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

131–140 of 261 posts

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#131

Post by throwawaygh »

zepto wrote: post #124
BizarroLand wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my best friends is autistic. He's definitely a weirdo at times (I mean that in a positive way, for instance he likes old movies and watches them constantly, but when he says a movie is good he has never been wrong) but he's a good guy, would never betray anyone and is always social and fun to be around as long as it is inside of his comfort zone.

> for instance he likes old movies and watches them constantly, but when he says a movie is good he has never been wrong) but he's a good guy You make it sound as if liking old movies should be cause for suspicion!

Nah. The "but" differentiates a positive trait from a neutral trait, and the parenthetical phrase clarifies that the neutral trait isn't necessarily bad.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#132

Post by seba_dos1 »

guerrilla wrote: post #111
seba_dos1 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

Of course it narrows down specificity. My point is that in today's society, it seems mostly useless to me. Most of the time I don't need to narrow it down this way at all. This may have been different in a world where people were segregated by sex so intensively that half of the population didn't even have the right to vote, but today I fail to see the usefulness of it.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#133

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

justicezyx wrote: post #81

The rational man as a concept is still used nowadays as often as it is, that itself is a proof that the concept is as broken as it can be. The modern consumer economy is based on irrationality.

I wouldn't say it's based on irrationality, but based on other things that aren't necessarily rational or irrational. Just manipulation of our rational+emotional brain sitting on top of our monkey brain which is sitting on top of our lizard brains.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#134

Post by lazyasciiart »

Lammy wrote: post #62
akvadrako wrote: post #3

It takes a while to get to the point, but this is what the page is about: As we explained in a recent review paper, researchers have repeatedly found evidence that Autistic individuals are, on average, more consistent, less biased, and more rational than non-autistic individuals in a variety of contexts. Specifically, many Autistic people seem to be less susceptible to cognitive biases, and therefore better able to m…

> it could indicate that at least mild Autism is a beneficial adaptation Not picking on you or your post, but it's interesting that we still consider this an adaptation. What if this is humanity's natural state and allistics are the adaptation?

Interesting thought. Are autistic traits also seen in animals?

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#135

Post by whatshisface »

zozbot234 wrote: post #91
AussieWog93 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I am autistic, pretty much all of the people I know are autistic I'm not trying to tell you what words you should and shouldn't use; obviously in your circumstance it's a word more likely to cause a political schism and lead to misunderstandings. Most people, though, live in a NT-dominated culture where the terms "Aspergers" and "Autism" both carry extremely different connotations. One invokes images of an aloof pro…

> invokes images of a child that screams and shits themselves This is a generalized problem with the self-proclaimed neurodiversity/"autism rights" movement, though. They do very well at expressing the wishes of reasonably high-functioning folks with autistic traits , but don't seem to relate to the kids who can't speak intelligibly and spend their time banging their head against the wall any better than everyone els…

What is there to say about low vs. high functioning autism? People with low functioning autism can't be helped by social movements about recognizing human diversity, they can be helped by medical research and support for their parents. High functioning autism probably can't be helped by social movements either (what's the plan, to talk everybody out of using the subconscious screening system that makes them not like people with neurological disorders? can the discomfort that is felt when someone with MS is making jerky movements be reasoned out of people's guts?) but that's another question.

Maybe this debate is nothing more than a sink for the energies of people who honestly care but can't change anything, keeping them occupied until medical science sends the whole issue the way of dwarfism.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#136

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

nicoburns wrote: post #44
rajin444 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had an autistic coworker who could not understand using pronouns outside of the already established ones (he/she). She was otherwise very “progressive” but didn’t consider herself such. It had to do with he/she mapping to (99% of the time) defined biological features. It was a very awkward lunch.

In fairness, using different pronouns for different genders doesn't make a lot of sense in the first place.

Sure it does. We're a sexually dimorphic species that can only reproduce with one XY and one XX.

Differentiating between them is vital to the continued existence of the species.

Talking with your buddies of the same gender about how you were hanging out alone with one of the opposite was a tribally significant thing in the early days of speech. It still today implies you might be mating! And babies might be forthcoming.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#137

Post by greyface- »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #134
Lammy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it could indicate that at least mild Autism is a beneficial adaptation Not picking on you or your post, but it's interesting that we still consider this an adaptation. What if this is humanity's natural state and allistics are the adaptation?

Interesting thought. Are autistic traits also seen in animals?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_model_of_autism

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#138

Post by nicoburns »

NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #136
nicoburns wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness, using different pronouns for different genders doesn't make a lot of sense in the first place.

Sure it does. We're a sexually dimorphic species that can only reproduce with one XY and one XX. Differentiating between them is vital to the continued existence of the species. Talking with your buddies of the same gender about how you were hanging out alone with one of the opposite was a tribally significant thing in the early days of speech. It still today implies you might be mating! And babies might be forthcomi…

Maybe for some people? Most of my buddies are of the opposite gender, and me hanging out with one of them doesn’t imply anything different to me hanging out with someone of my own gender.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#139

Post by zepto »

throwawaygh wrote: post #131
zepto wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for instance he likes old movies and watches them constantly, but when he says a movie is good he has never been wrong) but he's a good guy You make it sound as if liking old movies should be cause for suspicion!

Nah. The "but" differentiates a positive trait from a neutral trait, and the parenthetical phrase clarifies that the neutral trait isn't necessarily bad.

Yes. The fact that you have to qualify that the ‘neutral’ trait isn’t ‘necessarily’ bad implies that you think people might think it was bad.

You wouldn’t need to qualify it otherwise.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#140

Post by guerrilla »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #132
guerrilla wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Of course it narrows down specificity. My point is that in today's society, it seems mostly useless to me. Most of the time I don't need to narrow it down this way at all. This may have been different in a world where people were segregated by sex so intensively that half of the population didn't even have the right to vote, but today I fail to see the usefulness of it.

> but today I fail to see the usefulness of it.

Then you fail to see the usefulness of specificity and efficiency in speech, which is both weird and explains why it took you so many words to say that.

Post reply on HN