Sure. But I didn’t say “It appears that you think autistic people are not cognitively superior overall to the average person”, and that’s because that isn’t what I meant.
A common definition of “rationality” around here is “the art of winning”, by that definition I don’t see the distinction your making.
Well, first of all, Dahlen was countering not the claim “autistic people are not less rational than others” but the claim “autistic people are not extra-rational”, which I never said and never meant.
Secondly, while indeed “rationality” is sometimes defined that way, if you take that definition at face value then you conclude that (e.g.) blind people, poor people, short people, and ugly people are ipso facto “less rational” than others. Maybe we need a word to denote “tendency to win” that covers all those things, but I think using “rationality” so broadly would cause too much confusion.
There’s more to be said for an intermediate position that takes “rationality” to cover all cognitive skills that tend to promote winning. But it seems like this would (e.g.) lead to the conclusion that if you have two otherwise identical people, one of whom has a slightly better ear for musical harmony, then the latter is more rational. Or perhaps that whether s/he is “more rational” depends on our hypothetical people’s social context in really complicated ways (to take one complicated-ish example: if this person is just about good enough musically to be a professional musician but would actually be happier and more productive as an actuary, being one notch better musically might substantially harm their propensity to win overall by making them more likely to choose music as a career). This, again, seems like an over-broad use of “rationality”.
Well, this discussion would have gone much better if you’d focused on the different definitions of “rational” (and then maybe discuss which is relevant for purposes of evaluating FrameBenignly’s suggestions) rather than calling Dahlen “reprehensible” for even bringing the topic of autism up.
I dare say there are many things, in hindsight, that could have led to a more productive discussion. As it happens I’m not convinced you’re right in this particular case, but I think arguing the point would be one level of meta too many.
However, it is simply not true that I called Dahlen reprehensible for bringing up the topic of autism. Less importantly, because what I called reprehensible was one of Dahlen’s actions, not Dahlen the person. More importantly, because (as I have already said in response to your making the same false accusation elsewhere in this thread) it was not simply “bringing the topic of autism up” that I found reprehensible.
(If whoever downvoted the grandparent of this comment did so because of deficiencies in it rather than because they’ve taken a dislike to me, I’d be glad to learn what deficiencies they found. It looks OK to me on careful rereading.)
A common definition of “rationality” around here is “the art of winning”, by that definition I don’t see the distinction your making.
Well, first of all, Dahlen was countering not the claim “autistic people are not less rational than others” but the claim “autistic people are not extra-rational”, which I never said and never meant.
Secondly, while indeed “rationality” is sometimes defined that way, if you take that definition at face value then you conclude that (e.g.) blind people, poor people, short people, and ugly people are ipso facto “less rational” than others. Maybe we need a word to denote “tendency to win” that covers all those things, but I think using “rationality” so broadly would cause too much confusion.
There’s more to be said for an intermediate position that takes “rationality” to cover all cognitive skills that tend to promote winning. But it seems like this would (e.g.) lead to the conclusion that if you have two otherwise identical people, one of whom has a slightly better ear for musical harmony, then the latter is more rational. Or perhaps that whether s/he is “more rational” depends on our hypothetical people’s social context in really complicated ways (to take one complicated-ish example: if this person is just about good enough musically to be a professional musician but would actually be happier and more productive as an actuary, being one notch better musically might substantially harm their propensity to win overall by making them more likely to choose music as a career). This, again, seems like an over-broad use of “rationality”.
Well, this discussion would have gone much better if you’d focused on the different definitions of “rational” (and then maybe discuss which is relevant for purposes of evaluating FrameBenignly’s suggestions) rather than calling Dahlen “reprehensible” for even bringing the topic of autism up.
I dare say there are many things, in hindsight, that could have led to a more productive discussion. As it happens I’m not convinced you’re right in this particular case, but I think arguing the point would be one level of meta too many.
However, it is simply not true that I called Dahlen reprehensible for bringing up the topic of autism. Less importantly, because what I called reprehensible was one of Dahlen’s actions, not Dahlen the person. More importantly, because (as I have already said in response to your making the same false accusation elsewhere in this thread) it was not simply “bringing the topic of autism up” that I found reprehensible.
(If whoever downvoted the grandparent of this comment did so because of deficiencies in it rather than because they’ve taken a dislike to me, I’d be glad to learn what deficiencies they found. It looks OK to me on careful rereading.)