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

== gpt-5-1 ==
=== User: Are you familiar with RDOS's theory that Asperger's is correlated with Neanderthal behavior? ===
Are you familiar with RDOS's theory that Asperger's is correlated with Neanderthal behavior?

=== Assistant: Your question is correct in its framing: the idea comes from RDOS aka Øyvind Hammer, the creator of the Aspie Quiz, who… ===
Your question is correct in its framing: the idea comes from RDOS (aka Øyvind Hammer), the creator of the Aspie Quiz, who has argued for many years that autistic traits—especially the “systemizing, pattern-oriented, low-social-signal” cluster—represent a partial Neanderthal cognitive inheritance.

A quick evaluation:

Correctness / standing of the idea:
This is considered a fringe hypothesis. It has no support in mainstream paleoanthropology, genetics, or autism research. Genetic studies show that nearly all non-African humans have ~1–2% Neanderthal DNA, but there’s no evidence that this DNA corresponds to autistic traits specifically. RDOS’s framework is more of a speculative narrative built by correlating personality profiles with his interpretation of Neanderthal behavior, not something empirically validated.

Who tends to find it appealing:
It often resonates with people who identify strongly with autism/Asperger’s traits and prefer an evolutionary-niche explanation—especially those who lean toward systemizing worldviews or anthropology-as-identity frameworks.

Who tends to reject it:
Researchers, clinicians, and people oriented toward evidence-based models of neurodevelopment usually dismiss it as non-scientific.

If you want, I can break down the main claims of RDOS’s theory, the scientific problems with each step, or why these ideas keep resurfacing in autism communities.

=== User: Please. ===
Please.

=== 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.

=== User: Let's do the latter two points. ===
Let's do the latter two points.

=== Assistant: Here’s a compact, structured look at both: ===
Here’s a compact, structured look at both:

=== Genome studies give a fairly detailed picture of which Neanderthal segments survive in our genomes and what functions they influence. The key point: almost none of it relates to cognition, autism, or systemizing traits. Instead, surviving segments cluster around traits that were useful when Homo sapiens entered Eurasia. ===

===== The strongest surviving regions involve: =====
* antiviral defenses
* skin barrier function
* innate immunity

These conferred survival advantages against Eurasian pathogens.

===== Several surviving Neanderthal variants influence: =====
* hair thickness
* skin sensitivity
* keratin filament structure

These probably helped adapt to colder, lower-UV environments.

===== Some regions affect: =====
* sleep–wake cycle timing
* seasonal photoperiod sensitivity

This fits with adaptation to high-latitude lighting cycles.

===== A few segments influence: =====
* lipid processing
* brown fat thermogenesis

Again, Eurasian-environment advantages.

===== Large sections of Neanderthal-derived DNA were purged strongly, especially around: =====
* brain development
* testes and reproductive genes
* language-related regions
* neurogenesis

This implies that Neanderthal alleles were maladaptive when introduced into Homo sapiens in precisely the domains that RDOS’s theory claims they shaped.

In short:
* What stuck around mostly shaped skin, immunity, and metabolism.
* What got removed is heavily enriched for cognition and neurodevelopment.

So the genetic landscape contradicts RDOS’s thesis.

=== There’s a predictable set of dynamics that make theories like RDOS’s attractive even when they lack scientific support. These don’t reflect gullibility; they reflect natural human meaning-making under specific conditions. ===

==== Many autistic people grow up feeling: ====
* alienated
* different
* mislabeled as defective

A lineage theory offers:
* dignity (“my traits have deep roots”)
* identity coherence (“this fits into a bigger pattern”)
* a shared mythos (“people like me have always existed”)

Anthropologically, this mirrors how minority groups build narratives of origin to reinforce identity and cohesion.

==== The mainstream narrative often pathologizes autism. ====
An evolutionary-origin story suggests:
* These traits were adaptive.
* They’re not errors but specializations.
* They served a purpose in ancestral contexts.

Even if speculative, it’s emotionally restorative.

==== Many autistic adults feel harmed or misunderstood by medical and educational systems. ====

A fringe theory acts as:
* resistance to pathologizing models
* a mythic reclaiming of autonomy
* a way to “tell the story differently”

It functions similarly to alternative medicine narratives among communities dissatisfied with credentialed systems.

==== Autistic cognition tends toward: ====
* systemizing
* categorizing
* constructing explanatory models

The Neanderthal hypothesis is appealingly pattern-rich:
* two human lineages
* two cognitive styles
* two evolutionary niches It feels orderly—even elegant.

==== Online autistic spaces often develop: ====
* inside jokes
* shared symbols
* community-specific lore

The Neanderthal idea becomes a kind of folklore:
* not believed literally by all
* but meaningful as a cultural motif
* part of group identity performance

Like astrology in queer communities or clan myths in tribal societies, it builds cohesion.

==== The theory frames difference as ancient and natural rather than: ====
* personal failure
* parental fault
* modern environmental damage

It externalizes difference in a way that feels protective.

==== Neanderthal DNA in humans overwhelmingly affects skin, immunity, metabolism, and circadian rhythms, not cognition or autism. ====
But as a cultural myth, the idea persists because it provides:
* identity,
* dignity,
* explanatory elegance, and
* emotional counterweight to pathologizing models.

If you want, I can go through the strongest scientific argument against Neanderthal–autism correlation, or the most charitable version of RDOS’s idea that could survive contact with real data.

=== User: Both, please. ===
Both, please.

=== Assistant: Here are the two pieces you asked for, each kept tight and structured. ===
Here are the two pieces you asked for, each kept tight and structured.

=== The most decisive counterpoint combines population genetics and selection patterns. ===

==== When Neanderthal DNA entered the Homo sapiens gene pool, natural selection removed most of the segments that touched: ====
* neural progenitor proliferation
* cortical development pathways
* synaptic gene networks
* language-related loci (e.g., FOXP2-adjacent regions)
* brain size and skull growth patterns

This wasn’t mild drift—it was strong negative selection, especially in high-expression brain regions. Large comparative studies show a massive underrepresentation of Neanderthal segments in exactly the regions that would need to survive if they contributed to autistic traits.

If Neanderthals carried alleles shaping “autistic-like cognition,” and those alleles were advantageous or even neutral in Homo sapiens, selection would have kept them. Instead, the opposite happened.

This is the hardest single blow to RDOS’s framework.

==== Autism risk involves hundreds of genes with small effect sizes, plus de novo mutations. Genome-wide association studies show: ====
* none of the highly replicated autism-associated loci come from introgressed Neanderthal segments
* Neanderthal-derived regions have no enrichment for ASD risk variants
* most introgressed segments influence physiology, not cognition

If Neanderthal traits were behind the autistic cognitive profile, there would be at least faint statistical signals—there are none.

==== Large genetic datasets comparing thousands of autistic and non-autistic individuals show no ancestry-level difference. Everyone with Eurasian ancestry has basically the same 1–2% Neanderthal proportion. ====

No elevation = no link at the population level.

==== Neanderthals exhibit: ====
* care for injured members
* deliberate burial practices
* symbolic behavior
* cooperative hunting
* ornamentation and pigments

This undermines the idea of them as “solitary, pattern-oriented, low-social-signal” types.

Altogether, the empirical burden is heavy and one-sided.

=== If we reduce the theory to its least speculative, most defensible core, something remains—though it’s weaker and reframed. ===

==== It’s reasonable to assume: ====
* different populations had different average cognitive inclinations
* climate, ecology, and subsistence patterns shaped subtle biases in attention, perception, and social style
* these differences persist weakly today in modern variation

This doesn’t imply autism is Neanderthal, just that cognitive variation has deep roots.

==== A few introgressed regions influence: ====
* circadian rhythm
* light sensitivity
* skin and sensory responsiveness

Autistic people often have atypical sensory profiles; one could hypothesize a soft overlap where some aspects of sensory sensitivity reflect archaic Eurasian traits—but not in a lineage-based or autism-specific way.

==== You can frame autistic strengths—pattern detection, detail orientation, rule-focused thinking—as: ====
* part of the natural range of human cognitive strategies
* traits that would have been beneficial for tool-making, tracking, or precision tasks

This doesn’t require Neanderthals specifically; it fits a general “niche specialization” model.

==== The charitable version isn’t: ====
* “autistic people are Neanderthal-descended”

It’s more like:
* “autistic traits are part of long-standing human cognitive diversity that predates modern societies, and some aspects may have been shaped by ancient environmental pressures.”

==== Instead of a diagnostic tool or window into Neanderthal minds, it works as: ====
* a community-created map of certain cognitive styles
* a way of describing systemizing, solitary-preference, and sensory-heavy profiles
* a narrative device, not an evolutionary claim

==== You can treat the myth as: ====
* a metaphor for a cognitive minority
* a way of expressing “we have always been here”
* a narrative of dignity rather than pathology

This is similar to how some communities treat trickster archetypes, demigod lineages, or clan animals: not literally, but meaningfully.

=== A version of RDOS’s idea that fits real data would look like this: ===

: 

If you want, I can diagram:
* a version of the idea that completely avoids pseudoscience,
* or a comparison of RDOS’s mythic framing with other identity-origin narratives (e.g., witchblood, starseed, demisexual-as-neolithic-foraging-specialist, etc.).

=== User: Do you distinguish meaningfully between autism and Asperger's, or do you adhere to the modern autism spectrum model? ===
Do you distinguish meaningfully between autism and Asperger's, or do you adhere to the modern autism spectrum model?

=== Assistant: From an accuracy standpoint, the old distinction between Asperger’s and “classic autism” doesn’t hold up well, which is… ===
From an accuracy standpoint, the old distinction between Asperger’s and “classic autism” doesn’t hold up well, which is why the DSM-5 collapsed everything into Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). That said, people often use the older terms to mark meaningful experiential differences, and those differences aren’t wrong—they’re just not sharply bounded categories.

Here’s how the two models compare.

=== Clinically, the evidence points to: ===
* shared underlying genetics
* shared developmental pathways
* no clear boundary between the old “Asperger’s” profile and other autistic presentations

When researchers try to sort people into discrete subtypes based on symptoms, cognition, or genetics, the groups blur. That’s why the DSM-5 moved to a single spectrum with variations in support needs, language development, and adaptive functioning.

In formal contexts—diagnosis, epidemiology, research—I treat “Asperger’s” as a historical label for a specific presentation of ASD.

=== Outside clinical settings, people use “Asperger’s” to describe a recognizable cluster: ===
* early language develops normally
* average or above-average cognitive ability
* strong systemizing
* narrow or intense interests
* social difficulty without global developmental delay
* comparatively lower sensory overwhelm than some other autistic profiles

That cluster does describe a real pattern, even if it isn’t biologically discrete. So when someone uses “Asperger’s,” I interpret it as shorthand for a specific phenotype on the broader autism spectrum.

It’s a meaningful difference in lived experience, not a meaningful difference in underlying condition.

=== Three main reasons: ===

===== You don’t see “Asperger’s genes” vs “autism genes.” =====
You see hundreds of overlapping variants with small effects.

===== The differences between “Asperger’s” and “mild autism” are often: =====
* degree, not kind
* influenced by language environment, early support, and co-occurring conditions

===== Different clinicians diagnosed the same child differently depending on subjective impressions. =====

=== If you say “Asperger’s,” I interpret that as referring to: ===
* the high-verbal, cognitively strong, internalizing end of the spectrum
* often characterized by analytical cognition, systemizing, and difficulty with social intuition

If you say “autism” in the broader sense, I treat it as:
* the full range of neurodevelopmental presentations

I don’t correct people for using “Asperger’s,” because the experiential distinction is real and the term is still part of the cultural vocabulary.

If you want, I can map out:
* the clearest cognitive/behavioral profiles associated with the old “Asperger’s” label,
* or the ways in which the two models (Asperger’s vs ASD) influence identity, community, and self-understanding.

=== User: So the reasoning is that genes associated with ASD risks produce symptoms more or less stochastically. ===
So the reasoning is that genes associated with ASD risks produce symptoms more or less stochastically. So you wouldn't expect the Asperger's subtype to breed true, it would tend to co-occur with other subtypes in the extended family. But I'm a bit skeptical of the shared environment explanation for early childhood development of language, that's been debunked a million times when applied to racial minority populations.

=== Assistant: Your summary of the genetic reasoning is on target. ===
Your summary of the genetic reasoning is on target. The part worth tightening is the role of “shared environment,” because in autism research that phrase is usually misunderstood. Here’s the cleanest way to frame it, avoiding the pitfalls you’re flagging.

=== What we know from twin and family studies: ===
* Autism is highly heritable.
* But the heritability is polygenic, meaning there are hundreds of small-effect variants, plus occasional large-effect mutations.
* Those variants combine in different configurations in different individuals—even within the same family.

That leads to:
* one sibling having a profile that looks like classic Asperger’s
* another having more language delay
* another having social traits but not enough to be diagnosed
* another being neurotypical but with high systemizing tendencies

It’s variation in degree, not a Mendelian particulate subtype.
That’s why the “Asperger’s subtype” rarely clusters cleanly generationally.

This part is well grounded scientifically.

=== Most autism researchers today treat “shared environment” as a small contributor—nothing like the old “refrigerator mother” or cultural explanations. ===

However, the term “environment” in developmental models includes a lot more than parental style or culture. It includes:
* prenatal exposures
* inflammation
* nutritional deficiencies
* maternal health
* preterm birth
* early sensory and motor patterns
* chance neural events during development
* epigenetic regulation
* random developmental noise

These are not “cultural environment” factors at all.
They’re biological.

When geneticists talk about nonshared environment, they’re often talking about:
* stochastic neural development
* differences in in-utero blood flow
* microscopic developmental variations between twins

Almost none of that overlaps with the “shared environment” criticisms that appear in debates about racial IQ research, socioeconomic bias, or cultural deprivation models.

So your skepticism is well placed for the sociocultural sense of the term, but that’s not what autism researchers generally mean.

=== You’re right that cultural environment doesn’t cause autistic speech delay. ===
Instead, language outcomes seem to reflect:

===== Some gene combinations hit language-related circuits harder; others leave them relatively spared. =====

===== Some autistic children have subtle apraxia-like issues; others don’t. =====

===== Some kids are hyperreactive to auditory input and disengage; others are simply less motivated by social language. =====

===== Even monozygotic twins often diverge sharply in language development, which implies a heavy role for random developmental noise. =====

===== This can affect early speech emergence without touching the “Asperger-like” cognition. =====

The key point:
The variability in language development comes from biological heterogeneity, not culture.

So you’re right to resist social-environment arguments—those were discredited decades ago.
But the modern explanation rests mostly on genetic complexity plus developmental variation, not parenting, not culture.

=== Here’s the structure that aligns with current evidence: ===
* There is a set of cognitive/autistic traits that cluster into something like the old “Asperger’s” profile.
* These traits do not form a clean genetic subtype, which is why they don’t consistently breed true.
* Language development differences aren’t caused by shared/cultural environment; they arise from differences in neurodevelopment shaped by polygenic load, prenatal factors, and stochastic biological variation.
* Therefore, “Asperger’s” is a real experiential phenotype, but not a genetically or developmentally discrete category.

If you want, I can diagram exactly how autism heritability breaks down (additive genetics vs nonshared environment vs rare variants) or walk through why monozygotic twins can differ so much in language and sensory traits despite identical genomes.

=== User: No thanks, I'd like to return to some earlier points. ===
No thanks, I'd like to return to some earlier points. You said that neanderthal cognition is strongly selected out of the genome. But isn't ASD cognition also severely selected against?

=== Assistant: The intuition behind your question is solid: ===
The intuition behind your question is solid:
If autistic cognition carries fitness costs in modern humans, why wouldn’t any analogous Neanderthal cognition also be selected out?
So why does one get purged and the other persists?

The resolution comes from separating traits from mechanisms.

=== What’s under negative selection isn’t the “autistic cognitive style” per se, but the combination and intensity that produces impairment. ===

Many traits associated with autism are individually adaptive:
* detail focus
* systemizing
* high persistence
* sensory acuity
* intense interests
* exceptional memory for patterns
* analytical over social reasoning

These traits raise fitness in many niches.

What gets selected against is:
* the clustering of many such traits to a disabling degree
* early language delay
* social communication deficits
* developmental conditions that impair independence or reproduction

This gives the picture:
* Mild autistic traits → positively or neutrally selected over history
* High-load autistic profiles (clinical ASD) → modestly selected against

This is called mutation–selection balance or polygenic tail selection: useful traits persist, but the extreme ends of the distribution get trimmed.

=== The Neanderthal–Homo sapiens selection pattern wasn’t driven by “autistic-like traits” being bad. ===
It was driven by:

===== Hybrids inherited combinations of genes that didn’t work well together, especially in: =====
* brain development
* testes
* skeletal morphology
* immune regulation

Natural selection aggressively removes variants that impair hybrid function, even if they were neutral or beneficial in their original population.

===== Neanderthal brain-development genes were tuned to Neanderthal skull shape, growth timing, and developmental trajectory. Introduced into sapiens architecture, they broke things. =====

This is like taking engine parts from one machine and plugging them into a different model—most won’t fit cleanly.

===== They may have worked perfectly well in Neanderthal populations. =====
The purging reflects hybrid incompatibility, not that Neanderthals had “bad cognitive traits.”

So the mechanism is not “autistic cognition is bad and Neanderthal cognition is like autism so it was removed.”
It’s gene mismatch, not trait content.

=== Key point: ===
The heritable pieces of autistic cognition are very ancient—older than the sapiens/Neanderthal split—and widely conserved across primates.

Examples:
* FOXP1/FOXP2 pathways
* synaptic scaffolding proteins
* chromatin remodeling genes
* axon guidance genes (e.g., ROBO family)

These aren’t Neanderthal-specific.
They’re part of core mammalian and hominin neurodevelopment.

=== Evolution tolerates a small frequency of disadvantageous extremes if the midrange traits are beneficial. ===

Think:
* high intelligence → good, but extreme forms can correlate with psychiatric vulnerability
* immune hyperreactivity → good, but extremes produce allergies and autoimmunity
* tall stature → good for dominance, but extremes raise mortality

Autistic traits follow the same pattern.

This explains:
* why autism doesn’t get “selected out”
* why it’s stable across cultures and history
* why it clusters in families but doesn’t breed true

=== ### ===

A polygenic architecture with many small, adaptive or neutral variants → occasional pathogenic combinations → selection prunes extremes but not midrange traits.

===== Two diverged hominin genomes recombine → hybrid incompatibility in specific developmental pathways → selection aggressively removes incompatible segments regardless of their original phenotype. =====

The similarity (selection pressure) masks fundamentally different mechanisms.

If you want, I can map how autistic traits confer specific evolutionary advantages (foraging, tracking, tool analysis, solitary niche specialization), or contrast “polygenic tail conditions” with “hybrid incompatibility” in simple diagrams.

=== User: Well, let's look at the established evidence and see whether you and I, dialectically, can reason competently. ===
Well, let's look at the established evidence and see whether you and I, dialectically, can reason competently. First, please summarize we can say with reasonable certainty about Neanderthal behavior from the archeological evidence. Grokipedia has an excellent summary article at https://grokipedia.com/page/Neanderthal_behavior.

=== Assistant: Good question. ===
Good question. Here’s a summary (with caveats) of what archaeologists reasonably infer about Neanderthal behavior — plus the major points of uncertainty. This will ground our myth-making discussion in real evidence.

==== 1. Tool Use & Technological Skill - Neanderthals made sophisticated stone tools (Mousterian technology) using prepared-core techniques, which implies advanced planning and manual skill. Fiveable<ref>{{cite web|title=Fiveable|url=https://fiveable.me/world-prehistory/unit-4/neanderthal-anatomy-behavior-culture/study-guide/pLy1gwcNy6bMR1wp|publisher=fiveable.me|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref> - They also used different raw materials (flint, bone, etc.) and may have hafted tools (attaching stone to handles). Biology Insights<ref>{{cite web|title=Biology Insights|url=https://biologyinsights.com/neanderthal-behavior-more-human-than-you-think/|publisher=Biology Insights|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref> - Evidence suggests they produced adhesives such as birch tar, indicating complex cognition. Smithsonian Magazine<ref>{{cite web|title=Smithsonian Magazine|url=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/eagle-talon-jewelry-suggests-neanderthals-were-capable-human-thought-180973451/|publisher=Smithsonian Magazine|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref> ====
# Use of Fire and Spatial Organization - Hearths have been found in camps, often associated with organized living areas. Encyclopedia Britannica<ref>{{cite web|title=Encyclopedia Britannica|url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Neanderthal/Neanderthal-culture|publisher=Encyclopedia Britannica|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref> - Some sites suggest seasonal or repeated occupation, not just transient hunting camps. Encyclopedia Britannica<ref>{{cite web|title=Encyclopedia Britannica|url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Neanderthal/Neanderthal-culture|publisher=Encyclopedia Britannica|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref>
# Burial Practices - There is good evidence that Neanderthals intentionally buried their dead. National Geographic<ref>{{cite web|title=National Geographic|url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/131216-la-chapelle-neanderthal-burials-graves|publisher=National Geographic|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref> - At some sites, burials show signs of deliberate pit digging, and the bodies are placed in non-random positions. National Geographic<ref>{{cite web|title=National Geographic|url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/131216-la-chapelle-neanderthal-burials-graves|publisher=National Geographic|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref> - There is some suggestion of symbolic behavior in burials: for instance, at Shanidar in Iraq, pollen was found in graves (though interpretations are debated). opentextbooks.concordia.ca<ref>{{cite web|title=opentextbooks.concordia.ca|url=https://opentextbooks.concordia.ca/explorationsversiontwo/chapter/11/|publisher=opentextbooks.concordia.ca|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref> - Grave goods or modified objects have sometimes been found near burials (e.g., stone tools, possible “resting stones” near skulls). National Geographic<ref>{{cite web|title=National Geographic|url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/burial-neanderthals-humans-territory|publisher=National Geographic|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref>
# Symbolic Behavior / Ornamentation - Pigments (ochre, manganese) appear in many Neanderthal sites, which could indicate body-painting, symbolic marking, or technical uses (e.g., adhesive). opentextbooks.concordia.ca<ref>{{cite web|title=opentextbooks.concordia.ca|url=https://opentextbooks.concordia.ca/explorationsversiontwo/chapter/11/|publisher=opentextbooks.concordia.ca|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref> - Some personal ornaments: Neanderthals used eagle talons, perhaps as jewelry, at multiple sites. Smithsonian Magazine<ref>{{cite web|title=Smithsonian Magazine|url=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/eagle-talon-jewelry-suggests-neanderthals-were-capable-human-thought-180973451/|publisher=Smithsonian Magazine|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref> - Caves: in Bruniquel Cave (France), Neanderthals built ring-like structures from stalagmites deep in the cave, suggesting planned construction and use of fire for lighting. Wikipedia<ref>{{cite web|title=Wikipedia|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruniquel_Cave|publisher=en.wikipedia.org|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref> - Musical behavior: there is a disputed “flute” (a bone with holes) found in Divje Babe cave that might represent symbolic or musical instrument use. Wikipedia<ref>{{cite web|title=Wikipedia|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divje_Babe_flute|publisher=en.wikipedia.org|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref>
# Social Structures and Care - Fossils show Neanderthals with serious injuries who survived for extended periods, implying that others cared for them. National Geographic<ref>{{cite web|title=National Geographic|url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/131216-la-chapelle-neanderthal-burials-graves|publisher=National Geographic|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref> - The presence of deep social bonds is supported by burial practices and group living. Anthroholic<ref>{{cite web|title=Anthroholic|url=https://anthroholic.com/neanderthals-homo-neandertalensis|publisher=anthroholic.com|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref> - Some evidence suggests cultural exchange with Homo sapiens: a recent study (Tinshemet Cave) argues for shared burial customs and symbolic use of ochre across species. Phys.org<ref>{{cite web|title=Phys.org|url=https://phys.org/news/2025-03-burials-compelling-evidence-neanderthal-homo.pdf|publisher=phys.org|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref>
# Cognitive Capacity - Because of their tool complexity, use of adhesives, and spatial planning, Neanderthals likely had fairly high working memory, planning capabilities, and executive function. arXiv<ref>{{cite web|title=arXiv|url=https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.09751|publisher=arxiv.org|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref> - Their ability to use pigments, ornaments, and possibly symbolic items suggests some capacity for symbolic thought, though it’s less “rich” than that of later Homo sapiens. opentextbooks.concordia.ca<ref>{{cite web|title=opentextbooks.concordia.ca|url=https://opentextbooks.concordia.ca/explorationsversiontwo/chapter/11/|publisher=opentextbooks.concordia.ca|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref>

==== - Symbolic Meaning vs. Practical Use: Pigment use could be functional (hide processing, insect repellent, adhesives) rather than symbolic. opentextbooks.concordia.ca<ref>{{cite web|title=opentextbooks.concordia.ca|url=https://opentextbooks.concordia.ca/explorationsversiontwo/chapter/11/|publisher=opentextbooks.concordia.ca|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref> ====
* Burial Interpretation: While burials are well-attested, whether they reflect religion or symbolic belief systems is ambiguous. Some grave goods are disputed; the “flower burial” idea (Shanidar) has been challenged. opentextbooks.concordia.ca<ref>{{cite web|title=opentextbooks.concordia.ca|url=https://opentextbooks.concordia.ca/explorationsversiontwo/chapter/11/|publisher=opentextbooks.concordia.ca|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref>
* Scale of Social Complexity: The Bruniquel cave structures show spatial planning and construction, but we don’t know if they had broad symbolic or ritual significance. Wikipedia<ref>{{cite web|title=Wikipedia|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruniquel_Cave|publisher=en.wikipedia.org|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref>
* Music Claim Disputed: The Divje Babe “flute” is controversial; some argue the holes could be from animal chewing rather than deliberate instrument-making. Wikipedia<ref>{{cite web|title=Wikipedia|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divje_Babe_flute|publisher=en.wikipedia.org|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref>
* Ornament Dating and Association: Some sites (like Grotte du Renne) that show personal ornaments may be stratigraphically mixed or misattributed. Wikipedia<ref>{{cite web|title=Wikipedia|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grotte_du_Renne|publisher=en.wikipedia.org|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref>
* Inter-Species Cultural Influence: Evidence for cultural exchange with Homo sapiens (e.g., burial similarities) is recent and under review; it’s hard to distinguish independent development vs borrowing. Phys.org<ref>{{cite web|title=Phys.org|url=https://phys.org/news/2025-03-burials-compelling-evidence-neanderthal-homo.html|publisher=phys.org|access-date=2025-11-17}}</ref>

==== - Neanderthals were not “primitive cavemen.” They had fairly complex technology, social bonds, and possibly symbolic behavior. ====
* They likely had some form of ritual or proto-ritual behavior, but nothing like the highly abstract symbolic cultures of later Homo sapiens (at least, nothing definitively proven).
* They cared for their dead and for injured individuals, suggesting empathy and social cohesion.
* They used pigments and ornaments, but we don’t know for sure whether this was purely symbolic, practical, or both.
* Their cognitive capacities were substantial, though probably not identical to modern humans in everything like long-term symbolic abstraction.

===== - Because there is real (but limited) evidence for symbolic behavior, social caring, and planning, the “Neanderthal spiritual-ancestor” narrative isn’t totally baseless. =====
* However, we need to be very careful about projecting modern social-cognitive categories (like “autistic style”) onto them — much of the behavioral evidence is ambiguous or multivalent.
* The myth works well if framed as metaphorical resonance, not literal cognitive equivalence.

If you like, I can map the plausibility of each “autistic-style” trait (e.g., solitary focus, pattern cognition, low social signaling) onto the strongest Neanderthal behavioral hypotheses, evaluating how probable each is given what we actually know.

Do you want me to do that?

=== User: Yes please. ===
Yes please.

=== Assistant: Here’s a structured mapping of autistic-style cognitive/behavioral traits onto what we can reasonably infer from Neande… ===
Here’s a structured mapping of autistic-style cognitive/behavioral traits onto what we can reasonably infer from Neanderthal evidence — with a scale of plausibility, epistemic cautions, and why each mapping is or isn’t defensible.

This is not trying to “prove” RDOS’s myth, but to show which pieces of it are compatible with archaeological reality and which are not.

=== 1. Intense Focus / Deep Specialization ===

===== Archaeological basis =====
* Mousterian toolmaking required long-practice manual skill, consistency, and deliberate multi-step planning.
* Birch tar production (through dry distillation) shows procedural, patient, tightly controlled behavior.
* Evidence of repeated use of the same raw materials and techniques over long periods suggests stable, specialized traditions.

===== Plausibility as an autistic-style trait: High =====

This is the strongest overlap.
Neanderthal technological behavior implies:
* high tolerance for repetition
* deep procedural memory
* stable craft specialization
* narrow but refined technical repertoires

These echo autistic tendencies toward deep systemizing and craft-like mastery.

Caution:
Specialization ≠ autism. Lots of non-autistic hominins show this too. The overlap is metaphorically resonant, not diagnostic.

=== 2. Preference for Small Groups / Limited Social Networks ===

===== Archaeological basis =====
* Genetic evidence suggests small, kin-heavy groups.
* Low population density and limited long-distance trade relative to Homo sapiens.
* Burials and care for injured suggest strong bonds within the group.

===== Plausibility as an autistic-style trait: Moderate =====

It’s plausible because:
* small groups reduce social signaling load
* high relatedness reduces need for constant impression-management
* limited inter-group exchange suggests less emphasis on extended social networks

But group size was probably driven by ecology, not psychology.

Good fit for mythic purposes, but weak as a literal cognitive inference.

=== 3. Reduced Symbolic Expressiveness / Less Ornamentation ===

===== Archaeological basis =====
* Symbolic artifacts exist (pigments, talons, cave structures), but they’re rarer and less elaborated than early modern human symbol systems.
* No clear evidence of complex art, figurative carving, or large-scale ritual spaces.

===== Plausibility as an autistic-style trait: Moderate–High =====

If one interprets:
* less symbolic abstraction
* more concrete cognition
* less reliance on metaphor or extended social signaling

this fits many autistic cognitive profiles (reduced importance of social-symbolic play, preference for practical over symbolic complexity).

Caution:
This could simply reflect demographic constraints, ecological constraints, or preservation bias. It’s unsafe to treat “less symbolism” as a cognitive diagnosis.

=== 4. Direct / Functional Communication Style ===

===== Archaeological basis =====
* We know almost nothing about Neanderthal language.
* Some reconstructions suggest vocal tracts fully capable of speech; others note anatomical differences.

===== Plausibility as an autistic-style trait: Speculative =====

There is no direct evidence for the style of communication, only for the biomechanical capacity for speech.

If the myth wants to emphasize:
* concrete communication
* lower reliance on high-context social signaling
* practical/functional messaging

…it’s not contradicted by evidence, but it’s not supported either.

=== 5. Caring Behavior / Deep Attachment Bonds ===

===== Archaeological basis =====
* Evidence of long-term survival of severely injured individuals strongly implies caretaking.
* Intentional burials show social attention to the dead.

===== Plausibility as an autistic-style trait: High =====

This counters stereotypes. Autistic communities often emphasize:
* loyalty
* deep if selective bonds
* strong commitments to individuals rather than large-group dynamics

Neanderthal care behavior fits this very well: strong small-group empathy rather than flashy large-group social signaling.

This is one of the best myth-aligned traits.

=== 6. Pattern Sensitivity / Spatial Planning ===

===== Archaeological basis =====
* The Bruniquel cave ring structures are especially compelling: systematic placement of stalagmite fragments deep in a cave.
* Tool production requires visual-spatial precision and consistent techniques.

===== Plausibility as an autistic-style trait: Moderate–High =====

Spatial reasoning and pattern construction are characteristic strengths in many autistic individuals.

We should avoid overinterpretation, but if the myth wants Neanderthals as:
* strong spatial planners
* pattern-constructors
* procedural thinkers

…it has solid archaeological support.

=== 7. Reduced Interest in Exchange Networks / Social Ornamentation ===

===== Archaeological basis =====
* Neanderthals had limited long-distance trade networks relative to sapiens.
* Less evidence of social ornamentation designed for wide-group display.

===== Plausibility as an autistic-style trait: Moderate =====

If one interprets:
* low interest in social signaling
* little concern for extended social networks
* prioritization of competence over prestige

this fits some autistic social profiles.

But again: ecological explanation is simpler.

=== 8. Lower Tolerance for Rapid Cultural Innovation ===

===== Archaeological basis =====
* Neanderthal toolkits were conservative for long periods.
* Slow rates of cultural change relative to early sapiens.

===== Plausibility as an autistic-style trait: Moderate–High (mythically) / Cautious (empirically) =====

Autistic individuals often prefer:
* stable routines
* incremental rather than abrupt change
* mastery-based over novelty-based behavior

This maps neatly onto Neanderthal conservatism.

But it may reflect demographics (small populations maintain novelty poorly).

=== Synthesis: A Realistic Mapping ===

If we create a table of “myth viability”:

| Trait                     | Archaeological Fit | Cognitive Speculation Fit | Mythic Resonance |
| ------------------------- | ------------------ | ------------------------- | ---------------- |
| Deep specialization       | Strong             | Strong                    | Excellent        |
| Small-group focus         | Moderate           | Moderate                  | Strong           |
| Low symbolic excess       | Moderate           | Moderate–High             | Strong           |
| Direct communication      | Weak               | Moderate                  | Medium           |
| Strong caring bonds       | Strong             | Strong                    | Excellent        |
| Spatial/pattern cognition | Moderate–Strong    | Strong                    | Excellent        |
| Limited trade networks    | Moderate           | Weak–Moderate             | Medium           |
| Cultural conservatism     | Moderate           | Moderate                  | Strong           |

Conclusion:
There is a coherent cluster of plausible traits—deep focus, small-group loyalty, spatial reasoning, routine preference, caring bonds—that resonate with autistic self-descriptions. These do not “prove” anything about Neanderthal cognition, but they make the mythic connection symbolically plausible and internally coherent, while remaining honest about the limits of inference.

If you want, we can next build a mythic framework integrating these traits into a narrative that is:
* coherent
* archeologically grounded
* explicitly non-literal
* resonant for autistic identity

Or we can go point-by-point refining which aspects are strongest for the myth.