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

241–250 of 261 posts

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#241

Post by avianlyric »

zepto wrote: post #233
avianlyric wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I’m clarifying my position. Take it as you wish.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#242

Post by zepto »

avianlyric wrote: post #241
zepto wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I’m clarifying my position. Take it as you wish.

Doesn’t seem to have worked as a clarification since it isn’t a reply to what was written.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#243

Post by nicoburns »

NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #225
nicoburns wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean hanging out 1 on 1 with someone of the opposite sex is how like 99.999% of new humans get created.

Well sure, but equally 99% of hanging out with the opposite sex doesn't result in new humans being created.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#244

Post by kragen »

nathias wrote: post #240
kragen wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, I'm using "bias", "consistency", and "rationality" in the statistical, logical, and philosophical senses, respectively. So, I think, is the article. Your use of different definitions for those words probably explains why you reached conclusions that read as obvious nonsense to me. You might think about rereading the article with those definitions in mind.

I can also recommend reading about alpine sweetvetch.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#245

Post by avianlyric »

zepto wrote: post #242
avianlyric wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m clarifying my position. Take it as you wish.

Doesn’t seem to have worked as a clarification since it isn’t a reply to what was written.

No post body was provided.

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#246

Post by int_19h »

Zenst wrote: post #57
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…

As somebody who sits upon the autistic scale, I personally have a deep rooted ethic of fairness, even if it means I yield an advantage, I'm just as uncomfortable being unfairly treated as I am being over fairly treated and to empathize I just look at the others position as if that was mine and how would I feel about that, at least that is how I empathize. Also tend towards common sense slanted bluntness over diplomat…

Fairness is deeply rooted in humans in general. Ethological studies show that even kids as young as 7 will anonymously distribute candy in a more egalitarian way even if they have an option to take it all for themselves. (https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/3833/3/2008_Fehr_NatureV.p...)

Re: Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality

#247

Post by tonguez »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #61
tonguez wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"For me, it only "clicked" once I understood that gender and sexuality are completely arbitrary and subjective social constructs that try to describe a whole spectrum of multidimensional behaviors and (potentially repressed) feelings, so there's little point in trying to objectively categorize them - it's all about the subjective impression of the person themself" Sex is a fundamental property of living organisms; it…

Of course, but that's not really related to what I said.

“Of course, but that's not really related to what I said.”

You said sexuality is a “completely arbitrary and subjective social construct” and that “there's little point in trying to objectively categorize” it. Sex has been studied since animal husbandry existed. So what you said was obviously wrong.

Post reply on HN