Taken from "Why Do We Shun Those in Despair"

Post Reply New Topic

I hope this is okay. This is taken from another section, I think Social Skills section with the subject, " Why Do We Shun Those in Despair". This reply by AuntBlabby caught my eye. Read it then answer the following question:


In a reply, AuntBlabby states, "here is an example from the animal world that i believe is somewhat analagous to how humans are fair-weather friends to one another, for the most part- my sis' cat [named "anja"] normally clings to me like i was a big catnip, but when i came limping home maimed from the hospital with arm in splint/sling, other arm covered in full-length bandage, 5-day-old blood on my shoes/clothing from my arms [hospital couldn't be bothered to at least wash my clothing ], the cat took one sniff from a distance, and ran and hid, for 2 weeks! animals [with the notable exception of some domestic dogs] tend to avoid injured fellow animals because it makes them more likely to be some predator's next meal, on the working theory that the injured animal isn't going anywhere, so one might as well devour the fresher [uninjured] animal and save the injured one for a rainy day. i believe humans carry over a lot of atavistically darwinian garbage from their ancestors up the evolutionary tree of life."

Questions1: If this above is true, who and what IS the predator, in the human realm? What is his motivation, since he is definitley not "eating" an "injured" human? Is the predator self-aware? Why would a group of NT's unconsciously acknowledge the prescence of a "predator" in light of encountering someone with Asperger's, someone who is perceived as "injured"?

Question 2: Why are these questions considered "weird"?

My opinion. NT's serve the devil. Haha just kidding.

It just struck me as FUNNY, to think that a person is repelled from an "injured" person, because he's afraid to be eaten next by the "predator". It just seems, so much of this behavior is unconscious! Why is it automatic that a person reject an "injured" person, in this case, someone with AS. On some level. we are all guilty of this.

I speak from personal experience here. I thought I had made a friend with compassion. But he eventually mercilessly discarded me as a friend when he noticed how my emotions sometimes are not constantly "contained". My associative value was decreasing in his eyes. He concluded that this was "Drama" and said if someone is not positively contributing something in his eyes. But by his own definition, he is just using people.

I realize I'm rambling. But I think NT's fear that we aspies have been judged a priori in some way. Maybe we aspies are all incarnates of bad people? Or radical people? The unconscious. Perception on a soul level below standard awareness.

I think the "predators" are the person's peers/friends. If you're seen associating with "loosers" then you are a looser, too, right? (This stuff starts about, what?, 6th grade?) Oh, and "loosers" means people who are less "successful." (Yet another reason I have very little interest in communicating with most people.)

(I keep putting all these words in quotes because I disagree with the normal definitions that they have.)

Ever wonder why a lot of NT's knock themselves out socially competing and avoiding the lepers/loosers? If you mess that up it means social death. And, if you're in a career where it matters (i.e. career military) that will also become damaged. So, the stakes can be high. But, of course, it's instinctual and mostly unconscious.

I agree and also find it fascinating how people set up these structures in society which oppress them without even realizing it.

Eating is a metaphor for beating in competition.

Predator is a metaphor for those competing with you and wanting to leave you behind in the competition.

The social race is a sophisticated version of the race for survival, hence the metaphors are taken from the food chain.

The comparison applies only to herd animals since their survival depends on their ability to be able to flee at any time. But these animals, for instance horses, will also leave their own offspring behind if a just newly born foal is unable to get up on its legs.

Cats are not herd animals, so the cat in the aforementioned post did not react on sickness or weakness, its reaction was certainly on the confusing smell it couldn't assign to the per se familiar human.

I've seen a similar reaction in a dog whose human came home in a clown costume and with accordingly painted face. The dog didn't recognize him and wouldn't let him enter the house.

In predators, the reflex to snatch prey is triggered by a particular type of movement, not by smell because to smell their prey a hunter would need to get close to it. If you watch a cat's reaction on mice and birds, you can easily see that both are moving very quickly and that's what makes the cat chasing them.

If this is meant to allude to the silly commonplaces often erroneously ascribed to Darwin, like "dog eats dog" or "survival of the fittest," the former has never been said by D., and the latter is the result of a translation error. Darwin actually said, "survival of the most adaptable." As we know now, that's what evolution is actually about.

To your question, the core of the post you quoted was wrong in the sense of biology and Darwin's words. Perhaps it was meant as a metaphor. If so, sociology could offer more accurate answers.



The NT society worships mainstream and most NT's are convinced that everybody wants to be the same and is going for the same things. They convey this message with their whole behavior, inter alia, appearance and belongings. It's so deeply rooted in them that the don't even need to communicate it. That's why they hate outsiders and deviations from the norm. Therefore, they are going to do their best to ostracize individuals who don't fit in. Their motivation is not to get something (like the predator gets food,) but to get rid of someone whom they can't dig.

So if we need a comparison, we'd rather compare NT's to herd animals which will chase off every individual that doesn't belong to them. Predators are mainly loners (lions are an exception), but NT's need the warmth and familiarity of almost identical herd members around them. Without their herd they are not able to survive.

I believe that auntblabby mentioning the increase in chance of being targeted by a predator when in company of an injured herd member, shouldn't be interpreted as the defining pattern of the situation in which the 'injured' or 'disadvantaged' party is shunned.

Rather, I think auntblabby mentioned it to illustrate that animals, including human beings, will avoid an injured individual or someone who is otherwise in distress, because it's not advantageous to be in their company in general. Someone who has a whole pack of problems will be shunned because they carry a burden with them. They move more slowly, they need help in working out whatever their problem is, interacting with them in general will be more tiresome for the average person, so it will make both random strangers as well as distant acquaintances and the so-called 'fair-weather friends' run for the hills, because they're thinking "Ah crap, I don't need this bullsh--". I think it's very possible that there's instinct at the basis of that.

Illogical because if it were true nobody would want to become a nurse, therapist, or physician.

WEll, to bring it back to the topic of the original thread, not everyone shuns people in distress, either. There are many who help each other out. In those cases, I would say it's the person's compassion overcoming any reluctance that may be subconsciously or unconsciously there. Nevertheless, people who walk around with some problem or another, may still encounter this type of rejection from other people, but it's hardly EVERYBODY.

The occupations of nurse, therapist, and physician themselves also come forth from primal caretaking functions that were present in the earliest human tribes, functions for which the scope increased as humans were able to attain increasingly comfortable modes of living. Humans are simultaneously selfish and social. And often, there's a tug of war between the two.

As the OP of the parent thread, I just want to say I'm proud this has generated such discussion to warrant its own thread. Yay!

I definitely think there is something to it. I have long assumed that I trigger the same reflexes as often happens in nature. Piglets or bird hatchlings bully a weaker sibling from eating, making it even weaker, and so gain more energy themselves. For the same reason people subconsciously pick what is perceived as weak, and single it out for cruelty. of course there's no conscious thought of trying to weaken them (and it wouldn't even make sense today since we don't live in tribes), but the process is the same, and they are rewarded by their peers and the reward center of their brains.
I read something about it a couple of months ago, a news article that was pretty interesting., and kind of confirmed it.
http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/helse/ ... -kan-mobbe

It's in Norwegian, but anyone who wants to read it can just use the browser translator or Google translate.
It basically says that unless you're very aware of it, everyone has a tendency to push out those who differ. People are flock animals and need the herd to cooperate in order to survive. Those who differ will attract "predators" and thus endanger the entire flock. Bullying victim is something you to large degree is born as. Those who look different, don't fit in mentally, are too gentle and sensitive, or socially inept, are the most at risk.

Yeah, I know this isn't news to us, but it was interesting to see confirmation what I think from two psychologists. They also call bullying a type of abuse where the bullies gets joy from seeing the powerlessness of their victim.


The funny thing for me personally is that I am only drawn to those who differ in some way, while I don't really even 'see' the main stream people!

There are 2 main processes in play. Both extend from the area in which we evolved (by nature or gods hand is not important lets not go there).

Lets start by clearing the slate. The northern European means of survival through cooperation where resources are plentiful is not the norm. The norm is that the area can not support that available life and there has to be winners and losers. In the animal world previous posters have equated this to the larger piglets taking all the milk, etc.

So the first process is that everyone wants resources and will take what they can get. This is an explanation for why someone with a disorder might be excluded. There is only a finite amount of food, love, attention, etc on hand and they don't want to share it unless they have to.

However, there is more going on that just this. With humans there is a shown desire to hurt those with Asperger's or HFA. This is not the above process (the above process is why we exclude someone ho is sick but not a threat). Those on the spectrum are not heard animals. We do not naturally want to survive through cooperation above all else. The desire to beat down those on the spectrum is a self defense mechanism against the predator.... Yes I just said we were the predators!

People on the spectrum, in an area of truly limited resources, are dangerous. Take a look at the thread about caring about death
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf134067-0-135.html

On a lower level we scare the spit outta people because when it comes down to it almost all of use would do what we needed to to survive. Most humans would sit there and starve with their tribe. We would start reducing the required input resources by selectively destroying the part of the tribe using the resources based on our own beliefs.

Look at almost every tyrant or dictator in history. How many of them do you think were on the spectrum? They definitely had something wrong with their empathy toward those they don't know personally.

This is also probably why intellectually those societies with the most resources are tolerant of people on the specturm. In a society with limited resources even very HFA people are shunned. Even if they could give the most to society they are not allowed to become powerful because they might challenge the power that is there already and hurt those in their way.

I postulate that this was the cause of many scientists being shunned in the past (IE the world is flat and if you don't think so we will kill you for it).

I thought dogs licks wounds. Maybe this is a cat thing only?

Maybe it's the uncanny valley reaction. Basically avoiding those who appear different on instinct -in order to avoid diseased/dangerous humans- avoid those that seem like us but different. The term uncanny valley referred to peoples fear of artificial intelligence and an evolutionary reason for it-robots resemble us but are fundamentally different. WIKILINK

Humans can also have instincts to nurture those who are different/injured.......evolutionary reason.....need to nurture our own children ( or our kin with our genes) who are dependent on us for so long...we nurture those who aren't our kin but the instinct could have originated with that......an instinct to preserve our own genes.

Yes it's paradoxical and humans can have paradoxical instincts.

It's all about percieved risk to safety. Insecure people especially people without kids, tend to feel as if there underthreat from pretty much everything.

A well adapted secure person will not face these same kind of urges in near the extreme.

Wrong. I really don't care all that much about my own survival(I seriously don't. I actually value my life less than the lives of most others), and I would definitely make a point of valuing every member of the tribe, no matter how useful. I wouldn't even consider withholding food from the less useful members of the tribe. If that decision absolutely had to be made, I would let others do it.