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

231–240 of 261 posts

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#231

Post by zepto »

chucksta wrote: post #215
zepto wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You presuppose autism to be a disease, like a tumor.

I think you are showing bias, there is nothing in that comment to suggest the point of the comment is calling autism a disease. I see it as juxtaposing the same condition to different outcomes.

The commenter uses cancer as an analog for autism. That implies disease. It’s not a neutral comparison, and it’s not my bias that introduced the concept of disease.

If you think it’s possible to make the same point without reference to a disease, then by all means do so.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#232

Post by avianlyric »

zepto wrote: post #127
avianlyric wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sex and gender are different things. Neither is easily defined in a strict unambiguous manner, despite what we might be taught in high school biology. To be clear, this isn’t a political view point, it’s a scientific view point, there’s no singularly accepted way of defining sex in human. Unfortunately nature has this amazing ability to conjure up exceptions to every seemingly reasonable definition of male/female, an…

Sex is almost always unambiguously defined, despite there being exceptions. There is no problem with having biological categories. It is not controversial in science that humans are a sexually dimorphic species. To claim otherwise is definitely political. Gender is entirely more complex social phenomenon and indeed isn’t directly related to sexual dimorphism, and evolving gender politics are totally legitimate. Prete…

I agree in the vast majority of individuals sex is clear cut and unambiguous. It’s also clear that humans are sexually dimorphic.

However that doesn’t mean that ambiguity in sex doesn’t exist, and that sexual ambiguous in individuals is impossible. Sexual ambiguity isn’t common, but equally it doesn’t represent an aberration or break some natural law.

So I take issue with the idea that determining sex is universally trivial, and those that dismiss real cases of sexual ambiguity as political correctness gone wrong. Its just that sometimes people are born who don’t fit neatly into commonly held categories, it doesn’t make them special, it just means they’re unique on axis that most people aren’t. Most of the time that nothing more than an interesting observation, but sometimes these people need help to understand how they fit in a world that culturally assumes they don’t exist.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#233

Post by zepto »

avianlyric wrote: post #232
zepto wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sex is almost always unambiguously defined, despite there being exceptions. There is no problem with having biological categories. It is not controversial in science that humans are a sexually dimorphic species. To claim otherwise is definitely political. Gender is entirely more complex social phenomenon and indeed isn’t directly related to sexual dimorphism, and evolving gender politics are totally legitimate. Prete…

I agree in the vast majority of individuals sex is clear cut and unambiguous. It’s also clear that humans are sexually dimorphic. However that doesn’t mean that ambiguity in sex doesn’t exist, and that sexual ambiguous in individuals is impossible. Sexual ambiguity isn’t common, but equally it doesn’t represent an aberration or break some natural law. So I take issue with the idea that determining sex is universally…

> but equally it doesn’t represent an aberration or break some natural law.

The comment you are replying to never said it does.

> So I take issue with the idea that determining sex is universally trivial

the comment you are replying to never said this.

> sometimes these people need help to understand how they fit in a world that culturally assumes they don’t exist.

The comment you are replying to doesn’t dispute this.

It’s not clear how what you have written relates to the comment you are replying to.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#234

Post by jjk166 »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #228
jjk166 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's in reference to the desirability, not the availability. When I say "all else being equal" that is in reference to the future version of the same comparison. If one option is cheaper now, it will most likely be cheaper in the future too, and if it is cheaper then that means it is less demanding in terms of resources to acquire, and if it is less demanding in resources it is "easier". You might have a special ca…

> if you have bought a $10 and a $100 ticket, buying a second $10 ticket is, all else being equal, preferable to buying a second $100 ticket, regardless of how desirable either option is Not if you won't desire it anymore (or desire less) at later date. Or if you won't be able to take it at a later date at all (which influences desirability at present). Or when the price doesn't really matter, you'll be able to affor…

Again, when I say "all else being equal" that is the explicit assumption that the circumstances in the future are essentially the same (ie equal) as they are now. We are assuming all else is equal because we are given no reason to believe otherwise. If something were, for example, a once in a lifetime opportunity, we'd refer to it as the once in a lifetime option, not as the less expensive option. The fact that we are talking about this decision in terms of price implies these are normal, purchasable commodities whose relative prices are reasonably stable, and that monetary expense is a significant concern.

Of course there are situations where you can't or wouldn't want to buy the same thing at a later point in time, but in general you can. Starting with the assumption that you purchased both a $10 and a $100 ticket to two different events because you wish to experience both and further assuming that you can still experience both by purchasing a duplicate of one ticket which is available at the same price, as is generally the case, keeping the expensive ticket and buying a duplicate of the less expensive ticket is the rational choice. Without an explicit good reason to do otherwise, it is not an example of the sunk cost fallacy to reduce your future expenses by keeping the more expensive ticket.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#235

Post by seba_dos1 »

jjk166 wrote: post #234
seba_dos1 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you have bought a $10 and a $100 ticket, buying a second $10 ticket is, all else being equal, preferable to buying a second $100 ticket, regardless of how desirable either option is Not if you won't desire it anymore (or desire less) at later date. Or if you won't be able to take it at a later date at all (which influences desirability at present). Or when the price doesn't really matter, you'll be able to affor…

Again, when I say "all else being equal" that is the explicit assumption that the circumstances in the future are essentially the same (ie equal) as they are now. We are assuming all else is equal because we are given no reason to believe otherwise. If something were, for example, a once in a lifetime opportunity, we'd refer to it as the once in a lifetime option, not as the less expensive option. The fact that we ar…

> The fact that we are talking about this decision in terms of price implies these are normal, purchasable commodities whose relative prices are reasonably stable, and that monetary expense is a significant concern.

Are trip prices "reasonably stable"? Isn't there actually a huge seasonal variance, last-minute offers and so on?

> Of course there are situations where you can't or wouldn't want to buy the same thing at a later point in time, but in general you can.

The example is about trips, which - at least in my experience - are usually chosen based on a huge set of variable incentives to go at specific time to a specific place.

Anyway, the article gives no reason to assume that "the circumstances in the future are essentially the same (ie equal) as they are now" - it actually gives a reason to assume that there are other incentives than the price and doesn't mention whether they change or not in the future - so we can't assume that they won't (and even if we could, it would still be irrelevant to the point it's trying to convey - all it talks about is that autistic people are apparently more likely to take those other circumstances into account, which can lead to a different outcome).

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#236

Post by bryanrasmussen »

zepto wrote: post #231
chucksta wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are showing bias, there is nothing in that comment to suggest the point of the comment is calling autism a disease. I see it as juxtaposing the same condition to different outcomes.

The commenter uses cancer as an analog for autism. That implies disease. It’s not a neutral comparison, and it’s not my bias that introduced the concept of disease. If you think it’s possible to make the same point without reference to a disease, then by all means do so.

oh darn, another pillar of moral rectitude is going after me, another day another HN comment as it were - very well then these are scooters https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71h6t5-7v7L._AC_SL1500_.... and so is this https://cdn.thewirecutter.com/wp-content/media/2021/12/elect... they both fall into the category of scooters although they perform at far different levels to where you can say the experience of them is far removed from each other.

The difference of course between our two analogies, is that a tumor like autism is something that has been observed by people and not constructed by them, and we do not know much the reason why some tumors are benign and some not and we do not know much the reason why some people with autism are severely disabled and some not. But we do know why some scooters have electric motors and some do not.

In fact it may be that at some point in the future the autism spectrum will be broken up and be identified as several different disabilities, lets say Preboscot's behavioral pattern for those with a range of light autistic behaviors and Ternobyni's syndrome for those with what we would describe as heavy autism today and in that imagined future these different disabilities do not have any actual connection to each other but just manifest in some similar symptoms, the same way that diamonds and clear quartz might have some similarities in appearance.

But until that imagined future comes to pass we live in a present where the the extremes of the autism spectrum are still defined as autism.

I hope that my explanation is acceptable to you, and if you feel a need to morally elevate yourself over others via the sport of internet commenting you pick another target as the night has just started where I am, and my severely disabled autistic child sometimes only lets me have a few hours of sleep as it is, I would at least like to spend the time before he wakes up and wants to jump about relaxing instead of in meaningless argumentation.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#237

Post by kragen »

nathias wrote: post #196
kragen wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you try to walk across the desert without drinking water you will be dead in two days. That's not "the long run." If you carry water and salt with you, you can make it a week or more, but not if you strategize poorly: walking during the day instead of at night will deplete your water much more rapidly, and if you treat your canteen carelessly you will lose the water. If you…

That's not really the concept of rationality I or the article is talking about (consistency, non-bias etc.) knowledge or it's use isn't the same, it's more like the a priori knowledge where the concept is immediately applied by universal rules etc. This specific rationality is good in formal games where the rules are universal and the concept should be immediately applied, but doesn't work for empirical contexts (lif…

They aren't really different concepts of rationality; consistency and non-bias are about not fooling yourself, so that you can come to the conclusions that the available evidence would justify. That's how people as a group can empirically acquire knowledge about the world. Of course, for individual people, social aspects are often even more important, since learning from someone else's experience can be much cheaper than learning from your own—as in the case of alpine sweetvetch; but even resisting deception and knowing whose opinion to listen to benefit from consistency and non-bias. Indeed, perhaps even more so, since the alpine sweetvetch isn't trying to emotionally manipulate you into believing it.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#238

Post by jjk166 »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #235
jjk166 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, when I say "all else being equal" that is the explicit assumption that the circumstances in the future are essentially the same (ie equal) as they are now. We are assuming all else is equal because we are given no reason to believe otherwise. If something were, for example, a once in a lifetime opportunity, we'd refer to it as the once in a lifetime option, not as the less expensive option. The fact that we ar…

> The fact that we are talking about this decision in terms of price implies these are normal, purchasable commodities whose relative prices are reasonably stable, and that monetary expense is a significant concern. Are trip prices "reasonably stable"? Isn't there actually a huge seasonal variance, last-minute offers and so on? > Of course there are situations where you can't or wouldn't want to buy the same thing at…

For the third time, we are told that there are two trips, one of which is "significantly more costly". It doesn't matter if the prices fluctuate, the fact that one is the "significantly more expensive" one, as opposed to any other description which does not utilize price, indicates that the relative difference in price is useful for distinguishing them, and indeed more useful than some alternative method of distinguishing them. You would not refer to something as the "significantly more expensive option" if you reasonably expect it to be cheaper than the "cheap option". It would be one thing if we were told that there was a last minute offer or a seasonal variation at play, but we were explicitly not. The question is what is the logical choice given this information, and that logical choice is to go on the more expensive trip. It doesn't matter if you'd make a different decision under different circumstances, it's fine for something to be logical under some circumstances but not under others.

The whole purpose of this discussion is that the point that the article is trying to convey, that autistic people are more likely to consider other circumstances and are thus more logical because they avoid the sunk cost bias is incorrect, because this is not an example of the sunk cost bias. The non-refundable cost you sunk into two things in the past is relevant to the decision of which one to keep because you can use it to predict future prices. What the article claims most people do is in fact the rational approach, and what the article claims autistic people do is generally irrational, thus working against the thesis of their article.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#239

Post by seba_dos1 »

jjk166 wrote: post #238
seba_dos1 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that we are talking about this decision in terms of price implies these are normal, purchasable commodities whose relative prices are reasonably stable, and that monetary expense is a significant concern. Are trip prices "reasonably stable"? Isn't there actually a huge seasonal variance, last-minute offers and so on? > Of course there are situations where you can't or wouldn't want to buy the same thing at…

For the third time, we are told that there are two trips, one of which is "significantly more costly". It doesn't matter if the prices fluctuate, the fact that one is the "significantly more expensive" one, as opposed to any other description which does not utilize price, indicates that the relative difference in price is useful for distinguishing them, and indeed more useful than some alternative method of distingui…

> The question is what is the logical choice given this information

Not enough information is given to make any choice, and there's no intention to give it, since this is not a puzzle. It has no correct answer. It just mentions that some non-financial motivations are at play, but does not specify them (because it's not needed to make a point). You can't make a decision, because you don't have the data.

> The non-refundable cost you sunk into two things in the past is relevant to the decision of which one to keep because you can use it to predict future prices.

You don't have enough information to assume that, or that any future prices will be relevant at all. In fact, the article explicitly says that this cost is "irrelevant" - which makes sense, since you may have no intention to rebook that cancelled trip at all!

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#240

Post by nathias »

kragen wrote: post #237
nathias wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really the concept of rationality I or the article is talking about (consistency, non-bias etc.) knowledge or it's use isn't the same, it's more like the a priori knowledge where the concept is immediately applied by universal rules etc. This specific rationality is good in formal games where the rules are universal and the concept should be immediately applied, but doesn't work for empirical contexts (lif…

They aren't really different concepts of rationality; consistency and non-bias are about not fooling yourself, so that you can come to the conclusions that the available evidence would justify. That's how people as a group can empirically acquire knowledge about the world. Of course, for individual people, social aspects are often even more important, since learning from someone else's experience can be much cheaper…

You use bias as a dirty word, but it's really just a weight of the opinion, there is no knowledge without bias. As for consistency, it comes secondary to categorization, it's easily abused for 'foolish' consistencies that can also be created with framing effects.
Post reply on HN