conceptualizing fairness

Post Reply New Topic

Do you think that aspies are better than NT's at understanding false concepts that result in unequal treatment of people? What I mean is, if there was an idea such as a discriminatory practice (think Dr. Suess's Star Bellied Sneetches for example) and we were living at a time when most of the population was totally blind to it would aspies be better able to see the errors in thinking that led to the discriminatory practice than the average NT?

"Fair" =/= "Equal"

Fairness is exemplified in giving a trophy to the person who wins the race.

Equality is exemplified in giving a trophy to everyone who entered the race, regardless of whether or not they even finished.


I am an Aspie, and I see this plainly. There is no discrimination in rewarding those who can and will do the work while dismissing those who can not or will not do the work.

I'm not talking about positive rights where a person is compensated for some disadvantage. I'm referring to negative rights. My thought is that NTs have a much harder time distinguishing the person from an object. For example, in Dr. Seuss's story about the Sneetches those with stars on their bellies were treated differently merely because of the 'star'. This was entirely arbitrary distinction yet it permeated their society and was unthinkable not to perceive reality through this false concept. In such a society could Aspies see past the 'star' to recognize the person better than Nts? Are we somewhat more immune to this type of propaganda?

I don't have a broad enough personal sample to say it could be a majority, but this could be likely. There always seems to be a level of conformity necessary to create social bonds, and on the flip side to unfairly villify those who don't conform. I'm not familiar with the book, but I'm assuming it's a commentary on the Nazis? The use of polarization to the point of dehumanizing the opposite side does seem to be a common theme (not universal of course) probably throughout human existence. Having more of an outside perspective to begin with negates, or at least buffers that instinct.

I think so.

What I understand is that Aspies stick to pure logic more than NTs. And pure logic will tell you that it doesn't make sense to discriminate against other people as along as there are sufficient resources, and in this day and age we do not lack sufficient resources. If we had to decide who gets the last piece of bread, we'd have to be discriminatory against other people. Maybe there was some natural selection for people who were as*holes and really discriminatory and those people became NTs. (haha)

My question is not about the ability to perceive outsider status. My question is about whether we're better able to make a conceptual distinction between a person and an object. Dr. Seuss's Sneetch story with the reference to a gold star object is just an example. If you'll bear with me I'll give another one:

Suppose there are two groups of people, one group associated with red umbrellas, others with blue umbrellas. In this society people associated with red umbrellas would be perceived as associating with 'illegal' umbrellas, whereas those persons with blue umbrellas simply ignored. As a result everybody in the society thinks that red umbrellas are 'illegal'. This would be a false concept because it imposes status on umbrellas and these are mere objects. In reality law governs people who are entitled to equality, not mere objects. My thought is most NTs would not be able to distinguish between the person (entitled to equality) and the object (the umbrellas).

I don't get why you'd see it that way. In your example, the red umbrellas through association become symbols( branding in a business perspective) . Are you trying to address stereotyping? I would think even NT' s may react to the "red umbrella",but would also understand the device was only a symbol even though it may be used as an effigy? to communicate their ideas about what that symbol represents to them. To realize that it's a false association is more likely with a greater ability to think critically, and possibly a higher level of education...aspie or NT.

It's a weird thing that I discovered but in my experience many people have great difficulty making this distinction. It seems to have nothing to do with levels of education. They can't recognize the person's status as distinct from an object. They conflate the person with an object (red umbrella) and can't understand any distinction between the person and the object.

It's that people have legal status. People are entitled to equality. If we think that objects have status we fail to see this distinction. So, for example, during civil rights era in U.S., some people might have believed lunch counters had legal status.

Last edited by hurdy-gurdy on 11 Mar 2013, 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's almost ironic, in your example the so called fair race, you have people racing on a uneven track. Worst yet, it's the manipulative folk that almost always get access to those tracks that provide an easier ride.

If your autistic, you can never expect to win, your far better off getting use to the idea of finishing 2nd.

There is no such thing as "fair" in our world.

Especially by the definition given by Fnord.

While it does suck their is no true fairness in this world.

On a more comforting view, unfairness does create fairness.

Life exists in a constant state of trying to reach equilibrium.

The more one tries to win, the more they loose via the cost of being competitive.

Sadly many people are fed this insecure view that one has to win. The reality is as long as your in the middle of the heard(balanced portion) your gonna do well.

The problem isn't that were never gonna be winners. Is that we conceptually aren't good at avoiding being losers.

I think people with Aspergers can potentially be more immune to societal conditioning but this is less due to the Aspergers itself and linked more to a person's intelligence level and the extent to which they like to think about things in any depth.

I've met plenty of people with Aspergers who seem to want to swallow what consumer society spoon-feeds them along with the majority.

Aspergers is no guarantee of individual thinking in my opinion; intelligence is what makes it more likely to occur.

I think fairness is a philosophical concept that is fine in theory but in the real world it's very hard to implement as most people are continually striving to compete and outdo each other as part of the drive for survival and this mitigates against fairness.

This brings to mind the gun control arguments in the US lately. I want to say that you're wrong....but then I see the random poll results from my fellow countrymen...

Where does it say that in my post?


Where does it say THAT in my post?


Oh, but I AM Autistic! Asperger's Syndrome is part of the Autistic Spectrum, y'see, and I have Asperger's Syndrome. I also earned an MSEE, and I work as an electrical engineer in the transportation industry. I never needed an "inside track", just a "level playing field" and the determination to succeed.

You're seeing things that aren't there, and not seeing things that are.

It's no wonder that you're trying to justify failure (... finishing 2nd == finishing first among losers).

And how exactly does your autism manifest itself?

Exactly. Whether a person is for or against gun control it's beside the point, that's not the issue. What I'm saying is there's a lot of ways that people are conflated with objects in a way that results in unequal treatment. It's like if you're allowed to wear one kind of hat but not another kind transferring status from a person to a hat. The person is stripped of all rights by reversal of the person (the subject) with an object.