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

=== Assistant: Here’s a clean breakdown of RDOS’s theory and how it runs into problems at each stage, plus why the idea persists. ===
Here’s a clean breakdown of RDOS’s theory and how it runs into problems at each stage, plus why the idea persists.

==== He argues that: ====
# Neanderthals had a distinct psychological profile — more solitary, territorial, pattern-driven, tool-focused, less socially fluid.
# These traits resemble “Aspie” profiles as measured by his Aspie Quiz (systemizing, sensory hypersensitivity, routine-driven behavior, etc.).
# Some modern humans inherited this cognitive style though interbreeding with Neanderthals.
# Therefore, autism-spectrum traits are partly a Neanderthal legacy.

He frames this as “two human cognitive lineages” coexisting today:
* A Neanderthal-like lineage (autistic-coded)
* A Sapiens-like lineage (social-intuitive)

==== ### ====

We have:
* bones
* tools
* DNA
* archaeological sites

We don’t have the behavioral detail needed to map them onto modern psychological profiles. Everything about their social cognition is inferred from indirect evidence, and the picture that emerges—symbolic behavior, group living, care for injured members—does not support the stereotype of “aloof engineers.”

===== Most non-Africans have ~1–2% Neanderthal ancestry on average. That: =====
* isn’t enough genetic influence to explain a complex neurodevelopmental condition
* isn’t structured (e.g., autistic people don’t have more Neanderthal DNA than non-autistic people)

Genome-scale studies looking for such patterns simply don’t find them.

===== Autism arises from: =====
* hundreds of genes
* gene–environment interactions
* many de novo mutations

…and the genes involved appear to be conserved and present long before the Neanderthal–Sapiens split. There’s no “Neanderthal cluster” associated with autism.

===== It’s fun, but: =====
* not validated like the AQ or SRS
* contains items influenced by RDOS’s evolutionary narrative
* cannot be used to deduce ancient population traits

It’s more of a community-created personality inventory than a diagnostic tool.

==== This is the more interesting part. ====

===== People who identify with autistic strengths—systemizing, deep focus, detail orientation—often appreciate an origin story that: =====
* normalizes those traits
* suggests they were once advantageous
* gives a coherent identity narrative

===== Humans like belonging to “tribes,” whether metaphorically or ancestrally. Saying “I think differently because I’m of the Neanderthal cognitive line” has emotional resonance, even if it’s not scientific. =====

===== There is a lot we don’t know about Neanderthals, and that uncertainty gives imaginative theories room to flourish. =====

===== Autism communities, especially online, often form around: =====
* identity
* shared narratives
* alternative origin stories

In that context, the Neanderthal hypothesis works more like informal folklore than science.

==== If someone wants an evolutionary framing without drifting into unsupported claims, researchers tend to emphasize: ====
* balancing selection (traits like hyperfocus or high sensory acuity can be adaptive in some contexts and costly in others)
* cognitive diversity as population-level robustness
* autistic traits arising from general variation in brain wiring, not lineage divergence

This keeps the focus on present-day neurodiversity without relying on speculative paleopsychology.

If you want, I can also break down:
* the specific archaeological evidence RDOS interprets and how mainstream researchers interpret the same data
* the actual genetic regions in humans that come from Neanderthals and what they do
* or the cultural/psychological appeal of “alternative origin stories” in neurodivergent communities.