Autism is a Maladaptation?

[Psychonaut]

A recent article in New Scientist mentioned an autistic scientist, who had compared the manner in which animals function to that of autists, mentioning the capability of a species of bird to remember thousands of nut caches perfectly.

Another scientist's response to this was to dismiss it out of hand, saying that autism was a pathology, inherently maladaptation.

I have sent a letter to New Scientist, which I hope they will publish, and which follows.

Giorgio Vallortigara in saying that animal's extraordinary abilities are exhibited by healthy specimens, implies that the extraordinary abilities of autistic savants are not healthy. This demonstrates a very narrow view of what constitutes a healthy human. The notion that autism is a maladaptation assumes that 'normal' humans are perfectly adapted to their environment. Yet, we evolved to live in primitive cave-dwelling hunter-gatherer societies, and not the information saturated modern world. The autistic spectrum may represent humanity's first faltering steps towards adapting to our new environment. This leaves aside the issue that part of our adaptation is our very genetic diversity; that the strongest group will produce the broadest pool from which to draw its skills and ideas.

[ala1993]

I am inclined to agree with you, Psycho. I would also like to put forward the possiblity that such a term - 'maladaption' - emerges from a largely functionalist worldview which itself could be a maladaption insofar as it is a limitation on thought. Perhaps the scientist in question is content with seeing life merely in terms of what 'works' and what doesn't. As such, he would be unable to even entertain the possibility that a healthy life (and as such a healthy individual) does not have to be 'absolutely healthy' (in that their 'imperfections' can be beneficial and not, as many might claim, detrimental as far as living a 'normal' life is concerned).

Also, it is interesting to note that 'normality' is a category kept alive largely through what might be called non-thought - people assuming something to be the case, often because it is simpler to do so (or simply quicker). To say that something is 'normal' is as dismissive as claiming it to be 'abnormal' because in doing so it is refused critical attention. As if the 'normal' is something fragile.

I prefer to understand 'normal' on Wittgenstein's terms - as related behaviours that cannot be wholly subsumed under a single general category. If we understand it like this, autism can be normal as well.