Um, yes for most definitions of “rational”. That’s why [autism] is considered a disability.
Hrm? A disability is a thing that is limits the disabled individual from a socially-recognized set of normal actions. The term ‘disability’ alone doesn’t imply anything about reasoning or cognitive skills. It seems at best un-obvious, and more likely false, that “rationality” encompasses all cognitive functions.
Some people have dyslexia; that is certainly a cognitive disability. It would be strange (not to say offensive) to describe dyslexic individuals as per se irrational. I suspect similarly for, say, dyscalculia. Or for that matter, short-term memory problems.
Autism is a big complicated bundle of traits and behaviors. Why are those behaviors “irrational” in a way that dyslexia isn’t?
Autism is a big complicated bundle of traits and behaviors. Why are those behaviors “irrational” in a way that dyslexia isn’t?
Autism isn’t just a behavior, it affects one’s ability to reason socially, which in tern is “fed back” into other mental processes causing downstream problems, e.g., an inability to form models of social situations.
In my experience, the social issues are actually closer to perception deficits than reasoning problems. It’s harder to “read” emotions and faces and to predict other people’s behavior, but just because I have trouble perceiving these things doesn’t make me any less rational. Picture someone nearsighted. They are aware of their perceptive deficit, which impair their ability to predict what they will encounter as they travel. Is that person less rational due to their perceptive deficit, which impairs their ability to form models of their environment? (Yes, I am trying to get more precise perceptive abilities, but only to the extent that this is actually a good use of my resources.)
If a paperclip maximizer had significant trouble counting paperclips, would you say it did not care about paperclips? Similarly, I care about other people’s preferences, even if I am worse at detecting them than the average human.
Hrm? A disability is a thing that is limits the disabled individual from a socially-recognized set of normal actions. The term ‘disability’ alone doesn’t imply anything about reasoning or cognitive skills. It seems at best un-obvious, and more likely false, that “rationality” encompasses all cognitive functions.
Some people have dyslexia; that is certainly a cognitive disability. It would be strange (not to say offensive) to describe dyslexic individuals as per se irrational. I suspect similarly for, say, dyscalculia. Or for that matter, short-term memory problems.
Autism is a big complicated bundle of traits and behaviors. Why are those behaviors “irrational” in a way that dyslexia isn’t?
Autism isn’t just a behavior, it affects one’s ability to reason socially, which in tern is “fed back” into other mental processes causing downstream problems, e.g., an inability to form models of social situations.
In my experience, the social issues are actually closer to perception deficits than reasoning problems. It’s harder to “read” emotions and faces and to predict other people’s behavior, but just because I have trouble perceiving these things doesn’t make me any less rational. Picture someone nearsighted. They are aware of their perceptive deficit, which impair their ability to predict what they will encounter as they travel. Is that person less rational due to their perceptive deficit, which impairs their ability to form models of their environment? (Yes, I am trying to get more precise perceptive abilities, but only to the extent that this is actually a good use of my resources.)
If a paperclip maximizer had significant trouble counting paperclips, would you say it did not care about paperclips? Similarly, I care about other people’s preferences, even if I am worse at detecting them than the average human.