Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

psyche.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 261 posts

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#111

Post by guerrilla »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #107
guerrilla wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's true that most people fit into binary, but I don't really see how that's relevant. It's relevant because it's efficient more than 99% of the time and removing it introduces ambiguity 99% of the time. The person you're responding to even said they didn't have a problem with adding more pronouns, just not making it worse by removing them.

> and removing it introduces ambiguity 99% of the time My whole point 2) was about how it does not (most of the time it just removes irrelevant noise), so I'd appreciate a counterexample.

Your second point is wrong. Obviously it narrows specificity by half the room on average. I don't know why you'd argue against that obvious fact. It's basic math: If you have a set C that is the union of two sets A and B where A and B have the same cardinality, referring to "a C" gives you twice the possibilities than referring to either "an A" or "a B." So it's measurably twice as efficient to do the former. Since so many unrelated languages in the world ended up with such a system (or very close), it's reasonable to think that that efficiency was worth it. Since most of those systems are not much more specific, it's reasonable to think that being more specific wasn't worth it (one can always specify further using more words.)

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#112

Post by NikolaeVarius »

howinteresting wrote: post #75
fragmede wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pre-Godwinning the discussion doesn't raise discourse, it dumbs it down. Yes that's the history of the term but it was also the accepted term until after its removal from the DSM in 2013, and not everyone that grew up with that term is as plugged in as you and gotten the memo to moved over to the new term yet. It's fine to be angry at neurotypical people who use it as a slur, but you won't win many converts attacking…

It isn't Godwinning when an actual German Nazi is involved.

Its a goddamn name. What are we cancelling Heidegger next? Burn copies of Being and Time?

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#113

Post by phkahler »

>> Imagine you have bought two non-refundable tickets to different trips, one much more costly. You are then told that you must cancel one of them. In this case, many people will cancel the cheaper trip regardless of which one they would prefer to go on – and even though they will have spent the same amount of money either way. Autistic individuals appear to be more likely to make a choice based on their personal preference rather than on an irrelevant cost.

This is missing a hige piece of context. What about the possibility that you may later decide to repurchase whichever trip you decline now? My future cost is reduced by canceling the cheaper trip now. If both are in the realm of "I'd like to go there someday" and close in appeal, it is more rational to take the more expensive one. If we don't consider that larger (possible) context then obviously take the one you prefer the most.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#114

Post by psyc »

guerrilla wrote: post #97
mwigdahl wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite. "Autism Spectrum" is a deliberately vague term that has been created and stretched to bring a variety of minor social and emotional functional differences under the general label of "autism". As far as I can tell, in the US the major purpose of this has been to divert special education funding from severely impaired children to less-impaired children from higher socioeconomic strata, and it has been very e…

> I'm perfectly fine with a substitute) is very useful to distinguish people with minor social and emotional functional differences -- those people who are, for example, able to hold down a tech job and post about autistic politics to Hacker News -- from highly impaired people such as my daughter who will never hold a job and whose verbal skills are at a three year old level. There are plenty of people who the diagno…

Will one of you please just get to the damn point, and explain to us garbage Nazi-lovers exactly what language you'd like us to use to distinguish different levels of impairment/functioning, given that we want to discuss different levels of impairment/functioning? Or do you just not want it discussed at all? The lot of you successfully derailed this sub-thread and prevented that discussion from happening. But thank god you set us all straight on problematic etymology! Close one!

I am autistic, btw. An Autist. An Aspie. High-functioning. So's my brother. So's my father. None of us give a toss about these terms, but the subject of our traits and our getting on in society remains of interest.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#115

Post by zwkrt »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #110

"Autistic individuals are, on average, more consistent, less biased, and more rational than non-autistic individuals in a variety of contexts. (We use identity-first language, eg, ‘Autistic people’, as it is preferred by many people on the autism spectrum.)" Hmmm. What are they implying by that parenthetical comment placement?

In psychology and social services there is a push to use terms like “person with Autism” or “person with autistic traits” as opposed to “autistic person” as many people seem to enjoy not being primarily labeled by something that only makes up a small part of their personality and an even smaller part of their personhood.

Think of it like primitive vs value types in Java. ‘int a = 7; Integer b = 7’

“a” is 7, but “b” just has a pointer to 7.

—- I guess autistic people must not mind or even prefer to identify in this way, but it can really help in a therapeutic setting not to call someone “a borderline woman” or “a psychotic woman” because for better or worse labeling someone as mentally unhealthy is colloquially tantamount to an insult.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#116

Post by zwkrt »

tux3 wrote: post #85
wombatmobile wrote: post #82

ADHD people have a different calculus that affects their project management. NonA-DHD typically respond to deadlines with increased urgency, commitment, and re-factoring assessments. ADHD may respond to deadlines by abandoning tasks and starting new extraneous tasks. Is that rational? It’s what happens, and since it is such a dramatic and consequential difference, it warrants a reconsideration of the meaning of the t…

Rationality isn't whatever people do. Biases are whatever people don't do optimally that they would, if they were perfectly rational. Various subgroups can have different responses, but rationality is its own ideal, regardless of what people do.

In what sense!? From what god is Rationalty (TM) handed down? Which parts of society are Rational? Which of the sentences of mine is Rational?

Ostensibly Rational just means “with reasons” or “calculated” but there are many different calculuses under which one could operate.

I agree with GP. Economic rational agents are supposed to do things like maximize utility or minimize loss. I know that I for one do things like “anticipate others’ needs”, “feel ambivalent about eating the entire box of donuts”, and “take a day off work to practice origami”, and I’m not sure how those actions fit into the economic model.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#117

Post by zozbot234 »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #110

"Autistic individuals are, on average, more consistent, less biased, and more rational than non-autistic individuals in a variety of contexts. (We use identity-first language, eg, ‘Autistic people’, as it is preferred by many people on the autism spectrum.)" Hmmm. What are they implying by that parenthetical comment placement?

There's quite a bit of politicking in the autism movement over whether one should preferentially say 'people with autism' or 'autistic people'. The former (formally called "person-first language") is occasionally objected to because it frames 'autism' as a disease (compare 'people with cancer') as opposed to a sort of plausibly-benign divergence in cognition. As one might expect with such matters, there are reasonable arguments for either choice.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#118

Post by guerrilla »

psyc wrote: post #114
guerrilla wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm perfectly fine with a substitute) is very useful to distinguish people with minor social and emotional functional differences -- those people who are, for example, able to hold down a tech job and post about autistic politics to Hacker News -- from highly impaired people such as my daughter who will never hold a job and whose verbal skills are at a three year old level. There are plenty of people who the diagno…

Will one of you please just get to the damn point, and explain to us garbage Nazi-lovers exactly what language you'd like us to use to distinguish different levels of impairment/functioning, given that we want to discuss different levels of impairment/functioning? Or do you just not want it discussed at all? The lot of you successfully derailed this sub-thread and prevented that discussion from happening. But thank g…

I'm with you on that. That person above complaining about "Asperger's" doesn't speak for me. In the end, it's always going to be up to the individual and any sort of generalizing is going to fail unless you go about bullying people into it.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#119

Post by psyc »

guerrilla wrote: post #118
psyc wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will one of you please just get to the damn point, and explain to us garbage Nazi-lovers exactly what language you'd like us to use to distinguish different levels of impairment/functioning, given that we want to discuss different levels of impairment/functioning? Or do you just not want it discussed at all? The lot of you successfully derailed this sub-thread and prevented that discussion from happening. But thank g…

I'm with you on that. That person above complaining about "Asperger's" doesn't speak for me. In the end, it's always going to be up to the individual and any sort of generalizing is going to fail unless you go about bullying people into it.

Sorry. I couldn’t decide which of these comments to respond to and did not mean to single you out or attack anybody. Obviously I find this frustrating and I feel slightly attacked myself.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#120

Post by jiggunjer »

georgestephanis wrote: post #43
overboard2 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes hi, why is the category of those with Asperger's syndrome not useful for the further understanding and communication of information.

What information do you feel can be communicated and understood with that moniker that is not served by Autism Spectrum? And why do you feel those distinctions (if any) merit a wholly distinct diagnosis?

I hear the phrase "high-functioning" more than "aspies". I think the distinction is useful in social contexts: just knowing Bob's son has autism is not enough info when writing party invitations or considering transferring Bob overseas.
Post reply on HN