Autism Advantages in Humans' Hunter-Gatherer Past
03 Jun 2011, 10:56 pm
ScienceDaily (June 3, 2011) — Though people with autism face many challenges because of their condition, they may have been capable hunter-gatherers in prehistoric times, according to a paper published in the journal Evolutionary Psychology in May.
The autism spectrum may represent not disease, but an ancient way of life for a minority of ancestral humans, said Jared Reser, a brain science researcher and doctoral candidate in the USC Psychology Department.
Some of the genes that contribute to autism may have been selected and maintained because they created beneficial behaviors in a solitary environment, amounting to an autism advantage, Reser said.
The "autism advantage," a relatively new perspective, contends that sometimes autism has compensating benefits, including increased abilities for spatial intelligence, concentration and memory. Although individuals with autism have trouble with social cognition, their other cognitive abilities are sometimes largely intact.
The paper looks at how autism's strengths may have played a role in evolution. Individuals on the autism spectrum would have had the mental tools to be self-sufficient foragers in environments marked by diminished social contact, Reser said.
The penchant for obsessive, repetitive activities would have been focused by hunger and thirst towards the learning and refinement of hunting and gathering skills.
Today autistic children are fed by their parents so hunger does not guide their interests and activities. Because they can obtain food free of effort, their interests are redirected toward nonsocial activities, such as stacking blocks, flipping light switches or collecting bottle tops, Reser said.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 122849.htm
_________________
Everything is falling.
03 Jun 2011, 11:10 pm
Thanks. I love these papers. Here's the full pdf just in case anybody is interested in reading the full piece.
http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP09207238.pdf
03 Jun 2011, 11:32 pm
Also being discussed in this thread:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf163462-0-30.html
It is similar to the "Neanderthal Theory of Autism", in that it suggests that some prehistoric Hunter and Gatherers benefitted from Autistic Traits.
Interesting, but I find some of his statements hard to digest, per comments in the other thread.
I think it is possible that variants of the Neanderthal genes (which are the equivalent of the chimpanzee version of these genes) that are suggested to exist in 1 to 4% of the human genome outside of ethnic Africa, today, may possibly be correlated to Autism, as suggested by another poster in the linked thread; a defective variant called Auts2 has been linked to Auitism in a study of identical twins with Autism.
I don't see how we can ever prove, though, that some prehistoric hunter and gatherers had Autistic traits, and that there were solitary foragers that benefitted from these traits in those prehistoric times.
We don't even have the historical accounts of behavior, to make a diagnostic guess, as we do with Einstein. 
Last edited by aghogday on 05 Jun 2011, 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
03 Jun 2011, 11:53 pm
I really liked the evolutionary arguments. One major thing the author forgets to mention (I skimmed the full pdf piece-I hope I didn't miss it) is the sensory issues autistics often have may also have been a big advantage in the past (extra-sensitivity to sounds, smells, etc.). The problem is that in today's modern society there is way too much sensory and social information: overstimulation to sounds/lights/smells, forced social interactions, etc. What may have been an advantage in the past is a big disadvantage in today's society. I wonder how ASDs who live in small. modern hunter and gatherer societies do?
Last edited by Kon on 04 Jun 2011, 7:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
04 Jun 2011, 12:03 am
Interesting.
Wondering if the genetic bottleneck 60,000 years ago had any bearing on autism as a trait? If it is true that humans were reduced to 15,000 individuals world wide and that the Toba supervolcano eruption was to blame, this theory of the solitary forager makes alot of sense. This would have been a period in time when it was most needed.
Interesting stuff...
04 Jun 2011, 12:19 am
Hunter-gatherer societies went through periods of time where some number of their members lived in a "solitary environment?" And apparently did so for a substantial length of time? But were still able to return to this society at some point or other and pass along their genes?
Assuming the above is a fair assessment of the link posted, I'd have to see empirical proof of hunter-gatherer societies functioning this way to even consider it anything but nonsense. The little I've read about the topic all suggests -- to me, anyways -- that such a society would be intensely social, and that anyone walking away from it from it for an extended time would not be welcomed back. Why would they be? And (assuming it is a male who did the walking away) why would any woman want to breed with him? She and her child would be at a decided disadvantage vs. other members of the group when our proto-autistic skedaddled to his "solitary environment" again, presuming some vague idea of paternity and what that meant existed in-group.
I'm also thinking of the behavior of non-human higher primates (gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos) to whom the group is everything, maybe meaning even more to them than to humans. The exception being orangutans, but the males are solitary for virtually their entire lives there, so there's no group in the first place to either leave or return to. Just throwing that out since it isn't clear when this supposedly happened, as best I could tell it could refer to any period from Homo Erectus through Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
I'd say the only thing definitively proven by this article is that there are far too many P.hDs in psychology being awarded these days.
_________________
"The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." ? Bertrand Russell
04 Jun 2011, 1:12 am
WorldsEdge wrote:
Hunter-gatherer societies went through periods of time where some number of their members lived in a "solitary environment?" And apparently did so for a substantial length of time? But were still able to return to this society at some point or other and pass along their genes?
Assuming the above is a fair assessment of the link posted, I'd have to see empirical proof of hunter-gatherer societies functioning this way to even consider it anything but nonsense. The little I've read about the topic all suggests -- to me, anyways -- that such a society would be intensely social, and that anyone walking away from it from it for an extended time would not be welcomed back. Why would they be? And (assuming it is a male who did the walking away) why would any woman want to breed with him? She and her child would be at a decided disadvantage vs. other members of the group when our proto-autistic skedaddled to his "solitary environment" again, presuming some vague idea of paternity and what that meant existed in-group.
I'm also thinking of the behavior of non-human higher primates (gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos) to whom the group is everything, maybe meaning even more to them than to humans. The exception being orangutans, but the males are solitary for virtually their entire lives there, so there's no group in the first place to either leave or return to. Just throwing that out since it isn't clear when this supposedly happened, as best I could tell it could refer to any period from Homo Erectus through Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
I'd say the only thing definitively proven by this article is that there are far too many P.hDs in psychology being awarded these days.
Assuming the above is a fair assessment of the link posted, I'd have to see empirical proof of hunter-gatherer societies functioning this way to even consider it anything but nonsense. The little I've read about the topic all suggests -- to me, anyways -- that such a society would be intensely social, and that anyone walking away from it from it for an extended time would not be welcomed back. Why would they be? And (assuming it is a male who did the walking away) why would any woman want to breed with him? She and her child would be at a decided disadvantage vs. other members of the group when our proto-autistic skedaddled to his "solitary environment" again, presuming some vague idea of paternity and what that meant existed in-group.
I'm also thinking of the behavior of non-human higher primates (gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos) to whom the group is everything, maybe meaning even more to them than to humans. The exception being orangutans, but the males are solitary for virtually their entire lives there, so there's no group in the first place to either leave or return to. Just throwing that out since it isn't clear when this supposedly happened, as best I could tell it could refer to any period from Homo Erectus through Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
I'd say the only thing definitively proven by this article is that there are far too many P.hDs in psychology being awarded these days.
Modern Hunter gatherer societies are egalitarian by culture, and cooperation between individuals means survival. Our society allows us to do without others to a greater degree than what could possibly work in a hunter and gatherer culture.
There are autistic people among Aboriginal cultures and they require the same kind of support that autistic people require everywhere.
However, the genetic influence among aborigine culture today is not the same that existed in the time of the Neanderthal. They had crude weapons and cooperative effort would have been necessary for safety and success in their hunting endeavors.
I'm sure there were instances where people had to hunt alone to survive when groups populations were reduced because of disease or other causes, but it would not be an advantageous situation for survival.
The referenced article was published in an online source "Evolutionary Psychology" that has a requirement that the manuscript not be under peer review or published in another source. So it is just starting it's journey in the scientific community. The author is looking for corraborative evidence from scientists in fields like anthropology.
And, the author is seeking a Doctorate Degree.
04 Jun 2011, 1:59 am
Interesting read.
Side note, I built my first functional bow/arrow by age 5 with random materials found in my backyard. I learned rock splintering techniques to form functional and sharp arrowheads. Weaving and preserving techniques of fibrous plant materials for string, and binds. The whole thing, from scratch, with no guidance. After another year or so, of off and on interest, I had managed to craft one that was both potentially deadly, and rather accurate. I assume this anecdote is meaningless, yet still felt it relevant.
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
04 Jun 2011, 7:36 pm
aghogday wrote:
Modern Hunter gatherer societies are egalitarian by culture,
Utter nonsense. Modern Hunter gatherer societies are violent patriarchies, with what I will grant are a few minor exceptions, say among the !Kung. And even in their case you can make a case only against the society being a patriarchy, but not against the society as being extremely violent.
Or would you care to make a case for the "egalitarianism" found among the Yanomamo?
The status of women generally:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomamo_women
Violence
The Yanomamo people have a history of acting extremely violently not only towards other tribes, but towards one another.[12] Men generally initiate this violence, and women are often victims of physical abuse and anger. Inter-village warfare is common, but does not too commonly affect women. When Yanomamo tribes fight and raid nearby tribes, women are often raped, beaten, and brought back to their shabono to be kept in their tribe. During the raids, Yanomamo men capture and bring back the other women in hopes of marrying them. Wives are beaten on a regular basis, so as to keep them “in order” and faithful to their husbands.[12] Sexual jealousy causes a majority of the violence.[1]
Women are beaten with clubs, sticks, machetes, and other blunt or sharp objects. Burning with a branding stick occurs often, and symbolizes a male’s strength or dominance over his wife.[10]
Violence
The Yanomamo people have a history of acting extremely violently not only towards other tribes, but towards one another.[12] Men generally initiate this violence, and women are often victims of physical abuse and anger. Inter-village warfare is common, but does not too commonly affect women. When Yanomamo tribes fight and raid nearby tribes, women are often raped, beaten, and brought back to their shabono to be kept in their tribe. During the raids, Yanomamo men capture and bring back the other women in hopes of marrying them. Wives are beaten on a regular basis, so as to keep them “in order” and faithful to their husbands.[12] Sexual jealousy causes a majority of the violence.[1]
Women are beaten with clubs, sticks, machetes, and other blunt or sharp objects. Burning with a branding stick occurs often, and symbolizes a male’s strength or dominance over his wife.[10]
The status of women politically:
Quote:
Politics
In Yanomamo culture, a woman can never be a shaman, or even a headman. This is due to the fact that headmen are expected to be peacekeepers and valiant warriors, both of which require force and violence, which women are not considered to have in Yanomamo culture. In this society, women gain respect as they age, after they marry and have children. Elderly women are very respected, and ultimately can become immune to violence and warfare between villages. They are immune from the violence of raiders and can safely travel from one village to another without fear of injury.[12] Usually, elderly women are expected to recover the body of a slain Yanomamo who was killed in a raid.[10] Although women are disrespected and belittled at a young age, they are respected and looked highly upon when they age, and have much power in tribal politics and decision-making.
In Yanomamo culture, a woman can never be a shaman, or even a headman. This is due to the fact that headmen are expected to be peacekeepers and valiant warriors, both of which require force and violence, which women are not considered to have in Yanomamo culture. In this society, women gain respect as they age, after they marry and have children. Elderly women are very respected, and ultimately can become immune to violence and warfare between villages. They are immune from the violence of raiders and can safely travel from one village to another without fear of injury.[12] Usually, elderly women are expected to recover the body of a slain Yanomamo who was killed in a raid.[10] Although women are disrespected and belittled at a young age, they are respected and looked highly upon when they age, and have much power in tribal politics and decision-making.
Either you have an interesting definition of "egalitarianism" or, well, you're simply wrong in your generalizing statement. Which I submit is the case, but I respectfully await your rebuttal. Hell, I'll even offer some helpful hints:
(1) If you cite the !Kung you're forced into the curious position of claiming that egalitarianism and extreme violence go hand in hand. Women can achieve political power, but they've traditionally had a murder rate multiples higher than that found even in the US.
(2) And I see no way you can shoehorn egalitarianism into the Yanomamo....To recap: Among the Yanomamo women can never be leaders, are never consulted on political decisions, are subjected to savage violence on an almost daily basis, but might get some respect should they manage to live to an old age. And given their treatment, I can't see very many reaching that stage. But, whatever. With them, I await your rebuttal with what I admit is curiosity.
And (3) these two groups are the first that occurred to me. I could have mentioned others, as best I recall closer in culture to the Yanomamo than the !Kung. I suggest you simply admit your error, retract that claim and move on, but if that statement is one you're wedded to, I'm more than willing to lock horns with you over it.
Quote:
and cooperation between individuals means survival. Our society allows us to do without others to a greater degree than what could possibly work in a hunter and gatherer culture.
There are autistic people among Aboriginal cultures and they require the same kind of support that autistic people require everywhere.
There are autistic people among Aboriginal cultures and they require the same kind of support that autistic people require everywhere.
And so what? The original link claimed autism conferred a genetic advantage of some sort, and offered no empirical evidence or even logical coherence in defense of said claim. And that is where I had an issue. Curiously, in fact, it seems you yourself disagree with the article's claim, or I am misinterpreting what you mean by "cooperation between individuals means survival." What I put in quotes is exactly what the article claimed did NOT always mean survival.
Quote:
However, the genetic influence among aborigine culture today is not the same that existed in the time of the Neanderthal. They had crude weapons and cooperative effort would have been necessary for safety and success in their hunting endeavors.
What on earth does this mean? I didn't mention Neanderthals, the linked article didn't mention Neanderthals. A very strange red herring?
Quote:
I'm sure there were instances where people had to hunt alone to survive when groups populations were reduced because of disease or other causes, but it would not be an advantageous situation for survival.
Umm, does this mean you're agreeing with me and disagreeing with the article?
Quote:
The referenced article was published in an online source "Evolutionary Psychology" that has a requirement that the manuscript not be under peer review or published in another source. So it is just starting it's journey in the scientific community. The author is looking for corraborative evidence from scientists in fields like anthropology.
Since the author offers no evidence that I could see, what exactly is going to be corroborated? And why would he only seek corroborating evidence (presuming there's evidence in the first place) and not be willing to look at all the evidence? Do you consider such an attitude scientific?
Oh, and speaking of scientists, you are aware that the American Anthropological Association, or at least its leadership, seemingly gags on the term "science" itself? If not, please see: No Science, Please. We're Anthropologists. (link) for an overview. And their response when this came to light is one of the oddest documents I think I've ever read. (Link-See here) First, it doesn't address the actual issue, why they're dropping the word "science." Second, it simply piles irrelevancy upon irrelevancy. Third, aww...screw it. I think I've made my point here, that to be an Anthropologist is not necessarily to be a scientist at the same time. So, when he goes looking for anthropologists, do you have any idea how he'll tell which ones are scientists and which ones aren't?
Quote:
And, the author is seeking a Doctorate Degree.
You're joking, right? Please tell me you are. I truly hope that's the case, and not that you are ignorant of the fact that the degree conferred upon someone earning a doctorate in psychology is a Ph.D.
And if that really is news to you, well, here's the proof:
Quote:
http://psychology.usc.edu/doctoral/areas-brain-cognitive-science.cfm
Brain and Cognitive Science
The Ph.D. program in Brain and Cognitive Science at the University of Southern California provides comprehensive training for students with a keen interest in understanding cognition, motivation, emotion and perception in terms of the underlying brain processes and manifested behaviors. Our Faculty have world reknowned expertise in a wide range of areas. We prepare our graduates to be at the forefront of knowledge creation in one of the most exciting fields of our time, at the confluence of psychology, biology and neuroscience.
Brain and Cognitive Science
The Ph.D. program in Brain and Cognitive Science at the University of Southern California provides comprehensive training for students with a keen interest in understanding cognition, motivation, emotion and perception in terms of the underlying brain processes and manifested behaviors. Our Faculty have world reknowned expertise in a wide range of areas. We prepare our graduates to be at the forefront of knowledge creation in one of the most exciting fields of our time, at the confluence of psychology, biology and neuroscience.
The author of the piece is enrolled in a doctorate program (the one linked to above) from which he will emerge with a degree called a Ph.D. Thus to say someone has a doctorate in psychology is to say that they have a Ph.D. Okay? Get it now? (But I still sincerely hope you were joking.)
_________________
"The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." ? Bertrand Russell
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
04 Jun 2011, 7:48 pm
Because having a low muscle tone is so beneficial in hunting... 
NarcissusSavage wrote:
Interesting read.
Side note, I built my first functional bow/arrow by age 5 with random materials found in my backyard. I learned rock splintering techniques to form functional and sharp arrowheads. Weaving and preserving techniques of fibrous plant materials for string, and binds. The whole thing, from scratch, with no guidance. After another year or so, of off and on interest, I had managed to craft one that was both potentially deadly, and rather accurate. I assume this anecdote is meaningless, yet still felt it relevant.
Side note, I built my first functional bow/arrow by age 5 with random materials found in my backyard. I learned rock splintering techniques to form functional and sharp arrowheads. Weaving and preserving techniques of fibrous plant materials for string, and binds. The whole thing, from scratch, with no guidance. After another year or so, of off and on interest, I had managed to craft one that was both potentially deadly, and rather accurate. I assume this anecdote is meaningless, yet still felt it relevant.
I don't think it's relevant. Not every autist is a genius able to learn and having the manual skills to make a deadly and accurate bow at 6 years old. I'm certainly not...
_________________
Down with speculators!! !
04 Jun 2011, 9:02 pm
WorldsEdge wrote:
Utter nonsense. Modern Hunter gatherer societies are violent patriarchies, with what I will grant are a few minor exceptions, say among the !Kung. And even in their case you can make a case only against the society being a patriarchy, but not against the society as being extremely violent.
I'm not sure what the discussion is but I think his arguments are that most hunter-gatherer societies are believed to have been/are egalitarian (particularly the more mobile ones) as argued in these reviews:
1. Johnson AW, Earle T (1987) The evolution of human societies. From foraging group to agrarian state. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
2. Knauft BB (1991) Violence and sociality in human evolution. Current Anthropology 32: 391–428.
3. Boehm C (1999) Hierarchy in the forest. The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Here's an interesting model on this related topic:
"Dynamics of alliance formation and the egalitarian revolution."
Arguably the most influential force in human history is the formation of social coalitions and alliances (i.e., long-lasting coalitions) and their impact on individual power. Understanding the dynamics of alliance formation and its consequences for biological, social, and cultural evolution is a formidable theoretical challenge. In most great ape species, coalitions occur at individual and group levels and among both kin and non-kin. Nonetheless, ape societies remain essentially hierarchical, and coalitions rarely weaken social inequality. In contrast, human hunter-gatherers show a remarkable tendency to egalitarianism, and human coalitions and alliances occur not only among individuals and groups, but also among groups of groups. These observations suggest that the evolutionary dynamics of human coalitions can only be understood in the context of social networks and cognitive evolution.
...We propose a simple and flexible theoretical approach for studying the dynamics of alliance emergence applicable where game-theoretic methods are not practical. Our approach is both scalable and expandable. It is scalable in that it can be generalized to larger groups, or groups of groups. It is expandable in that it allows for inclusion of additional factors such as behavioral, genetic, social, and cultural features. Our results suggest that a rapid transition from a hierarchical society of great apes to an egalitarian society of hunter-gatherers (often referred to as ‘‘egalitarian revolution’’) could indeed follow an increase in human cognitive abilities. The establishment of stable group-wide egalitarian alliances creates conditions promoting the origin of cultural norms favoring the group interests over those of individuals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 003293.pdf
http://svenssonresearchlaboratory.blogs ... on-in.html
Also from wiki (I didn't check the references):
Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have relatively non-hierarchical, egalitarian social structures. This might have been more pronounced in the more mobile societies, which generally are not able to store surplus food. They never stayed in a place for more than a week. Thus, full-time leaders, bureaucrats, or artisans are rarely supported by these societies.[15][16][17] In addition to social and economic equality in hunter-gatherer societies there is often, though not always, sexual parity as well.[15][18] Hunter-gatherers are often grouped together based on kinship and band (or tribe) membership.[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gat ... sahlins-20
05 Jun 2011, 12:55 am
WorldsEdge wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Modern Hunter gatherer societies are egalitarian by culture,
Utter nonsense. Modern Hunter gatherer societies are violent patriarchies, with what I will grant are a few minor exceptions, say among the !Kung. And even in their case you can make a case only against the society being a patriarchy, but not against the society as being extremely violent.
Or would you care to make a case for the "egalitarianism" found among the Yanomamo?
The status of women generally:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomamo_women
Violence
The Yanomamo people have a history of acting extremely violently not only towards other tribes, but towards one another.[12] Men generally initiate this violence, and women are often victims of physical abuse and anger. Inter-village warfare is common, but does not too commonly affect women. When Yanomamo tribes fight and raid nearby tribes, women are often raped, beaten, and brought back to their shabono to be kept in their tribe. During the raids, Yanomamo men capture and bring back the other women in hopes of marrying them. Wives are beaten on a regular basis, so as to keep them “in order” and faithful to their husbands.[12] Sexual jealousy causes a majority of the violence.[1]
Women are beaten with clubs, sticks, machetes, and other blunt or sharp objects. Burning with a branding stick occurs often, and symbolizes a male’s strength or dominance over his wife.[10]
Violence
The Yanomamo people have a history of acting extremely violently not only towards other tribes, but towards one another.[12] Men generally initiate this violence, and women are often victims of physical abuse and anger. Inter-village warfare is common, but does not too commonly affect women. When Yanomamo tribes fight and raid nearby tribes, women are often raped, beaten, and brought back to their shabono to be kept in their tribe. During the raids, Yanomamo men capture and bring back the other women in hopes of marrying them. Wives are beaten on a regular basis, so as to keep them “in order” and faithful to their husbands.[12] Sexual jealousy causes a majority of the violence.[1]
Women are beaten with clubs, sticks, machetes, and other blunt or sharp objects. Burning with a branding stick occurs often, and symbolizes a male’s strength or dominance over his wife.[10]
The status of women politically:
Quote:
Politics
In Yanomamo culture, a woman can never be a shaman, or even a headman. This is due to the fact that headmen are expected to be peacekeepers and valiant warriors, both of which require force and violence, which women are not considered to have in Yanomamo culture. In this society, women gain respect as they age, after they marry and have children. Elderly women are very respected, and ultimately can become immune to violence and warfare between villages. They are immune from the violence of raiders and can safely travel from one village to another without fear of injury.[12] Usually, elderly women are expected to recover the body of a slain Yanomamo who was killed in a raid.[10] Although women are disrespected and belittled at a young age, they are respected and looked highly upon when they age, and have much power in tribal politics and decision-making.
In Yanomamo culture, a woman can never be a shaman, or even a headman. This is due to the fact that headmen are expected to be peacekeepers and valiant warriors, both of which require force and violence, which women are not considered to have in Yanomamo culture. In this society, women gain respect as they age, after they marry and have children. Elderly women are very respected, and ultimately can become immune to violence and warfare between villages. They are immune from the violence of raiders and can safely travel from one village to another without fear of injury.[12] Usually, elderly women are expected to recover the body of a slain Yanomamo who was killed in a raid.[10] Although women are disrespected and belittled at a young age, they are respected and looked highly upon when they age, and have much power in tribal politics and decision-making.
Either you have an interesting definition of "egalitarianism" or, well, you're simply wrong in your generalizing statement. Which I submit is the case, but I respectfully await your rebuttal. Hell, I'll even offer some helpful hints:
(1) If you cite the !Kung you're forced into the curious position of claiming that egalitarianism and extreme violence go hand in hand. Women can achieve political power, but they've traditionally had a murder rate multiples higher than that found even in the US.
(2) And I see no way you can shoehorn egalitarianism into the Yanomamo....To recap: Among the Yanomamo women can never be leaders, are never consulted on political decisions, are subjected to savage violence on an almost daily basis, but might get some respect should they manage to live to an old age. And given their treatment, I can't see very many reaching that stage. But, whatever. With them, I await your rebuttal with what I admit is curiosity.
And (3) these two groups are the first that occurred to me. I could have mentioned others, as best I recall closer in culture to the Yanomamo than the !Kung. I suggest you simply admit your error, retract that claim and move on, but if that statement is one you're wedded to, I'm more than willing to lock horns with you over it.
I was attempting to expand on your argument here, because I don't agree with the Solitary Forager Hypothesis. The author referenced the Neanderthal theory of Autism as another theory that was related to his theory in an introduction to his theory on another website. I have been discussing a similar issue regarding Neanderthals with another poster; please disregard my reference to Neanderthal, as the author did not specifically refer to them in his research, he only referenced prehistoric hunter and gatherer societies in his manuscript.
http://www.observedimpulse.com/2011/02/solitary-forager-hypothesis-of-autism.html
My point on the egalitarianism is that anthropologists can measure that in modern Hunter Gatherer societies, but only hypothesize for it in primitive Hunter and Gatherers Societies. I didn't indicate all modern Hunter and Gather Societies were egalitarian and understand many have been influenced by modern society and and some now have hierachal systems in place instead of egalitarian ones.
There are examples of contemporary egalitarian Hunter and gather societies per reference from Wiki:
Quote:
Bambuti societies have no ruling group or lineage, no overlying political organization, and little social structure. The Bambuti are an egalitarian society in which the band is the highest form of social organization.[21] Leadership may be displayed for example on hunting treks.[22] Men and women basically have equal power. Issues are discussed and decisions are made by consensus at fire camps; men and women engage in the conversations equivalently.[23] If there is a disagreement, misdemeanor, or offense, then the offender may be banished, beaten or scorned.[24]
Many anthropologists suggest that egalitarianism was a way of life for the majority of tribes and bands of hunters and gatherers in primitive and modern day hunter and gatherer cultures. The referenced research from Kon should be sufficient to support this. Violence has been documented in some egalitarian hunter and gatherer societies. Some Hunter and gather societies such as the Australian Aboriginees are considered only semi-egalitarian societies as they have egalitarian components and hierarchal components and are now in touch with modern day society. I do not attempt to label any of these hunter and gather societies as egalitarian and will leave that to those that have studied the cultures and present research to back up these assertions.
Although there may be many that don't like the violence in the Yanomamo culture they are considered an egalitarian culture by anthropologists:
http://www.everyculture.com/South-America/Yanomam-Sociopolitical-Organization.html
The !kung are also considered egalitarian by anthropologists:
http://ksuanth.wetpaint.com/page/%21Kung+Political+Organization
Quote:
and cooperation between individuals means survival. Our society allows us to do without others to a greater degree than what could possibly work in a hunter and gatherer culture.
There are autistic people among Aboriginal cultures and they require the same kind of support that autistic people require everywhere.
There are autistic people among Aboriginal cultures and they require the same kind of support that autistic people require everywhere.
And so what? The original link claimed autism conferred a genetic advantage of some sort, and offered no empirical evidence or even logical coherence in defense of said claim. And that is where I had an issue. Curiously, in fact, it seems you yourself disagree with the article's claim, or I am misinterpreting what you mean by "cooperation between individuals means survival." What I put in quotes is exactly what the article claimed did NOT always mean survival.
I was agreeing with you here, that I didn't think the traits of autism would be beneficial in a hunter and gatherer society, indicating they need the same level of support as Autistic people in any society. As far as I know cases of Autism in Aborigines have been diagnosed, but I haven't seen diagnoses among other contemporary primitive hunter and gatherer societies, although this does not mean they do not exist.
Quote:
However, the genetic influence among aborigine culture today is not the same that existed in the time of the Neanderthal. They had crude weapons and cooperative effort would have been necessary for safety and success in their hunting endeavors.
What on earth does this mean? I didn't mention Neanderthals, the linked article didn't mention Neanderthals. A very strange red herring?
My mistake here, in referencing Neanderthals, but available research indicates prehistoric Hunter and Gather Societies relied on cooperative effort and there is no reported evidence that I have seen, that indicates there was an advantage in being a solitary forager in these groups.
Quote:
I'm sure there were instances where people had to hunt alone to survive when groups populations were reduced because of disease or other causes, but it would not be an advantageous situation for survival.
Umm, does this mean you're agreeing with me and disagreeing with the article?
Yes, I'm agreeing, and if you read the linked thread in my first post, you can see additional problems I have with the manuscript
Quote:
The referenced article was published in an online source "Evolutionary Psychology" that has a requirement that the manuscript not be under peer review or published in another source. So it is just starting it's journey in the scientific community. The author is looking for corraborative evidence from scientists in fields like anthropology.
Since the author offers no evidence that I could see, what exactly is going to be corroborated? And why would he only seek corroborating evidence (presuming there's evidence in the first place) and not be willing to look at all the evidence? Do you consider such an attitude scientific?
No I don't, and that was part of my view in the other thread
Oh, and speaking of scientists, you are aware that the American Anthropological Association, or at least its leadership, seemingly gags on the term "science" itself? If not, please see: No Science, Please. We're Anthropologists. (link) for an overview. And their response when this came to light is one of the oddest documents I think I've ever read. (Link-See here) First, it doesn't address the actual issue, why they're dropping the word "science." Second, it simply piles irrelevancy upon irrelevancy. Third, aww...screw it. I think I've made my point here, that to be an Anthropologist is not necessarily to be a scientist at the same time. So, when he goes looking for anthropologists, do you have any idea how he'll tell which ones are scientists and which ones aren't?
If there was evidence that there was an advantage in solitary foraging among primitive hunter and gather groups, I think the research would be readily available to peruse. And it's not. I don't see how anyone could corraborate the opinion with evidence, if there is none.
Quote:
And, the author is seeking a Doctorate Degree.
You're joking, right? Please tell me you are. I truly hope that's the case, and not that you are ignorant of the fact that the degree conferred upon someone earning a doctorate in psychology is a Ph.D.
And if that really is news to you, well, here's the proof:
Quote:
http://psychology.usc.edu/doctoral/areas-brain-cognitive-science.cfm
Brain and Cognitive Science
The Ph.D. program in Brain and Cognitive Science at the University of Southern California provides comprehensive training for students with a keen interest in understanding cognition, motivation, emotion and perception in terms of the underlying brain processes and manifested behaviors. Our Faculty have world reknowned expertise in a wide range of areas. We prepare our graduates to be at the forefront of knowledge creation in one of the most exciting fields of our time, at the confluence of psychology, biology and neuroscience.
Brain and Cognitive Science
The Ph.D. program in Brain and Cognitive Science at the University of Southern California provides comprehensive training for students with a keen interest in understanding cognition, motivation, emotion and perception in terms of the underlying brain processes and manifested behaviors. Our Faculty have world reknowned expertise in a wide range of areas. We prepare our graduates to be at the forefront of knowledge creation in one of the most exciting fields of our time, at the confluence of psychology, biology and neuroscience.
The author of the piece is enrolled in a doctorate program (the one linked to above) from which he will emerge with a degree called a Ph.D. Thus to say someone has a doctorate in psychology is to say that they have a Ph.D. Okay? Get it now? (But I still sincerely hope you were joking.)
I stated he is seeking a doctorate degree, to clarify that he doesn't have one yet, per your statement: "I'd say the only thing definitively proven by this article is that there are far too many P.hDs in psychology being awarded these days."
All I know is that he is seeking a Ph.D in the department of Brain and Cognitive Science at USC, so I didn't want state that he was seeking a Ph. D in Psychology. It might be called a Ph.D in Psychology, but it will more than likely be called a Ph.D in Brain and Cognitive Science. The author of the manuscript didn't clarify this. Sorry if I confused you with the way I worded, it but a Ph.D is a doctorate degree. If I had known 100% for sure that it was a Ph.D in Brain and Cognitive Science, that is how I would have worded it.
from Wiki:
Quote:
A doctorate is an academic degree or professional degree that in most countries refers to a class of degrees which qualify the holder to teach in a specific field, (e.g. a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)).
Again, I was in total agreement with your initial post, and share your sentiments on the violence evidenced in the culture of the Yanomamo and the !Kung.
Thankfully, our modern societies are improving on egalitarianism, in countries like Denmark, where violence is statistically low, in comparison to most countries.
I think the world in general the world is moving away from Patriarchy and toward Egalitarianism, however it is evident that some don't like the idea of it in our country, and many abhor the idea in countries that treat women as barely human.
05 Jun 2011, 10:25 am
I don't know. People have to adapt to whatever time they live in. AS might be an advantage for a medicine man/woman, furtrapper, gold prospector, or eskimo going out in a kayak. Now AS gives some an advantage in IT. Ironically, AS special interests might help keep plant medicine alive. I've considered trying mushroom/truffle hunting for $ because I like being alone in the woods.
I took my kids clam digging yesterday. My NT daughter dove right in, and enjoyed identifying/sorting different clams. AS son would dig but refused to touch the clams. Might be different if he was hungry.
05 Jun 2011, 11:16 pm
The strange thing is I had started a post on this topic in another forum before coming across this paper suggesting the same idea. I actually argued how I could see that my disadvantages in modern society may have been an advantage 1000s of years ago. I could see myself as being exceptional as a tracker/pattern recognition and picking up danger. I'm not much of a tool-maker, though. While my father is a carpenter, he actually searches for wild honey and tea in the mountains over the summers. He sits near small streams and watches where bees go after they leave the stream. He's so successful that he brings back buckets of honey (and tons of mountain tea) after each mountain excursion. He has Aspie-like traits but he's never been diagnosed or cares to be.
06 Jun 2011, 12:45 am
Kon wrote:
The strange thing is I had started a post on this topic in another forum before coming across this paper suggesting the same idea. I actually argued how I could see that my disadvantages in modern society may have been an advantage 1000s of years ago. I could see myself as being exceptional as a tracker/pattern recognition and picking up danger. I'm not much of a tool-maker, though. While my father is a carpenter, he actually searches for wild honey and tea in the mountains over the summers. He sits near small streams and watches where bees go after they leave the stream. He's so successful that he brings back buckets of honey (and tons of mountain tea) after each mountain excursion. He has Aspie-like traits but he's never been diagnosed or cares to be.
Your father was born in a different time, although not a thousand years ago, and sounds successful from your description. The required skill mix; man-made environmental changes, like flourescent lights; and requirements for interaction, have changed so much in just the last fifty years.
I think I remember you mentioning you were a pharmacist. They use to work in small shops, and dealt with limited numbers of customers in a quiet environment. The pharmacists that I remember were of the introverted type, but systemizing medication was the majority of what was required. Much different from working in a glass cage at SuperWalmart. So much in life is flavored with this change now.
My problems were a disadvantage in those earlier years, but not an overwhelming one, as they became later with the stimulus and demands of increasing efficiencies and changes in expectations for survival.
On the other hand, knowing myself the way I do with tactile sensitivity (not wanting to touch the clams, or physically being able to touch them; hard to understand if one doesn't have tactile sensitivity) I don't think I would of done well without some civilization (grocery stores) to assist me in dealing with those issues.
I guess I was born at just the right time for my survival. Or perhaps a better way to put it, is I survived in part because of when I was born.
I remember as a child, when I thought life was harsh; we didn't have much heat in the house but had hot water for a bath, and sometimes we didn't have hot water. I remember thinking, how lucky I was to have that hot water. A little over one hundred years ago there was no toilet paper.
Most everyone I know would be dead right now if it wasn't for modern medicine. A caesarean section saved my wife, gall bladder operation saved my mother; and so many people saved by a simple antibiotic that we take for granted now, along with a huge percentage of the population that relies on vision corrections. Just the tip of the iceburg though, proper sanitation has saved more lives than medicine.
I would go as far as to say that the majority of people we see walking the streets today are here now because of the era they were born in.
I don't think these are the best of times for people with Autistic traits, but taking everything into consideration, I think they are far from the worst of times for most everyone alive. Fifty years, okay, but ten thousand years ago; my imagination for detail is to keen, I don't want to go there.
But, I don't doubt somewhere along the line there was a neanderthal that faced that harsh life, and gave me the opportunity I had in my life. I might not be anything like them, but I still owe my life to whomever that ancestor might be, along with thousands of others; and whatever that organism was that started the whole chain of life.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Autism and Letting Go of Past Trauma |
18 Apr 2024, 6:33 am |
| A Deer Hunter's Tree Stand Is Taken Over By Barn Owls |
06 Apr 2024, 6:51 am |
| Judge rejects Hunter Biden's bid to dismiss gun charges |
13 Apr 2024, 6:30 am |
| Why Don't Humans Have Tails? |
24 Mar 2024, 7:33 pm |
