4 ms·
I think the actual hallmark is one layer deeper: the brain's "input filter" is different and doesn't assign "important" versus "not important" distinctions in t
by exmadscientist 1y ago
I think the actual hallmark is one layer deeper: the brain's "input filter" is different and doesn't assign "important" versus "not important" distinctions in the same way as a "neurotypical" brain might. (In fact, the brain just might not be very good at input filtering, period.)
This shows up in a lot of ways: sensory (can't just filter out the tag on the back of your shirt), interests (can't recognize that you're spending just a liiiitle too much time on that model train), food (don't categorize trying new foods as interesting, so you don't), etc. But human socialization is incredibly complex, and while many of us can do decently well at learning it, imagine trying to get a grip on social cues without being able to tell what's relevant and what's not. Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it?
It also is a working theory that well matches my experience with the autistic people in my life. "Deficits in cognitive empathy/ inability understand intuitively what other people are thinking", aka "theory of mind", is a really good description of how things are often difficult, and I think "different stimulus input filter" is a pretty good hypothesis for how it might arise.
- shazbotter 1y agoAs an autistic person, what you say is correct to my experience. I have all sorts of sensory processing issues that all basically are variations on "I can't ignore signals".
- Muromec 1y agoWell, autism is sensory integration problem, that's the core thing.
- accidentallfact 1y agoIt's the other way round - let's say you have a thousand inputs, and those contain 1 bit/s in a way that you can't pick one or a few inputs that allow you to correctly decode that one bit of information. Or let's say you have a million inputs, or pixels, and you need to determine if there is a cat in the picture. Selective attention won't work for that either. You can't pick six pixels that allow you to reliably answer this question. You need dimensionality reduction, that will reduce the data into a manageable amount of abstract features, from which you can pick what features matter to you. Neurotypical people lack (or only have remnants of) this second filter.
- balamatom 1y ago>lack (or only have remnants of) I'd say have been successfully precluded from developing that. Instead, they've learned to substitute its functionality with the quasi-religious faith that they are actually any good at inferring what others think. (Take that precept away and see em flail, it's disturbing.) At population scale, this resolves to either mass violent panic or a society living under the constant self-fulfilling prophecy that fewer things are thinkable than those which are possible, while screaming that it's the other way around. (Instead of, you know, aiming for the parity between interpretation and reality which is necessary to accomplish anything at all.) The main neurotypical trait is lack of inherent revulsion to delusion.
- messe 1y ago> delusion I hope you see the irony some day.
- balamatom 1y agoWhy, how would that help you?
- messe 1y agoBecause I have empathy for other people (on top of an innate sense of smugness)
- balamatom 1y agoEmpathy is so where it's at. Especially after a few decades of rats in boxes taught the corporate parrots to bring themselves to say the word. So, then: when was the last time you expressed empathy, and whom did it help? And also: when was the last time you expressed empathy for someone you were told you should have no empathy for? Cmon, give us that sweet, sweet emotional vulnerability. Because, surprise for whoever's not looking: insisting that a legitimate society can be built on the magical belief that performing an emotional emulation somehow equates to giving a damn about someone's actual well-being - that kind of thing is a big part of what's wrong with you guys.