3 ms·
It doesn't talk about neurodivergent people, but about non-brain damaged people, whose brains can still do dimensionality reduction, which allows them to deal w
by accidentallfact 10mo ago
It doesn't talk about neurodivergent people, but about non-brain damaged people, whose brains can still do dimensionality reduction, which allows them to deal with problems efficiently.
The so called neurotypical people are people brain damaged from something, who slowly took over the society over the 20th century. Without dimensionality reduction, virtually everything they encounter is an overwhelming, highly dimemsional problem so they can't deal with anything, except for a narrow set of problems they specifically trained to deal with.
- nathan_compton 10mo agoWhat?
- thierryzoller 10mo agoThis checks out
- snaking0776 10mo agoThis is a large claim to make without any evidence that is eerily reminiscent of historical arguments in favor of eugenics programs. Society thrives off of diversity and variations in thinking patterns. Dividing all people into either neurodivergent vs neurotypical or in your preferred terms “brain-damaged” vs “non-brain-damaged”is a vast oversimplification of the reality. Your claim about neurotypical people taking over society in the 20th century isn’t supported by evidence that suggests that genetic markers in humans for things like Autism Spectrum Condition are downsampled in humans relative to other species suggesting that human evolution has selected for some of the traits of what we classify as neurodivergence while balancing out the effects of some of those traits [1]. I’m not trying to say there’s anything wrong with neurodivergence (that’s how I’ve been classified) but this dichotomy is dumb. Everybody is neuro-divergent and what we define as neurotypical is societally defined. You’re just trying to flip the idea of what’s assumed to be a “good” person and that need to declare one group as better than the other is the actual problem. Please read more about the wider variability in cognition among humans before claiming that anyone in your preferred definition of “neuro-divergence” is superior to others. [1] https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/42/9/msaf189/8245036 https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/42/9/msaf189/8245036
- accidentallfact 10mo agoI'm not talking about genetics. There must be something that causes brain damage (and it would probably be a good idea to find it and stop it). The change was too fast for genetics. It was essentially one generstion mostly normal, the next one brain damaged.
- snaking0776 10mo agoCan you provide evidence for what you’re saying? How are people “brain-damaged” at greater rates than before?
- accidentallfact 10mo agoI'm talking about all the mid 20th century talk about the "generation gap", "teenage rebellion", and so on. Essentially no stone was left untouched in how the society worked between the "conformist" 50s, and the 70s. Something happened then, or a bit earlier, and it's still doing the damage.