Could earlier hominids be described as "retarded" or "autistic"?

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Can Handle the Truth

I have heard that chimps are the only animals who are able to peceive the mental state of others, and it was demonstrated by their ability to “double-cross” ememies, like pretending to hide a banana and then watching for another chimp to try to steal it.

Anyone who has had domestic or social animals as housepets–dogs, cats, parrots, raccoons–has probably seen similar behavior; the animals are quite capable of picking up on human cues, especially if they have been socialized from an early age. Hell, anybody who has worked with horses or donkeys knows what obstinate creatues they can be, and how many of them love to play practical jokes…you know, like throwing you off in mid-jump and then stopping and whinying over you. (Damn horses!)

@Can Handle the Truth

But don’t lions know the mental state of their prey? Isn’t that why they hide in the grass, so “they can’t see me”? If the lion knows nothing of how the prey thinks, why does he hide?

Well, some behavior is clearly instinctual and some is learned. It is often not easy to distinguish the two types from observation. You can, however, discern much from observing rearing. Bear cubs, for instance, learn nearly every behavior–how to forage, climb trees, dig a burrow, mark territory, interact with other bears–from their mothers. Bereft of such early instruction most bears can’t forage effectively in the wild. The octopus, to pick a different but highly intelligent animal, develops early on by instinct but later learns foraging and den-selecting/building techniques from watching other octopuses. Insects, on the other hand, operate on pure instinct, which is obvious not only from their inability to learn but also the rote manner of their behaviors and their willingness (of the social insects) to sacrific themselves for the good of the genomes they carry, as can be aptly demonstrated by a statistical analysis of their sacrificial behavior versus genetic content.

We often thing that our particular conceptual intelligence makes us “better” than other animals, and while it obviously has evolutionary advantages (after all, we have the Internet, NASCAR, and New York City…hmmm :dubious: ) it doesn’t make us superior in many comparisons of viability. Was proto-man “retarded”? Well, he probably wouldn’t score to high on GTA4, but he’d kick your ass when it comes to his specialties (foraging, scavanging, tracking and hunting). Ditto with other animals.

If you want to test that…go pick a fight with a chimp. Oh, and uh, nice knowing you.

Stranger

[rackensack]

@Can Handle the Truth

I have heard that chimps are the only animals who are able to peceive the mental state of others, and it was demonstrated by their ability to “double-cross” ememies, like pretending to hide a banana and then watching for another chimp to try to steal it. But don’t lions know the mental state of their prey? Isn’t that why they hide in the grass, so “they can’t see me”? If the lion knows nothing of how the prey thinks, why does he hide?

Perceiving and responding to the mental state of others is one thing, but acting in ways that suggest both an understanding of others’ beliefs and knowledge and an intention to manipulate Obviously, none of us knows with any certainty what goes on in the minds of lions or chimps. Humans have the apparently unique ability to communicate to other members of our species, and so we can describe our beliefs about the mental states of others to others; we have no such recourse concerning other species. That’s why I’ve tried to be careful in this thread to say that other apes exhibit behaviors that suggest that they form ideas about the beliefs and knowledge of others – we may simply be attributing our own abilities to them in an attempt to explain their behavior, and we could be wrong.

That being said, it’s easier to develop a model to explain lions’ stalking behavior based purely on either instinctual or learned behavior, without having to assume that they possess beliefs about the mental state of their prey or about what might alter that mental state, than it is for the sort of complex social behaviors exhibited by many apes. But the difference between primates and other species in this regard is one of degree, not kind. In any event, the original point was that other primates exhibit behaviors that suggest they possess beliefs about the mental state of other members of their species, so it’s unlikely that earlier hominids lacked this ability; thus, they seem unlikely to have been characterized by the type of behaviors that we classify as “autistic” in modern humans. Indeed, while others have argued that “autistic” behaviors may have been adaptive in the environment in which early hominids lived, autism spectrum disorders also seem to involve problems integrating sensory input: determining which bits of sensation to pay attention to and which to ignore – noise and tactile sensation in particular can be overwhelming to persons with autism spectrum disorders. It seems unlikely to me that becoming obsessively distracted by irrelevant sensory input would be an advantage in either stalking prey or avoiding becoming prey.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@rackensack

Indeed, while others have argued that “autistic” behaviors may have been adaptive in the environment in which early hominids lived, autism spectrum disorders also seem to involve problems integrating sensory input: determining which bits of sensation to pay attention to and which to ignore – noise and tactile sensation in particular can be overwhelming to persons with autism spectrum disorders. It seems unlikely to me that becoming obsessively distracted by irrelevant sensory input would be an advantage in either stalking prey or avoiding becoming prey.

It is well understood that behaviors classified under the label of autism are a spectrum of effects and extent, from the very mild (functional, but odd) to the extreme (non-functional, requiring institutionalization), and there is some amount of evidence that the genetic influence is additive–that two parents with autistic traits will tend to have a child with more extensive autistic traits. A mild dose of autistic (or ADHD, or OCD, or whatever)-type traits may be beneficial in prehistoric scenerios; one can imagine, for instance, an individual with hyperfocus spending the time to start a fire by friction methods, or notice and replicate the flaking of flint to make cutting tools. Certainly, a “Ray Babbit”-grade autistic wouldn’t survive long in nature, but one who could tease fire from a bow and some kindling would be welcomed by a primative clan, at least as long as he didn’t get too uppity about his talents. :dubious:

Stranger

[rackensack]

@Stranger On A Train

Certainly, a “Ray Babbit”-grade autistic wouldn’t survive long in nature, but one who could tease fire from a bow and some kindling would be welcomed by a primative clan, at least as long as he didn’t get too uppity about his talents. :dubious:

Stranger

I understand your point, and agree that someone who would be considered as having a milder form of autism or Asperger’s Syndrome might have survived and even flourished; it might even be more likely that they would have done so as part of a species that had not yet developed language, since much of what makes autistics stand out as different today is their impaired or unusual use of language. But the question in the OP wasn’t whether individuals with autism spectrum disorders might have existed as part of earlier hominid species, but whether such species could be considered, taken as a whole, as being autistic. That’s what I find extremely unlikely.

[Lemur866]

I agree. Compare the social abilities of, say, a normal dog with an autistic human. While the autistic human has cognitivie abilities way beyond what the dog has, the dog has sophisticated social instincts and an ability to live in a social group that a severely autistic person lacks.

Or take the numerous chimps, gorillas and orangutans raised by humans in ways very similar to the way human children are raised. These primates don’t seem autistic to me…they clearly understand social interaction, they do things to please their human companions, they socialize, they want hugs and cuddling, they play games, they are curious, they are alert, etc. What they lack is the language ability that a human has. It seems inconceivable to me that our hominid ancestors wouldn’t have been similar. Really, a lot of what we consider “humanity” is really something we share with animals. You can interact with a dog on a personal level…whereas a severely autistic person just lacks that ability that a dog or a cat has.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@rackensack

But the question in the OP wasn’t whether individuals with autism spectrum disorders might have existed as part of earlier hominid species, but whether such species could be considered, taken as a whole, as being autistic. That’s what I find extremely unlikely.

I’d agree with your assessment. One thing that is significant about all species that are rated high in intelligence is their extent of social and conceptual communication. This is expected in “herd” species like horses or dolphins, but it’s true even in animals that are not inherently social, like bears or octopus. They don’t generally seek companionship or participate in group behavior except under unusual conditions, but they are capable of understanding the intent and reading the posture and attitude of others.

Individuals with mild autistic characteristics may have some advantages and may offer some benefit to the species as a whole (in terms of the innovations they provide) but they lack the ability to make cohesive social connections. A race of autistics (imagine Star Trek Vulcans) would probably not be viable, as their lack of empathy would fail to bring them together to share ideas and discoveries. The fact that the most successful and powerful people are usually the ones that are best able to manipulate and manage others, regardless of their own intelligence or technical aptitude argues for a need for social communication, and indeed, the largest part of our (and other higher primate) brains is dedicated to puzzling out what that smile on someone’s face “means”.

Stranger