4 ms·

I've often remarked (informally) that autistic people seem to operate under the assumption that the explicitly-stated rules are the actual rules. "Help others

I've often remarked (informally) that autistic people seem to operate under the assumption that the explicitly-stated rules are the actual rules. "Help others in need" would be the go-to example of how this confusion(?) can lead to a positive outcome.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
How is “help others in need” confusingly explicit? Maybe it’s my neurodivergence talking but that seems pretty straightforward advice.
- omginternets 3y ago
  Because of the “sometimes people who help get in trouble” part.
  - hughesjj 3y ago
    Flashbacks to highschool, and my underage...
- Name_Chawps 3y ago
  Sometimes those in need don't want your help. Sometimes you aren't skilled or knowledgeable enough to help, and you'll just do more harm than good if you try. Sometimes by helping, you'll cause more harm to yourself than you'll prevent in the other person. Etc.
aeyes 3y ago
As a person on the spectrum "help others in need" is actually a very difficult concept because I don't really care about them. When something happens around me where I'm not directly involved my instinct is to ignore it or to get out of the situation so that I can go on with my life. The only difference is when I see unfairness or injustice, then I feel like I have to do something about it. But it usually isn't about the person, it's about the principle.
- lucubratory 3y ago
  I am autistic as well and what you are saying makes no sense to me. When someone is in need around me and requires help, by definition they need help and are not currently receiving it, which is an injustice and unfair. Therefore I have to remedy the injustice, therefore I have to help. That is how I experience the autistic sense of justice. How are you reconciling that contradiction?
  - golergka 3y ago
    Why do you perceive somebody who needs held and requires it as injustice? Helping others is an ethical thing, the right thing to do, but never an obligation that we owe them.
    - lucubratory 3y ago
      A situation where someone requires help but is not receiving it is unjust, because people's needs are not being met while others have more than they need. It is also unfair, because if you require help and have several randomly distributed attributes, you will receive that help, whereas if you require help and do not have those random accidents of birth you generally will not receive that help. That is definitionally unfair, because random chance is deciding the outcomes of people's lives.
      - golergka 3y ago
        This doesn't really makes sense. Two things that you mention, like determining what people need and role of random chance, don't have anything to do with justice. For me, justice is fulfilment of obligations between people, that we either take explicitly (as promises or contracts), or a very limited number that should be implicitly upheld by all — about aggression and property. But while helping others is a good deed, I don't think anybody thinks you have an obligation to anybody except your own conciseness or g-d, if you believe in one. And about random chance — that's your relationship with nature or g-d (again, used here not out of religious sense, but just a very useful rhetoric device), and they're not subjects to justice, because they're not people. Surely, you don't expect other people to have an obligation to correct nature or g-d's perceived mistakes or injustices?
qball 3y ago
>I've often remarked (informally) that autistic people seem to operate under the assumption that the explicitly-stated rules are the actual rules. Yes, and the people who believe that this is not how things should work are, in a word, wrong. Polities and societies who believe this tend to be very economically prosperous; GDP per capita has a positive correlation with this concept (countries with common law but no meaningfully codified negative rights come a relatively distant are second, civil law countries come third, and despotic regimes a distant fourth). Immigration patterns of high-skill/high-educated workers follow this correlation as well; all high-achievers want to live in the US, those who aren't quite as autistic land in Canada or the UK, Continental Europe is not a meaningful destination for high-skill migration, and people will die trying to get out of China. The problem with autistic-minded people, when operating under the notion that society has rules, tend to leak an outsized amount of political power into that society. A society that successfully prohibits itself from trying to capture that power prospers; a society that does not eventually becomes corrupt and devours its own ability to properly motivate those people to bother driving it forward.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

How is “help others in need” confusingly explicit? Maybe it’s my neurodivergence talking but that seems pretty straightforward advice.

omginternets 3y ago
Because of the “sometimes people who help get in trouble” part.
- hughesjj 3y ago
  Flashbacks to highschool, and my underage...
Name_Chawps 3y ago
Sometimes those in need don't want your help. Sometimes you aren't skilled or knowledgeable enough to help, and you'll just do more harm than good if you try. Sometimes by helping, you'll cause more harm to yourself than you'll prevent in the other person. Etc.

aeyes 3y ago

As a person on the spectrum "help others in need" is actually a very difficult concept because I don't really care about them. When something happens around me where I'm not directly involved my instinct is to ignore it or to get out of the situation so that I can go on with my life. The only difference is when I see unfairness or injustice, then I feel like I have to do something about it. But it usually isn't about the person, it's about the principle.

lucubratory 3y ago
I am autistic as well and what you are saying makes no sense to me. When someone is in need around me and requires help, by definition they need help and are not currently receiving it, which is an injustice and unfair. Therefore I have to remedy the injustice, therefore I have to help. That is how I experience the autistic sense of justice. How are you reconciling that contradiction?
- golergka 3y ago
  Why do you perceive somebody who needs held and requires it as injustice? Helping others is an ethical thing, the right thing to do, but never an obligation that we owe them.
  - lucubratory 3y ago
    A situation where someone requires help but is not receiving it is unjust, because people's needs are not being met while others have more than they need. It is also unfair, because if you require help and have several randomly distributed attributes, you will receive that help, whereas if you require help and do not have those random accidents of birth you generally will not receive that help. That is definitionally unfair, because random chance is deciding the outcomes of people's lives.
    - golergka 3y ago
      This doesn't really makes sense. Two things that you mention, like determining what people need and role of random chance, don't have anything to do with justice. For me, justice is fulfilment of obligations between people, that we either take explicitly (as promises or contracts), or a very limited number that should be implicitly upheld by all — about aggression and property. But while helping others is a good deed, I don't think anybody thinks you have an obligation to anybody except your own conciseness or g-d, if you believe in one. And about random chance — that's your relationship with nature or g-d (again, used here not out of religious sense, but just a very useful rhetoric device), and they're not subjects to justice, because they're not people. Surely, you don't expect other people to have an obligation to correct nature or g-d's perceived mistakes or injustices?

qball 3y ago

>I've often remarked (informally) that autistic people seem to operate under the assumption that the explicitly-stated rules are the actual rules. Yes, and the people who believe that this is not how things should work are, in a word, wrong. Polities and societies who believe this tend to be very economically prosperous; GDP per capita has a positive correlation with this concept (countries with common law but no meaningfully codified negative rights come a relatively distant are second, civil law countries come third, and despotic regimes a distant fourth). Immigration patterns of high-skill/high-educated workers follow this correlation as well; all high-achievers want to live in the US, those who aren't quite as autistic land in Canada or the UK, Continental Europe is not a meaningful destination for high-skill migration, and people will die trying to get out of China. The problem with autistic-minded people, when operating under the notion that society has rules, tend to leak an outsized amount of political power into that society. A society that successfully prohibits itself from trying to capture that power prospers; a society that does not eventually becomes corrupt and devours its own ability to properly motivate those people to bother driving it forward.