paxfilosoof wrote:
It's always so funny how people rant so much on the neanderthaler theory, when in fact, other theories of autism have much more problems in predictions.
We'll see in the future if it turns out to be correct, we need some autistic researchers for proposing such theories in peer-reviewed journals and maybe we'll have eventually evidence for neanderthaler theory. The theory exist for like 12 years now, and still not disproved.
I'm really curious for peer-reviewed research in this theory. I really hope someday someone is going to test it, and if this is not the case, I'll test it and try to become a researcher in the fields needed. Other theories of autism (intense world theory not) are in my opinion to simple and not all encompassing.
Currently, mentioning this possibility in peer-reviewed research will mean your article will be rejected.
Another problem has to do with how neurodiversity is partitioned onto a zillion different DSM labels, and mixed up with environmental problems. That's a framework that will never lead anywhere. That's another obstacle for publishing something. It's simply not possible to argue around DSM diagnoses and prove those are partially related to Neanderthal ancestry, because we have a heap of problems, and no positive traits, and such a thing could not be adaptive anywhere, not even in a different species.
That's why the first step is to publish a neurodiversity-test that can stand on it's own that contains traits with a possible evolutionary background. Once this is done, I think it will be possible to publish the neanderthal theory as well in some form.
09 Jun 2013, 3:59 pm
