3 ms·
Your first paragraph sounds like a religion.
by consp 4mo ago
Your first paragraph sounds like a religion.
- throwaway209329 4mo agoAs an autistic person this has never made sense, the things people are willing to do in order to fit into a group, like at it's extreme murdering others. After becoming aware of my diagnosis I've started studying "normal" people and it's insane what you are willing to withstand just to belong to a group or in society. Now I think that some things "normal" people participate in they think is actually fun, like hanging around others doing nothing productive, which after reaching 40 years old, and having a burnout, I also now enjoy just hanging around and belonging to a group. Also social capital, or belonging to a group, has many positive advantages.
- regenschutz 4mo agoNeurotypical is the word you're looking for, not "normal".
- bigstrat2003 4mo ago"normal" is a perfectly fine word and there's no reason to criticize someone for using it.
- sokka_h2otribe 4mo agoIt would be somewhat ironic in this context to be policing the use of normal. I also would acknowledge the intent of offering neurotypical as an alternative might be kind. However I also agree "normal" works quite well. It is especially distinguished by the quotes as "normal" and subjective, not normatively valued.
- zquzra 4mo ago"Neurotypical" is the more current and precise term when discussing human behavior, cognition, or neurodevelopment. "Normal" is vague, value-loaded, and scientifically weaker because it implies that neurodivergent people are abnormal rather than simply different. In this context, "neurotypical" is clearer language.
- budsniffer952 4mo agoWhat's normal?
- Lammy 4mo agoIt's a math term whose meaning depends on the qualities of the other people around you, not a reference to any one particular set of characteristics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
- budsniffer952 4mo agoHate to tell you, there's no such thing as "normal". Other people aren't some monolithic group that think one way.
- ShadowOfThePit 4mo agoI don't get it, so do you think "hanging around" is fun or not?
- MrDisposable 4mo ago> the things people are willing to do in order to fit into a group Given our evolutionary history as social animals, this is expected. The genes (and memes, in the Dawkinsian sense of the word) for alienating oneself from the tribe and going solo were less successful than the those for remaining in the tribe. We can reasonably expect such adaptations to include sucking up to alphas to avoid being banished from the tribe, being distressed when outside a group, and feeling good when in a group.
- inigyou 4mo ago[flagged]
- cucumber3732842 4mo agoMy favorite is when people are selectively upvote/downvoting a long nested line of argument but fail to notice that the sides "swap" at some point and the voters fail to notice. Speaks volumes about the community IMO.
- _DeadFred_ 4mo ago[flagged]
- cholantesh 4mo agoAs opposed to treating fact-free rehashings of Israeli state propaganda as 'non-flattering statements' and decorating such treatments with thought-terminating epithets.
- _DeadFred_ 4mo agoI included specific examples from the latest Iran discussion. Flagging responses dead like that is even more thought-terminating than my poor computer geek writing style. Please respond to those examples in context/a substantive/HN worthy way and have a discussion, not a fact free handwaving of 'they're XYZ evil foreign power's propaganda'. How do the examples I provided break Hacker News guidelines and deserve not only a downvote but to be actively flagged dead? This is a discussion site, not a popularity site. Flagged is not supposed to be used to shape the discussion, but for severe violations of HN guidelines, which the examples do not rise to. The proper response is a response.
- cholantesh 4mo agoIt's not a fact-free handwaving; every last one of those comments is just steelmanning Israel's position without any evidential basis. And if you are so deeply concerned about characterizing them as 'XYZ evil foreign power's propaganda', I wonder why you see no reason to push back on claims like this: >Iran isn’t negotiating in good faith, and will likely need another round of attacks. America should also flood Iran with small arms for the revolutionaries What kind of productive discussion do you think this encourages? And given that the intelligence community broadly considers the latter a losing proposition, are we to assume that you think they are all Iranian proxies?