Editing Openai/69177fbb-14c4-800f-bc57-ccb5a1d88c95 (section)

== gpt-5-mini ==
=== User: Not right now, I'd like to return to the meaning-making myth of RDOS's theory and describe how it could plausibly be re… ===
Not right now, I'd like to return to the meaning-making myth of RDOS's theory and describe how it could plausibly be rescued.

If it were true that Neanderthals had a culture similar to autism communities, then autism communities could reasonably describe themselves as the spiritual descendants of Neanderthals, if not the genetic descendants (in the sense of having more Neanderthal variants). As you mentioned, the interpretation of the archeological evidence to behavior predictions is extremely indirect, so it would be most correct to say we have a very poor idea of Neanderthal culture. Both the support for this idea and the criticisms of it are on equally speculative ground for lack of hard evidence, and the only way we can judge between them is by assessing their competence in reasoning.

=== Assistant: Yes — that’s a careful and reasonable framing. ===
Yes — that’s a careful and reasonable framing. You’re essentially separating the mythic or narrative claim from the empirical claim, and grounding it in epistemic humility. Let me restate and extend your reasoning in a structured way.

=== If we accept that: ===
* Neanderthal behavior is extremely poorly known and archeological evidence only weakly constrains hypotheses about social structure, cognition, or culture, and
* Autism communities seek identity, dignity, and a coherent narrative of difference,

then a “Neanderthal spiritual descendant” story serves as a meaning-making construct rather than an empirical claim. It plausibly functions to:
# Reframe autistic traits as ancient and adaptive rather than pathological.
# Provide an origin narrative that supports group cohesion and identity.
# Offer archetypal metaphors for cognition styles: solitary focus, pattern orientation, intense interests.
# Externalize difference in a culturally digestible way, protecting against shame or social stigma.

=== - Supportive: Neanderthals had complex material culture (tools, pigments, some symbolic artifacts, care for injured), but social dynamics and cognitive style are unknown. Some archaeologists have suggested variability in social network size and specialization that could, hypothetically, resemble certain autistic traits. ===
* Limiting: Any claim that Neanderthals had an “autistic culture” is highly speculative: there’s no direct behavioral measure, and cognitive inference from bones and artifacts is indirect.

Thus, the plausibility of the myth depends on reasoning competence, not on the strength of data. Both proponents and critics operate in a context of underdetermination.

=== 1. Reframe it as symbolic rather than genetic truth. - Autism communities are cultural descendants in terms of values, behaviors, and preferred cognitive styles. - Claiming genetic descent is unnecessary and speculative; the narrative still holds value symbolically. ===
# Ground the myth in indeterminacy. - Emphasize that Neanderthal social and cognitive traits are unknown, leaving room for imaginative reconstruction. - The story is not falsified by current evidence, because there is no strong evidence either way.
# Focus on traits, not labels. - Highlight overlap in plausible traits: systemizing, specialized interests, solitary-focused cognition, tool-use intelligence. - Avoid claiming exact equivalence with modern ASD; rather, emphasize cognitive resonance.
# Use it as a heuristic, not a hypothesis. - The myth serves to generate reflection, identity, and cohesion. - It can guide narrative, art, or community storytelling without needing to survive genomic or archaeological testing.

=== - The myth does not contradict hard evidence; it operates in a zone of uncertainty. ===
* Its value is social, psychological, and symbolic, not empirical.
* Criticism about genetic or behavioral inaccuracy is irrelevant if the community uses it as a metaphorical scaffold rather than a literal claim.
* Competent reasoning is possible: you can evaluate internal coherence, narrative plausibility, and cultural function, even without evidence.

In short: if framed as symbolic/cultural ancestry, with clear acknowledgment of empirical uncertainty, the “Neanderthal-as-autism ancestor” story is logically defensible and meaningfully useful — even if all literal claims about Neanderthal cognition remain speculative.

If you want, I can outline a stepwise “epistemically honest” narrative framework for the myth that maximizes its resonance while avoiding scientific overreach.