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

Neurodiversity

edge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: Neurodiversity

#51

Post by throwaway876543 »

duckingtest wrote: post #46

I don't think it's possible to edit autism out until it's actually understood on a mechanical level. It's likely that's what's now called 'autism' in reality are several completely different things with vaguely similar symptoms. Once it's understood, I don't think it's going to disappear: positive forms of it (ie. milder Asperger's) are going to become a niche option for parents, along with high iq edits of course. T…

Hi, I have milder asperger's, and I've been highly successful by most objective measures (great job in finance, make more money than both my parents combined, trophy wife, etc.)

If I could go back and start over without the disease, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Even if it meant sacrificing all that success and being a fry-cook all my life.

Re: Neurodiversity

#52

Post by krapp »

cb18 wrote: post #50
krapp wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are people uncomfortable with this? Some aspects of cultural, ethnic and religious identity are associated with and expressed by genetic factors like skin color. For African Americans, just to give an example, the premise of "editing" children to be "whiter" might appear to enable racial genocide. It doesn't apply only to skin color - some deaf people would consider genetically engineering away deafness an atta…

Skin color is a relatively minor component of race, race describes the clustering of a whole host of traits and characteristics in a group of individuals. Yellow-skinned Africans would still be Africans, purple-skinned Asians would still be Asians, and green-skinned Europeans would still be Europeans.

Skin color is a minor component of the actual makeup of race - but most of what "race" is, is political, economic and cultural. And skin color is a major factor in that regard, because it's an obvious way to discriminate between in and out groups.

When Obama was first running, there were discussions about whether or not he was "black enough" to really represent African American culture as President. Part of that was because of his upbringing (because, unfortunately, there is the perception that being educated, well spoken and wealthy is somehow antithetical to "true blackness") but part of it was the lightness of his skin color. It would have likely been easier for some people to accept his "white" background if he'd been physically darker.

You yourself correlated European with "white" in an earlier (probably still flagged) comment, so you know that references to skin color can seem intrinsic to many things to which it doesn't really apply.

Re: Neurodiversity

#53

Post by gcr »

astrange wrote: post #2

Everyone always wants to prevent cures for autism, but no one ever suggests inventing something that gives people autism. (It was sort of a plot point in a Vernor Vinge novel. And Brave New World?)

Ted Chiang wrote a short story, "The Evolution of Human Science", about that idea.

If I recall, the main premise was that new parents could choose to give their children a neurodevelopmental drug that would cause vastly increased intellectual prowess at the cost of gradually losing their connection to human society to the point of indecipherability.

I think it was a bit heavy-handed. But maybe I'm not remembering the story correctly.

Re: Neurodiversity

#54

Post by duckingtest »

throwaway876543 wrote: post #51
duckingtest wrote: post #46

I don't think it's possible to edit autism out until it's actually understood on a mechanical level. It's likely that's what's now called 'autism' in reality are several completely different things with vaguely similar symptoms. Once it's understood, I don't think it's going to disappear: positive forms of it (ie. milder Asperger's) are going to become a niche option for parents, along with high iq edits of course. T…

Hi, I have milder asperger's, and I've been highly successful by most objective measures (great job in finance, make more money than both my parents combined, trophy wife, etc.) If I could go back and start over without the disease, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Even if it meant sacrificing all that success and being a fry-cook all my life.

How can you know? The only way to really compare two lives would be to live them both.

Re: Neurodiversity

#55

Post by throwaway876543 »

bbarn wrote: post #17
kosma wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recent developments of DSM-5 and ICD-11 show the opposite: decades of research failed to show any scientifically valid distinction between functional and non-functional autism. That's why they are being conflated into a single "autism spectrum disorder" category.

Those books exist as a method for billing insurance. The DSM only recently (1983) stopped considering homosexuality a diagnosis. As a result we're hearing the phrase "somewhere on the spectrum" for any number of behaviors we don't see fitting the norm, and the reality of autism is not this "beautiful mind" scenario for many, but instead a crippling illness like the AP mentions. They are definitely not the same thing…

As someone who falls in the "Beautiful Mind" end of the spectrum I find it insulting and abhorrent that people would do anything OTHER than cure us if they could.

Beneath superficial success and contribution, my life is a nonstop Munchian scream. I find it less insulting when people say everyone on the spectrum should be exterminated, than when people say some of us should be allowed to continue existing because our particular end of the spectrum happens to write pretty code / invent pretty theorems / etc.

Re: Neurodiversity

#56

Post by SonOfLilit »

teraflop wrote: post #19
SonOfLilit wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're talking about Distress by Greg Egan? Was the book about the announcement of a Theory of Everything on an artificial island?

Pretty sure OP was referring to A Deepness in the Sky .

I'm very surprised that two authors that are commonly confused with each other would make a secondary plot point about the same subject that is very weakly related to their main interests.

Re: Neurodiversity

#57

Post by throwaway876543 »

duckingtest wrote: post #54
throwaway876543 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I have milder asperger's, and I've been highly successful by most objective measures (great job in finance, make more money than both my parents combined, trophy wife, etc.) If I could go back and start over without the disease, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Even if it meant sacrificing all that success and being a fry-cook all my life.

How can you know? The only way to really compare two lives would be to live them both.

I'm completely fucking isolated. Like, a million miles away.

Someone at work invites me to a party. I go, I have fun. I never get invited again. New person gets hired, pattern repeats. Reliable as a clock.

My wife? I picked her up using techniques from the seduction community, which I studied like a science and practiced for over a year. I did that because I was tired of being a virgin, now I hate this relationship and feel powerless to escape it. BTW, during that seduction community time I spent endless hours at bars and clubs, surrounded by people having fun and pretending to have fun myself. I never had any fun there. It was more of a war zone which I tolerated in pursuit of a goal.

At work I feel like the mythical Cassandra, cursed to see the future but no-one will believe you. (I'm a programmer, of course.) I wish I could just treat it like a job that doesn't matter, and that it wouldn't physically pain me when some idiot can't even follow in-house variable-naming conventions, etc.

Sure, I guess I can't be 100% certain that fry-cooks aren't in their own screaming hell, just like I can't be 100% sure I'm not living in Plato's cave. But I think that's pretty fucking academic compared to the above things which I can be sure of.

Re: Neurodiversity

#58

Post by scalio »

sugarfactory wrote: post #39

Even though my intuition tells me that I should support neurodiversity my reasoning keeps failing to justify it without introducing "diversity is unconditionally good" as an axiom. I find it difficult to add it to the list of axioms I support because it seems like hypocrasy to endorse diversity considering the history of humans. Almost every human has the ability to learn and speak language, which is unique to mankin…

Why do autistic people have to go extinct? Can't we support them in this wealthy day and age? Couldn't great cognitive tools lie beneath autism and other supposed illnesses? In my experience, "normal" people are the most boring because they can't think in (what they would consider) contorted ways.

There's a whole spectrum of people, one end which defines large parts of society, the plain average. On the other end are people whose minds are so distorted relative to the norm that it's impossible for them to function in our society. I would put the blame for that on society not being diverse or open enough.

It seems to me that evolution works because of diversity: an organism diversifies through mutations to the point where one type gets an advantage over the others and survives. Think of it this way: If you limit yourself to what you already know, you'll be turning in circles, constantly reaching the same conclusions for the same problems. Let some outside knowledge/factors mess things up and you'll be able to move on.

Re: Neurodiversity

#59

Post by internaut »

throwaway876543 wrote: post #57
duckingtest wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you know? The only way to really compare two lives would be to live them both.

I'm completely fucking isolated. Like, a million miles away. Someone at work invites me to a party. I go, I have fun. I never get invited again. New person gets hired, pattern repeats. Reliable as a clock. My wife? I picked her up using techniques from the seduction community, which I studied like a science and practiced for over a year. I did that because I was tired of being a virgin, now I hate this relationship a…

The adage 'birds of a feather flock together' is a true one. Our ability to communicate with each other relies most strongly on shared experience esp. with regard to normative behavior, thoughts.

I would not advise you to act as neurotypical but to seek out your own kind. That might not be easily found in collected pools of humans but to take a leaf out of the Major's book: 'The net is vast and infinite.'

How many of us have mentioned an obscure topic in passing on HN, and then been surprised by an erudite observation? Of course this does not always prevail, but it happens with enough frequency that I am convinced for each person there are companions.

To be less academic, if there are conventions for furries, then there are places in the world for you too!

It is frequently noted that geeks do much better at themed events with a purpose than at generic social outings. Less night club, more book club. The more object oriented the activity, the easier geeks get along. If you've been to a Hackerspace you'll know there is a wide range of interesting people at such places.

P.S. Every line cook I've known does claim to be in their own screaming hell.

Re: Neurodiversity

#60

Post by yummyfajitas »

krapp wrote: post #36
yummyfajitas wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally "genocide" is considered bad because it results in living people being killed. I think we can all agree that killing a living person against their will is bad. But with what you describe as "genocide," not a single person is harmed. To me, an African American person has the same intrinsic value as a white person or anyone else. Therefore, I can't see any particular reason why I should care if we have more or…

Bear in mind that many people consider abortion to be murder even when the people it "kills" only exist in the theoretical future. It's not a rational way of thinking, but it is common.

The people who consider abortion to be murder consider it to be an actual, non-potential baby. Thus, killing that baby is murder.

Your argument is merely a straw man that left wing types smugly create and then dismiss to portray those they disagree with as stupid.

Post reply on HN