The Philosophy of Being Neurotypical

[rousseau]

The idea that someone can be 'neurotypical' is something that I've been thinking about for a while now. Years ago there was a time when I wondered if I had something resembling high functioning autism, before later learning that the 'high functioning' label isn't really a good way to look at how someone's mind works.

Now, after a few more years of learning about the mind and psychology this has only raised more questions for me. The most important of which is:

- why is being neuro-typical something that is prised?

Consider that people are essentially products of evolution and that their biological purpose is to survive and reproduce. We should expect then, that the people we call 'normal' are those who are most likely to produce children. These are the people who are cunning enough to make money, to find partners, who want to produce children. These are people that, most generally, are better able to manipulate their environment in order to amass resources for themselves.

So both culture and psychology to this point in history have normalised the idea that if you're not good at producing children and making money you're a failure. This is embedded in the way that we define psychiatric conditions. Someone who experiences the world differently, whose genetics result in a different outlook on the world, someone who isn't a part of the majority is 'maldapted', 'sick'. Someone who has five children and no social defects is 'neuro-typical'.

And this is where we get into the grey, philosophical part of the problem.

Ok, maybe what's 'normal' is set by the majority, and so those on the fringes are usually forced to adapt. But at the same time, by the strict definition of being neuro-typical there are a lot of really shitty people who could be labelled that way. CEOs laying off workers from their company? Neuro-typical. Men lying to their partners and neglecting their children? Neuro-typical. World leaders wreaking havoc? Neuro-typical.

The purpose of a person is to capitalise. To win resources for themselves in the context of their environment. And so those who are the most adapted to the world aren't necessarily empathetic, they aren't necessarily smart, they might not necessarily be great people, they're those with the ability to capitalise on the world around them.

And so philosophically, I don't see a reason to prize the fact that one meets some transient definition of 'normal'.

 

[ruby sparks]

And so philosophically, I don't see a reason to prize the fact that one meets some transient definition of 'normal'.

Using the yardstick 'philosophically' (which is arguably a tad vague but I'll run with it rather than quibble) I might tend to agree. Or to put it another way, I can agree that traits other than abilities to survive, thrive and reproduce can be valued. I doubt if it matters all that much to the blind process of evolution, but even there I can't say what might or might not be valuable, at least in some non-priority way, to that process.

Only humans philosophise, as far as we know. This is one of my very favourite cartoons and many of you will have seen it:




If I were to try to think of something other than survival/reproductive success that could be held to be valuable....I might suggest happiness, which at bottom might mostly be 'avoidance of suffering' (physical and/or psychological). This of course is not, necessarily, an independent consideration, as there are ways it could contribute to other functions, such as the two 'biggies' mentioned.

 

[rousseau]

And so philosophically, I don't see a reason to prize the fact that one meets some transient definition of 'normal'.

Using the yardstick 'philosophically' (which is arguably a tad vague but I'll run with it rather than quibble) I might tend to agree. Or to put it another way, I can agree that traits other than abilities to survive, thrive and reproduce can be valued. I doubt if it matters all that much to the blind process of evolution, but even there I can't say what might or might not be valuable, at least in some non-priority way, to that process.

Only humans philosophise, as far as we know. This is one of my very favourite cartoons and many of you will have seen it:

View attachment 13896


If I were to try to think of something other than survival/reproductive success that could be held to be valuable....I might suggest happiness, which at bottom might mostly be 'avoidance of suffering' (physical and/or psychological). This of course is not, necessarily, an independent consideration, as there are ways it could contribute to other functions, such as the two 'biggies' mentioned.

What does differentiate people from other species is that we have the ability to understand our own existence and view it as an object of our perception. This allows us to build values that are not necessarily aligned with what our genetics would like.

Sure, we're kind of constrained to the majority who likes to produce babies, but personally I'd like to live in a world where we value people and living things because they are feeling beings, and not because of their ability to produce babies and profit.

At least it's an ideal to strive toward.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm not so sure being neuro-typical is valued that much.

Rather, I think there's a constant war of influence about what should be valued in this respect. It seems for instance that humanity spends a lot of time and money talking about all sorts of non-neuro-typical people and this in a positive way as far as I can tell, people like pop stars, all manner of celebrities, political leaders, famous scientists, writers, sportsmen and women, whereas people who merely reproduce themselves seem to receive bad publicity as soon as they have more than two children.

I also don't think most people see having children as the recipe for having an interesting life. Personally, I value originality and creativity rather than procreativity and I don't think I'd be the only one. The reasons for that may be very complicated but it seems a fact to me.

Now, obviously, what profile is valued will also depend on who you're talking to.
EB

 

[rousseau]

I'm not so sure being neuro-typical is valued that much.

Rather, I think there's a constant war of influence about what should be valued in this respect. It seems for instance that humanity spends a lot of time and money talking about all sorts of non-neuro-typical people and this in a positive way as far as I can tell, people like pop stars, all manner of celebrities, political leaders, famous scientists, writers, sportsmen and women, whereas people who merely reproduce themselves seem to receive bad publicity as soon as they have more than two children.

I also don't think most people see having children as the recipe for having an interesting life. Personally, I value originality and creativity rather than procreativity and I don't think I'd be the only one. The reasons for that may be very complicated but it seems a fact to me.

Now, obviously, what profile is valued will also depend on who you're talking to.
EB

That's a good point, thanks.

In a sense I think that plays into my post, that their are properties of average people that shouldn't necessarily be valued or prized. Not that neuro-typical people should be shunned, just that 'fitting in with the average' does not always mean 'good'. For the most part, it just means that you blend in.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm not so sure being neuro-typical is valued that much.

Rather, I think there's a constant war of influence about what should be valued in this respect. It seems for instance that humanity spends a lot of time and money talking about all sorts of non-neuro-typical people and this in a positive way as far as I can tell, people like pop stars, all manner of celebrities, political leaders, famous scientists, writers, sportsmen and women, whereas people who merely reproduce themselves seem to receive bad publicity as soon as they have more than two children.

I also don't think most people see having children as the recipe for having an interesting life. Personally, I value originality and creativity rather than procreativity and I don't think I'd be the only one. The reasons for that may be very complicated but it seems a fact to me.

Now, obviously, what profile is valued will also depend on who you're talking to.
EB

If you get to know people and families well enough you will find there are no average people. This is true of all species imho.

 

[PyramidHead]

I have wondered about this a lot myself, not so much in the context of the autism spectrum but with regards to what has been called depressive realism. The implications are largely the same for both. Any mental pattern of functioning that hinders one's ability to engage enthusiastically with life is regarded as something in need of a fix. It makes sense from a well-being standpoint, because it feels good to really be enthusiastic about life, to have passion about the future, optimism towards problems, to see yourself immortalized in your offspring and watch as they grow. Doesn't say anything about whether there is a reason beyond the good feelings it provides to be so affirmative about life, about whether life is something that can be rationally and not just emotionally affirmed.

I'm not so sure being neuro-typical is valued that much.

Rather, I think there's a constant war of influence about what should be valued in this respect. It seems for instance that humanity spends a lot of time and money talking about all sorts of non-neuro-typical people and this in a positive way as far as I can tell, people like pop stars, all manner of celebrities, political leaders, famous scientists, writers, sportsmen and women, whereas people who merely reproduce themselves seem to receive bad publicity as soon as they have more than two children.

I also don't think most people see having children as the recipe for having an interesting life. Personally, I value originality and creativity rather than procreativity and I don't think I'd be the only one. The reasons for that may be very complicated but it seems a fact to me.

Now, obviously, what profile is valued will also depend on who you're talking to.
EB

That's an interesting take. What I want to say is that we may value such non-typical people more as an "entertainment class" of society who are permitted to cross the bounds of everyday thinking, while the people we encounter on the street are expected to fall in line. We might talk about somebody like Kanye West in a positive way while still remarking that he probably has an unhealthy narcissism, or look back on Schopenhauer as a brilliant philosopher who really needed psychiatric counseling. And if we encounter somebody with either of those personality traits in the workplace, the last thing we normally do is fawn upon them as geniuses. I'm not saying everybody is like this, but the mass media appeal of atypical minds is partly a sideshow phenomenon, at least in the US.

Originality, creativity, and something like insight are valued too, as you say. I would argue they are valued for the same evolutionary reasons that preferentially favor the neurotypical style of mind, though. But really, it's hard to find a widely held value that doesn't have some evolutionary backing.

 

[Treedbear]

I have wondered about this a lot myself, not so much in the context of the autism spectrum but with regards to what has been called depressive realism. The implications are largely the same for both. Any mental pattern of functioning that hinders one's ability to engage enthusiastically with life is regarded as something in need of a fix. It makes sense from a well-being standpoint, because it feels good to really be enthusiastic about life, to have passion about the future, optimism towards problems, to see yourself immortalized in your offspring and watch as they grow. Doesn't say anything about whether there is a reason beyond the good feelings it provides to be so affirmative about life, about whether life is something that can be rationally and not just emotionally affirmed. ...

This 2009 Scientific American article has another angle on that: Depression's Evolutionary Roots

Two scientists suggest that depression is not a malfunction, but a mental adaptation that brings certain cognitive advantages.
...
One reason to suspect that depression is an adaptation, not a malfunction, comes from research into a molecule in the brain known as the 5HT1A receptor. The 5HT1A receptor binds to serotonin, another brain molecule that is highly implicated in depression and is the target of most current antidepressant medications.
...
When scientists have compared the composition of the functional part of the rat 5HT1A receptor to that of humans, it is 99 percent similar, which suggests that it is so important that natural selection has preserved it.
...
So what could be so useful about depression? Depressed people often think intensely about their problems. These thoughts are called ruminations; they are persistent and depressed people have difficulty thinking about anything else. Numerous studies have also shown that this thinking style is often highly analytical. They dwell on a complex problem, breaking it down into smaller components, which are considered one at a time.
...
Studies of depression in rats show that the 5HT1A receptor is involved in supplying neurons with the fuel they need to fire, as well as preventing them from breaking down. These important processes allow depressive rumination to continue uninterrupted with minimal neuronal damage, which may explain why the 5HT1A receptor is so evolutionarily important.
...
Many other symptoms of depression make sense in light of the idea that analysis must be uninterrupted. The desire for social isolation, for instance, helps the depressed person avoid situations that would require thinking about other things.
...
Several studies have found that expressive writing promotes quicker resolution of depression, and they suggest that this is because depressed people gain insight into their problems.
...
But depression is nature’s way of telling you that you’ve got complex social problems that the mind is intent on solving. Therapies should try to encourage depressive rumination rather than try to stop it, and they should focus on trying to help people solve the problems that trigger their bouts of depression.
...

So, my take away is the standard therapy of administering meds might be doing lots of harm and causing society as a whole to become more irrational due to the inability focus on and a growing tendency to avoid problems.

ETA - To coin a phrase, "Happiness is over-rated."

 

[PyramidHead]

So, my take away is the standard therapy of administering meds might be doing lots of harm and causing society as a whole to become more irrational due to the inability focus on and a growing tendency to avoid problems.

ETA - To coin a phrase, "Happiness is over-rated."

It certainly makes me wonder. Personally, I have found life to be impossible without depression medication. Without it, would I be more rational? I don't know. My pessimism is clearly not a chemical problem, as the medication has balanced my mood without changing my negative view of life. But in the end, I'll never know what I'd think about everything at this point in my adulthood without medication. It could very well be the case that the trade is a fair one, but I am still in favor of acknowledging that it may be a trade.

 

[Treedbear]

So, my take away is the standard therapy of administering meds might be doing lots of harm and causing society as a whole to become more irrational due to the inability focus on and a growing tendency to avoid problems.

ETA - To coin a phrase, "Happiness is over-rated."

It certainly makes me wonder. Personally, I have found life to be impossible without depression medication. Without it, would I be more rational? I don't know. My pessimism is clearly not a chemical problem, as the medication has balanced my mood without changing my negative view of life. But in the end, I'll never know what I'd think about everything at this point in my adulthood without medication. It could very well be the case that the trade is a fair one, but I am still in favor of acknowledging that it may be a trade.

I know that writing my thoughts out as objectively as I can in a way that others might understand them helps me tremendously in maintaining a humanistic outlook. Unfortunately it hasn't enhanced my ability to have a social life.

 

[steve_bank]

I've known a lot of different people. My impression is you are typical. Questioning and struggling as we all do.

Letting yourself being labeled and pigeonholing your self to me is a fate worse than death.

 

[rousseau]

I've known a lot of different people. My impression is you are typical. Questioning and struggling as we all do.

Letting yourself being labeled and pigeonholing your self to me is a fate worse than death.

Just got to thinking about this statement here. I don't necessarily want to pull this thread toward myself, but I think this is worth responding to. If for no other reason than to vent this a bit.

A few years back I wondered if I might be a high functioning autistic, and I had a psychiatrist and a few others reply 'definitely not'. I can definitely feel elements of that in terms of logical skill and verbal fluency, though.

And yet these days I wonder if I might be atypical in other ways. For one thing I've been diagnosed with bipolar I, and secondly (I took a more serious test a few months ago) my fluid intelligence is hovering around genius levels.

To many, this would sound like a great thing, and in a lot of ways it is. I have a wonderful relationship with my partner and most of my friends, I'm wealthy relative to my peers, I understand more about most fields than most people understand about any. And yet at the same time I can really struggle mentally. For one thing I don't enjoy being around many people because our interests and frame of reference are just way too different. And another I'm constantly struggling to appear normal despite my entire world-view and skill-set being a statistical outlier.

I'd say a third aspect of it is that now I know what I know, and I'm surrounded by an ocean of people who are so far from that level that I really have almost no one who can even comprehend what my day to day life is like.

Anyway, a bit off topic there but this is something that's been bottled up for a while and I guess this is as good as any avenue to let it out. You'd think having deep cognitive skill would be a great thing, but turns out it's actually a lot weirder and more isolating than people realize.

 

[fromderinside]

Now I'm one screwed up person. Reasons fly out at the world at light speed. Abandoned by mom when I was about seven. Migrated across West, moving every year or so. A Step mom who was only interested in her son and my half sister. Tendencies to act out, to over compete, compensate, excuse, all catalogued before I was 11. Muddled through school, bright, very bright, but aimless and unanchored to anything of moral value.

When I got to school I aimed at becoming a physicist except I had no discipline so I went enlistment route. Got out without damaging myself except for a tendency to buy sex and drink too much. Went back to school as a psych major because I wanted to find out about myself. Tht didn't work. I became a psychophysicist after I realized most psychology wasn't much use or held many tools for becoming a better person.

What fixed it. An accident. A woman from Italy I could talk with without being stressed about sex or status. Went from goof ball serial failer to determined finisher just because I wanted to do that. Last 50 have been pretty good. Raised a well ordered family despite tendencies inherent from my genes. Didn't keep score, but looking back we did pretty well all around.

Suggestion remind yourself from time to time you are fucked up but that's OK and if you keep your eye on some positive outcome and you keep getting to it. You don't need to conform any more. Instead enjoy being an example of what your are.

 

[rousseau]

Now I'm one screwed up person. Reasons fly out at the world at light speed. Abandoned by mom when I was about seven. Migrated across West, moving every year or so. A Step mom who was only interested in her son and my half sister. Tendencies to act out, to over compete, compensate, excuse, all catalogued before I was 11. Muddled through school, bright, very bright, but aimless and unanchored to anything of moral value.

When I got to school I aimed at becoming a physicist except I had no discipline so I went enlistment route. Got out without damaging myself except for a tendency to buy sex and drink too much. Went back to school as a psych major because I wanted to find out about myself. Tht didn't work. I became a psychophysicist after I realized most psychology wasn't much use or held many tools for becoming a better person.

What fixed it. An accident. A woman from Italy I could talk with without being stressed about sex or status. Went from goof ball serial failer to determined finisher just because I wanted to do that. Last 50 have been pretty good. Raised a well ordered family despite tendencies inherent from my genes. Didn't keep score, but looking back we did pretty well all around.

Suggestion remind yourself from time to time you are fucked up but that's OK and if you keep your eye on some positive outcome and you keep getting to it. You don't need to conform any more. Instead enjoy being an example of what your are.

Thanks. Yea, I've gotten to the acceptance stage, but there are some times when it's just shit and you're pretty much alone with it which sucks.

The good news is that half of the equation is more positive than negative. In the past year or so I've recognized that I'm living a pretty uncommon and exceptional life, and I'm actually really lucky to have that opportunity. Partly why I'm on such a health kick these days.. don't want to fuck it up and die when I'm 45.

 

[fromderinside]

Great. So about when you go to Texas just remember don't order that salsa from NEW YORK CITY! There's a rope for that.

 

[steve_bank]

I've known a lot of different people. My impression is you are typical. Questioning and struggling as we all do.

Letting yourself being labeled and pigeonholing your self to me is a fate worse than death.

Just got to thinking about this statement here. I don't necessarily want to pull this thread toward myself, but I think this is worth responding to. If for no other reason than to vent this a bit.

A few years back I wondered if I might be a high functioning autistic, and I had a psychiatrist and a few others reply 'definitely not'. I can definitely feel elements of that in terms of logical skill and verbal fluency, though.

And yet these days I wonder if I might be atypical in other ways. For one thing I've been diagnosed with bipolar I, and secondly (I took a more serious test a few months ago) my fluid intelligence is hovering around genius levels.

To many, this would sound like a great thing, and in a lot of ways it is. I have a wonderful relationship with my partner and most of my friends, I'm wealthy relative to my peers, I understand more about most fields than most people understand about any. And yet at the same time I can really struggle mentally. For one thing I don't enjoy being around many people because our interests and frame of reference are just way too different. And another I'm constantly struggling to appear normal despite my entire world-view and skill-set being a statistical outlier.

I'd say a third aspect of it is that now I know what I know, and I'm surrounded by an ocean of people who are so far from that level that I really have almost no one who can even comprehend what my day to day life is like.

Anyway, a bit off topic there but this is something that's been bottled up for a while and I guess this is as good as any avenue to let it out. You'd think having deep cognitive skill would be a great thing, but turns out it's actually a lot weirder and more isolating than people realize.

Asc a rough analogy. a hypocondriac is someone who is helathy but identifies with disease symptoms.

In high school one of my teachers said when you study psychology you study normal psychology first. Otherwise people can identify with symptoms of abnormal psychology witout a 'normal' fpundation.

Socially normal does not mean rational, it means you function in society and are not dangerouse to others or yourself. To a Christian an atheist is abnormal, an atheist may trhink Christians are crazy...and so on.There is a publication called the DSM that contains all the recognized psychological disorders. It used to cantain homosexuality but not anjy more. An untrained person reading through it may see himself in the symptoms while having nothing wrong.