Hacker News Reader

Comment by rglullis | Hacker News Reader

> written by some "expert" from the perspective that neurotypical perception is correct, and my brain is a genetic mistake.

Well, it is a mistake. It is a deviation from the normal path. But so what? "Correct" and "mistake" are not antonyms. Without any mistakes, there would no be life in the world as we know. This is not a moral codemnation of any individual.

> I and my experience of life is not inferior, and may be superior, to the NT experience of life.

I am not quite able to put in words right now, but the sentiment expressed here seems like a perfect illustration of what happens when we let society become hyper-atomized and the fetishization of the individual.

View on HN

> Well, it is a mistake.

If you say it is a mistake, then you must know what the goal is.

If we are talking about genes, the goal is to keep the ability to duplicate itself. If there is anything about this duplication process that has lead to the individual's brain development with difficulties to adapt to life with their tribe, socialization and chances of finding a mate are also hindered.

The prevalance of these traits shows that it wasn't always a hinderance. Capitalist society predominantly valuing conformity is the issue.

That's not how genetics of sexual reproduction works. I think it's only fair to say that we can't truly do a qualitative measure of the impact of any condition on fitness.

1) Being a hinderance does not necessarily mean evolutionary dead-ends, and some traits can still be prevalent in populations because the diversity is what protects us from systemic environment shocks.

2) Perception and adherence of hierarchies and status symbols are things present in nature for millions of years. "Capitalist society" has nothing to do with it.

So if all the tribe goes to one water source because that's what they always do. And someone decides they want to try other water sources because they don't want to use the traditional source just because it's always been done that way.

What happens when the traditional source gets contaminated?

The outsider then has an advantage.

Yes tribal dynamics require people to act like sheep, but that can lead to getting stuck in local maxima, and not having any diversity.

Amazing strawman you built here. Very impressive. Now try to argue the actual point, maybe?

" the goal is to keep the ability to duplicate itself"

You are talking about putting all your eggs in the tribal cohesion basket.

That doesn't deal very well with black swan events. Not putting all your eggs in one basket maintains the ability of the tribe to "duplicate itself".

So given that I have provided an mechanism for improved survival of the group, that doesn't require the group to be completely homogeneous, please explain how I strawmanned your argument.

Or maybe point out what point you were trying to make, as it evidently isn't very clear

> You are talking about putting all your eggs in the tribal cohesion basket.

Sorry, that's waaaay off the mark.

I am taking about OP's remark where he wants experts to not "talk about his brain (development) having a genetic mistake", and I am saying that any individual with a brain that has developed in a way that diverges from the norm (and consequently makes it more difficult to socialize, empathize and find a mate), then we can definitely say that this brain has a "genetic mistake".

So explain "If we are talking about genes, the goal is to keep the ability to duplicate itself"

That is your basis for 'mistake', and the general position that you are objectively right.

I am saying divergence from the norm can also be a benefit towards the goal of keeping the ability to duplicate. Therefore you can't say that the genetic imperative to duplicate proves you are objectively right. Therefore you can't really support the view that it is a "genetic mistake", unless you want to make the claim that everything thatmakes us different from our proto 1 celled ancestors is a "genetic mistake".

You are once again taking the worst possible interpretation: every mutation is a "mistake" in the process of cellular duplication, that's all I said. Whether this "mistake" will have good or bad consequences will depend on how this is manifested in the individual and how it will fit with the environment.

> Well, it is a mistake. It is a deviation from the normal path.

This is a non sequitur. Why do you assume variation is a “mistake”? And how do you define “normal”?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com