An Autist, a Sociopath, and an ADHD'er Walk Into a Bar...

reply to post by mistermonculous


Very much so!

My daughter's friends in her AS-class will chatter away with each other...nearly all quiet down if anyone comes near...

It's not so bad, tho. Most people are very patient, as long as they are aware of our...'gift'.

I perform for thousands 3-5 nights per week, but can't stand large crowds...ahhhh...the cruelty of this plane never ceases to amaze me!

Interesting....I have often thought the same thing, however bringing evolution into it, is a new spin. I've always thought it unusual that autism is labeled a disease. To me it just seemed like people with personality types that don't quite fit perfectly with western society. If what your saying is true, then does this mean that autism isn't being selected in some cultures, or has been selected already for some other cultures therefor putting them "ahead" so to speak?

Also I was wondering if you could speak to the lopsidedness of who autism and ADHD affect in terms of gender and how that fits in to your theory.

reply to post by liquidsmoke206


Excellent questions! Here's what I found, although it's a preliminary sampling, and I'd encourage anyone who's inclined to follow up with more digging:

Autism :

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, PDDs were estimated to occur in two to six per 1,000 births in 2003 with autism being the most common PDD, affecting an estimated one in 250 births. As of 2004, as many as 1.5 million Americans are were believed to have some form of autism. The disorder is four times more prevalent in boys than girls and is not associated with any specific racial or ethnic background. Family income, lifestyle, and educational levels also do not affect the chance of the disorder's occurrence.

Read more: Autism - symptoms, Definition, Description, Demographics, Causes and symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatment www.healthofchildren.com...

ADHD :

ADHD is 5 to 7 times more common in boys.
ADHD occurs in people of every level of intelligence.
ADHD is much more commonly diagnosed in the United States than in Europe, and the stimulant medications are used vastly more in the United States as an intervention strategy.

For the moment, I have no larger conclusions to draw from this info, but if you've got 'em, guys; throw down!

reply to post by PassedKarma

No no no this is wrong. People have NEVER been more empathetic before, (and so therefore hence, "we need to be less so") Oh My God, that just frightens the living sh*t out of me. When I was young, there were no feelings about animal rights, for example. Non humans were treated like sheer inanimate things. My sister, back in the early '60's, had a gal friend who would shortly later, die of leukemia, and her life before that, was of her crazy mother beating and beating the living snot out of her, every day, several times. In Roman times, people cheered Christians getting shredded by starved wild big cats, like we would at a football game today. PEOPLE HAVE NEVER NEVER NEVER BEEN ***MORE*** EMPATHETIC.

WE NEED MORE EMPATHETIC PEOPLE, NOT LESS.

DON'T BELIEVE THE DEMONIC NWO NAZI LIES.

reply to post by Astyanax


Hey again.

I so enjoy reading your posts, they have been a wonderful surprise on this thread.

I am just going off the cuff but I think that the punctuated equilibrium that you find missing may be found when one considers Adaptive Radiations, which are my personal fave when it comes to speciation.

It seems to me that the environment may be considered capable of demanding speciation all by itself based on its own needs and deficits. It is just a hairbrained guess but it does not make sense to me that the only element within the environment that responds to Asby's Law of Requisite Variety should be the human element.

I just finished a rather rigorous course in Biology and I was very surprised at the end of the whole thing to find just the type of thinking that you exhibited in your post; punctuated equilibrium, adaptive radiations and the idea of ecological or adaptive speciation are all but teetering on the edge of the round file. This does not make sense to me as I have a friend who is an evolutionary biologist and he is on the cutting edge of bioinformatics and what is he studying? Adaptive radiations and punctuated equilibrium.

Punctuated Equilibrium:
en.wikipedia.org...

It dawned on me today that the simple statement that we are dwellers in two worlds is true; we dwell here in this world, called our environment and we dwell in our own inner world. Seems to me that that part of us that dwells in the world, or our environment ,is entirely linked to this phenomenal and causal realm for better or worse. If that environment demands adaptive radiations then sexual selection becomes secondary to the demands of the environment, in fact the environment demands the sexual selection.

I know that you have seen this one before (conveniently located at the top of the Wiki installment for adaptive radiations)...


en.wikipedia.org...

So, these little finches are thought to have developed this diversity of beak shape so they could take advantage of different food sources in their new home. I should add that adaptive radiations are thought to occur due to some calamity or disaster that causes one species to leave their home abruptly in search of survival elsewhere.

It also comes to mind (mine, anyway) that maybe regions of our environment that undergo some calamity may then begin to demand or invite speciation as it strives to regain equilibrium; but that is maybe just crazy thinking.

Anyhow, so it is believed that the diversity of beak shape comes from the finches trying to take advantage of a variety of food sources.

What if it is the other way around? What if the variety of food sources demanded the beak morph diversity? Then sexual selection would just be a byproduct of the demands of the system for stability through variety thus satisying Ashby's Law.

I know that we tend to want to put 'Us' first but maybe the part of us that dwells in this world is wholly subject to its environment and we are just standing in line with the rest of the critters.

And then there is that other part of us... There was a thread recently...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The face of a frog: Time-lapse video reveals never-before-seen bioelectric pattern For the first time, Tufts University biologists have reported that bioelectrical signals are necessary for normal head and facial formation in an organism and have captured that process in a time-lapse video that reveals never-before-seen patterns of visible bioelectrical signals outlining where eyes, nose, mouth, and other features will appear in an embryonic tadpole.

www.physorg.com...





I suspect that we are all getting ready to place a lot more value on the work of Rupert Sheldrake and his theory of Morphogenic fields. I am holding out for the idea that the environment, including culture and society, can demand speciation.

Also, wanted to add that I am here to learn and I am not all precious about these ideas. I put them out there to die if that is their fate and I am really interested in what you think.

An Autist, a Sociopath, and an ADHD'er Walk Into a Bar...,

As they walk in one of the wait staff drops a tray of drinks; one quick thinking patron shouts. "Hopa"!

The ADHD'ers palms start to sweat as he begins to look for a way to help but he is distracted by a shiny emblem on one of the tappers. While everyone is distracted by the mess the sociopath cleans out the tip jar at the piano.

The autist pushes another tray of drinks off the bar and says, "What, I thought it was a party"?

*rimshot*

Originally posted by mistermonculous
So, the current thinking seems to be that changes in the human genome, absent all the environmental pressures we've neutralized with our technological prowess, are being culturally driven. Allow me to whip out a couple of relevant links which pitch this idea pretty effectively.

www.nytimes.com...
theconversation.edu.au...

It's also been fairly well substantiated that evolution is not necessarily the work of Ages: a lot can happen in a few generations.

Although this can and does manifest in obvious physical traits, what I would like to address is the subtle alterations and possible wide-scale divergences in the neurological department.

This brings me to the fact that ADHD and Autism have been recently found to be heritable, not acquired conditions. Furthermore, both conditions are becoming exponentially more prevalent in the general population with each passing decade. And, finally, they have been found to share a genetic marker.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Hallmarks of our culture include an emphasis on multi-tasking, the imperative to understand and organize complex systems, and the need to rapidly assimilate and synthesize disparate and ceaseless streams of information. All of the above dove-tail nicely with what I would term the advantages of these conditions. Speaking as a high-functioning autist, I would also posit that some of my symptoms appear to be an adaptive response to over-stimulation.

Leaving aside the more debilitating forms Autism can take, it is conceivable that approaching these conditions as pathological and/or deficient is short-sighted at best. Those "afflicted" are pressed to be "treated" because their symptoms are difficult to accommodate within many social systems. However, it behooves one to point out that those very systems demand conformity, rote learning, and adherence to heirarchical rule; and it is therefore quite difficult to say where the fault truly lies: in round peg or the square hole? It's always easier to try and shave that peg down to size.


Are these conditions, then, a healthy adaptive response to a unhealthy system? In addition, of course, to the advantages outlined in the paragraph previous to the above.

And if so, is there an obverse adaptation occurring?

Genetic markers have also been found for sociopathy. Likewise, incidences of this deviation appear to be on the rise in the general population. The advantages and possible cultural sources for this condition are clear, and I hope you'll excuse my not elaborating upon them. Suffice it to say Look Out For Number One becomes the only operative philosophy possible when one is born without empathy or conscience. Sociopathy is the profit motive made flesh. Brett Easton Ellis was Onto Something.

Personally, I believe it to be a maladaptation; a cultural and evolutionary dead-end.

So, what's the punchline, guys?

edit on 5-9-2011 by mistermonculous because: linkage, brah.

edit on 5-9-2011 by mistermonculous because: flurghin.

I wonder if their is a genetic marker for "normal person syndrome". I'm sure if they haven't found it yet, it's just a matter of time. Once we've identified it we can then move to develop treatments for the condition.

I wonder if their is a genetic marker for "normal person syndrome". I'm sure if they haven't found it yet, it's just a matter of time. Once we've identified it we can then move to develop treatments for the condition.

That's a hell of a punchline!

All right, I'm going full on Sci-Fi here for a second.

As Astyanax pointed out in a previous post, it hardly seems likely that any selection process which favors sitting in front of a screen for several hours and power-basting your brains was likely to exist.

Unless!

We are forming a weird human/domesticated dog-esque evolutionary symbiosis with our computer boxes. The selection process in that case would involve exactly those seemingly undesirable traits. The piggyback? The ability to metabolize Mt. Dew and thrive without any other food intake. The trick is to be able to break down Yellow #5 into 50 or 60 useful compounds.

Wow, this is the most enthralling thread I've read in a long time!

Astyanax, it's not like you have walked into a gunfight wielding a knife, it's just that you are surrounded by fighters born with knives in their hands. No degree or doctorate in knife wielding could really compare.

My parents thought I might have been Autistic when I was younger. Considering my social skills, their reasoning was sound but unfortunately my intelligence is somewhat lacking.

reply to post by Frater210

Hi, Frater210. Great avatar. There have been a few occasions on which my own overflows have been almost as colourful.

I think that the punctuated equilibrium that you find missing may be found when one considers Adaptive Radiations, which are my personal fave when it comes to speciation.

Adaptive radiation tends to occur after mass extinctions, when lots of environmental resources are going a-begging, so I suppose you could call these die-offs ‘punctuations’. The adaptation still takes time, though. I think Jay Gould had in mind sudden frantic outbreaks of speciation. I don’t buy that part of his argument.

It seems to me that the environment may be considered capable of demanding speciation all by itself based on its own needs and deficits.

That follows from your mention of evolutionary ‘niches’. I don’t believe such niches exist as distinct entities, however abstract. It is only once a species has evolved to exploit opportunities presented by the environment that the ‘niche’ is seen to exist. In fact, the ‘niche’ is defined by the behaviour of the species. Before the species evolved there was no niche, just a set of opportunities.

It does not make sense to me that the only element within the environment that responds to Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety should be the human element.

I’m not sure how a law concerning the control of complex systems applies to evolution. Who is thought to be ‘controlling’ the ‘system’?

I just finished a rather rigorous course in Biology and I was very surprised at the end of the whole thing to find just the type of thinking that you exhibited in your post; punctuated equilibrium, adaptive radiations and the idea of ecological or adaptive speciation are all but teetering on the edge of the round file.

Well, I’ve never followed any kind of course in biology; I come from the physical-science side of things. From what little I know, however, no-one questions adaptive radiation; it is your idea that environment somehow predetermines phenotype which stands on shaky ground.

Maybe regions of our environment that undergo some calamity may then begin to demand or invite speciation as it strives to regain equilibrium

That’s the kind of idea I mean. When you start thinking in those terms, you make evolution teleological; you endow it with a goal and a plan for getting there. That is an error; evolution is not headed towards any particular conclusion; to quote some hairy Canadians, ‘why does it happen? Because it happens. Roll the bones.’

If that environment demands adaptive radiations then sexual selection becomes secondary to the demands of the environment, in fact the environment demands the sexual selection.

The environment demands nothing. It merely decides what lives and thrives, what withers and dies.

Sexual selection (could) just be a byproduct of the demands of the system for stability through variety thus satisying Ashby's Law.

On the contrary: sexual selection is fixation, obsession, monomania, concentration on one damn’ thing to the point of obliviousness towards anything else. As John Cleese might have said, it’s all tails with you peacocks, isn’t it?*

I suspect that we are all getting ready to place a lot more value on the work of Rupert Sheldrake and his theory of Morphogenic fields. I am holding out for the idea that the environment, including culture and society, can demand speciation.

Okay, I see where you’re coming from now. I’m a bit too much of an empiricist to go for that kind of thing, I’m afraid. But if you believe in teleological things like morphogenic fields, I’m not surprised you see speciation as a process of fitting organisms into pre-jigged phenotypic slots. With that, though, we have travelled a great distance from the intellectual territory of modern science. And also, I blush to note, a very great distance from the topic of this thread.

I am really interested in what you think.

Thank you. Sorry to be such a dull old materialist.


*I believe the original line was ‘it’s all bottoms with you Americans, isn’t it?’

reply to post by liquidsmoke206

To me it just seemed like people with personality types that don't quite fit perfectly with western society.

This isn’t specifically about Western society. There are autistic people all over the world, including my own country.

And no, it is not simply a case of ‘a personality type that doesn’t fit’. No-one who has watched a profoundly autistic person for more than a few minutes could possibly say that. Autistic behaviour is, to put it simply, crazy and disturbing. Autistic people make bizarre motions, gestures and all kinds of disturbing noises. They may beat themselves or smash things. They may refuse to speak when spoken, or not pay attention to the speaker at all, or burst into tears, or start screaming. They are almost impossible for other people to be around – you can’t pay attention to anything else except the autistic kid in the room. And when you do, they don’t respond, at least not in a way it doesn’t take an expert to understand. It is a distressing, frustrating and often frightening experience to be in the same room as a seriously autistic person.

The broadening and relaxing of the rules of definition for autism (‘autism-spectrum disorders’) and the explosion of ‘diagnoses’ that followed have resulted in a cruel injustice being done to those who are truly and seriously autistic. I mean the ones who are really sick: it is on them that attention and research should be focused, but instead, the whole focus of public perception is now on people who just have trouble coping with social situations.

The broadening and relaxing of the rules of definition for autism (‘autism-spectrum disorders’) and the explosion of ‘diagnoses’ that followed have resulted in a cruel injustice being done to those who are truly and seriously autistic. I mean the ones who are really sick: it is on them that attention and research should be focused, but instead, the whole focus of public perception is now on people who just have trouble coping with social situations.

I would respectfully disagree. There is a great deal of funding and research that is still allocated toward understanding and treating severe cases.

I would also like to address the idea that the reported increase of these conditions is due to lax symptomatic parameters and widespread misdiagnosis: it may be the case, but I've found it difficult to locate any data that could resolve this point one way or the other. The reverse may also be true; that until recently mild forms of these conditions went undetected, which would also account for an upswing in the numbers not reflecting an actual increase in cases.

As for the diagnostic criteria, I will once again speak from personal experience. It seems to me that I am neurologically deficient in certain ways, and that other centers in my brain have over-developed to compensate. My condition is not debilitating, but nevertheless shares symptomatic characteristics with more severe manifestations.

For instance: I did pretty regularly bang my head against walls for extended periods of time, but was taught other ways of coping with and expressing my frustration. I was unable to participate effectively in a conversation, until my lovely mom knocked together a comprehensive collection of flashcards of human expressions and bought me a book on body language. I am still inclined to forget to bathe and eat, and have to set alarms on some days as reminders. Does this all equate externally to social awkwardness? Of course, but that doesn't mean there's not something more to it.

This is all to say that there is a spectrum, but that doesn't mean there aren't also a lot of lazy, f***-up "professionals" in the mental health field who are slapping labels on folks all willy-nilly.

Also I don't think we've wandered off-topic; I found the discourse between you and Frater extremely relevant, in that a good round survey of the concepts central to a discussion of my hypotheses was fleshed out by yous guys. For which I heartily thank you both.

reply to post by mistermonculous


Heya,

I don't think we are done quite yet.

I am caught up in all sorts of goodness right now but wanted to chime in to relate a tiny story.

I used to sit in the dirt and pound the same nail in to the ground over and over again. This really disturbed my grandfather.

To be honest everyone has ADHD based on the questions psychiatrists ask you. Do you sometimes have trouble concentrating? Uh ya. Are you sometimes forgetful? More often than not. Do you sometimes become distracted? Uh ya, sometimes. What I'm saying is, I went in to the doctor's office with a goal of getting aderall for college, and being completely honest I got it. Do I have ADHD maybe, maybe not, but the doctors say I do, and I'll take their word on it. If aderall or any other stimulant does anything, it helps me to function normally in a ridiculous society. Society wants me as a student, to have no original thought of my own, do what I am told when I am told to do it and activley participate in a social setting. Well, I am way too outspoken and well edcuated to do any of those things, and as far as me going out and eagerly trying to engage in my community, for what, so people whose opinons I could care less about think I'm important? Please. But, as long as I take my pills, I am able to play along as the good little boy. Society get's what it wants out of me, and I am getting what I want from society.

One of the biggest reasons you see such a dramatic increase in the number of cases of both autism and ADHD is so called "better diagnostic techniques". They are diagnosing more people with the diseases. It does not necessarily mean there are more or less cases...

I tend to think it has a lot to do with the throw a pill at it psyche modern society has developed. ADHD specifically is so easy to misdiagnose... Child psychologists get a lot more repeat patients just by uttering these four little letters. Its a racket!

I know there are legitimate cases of various mental disorders but a lot of them are diagnosed based upon opinions. You can't swab your throat and grow an adhd culture. There aren't definitive tests for most psychological disorders. Making them very easy to misdiagnose or in some cases completely drummed up...