[HN Gopher] Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about r...
___________________________________________________________________
Autistic people challenge preconceived ideas about rationality
Author : misotaur
Score : 70 points
Date : 2022-01-06 20:56 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (psyche.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (psyche.co)
| paganel wrote:
| I've stopped reading at the Greta Thunberg cameo, up to that
| point I was still hoping for a decent article.
| jsight wrote:
| That doesn't sound like a very rational choice.
| akvadrako wrote:
| 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 make judgments and
| reach decisions in a more traditionally 'rational' manner._
|
| Interesting if true; it could indicate that at least mild Autism
| is a beneficial adaptation. Though those biases probably came
| about for good reasons, it could be they've become obsolete and
| are no longer worth it.
| mjevans wrote:
| They probably came about for good reasons; and the current
| world is doing a poor job at utilizing the full ability of it's
| people, of many different types.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Though those biases probably came about for good reasons, it
| could be they've become obsolete and are no longer worth it.
|
| I suspect (but don't know how to test the hypothesis) that
| cognitive biases are why human learning can produce good
| results with dramatically less data than machine learning. More
| rational, yes, when you get there; but harder to learn at all.
| mherrmann wrote:
| I know what you mean by "mild autism" but an article [1] that
| was recently discussed here [2] explains that "mild" vs. (say)
| "severe" does not quite capture the nuance of the condition.
| Just pointing it out here because I found it interesting.
|
| 1: https://neuroclastic.com/its-a-spectrum-doesnt-mean-what-
| you...
|
| 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29682917
| rackjack wrote:
| Yeah, I suspect the fact that Autism reduces a person's ability
| to relate emotionally and socially to themselves and others
| allows them to dedicate more brain power to thinking
| rationally. In a mild enough case, with a supportive tribe,
| they could be a useful advisor. No autistic members = tribe has
| trouble making good collective decisions. Too many autistic
| members = tribe can't collaborate. That's just my armchair
| psychologist theory though.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Autistic people can have trouble accessing emotions, but a
| lot of the reason for that stereotype is just that they
| communicate their emotions and emotional reactions
| differently and/or that their emotional reactions to certain
| situations are different to those of neurotypical people: not
| that they're not actually feeling emotions at all.
| BizarroLand wrote:
| It might also be that Autistic traits would be a good solo
| or small tribe survival adaptation.
|
| Highly logical, no breaking down in a fit of misery, less
| susceptible to loneliness, very useful for times when
| you're stuck in a survival situation.
| bopbeepboop wrote:
| Isn't this why there's a correlation between Asperger's and
| engineers?
|
| The same kind of logical, exacting thinking necessary for
| mastery of physical systems is in tension with the kinds of
| thinking used in social games. Some brains are better at one
| than the other -- and we have disorders at both extremes.
|
| I've always wondered if autism and dyscalclia are something of
| "polar opposites".
| TT-392 wrote:
| Probably also related to a lot of other factors, like
| probablems with social interaction making people with
| aspergers more likely to for example spend evenings nerding
| out in their own room.
| georgestephanis wrote:
| Yes hi, "aspergers" is an unfortunate nomenclature and many
| autistic folks (myself included) strongly resent it. It was
| named after a Nazi doctor (Hans Asperger) and used to
| classify autistic folks into "useful" and "non-useful" people
| -- as Nazis and Eugenicists are known to do. When you think
| of it, if you could refer to folks on the spectrum as such,
| without referencing the outdated nomenclature (the DSM-5
| replaced it for diagnostics, now everything falls under the
| Autism Spectrum, rather than viewing the "higher functioning"
| folks as having a distinct diagnosis)
|
| Thanks!
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| Please ignore this guy. Autism politics are messy and I
| wouldn't recommend anyone even attempt to play the game.
|
| "Aspergers" is a perfectly acceptable term outside of
| professional psychological circles to refer to "useful" or
| high-functioning Autistics.
| IAmEveryone wrote:
| A perfectly acceptable term outside some circles is, by
| definition, not acceptable, at least not "perfectly".
|
| And the (undisputed) fact that Asperger was quite the
| Nazi should, just by itself, disqualify the term. OPs
| comment linking the dual terms to the similar binary
| classification into useful/useless human beings goes even
| further by showing that usage of the term doesn't just
| glorify someone who doesn't deserve it, but shows how
| that practice derives from and continues the namesake's
| hateful ideology.
| fao_ wrote:
| Sorry... are you arguing for a term that separates
| autistic people into "productive" and "non productive"
| that was created by a literal Nazi?
|
| I am autistic, pretty much all of the people I know are
| autistic, and even most of the people I know through my
| workplace are autistic (it's explicitly a neurodiverse
| workplace), and I've pretty much never seen anyone need
| to use the term "aspergers" in general conversation. As
| in, when talking about symptoms, when talking about
| diagnosis, when talking about anything to do with it,
| people just talk about the thing, rather than branding it
| as "aspergers versus autistic". I'll go further and say
| that, not only is it not in general parlance, but also
| that if you used the term "aspergers" in or around these
| circles, you would be lightly corrected, looked on
| disfavourably, or given a side-eye, at the least.
| overboard2 wrote:
| Yes hi, why is the category of those with Asperger's
| syndrome not useful for the further understanding and
| communication of information.
| georgestephanis wrote:
| 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?
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| >I've always wondered if autism and dyscalclia are something
| of "polar opposites".
|
| I don't think they are. Plenty of autistic people are bad at
| maths (you just don't meet these people in engineering
| circles!), and plenty of "social butterflies" are good at it.
| nathias wrote:
| It doesn't mean that at all, its but that real world is not
| made for rationallity, and even if we have created special
| contexts where it is, it doesn't mean it can be generalized out
| of them.
| kragen wrote:
| I would argue exactly the contrary: the real world, the
| seasons and stars and seeds, is pitilessly rational. It
| cannot be tricked, pleaded with, or emotionally manipulated.
| It is harsh, but equally so to everyone, and according to an
| inexorable logic that cannot be altered but can be exploited.
| It is the special contexts the humans have created, like
| churches, courts, and tribes, where the laws of rationality
| can be imperfectly and temporarily suspended, replaced by a
| "virtual reality" that is merely a social consensus.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| On the flip side, many autistic people have trouble
| understanding neurotypical people because they miss nuance in
| their communication that other neurotypical adults would find
| to be obvious.
|
| Autism isn't some reasoning superpower, it's just a difference
| in processing stimuli.
| nicoburns wrote:
| This is also true the other way around however: neurotypical
| people miss nuance in autistics communication that other
| autistic adults would find to be obvious.
|
| I would agree with your characterisation as a difference in
| processing stimuli.
| pddpro wrote:
| > 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.
|
| I think a better example to sunken cost bias could be found than
| this one as people usually pay more for trips that they prefer
| more in the first place.
| yupper32 wrote:
| This is a strange one. I'd cancel the cheaper one because it'll
| be easier to go on that cheaper trip at a later date than the
| more expensive one.
|
| Choosing the one you'd rather go on _right now_ shows a lack of
| planning. It seems less rational to me.
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| > it'll be easier to go on that cheaper trip at a later date
| than the more expensive one
|
| How can you infer that just from its price though? :P
| yupper32 wrote:
| You can't but "I don't know, I need more information" is a
| boring answer for a thought exercise.
| flayx wrote:
| Precisely. It is fully rational to cancel the cheaper trip.
| Many autistic persons would say that the entire question is
| stupid.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| This sounds like a poor explanation of a more nuanced study.
| codetrotter wrote:
| Yeah and not just that, they speak about weighing the available
| information but they don't give any more information about the
| situation.
|
| If I have paid for two trips and have to cancel one of them
| with no refunds, I assume that I really wanted to go on both.
|
| So when I am choosing which one to cancel, I am also likely
| choosing that I will later repurchase the trip that I am
| cancelling now. So at that point I'd be looking at which of the
| two trips is cheaper to replace. And if I am not allowed by the
| rules of this thought experiment to do so, then I must assume
| that the more expensive one of those two will cost more to buy
| again later also.
|
| Then also as you say, which one is more preferable in the first
| place and again, if I was willing to pay more for one of them
| in the first place then presumably that one.
|
| Unless there was something special about the cheap one. For
| example, maybe it's a trip somewhere that I cannot go in the
| future, only now. Or a trip with someone I want to go there
| with and they can only go at this time. But again, all of that
| kind of stuff is left unspecified in the question. So if they
| force us to make a choice on so little information, what are
| they expecting, and in what sense is the kind of question they
| are asking anything but a straw man kind of deal?
|
| What even were the possible answers that respondents could
| give? If "I don't know", or "too little information to
| determine" are an option then I'd pick one of those, but if the
| only answer we can give is "cancel the cheap one"/"cancel the
| expensive one", then I would say cancel the cheap one, but they
| can't then just go and say "oh this is a fallacy and you fell
| for it".
|
| _Shruggs._
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Not only that, but usually people would want to have more
| information than what is being presented. If the location is
| one I'd more like to visit, or if the location is the same but
| one of the modes of transportation is nicer, then I'd obviously
| choose the more expensive of the two. Also, if my intention is
| that I want to visit both locations anyway, then I would also
| choose the more expensive option.
|
| So I don't know the specifics of the question at hand, or if
| these autistic people were even able to ask these questions,
| but they seem rather important, and if they in fact NOT asking
| them but had the opportunity to do so, then I'd question the
| value of some of the assumptions this article seems to make.
| hwbehrens wrote:
| It also ignores that if you booked a trip to a place, you
| likely did so because _you want to go to that place_. Thus, if
| you were forced to cancel your trip due to a conflict, it is
| implicitly more likely that you would book a trip there again
| in the future - a rain check, essentially.
|
| If the question was "Which of these trips would you like to pay
| for twice?", then it's immediately obvious that the cheaper
| trip should be cancelled.
| dhosek wrote:
| One thing worth noting about the spectrum in autistic spectrum
| disorder is that it does _not_ mean what many people assume it
| does, that it 's referring to a range of severity with mild on
| one end and severe on the other.
|
| Rather it's more a spectrum as in a spectrum of colors: there are
| a number of traits to autism, not all of which might be present
| in a person diagnosed with ASD so single-criteria tests like
| identify the emotions in these photographs, for example, don't
| really work as good diagnostic tools.
|
| This article found with a quick Google search seems to sum up
| some of this reasonably well:
| https://www.appliedbehavioranalysisedu.org/what-is-meant-by-...
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| That first sentence is a doozy. Had to fight my biases to keep
| reading...
| mherrmann wrote:
| My girlfriend was diagnosed with autism 3 weeks ago and we had a
| related conversation just today. She said she feels more open-
| minded / less biased than other people. I thought it was because
| her different experiences were invalidated by society throughout
| her life. But this makes it sound like there's more to it. Very
| interesting.
| Puts wrote:
| The ironic part is that the non-autistic people wont trust
| autistic peoples valuable non-biased opinions because of their
| bias against non-conforming people.
| rajin444 wrote:
| 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.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Yes, this is exactly how most people in the U.S. and the West
| more generally would relate to the whole
| "pronouns/grammatical gender" thing. SV is a bubble.
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| Judging from how I was changing my opinion on similar matters
| when I was growing up, I guess she simply lacks the insight
| into why someone would feel the need to reject the
| established pronouns - she probably doesn't feel that need
| herself, so she doesn't have any frame of reference to be
| able to consider that until someone explains it to her, which
| makes her naturally gravitate towards seemingly unambiguous
| and clear grammatical rules that "make sense".
|
| I'd guess that it's pretty common for autistic people to
| fight concepts like singular "they" just out of the sense of
| maintaining linguistic order, uncorrelated with whether they
| actually see the need for gender-neutral and non-binary
| pronouns or not (which can be a source of frustrating
| misunderstandings that assume bad intent when there's none).
|
| 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, which makes it obvious that the language
| should be able to actually express their identities and that
| it doesn't help anyone to try to force some categorization on
| them.
| whaaswijk wrote:
| I think many people are reluctant to use non-traditional
| pronouns. I'm not trying to condemn or condone that, just
| pointing out that to me this example seems unrelated to
| autism.
| nicoburns wrote:
| In fairness, using different pronouns for different genders
| doesn't make a lot of sense in the first place.
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| I don't think that's a trait common to neurotypicals or any
| group in particular. All people lend greater trust to the
| opinions of others who think similarly/have similar experiences
| to themselves.
| serverlessmom wrote:
| It is very good to see more positive recognition for people that
| are neurodivergent including how we actually improve and fit into
| society as well.
|
| I would argue that the greatest issue with neurotypical society
| over all is that it tends to value a singular mode of thinking
| and being as somehow inherently more valuable than others,
| failing to recognize that in our many differences we are actually
| stronger as a whole.
| gmfawcett wrote:
| Doesn't everybody challenge these, pretty much? Any artificial
| "person-in-the-street" construct is unlikely to represent a
| living, breathing person.
| lostcolony wrote:
| We know that people aren't perfectly rational. The point of the
| article is that autistic people tend to be more rational on
| average than neurotypicals. The emotional weight that affects
| neurotypicals and causes them to fall into biases more often
| (on average) doesn't apply as often (on average); an autistic
| person will be less likely to behave differently when
| confronted with "80% fat free" vs "20% fat", to borrow an
| example for the article.
| [deleted]
| empressplay wrote:
| That's likely because (many) autistic people (myself
| included) have to learn to function with emotional regulation
| issues largely by second-guessing them. So the 'gut feeling'
| a neurotypical would tend to go with gets overridden by
| subsequent analysis in the autistic individual, in their
| attempt to 'calm the storm'. In my case, this causes me to
| 'throw out' most political hyperbole.
|
| Unfortunately, if the shit really does hit the fan, this
| process can lead to validation of the emotions and an
| 'autistic meltdown'. So it's a double-edged sword, to be sure
| fdgsdfogijq wrote:
| Basically theres a fundamental trade off between the ebb and flow
| of social interaction and cohesion, which follows predefined and
| implicit rules, and then the autistic ability to actually be
| objective/think rationally without being clouded by norms
| emptybottle wrote:
| It's good to see appreciation of different neurotypes for their
| strengths.
|
| Many people with ASD put a lot of time and effort into learning
| and altering their natural behavior in order to better understand
| and interact in a way that is perceived as normal by
| nerutotypical people.
|
| I'm hopeful the inverse will happen more over time as well,
| neurotypicals putting effort into learning and adjusting their
| own behavior to better interact with and understand autistic
| people.
|
| Making it normal to include input from all neurotypes (as opposed
| to excluding) is a great step forwards.
| jajag wrote:
| ^^^ this
| BizarroLand wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-06 23:00 UTC)