The art hypothesis seems reasonable, but I don't see how arrived at the survivalist conclusions.
If autism is a major factor in humanity's survival though the ice age, why is autism not far more common? Even accounting for dilution of the northern European genes they attribute this autism to, surely it would take more than 1-in-10, let alone 1-in-25 autists to have a meaningful impact on group survival. Even if those ratios could account for improved survival, wouldn't those genes have been heavily selected for?
Furthermore, if autism provided any significant survival benefits, why did it take until the early 1900's for society to recognize autism as being different from severe debilitating disorders like schizophrenia?
This is all very interesting, but I just feel like its jumping to conclusions. If science ever identifies a gene (or genes) for autism, this line of thinking would hold a lot more weight.
The art hypothesis seems reasonable, but I don't see how arrived at the survivalist conclusions.
If autism is a major factor in humanity's survival though the ice age, why is autism not far more common? Even accounting for dilution of the northern European genes they attribute this autism to, surely it would take more than 1-in-10, let alone 1-in-25 autists to have a meaningful impact on group survival. Even if those ratios could account for improved survival, wouldn't those genes have been heavily selected for?
Furthermore, if autism provided any significant survival benefits, why did it take until the early 1900's for society to recognize autism as being different from severe debilitating disorders like schizophrenia?
This is all very interesting, but I just feel like its jumping to conclusions. If science ever identifies a gene (or genes) for autism, this line of thinking would hold a lot more weight.
The art hypothesis seems reasonable, but I don't see how arrived at the survivalist conclusions.
If autism is a major factor in humanity's survival though the ice age, why is autism not far more common? Even accounting for dilution of the northern European genes they attribute this autism to, surely it would take more than 1-in-10, let alone 1-in-25 autists to have a meaningful impact on group survival. Even if those ratios could account for improved survival, wouldn't those genes have been heavily selected for?
Furthermore, if autism provided any significant survival benefits, why did it take until the early 1900's for society to recognize autism as being different from severe debilitating disorders like schizophrenia?
This is all very interesting, but I just feel like its jumping to conclusions. If science ever identifies a gene (or genes) for autism, this line of thinking would hold a lot more weight.