What’s more is that people aren’t sensitive to it. Unsaid social rules really make the lives of some of the differently abled who have an eye for things the rest of us don’t difficult. Heart goes out for all those on the spectrum dealing with family and social issues

that's because unsaid social rules are part of the structures that keep rich elites on top, and help them filter out "pretenders" to nobility.

Yes and no, as in any case to challenge power you'd need a rigorous understanding of it, which you can't get if you're severely autistic. The greatest works of humanity have been made with social co-operation.

And the greatest atrocities of humanity have been made with social co-operation.

That's trivial. Atrocity goes hand in hand with power, the same power that decimates a whole people also builds the city over their graves. The powerless cannot challenge power, there is nothing honourable in ineptitude. If you want to feel good about yourself for being weak you can go back to church and pray that a god will save you, but for those who wish to triumph in the world there is only one path available, and it is not bloodless.

Isn't that true of all diseases? What is the upside of being autistic?

I don't think anyone who was somehow given the choice of autism or no autism at birth would choose autism would they?

I'm sure the parents of an autistic kid who's nonverbal at age 10 and punches himself in the face are comforted online when they hear about how discourse around autism downplays its advantages.

I was that kid (though I'd hit my head against walls, not punch myself), and 20 years later I can tell you that autism does have its advantages.

The suffering wasn't caused by my autism, but by society forcing me to behave in a way that was unnatural to me.

Now that I'm living on my own, able to shape my environment according to my needs, I'm not suffering anymore. I'm genuinely happy, and I've got a successful career in software engineering. And every day I experience situations where my autism helps me understand logical issues much more deeply, care for order much more (refactoring is <3), and allows me to speak out when needed.

you and I might have made it out the other side, but what about the ones who didn't?

Very few people are incapable of communication. Mutism is neither exclusively nor inherently autistic, and there are many other communication options available beyond voice (though they'd have to be made available to the child – that includes tools, where necessary, and training). Real-time spoken language is a complicated skill, and we shouldn't require that people master it before their needs are respected.

Punching yourself in the face is a sign of unmet needs. Sadly, the usual response to something like that is to (1) restrain the person, then (2) not try to figure out those needs, much less address them. I don't make a habit of blaming caregivers, but if an autistic kid's punching themself in the face enough for it to count as a character trait, there have been significant failures at multiple levels.

I'll repeat that. Punching yourself in the face is not an autistic trait. It's a caged lion trait. Put an allistic kid in the right (wrong) situation, and they'll do the same.

I'm not sure what your point is. What are its advantages? I wasn't aware of any.

It seems to me that GP was using sarcasm to express agreement with your comment.

Ah yes I misread.

> What is the upside of being autistic?

A strong sense of right and wrong, ability to use the outside lens on allistic societal structures, a rich internal experience, deep interests that actually give you something to talk about other than "the weather" and "the football" and gossip.

These can all, of course, be framed as downsides: difficulty acting immorally / being a bystander, tendency to confuse others in what "should" be formulaic social interactions, Theory of Mind® Deficit™ (#NotPseudoscience), "specific and limited interests" / deficit in "small talk" ability.

> a rich internal experience

What does it even mean? You don't know what is going inside other people's head.

https://neuroclastic.com/exploring-the-inner-worlds-of-autis... This link isn't what I was referring to, but it is a different thing that could be described as a "rich internal experience".

What I was referring to is hard to explain, but it is apparent after a few hours of observation and conversation. I'm not saying allistics are in some sense lesser,¹ but you can tell, when talking to them, that most allistics just… don't have anything going on between the ears except future plans, the occasional daydream, and worries about their positions in status hierarchies – that is, when they're not actively engaged in a task. (When they are, they can have insights into what they're doing as deep as anyone else.) Most allistics need to explicitly meditate in order to pay attention to anything beyond their narrow internal subjective experience – and, not coincidentally, most allistics who sing the praises of "meditation" and "mindfulness" actually have no clue what it is or how it works or even how to do it.

¹: Yes, I am being deliberately provocative. No, this isn't an acceptable way to talk about entire categories of people, but in my experience, most allistics don't notice what they're doing to other people until somebody does it to them. The Golden Rule is, it seems, a heuristic that they have to deliberately and consciously employ, rather than something they have an intuitive understanding of: undeliberated-upon allistic morality is "do unto others what your neighbours are also doing unto those Others". So: if this wording upset you, that was deliberate. I'm still sorry for it.

>>>most allistics just… don't have anything going on between the ears except future plans, the occasional daydream, and worries about their positions in status hierarchies

This obviously isn't true, since finding a partner and raising children doesn't neatly fall into any of those categories.

Have you read how allistics talk about that sort of thing? Pick up a 19th-century romance novel, or just head over to Reddit: finding a partner is about status hierarchies, too! This observation has even got its own witty aphorisms: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/06/05/sex-power/

> “Everything in human life is really about sex, except sex. Sex is about power.”

It's salacious daydreams and status hierarchies! All the way down!

I do find it really hard to imagine how raising children could fit into these categories – I was figuring out how to word my concession on that point from the moment I read your comment –, but then I turn to my fiction books, and what do I find there? So much talk of honour, or parents projecting a desired future on their children, and such little mention of anything else except when it's actually happening. In the real world, too: how often do we see people hurting their children "for their own good", where the only possible good is to the future plans or social status of the parent?

I'm sure many allistics are capable of loving their children for their own sakes, but from what I've seen, it's not the norm: it's something that has to be learned, and actively practised ("engagement in a task"), rather than something that comes naturally to most. (And there's nothing wrong with that – provided that one puts the effort in. There is something wrong with being a self-absorbed, neglectful parent, too absorbed in the Proper Way of Parenting to let the village make up for one's own deficiencies.)

You can call 19th century romance fiction as being about "status hierarchies" in the same sense you can say "There's only 3 types of stories, man verse man, man verse nature, man verse himself".

I don't see how reducing this to a succinct label shows whether or not there is a "rich inner life" at play, going back to your earlier statement about neurotypical people.

Lord of the Rings might be a book about "man vs man" and maybe Frodo's resistence of the ring is about "man vs self" but there's probably some richness to be found in those 1000 pages, for example.

I guess I'd push back at the idea what you call "status hierarchies" is less "rich" in terms of inner life.

> You can call 19th century romance fiction as being about "status hierarchies" in the same sense you can say "There's only 3 types of stories, man verse man, man verse nature, man verse himself".

Have you read 19th-century romance fiction? The most notable examples in the genre are literally about status hierarchies: that's why they're interesting, that's why they were contemporary wish fulfilment. Take Pride and Prejudice (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1813)/Vo...):

⸻ ⁂ ⸻

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.

"My dear Mr. Bennet," said his lady to him one day, "have you heard that Netherfield Park is let at last?"

Mr. Bennet replied that he had not.

"But it is," returned she; "for Mrs. Long has just been here, and she told me all about it."

Mr. Bennet made no answer.

"Do not you want to know who has taken it?" cried his wife impatiently.

"You want to tell me, and I have no objection to hearing it."

This was invitation enough.

"Why, my dear, you must know, Mrs. Long says that Netherfield is taken by a young man of large fortune from the north of England; that he came down on Monday in a chaise and four to see the place, and was so much delighted with it that he agreed with Mr. Morris immediately; that he is to take possession before Michaelmas, and some of his servants are to be in the house by the end of next week."

"What is his name?"

"Bingley."

"Is he married or single?"

"Oh! single, my dear, to be sure! A single man of large fortune; four or five thousand a year. What a fine thing for our girls!"

⸻ ⁂ ⸻

Of course, there are plenty of 19th-century erotic novels, which I haven't read, but do not appear to be about status hierarchies. I guess I'm not counting those as romance novels. Maybe I should?

> I guess I'd push back at the idea what you call "status hierarchies" is less "rich" in terms of inner life.

(I entirely agree. The way I've been talking is completely unacceptable. However, I'm committed to the bit, now, so I'll backpedal academic-style.)

On an individual scale, yes, there is no particular reason to elevate one kind of idle pre-occupation over another. However, the diversity of the autistic population as a whole attains a level of richness that the allistic population does not possess. No citation is needed for this claim, since it is sufficiently-obvious, and my substitution of poetic language in the place of argument is a perfectly objective editorial decision. It's totally legit, everyone. You don't even need to check.

(I'm not being entirely faithful to the bit. The academic would, of course, deny your assertion outright: my assertion is (by virtue of being published first) self-evident common wisdom, whereas yours is, like, just your opinion.)

I've read Pride and Prejudice, though not recently.

I'd wager 1% or less of readers, if asked what the novel would summarize it as being about status hierarchies.

Claude 3 when asked to state the theme in 10 words or less said:

"Love overcomes class prejudice and personal pride."

This sounds like Claude thinks it's about at least 3 concepts.

Gpt4‐o says the theme is "Love transcends class and prejudice in early 19th-century England."

If this is a representative book about what people in love are thinking about, there's clearly a bit more to it than status hierarchies.

I wouldn't summarise it as being about status hierarchies either, because that's not what summarising is. I could describe Lord of the Rings as a low-fantasy epic novel about war, spirituality and the feudal system, but that's not a summary.

> Claude 3 […] Gpt4-o […]

That's a description of the title, plus the knowledge that it's in the romance genre. That's not really what the plot is about. For a start, the stuff going on elsewhere is at least as plot-relevant as the titular Fitzwilliam Darcy / Elizabeth Bennet interactions. It's forthright criticism that overcomes the pride, reformed conduct that overcomes the prejudice (if you can even call it that), and their engagement near the end is due to mutual appreciation and respect. With the confident implication that this happy engagement will lead to a long and loving marriage, the curtain falls – but love has no impact on the plot of the book (ignoring the background Mr / Mrs Bennet relationship, whose interactions kick the whole thing off, and the one-sided Lydia / George Wickham subplot… I guess we could say that Mr Darcy loves Lydia? But his actions there have a lot to do with maintaining the social status of various parties).

There's no point giving specific criticisms of AI slop, but I'll do it anyway.

> "Love overcomes class prejudice and personal pride."

It's personal prejudice and class pride. There's no class prejudice to be found in the novel, as far as I remember.

> "Love transcends class and prejudice in early 19th-century England."

At a stretch, you could say that Mr Darcy's mild infatuation "transcends class", but it's communication (chiefly, a letter received at the beginning of chapter 13) that overcomes Elizabeth's “strong prejudice”. Not love. (And the prejudice isn't transcended: it's eliminated, as a prerequisite for any kind of positive feeling to blossom.)

Ask the bots to state the theme of the 19th-century romance novel “Cutlasses and Nationalism” in 10 words or fewer. You'll get comparable results.

Well, here's the non GPT version of the book, my personal interpretation: From what I remember of Pride and Prejudice the plot involves various women choosing to marry for economic reasons, lust, or love, in a society that gives them little to no economic opportunities outside of marriage and therefore pressures them to marrying for economic reasons.

The protagonist refuses to marry for wealth but in "have your cake and eat it too" fashion, fate rewards her with the love of a wealthy man as a reward for supposedly not caring about marrying a wealthy man.

A character marries for economic reasons and is comfortable but bored in life. Another character has out of wedlock sex and is punished by the hand of fate and miserable.

I'd argue saying it's about "status hierarchies" is not particularly informative.

I can see where you're coming from, and I'd say your first paragraph is spot-on. Although, talking about “the hand of fate” is missing a lot, I think. Elizabeth's success comes from her authenticity (see https://www.existentialcomics.com/comic/46), Mr Darcy's comes from his bettering himself, Lydia gets conned (and Mr Darcy arranges a marriage to at least preserve her social status, since happiness wasn't really an option for her after that)… Really, the only person in the story who gets what they're initially after is Mrs Bennet, and possibly Elizabeth (I don't remember whether she was against marrying someone wealthy, or just objected to marrying for wealth).

> I'd argue saying it's about "status hierarchies" is not particularly informative.

Saying it's about "status hierarchies" is only slightly more informative than saying it's about humans. (Note: there are plenty of books about neither.) I brought up Pride and Prejudice to begin with in order to make this point.

> I'd wager 1% or less of readers, if asked what the novel would summarize it as being about status hierarchies.

I would be inclined to agree.

> It is said that fish do not see water, nor do Polar bears feel the cold. Native writers on subjects like those the present work deals with do not even think that anything which has been happening daily in their own immediate surroundings ever since their infancy can possibly be worthy of notice;

­— Hayashi Tadasu, via https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/12/23/water-fish/

The idea that you think only autistic people have deep experiences is kind of hilarious. Also I don't think you understand small talk, which I guess is not surprising... But people don't talk about the weather because they are super interested in the weather.

What you see as talking about the weather is like seeing two women looking at each other whereas it's really a picture of a vase and 4D part-subconscious dog-butt-sniffing status/value computations between you and the other person. Also there's few other opener topics.

Wait, even small talk is about status / position in a social hierarchy? Are you sure?

Usually it isn't but it definitely can be. E.g. at a party asking people what they do.

It's not necessarily about winning a social power battle, but it can be used to discover what sort of person someone is so you can interact with them easier.

“Rich internal experience” doesn't mean the same as “deep experiences”, any more than “rich flour” (e.g. powdered rye grain) means the same as “deep flowers” (e.g. the bright yellow bit of a daffodil plant); and I was speaking in generalities, not universals. You're right: it would have been kind of hilarious had I been insisting upon what you said, because even I can see it's very false. Most allistics are, after all, capable of creating and appreciating meaningful art (albeit, usually limited to the types and genres of art considered conventional by local society during the first couple dozen years of their lives, unless they've been through particularly-significant external experiences).

> people don't talk about the weather because they are super interested in the weather

Meteorologists do.

I get that small talk is a social bonding exercise, and that "the weather" is just a common example of an inoffensive, vaguely-relevant shared experience. I understand why people would default to this if they didn't have much else to talk about, and they felt an instinctive obligation to prioritise perceived inoffensiveness to society-at-large over the actual joy of the actual conversation participants.

I just don't understand why this limitation is considered a good thing. Surely people would prefer to talk about something they enjoy talking about, and hear about something they enjoy hearing about? The fact that people can't – or feel they can't – is surely a bad thing… or, at least, morally neutral. The downsides of autism are paraded around everywhere, yet the downsides of allism are, via Tall Poppy Syndrome, somehow transmuted into downsides of autism? Like, do people not notice they're doing this? Clearly not, if https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4296736/ (2006) is anything to go by.

I want to protest that I do have a rich internal experience as an allistic, but I don't know whether that means I'm actually autistic. :D

Anyone who tells you "all allistic people are X" is a fool. If you've met one allistic person, you've met one allistic person.

I'm medically diagnosed autistic. I struggle with a lot. But some upsides I've encountered:

I tend to form stronger empathy and justice models, and commit to them wholly. This has allowed me to, for instance, work on improving access to benefits or healthcare for others while other people around me burn out. But I often fight way too long, and I get upset when people disagree.

I often hyperfocus on projects I'm interested in and can produce a high level of output if given an interesting task.

I enjoy counting, categorization, and organization tasks. Find all bugs that meet these rules, or, double check every unit test to check we're meeting coverage goals. Give me those tedious, repeatable, rules based gardening tasks and I'll churn through them all day every day.

I believe I have a more systemic way of thinking than my peers, and while this does cause problems sometimes it also enables me to decompose systems more easily.

I tend to maintain my cool under pressure or bullying. I simply do not notice nor care about emotionally loaded conversations. This causes problems often but also helps often, I can mediate with "we're here now, let's focus on how to improve".

These, of course, are not the upsides of every autistic person. They are my upsides for me. Again, I am medically diagnosed and do require support to operate as an adult. My childhood was... not good.

I do not want to say it's only upsides, but I do think for some autistic people there are things those people do consider up sides.

Edit: if I could choose to not be autistic, even with the massive burden it has for me, I would choose to remain autistic and I would fight tooth and nail against anyone who tried to change me to remove it.

What type of projects are you working on?

Typically software engineering projects in a variety of domains, but mostly distributed systems.

If some of that involves you trying to fix healthcare, I salute you!

Mostly access to healthcare, like, "why don't we offer this? Why are there barriers? Why can't we get automatic approvals for this?" Etc.

It turns out there are lots of groups who have greater than median barriers to access even basic care (trans folks, Black folks, immigrants, neurodiverse folks, disabled folks, etc). I happen to have a "I'll just keep calling and escalating until I've called every person in the company" attitude that doesn't seem to find that exhausting.

Interesting. I’m working on a similar project/idea (?app, I don’t know what to call it, doesn’t matter), about helping patients understand what they need to do for primary prevention. I hadn’t thought of the specific barriers that each group might face. I’m a doctor and feel that too much is reliant on the doctor remembering to ask (“oh have we checked your blood sugars btw!”) I want to empower patients with this info.

That's an optimistic take, a more pessimistic one I've had is it seems to me for every trait that an autistic person has that is "good" there's some neurotypical person that has it as well without the suffering.

But it's also not clear what "being you but not autistic" would even mean, since it's an exercise in an imaginary hypothetical.

> it is clearly not a disadvantage in some contexts for some instances

Putting aside that this isn't exactly "clear", you qualified this statement with "some" twice - ignoring the vast majority of other contexts where it is decidedly not an "advantage"

Yes, I've deliberately reduced the scope to scope with which I have experience. I'm not qualified to talk on the behalf of everyone. Am I not allowed to talk in restricted scope for the experience that I have ? And I chose my words to make it clear that I wasn't speaking for everyone.

The choice of the word disease comes hand in hand with the desire to eradicate this. Then I just wonder how much tech we would actually have in this world, I think that everyone would be too busy out at parties to get anything done. Then everyone would be like the people in Bridgerton :) OMG!!