This article picks apart a bunch of biases by the researchers of a given paper. The object of study was the differences in behavior between a group of autistic people and a group of non-autistic people when choosing between prioritizing value for oneself or value for the community.
I recommend reading the paper itself too. If that is, understandably, too much for you, I suggest you go for the introduction, the conclusion, and the segments mentioned in the article.
In my personal opinion as an autistic person, I would argue that the non-autistic participants underestimated the negative consequences of their actions, and simply chose individual benefit over their principles.
I may not be autistic, but I strongly agree with this statement.
You may very well be autistic if you agree with this statement. As do I, an autistic person.
Also, autistic people tend to see patterns very easily and extrapolate without effort:
One possible extrapolation is that it would be better to have autistic people make important decisions of grand scale then neurotypical people.
You could also extrapolate that an autistic whitness is more trustworthy than a neurotypical one.
You could even go as far as saying that neurotypicals tend to be hypocritical as they tend to fight for a cause publicly but undermine it privately if that benefits them.
I could go on for hours but I‘m pretty sure we‘re not allowed to hate on NTs here. I think you can very well see where this is going if you try to assert individual value for mankind.
This is very interesting. I’m not diagnosed but strongly suspect I’m on the spectrum and the article rings true for me.
I generally avoid confrontation but I will gladly ruin a whole conversation if I feel like someone else believes something I find immoral or unethical
I feel the same and am on the spectrum myself. I feel that if I don’t say anything when something immoral is said, by not acknowledging it as immoral I’m tacitly supporting it. After all, if it bothered me, why didn’t I say anything?
Of course, there’s some nuance to when and how to have an argument. But I feel there’s a much larger desire to keep the peace among my other family members. Even though some of those family members are really shitty people.
Yes, motherfuckers, I do demand that all of my morals and beliefs be as close to 100% internally consistent as possible, and yes, I actually believe them all the time. Who are these assholes saying hypocrisy and amoral selfishness are fucking good things?
This is honestly disappointing. I cannot comprehend, why being principled would make one inferior. Is not being a slave to what others think a curse of its own? Additionally, is not being unprincipled how we end up with corporate and government corruption?
Being principled is not inferior, we’re being being pathologized for it because it is a threat to the corrupt powers. The existing power structures see this pattern as dangerous to them, because principled people are more likely to see through their bullshit and try to remake society in a way that is beneficial to all- which means removing evil from power. So, the powerful are using their influence in the media and medical establishment to consider principled behavior to be an undesirable symptom. So, we have to keep being principled. Keep caring. Keep resisting. Keep trying to create a better way. Keep trying to create networks, projects, and relationships based on real values, rather than harming each other, which only makes the established powers more powerful.
I already heard about this, and fuck them. A whole lot. “Having moral convictions even when others aren’t looking makes autistic people inferior! They should be sociopathic, just like the rest of us!” Sociopathy is what will destroy us as a species. As we’re currently discovering, thanks to climate change.
