Autism, Aspergers, Neurodiversity & Evolution

I've corresponded sporadically with a guy named Andrew Lehman, whose websites contain his thoughts on evolution and autism. He makes the case that autism is an evolutionary adaptation. Not only is it here to stay, but autism will become increasingly prevalent in each new generation. Mr. Lehman regards autism as an expression of the evolutionary mechanism called neoteny, which occurs when aspects of normal development are delayed, producing adults with juvenile features. Neoteny also figures in the Star Larvae Hypothesis (here and here).

Mr. Lehman constructs elaborate arguments about the origins of autism that have to do with intrauterine exposure to hormones, such as testosterone and estrogen. He advocates acceptance of neurodiversity, or normalizing the Autism-Aspergers spectrum of behavior. We'll see if neurodiversity ever gains a visibility in psychology or civil-rights politics comparable to that of biodiversity in ecology and environmental politics. Though, already businesses are learning to exploit the unique qualities of people with autism/Aspergers, such as their sustained ability to focus and attend to details. If you find this sort of thing intriguing, check out Mr. Lehman's main websites http://www.shiftjournal.com/ and http://www.neoteny.org/. (I cannot imagine how he finds the time to update these sites as often as he does.)

Here is an edited comment I left on the Shift Journal site:

Maybe autism is a label for a particular clumping of tendencies within the broader sweep of the pandemic of psychological syndromes and disorders. No doubt the pharmaceutical industry plays a role in the coining of new mental and behavioral maladies, but on the face of it there seems to be an explosion of neurodiversity in the current generation of children. OCD, ADHD, bipolar, autism/Aspergers (how about peanut allergies?) and other clumps skew the psychographic profile of this generation. Maybe these tendencies were always present in the population at their current levels, but, for sociocultural or medical-diagnostic reasons, did not attain much visibility. Now, there are no secrets.

Have you considered the postmodern neurodiversity explosion as a psychological version of the Cambrian explosion of biodiversity? All kinds of critters arrived suddenly on the scene about 530 million years ago, giving natural selection a trove of resource material to work with. Needless to say, countless of the new species remained extant only briefly. The fittest begat phyla still with us. It might be that evolution will cull most of the new neurological phenotypes, and, though all might have neotenous roots, natural selection will favor relatively few, and those few will set the stage for a shift in humankind's evolutionary trajectory. See, Founder Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect

Here are a couple videos hosted by people with Autism/Aspergers. I'm impressed by their earnest, well-spoken appeals.

And see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4PCKa3TNO8 (embed code not available)

Mockery of Democracy II: Federal Reserve

In August 2009, President Barack Obama re-appointed Ben Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve, months before Bernanke’s term was set to expire. In making the announcement, the president vowed to “continue to maintain a strong and independent Federal Reserve.”

But why, Mr. President? Why do we need a strong and independent Federal Reserve?

Obama’s Treasury Secretary and former head of the New York Federal Reserve, Timothy Geithner, delivered the rationale.  In an August 2009 Digg Dialogg hosted by the Wall Street Journal, Geithner defended the Federal Reserve’s opaqueness when it comes to monetary policy. “[Y]ou want to keep politics out of monetary policy,” he asserted.

But why, Mr. Secretary? Why do we need to keep politics out of monetary policy?

Didn’t our strong, independent, nonpoliticized Federal Reserve fail to prevent the mess we’re in? Didn’t the Fed’s monetary policy, which kept interest rates too low for too long, enable this recession?  We need a strong and independent Federal Reserve? Really? Why?

Well, maybe we do. The putative wisdom of Obama and Geithner got me thinking. After all, if it’s a good idea for monetary policy to be free of politics and under the control of a strong, independent private cartel (even though the U.S Constitution assigns monetary responsibility to Congress*), then why shouldn’t other Constitutional responsibilities of the federal government be handled privately?

For example, why not a strong an independent military?  By Obama-Geithner logic, a military junta operating outside government control would be a good thing, so that military decisions don't become politicized. Yes, a rogue army is what we need. Keep politics out of it.

Topless, Bottomless, Womb, Ocean