the role of autistic social ignorance in human cultures

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry, this is a long post. Only read if you share an interest in this topic.

All humans are extremely programmable, and typical humans operate a social hierarchy just like other primates do. Throughout human history this combination of characteristics has shaped the evolution of human cultures.

Both characteristics have been and are being exploited by socially dominant indivisuals to build elaborate social power structures. With the invention of writing, these power structures have become enshrined in institutions that operate according to specific rules encoded in written form. The ?correct? interpretation of these rules is typically delegated to an elite appointed by the dominant primate (or small dominant group of primates) of a clan, kingdom, religion, or nation state, and the enforcement of the rules is delegated to a larger hierarchically organised group known as the government.

Over decades and centuries different clans, kingdoms, religions, or nation states develop distinct sets of rules and ways of doing things. These rules and ways are known as culture, and they evolve at a fairly slow pace. The more successful the education system of a culture, the slower the pace of fundamental cultural change. Ironically, the more programmable an individual is from the outside, via cultural education, the better this individual will embrace the established social rules, and will even pass them on to his/her offspring, thereby ensuring cultural continuouity and a minimal rate of change.

At a macro level, looking across all of humanity, cultural differences in combination with the primate drive for dominance regularly lead to wars and bloodshed, and to new configurations of dominance and power. The same pattern is observable in other primates, only at a much smaller scale, and somewhat less deadly ? human weaponry and warfare in the name of cultural dominance is the pinnacle of primate evolution.

The picture outlined above is missing a key ingredient: cultural and technological innovation. This is where I see autism fitting in, consistent with Temple Grandin?s observation that the first spear surely wasn?t developed by a group of primates socialising around a fire place, using language to tell tall tales of their heroic feats, in the interest in furthering their position on the social ladder.

The autistic cognitive focus on the physical world and non-social phenomena, potentially triggered and fuelled by hypersensitivity, leads down an alternative path to learning. Whilst the human majority mainly learns socially, via cultural transmission, the autistic minority mainly learns autodidactically, via first hand observation and experimentation. For significant innovation to take place it is essential to ignore estabished ways of doing things and related social pressures.

I suspect the autistic mind is as programmable as the non-autistic mind. The difference lies simply in the source of the inputs that perform the programming. The typical mind is mainly programmed by the social environment, whereas the autistic mind is programmed by autodidactic obervations and experiments.

The relationship between cultural conformists and autodidactic innovators/creators always involves a level of tension. Cultural non-conformance is a potential threat to established institutions and power structures. As a result, even in the current age of ?rapid? technological developments, institutons strive to ?manage innovation? and minimise the disruption of established power structures. A specific innovation is adopted by a culture if the established elite identifies opportunities to use the innovation to further its goals. Thus the spear that may have been invented to reduce the effort involved in hunting quickly became a tool of human warfare.

The important lesson is that innovators and artists tend to have very little influence over the use of their creations. The situation is somewhat bizarre. Innovation critcally depends on cultural non-conformance to happen in the first place, and then it only spreads if the culturally dominant elite finds a way to exploit the innovation to reinforce its position of power. This realisation leads to a bleak outlook, in particular considering that sociopaths have a tendency to rise to the top of the social hierarchy.

The only silver lining that I see on the horizon is that modern communication technology allows the minority of innovators and artists to collaborate across space and time, and across the artifical boundaries created by religions and nation states. Whether this decentralised collaborative force is able to reduce the power of primate social hierarchies remains to be seen.

History shows again and again that humans are extremely programmable. Some taboos in human cultures demonstrate that cultural rules can be successful in channeling human instinctive behaviour and social agression into a positive or neutral direction. The question is whether this programmability allows the primate drive for social status to be channeled entirely into harmless activities such as sports and artistic expression.

Culturally non-conforming autodidactic learners and creatives provide the glue between the concrete physical world and the abstract social world of primates. Human activity has become the dominant influence that shapes resource flows and ecosystem composition on this planet, with bio-diversity rapidly going down the drain. If this trend continues, then primate social hierarchies will self-destruct within a few generations. I wonder whether life?s next major experiment will be longer lasting, or whether the same pattern will repeat again.

Brilliant!

Brilliant post!

This truly is an amazing insight, makes perfect sence. For instance this kinda paragraph would sum up the Cold War in a way, two different systems with one opposing the other and both trying ever so hard to ve the dominant. Excellent honstaly just excellent.

The majority of your post can make sense to me, but to suggest that a 'typical brain' is programmed primarily by the social environment is absurd unless you meant to imply that observations/experiments are also involved within the social environment (i.e. an NT will experiment in a group, an autistic alone).

_________________
Unapologetically, Norny.
-chronically drunk

I think a lot of the disdain towards autistic people, is that we're more often than not, less useful to an empires continued survival, which isn't a bad thing, but it's seen that way, and hence a lot of societal efforts to change us and all, trying to fix what isn't broken, and the whole misconception that learning things in the "conforming" type way is somehow better than learning things from a different perspective.

I don't think you give NT's enough credit. Autistic people are not the only people who are good at engineering and scientific exploits, and there are plenty of NT people who are cooperate and caring and moral. When it comes to cooperation and caring, it seems that NT's blow us out of the water. The fact that NT's love to cooperate with each other is what has made humanity what it is. Not being good at cooperating with others (which leaves you doing everything yourself, not knowing of alternatives because you do not have the social connections or think to ask others for help) is inefficient.

I do, however, agree with your general theory that autistic people have unique and valuable insights because of our neurological differences. We are much less likely to get blinded by groupthink or group loyalty.

Another drive would be greed; some are greedier than others. If you average the whole human population it will show a net positive. What better way to drive greed by using capitalism and monetary instruments. It keeps society /technology progressing forward. But there are pros and cons, benefits and liabilities to everything.

I observed almost every animal on earth shows some sign of greed. A bird will grab the food on the ground and fly away. A lion will guard its hunted prey. Squirrels will horde its nuts underground with false stashes.

Excluding from fictional books and movies, I have yet to observe any animal ?willing? to share food.

Nice hypothesis. Do you have any evidence to support it? Of today's innovators, what proportion are autistic? Are autistic people more likely to actually innovate than NTs?

systems (communities) do not have to be as innovative because the system has default built in.
That is, certain burdens will fall onto a certain percentage of the community in order for others to survive and thrive. Even if a small percentage fail and die, the system still lives on.
An individual does not have this feature, and so must be more innovative to survive.

NTs are limited to working within models or structures that maintain social approval.
Since social approval is not directly attached to physical law, these models or structures are not necessarily efficient, or even effective.
IMO, innovating within an imaginary world is nowhere near as valuable as innovating in the real world.