You are once again taking the worst possible interpretation: every mutation is a "mistake" in the process of cellular duplication, that's all I said. Whether this "mistake" will have good or bad consequences will depend on how this is manifested in the individual and how it will fit with the environment.
No. I don't think so. Your original comment is basically 2 parts.
"If we are talking about genes, the goal is to keep the ability to duplicate itself."
We have already discussed the above. You then proceed on that basis.
"If there is anything about this duplication process that has lead to the individual's brain development with difficulties to adapt to life with their tribe, socialization and chances of finding a mate are also hindered"
You are basically restating evolution through the process of natural selection, with the implication that Neurodivergency is bad, because you are less genetically fit.
I have, I hope demonstrated that that isn't necessarily the case. Neurodivergency can make the tribe more genetically fit, therefore the inference we are meant to draw from your post is incorrect.
Unless we are expected to ignore the context, and you are just talking about evolution abstractly. But I would hope everyone here knows the basics of evolution, so why did you repeat them for no particular reason?
Edit. Ps. My first response was more than fair, and you accused me of constructing a strawman, so please don't accuse me of using an unfair interpretation.
> I hope demonstrated that that isn't necessarily the case. Neurodivergency can make the tribe more genetically fit.
You are conflating fitness of the individual with population robustness against systemic shocks.
> But I would hope everyone here knows the basics of evolution, so why did you repeat them for no particular reason?
Because (1) not everyone understands the basics of evolution, (2) to make my argument I wanted to establish where I am coming from and (3) this is a public forum and I am not addressing you in the particular, you might feel like I am "stating the obvious" but to other people this is a pretty standard and effective way to ensure the communication is clear.
> the implication that Neurodivergency is bad, because you are less genetically fit.
I am not implying anything and I tried to be clear that there is no "good" or "bad" when you have "experts describing what is normal/typical".
>You are conflating fitness of the individual with population robustness against systemic shocks
Yes and as per my first example, the ones who don't drink the contaminated water survive. The population robustness is people doing things differently and not dying. Fitness of the individual is population robustness where that individual does something different.
>(1) not everyone understands the basics of evolution, (2) to make my argument I wanted to establish where I am coming from
Right. So did you get past (1) or not? Your argument seems to be that neurodivergents are less likely to pass on their genes. I'm saying that isn't necessarily so.
> the population robustness is people doing things differently and not dying.
No, you created a completely contrived example in an absurdly complex and dynamic system and assumed your outcome is the likely one.
You are fantasizing a completely stereotypical behavior (neurotypical people act like sheep) to say "they would all drink poisoned water and die", when the story could just as well be that after a first wave of people dying because a poisoned well, the second group of people would notice the danger and go after the others who are drinking something else.
The advantage of diversity in the population would be determined if individuals in an heterogeneous group by the same threat or pathogen survived at different rates.
> I'm saying that isn't necessarily so.
Not necessarily so doesn't stop it from likely being so, and I would stand by the idea that neurodivergent people are likely to have far fewer children than neurotypical ones.
You do realise that modern germ theory was discovered in the 19th century due to cholera in a well. The 19th century! So no it isn't obvious. London's sewers were originally built to get rid of the smell, ie 'miasma'.
The outcome doesn't have to be likely. Just likely enough.
Yes perhaps I was over egging the pudding with the sheep comment. The point that we both agree on is that neurodivergents think differently.
> modern germ theory was discovered in the 19th century due to cholera in a well.
So what? If you see people getting sick after drinking from a well, you don't need to know the science to know that water is not safe. Birds do not need to know the laws of physics in order to fly around, etc.
If anything, you should look at your contrived example to understand that most people will not wait for a scientific explanation to establish social norms. A lot of Organized Religion "doctrines" are just learned behaviors that gained some metaphysical explanation in order to be passed down the generations. To this day we have people who do not eat pork out of the belief that they are not "clean", and while this is would be a perfectly valid assumption millennia ago, no amount of "Science" and laboratory analysis will convince an observant Muslim, Jew or Seventh-Day Adventist to go eat some bacon.
> The point that we both agree on is that neurodivergents think differently.
This is tautological and never has been the point of disagreement. If you don't mind, I'd rather just let this go now...
