Autism is an unusual disorder. It can produce both profound mental disabilities and profound mental abilities. The prevalence of autism is on the rise. Could it be that this “disorder” is adaptive in contemporary society? Here is example of a guy with a remarkable mind, who’s abilities are contributing to the understanding of the mind.
It’s fascinating that some people have it, but I don’t think it would work too well if too many people had it. The social disabilities it often brings would perhaps outweigh any benefits accrued from the memorization of a billion digits of pi…
Yeah, I’m gonna say that the social disability part of it renders it fairly non-selecting.
I think autism works under a similar system that sickle-cell does – I am sure that some of the genes involved in autism are very beneficial, but if too many autism-variants of the genes are expressed, the individual is pretty worthless. Sickle cell is a simpler model, where the haploid form protects against malaria, but the diploid sickle-cell form is, well, bad. So, the sickle-cell form of the gene has survived because it is protective, but it is a classic case of ‘too much of a good thing . . .’
I wouldn’t use the word “adaptive” because it is tied with evolution by natural selection; I don’t see anything in autistic individuals that gives them any kind of advantage in terms of surviving so they can have children. The savants may definitely have a unique way of being able to survive: demanding that the environment (which includes other people) tailors itself to the savant’s needs so that it can obtain special information the savant can provide. But that would lead me to describe “this ‘disorder’ is not especially maladaptive in contemporary society.”
Does an autistic savant have skills that helps him stay aline in society? Sure (although they usually require the help of one or many caring individuals to take care of the things they cannot od themselves). But is this “adaptive” or simply “unluckily (in regards to a social life, being far from the norm) lucky (in terms survival, provided there are people willing to take care of you and help you along the way)”?
Aporia
But Felix is questioning the “adaptability” of a single individual in contemporary society (THIS contemporary society… not a fictional contemporary society where autistic savants are the norm).
Given the scientific interest in contemporary society, I would say that an autistic savant, provided with opportunity (by caring people) to meet people in need of the knowledge the savant can provide, will be “taken care of” (able to survive). I may even agree to call this “fitness”. But “adaptiblity” suggest a kind of change on the part of the person, in order to mold oneself to the requirements of the environment. Autistic people force environments to change to suit them, not the other way around (which is why they are dependent on an environment created by people who need them).
This fellow, is certainly by no means typical. His autobiography has been published and is receiving rave reviews. I believe I read that he is already self supporting and interested in finance. He writes an interesting blog: http://www.optimnem.co.uk/blog/, and is involved in an on-line romance. In short, while he may lack conventional social skills, he seems to have mastered much of what it takes to be a success in the digital age.
Define success.
As you said, he is certainly not typical (which is why we are hearing about him and not a bunch of other autistic savants).
I was responding to the sentence (of yours) that I quoted in my response.
Success here may be in the areas of achieving independence, self expression and a positive contibution to society. On the other hand, Daniel may be expected to have problems maintaining an intimate relationship. I guess I think society has changed in ways that facilitate a person with Daniel’s unusual set of skills.
It’s worth noting that another reason why autistic savantism isn’t selective is because of mimickry.
There was a kid who lived in my dorm back in the day. He was totally and completely crazy, but everybody assumed that he had to be a genius. Or at least an idiot savant of some sort.
Nope. He was just regular run-of-the-mill crazy. Too many people want to label people like that as geniuses to respect their specialness. Nobody is a loser!
On his wikipedia page it mentions that he is living with a “partner”, so we can assume he is able to have intimate relationships.
I like your definition of success here; I think these qualities are more characteristic of a person “successful” in using his “human” abilities than whether or the person is developing intimate relationships, having children, etc (I am of course emphasizing the importance of a positive contribution to society here).
I agree with the idea that society is able to appreciate and use a person like Daniel, but of course someone has to find him and plug him into the system so he can start throwing his energy into it (and although Daniel ( a rare case) may have been able to put himself into the system, without any special attention from others, hooking him up with resrources, contacts, etc, this independence may not be possible for most people fitting the label “autistic”.
But then again, in this day in age, living in a society, how totally independent can anyone really be?
Autism is not such a glorified disorder as it is shown in the movies. Savants are very rare and account for a minuscule part of the autistic population.
And in terms of evolution, if human beings were to evolve into beings unable to take care of themselves in the simplest of social situations, I would say nature is taking a huge step backwards.
If anything, evolution would do its best to weed out this disorder.
Wrong. If some of these people have profound mental capabilities, like this guy, there is some use in these people. It is somewhat natural to say, “let us rid our selves of them, they are really no help,” but if a being is better than everyone at one thing, then they have justified their existence already. People can be too comfortable with the status quo, and that is when problems arise. We should allow people to grow who can be highly evolved in different ways. While this kid is devolved in some ways, the incredible features that he has easily justify his shortcomings.
slaps his head a bunch of times
Ahehhashsfdl;lasdf’lfkj;laewkhjafs;l!!!11
poops his pants
I know many autistics to not be that bad. If we came from a truly rational society, we would simply eliminate the less capable autistics and allow the good ones to live. I mean, just let them go when they’re 18 like any other kid we let go. What is inhumane about that? But since we value this human life thing, I guess you guys would find it preferable to eliminate the gene from the pool altogether. But if there is a possibility to reach higher and get better, should we not pursue it?
I agree with this opinion. Just as biodiversity can be critical to the health of an ecosystem, human diversity is vital to the well being of the human species.
Human diversity is important to the survival of the species, but autism impairs survival. These individuals are not able to take care of themselves, and the occasional savant’s ability does not make up for the lost abilities the individual has. Claiming these savants are one part of evolution because of this one fascinating ability they might have is like trading your arms and your legs for a fantastic singing voice. The trade off in terms of survival is not worth it.
Of course autism is part of evolution. Certainly autism can impair survival. I agree with you there. But not necessarily in David’s case. I believe he is already financially independent. If not, sale of his book should go a long way toward making him so. If David can afford to pay his own way, he’s got a better shot at surviving than many other people.
Isn’t this how evolution works? It creates a variety of individuals. Some of them survive in their environment and some don’t. Of course the human social environment is a complicated one. My hypothesis is that some of the autisitc savants may be well suited for survival in the digital age. Maybe he’ll have a passel of savant children as well.
Another amazing example of autistic savantism:
youtube.com/watch?v=RfUtDNjjces
Stephen Wiltshire draws almost all of Rome from an aerial view with amazing detail after one helicopter ride over the city.
Have you seen that corroborated anywhere? It could be a hoax. It would be pretty easy to trace a blown-up photo of Rome.
i do not believe evolution is pushing towards more autistic savans. whether a person is an autistic savant or not has negligable effects on a push towards evolution simply becuase it does not affect the general population (gene pool) as much as other selective pressures. The primary one being diseases, which has been the prime killer and thus selective pressure for the last 10 k years. to give an example, if plants need sunlight, naturally taller plants will evolve (if sunlight is the resource that most limits growth). However, if a different pesticide is sprayed every growth season and kills 99% of the plants, the plants that survive will be immune to the specific pesticides, and it would be irrelevant to how tall they were. in this metaphor, pesticides would be diseases, and autistic savants would be tallness.