzle because while there is clear evidence that Neanderthals were burying some individuals in pits, there is no evidence of graveside ritual accompanying such acts, nor of the placing of artifacts within the pits/graves along with the dead, as is characteristic of Modern Humans. Isolated burials of Neanderthals have been found in several caves, such as Teshik Tash, La Ferrassie and Kabara. It was once believed that a 'flower burial' had occurred in Shanidar Cave, high pollen frequencies in the soil seeming to indicate that the body of a deceased Neanderthal had been covered with a wreath of flowers. But this pollen is now believed to have been blown into the cave, or even brought in on workmen's boots.

The significance of Neanderthal burial remains unclear. They may simply represent an hygienic disposal of corpses so as not to attract scavenging carnivores. Alternatively the act of burial, and the resulting existence of a grave within an occupied cave, may reflect the importance of ancestors in on-going social relations. And it is this which makes the absence of any ritual and grave-goods so puzzling.

rdos:
I know you feel bad about Hss being a imitator unable of original thought, but it fits perfectly with the "follow-the-herd" mentality of non-autistics.

You "know I feel bad" about the "follow-the-herd" mentality of non-autistics? Please don't stoop to personal attacks here rdos, in fact I would have little reason to feel bad since I have most of the mental and personality traits associated with ADD (though not ADHD), and although I've never actually gotten tested for it myself, my father has been diagnosed with ADD. There is a fair amount of overlap between traits of those with ADD/ADHD and traits of those with low-level, high-functioning "autism", as you mention on your page. Plus, I have a lot of the other physical/personality characteristics you mention on your page(blue eyes, pale skin, large head, reddish facial hair [though not a redhead], more-than-average body hair, INTP personality). However, even if there is a connection between certain physical characteristics and ADD/autism I'd still say the "Neanderthal genes" explanation for this is nonsense, because of what’s known about actual Neanderthal behavior, and also because of the evidence against interbreeding--more likely it would have to do with something like different fetal hormone levels, which could affect both body and brain. There is a possibility that ADD and autism are associated with certain kinds of increased hemispheric asymmetry, with the right brain favored more than in most humans; and according to Hemispheric Asymmetry (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674387309/InternetInfidels), p. 224, the level of asymmetry may be strongly influenced by fetal hormones:

A second type of environmental factor concerns the intrauterine environment during certain critical phases of fetal development. One of the most interesting theories of this type has been proposed by Geschwind and Galaburda and their colleagues (e.g., Geschwind and Galaburda, 1987) and is based on differences in the level of hormones, especially fetal testosterone. According to this theory, higher levels of fetal testosterone promote the intrauterine development of the right hemisphere relative to the left, either by slowing down development of portions of the left hemisphere or speeding up development of the right hemisphere. Given that distal movements of each hand are controlled by the contralateral cerebral hemisphere, this theory argues that a higher level of fetal testosterone produces a greater chance of left-handedness.

There is at least some circumstantial evidence for this theory. Studies of asymmetry in other species indicate that fetal levels of hormones such as testosterone influence brain development in many ways, including the development of anatomical asymmetries and the behavioral asymmetries they produce (see Chapter 5 and Geschwind and Galaburda, 1987). In addition, in humans the incidence of left-handedness is higher in males than in females, who tend to have lower levels of fetal testosterone than males. Furthermore, de Lacoste, Horvath and Woodward (1991) have reported sex differences in the developing fetal brain that are consistent with this hypothesis. For example, there was an overall volumetric asymmetry in favor of the right hemisphere for males, but the two hemispheres were equal in size or the left hemisphere was slightly larger in the fetal brains of females. There is also evidence that elevated levels of fetal testosterone predispose an individual towards diseases of the immune system, perhaps by influencing development of the thymus gland. This leads to the interesting prediction that the incidence of certain allergies and autoimmune disorders should be higher for left-handers than for right-handers, a finding that has been confirmed in a number of recent studies. For example, Geschwind and Galaburda summarize evidence showing that the incidence of various autoimmune diseases as well as certain atopic diseases (e.g., allergies, athsma) is over twice as great in left-handers than in right-handers. This theory has also been used to help explain why left-handers tend to die at a younger age than right-handers (e.g., Coren and Halpern, 1991) and to account for certain forms of intellectual precocity, as discussed by O'Boyle and Benbow (1990a,b) and in a later section of the present chaper.

Later, in the secion on "Intellectual Precocity" (p.241) the author writes:

Guided by the theoretical work of Geschwind and Behan (1982; see also Geschwind and Galaburda, 1987), Benbow and colleagues have found a link between extreme intellectual precocity, left-handedness, sex, and behaviorally measured aspects of hemispheric asymmetry (e.g., Benbow, 1986; O'Boyle and Benbow, 1990a,b). For example, the incidence of left-handedness is higher than expected for boys and girls who scored at least 630 on the verbal portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test and at least 700 on the math portion of the same test before age 13. Approximately 1 in 10,000 children score in this range, so we may assume that such a sample is extremely gifted. It has been proposed that this atypical distribution of handedness is related to enhanced right-hemisphere functioning in the gifted, possibly as a result of early exposure to fetal testosterone. The notion is that the sort of reasoning that is necessary to reach this extremely gifted range depends on superior spatial abilities of the sort for which the right hemisphere is dominant.

The fetal-testosterone hypothesis receives some support from the fact that females are greatly underrepresented in the extremely gifted group, primarily because of their inability to achieve sufficiently high scores on the math portion of the test (the ratio of boys to girls may be as high as 13:1). Support also comes from the fact that certain allergies and immune disorders are more prevalent in the extremely gifted population than in appropriate control populations (e.g., Benbow, 1986). Recall that it was noted earlier that higher levels of fetal testosterone are correlated with an increase in the incidence of such disorders.

Even within the right-handed population, there is some evidence of enhanced right-hemisphere involvement in this extremely gifted population. For example, O'Boyle and Benbow (1990b) tested right-handers from the extremely gifted population and from a control population of age-matched children with average intellectual ability on a dichotic-listening task with CV syllables and on the free-vision face task developed by Levy et al. (1983a). On the dichotic-listening task, the control group showed a significant right-ear/left-hemisphere advantage. However, the smaller advantage in the same direction for the gifted children was not statistically significant. This was primarily caused by the fact that left-ear performance was better for the gifted group than for the control group, whereas right-ear performance was more nearly equal for the two groups. Consequently, overall performance was significantly better for the gifted group than for the control group. On the free-vision face task, both groups showed the expected leftward bias discussed earlier in this chapter, but the bias was significantly greater for the gifted group than for the control group. Recall that Levy et al. (1983a,b; see also Kim et al., 1990) argue that individual variation in bias on the face task is related to variation in characteristic arousal asymmetry of the two hemispheres. Thus, the results obtained by O'Boyle and Benbow are consistent with the hypothesis of greater right-hemisphere involvement in gifted than in control children.

To the extent that low-level ADD and autism are not purely "disorders" but sometimes are associated with increased skills in certain areas, it seems plausible that this could be related to enhanced right-brain function, although this needs to be studied more. This might also account partially for overlap between the conditions in other areas like personality (and maybe even in physical appearance if similar genes or similar fetal hormones were involved, although this is a stretch). No need to invoke a master race of creative neanderthals, in any case.

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by rdos
I know you feel bad about Hss being a imitator unable of original thought, but it fits perfectly with the "follow-the-herd" mentality of non-autistics.

Sweet vengeful mergitroid, this just keeps getting worse.

[rdos]

It's pretty obvious that herd-mentality is the opposite of original thought. If you just follow the herd (IOW, copy, imitate), you will never question authorities and previous theories, and thus would not come up with original thought. It's as simple as that, actually.

[rdos]

So you would predict there's never been an autistic black African, or a black African with ADHD?

I'd only predict this is far less common. After all, there has been migrations between all populations at all times.

Also, do you think Asians have less neanderthal genes in their gene pool and thus less creativity, since they tend to lack the distinctive physical characteristics you mention like red hair, blue eyes, lots of body hair, etc.?

Not necesarily. Those characteristics are only indicative of origin. Similar groups of pre-Hss populations might (and did) exist in Asia.

No, it's pretty obvious that Hss were not just copying Neanderthals. Neanderthals were around for something like 150,000 years, but the huge explosion of innovations that seems to mark the birth of the modern mind only started about 50,000 years ago. For example, there has been no known art of any kind found before about 40,000 years ago, and I don't think any art has ever been found in Neanderthal settlements--and yet you are claiming every creative artist owes his creativity to Neanderthal genes, and that Hss innovations were based on copying Neanderthals? It doesn't make any sense.

You confuse original Hss (pre-50,000) with hybrid Hss. It's not the same. Besides, whom did art is not clean-cut. Art isn't easy to date, and even harder to associate with a particular population.

--Why did Early Humans ignore bone, antler and ivory as raw materials?

Probably because they used wood and other perishable materials instead.

--Why did Early Humans not make tools designed for specific purposes?

We don't know if they did or not, because these special tools might have been made of perishable materials. Also, the larger variation in Hss might be the result of recent adaption. Neanderthals already had adapted the most suitable tool-set, and had no reason for large variation. In fact, large variation is indicative of not knowing which tools worked best, and that the Neanderthal tools needed adaption before being incorporated.

--Why did Early Humans not make multi-component tools?

They did. Neanderthals made wood-glue-stone tools. As multi-component as you get.


--Why did Early Human stone tools show such limited degrees of variation across time and space?

Because they worked. There is no need for change if you already have the best set. Hss needed change, since they weren't as roboust and strong as Hsn.

Later (p. 126) he compares Neanderthal tool use to that of modern hunter-gatherers:

I think a better comparison than Inuit is the Dorset people. They were truely cold-adapted, unlike Inuit. Inuit was forced to extensive adaption techniques, much like Hss in Europe.

In contrast, Neanderthals never in their history seemed to have produced anything more complex than a stone spear point attached to a wooden spear.

What about glue and musical instruments? None of this was produced by Hss at the time. You could add wolf / dog symbiosis as well.

On p. 134, Mithen goes on to talk about puzzles involving the social intelligence of Early Humans (the first two might fit with the 'autistic' theory, but the total lack of art or decoration or ritualized burial does not):

Not true. There is no lack in burials or art. The reason we don't see it frequently is social. An isolated, endogamous group had no reason to mark their social position with decorative art. It has nothing to do with the ability,rather the motivation for it. You don't do art & decoration without a purpose.

--Why do the settlements of Early Humans imply universally small groups?

Because the habitat couldn't feed large groups.

--Why do the distributions of artifacts on sites suggest limited social interaction?

Because there were limited social interaction. It was essential for their societies function. Paternal certainty would become compromised if males could move from group to group. This was solved by monogamy in Hss, but sparse populations benefit more from endogamous groups.

--Why is there an absense of items of personal decoration?

Because personal decoration makes no sense outside of a tribal society where you want to impress other members (especially of the opposite sex).

--Why is there no evidence for ritualized burial among Early Humans?

There is. Study Shanidar. It's not at all the "accepted truth" that these flowers weren't part of a ritual burial.

more likely it would have to do with something like different fetal hormone levels,

Such things would inevitably have genetic reasons, and for these genes to persist, there must be advantages with it. In fact, I'd anticipate differences here between species, so any evidence in that direction would also strengthen my theory.

which could affect both body and brain. There is a possibility that ADD and autism are associated with certain kinds of increased hemispheric asymmetry, with the right brain favored more than in most humans; and according to Hemispheric Asymmetry, p. 224, the level of asymmetry may be strongly influenced by fetal hormones:

You should realize that it's hard to distinguish cause from occuring together with. I'd say this is exactly the same case as with red-hair and flat foot. Flat foot doesn't cause autism, but it occurs more often with autism, because the genes have a common origin.

Guided by the theoretical work of Geschwind and Behan (1982; see also Geschwind and Galaburda, 1987), Benbow and colleagues have found a link between extreme intellectual precocity, left-handedness, sex, and behaviorally measured aspects of hemispheric asymmetry (e.g., Benbow, 1986; O'Boyle and Benbow, 1990a,b). For example, the incidence of left-handedness is higher than expected for boys and girls who scored at least 630 on the verbal portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test and at least 700 on the math portion of the same test before age 13. Approximately 1 in 10,000 children score in this range, so we may assume that such a sample is extremely gifted. It has been proposed that this atypical distribution of handedness is related to enhanced right-hemisphere functioning in the gifted, possibly as a result of early exposure to fetal testosterone. The notion is that the sort of reasoning that is necessary to reach this extremely gifted range depends on superior spatial abilities of the sort for which the right hemisphere is dominant.

I don't think so. This giftedness is the reason why autism & ADD is kept at high levels in the population. Giftedness goes with the negative traits of autism. It has nothing to do with testosterone levels.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Okay, that's a nice just-so story you've got there rdos. But how do you propose it be tested? What sorts of evidence would refute it?

TTFN, Oolon

[rdos]

There are many ways to refute it:

1. Date autism suspectible genes, and find out they don't cluster in the 30,000 - 50,000 years interval.

2. Make real studies of autism, ADD, Tourette, masochism and homosexuality in Africa, and find they are at similar levels as in Europe.

3. Attribute the cause of autism to a single gene

4. Attribute the cause of autism to environment

5. Attribute the cause of autism to upbringing.

6. Refute the links between morphological traits and autism

7. Refute the links between late-onset autoimmune disease and autism

8. Sequence autism genes in Neanderthal bones, and find out they don't match.

9. Prove that autism is a disorder without value

10. Prove that the differences in brain function in autism is caused by brain disturbances, and cannot be attributed to differences that could potentially be perfectly functional in another species.

I'm sure you can come up with more yourself.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Many thanks for that. It’s not a great deal of help though, because apart from no. 8 -- and for that, we don’t even yet know what the genetic causes are, so we’d have a hard job finding them in what few fragments of Neanderthal DNA we can find -- I don’t see how any of them tie autism to Neanderthals.

And, as I’m sure you’re well aware, most of those are things are things we already know about autism -- not due to parenting, no single gene, etc. So they would already be pluses for your idea... if only they could be tied to Neanderthals. And I don’t see how something being multigenic means anything other than what it says. There’s loads of diseases that have multiple factors. Hell, just about every phenotypic effect is a result of genetic interaction with other genes and the environment. What on earth makes these things Neanderthal in particular?

TTFN, Oolon

[RufusAtticus]

I need to point out that the only DNA that can be recovered from Neandertal remains is MTDNA.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by rdos
There are many ways to refute it:

1. Date autism suspectible genes, and find out they don't cluster in the 30,000 - 50,000 years interval.
Gotta find ’em first... In effect, not an available test.
2. Make real studies of autism, ADD, Tourette, masochism and homosexuality in Africa, and find they are at similar levels as in Europe.
Yeah, right. On the one hand, the recent tenfold increase in autism suggests we may not be (have not been) very good at detecting / diagnosing it even in the West. So checking Africa is, practically, impossible. On the other, this dramatic increase has prompted talk of epidemics. Quite how one can have an epidemic of Neanderthalism is beyond me. And I’ve somehow missed reference to homosexuality. But that ain’t a Neanderthal trait either: it’s found throughout the living world. In effect, not an available test.
3. Attribute the cause of autism to a single gene
Already known to not be the case. And the Neanderthal connection is...? In effect, not a valid test.
4. Attribute the cause of autism to environment
Debatable, given that we don’t really know what the causes are. And the Neanderthal connection is...? In effect, not a valid test.
5. Attribute the cause of autism to upbringing.
Already known to not be the case. And the Neanderthal connection is...? In effect, not a valid test.
6. Refute the links between morphological traits and autism
What traits? And what makes them Neanderthal in particular? You’ll be telling us next that Down Syndrome (‘mongolism’) indicates that there’s Asiatic genes bodding around in our gene pool. In effect, not a valid test.
7. Refute the links between late-onset autoimmune disease and autism
Why? And the Neanderthal connection is...? In effect, not a valid test.
8. Sequence autism genes in Neanderthal bones, and find out they don't match.
Gotta find ’em first... and as Rufus says, you’ll need to find ’em in the mitochondria. Oh well, that’s convenient for you hypothesis. In effect, not an available test.
9. Prove that autism is a disorder without value
Why? It clearly has effects that could be subject to natural selection. Most of them negative. And the Neanderthal connection is...? In effect, not a valid test.
10. Prove that the differences in brain function in autism is caused by brain disturbances, and cannot be attributed to differences that could potentially be perfectly functional in another species.
Hmm. Here’s some signs of autism. To balance your apparent selectivity, I’ve highlighted the things that seem disadvantageous in any circumstances.
Autism symptoms (http://www.neurologychannel.com/autism/symptoms.shtml)
Infants with the disorder often display abnormal reactions to sensory stimuli (i.e., senses may be over- or underactive). Touches may be experienced as painful, smells may be overwhelmingly unpleasant, and ordinary daily noises may be painful. Loud noises (e.g., motorcycle going by, vacuum cleaner) and bright lights may cause inconsolable crying.
Other signs of the disorder in infants include the following:
· Appears indifferent to surroundings
· Appears content to be alone, happier to play alone
· Displays lack of interest in toys
· Displays lack of response to others
· Does not point out objects of interest to others (called protodeclarative pointing)
· Marked reduction or increase in activity level
· Resists cuddling
Young children with autism usually have impaired language development. They often have difficulty expressing needs (i.e., use gestures instead of words) and may laugh, cry, or show distress for unknown reasons. Some autistic patients develop rudimentary language skills that do not serve as an effective form of communication. They may develop abnormal patterns of speech that lack intonation and expression and may repeat words or phrases repetitively (called echolalia). Some children with autism learn to read.

Autistic children do not express interest in other people and often prefer to be alone. They may resist changes in their routine, repeat actions (e.g., turn in circles, flap their arms) over and over, and engage in self-injurious behavior (e.g., bite or scratch themselves, bang their head).

Other symptoms in young children include the following:
· Avoids cuddling or touching
· Frequent behavioral outbursts, tantrums
· Inappropriate attachments to objects
· Maintains little or no eye contact
· Over- or undersensitivity to pain, no fear of danger
· Sustained abnormal play
· Uneven motor skills
· Unresponsiveness to normal teaching methods and verbal clues (may appear to be deaf despite normal hearing)
Symptoms of autism may increase in severity when the child enters adolescence and often decrease in severity during adulthood.

Why are any of these highlighted things potentially advantageous in another environment? And how are any of these things ‘Neanderthal’? Note also the final sentence. Autistics apparently become more neanderthaloid during puberty, then more sapientic...

I'm sure you can come up with more yourself.
Nah, can’t be bothered. I know a pseudoscience when I see it.

TTFN, Oolon

[Oolon Colluphid]

This hypothesis reminds me of a Fortean Times review I once read. It was of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, or something on those lines. The criticism was that a ‘perhaps’ in one chapter was taken in the next to be a demonstrated fact, and onto that was built another ‘maybe’, and so on through subsequent chapters. What you get is a pile of maybes. Fortean Times memorably referred to this as ‘BLL’. Bloody loose logic.

TTFN, Oolon

[rdos]

OK, let's do a thorough debunking on your list of pathology:

Infants with the disorder often display abnormal reactions to sensory stimuli (i.e., senses may be over- or underactive). Touches may be experienced as painful, smells may be overwhelmingly unpleasant, and ordinary daily noises may be painful. Loud noises (e.g., motorcycle going by, vacuum cleaner) and bright lights may cause inconsolable crying.

While this is a mix of environmental causes and differences in perception, lets debunk differences in perceptions.

Nobody in their right mind would argue that dogs that also are sensitive to loud noises, would be pathological. Acute sight, hearing and smell is indispensible traits of predators. Neanderthals were predators with close to 100% animal diet.

Appears indifferent to surroundings

Only to things that don't interest them. Autistics are certainly not indifferent to special interests.

Appears content to be alone, happier to play alone

Follows from Neanderthals way of life. They lived in small isolated groups.

Displays lack of interest in toys

Motivation

Displays lack of response to others

It's natural in an endogamous group setting to not care about people you don't know. They don't exist, and are comparable with animals.

Does not point out objects of interest to others (called protodeclarative pointing)

Same arguments as above.

Marked reduction or increase in activity level

This works exactly as in major predators like lions and wolves. Predators don't waste energy unless it's motivated, and thus have huge variation in activity level. Neanderthals were predators. Motivation is the key factor here too.

Young children with autism usually have impaired language development.

No wonder. Language evolved recently, and Neanderthals were bound to have different innate language abilities. That certainly accounts for language differences.

They often have difficulty expressing needs (i.e., use gestures instead of words)

Only if you don't understand Neanderthal gestures & body language. In DSM, this is called Tourette syndrome.

and may laugh, cry, or show distress for unknown reasons.

No wonder. Any sensitive individual would show distress when not understood. This doesn't apply to our children at home, only in neurotypical settings.

Autistic children do not express interest in other people and often prefer to be alone.

The reason is described above. Isolated, endogamous groups.

They may resist changes in their routine, repeat actions (e.g., turn in circles, flap their arms) over and over, and engage in self-injurious behavior (e.g., bite or scratch themselves, bang their head).

I'm sure none of this would develop in autistics in their natural environment. Things like these are psychological in nature in neurotypicals, so why wouldn't it be in autistics?

Inappropriate attachments to objects

Perfectly functional. Autistic males were selected for persistence and determination by females. This is the reason behind intense focusing abilities, as well as the preference for details. This is what makes successful scientists.

Maintains little or no eye contact

Not true either. Autistics prefer more eye contact than is normal, and are accused of staring at an early age.

Over- or undersensitivity to pain, no fear of danger

That's because of Neanderthals life-style. They had rodeo-type injuries from close-combat hunting (or herding). Additionally, masochistic males obviously have a history of selection for moderate pain tolerance, otherwise they would not want to receive moderate pain from females.

This is simply another difference.

Uneven motor skills

Another difference. No other species have the same motor skills as Hss.

may appear to be deaf despite normal hearing

Lack of interest. Day-dreaming.

Symptoms of autism may increase in severity when the child enters adolescence and often decrease in severity during adulthood.

Yes, they develop coping strategies, but they are in fact just as autistic as adults, it only shows much less.

[lpetrich]

Originally posted by Claudia
I have also read somewhere (I do not rememberwhere) that dislexia was completely language dependant, and that you find almost no Spanish speaking dislexic, a lot more French speaking, and even more English speaking, If that's so, then it's a result of spelling mapping poorly onto pronunciation.

Best to worst spelling-pronunciation mapping of the three languages:

Spanish > French > English

And a good measure of the s-p mapping quality may be the length of spelling classes for native-speaker children.

[rdos]

In fact, no. 1 is the only realistic way (with today's technology) to refute it, but this is a real possibility.

As for the single gene argument, I can extend this to if anybody can prove autism is caused by less than 100 genes, I'd consider the theory as invalid. If you date 100 genes based on diversity (this is important), the probablility for the majority of these 100 genes to be in the 30,000 - 50,000 years range is virtually nil if the genes didn't enter the gene-poll through hybridization. It's also perfectly possible to prove that these genes are more common in European descent.

As for no. 8, I don't think this will be possible any time soon, because the autism genes are not located in the mitochondria, and current technology don't allow us to sequence nuclear DNA in Neanderthals.

As for the multigenetic arguments. I can agree that if autism is caused by one or a few genes, this is no proof of hybridization. However, if it's more than 100 genes, the hybridization argment would be very hard to refute. That many genes would not cluster in certain individuals unless they had a common origin. More importantly, if they entered the gene pool through mutation, the bad aspects of autism would never have been selected for.

As for finding the autism / Tourette genes, David Comings are working on this. He believes 600 genes are behind, and already have a list of well over 100. MC1R (red hair color, fair skin & freckles), is one of them. In fact, it would be straight-forward to date the genes on his list, if it were official, and if somebody dared to do it.

Autism in Africa. Well, strictly speaking, it's not necesary to do this in Africa. Afro-americans will do just as well, but you must include both autism & Asperger's for it to be useful, and it must be population studies. Homosexuality certainly doesn't occur at similar levels in Africa.

[brighid]

This is an interesting discussion. Other then this theory of rdos does anyone have information about possible causes of autism and why it appears to be on the rise (either due to increased ability to determine and hence report, or some environmental, or genetic factor.)

I would appreciate some educated opinions as one of my nephews exhibits many autistic symptoms (although he would be classified as highly functioning), however he has not been diagnosed as such.

Thanks,
Brighid

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by rdos
It's pretty obvious that herd-mentality is the opposite of original thought. If you just follow the herd (IOW, copy, imitate), you will never question authorities and previous theories, and thus would not come up with original thought. It's as simple as that, actually.

What a lot of crap. All you have is a painstakingly erected house of cards glued together with some of the most tenuous correlations I've ever seen. It's no more impressive than the billion other crackpot hypotheses that pervade the imagination of cheap pseudoscience 'ducumentary' writers. Your postulation of the super creative neanderthal race is no more impressive than the idea that we get all our technology from the people of atlantis.

This one's my favourite, though. From a few posts back, in answer to the question 'Why did Early Human stone tools show such limited degrees of variation across time and space?' you suggest:

Because there is no need for change if you already have the best set. Hss needed change, since they weren't as roboust and strong as Hsn.

That is just eye-poppingly bad logic. Neanderthal tools show less variation than sapiens equivalents because the neanderthals were so damn clever that they got it right the first time. It couldn't possibly be due to a comparitive lack of creativity, because that would be contradictory to the hypothesis, and pseudoscience doesn't do things that way.

Finally, a question and prediction. If the evidence suggests what you say it does so clearly, how is it that so many qualified professionals have come to the exact opposite conclusions with such monotonous regularity that it has reached scientific consensus? Similarly, if your theory is as robust as you make it out to be, what is keeping it out of human anthropology journals? It sure sounds like noble prize material to me. What's holding you back?

Now my prediction. I imagine that your anwers to the above questions will invoke elements of conspiracy theory. I am waiting for you to say something like "Homo sapiens, being the unimaginative herd followers that they are, do not like to upset comfortable falsehoods, especially when they are so self congratulatory as the theory that Hss is the smartest homonid. True scientific progress is only made by those brilliant creative Neanderthals (like Einstein), who enjoy upsetting the consensus, and thats why everyone disagrees with me".

Delusions are like flavoursome nuts: it's hard to stop at one.

[GunnerJ]

HELPFUL LINKUPZ: The Crackpot Index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html)

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by GunnerJ
HELPFUL LINKUPZ: The Crackpot Index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html)

It's a shame that that index is specific to physics. I think we need one specifically for evolutionary biology.

[GunnerJ]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
It's a shame that that index is specific to physics. I think we need one specifically for evolutionary biology.

Although strangely enough, item number 8 still applies:

# 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

Actually, as his, erm, argument, seems to be that nearly all creative thinkers were hss/hsn hybrids, there's a good case to be made that this should be applied once for each creative genius that can be named.

[rdos]

I can see that you failed on the crack-pot index, because otherwise I'll see everything that matches. In fact, this made me evaluate it myself.

A -5 point starting credit.

"1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. "

Probably would apply.

"2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous."

I have no idea

"3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. "

Doesn't apply

"5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. "

Doesn't apply

"5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. "

Doesn't apply

"5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). "

Doesn't apply

"5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann". "

The theory doesn't mention any of them

"10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). "

I wish I did claim that, but it's irrelevant :-)

"10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. "

Nope. I don't point that out.

"10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. "

Doesn't apply. I date it's invention primarily because nobody should be able to claim THEY invented it.

"10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen. "

Nope. One the contrary. I encourage as many as possible to evaluate it.

"10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory. "

Doesn't apply

"10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it. "

Doesn't apply

"10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations". "

Doesn't apply. I do all research myself.

"10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it. "

Doesn't apply

"10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". "

Doesn't apply. Psychiatry has no theory.

"10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). "

Certainly doesn't apply

"10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift". "

Doesn't apply.

"20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index, e.g. saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8. "

Doesn't apply

"20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. "

Doesn't apply.

"20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). "

Doesn't apply

"20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact. "

Myth is a minor part of the theory.

"20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories. "

Doesn't apply

"20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary". "

Doesn't apply

"20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy". "

Doesn't apply

"30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.) "

Doesn't apply

"30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate. "

Doesn't apply

"30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence). "

Doesn't apply

"30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory. "

Doesn't apply

"40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts. "

Only apply to bashers

"40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. "

Doesn't apply. I want credits for the theory to be directed at the autism-community.

"40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on. "

Doesn't apply

"40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.) "

Might apply

"50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions. "

I already have

[rdos]

This one's my favourite, though. From a few posts back, in answer to the question 'Why did Early Human stone tools show such limited degrees of variation across time and space?' you suggest:

Because there is no need for change if you already have the best set. Hss needed change, since they weren't as roboust and strong as Hsn.

That is just eye-poppingly bad logic. Neanderthal tools show less variation than sapiens equivalents because the neanderthals were so damn clever that they got it right the first time. It couldn't possibly be due to a comparitive lack of creativity, because that would be contradictory to the hypothesis, and pseudoscience doesn't do things that way.

You obviously didn't understand the reasoning. Neanderthals (and their ancestors) had more than one million years to adapt their tools to an ice-age habitat. Hss arrived recently, and couldn't just use Neanderthal tools as they were, because they didn't share their morphological build. There is no bad logic in this.

You also missed the point that Neanderthals needed to be a lot more creative & inventive, because they didn't share inventions between groups. Technology transfer basically only occured when young males left their birth group. This is the reason why Neanderthals didn't invent civilization on their own either. This required traits from both species.

Finally, a question and prediction. If the evidence suggests what you say it does so clearly, how is it that so many qualified professionals have come to the exact opposite conclusions with such monotonous regularity that it has reached scientific consensus?

What would you expect with the herding mentalilty of paleoanthro? It took well over a 100 years for them to drop the primitive-brute label of Neanderthals. It's only with extreme slowness that clear evidence of Neanderthal abilities is accepted. The Divje Babe flute is still not acknowledged as a flute, despite it's unique line-up. Despite several reports of DNA that doesn't support OoA, they have not abondonded the theory.

Similarly, if your theory is as robust as you make it out to be, what is keeping it out of human anthropology journals? It sure sounds like noble prize material to me. What's holding you back

I'm not interested in fame. The credit should go to the aspie-community.

Now my prediction. I imagine that your anwers to the above questions will invoke elements of conspiracy theory. I am waiting for you to say something like "Homo sapiens, being the unimaginative herd followers that they are, do not like to upset comfortable falsehoods, especially when they are so self congratulatory as the theory that Hss is the smartest homonid. True scientific progress is only made by those brilliant creative Neanderthals (like Einstein), who enjoy upsetting the consensus, and thats why everyone disagrees with me".

Sorry to disapoint you, but that kind of reasoning is not mine. I'm only interested in helping autistics to get credit for their talents.

[lpetrich]

There is, however, evidence that the Neanderthals were less-than-smart about hunting large animals.

They are known to have had a pattern of injuries that is common in present-day rodeo performers, suggesting that they hunted in much the same way, trying to wrestle their prey.

Which isn't the smartest way to hunt. :)

[rdos]

Yes, I know of those claims, and actually agree they would have been primitive, dumb, brutes if they hunted like that.

However, I don't think anybody would be as stupid as that, so my suggestion is that when we see animal wrestling injuries, this is bound to have been caused by wrestling domestic / semi-domestic animals.

In fact, the flute find fits pretty well into this picture, as well as the phalange whistles from Crimea. Here in Sweden our folk-music indeed originated from pastoral music. Music is a very sophisticated way of handling animals, and Hss didn't "invent" this until fairly recently.

So, in fact, this is yet another evidence for their smartness, and the cluelessness of paleoanthro.

[Doubting Didymus]

Just to point something out:

My prediction was that rdos would answer the question "why does the concensus of professionals oppose your theory" with something along the lines of:
"Homo sapiens, being the unimaginative herd followers that they are, do not like to upset comfortable falsehoods"

To this, rdos responds:
Sorry to disapoint you, but that kind of reasoning is not mine. I'm only interested in helping autistics to get credit for their talents.

However, casting my eyes just three inches skywards reveals this as rdos's actual answer:
What would you expect with the herding mentalilty of paleoanthro?

So despite the protestations, my prediction was indeed fulfilled. Why is everyone against my theory? Why, because they are all herd followers. If only they would open their minds, and embrace the revolution they would agree with me in a shot.

Also of note, when asked "why not publish your theory and claim the nobel prize or some equivalent plus cash reward?" The all too predictable answer was:
I'm not interested in fame. The credit should go to the aspie-community.

Naturally, it couldn't possibly be to do with the probability of being laughed out the door. Besides, the people who judge those prizes are almost certainly herd followers, just like everyone else who disagrees with rdos.

[HeatherD]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this page: Racial aspect (http://www.rdos.net/eng/race.htm)

I'd really like to see the actual studies used to prove this:[list=1] Negroes have lower average IQ and smaller average cranial volume. There are studies that confirm that autistic children both have larger cranial capacity and IQ. Most importantly, the group with IQ lower than 70, identified with classical autism, is much smaller than the Asperger group. Mean IQ south of Sahara is believed to be 70. Negroes mature faster. There is lots of evidence that autistic people mature slower and longer than NTs. Negroes are more sexually active, and less faithful in relations. Many Asperger-people have disinterest in sex, and are extremely faithful. Negroes have better motor performance. "Deficits" in motor performance is part of the Asperger diagnosis. Determination. Negroes are more "impulsive". Special interest and extreme determination is part of the Asperger diagnosis. Creativity. Negroes have no history of creative inventions. They hadn't even invented a written language nor many other basic inventions. There is no ancient civilizations south of Sahara like the one's in Egypt and Eurasia. Egypt most likely was founded by outsiders (Caucasians). Asperger is related with creativity.[/list=1]

[Doubting Didymus]

Ahhhh... so those stupid uncreative herd following original homo sapiens are still with us, and are known as everyones favourite racial punching bag, the 'negroes'. Let me guess... did hybridisation with neanderthals happen to have anything to do with white skin?

[Quetzal]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Ahhhh... so those stupid uncreative herd following original homo sapiens are still with us, and are known as everyones favourite racial punching bag, the 'negroes'. Let me guess... did hybridisation with neanderthals happen to have anything to do with white skin?

Oh my oh my. Our friend rdos is basing that entire selection of - erm - material on J.P. Rushton's work. To say that Rushton's methodology and conclusions have been disputed would be an understatement. Any friend-of-convenience is valid, I suppose.

[rdos]

And you here have just demonstrated why this is the case. It's because even though this is essential for the theory, the arguments will nevertheless be used to label it as racistic.

Besides, the proof of the racial aspects is in JP Rushtons works, and they have NOT been refuted. There is a link to the relevant literature, and all excerpts are from his book. Skin color of course has nothing to do with this.

This whole discussion has lead into the very same argumentation that is used to "refute" Rushton. Name-calling, flaming and argumentation of issues that are irrelevant. I have no desire to continue that discussion, unless somebody presents some REAL objections.

The theory has also been updated to cover the refute possibilities.

[Doubting Didymus]

Rdos. You do not have a case that is strong enough to be worth considering. A refutation is not neccessary.

There are people that go to the bother of running around refuting crackpot hypotheses like homeopathy, crystal healing, alien abductions and God, but for myself I think such tactics miss the point. If you don't have a good enough case, your hypothesis isn't worth considering in the first place. You have nothing but loose speculations, and the reason your theory isn't considered by experts in the field is not that they lack the magic creativity, but that you have simply not made a strong case.

[Doubting Didymus]

By the way, I'm interested in how you explain autism spectrum disorders that do have fairly obvious accidental causes. My young brother in law, for example, is a textbook case of autism with a 'normal' karyotype, but his 2 year old cousin displays similar symptoms as a result of a rather nasty chromosome translocation. Would you argue that my brother in law receives autism because of his neanderthal heritage, but that the reason his cousin has the same condition because of defective genetics? Perhaps you will suggest that the translocation is incidental, and she would have been autistic anyway?

[rdos]

Doubting, there are no environmental causes of autism, neither is there any "defective gene" causes (whatever a defective gene is).

So, answering your question, one autistic can have other severe problems besides autism, but his autism is not caused by them.

I've already explained that autism is caused by many different genes, and some of those genes cause disease when combined with non-autistic genes. Its just like any other complex system, like a computer system. If you try to run code for Windows on Linux, this will rarely succeed because the operating systems are not compatible. It's the same with autism. You need extensive adaptions (analogue to compability layers in OSes) to be able to interact with non-autistics. However, compabitlity layers in OSes are not efficient, and neither are adaptions in autism.

As for professionals looking into it, you're wrong. There are professionals looking into certain parts of it.

[Wounded King]

A defective gene? Well I'd say that a gene with a mutation rendering its protein product would be pretty defective, wouldn't you?

[Quetzal]

Originally posted by rdos
And you here have just demonstrated why this is the case. It's because even though this is essential for the theory, the arguments will nevertheless be used to label it as racistic.

Besides, the proof of the racial aspects is in JP Rushtons works, and they have NOT been refuted. There is a link to the relevant literature, and all excerpts are from his book. Skin color of course has nothing to do with this.

This whole discussion has lead into the very same argumentation that is used to "refute" Rushton. Name-calling, flaming and argumentation of issues that are irrelevant. I have no desire to continue that discussion, unless somebody presents some REAL objections.

The theory has also been updated to cover the refute possibilities.
While I have very little comment about your neanderthal/autism theory, I certainly beg to differ with you concerning the validity of Rushton's work. There is quite a bit of very misleading, sloppy, or downright erroneous "work" in his book(s). To mention just a few examples:

1. He makes a fundamental error with his attempts to conflate r and K reproductive strategies with sociocultural behaviors. For reference, he fails to mention that r strategists are almost invariably small, short-generation organisms whereas K strategists are generally large, long-generation organisms. IOW, there are NO large r strategists, and no small K strategists. Humans are ALL biological K strategists, in spite of Rushton's claim to to contrary. Even so, evolutionary biologists are aware that r- and K-selection theory is a bit controversial (in the sense that it isn't a universal truism), and really only appears to apply to certain groups - which again Rushton fails to mention. Beyond that, his attempts to define cultural or social behaviors based on r- and K-selection, and then couple that with anatomical measurements are completely divorced from any empirical support. Rushton's entire premise appears to rest on the descredited concept of biological determinism.

2. He performed no empirical work of his own, rather relying on existing literature for his measurements and classification system. I hasten to add that in and of itself this is NOT a negative. In fact it's not uncommon when scientists are working out new theoretical approaches. However, the choice of references/literature is crucial in this case, and should reflect both the best available recent data AND show that an exhaustive effort was made to cover ALL the relevant literature. I find it problematic for his fundamental assumptions that one of the principal works he used for his racial traits/classification (i.e., the Mongoloid/Asian, Caucasoid, and Negroid classifications) are based on material published in 1896. The material might be a bit dated, don't you think?

3. Point 2 leads to my principal objection to Rushton’s entire premise: the fact that extreme variation among “black” sub-Saharan African populations renders his “average traits” utterly useless from a scientific standpoint. Contrast the vast phenotypical variance between a Khoisan from the Namib, an Efe pygmy from the Ituri Forest, a Nuar from southern Sudan, Tuareg nomads from the Grand Erg, a Batutsi from Burundi, or a Zulu from Natal. You have every conceivable size, shade, facial structure, and yes brainvolume/body mass ratio you can imagine. There’s more phenotypical variation between so-called “black” populations than there is between some hypothetical “white” European average and Inuit. And ALL variation is quite readily explainable by natural selection operating on isolated populations over the generations. Anything more than a general observation of Bergmann's and Allen’s Rules and a note that certain genetic differences based on adaptation (i.e. sickle cell trait, high-altitude adaptation, lactose tolerance, etc.) is pure bunk. Nothing he wrote can even remotely be considered diagnostic of any “race” in a biological sense – and especially provides no basis for a determination of “primitive” or “advanced”, let alone be correlated with intelligence.

There may very well be a valid biological method of "race" determination, if we use "race" in the sense of "isolated populations which show higher frequency of specific alleles than other populations". However, every genetic study thus far has shown that humans are very homogenous overall as to genotype - much more so than our nearest primate cousins, for instance. Rushton's attempt to say otherwise calls into question his entire basic hypothesis. If as you state Rushton's work is "essential to [your] theory", you may have more trouble than you thought.

Oh, and btw, I never said anything about Rushton and racism. That was YOUR interpretation. Struck a nerve, did I? Of course, if you want to get into that particular argument, it's quite easy to do. However, it is both ad hominem - which is unecessary with Rushton's science being questionable - and irrelevant to your theory (I assume).

[rdos]

As clearly is stated on the "race" page, I don't think Rushton has got the cause of the variation on r/K selection right.

As for r selection being exclusively found in short-lived organisms and K selection in long-lived, I have no problem with that. As is demonstrated in the theory, Neanderthals were more long-lived than us. There is no inconsistence there, at least not in my reasoning. I also don't buy Rushtons argument that r/K selection happened after the OoA event. Instead, r/K selection is caused by inheriting genes from Neanderthals and Homo erectus in Asia.

In fact, I also point out that the difference between races in r/K selection AND IQ, is solely caused by the autism / Neanderthal genes, and this advantage is offset by lesser social abilities in most of those individuals. Therefore, I don't propose that blacks are inferior. They just have a different competence profile.

Biological determinism has nothing to do with anything. IQ & many other traits have genetic predispositions. Very few traits are either totally genetic or totally cultural.

Regarding empirical work on race & IQ. That's virtually impossible to do with today's dogmas. It's inevitable the reasoning must be based on research done when race-issues weren't politically incorrect. Besides, today's IQ tests has been biased so that they no longer meassure "g"-factor, rather something completely different.

The empiricial evidence of the genetic difference between Africans and non-Africans is actually very large. It's well known that these go well beyong skin color. Usually research on this is by the medical industry, because there is differences in diseases & treatments. It's also well known that many genes are different. This doesn't have to mean that all Africans have one allele and everybody else has another. The distribution is clinal, and varies between traits, as is expected when dealing with races rather than species.

J