ABSTRACT
Perspectives on autism and psychiatric conditions are affected by a mix of scientific and social influences. Evolutionary psychiatry (EP) and the neurodiversity movement are emerging paradigms that reflect these distinct influences, with the former grounded in scientific theory and the latter driven by political and social principles. Despite their separate foundations, there is a significant overlap between EP and neurodiversity that has not been explored. Specifically, both paradigms reframe disorders as natural cognitive differences rather than disease; expand the concept of "normal" beyond that implied in modern psychiatry; focus on relative strengths; recognize that modern environments disadvantage certain individuals to cause functional impairment; emphasize cognitive variation being socially accommodated and integrated rather than treated or cured; and can help reduce stigmatization. However, in other ways, they are distinct and sometimes in conflict. EP emphasizes scientific explanation, defines "dysfunction" in objective terms, and differentiates heterogenous cases based on underlying causes (e.g. autism due to de novo genetic mutations). The neurodiversity movement emphasizes social action, removes barriers to inclusion, promotes inclusive language, and allows unrestricted identification as neurodivergent. By comparing and contrasting these two approaches, we find that EP can, to some extent, support the goals of neurodiversity. In particular, EP perspectives could be convincing to groups more responsive to scientific evidence and help achieve a middle ground between neurodiversity advocates and critics of the movement.
Subject(s)
Autism Spectrum Disorder , Autistic Disorder , Child Development Disorders, Pervasive , Psychiatry , Child , Humans , Autistic Disorder/psychologyABSTRACT
The biopsychosocial model remains the de facto framework of current healthcare, but lacks causational depth, scientific rigour, or any recognition of the importance of evolutionary theory for understanding health and disease. In this article it is updated to integrate Tinbergen's four questions with the three biopsychosocial levels. This 'evobiopsychosocial' schema provides a more complete framework for understanding causation of medical conditions. Its application is exemplified by tabulating depression, rheumatoid arthritis and COVID-19 within its format, which highlights the direct research and practical applications uniquely offered by evolutionary medicine. An evobiopsychosocial framework can serve as a useful tool to introduce evolutionary concepts into mainstream medicine by highlighting the broad and specific contributions of evolutionary analysis to researching, treating and preventing health conditions, providing a suitable next step for the mainstream model of medicine.
ABSTRACT
Traditional evolutionary theory invoked natural and sexual selection to explain species- and sex-typical traits. However, some heritable inter-individual variability in behaviour and psychology - personality - is probably adaptive. Here we extend this insight to common psychopathological traits. Reviewing key findings from three background areas of importance - theoretical models, non-human personality and evolved human social dynamics - we propose that a combination of social niche specialisation, negative frequency-dependency, balancing selection and adaptive developmental plasticity should explain adaptation for individual differences in psychology - 'specialised minds' - explaining some variance in personality and psychopathology trait dimensions, which share various characteristics. We suggest that anthropological research of behavioural differences should be extended past broad demographic factors (age and sex) to include individual specialisations. As a first step towards grounding psychopathology in ancestral social structure, we propose a minimum plausible prevalence, given likely ancestral group sizes, for negatively frequency-dependent phenotypes to be maintained as specialised tails of adaptive distributions - below the calculated prevalence, specialisation is highly unlikely. For instance, chronic highly debilitating forms of autism or schizophrenia are too rare for such explanations, whereas attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder and broad autism phenotypes are common enough to have existed in most hunter-gatherer bands, making adaptive explanations more plausible.
