Today’s misguided [mis]use of evolutionary anthropology is the “neanderthal autism theory” which posits the traits associated with autism are the result of additional “neanderthal genes” being expressed. In this sense autistic individuals are not people with – for want of a better word – a “deficit” but actually fully functional individuals. They’re just hybrid individuals.
Before continuing I’d like to approach slowly, speaking in a calm voice with my hands in the air because mental illness is an incredibly touchy issue. This is amplified by the fact I’m arguing against an idea which posits that autistic people are fully functional; in their own way. No doubt many could take severe offence from this so I’m going to refrain from talking about autism itself. This will purely be a discussion of whether the NAT offers an accurate description of neanderthals not whether autistic individuals are – again for want of a better word – “ill.”
Specifically it will be a discussion of the 6 NAT arguments raised in this post since the entire NAT makes too many claims to be dealt with in a single sitting.
#1
Neanderthals have less developed social life, so their social skills were less developed too, so are the social skills of autistic people
Whilst the idea that neanderthals lacked some of the social structures of humans is gaining popularity, this is still being debated and the issue is far from settled. As such there’s not much I can really say about this point other than “perhaps.” However, I can say that some of the justification the NAT provides for this premise is wrong. Some of it is so wrong there’s no real way to respond to it.
The [neanderthal] forehead is most likely explained by a less advanced social system.
…
Males were accepted into the group by other males. Today this manifests itself as voluntary cuckoldry, a very odd behavior where whites invite blacks and other non-whites to have sex with their partner. The reason they choose non-whites, is that only males not part of other groups were allowed. Whites by these males are identified with other groups, while blacks are identified with “other” and not part of any group.
I’ve always wanted to post this
#2
most primates avoid eye contact as the sign of aggression, modern humans (neurotypicals) are the exception, both Neanderthals and autists are not
In the NAT itself, this “argument” is presented as the following. I put “argument” in quote marks because it doesn’t seem to be trying to argue this is a similarity between autistic individuals and neanderthals.
Many primate species regard direct eye contact as a threat. The same thing seems to be happening in autistic children. 236 It seems like autistics both are acused of staring 136 and of lacking eye contact. 237
The only real way this could be used as an argument for the NAT is if one tries to say that neanderthals behaved like primates in this regard. However, there’s no compelling reason for this to be the case unless one tries to suggest that neanderthals had all primate characteristics. However, there’s also no compelling reason to accept that argument either.
Alternatively they could be trying to suggest that since autistic individuals are like neanderthals and autistic individuals avoid eye contact, neanderthals did too. However if you want to make your hypothesis seem plausible then starting with your conclusion as your foundational premise is a particularly poor way of arguing.
In essence, there’s no real reason to think neanderthals avoided eye contact so the fact autistic people avoid it is irrelevant.
#3
Neanderthals have bigger brains, and the proportion of brain size to body size was bigger, that could mean they were more intelligent, people with Asperger Syndrom are typically more intelligent than neurotypicals
The actual NAT goes into more detail and is – as far as I know – correct (although the actual measurements for human and neanderthal brains are a bit off).
Neanderthals had a 1500cc brain volume, while modern humans have 1400cc. 226 This means a difference of 7-8% percent. The difference measured on autistic children was 10%. 227 In Aspie-quiz, there is a positive correlation between larger head / hat size and autism in adults. 228 This means the difference doesn’t go away after the first year of age, but rather this difference stays.
Whilst I’m skeptical comparing hat size is relevant – particularly given the data appears to be from an informal online survey – it would seem that the average autistic individual has a larger brain. However, differences is brain size is not the only thing that differentiates humans and neanderthals. Neanderthals also had differently shaped and organised brains and their cranium developed in a different way. Autistic people do not share these traits.
As such whilst this connection does lend some plausibility to the NAT the lack of any further similarities means that this is circumstantial evidence at best.
#4
Neanderthals women were dominating and were taking sexual initiative, autistic people find it especially difficult to adapt to sexual model of neurotypicals, where males are sexually dominant, increased tendency to behaviours such as exhibitiosm can also be explained by neanderthal genes, since among Neanderthals such behaviours were actually accepted as normal and dominant
Like with the eye contact point raised in #2, the first question you might be thinking is “how the hell do they know this.” In an effort to work this out I tried to find the justification for this point in the original NAT article. All I could find was
The Neanderthal group bonding likely looked strikingly similar to bonobos. Bonobos are a female dominated species. The bonobo female uses non-reproductive sex to handle males. They are also highly promiscuous, and cannot select to mate with only alpha males, rather mate with all the males in their group. The Schadenfreude and Rousseau affect, as well as masochism must have it’s origin in a female dominant species. For this reason, Neanderthals must have been a female dominated species.
All the citations are included in the previous quote. As you can tell, there are none. This entire passage is simply a giant assertion and with no reason to think it true I’m going to conclude it provides no support for the NAT.
The image of neanderthals advocated by NAT
#5
Neanderthals were meat-eaters (for me meat is the best diet)
It is true that neanderthals did eat a lot of meant, being top carnivores in Europe (although they also ate plants). So could this also be circumstantial support for NAT? Unlike the brain size connection I’m not even going to grant it that level of evidence since it contains a hidden assumption: the neanderthal preference for meat was genetic. We know that the further north human groups live the more they eat meat because there is insufficient plant life around to sustain them, might this also be why neanderthals ate a lot of meat?
There’s no reason to think the meat preference was genetic and so no reason to think this point is relevant to autism (since the NAT is trying to argue autism stems from neanderthal genes).
A neanderthal’s favourite beverage
#6
Neanderthals prefer cold to heat (I like when it’s cold and hate when it’s hot)
The NAT itself elaborates on this point by arguing that neanderthals didn’t use their tools to make clothes, didn’t use their fires to keep warm and didn’t change their toolkit to suit colder environments (hence their adaptations were biological, not cultural). However, fire has been found in neanderthal structures and scrapers – tools associated with making hides – become more common during colder periods.
Whilst I can’t say whether or not neanderthals liked the cold I can say that any evidence for this position is lacking and so this point is lacking in the power to lend support for the NAT.
He wraps up warm because he likes the cold
In short, the NAT is an embodiment of the phrase “a little bit of knowledge is a bad thing.” They’ve gone looking for similarities between autism and neanderthal and stopped when they found them, not bothering to delve deeper and work out whether these traits actually existed in our extinct cousins. For example, one part relies heavily on the creationist tome “Buried Alive” despite the fact there are many flaws with the book’s reasoning. Although they acknowledge some of them, for the most part they just take the bits which agree with their idea and run with it. They simply stopped the research when they found an idea they liked, and thus the NAT was born.
Boy I thought I heard everything when it comes to the “theories” surrounding autism. I think one of the key things for people to remember is that we still know very little about the condition itself. As a result, we can’t really make many definitive statements about it. I am glad that you addressed this theory, and very well I might add. I always enjoy seeing these sorts of pseudo-scientific theories analyzed so that people can be better informed. Great article.
When we don’t know what’s going on it’s easy for people to make stuff up (they even do it for things we do know about that). Combine that with the fact people want to feel good about themselves – particularly when they’ve been diagnosed with something non-normal – and you wind up with a breeding ground for people inventing positive connotations for autism. Then you feel like a dick for pointing out that some of these connotations aren’t true.
So true. But in the end, it’s good to point out the false connotations since it helps the science progress. This way we can learn more about these issues and help the people who need it.
I think autism – especially Asperger’s and high-functioning autism and mild autistic spectrum disorders – are just similar to “nerds” or “geeks” – that the more intelligent you are, the more yoiu are percieved as socially inept or weird. Think about it – the popular kids in school usually aren’t the brainiacs; in fact, the cleverest kids tend to be unpopular or get bullied. Prominent mathematicians and some Nobel prize winners, contemporary and past, act strangely and some are now suspected to have been autistic.
Btw the cuckold thing isn’t true, it works with white guys too and also with women being cuckolded by other women. And you could concievably put polyamory (in all its different forms) and the Moulin Rouge plot of loving a sex worker under the same heading. I don’t think ancient genes could be responsible for such specific behavious (including masochism – and how would female masochism or male sadism be explained? Or non-procreative fetishes?). Also, human females can also be sexually dominant, like the ancient Native Americans. Who knows, one day in the west women might be sexually dominant. The theory that male dominance is programmed into our genes and is a mark of humanity is a dangerous one, as it precludes all discussion of the double standard and how women are controlled by slut-shaming to ensure male sexual dominance.
I think that’s one of the key things about autism: it is a spectrum. There are people who don’t fit in the “stereotypical” image of autism since it includes a gradient of people.
Also, I think that your cuckold/kink comment summarises the basic problem with the NAT. They simply stopped when they found what they wanted to hear, not digging deeper and trying to figure out what sexuality is and whether it actually supports their position. After all, that’s a spectrum in its own right. They just found something they liked and stopped there.
On the plus side, I suppose you could always call Roland a neanderthal hybrid if he ever does anything domineering.
None of those arguments are especially convincing. There is one observation that I find especially interesting though. It appears that both autistic and neanderthal individuals have reduced global connectivity.
Of the arguments presented that’s probably the closest one to being true but even then it is still the subject of considerable controversy. Some query whether neanderthals were actually like that (and had a fair few comments on the original piece arguing for that position).
But even if that weren’t the case there’s still the fact that it assumes neanderthal genes are the only possible cause of such a trait. That is an assumption far from proven and when you realise that this is the best argument you also realise there’s not much meat to the idea.
That is of course not to say that the Neanderthals were autistic or vice versa, just that it would be interesting to see if there was a preponderance of certain behaviours in both groups.
Autism: The Eusocial Hominid Hypothesis
ASDs (autism spectrum disorders) are hypothesized as one of many adaptive human cognitive variations that have been maintained in modern populations via multiple genetic and epigenetic mechanisms. Introgression from “archaic” hominids (adapted for less demanding social environments) is conjectured as the source of initial intraspecific heterogeneity because strict inclusive fitness does not adequately model the evolution of distinct, copy-number sensitive phenotypes within a freely reproducing population.
Evidence is given of divergent encephalization and brain organization in the Neanderthal (including a ~1520 cc cranial capacity, larger than that of modern humans) to explain the origin of the autism subgroup characterized by abnormal brain growth.
Autism and immune dysfunction are frequently comorbid. This supports an admixture model in light of the recent discovery that MHC alleles (genes linked to immune function, mate selection, neuronal “pruning,” etc.) found in most modern human populations come from “archaic” hominids.
Mitochondrial dysfunction, differential fetal androgen exposure, lung abnormalities, and hypomethylation/CNV due to hybridization are also presented as evidence.
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3dPqM3qgNSiY3p5TmFRMjhSekdyaV8wWUw0MTZiUQ
A short video introduction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk_85vNaSMA
The full 2-hour video presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6-6Naz-C0M
Note:
Evidence of transgenerational epigenetic effects due to recent environmental exposures to novel complex molecules also supports this hypothesis. Atavism may be advantageous when it’s restricted to a small number of individuals, but deleterious when the mechanisms maintaining this subpopulation are altered in a way that isn’t immediately apparent in the genome.
The puzzlingly heterogeneous (yet statistically undeniable) components of autism might thus be united through a better understanding of epigenetics.
Thank you for addressing these misconceptions! Can I encourage you to post a link and summary as an answer to the question you draw the example arguments from? That question continues to have a “I don’t know, but it could be reasonable, here’s some more info” thought as the top answer. It would be great if you quelled the misinformation at its source.
It’s already been linked to in the comments several times, I don’t want to toot my own horn any more
The simple, and falsifiable, prediction is that Asperger’s Syndrome is very rare to unknown among indigenous sub-Saharan Africa people. The only comment on this subject is that autism is overrepresented among African mothers who immigrate to Sweden (and probably marry Swedes) – which is not much help either way.
If AS were known among such people, in Africa, it surely would have been reported by the WHO; but it has not.
Whilst I’m no expert, I am given to understand that the prevalence of autism is influenced by changing and improving diagnostic standards/techniques. Given this, might we expect people who immigrate to the first world where such standards/techniques are implemented more frequently to have a higher rate?
So you didn’t actually adress any of the arguments in Pleides by the theory itself, but those found in rather liberal summaries of the theory by bloggers that don’t feel comfortable discussing the science. You’ve set-up a straw man argument like debating the points of pop-psychology article and then announcing you’ve proven Freud or Jung wrong. Fail!
I simply used the list as a guide as to what (at least one person thought was) the best arguments. The actual critiques themselves are based around the original source material. Pay attention.
I just thought of something that makes this neanderthal-hybrid argument a little disturbing to me. The idea that individuals on the autism spectrum are showing the traits of neanderthal genes carries the implication that they are somehow not human, or fundamentally different than homo sapiens.
This is really dangerous when you consider that people of different skin color, sexuality, and the mentally ill have been described as a different species of human, or sub-human throughout history; and look at what happened to them in the past.
I’d never really thought of it like that. The promotors of this idea seem to be implying that this is a postive thing for autism, so had never really considered the negative implications of this idea. But you are correct, there’s the potential for great harm here.
The skeletons of Neanderthal males indicate highly muscular indiviuals and were anything but passive. Infact that if this theory was true, why is it that there were no elderly female skeletons found yet there’s clear cut evidence of elderly males that were cared for. This IMO, seems to indicate more of a male oriented society.
I’m weary of concluding that elderly neanderthal females weren’t cared for given there are few examples of elderly males. Picking out a trend from such a sample size is something we should be cautious of. However, I think you’re spot on about the rest of it.
I have Aspergers, and I just want to say there are some very well educated Psychiatrists who beleive this theory. You hand-picked some of the worst arguments from that web site and ran with it. Many autistics do have an Occlipital Bun in the back of their heads, and they do share some genes with Neanderthals that Neurotypicals lack. Neanderthals had fewer friends, were less sociable, women hunted (we know this, and in the same way, I’ve noticed that female autistics almost always want to work, even if they’re married. Look at Temple Grandin and Liane willey.) Neanderthals had no religion (almost all aspies I know are atheists) Neanderthals were visual thinkers, they had art but no music, (autistic culture is loaded with art, but we’re stereotypical white guys who can’t dance) We’re less suseptible to pain (hence the rodeo-style injuries that Neanderthals sustained) There’s three times as much autism in the asian and American Inidan races than the African race and two times as much autism in the Caucasian race than the Asian race (just like Neanderthal distribution.) Neanderthals didn’t need great motor skills to kill Wooly Mammoths, they had more advanced techonology than Homo Sapiens Sapiens (just like all the Aspie engineers) Dark days in Ice-age Europe explain sensitivity to light, drab days there explain sensory overload, Neanderthals used their brans, not their bodies to hunt (Aspie children want to be the scientist and the engineer or the College Professor. Neurotypical kids want to be the athlete.) Neanderthals hunted with traps, (many autistics are interested in traps) Neanderthals had less developed tribes (Aspies tend to be less nationalistic) etc.
Now, there’s room for debate on this issue, but you shouldn’t portray it as a one-sided issue. There are some psychiatrists who are skeptical about the theory. Let me just say this: The advocates of this theory have a ways to go to PROVE it, but I think there’s enough evidence there to do a study to see if there’s a correlation between Neanderthal DNA and autism in individuals. If there is none, then I’ll admit that the theory is wrong. Until then, understand that this is a two-sided issue.
You’re right, one of the key tests of this idea would be whether or not we could identify a link between the Neanderthal genome and genes associated with autism. Researchers have looked to see whether or not this was the case, and found
“some of the key genes for autism have been found to be lacking in the Neanderthal genome and that of the other closely related species to modern humans, the Denisovans.” (Spikins, P. (2013). The Stone Age Origins of Autism.)
Which would seem pretty compelling evidence to reject the NAT
Compelling if genes can be used to diagnose autism in 100% of cases – it seems this is not the case by a wide margin.
” Clinicians can now identify the genetic basis of ASD in 10 to 20 percent of cases. ” autismspeaks.org
So that leaves 80% of cases which (if you trust this site – i do not have the time to investigate fully) seems to debunk this argument.
Pingback: Autistic individuals are NOT Neanderthal hybirds | EvoAnth·