Lonely hunters
Ten thousand years ago, finding food and a place to sleep didn't require social skills. In fact, obsessive tendencies, repetitive behavior and an intense focus on tools may have been a real advantage in tracking and killing animals. Similarly, a highly detailed knowledge of flora and fauna would confer a real advantage for 'shoppers' in the wild.
In short, traits that we consider maladaptive today — 'disabilities' associated with autism — may have been highly useful to our ancestors. Nature may have selected those traits to ensure survival when food supplies were limited and bands of humans were forced to disperse and forage alone, according to a fascinating new study published in Evolutionary Psychology in June.
A solitary individual foraging in the wild, for example, would know instinctively to avoid eye contact with other humans or apes likely to interpret a direct gaze as a threat. Increased levels of anxiety and super-sensitivity to sensory information would also help the solitary forager survive.
Other species provide some support for this hypothesis. For example, orangutans — genetically, the species third closest to humans — live solitary lives in the wild. Native to the islands of Borneo and Sumatra, where food is more scarce than in the African regions where gregarious chimpanzees and gorillas range, orangutans have to forage through many plants each day and travel long distances to meet their caloric requirements. Typically the animals, particularly males, meet only to mate.
Humans aren't apes, but we do share a family resemblance in certain social behaviors and the neurological mechanisms that underlie them.
Perhaps the male bias in autism has roots in a distant past when boys marched out into the wide world alone, armed only with a spear and a genetically programmed instinct to hunt alone.
The genes responsible for these traits, which are now associated with autism, remained in the human gene pool because they were adaptive. They not only helped individuals survive, reproduce and pass on their genes, but also helped them endure long periods of solitude.
But according to this theory, these traits were probably only adaptive at what we today call a 'subclinical' level — similar to the broad autism phenotype — characterized by problems with language, communication and social skills not severe enough to merit a diagnosis of autism.
The autism phenotype probably developed as individuals who had similar mutations mated and produced children with more extreme and debilitating versions of the qualities they shared with their parents. That much remains true today.
The idea that traits associated with autism might be adaptive makes perfect sense. So does the observation that qualities we find dysfunctional today were not so stigmatized in less socially demanding times.
Throughout human history, certain individuals have always chosen solitary lifestyles: Think of the so-called 'Desert Fathers' of early Christianity, who lived alone in caves. Most, though not all, hermits were men.
In our hyper-connected age, with its emphasis on networking and communication, solitude is viewed with suspicion. But for our ancestors it may have been literally life-saving.




Comments
And the elephant's nose is so long because it got stretched in a tug-of-war with a sneaky crocodile.
Seriously though, if the authors think this is a sensible hypothesis, they should do an experiment. Set up some kind of hunting / foraging virtual reality game and see if people with autism / autistic traits do better than everyone else.
The nearest I can think of is Liz Pellicano's recent study in PNAS which found that people with autism were *worse* than controls at a foraging game. Did they cite that one?
Hoping to do exactly this for my postdoc. You'll have to wait a few years for the data though.
The 'Solitary Forager' paper is not an experimental study; more like a thought experiment. It's worth reading, if only because it envisions a period of human history where traits today considered dysfunctional could have actually promoted survival. Of course, the same is likely true for other DSM-worthy conditions. The Pellicano study isn't relevant because the author of the paper emphasized that it's not autism per se, but rather sub-clinical traits of autism, that may have enhanced survival. Those traits are very widely dispersed in the general population, which suggests some kind of adaptive function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_vs._farmer_theory#cite_ref-0
My son's neurologist spoke of Thom Hartmanns Hunter Farmer theory in 1996, one year after it was presented.
Hartmann developed the hunter vs. farmer idea as a mental model after his own son was disheartened following a diagnosis of ADHD, stating, "It's not hard science, and was never intended to be."
Thom Hartmann is a good man.