NT behavior motivated more by social hierarchy?

Post Reply New Topic

I just saw an intelligent friend respond to racism on twitter not by criticizing the racism, but by denigrating the woman expressing it for having bad teeth(?).

this behavior makes no sense, given that my friend normally believes that criticizing someone for their physical appearance is morally wrong. they say it's wrong because it's shallow and makes the mistake of attaching personal worth to inconsequential physical features rather than character, etc.

however, if we're instead operating in a worldview in which what someone says is given weight not based on whether or not it's correct, but based on how important the person saying it is, then my friend's behavior makes sense. in this context it makes sense to try to discredit racism by lowering the relative social status of the person expressing it. by making unflattering observations about the racist's physical appearance, my friend was diminishing the racist's social status.

furthermore this bears the implication that racism was not wrong because it was in logical conflict with a set of correct moral principles, but that it was wrong because it gave offense to my friend. things are offensive in this framework when they threaten an individual's social standing, either by devaluing them as a person directly, or by challenging an assumption shared by a group. since it's important to individuals to be identified with the group that meets their needs, they will attack any challenge to arbitrary group norms.

in this framework being socially awkward, out of style, or uncool result in worse treatment than being immoral, so long as the immoral behavior isn't hurting the people who are responding to you. if the behavior (moral or immoral) is a threat to you or to your relationship with the people you need things from, it's reacted to with disgust. I think most of us had experiences (in high school especially) that show the majority of people behave this way. adults follow more complicated rules which tend to have more of an appearance of logic/morality.

if we're operating in this framework, it also makes sense that arguments are primarily dominance displays in which one person shows they have bigger brain-muscles than another by winning the debate...NOT attempts to resolve logical discrepancies purely for the sake of being correct.

Welcome to the NT world, where WHO says it is just as important, if not more important, than what is actually being said. Here's an example. From a conservative standpoint, when a Republican calls for a tax increase, it's because we all have to make sacrifices. When a Democrat calls for a tax increase, it's because they're evil socialists who want to destroy America.

See the difference?

it also seems to me that most NT behavior is instead motivated by a subconscious awareness of their place within a social hierarchy and the need to maintain it or improve it.

so my conclusion:

people act in ways that make them as comfortable as possible. autistic people lack the inborn, instinctual skill to navigate social hierarchy, so our thoughts and behaviors are motivated less by our need for social comfort and more by our need for the comfort of structure/familiarity. most of the ways NTs seem illogical or confusing to aspies are in fact behaviors motivated subconscious by awareness of day-to-day social politics that we don't usually have.

thoughts?

[...]
maybe I'm fooling myself here, but it seems that autistic folks often have a tendency to think less like high school cliques and more like computers.

I'm THIS close to setting fire to this "NT Social Hierarchy" thing you guys keep on talking about. It's stupid.

A reason they are so enthralled by celebrities and take anything they say or do to heart, including paid endorsements?

Well if someone can be judged on their race then a person can also be judged on their teeth.

I see that as coming down to the same level rather than showing bigger brain muscles.

Social hierarchy is an unpleasant fact of life, but I think it's important to recognise that there is an spectrum of behaviours.
There are some NT type people who don't operate with such a restrictive framework.

Brilliantly put, the whole post. It baffles me those that can't see the structures of society if they are pointed out to them, the only question is if you like them or not. Many NTs don't either though and some autistic folks do and I guess we're all responsible for creating (and destroying) norms in the first place (with varying degrees of responsibility depending on how much social leverage/privilege we have). Though many NTs do not participate willingly but the social punishment is too big to step out of it and then there are autistics who want nothing more than to be able to play social games.

This is the most disgusting thing I've ever read about the two parties. Why is it so important who says it? Isn't the message more important?