111–120 of 134 posts
"What if I'm the normal one and the rest of society is wrong" This kind of framing-inversion might work as a coping mechanism to get you through some dark times as a spergy adolescent. But eventually you have to reconcile yourself to the reality of autism: it really is a neuro-developmental disorder and you actually do have deficits in social understanding, which you might be able to improve with deliberate effort. Y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You lost respect for a person and their writing because they like their brain and how it works? How so? Why? What drove this comment? Zero karma account; did you create it just to shit on this person?
I lose respect when I see this kind of incongruency. If you talk about other people's delusions of superiority, then how is it possible to think of yourself as a jewel? I didn’t create the account to shit on the person; it’s just rare that I comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So explain "If we are talking about genes, the goal is to keep the ability to duplicate itself" That is your basis for 'mistake', and the general position that you are objectively right. I am saying divergence from the norm can also be a benefit towards the goal of keeping the ability to duplicate. Therefore you can't say that the genetic imperative to duplicate proves you are objectively right. Therefore you can't r…
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.
"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 sometimes wonder if there are other possible neurodivergence, I'm not neurotypical, but I'm also not autistic (at least according to the criteria I've seen), just a bit odd or quirky doesn't seem to be enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ma…
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".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ma…
> 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 w…
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.
Oh yes and probably the authors themselves have a related form on neuro-atypical-divergence know as neuro-tragically-compulsive-analisys disorder, related to a quite common social-accademic-pressure about being in control and classificate all things they do not have in control and that they do not clearly can relate with, causing a pathology, relatively benign, consisting in create pseudo-scientific-terms to apply to…
Today, everything seems to be resolved by applying a "cure" to a more or less tailor-made "pathology," but this is a very narrow horizon within which we lock ourselves away from life and the mind, and it is easily abused and degraded in its socio-industrial theorizing and applications.
Therefore, in my opinion, particularly regarding "preoccupation with social concerns, delusions of superiority, and obsession with conformity" (avoiding laughing, because maybe someone is genuinely worried), I believe that we need to put the spotlight on other things, such as society, culture, education, and inner growth, and the "pathologies" will be reduced to the minimum real number, on which to then elaborate a deeper reflection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 w…
>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)…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
David Chase(the wonderful creator of The Sopranos) has said on more than one occasion that people don’t say what they mean. I think in your scenario that’s applying both ways.
This has been a theme for me over the past couple of years. I'm noticing the limitations of words and language, including those that come out of my own mouth. You can choose your words carefully, but it's useless unless your audience knows to look for those nuances. Sometimes, in group meetings, I've caught myself repeating something twice in a slightly different way to increase the probability that people understood…
I often have half baked ideas that only form properly from either attempting to write it down succinctly, or hashing it out in a small group (2 others max) for a longer time.
Succinctly is doing a lot of work too. Anything more than a few small paragraphs is too much for people’s attentions spans.