From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > This seems to do a nice job capturing alot of previous discussion on list > with the addition of some new angles > Dee > > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/958646.asp?cp1=1 > <article snipped> The article provides no new information. Its assertions have been made before and lack any explaination as to why autism is the most common of all pervasive developmental disorder why the genetic component is so ellusive, etc.. Its use of vague generalities of the distinction between sexes as its basis for their conclusion that autism is "more male than male" is flawed. How a female ape would know what the heck a cooking pot is to know that it is a femanine toy escapes me. It is far more likely that they are mimicing human behavior or the researchers are seing what they want to see and labling behaviour outside of that as anomolous. The fact that the apes distinguished between doll and stuffed animal is something I also find suspect. I think maybe the researchers in that situation saw what they wanted to see or the apes did what pleased the researchers. Moreover, I find the blatant misuse of the term "empathizing" to describe social savy offensive and represents a lack of empathy for autistic people on the part of the researchers. Their misuse of the term leads to endless misconseptions about autistic individuals like the assertion that autistic individuals lack empathy. Wrong, they lack social savy, but still have empathy. In my experiences with high functioning autisic individuals, a much larger portion of them are vegetarians than "normal" people. The usual reason given by the autistic individuals for being vegetarians is for compasionate reasons. A person who lacked empathy would feel no compasion for animals. Look up the clinical definition of a sosciopath if you don't see the distinction between empathy and social savy. I tire of the endless loops that these "researchers" end up running in trying to explain autism without any new insight. As for why researchers have failed to find the origins of autism, and their inability to explain why it is deeply ingrained in our genetic code and not linked to a single mutant gene or chromosome, I think represents lack of insight on the part of the researchers. My hypothesis as to why it is so deeply ingrained into our genetic code is simple, it is not a mutation, it is the ancestral state. It is my contention that the current "normal" state of humanity is the mutation. You want the missing link, there it is. I have nothing to back this hypothesis other than speculation based on traits and knowledge of evolution and mutations, because no research has been done towards this end, which is regretable. Support for this hypothesis is as follows: Consider the diagnostic traits of autistic individuals: Failure to make sustained eye contact - among most animals, including our closest primate relatives, sustained eye contact is considered a challenge or threat. The fact that humans now make non-threatening eye contact is a deviation from typical animal behavior and is obviously not the ancestral state of humanity. Delayed language development - Most autistic individuals do not learn complex language as quickly or readily as "normal" people. As complex language is obviously not humanity's ancestral state, need I say more? Hightened sensitivity to sound, sight, touch, taste, and smell: Sensative senses are imparitive to any animal living in a hostile environment. This would pose a significant survival advantage over "normal" humans. Strong, innovative problem-solving skills - That is a skill that would be essential in the cultivating of fire, agriculture, animal husbandy, and all the innovations that allowed humans to move from being just another animal to being capable of exerting conscious control over their environment. Lack of human social savy - primates live by a very different set of social rules than humans. It goes without saying that our current social structure has significant deviations from the ancestral state. Autistic people having less human social savy may be the result of mutations, but seing as autistic behaviors are fairly consistant from individual to individual, it is far more likely a product of an ancestral state. Moreover, autistic people do not socialize well with other people, but do socialize quite well with animals. Regrettably, with acestral states and recesive genetic traits, the combination of DNA to produce an ancestral individual usually comes with a fair amount of mutated genes, and results in an individual that is greatly handicapped, both mentally and physically, but in some populations, there will be less genetic drift, and less handicaps, explaining the gap between "high-functioning" and "low-functioning" autistic individuals. I think I've said enough on this subject. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons." - Douglas Adams _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
