3 ms·

I had a coworker that non-ironically said "I think autism is the next stage of human evolution"

blamestross 5y ago
I think it is realistic to say that having neurodiversity kicking around the genepool is evolutionarily beneficial. Social animals probably benefit from have a stable set of neurodiverse outliers showing up in the population. This is only more true as we invented oral history and civilization. We can mitigate the disadvantage and leverage the benefits of rarer perspectives. I'd argue high intelligence alone is a neurodiversity, we just don't pathologize it. It has plenty of undesirable side effects too. We also have situations where 3+ sigma outliers in brain function don't see any benefits at all and need constant support to survive in our environment (natural and societal). So, no autism isn't the next stage of evolution, but having somebody with 2 sigma deviation from normal cognition existing and contributing to society is probably more of a good thing than a bad one.
- caddemon 5y ago
  I certainly wouldn't call it the next stage of evolution, but it does seem to be increasing in prevalence with at least some of the cause lying in genetics: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2765489 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/... I am curious to see how the population changes over time as a result of increased freedoms for women. It's only really been a couple generations so far (and only in some countries), but now that women and men are on more equal footing when choosing a partner (and both sexes are more likely to settle outside their hometown) you end up with a lot more pairings that match career status and to some extent intelligence. There's definitely going to be (on average) a difference in offspring between an MIT dude that married his secretary and one that married someone also from MIT, and for all we know the former may be healthier, especially as you extend this N generations. Of course that's a drop in the bucket relative to overall population size, but I think the effect could exist across various societal groupings.
- webnrrd2k 5y ago
  I agree that neurodiversity is ultimately a good thing for humanity as a whole, long-term[1]. Just to expand on that with a quick example: one way of thinking about people who join groups vs. loners is that, most of the time the "joiners" will do better, overall. However, if there is an event that kills off that group of joiners, then the loners are still around to keep going and recover from the loss. [1] I'm thinking of evolutionary-level time frames here. There are certainly problems on a shorter-term, individual level, which most of the comments address.
FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
Pretty sure autism reduces reproductive fitness. Though, assortative mating could mean that the autistic minority develops ever-stronger autism.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

I think it is realistic to say that having neurodiversity kicking around the genepool is evolutionarily beneficial. Social animals probably benefit from have a stable set of neurodiverse outliers showing up in the population. This is only more true as we invented oral history and civilization. We can mitigate the disadvantage and leverage the benefits of rarer perspectives. I'd argue high intelligence alone is a neurodiversity, we just don't pathologize it. It has plenty of undesirable side effects too. We also have situations where 3+ sigma outliers in brain function don't see any benefits at all and need constant support to survive in our environment (natural and societal). So, no autism isn't the next stage of evolution, but having somebody with 2 sigma deviation from normal cognition existing and contributing to society is probably more of a good thing than a bad one.

caddemon 5y ago
I certainly wouldn't call it the next stage of evolution, but it does seem to be increasing in prevalence with at least some of the cause lying in genetics: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2765489 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/... I am curious to see how the population changes over time as a result of increased freedoms for women. It's only really been a couple generations so far (and only in some countries), but now that women and men are on more equal footing when choosing a partner (and both sexes are more likely to settle outside their hometown) you end up with a lot more pairings that match career status and to some extent intelligence. There's definitely going to be (on average) a difference in offspring between an MIT dude that married his secretary and one that married someone also from MIT, and for all we know the former may be healthier, especially as you extend this N generations. Of course that's a drop in the bucket relative to overall population size, but I think the effect could exist across various societal groupings.
webnrrd2k 5y ago
I agree that neurodiversity is ultimately a good thing for humanity as a whole, long-term[1]. Just to expand on that with a quick example: one way of thinking about people who join groups vs. loners is that, most of the time the "joiners" will do better, overall. However, if there is an event that kills off that group of joiners, then the loners are still around to keep going and recover from the loss. [1] I'm thinking of evolutionary-level time frames here. There are certainly problems on a shorter-term, individual level, which most of the comments address.

FooBarBizBazz 5y ago

Pretty sure autism reduces reproductive fitness. Though, assortative mating could mean that the autistic minority develops ever-stronger autism.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]