4 ms·

> plenty of autistic people are happy to be the way they are and would not want to change. How can you objectively claim to prefer autism over non-autism if yo

by umvi 8y ago

> plenty of autistic people are happy to be the way they are and would not want to change. How can you objectively claim to prefer autism over non-autism if you've never experienced the latter? It's like me being completely content with my mechanical Ford Mustang and refusing to switch to a computerized car on the grounds that I'm happy with my Mustang and it's impossible for me to imagine what driving a computerized car could be like. I've never tried a computerized car that has lane assist and anti-lock brakes, mind you, but I'm just afraid I would like it less than my trusty old Mustang I've used my whole life.

fwip 8y ago
How can you objectively claim to prefer non-autism over autism?
- umvi 8y ago
  I can't; the only way to have objective preference is by experiencing both for the same period of time before choosing
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    Which is relevant to what people would choose, lacking that experience, how exactly? Because that was the topic being discussed ...
    - umvi 8y ago
      Presumably in this hypothetical situation where you can "cure" autism, you can also "uncure" autism. My point is that austistic people who choose to deliberately stay autistic without experiencing what it is like to be non-autistic are making a biased choice (likely rooted in fear of the unknown). The objective course of action is to experience being non-autistic for a few years before deciding whether you actually like being autistic...
      - fwip 8y ago
        And the objective course of action for any neurotypical person is to spend a few years autistic. I imagine you'll be first in line to sign up, given your penchant for objectivity.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
        > Presumably in this hypothetical situation where you can "cure" autism, you can also "uncure" autism. For one, I don't see how that's justified. There are plenty of diseases we can't uncure?! And then, the choice to try out non-autism is already a decision to be non-autistic, even if only temporarily. > My point is that austistic people who choose to deliberately stay autistic without experiencing what it is like to be non-autistic are making a biased choice (likely rooted in fear of the unknown). Well, yes, obviously. And how is that relevant, when noone claimed they were making an unbiased decision? > The objective course of action is to experience being on-autistic for a few years before deciding whether you want to "uncure" yourself. More subjective experience doesn't make the decision objective, just better informed. And in any case, it's still besides the point, because noone was making claims about how objective or how informed the decision is? When someone says "Plenty of people don't drink alcohol, and are happy with it, and have no interest in trying alcohol", it's simply a non-sequitur to respond "But the objective course of action is to experience drinking alcohol for a few years." Yes, the decision would be better-informed, but being better informed is not a prerequisie for being happy with what you are doing, nor does the fact that you could try drinking alcohol have any relevance to the assertion that some people just aren't interested.
gjm11 8y ago
You can prefer X over Y if you have (or reasonably think you have) good reason to think that X suits you better than Y would. That can happen without experiencing both X and Y. I'm pretty sure I'd prefer to have $1M more than I do, even though that's not a situation I've yet been in. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to work as a hairdresser, even though I've never done that. I could be wrong -- it might be that hairdressing would suit me much better than I think, or that having the extra money would lead me to make decisions (earlier retirement? moving to a larger house? a generally spendier lifestyle?) that would be bad for me. But I have, or think I have, a pretty decent idea of how my life would be different if I were a hairdresser or $1M richer, and I can compare that against how things are now and make a reasonable guess at whether the change would be an improvement. It doesn't need to be a matter of X being objectively better than Y. Would I like to be obsessively interested in fashion, celebrity gossip, and sport? Nope, I'm happy being a geeky intellectual type. It's entirely possible that those other folks are happier than I am (for the avoidance of doubt, I genuinely mean that and can think of some fairly plausible mechanisms that might make it so); but I'm used to being the way I am and have no wish to change in that way, and it would be a big upheaval in my life if I did. Would I prefer to be autistic? Nope, I think it would be a nuisance and in any case I've grown used to being how I am. But I can (or at least I think I can) imagine being autistic and feeling much the same way about becoming not-autistic as I now feel about becoming autistic. Severe autism is a big disadvantage in life and I think it's defensible to say that even if some severely autistic people wouldn't want to change that's a mistake on their part. But there's a whole spectrum, and over at the not-so-severe end any shift has both advantages and disadvantages, and I think it's very reasonable for someone to say that they wouldn't want to give up the advantages to get rid of the disadvantages, and that in any case autism is part of who and what they are and taking it away would mean taking them away and replacing them with someone else. Incidentally, I think it's also perfectly reasonable to say "I like the car I'm driving now; I've had it for years and grown accustomed to its foibles; it's nice of you to offer me that extremely different car with a bunch of features this one doesn't have, but they don't sound very useful to me. I'll stick with the one I know I like, thanks." Someone who says that might turn out to be "wrong" in the sense that if you gave them the new car they'd eventually be glad you did, but so what?

by umvi 8y ago

fwip 8y ago

How can you objectively claim to prefer non-autism over autism?

umvi 8y ago
I can't; the only way to have objective preference is by experiencing both for the same period of time before choosing
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  Which is relevant to what people would choose, lacking that experience, how exactly? Because that was the topic being discussed ...
  - umvi 8y ago
    Presumably in this hypothetical situation where you can "cure" autism, you can also "uncure" autism. My point is that austistic people who choose to deliberately stay autistic without experiencing what it is like to be non-autistic are making a biased choice (likely rooted in fear of the unknown). The objective course of action is to experience being non-autistic for a few years before deciding whether you actually like being autistic...
    - fwip 8y ago
      And the objective course of action for any neurotypical person is to spend a few years autistic. I imagine you'll be first in line to sign up, given your penchant for objectivity.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
      > Presumably in this hypothetical situation where you can "cure" autism, you can also "uncure" autism. For one, I don't see how that's justified. There are plenty of diseases we can't uncure?! And then, the choice to try out non-autism is already a decision to be non-autistic, even if only temporarily. > My point is that austistic people who choose to deliberately stay autistic without experiencing what it is like to be non-autistic are making a biased choice (likely rooted in fear of the unknown). Well, yes, obviously. And how is that relevant, when noone claimed they were making an unbiased decision? > The objective course of action is to experience being on-autistic for a few years before deciding whether you want to "uncure" yourself. More subjective experience doesn't make the decision objective, just better informed. And in any case, it's still besides the point, because noone was making claims about how objective or how informed the decision is? When someone says "Plenty of people don't drink alcohol, and are happy with it, and have no interest in trying alcohol", it's simply a non-sequitur to respond "But the objective course of action is to experience drinking alcohol for a few years." Yes, the decision would be better-informed, but being better informed is not a prerequisie for being happy with what you are doing, nor does the fact that you could try drinking alcohol have any relevance to the assertion that some people just aren't interested.

gjm11 8y ago

You can prefer X over Y if you have (or reasonably think you have) good reason to think that X suits you better than Y would. That can happen without experiencing both X and Y. I'm pretty sure I'd prefer to have $1M more than I do, even though that's not a situation I've yet been in. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to work as a hairdresser, even though I've never done that. I could be wrong -- it might be that hairdressing would suit me much better than I think, or that having the extra money would lead me to make decisions (earlier retirement? moving to a larger house? a generally spendier lifestyle?) that would be bad for me. But I have, or think I have, a pretty decent idea of how my life would be different if I were a hairdresser or $1M richer, and I can compare that against how things are now and make a reasonable guess at whether the change would be an improvement. It doesn't need to be a matter of X being objectively better than Y. Would I like to be obsessively interested in fashion, celebrity gossip, and sport? Nope, I'm happy being a geeky intellectual type. It's entirely possible that those other folks are happier than I am (for the avoidance of doubt, I genuinely mean that and can think of some fairly plausible mechanisms that might make it so); but I'm used to being the way I am and have no wish to change in that way, and it would be a big upheaval in my life if I did. Would I prefer to be autistic? Nope, I think it would be a nuisance and in any case I've grown used to being how I am. But I can (or at least I think I can) imagine being autistic and feeling much the same way about becoming not-autistic as I now feel about becoming autistic. Severe autism is a big disadvantage in life and I think it's defensible to say that even if some severely autistic people wouldn't want to change that's a mistake on their part. But there's a whole spectrum, and over at the not-so-severe end any shift has both advantages and disadvantages, and I think it's very reasonable for someone to say that they wouldn't want to give up the advantages to get rid of the disadvantages, and that in any case autism is part of who and what they are and taking it away would mean taking them away and replacing them with someone else. Incidentally, I think it's also perfectly reasonable to say "I like the car I'm driving now; I've had it for years and grown accustomed to its foibles; it's nice of you to offer me that extremely different car with a bunch of features this one doesn't have, but they don't sound very useful to me. I'll stick with the one I know I like, thanks." Someone who says that might turn out to be "wrong" in the sense that if you gave them the new car they'd eventually be glad you did, but so what?