[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)