Neurodiversity & Double Standards

Post Reply New Topic

Assume there are 3 neurotypes:

. NT
. ASD
. Psychopathic

Now consider these diluted arguments (examples) in favour of neurodiversity:

. 'It's caused by their neurology, therefore it is not their fault.'
. 'Allowances/catering for differences is necessary, for everybody is equal.'
. 'Neurodiversity is overwhelmingly positive.'

-----------

It is perplexing that psychopaths seem to be excluded from such arguments. I've been Googling philosophies and legalities where psychopathy and blame/responsibility is concerned and it's very interesting.

Obviously, I wouldn't enjoy the company of a psychopath, but logically, I can't deny that they should be supported by the same arguments used to emphasize consideration of the differences of everybody else.

Opinions on this double standard?

You mean that people judge psychopaths negatively for being psychopaths, even though the presence of psychopathic traits in an individual may be like the presence of neurotypical or autistic traits in and individual, basically not in their control or determined by themselves?

In reality, people judge behavior. It's not a double standard, it's the same standard.

The behavior of some psychopaths and people with anti social personality disorder has more severe negative consequences for others than than the behavior associated with most people with ASDs.

It seems that this is one of the reasons some parents of people with autism who are unable to function independently to any degree as adults, or have self injurious behavior, very poor personal hygiene, etc. object to the statements of relatively functional independent people with autism stating that their neurology is a "difference not a disability" -- they want an acknowledgement that the practical consequences of life on these different parts of the spectrum are significant and those distinctions are all about behavior.

To set this up as a double standard reminds me of the similar arguments by opponents of gay marriage. They ask: how is legally normalizing this violation of an old taboo different than normalizing other violations of social taboos such as bestiality and pedophilia. The reasons why these are false equivalencies are fairly obvious in the gay marriage dabates, but drawing an equivalency between psychopathy and autism is just as false.

I think you will find that people's tolerance of an autistic person's quirks is sharply curtailed if those quirks involve hurting other people.

It seems to me that the neurodiversity idea primarily asks for for acceptance of harmless individual quirks and deviations from expected behavior. Psychopathy is associated with harmful deviations from expected behavior. It's a meaningful distinction.

Yep...Adamantium makes a good argument here.

What about people with Down's Syndrome? Mental Retardation? Bipolar? ADHD? Dementia? There are so many neurodiversities that can affect a person's behaviour and learning and functioning differently from the general norm.

Some neurodiversity advocates have tackled this subject in a thoughtful way.

http://www.shiftjournal.com/2011/10/11/what-is-psychopathys-place-in-neurodiversity/

The traits of psychopathy can lend themselves to evil but also to good. However, when anybody says "psychopathy", evil is all that comes to mind. This is not fair. The measure is not in traits but in actions. Some psychopaths are hit men. Some are surgeons (per studies examining psychopathy in different professions and finding it is pretty much absent in healthcare with the exception of surgeons). Both cause blood to flow from people but the outcome is so very different.

Very true. The limit is not 3. I would go so far as to see that technically the neurodiversities are uncountable.

Psychopaths don't feel empathy and don't have any sort of remorse if they do something bad. It's hard to feel sorry for someone who doesn't even feel bad about what they've done. That's why pyschopaths are not given the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not aware of any broadly accepted claim that neurodiversity is overwhelmingly positive or that everyone is equal.

Technically you are correct as far as neurology goes.
The standards applied to individual behaviors is where the problem comes in.
I think it's generally assumed that the average psychopath is still in control over their own behaviors, perhaps even more so than individuals experiencing severe emotions.
Therefore, they are expected to behave within the standards.

It is assumed, but I don't think it's true, for several reasons.

Firstly, many psychopaths have comorbid executive dysfunction. As most of us know from personal experience, executive dysfunction makes you have less control over your behaviour. In the case of psychopaths, executive dysfunction can make them do impulsive things they later regret, lose control of their anger (one emotion psychopaths feel as strongly if not more strongly than NTs), have trouble planning ahead or sticking to their plans, and so forth. So they very well may not be capable of behaving appropriately even if they want to. They also tend to have a heightened need for stimulation, which makes boring, unstimulating activities extremely unpleasant for them and makes it a lot harder for them to stay focused on these kinds of activities. (Many child psychopaths end up diagnosed with ADHD for this reason.)

In addition, psychopaths tend to have trouble learning from negative consequences, a trait known as 'punishment insensitivity' or 'reward dominance'. When faced with a choice that could bring both the potential for reward and the potential for punishment, psychopaths find that the reward captures their attention so much, it's hard for them to even think about the punishment. (For example, when gambling, they can only think about how much they might win, not how much they might lose.) As a result, they find it hard to avoid punishments even when they want to avoid them.

Lastly, although people like to pretend that our sense of right and wrong is mostly based on logic and reasoning, the most basic tenets of morality are based almost exclusively on hard-wired emotional experiences, such as empathic distress when we believe another individual is suffering (something even mice experience!). There is a cognitive overlay that develops as we grow up, but these emotional states are the foundation, and without moral emotions, none of what we are taught about morality makes the slightest bit of sense. Psychopaths lack certain crucial moral emotions - something they have no control over. As a result, they are incapable of achieving the same understanding of right and wrong that even very young non-psychopathic children show. Studies suggest that adult psychopaths have trouble getting the right answers on a simple test of morality that 3-4 year old children pass (would it still be wrong to hurt someone if an authority figure said it was OK?), even when they're motivated to fake moral convictions. If they can't even fake the moral opinions of a preschooler convincingly, how could they possibly figure out how to act like a moral person on their own?