The flip side of being able to discriminate against is that also discrimination for is also blocked.
I did not access the paywalled article but I want to make more explicit about what is and is not problematic about comparing to psychopaths. There can be a pretty standard “monstrous criminal” kind of association which is handy for demonizing segments of populations (and when you take the term “psychopath” as “psycho” and “path” it means “mentally pathological”). However if some hedge fund manager can become very efficient at numbers running economical games because they can ruthless crush the numbers and make drastic actions because they disinclude/never include their impact on the lives of others that can be away for a psychopath to exist in a society constructively. In this sense it need not be a prejorative.
I shouldn’t really guess what someone else is meaning but one explanation for higher fraction of LGBQT+ people among autist population vs not that has been raised is that autists are more ready to believe in their own experience and are less sensitive to the kind of cues that would express social shame. The term “gay” used to mean happy and one can imagine that the contrast would be that instead of feeling sad and shamed for their sexual deviancy a person flourishes as something other people want to look down on. For a neurotypical such emotions might be at the core of morality making for a kind of “When in Rome do as the romans do” or “bad is everything that makes the herd attack and abandon you” kind of attitude. Even if this was meant or that I can recall things in that direction “the popularization” seems to have rather critically failed (with the underlying beliefs being hateful a likely mechanism why). It is not surprising for psychiatry as a field to be tempted to view variation and divergence as pathological. In this way this can be a systematic issue as the kind of wrong exhibited might not be selected against but selected for.
In order for the ruthless game to be socially productive the rules around the game need to be robust enough that adverse effects to other systems can be managed. The limits will be tested to the extent that there is constant grinding against them. So all possible states are relevant to be visited in great magnitude.
You need supervisors and referees that independently and actively respond to shady / socially undesired things (or structural limits to the same effect). This is the accommodation this kind of person needs. Otherwise there is going to be constant “This is why we can’t have good things”. The ethics board that is a joykill about canceling a lot of very revealing science experiments.
Concepts previously used in the old parent comment refressed by recent events. The downturn of “drastic actions” is from this perspective a lot more clear.
The flip side of being able to discriminate against is that also discrimination for is also blocked.
I did not access the paywalled article but I want to make more explicit about what is and is not problematic about comparing to psychopaths. There can be a pretty standard “monstrous criminal” kind of association which is handy for demonizing segments of populations (and when you take the term “psychopath” as “psycho” and “path” it means “mentally pathological”). However if some hedge fund manager can become very efficient at numbers running economical games because they can ruthless crush the numbers and make drastic actions because they disinclude/never include their impact on the lives of others that can be away for a psychopath to exist in a society constructively. In this sense it need not be a prejorative.
I shouldn’t really guess what someone else is meaning but one explanation for higher fraction of LGBQT+ people among autist population vs not that has been raised is that autists are more ready to believe in their own experience and are less sensitive to the kind of cues that would express social shame. The term “gay” used to mean happy and one can imagine that the contrast would be that instead of feeling sad and shamed for their sexual deviancy a person flourishes as something other people want to look down on. For a neurotypical such emotions might be at the core of morality making for a kind of “When in Rome do as the romans do” or “bad is everything that makes the herd attack and abandon you” kind of attitude. Even if this was meant or that I can recall things in that direction “the popularization” seems to have rather critically failed (with the underlying beliefs being hateful a likely mechanism why). It is not surprising for psychiatry as a field to be tempted to view variation and divergence as pathological. In this way this can be a systematic issue as the kind of wrong exhibited might not be selected against but selected for.
In order for the ruthless game to be socially productive the rules around the game need to be robust enough that adverse effects to other systems can be managed. The limits will be tested to the extent that there is constant grinding against them. So all possible states are relevant to be visited in great magnitude.
You need supervisors and referees that independently and actively respond to shady / socially undesired things (or structural limits to the same effect). This is the accommodation this kind of person needs. Otherwise there is going to be constant “This is why we can’t have good things”. The ethics board that is a joykill about canceling a lot of very revealing science experiments.
Concepts previously used in the old parent comment refressed by recent events. The downturn of “drastic actions” is from this perspective a lot more clear.