This. I remember there being articles about Neandertals having almost no curious explorers, being very catious, whereas homo sapiens skeletons found in swamps, with deadly mushrooms in their stomach and whatnot. So even though Neandertals had a more advanced brain during their time compared to the homo sapien competitor, they died because they did not make it, maybe because they did not take enough risk.

>So even though Neandertals had a more advanced brain

I'm aware that it's accepted Neandertals might've been as capable in many areas of survival, however I'm not aware that it's been accepted they had more advanced brains. Got a source?

I remember hearing somewhere, one source I remember [1], that despite their intelligence, they tended to rove in smaller tribes partly perhaps due to less inter-communication skills, which may've led to a disadvantage in warfare.

Or perhaps, my own thoughts, the 'loner genes', for lack of a better term, iterated more throughout the Neaderthal ancestry which led to smaller tribes. Another guess, maybe forested Eurasia, which may act as natural barriers compared to more open African plains caused a selection for smaller groups or gave way to human genetics that naturally selected for smaller groups. Of course, take it all with a grain of salt.

1. https://www.history.com/news/neanderthals-likely-lived-in-sm...

We know they had a larger brain volume than us, even when correcting for overall body size. That much is an established fact. What that means, if anything, regarding their behavior & abilities is strictly, and highly, speculative.

(Still lots of fun to think about. If I were to hazard a guess, it would be something along the lines of greater neoteny in h. Sapiens sapiens. For an analogy, compare dogs and wolves. Wolves have larger brains, but dogs have a greater ability to read social cues.)

Look at Satya Nadella and his spl needs kid. Good example of how dealing with someone with diff needs shapes ones experiences and thinking and actions. He constantly talks about empathy in ways you won't find others doing.

Ofcourse what you learn from dealing with people with different needs depends on your own personality, needs, circumstances etc.

What is interesting to me at work, is lot of people struggle to deal with each other because of differences in needs, personalities, skillgaps, knowledgegaps. And as the world gets more complex, as info explodes, these gaps and differences increase.

Those people who think about and try to deal with differences in needs (like those who deal with autistic kids), will learn things that those who filter out people in the group they can't deal with wont.

For people that flagged my message: "The word neurodiversity is attributed to Judy Singer, an Australian social scientist on the autism spectrum, who used the term in her sociology honors thesis published in 1999." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity). You can bury your head in the sand, that doesn't change the meaning of words.

Also, it's is quite ironical that people advocating for it can't handle an opinion deviating slightly from their own beliefs.

NO. People aren't flagging you for defining neurodiversity accurately. They're flagging you for questioning that high-needs people with Autism add no value to human society.

I'm happy to say it: that's a pretty terrible opinion to have.

Really remarkable that somebody could completely miss the fact that most people consider the opinion "I'm skeptical these people have any value whatsoever" execrable.