*Edit: I checked some of the stuff more out in detail. While some concepts on this are valid and backed up by sience, others like RSD are not. Use this as a springboard for learning, not as a valid source in itself. Yes it says so in the corner already. But spelling it out might help.
People are more complicated then a diagram from the internet. Never forget that.
This chart hits me hard, in so many ways.
There are certain traits common to neurotypicals which I have always considered to be detrimental to not only that person in whom I've observed the trait, but to society as a whole -- but because I'm the one who is considered "different" I usually find that it's easier to just keep my trap shut, rather than be browbeaten by NTs for my strong opinions.
As a very obvious example: "Highly developed morals" is tucked away in the corner of the Autism/Giftedness sub-quadrant. I'm going to make the obvious assumption that Ms. Higgins Lee clearly did not intend to imply that only neurodivergents hold that trait... but, anecdotally, I have nonetheless on more than one occasion observed that far too many people who are considered by the larger populace to be "normal" not only appear to lack that trait, but actively despise anyone who holds such high morals.
NTs so often derisively label us as "autistic" or "neurodivergent" or (my personal favorite) "nerds"... like these are all somehow bad things -- but maybe society as a whole needs to reevaluate the entire notion of what constitutes "good" and "bad".
Sorry... am I being too divergent? Should I shut my trap... yet again?
I think “Highly developed morals” in this context doesn't mean being a "better" person by following a "superior" code of conduct.
It means a higher chance to follow any established code out of principle - even to one's own detriment - even with zero chance of getting caught cheating - even without getting to have bragging rights on upholding integrity. (But only if that code is properly understood first and deemed reasonable. Arbitrary BS-rules don't have that effect) There was a study about it, I think, from Bazil?
You're probably right -- but let's pick that apart for a bit. What you are basically describing is "doing what's right when nobody is watching." How is that not a "superior code of conduct," as you put it?
Social codes don't have inherent value. They vary over time, places, culture, etc...
Right and wrong are subjective. You can try to debate for moral absolutism, but I won't respond.
I was describing "doing what one thinks is expected to be the right choice as defined by code without incentives to do so other than the personal desire to uphold the code by making the choice it suggests"
Maybe: More closely adhere to whatever their morals may be. Good, bad, or otherwise.
I can't tell you how many times I was told I was "too honest"
My best friend is ND (she thinks she's autistic but hasn't been diagnosed), I think I'm ND too since I've noticed I have a much higher capacity for empathy than basically anyone I know, but we often talk about sense of morality. She has a very strong moral compass and sense of justice. I don't think it's so much that NT people lack this sense of justice/morality (obviously there are exceptions but I don't consider psychopaths that lack morals as NT), so much as it's much easier for them to ignore to not upset the status quo. This comes out mainly at work. She would burn bridges because she would see major moral issues come up that her coworkers just kind of ignored but it ate at her until she finally said something, often being dismissed as a result unfortunately. It's a really interesting topic though
@CaptFeather @zarmanto I think autistics might tend to view moral issues deontological rather than utilitaristic. Would match recent science which says autistic‘s prediction models play less of a role in their perception than their senses. NT on the other hand perceive things more in light of prior experiences and thus utilitaristic.
I absolutely agree. She's a vet tech and since animals being mistreated by her coworkers don't have a voice she feels it's her responsibility to speak up for them. I admire her for that, even though it tends to limited the hospitals she can work at.
Very eye opening how many people are in medicine (human and animal) that lack compassion. She told me about an elderly doctor she briefly worked for that was treating a dog who had a fox tail stuck in its law for son long that it ended up coming out the other side. Poor pup had a hole in its paw. Anyway this doc had to make sure there was no debris in the wound so he stuck his finger in the hole without anesthesia. She walked out of the room after yelling at him and quit shortly after. Anyway, my point is her NT coworkers all kinda just stood around and watched and clearly weren't as bothered by this as she was.
I think "highly developed morals" refers to, for example, internally consistent morals. Calling them highly developed shouldn't be understood to imply the morals are "better" or more "right", only that they are consistent. My neurotypical family members have morals and they will preach those morals to literal death. When actual circumstances of life require a sacrifice of them to live within the morals they preach though, they have no difficulty imagining a special exception to those morals.
I actually hate the term neurodivergent or neurodiverse, it's so tentative and annoying. I've been called crazy my entire life, they might as well just stick with that - it's clearly what they're implying.
@feedum_sneedson @zarmanto In German „crazy“ is translated as „verrückt“. The literal meaning is „disarranged“ or „shifted“ - so just a deviation from the norm. Sounds not to bad to me, I like being called „verrückt“.
I always think of probability distributions in this context. Taking something like the bell curve for instance. Being bang-on precisely average is actually very unlikely. Some degree of "divergence" or "variation" from the mean is in fact the far more likely state. Even taking the typical +/- 1 standard deviation, which comprises
~68%... that leaves~32%that do not fall into the middle or normal range.That's a huge amount of people that may all be very different from each other, even more different from each other than they are from "the average", but are all very different from "normal". IMO, it's not appreciated enough how much variation is baked into anything statistical.