I am a woman born 1949 and my quest is to find a mindmate
to grow old together as a mutually devoted couple
in a relationship based upon the
egalitarian rational commitment paradigm
bonded by intrinsic commitment
as each other's safe haven and secure basis.

The purpose of this blog is to enable the right man
to recognize us as reciprocal mindmates and
to encourage him to contact me:

The entries directly concerning,
who could be my mindmate,
are mainly at the beginning.
If this is your predominant interest,
I suggest to read this blog in the same order
as it was written, following the numbers.

I am German, therefore my English is sometimes faulty.

Maybe you have stumbled upon this blog not as a potential match.
Please wait a short moment before zapping.

Do you know anybody, who could be my mindmate?
Your neighbour, brother, uncle, cousin, colleague, friend?
If so, please tell him to look at this blog.
While you have no reason to do this for me,
a stranger, maybe you can make someone happy, for whom you care.

Do you have your own webpage or blog,
which someone like my mindmate to be found probably reads?
If so, please mention my quest and add a link to this blog.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

17. Rationality, Evolution, Neanderthals, Asperger's Affinity

Rationality, Evolution, Neanderthals, Asperger's Affinity

To many disorders, that are disabling enough to be included in the DSM, there is a corresponding personality, that is not outside the scope of mental health.
I am convinced, that my mind mate would be someone somewhere in the middle between being NT (neurotypical) and being diagnosed as having Asperger's syndrome or HFA (high functioning autism). I call this kind of personality Asperger's-Affinity.

Evolution as the spreading of the genes of the fittest has obviously caused the development of growing rational capacities. As the species homo, this lead to the development of more and more progress in the adaptation to and overcoming of the hazard of the environment. Strong instinctivity as the drive to procreate has been more or less optimized by evolution in all living being long before any species started to evolve any amount of rationality. Thus, the evolution of rationality was slowly reducing the gap between the strength of instinctive urges and the capacity to rationally control, modify and cope with such urges.

This development was successful to increase the fitness of the species, as long as the rationality developed as a tool serving the procreation instinct, that was considerably stronger. But when the strength of rationality reaches a level, that is only slightly weaker than instinctivity, then the balance can easily get reversed by spontaneous mutations.

By such mutations, people are born as rational individuals, who do not breed, when they clearly see no advantage of having offspring. In large, affluent societies with a division of labor, for people, who are not driven into breeding by instinct, breeding is irrational and contradictory to the individual well being. As long, as they are not forced or manipulated into breeding against their will, their genes lacking an urge to breed are not spread. The breeders continue to predominate the gene pool.

But when people in prehistoric times lived in small groups of 20 or 50 individuals, in hostile environments, things were sometimes very different. The survival of such groups depended on the presence of healthy strong individuals, who were capable to hunt big animals for food and to defend the group against dangers like bears or other groups fighting for resources.
An individual with the same rational predominance in the brain, who would today consider it irrational to breed, would in such a group decide, that having a few strong sons and nursing daughters is an unavoidable investment in the own survival. They would not like to breed, but do it as a rational adaptation to circumstances. But they would limit breeding to the minimum, that they consider necessary for survival, therefore such groups would not grow and spread. That of course makes them vulnerable to get extinct, if any disaster diminishes the group beyond recovery, while breeders create abundance.

Now there could be two groups of prehistoric people, one group is called N, the other is called C, and everything is the same, the size of the group, the environment, the level of technology in making tools, and also the absolute strength of instnctivity including the procreation instinct.
Only there is one difference: The level of rationality in the gene pool of the N group is higher than in the C group.

Logically C groups in the survival competition are fitter than N groups, and if both groups compete for resources, then it can be expected, that the C groups win and spread and the N groups get extinct over time.
It can also be expected, that when a N group has become so small, that the members are deprived of resources to survive, then sometimes they might get incorporated into the C group. If they are forced or manipulated by members of the C group to breed, some of their N genes might enter the gene pool of the C group.

Now if N would mean Neanderthals and C would mean Cro-Magnons, then my speculation is a personal speculation to explain, why the Neanderthals have disappeared.

I have read some very interesting articles connecting Asperger's, other forms or autism and ADD with some people having Neanderthal genes. Such people including those with Asperger's Affinity are usually known as having above average rationality and an above average occurrence of childfree atheists. Maybe people with Neanderthal genes have the most advanced evolution of rationality.

Maybe I am someone with Neanderthal genes in search of a partner with the same.
Maybe Neanderthal genes are a predisposition to wanting a relationship based upon the ERCP.