Is it possible to develop autism as a purely nurture-based adaptation, without the genetic factor? The social traits of autism describe me to a T but I don't think I have any of the physical sensitivities associated with it. I have a cluster of traits that would make me decidedly bad at being a hunter gatherer. I think I just came to the conclusion from a very young age that people are fucking weird and I'm not like them, and consequently aggressively pursued independence, and any skills that would help me to "live alone in nature" or rather live alone in the modern world independent of society. I don't have any of the status obsession or compulsive need to be around other people that everybody else seems to. I often think if I had to go to prison, solitary confinement would be preferable. But I question whether it's primarily due to the genetic markers commonly associated with autism or more of a learned adaptation.
It is not possible to develop autism without the genes, as autism is genetic. You may have the social and cognitive traits (which are absolutely genetic) without the sensitivities. This could put you in a medum or moderate category, while someone with both the sensitivities and the social/cognitive traits may be in the more severe category. Not to downplay your symptoms but I consider the sensitivities to be a central aspect and they make life very challenging.
That makes sense. My dad definitely has some signs of it too and I do have intense emotions and some weird ticks, so it could be genetic. It's just weird to me how much of it feels like a deliberate decision I made.
Low sociability and low social sensitivity, ie. less of a desire to make friends and less of a desire and drive to conform to social norms are well within the range of manifestations of the human psyche that are considered "normal" by psychologists.
We don't all share the same personality and some people are markedly more independent and socially aloof than others. What you are describing doesn't seem out of place for what the socionics version of a normal INTP would be feeling. The type is relatively rare, and a person might very well be alone among his social circle with those traits, but that doesn't make him psychological abnormal.
Extreme social aloofness would be the defining characteristic of what is called Schizoid Personality Disorder. Autism as a differential diagnosis should not even make the cut, since people on the spectrum *want* to establish social connections, but they are impaired to do so. There are some half dozen psychological disorders where shyness/low sociability are outward traits. This alone doesn't tell us much about what's going on the inside, and a difference in brain wiring is what separates autists from neurotypicals.
You didn't get what I was saying and seem to be unfamiliar with how a mental disorder is defined.
The psychopathology threshold is set primarily by how the condition impacts your ability to function in society and quality of life. Rarity has little to do with it.
For "alternative neurotypes", like they are classifying autism as, you really have to have a different mental architecture.
The point about poor money management skills due to it being a inhrently social tool is really interesting, never heard that one before. One thing which could be a fitting addition to your article is the observed positive correlation between higher rates of sexlessness and being on the spectrum. A good article from a substacker i can highly recommend has looked into this: https://open.substack.com/pub/nuancepill/p/the-autism-pill?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2qup0n
Thanks, it is interesting. Similar to dressing well and using deoderant and things like this. These are social things. I don't have time to read the article, but it makes sense. Autistic people are more or less designed to either abduct a woman or win over a woman by being the dominant/only male around or by being a highly successful hunter.
In a conservative society that values monogamy, masculinity and high HGF levels, people with autism would have not had such trouble finding a mate.
thanks for sharing this piece. I also think there is an evolved component to autism and I have a feeling we will find out more about it in the future.
I've written a little on introversion from an evolutionary perspective and have noticed that there are some overlaps to what you have described. Just in case you are interested I'll put a link below.
Great to see you back Windsor! Nice summary. Do you have a list of Austic people, from history, that distribute across the spectrum you just described. Let's say give names - and let's start with Bobby Fischer. Where would he sit in the spectrum of Hunter-Gatherer Fitness Level?
Hi AG, thanks! Just off the top of my head I would list:
Fischer, Newton, Ada Lovelace, Marie Curie, Sappho, Lise Meitner, Henry Cavendish, probably Florence Nightingale, with the women being naturally less severe than the men. I would undoubtedly consider Da Vinci as autistic not just because he felt the universe was ruled by a number or algorithm but because of his quote "The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding".
I would put Fischer right at the top of both mental and physical characteristics, a real genetic freak. Tall, by all accounts athletic, enjoyed sports and movement, believed he would have been a professional athlete if he wasn't playing chess. Keen vision and hearing. The confidence to say exactly what he want and meant, which derives from a high HGFL. Newton enjoyed boxing and beat up a kid or two in school. Einstein was very aggressive both verbally and physically with his wife. I don't know enough to rank anybody, but a lot of these people definitely have some traits.
Being good at living alone in the woods doesn’t seem like a sexual advantage, at least not for the past several tens of thousands of years of human development.
The supposed positive symptoms mentioned in here have just not been verified in the grand majority of my personal experiences with autistic people. High athleticism? Well, most of the autistics I met were really not into sports and were also overweight, usually. But then again, I suppose it could be argued Autism is highly misdiagnosed, and that many of them end up avoiding sports due to the social aspects of the ones that are most commonly practiced.
Hmm, they have some overlap for sure, but also some opposites. ADHD people seek variety and most of this comes from socialising.. they are highly social. Because of this they have poor focus, many have trouble reading. I don't really see how its possible.
The amount of Substack essays linking autism to vaccines is enormous. I can't possibly read them all, but the sheer volume of information alone is enough to convince me that autism is not a natural phenomenon.
I am as antivax as the next person, and I haven't done any research into the vaccine autism link, but I would bet any amount of money that vaccines don't cause autism. I mean, we know autism is genetic. We already know this, we even know some of the genes. I can think of about 50 reasons just off the top of my head why a vaccine cause doesn't make sense.
They now say paternal age is the cause, yet it was common in the 19th century for older men to marry younger women, and such unions did not create a generation of autistic children. The diagnosis may not have existed in the 1800s, but the symptoms would have, and they would have noticed this and made observations.
Lots of people say lots of things. Its undeniably genetic and mainstream articles and studies are more than enough to prove this. Happy to have a discussion on voicechat.
I don’t know if you noticed, but trust in mainstream institutions is at an all time low. With the collapse on grand narratives, an endless array of alternate theories are competing to fill the void. Some of them are evidently insane, like the flat earth. Others are much more plausible, like a medical industrial complex deliberately inducing illness. Here are two examples from the endless tide of information that swamps us daily.
Autism is parasites in a person. Check out Dr Kerri Rivera. She found that 100% of all autism in children is a result of parasites. They are administered through vaccines.
Is it possible to develop autism as a purely nurture-based adaptation, without the genetic factor? The social traits of autism describe me to a T but I don't think I have any of the physical sensitivities associated with it. I have a cluster of traits that would make me decidedly bad at being a hunter gatherer. I think I just came to the conclusion from a very young age that people are fucking weird and I'm not like them, and consequently aggressively pursued independence, and any skills that would help me to "live alone in nature" or rather live alone in the modern world independent of society. I don't have any of the status obsession or compulsive need to be around other people that everybody else seems to. I often think if I had to go to prison, solitary confinement would be preferable. But I question whether it's primarily due to the genetic markers commonly associated with autism or more of a learned adaptation.
It is not possible to develop autism without the genes, as autism is genetic. You may have the social and cognitive traits (which are absolutely genetic) without the sensitivities. This could put you in a medum or moderate category, while someone with both the sensitivities and the social/cognitive traits may be in the more severe category. Not to downplay your symptoms but I consider the sensitivities to be a central aspect and they make life very challenging.
That makes sense. My dad definitely has some signs of it too and I do have intense emotions and some weird ticks, so it could be genetic. It's just weird to me how much of it feels like a deliberate decision I made.
Hmm, choices are at least partly genetic.
No.
Low sociability and low social sensitivity, ie. less of a desire to make friends and less of a desire and drive to conform to social norms are well within the range of manifestations of the human psyche that are considered "normal" by psychologists.
We don't all share the same personality and some people are markedly more independent and socially aloof than others. What you are describing doesn't seem out of place for what the socionics version of a normal INTP would be feeling. The type is relatively rare, and a person might very well be alone among his social circle with those traits, but that doesn't make him psychological abnormal.
Extreme social aloofness would be the defining characteristic of what is called Schizoid Personality Disorder. Autism as a differential diagnosis should not even make the cut, since people on the spectrum *want* to establish social connections, but they are impaired to do so. There are some half dozen psychological disorders where shyness/low sociability are outward traits. This alone doesn't tell us much about what's going on the inside, and a difference in brain wiring is what separates autists from neurotypicals.
If INTP is relatively rare, then they are psychologically abnormal, by definition. 😒
You didn't get what I was saying and seem to be unfamiliar with how a mental disorder is defined.
The psychopathology threshold is set primarily by how the condition impacts your ability to function in society and quality of life. Rarity has little to do with it.
For "alternative neurotypes", like they are classifying autism as, you really have to have a different mental architecture.
The point about poor money management skills due to it being a inhrently social tool is really interesting, never heard that one before. One thing which could be a fitting addition to your article is the observed positive correlation between higher rates of sexlessness and being on the spectrum. A good article from a substacker i can highly recommend has looked into this: https://open.substack.com/pub/nuancepill/p/the-autism-pill?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2qup0n
Thanks, it is interesting. Similar to dressing well and using deoderant and things like this. These are social things. I don't have time to read the article, but it makes sense. Autistic people are more or less designed to either abduct a woman or win over a woman by being the dominant/only male around or by being a highly successful hunter.
In a conservative society that values monogamy, masculinity and high HGF levels, people with autism would have not had such trouble finding a mate.
Thank you for this. I would love for you to read my recent post promoting the use of phenotypes in autism diagnosis.
https://betsyjohnsonautismwriting.substack.com/p/redrawing-the-map?r=avvav&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
well written
things to remeber
1 , you cant catch or develop autism
2, 25% of people with autism have no learning delay
3.bad parenting doesnt cause autism
Interesting
Hi there,
thanks for sharing this piece. I also think there is an evolved component to autism and I have a feeling we will find out more about it in the future.
I've written a little on introversion from an evolutionary perspective and have noticed that there are some overlaps to what you have described. Just in case you are interested I'll put a link below.
https://thenumbersdad.substack.com/p/introversion-what-is-it-good-for?r=6bmecy
Thanks again for this thought provoking piece!
Yes, many similarities, thank you. Of course I am just trying to build on the work already done by Jared Reser.
Great to see you back Windsor! Nice summary. Do you have a list of Austic people, from history, that distribute across the spectrum you just described. Let's say give names - and let's start with Bobby Fischer. Where would he sit in the spectrum of Hunter-Gatherer Fitness Level?
Hi AG, thanks! Just off the top of my head I would list:
Fischer, Newton, Ada Lovelace, Marie Curie, Sappho, Lise Meitner, Henry Cavendish, probably Florence Nightingale, with the women being naturally less severe than the men. I would undoubtedly consider Da Vinci as autistic not just because he felt the universe was ruled by a number or algorithm but because of his quote "The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding".
I would put Fischer right at the top of both mental and physical characteristics, a real genetic freak. Tall, by all accounts athletic, enjoyed sports and movement, believed he would have been a professional athlete if he wasn't playing chess. Keen vision and hearing. The confidence to say exactly what he want and meant, which derives from a high HGFL. Newton enjoyed boxing and beat up a kid or two in school. Einstein was very aggressive both verbally and physically with his wife. I don't know enough to rank anybody, but a lot of these people definitely have some traits.
Hope you are well.
Being good at living alone in the woods doesn’t seem like a sexual advantage, at least not for the past several tens of thousands of years of human development.
It is in our DNA to find people with high HG fitness levels attractive, due to millions of years as hunter-gatherers.
Autists try not to claim any high-functioning individual is autistic challenge (impossible):
Are you suggesting Fischer wasn't autistic?
It's genuinely funny how you couldn't have written a more autistic response.
The supposed positive symptoms mentioned in here have just not been verified in the grand majority of my personal experiences with autistic people. High athleticism? Well, most of the autistics I met were really not into sports and were also overweight, usually. But then again, I suppose it could be argued Autism is highly misdiagnosed, and that many of them end up avoiding sports due to the social aspects of the ones that are most commonly practiced.
I write about autism check out my page and subscribe?
Evolution is a lie.
Might benefit from citing other sources to corroborate the claims made here.
Possibly.. if you are in doubt of anything just ask. Cheers.
It's not that I'm in doubt, as such. It's just a matter of professionalism when writing research essays.
America is controlled by a Mossad blackmail operation and youre worried about the professionalism of an obscure substack article.
What does that have to do with it?
Hey there, what would you say about AuDHD?
Hi, I don't believe in it at all. I dont think anyone has it. I haven't seen anything to suggest it is real. Are you diagnosed with it?
Nope, I wanted to see if someone could develop adhd from a parent with autism and the potential of having both.
Hmm, they have some overlap for sure, but also some opposites. ADHD people seek variety and most of this comes from socialising.. they are highly social. Because of this they have poor focus, many have trouble reading. I don't really see how its possible.
The amount of Substack essays linking autism to vaccines is enormous. I can't possibly read them all, but the sheer volume of information alone is enough to convince me that autism is not a natural phenomenon.
I am as antivax as the next person, and I haven't done any research into the vaccine autism link, but I would bet any amount of money that vaccines don't cause autism. I mean, we know autism is genetic. We already know this, we even know some of the genes. I can think of about 50 reasons just off the top of my head why a vaccine cause doesn't make sense.
They now say paternal age is the cause, yet it was common in the 19th century for older men to marry younger women, and such unions did not create a generation of autistic children. The diagnosis may not have existed in the 1800s, but the symptoms would have, and they would have noticed this and made observations.
Lots of people say lots of things. Its undeniably genetic and mainstream articles and studies are more than enough to prove this. Happy to have a discussion on voicechat.
I don’t know if you noticed, but trust in mainstream institutions is at an all time low. With the collapse on grand narratives, an endless array of alternate theories are competing to fill the void. Some of them are evidently insane, like the flat earth. Others are much more plausible, like a medical industrial complex deliberately inducing illness. Here are two examples from the endless tide of information that swamps us daily.
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/if-vaccines-dont-cause-autism-then
https://jbhandley.substack.com/p/aluminum-adjuvant-is-the-primary
That's pseudo-science
You know, that term has really become meaningless.
Autism is parasites in a person. Check out Dr Kerri Rivera. She found that 100% of all autism in children is a result of parasites. They are administered through vaccines.
Parasites give you good eyesight and spatial ability?