Right; I've always been good at useless facts, but ask me to do something that requires a lot of concentration and it'll take me forever to get comfortable doing it. It's annoying, and it only gets worse if I don't go to bed on time.
I sometimes have problems with social communications because of my autism (I get really anxious, which my psychologist said is probably caused by the disorder), but it doesn't otherwise affect me a whole deal. They say that neurotypicals aren't usually that interested in weird or useless fields -- but I see my ability to grow deeply fascinated and curious about many things to be my greatest strength in life. As long as I have a book that's not all bad nearby or a computer, I can just totally tune out of reality, and all my worries melt away...
Another way I feel I may be different from neurotypicals, other than some minor social problems and my strong sense of curiousity, is that I feel I'm very strongly aware of myself and my surroundings at all times. When I'm presented with unfamiliar situations, I try to figure out why things are how they are, and I find that fun. I feel that I've developed a really strong sense of intuition, so I can do pretty well when I'm presented with new challenges or tasks. As long as I view everything as being a puzzle or a game, I have fun and do well.
I don't really think it's possible to say with very much accuracy that two races are equal, unless you change your criteria to fit the data or have a large tolerance for what counts as equal.
It seems to me that personality and ability has a lot more to do with the environment and whatever else it is that makes a person different from their twin, but even so, I don't like how it's taboo to consider the possibility of a correlation between race and non-physical characteristics.
There is a difference between racism and statistics.
A statistic is that an African-American is more likely to live in an urban area than a Caucasian American (that's still true as far as I know, correct me if it's not).
It's racist to say that this is because the former is somehow inferior to the latter, which is what the man was clearly saying (he even defended "racism" on the whole as a thing).
Well, that's more of a sociological thing. It's not really controversial to use race in that field.
I was just thinking it would be cool if like, we were able to figure out if race can help in predictions about how people react instinctively to stimuli or something. I think it's at least plausible that the differences in environment that caused the racial distinctions might have had subtle influences on the mind as well.
I'm sure it'd be damned hard to separate that from cultural influences, though.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I suddenly understand why people hate lesswrong.
Doesn't that Eliezer Yudkowsky guy post there, too?
Yes, or at least he did at one point.
My exposure to the site is basically what some Troopers would dredge up for OTC threads to make sure they would become horrible, horrible masses of pointlessness.
Yudkowsky showed up once or twice for some cameo appearances.
"Feelings can be observed to have value, rather than intuited, because we experience what is being said to be good or bad. If someone claims that suffering is intrinsically bad, I have access to what it is that is supposed to be bad – the feeling of suffering. I can recall my experiences of sufferings and judge that yes, that was a bad feeling."
Level with me here. Is this as instantly funny and ridiculous to any of you as it is to me?
It'd be funnier to me if I was more sure of what was meant. If the humor comes from it being tautological, that's something I usually only find mildly amusing.
A common response to the idea of moral relativism in regards to morality is the idea, from certain atheist and materialist people, is that humanity is brought together by the facts of our biology and that the correct moral action can be decided by studying human neuroscience.
But if we take this logic a bit further, doesn't it replace cultural relativism with biological relativism? If a given species has a biology that is simply different, rules that apply to us might not apply to them, and in the words of William Blake "one law for the ox and lion is oppression". It might be important for us to avoid pain, but it might be more important for the monkey-people of dimension X to ensure proper X-banana growth, or for the Sludgoids to stimulate their c-fibers.
I'm sure I'm not the first person who's thought of this, but it's an interesting response to people like Sam Harris.
I, for one, love the idea of Neurodiversity, and I am so glad that there are different ways that a brain can be. It's wonderful and marvelous and I'm glad I have the mind I do.
I think Neurotypicals have done loads and loads of good.
I, for one, love the idea of Neurodiversity, and I am so glad that there are different ways that a brain can be. It's wonderful and marvelous and I'm glad I have the mind I do.
I think Neurotypicals have done loads and loads of good.
If a given species has a biology that is simply different, rules that apply to us might not apply to them, and in the words of William Blake "one law for the ox and lion is oppression". It might be important for us to avoid pain, but it might be more important for the monkey-people of dimension X to ensure proper X-banana growth, or for the Sludgoids to stimulate their c-fibers.
I'm not sure how this invalidates
humanity is brought together by the facts of our biology and that the correct moral action can be decided by studying human neuroscience.
Well you see these chemicals in my brain stimulated a neural response in my frontal cortex which activated the latent dopamine receptors and sent my pituitary gland into overdrive and that's why it's cool that I fucked my sister, NO YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP DAD
There's also people who desire pain and people who want to avoid pleasure, so we don't have to leave our planet to see examples of different values for feelings.
I guess you could argue that there's some sort of higher level of satisfaction that comes from having a fulfilling life rather than just experiencing typical pleasure, and that that can include alternate goals.
But I guess it depends on how you define pleasure.
That said, I think it can be assumed that all beings that form societies would have to have to have moral systems that share some common baselines, otherwise societies would be unsustainable.
Like killing or bringing needless suffering fellows of your species in a wanton manner would always be considered bad in any society that can function in a meaningful manner.
I disagree with that last sentence. You don't have to look very hard to find examples of humans causing death and suffering to themselves within a sustainable society.
I don't think it's worthwhile to make a claim that can be paraphrased as "Societies can't function if they engage in causing so much pain and destruction that they can't function."
I don't think it's worthwhile to make a claim that can be paraphrased as "Societies can't function if they engage in causing so much pain and destruction that they can't function."
I think it is. Y'see, it means that, by definition, societies are limited in what possible moral codes they can have.
Comments
autism (I get really anxious, which my psychologist said is probably
caused by the disorder), but it doesn't otherwise affect me a whole
deal. They say that neurotypicals aren't usually that interested in
weird or useless fields -- but I see my ability to grow deeply
fascinated and curious about many things to be my greatest strength in
life. As long as I have a book that's not all bad nearby or a computer, I can just totally tune out of reality, and all my worries melt away...
Another way I feel I may be different from neurotypicals, other than some minor social problems and my strong sense of curiousity, is that I feel I'm very strongly aware of myself and my surroundings at all times. When I'm presented with unfamiliar situations, I try to figure out why things are how they are, and I find that fun. I feel that I've developed a really strong sense of intuition, so I can do pretty well when I'm presented with new challenges or tasks. As long as I view everything as being a puzzle or a game, I have fun and do well.
Well that's a very narrow definition if we're just saying neurotypical is "not Autistic".
It seems to me that personality and ability has a lot more to do with the environment and whatever else it is that makes a person different from their twin, but even so, I don't like how it's taboo to consider the possibility of a correlation between race and non-physical characteristics.
There is a difference between racism and statistics.
A statistic is that an African-American is more likely to live in an urban area than a Caucasian American (that's still true as far as I know, correct me if it's not).
It's racist to say that this is because the former is somehow inferior to the latter, which is what the man was clearly saying (he even defended "racism" on the whole as a thing).
That's good.
I actually like Micheal Bay, I don't think he's some sort of artiste' or anything, but I think he's competent and tends to get undersold.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Well then.
Level with me here. Is this as instantly funny and ridiculous to any of you as it is to me?
Indeed.
I've never seen that show, but I think I know every character by name. That's pretty sad.
But if we take this logic a bit further, doesn't it replace cultural relativism with biological relativism? If a given species has a biology that is simply different, rules that apply to us might not apply to them, and in the words of William Blake "one law for the ox and lion is oppression". It might be important for us to avoid pain, but it might be more important for the monkey-people of dimension X to ensure proper X-banana growth, or for the Sludgoids to stimulate their c-fibers.
I think Neurotypicals have done loads and loads of good.
Well he did say "in a wanton manner". Which generally implies a lack of consequences for such a thing.
Of course on the other other other hand, I guess you could say "well what about the Aztecs".
I guess.
What were we talking about again?
I think it's worthwhile.
And I'm right.
Why am I right?
Because I'm smarter than you.
Why am I smarter than you?
Because I am not wearing a dunce cap.
Take that, debate logic!
One who's ideas are still somewhat popular today, due to Deleuze and Peirce.
This is the best portrait anyone has ever had painted of them.