It appears that you think autistic people are less rational than the average person. Why do you think that?
If we just pretend the context of FrameBenignly and Dahlen didn’t exist (I don’t agree with everything either of them said) and take this statement in isolation, ignoring the whole “is this intended to be offensive or not” aspect...
Isn’t it a given that anyone with a mental impairment of any kind is less instrumentally rational than a similar person without impairment? We don’t usually give diagnosis to people who tend to win at stuff.
not being good at some kinds of intuitive understanding of other people” is not at all the same thing as “being less rational than average”.
But it is. Assuming we’re modelling the entire brain as part of the agent, if you take two individuals, give them the same info, and one of them is able to correctly act on that information and win while and the other is not able, then all else being equal the one who won is the more rational of the two. (We’re modelling the entire brain as agent here, so this would even be true for things like epilepsy. There are other ways to model this, such that the autistic person is just as rational but acting on less information, but that’s a bit convoluted because we’d have to consider some parts of the brain as “agent” and others as just complex sensimotor bodily organs)
I’m not trying to diss autistic people here, just reiterating: Rationality is not intelligence, rationality is not goodness, rationality is simply acting in ways conducive to winning. I have ADHD myself, and yes, that trait makes me less instrumentally rational—and I think the same goes for autism and others.
(After writing I considered deleting this because it would be easy for an angry person to miss the point and take it as justification for what Dahlen wrote. I dislike his conflation of “autists” with “people who don’t look at art or whatever” as much as everyone else because it’s simply not true and perpetuates misconceptions of autistic people. But Lesswrong doesn’t let you gracefully delete things, and if one can’t play devil’s advocate here then where else? So I’ll leave it up.)
Isn’t it a given that anyone with a mental impairment of any kind is less instrumentally rational [...] We don’t usually give diagnosis to people who tend to win at stuff.
I am unconvinced by the broadest versions of the “rationality = winning” thesis, for reasons I’ve mentioned to alienist elsewhere in this thread. The very broadest version (“rationality = anything conducive to winning”) would make, e.g., shortness or heart disease kinds of irrationality. A more reasonable intermediate version (“rationality = any features of one’s cognition conducive to winning”) still seems to me overbroad; it means that e.g. one person can be deemed more rational than another simply because ten years ago they happened to learn a particular language, or because they have a better (or worse) ear for music.
I think your observation that epilepsy would be deemed a variety of irrationality by the definition you’re using is actually a handy reductio ad absurdum. Do you really want to define things so that epilepsy is a variety of irrationality?
For the avoidance of doubt: I will happily agree that, all else being equal, being autistic is generally a disadvantage, and that this disadvantage is a matter of cognitive deficiencies and not only of (e.g.) prejudice on the part of others. I just don’t think “irrationality” is at all a good way to describe that disadvantage.
“Instrumentally rational” = successful on account of being epistemically rational. Success for other reasons does not count.
“Epistemically rational” = correctly using observation and reasoning to arrive at true beliefs, and making the decisions and actions recommended by those beliefs.
“Irrational” = a privative concept, expressing not merely an absence of rationality, but an absence where presence is seen as having been possible.
How widely or narrowly you draw the line around “irrational” depends on how much of a counterfactual difference you are imagining being possible. Draw it widely enough, and sandstone is irrational for being so easily eroded by the wind. Narrowly enough, and everyone is perfectly rational all the time, in the same way that the Pentium III with the FDIV bug worked flawlessly. Somewhere in between there is a reasonable place to draw that line, but arguing over where to draw it is an argument about what to call things, not an argument about what properties those things have.
For the avoidance of doubt: I will happily agree that, all else being equal, being autistic is generally a disadvantage, and that this disadvantage is a matter of cognitive deficiencies and not only of (e.g.) prejudice on the part of others. I just don’t think “irrationality” is at all a good way to describe that disadvantage.
If we just pretend the context of FrameBenignly and Dahlen didn’t exist (I don’t agree with everything either of them said) and take this statement in isolation, ignoring the whole “is this intended to be offensive or not” aspect...
Isn’t it a given that anyone with a mental impairment of any kind is less instrumentally rational than a similar person without impairment? We don’t usually give diagnosis to people who tend to win at stuff.
But it is. Assuming we’re modelling the entire brain as part of the agent, if you take two individuals, give them the same info, and one of them is able to correctly act on that information and win while and the other is not able, then all else being equal the one who won is the more rational of the two. (We’re modelling the entire brain as agent here, so this would even be true for things like epilepsy. There are other ways to model this, such that the autistic person is just as rational but acting on less information, but that’s a bit convoluted because we’d have to consider some parts of the brain as “agent” and others as just complex sensimotor bodily organs)
I’m not trying to diss autistic people here, just reiterating: Rationality is not intelligence, rationality is not goodness, rationality is simply acting in ways conducive to winning. I have ADHD myself, and yes, that trait makes me less instrumentally rational—and I think the same goes for autism and others.
(After writing I considered deleting this because it would be easy for an angry person to miss the point and take it as justification for what Dahlen wrote. I dislike his conflation of “autists” with “people who don’t look at art or whatever” as much as everyone else because it’s simply not true and perpetuates misconceptions of autistic people. But Lesswrong doesn’t let you gracefully delete things, and if one can’t play devil’s advocate here then where else? So I’ll leave it up.)
I am unconvinced by the broadest versions of the “rationality = winning” thesis, for reasons I’ve mentioned to alienist elsewhere in this thread. The very broadest version (“rationality = anything conducive to winning”) would make, e.g., shortness or heart disease kinds of irrationality. A more reasonable intermediate version (“rationality = any features of one’s cognition conducive to winning”) still seems to me overbroad; it means that e.g. one person can be deemed more rational than another simply because ten years ago they happened to learn a particular language, or because they have a better (or worse) ear for music.
I think your observation that epilepsy would be deemed a variety of irrationality by the definition you’re using is actually a handy reductio ad absurdum. Do you really want to define things so that epilepsy is a variety of irrationality?
For the avoidance of doubt: I will happily agree that, all else being equal, being autistic is generally a disadvantage, and that this disadvantage is a matter of cognitive deficiencies and not only of (e.g.) prejudice on the part of others. I just don’t think “irrationality” is at all a good way to describe that disadvantage.
I propose a few ways of using these words.
“Instrumentally rational” = successful on account of being epistemically rational. Success for other reasons does not count.
“Epistemically rational” = correctly using observation and reasoning to arrive at true beliefs, and making the decisions and actions recommended by those beliefs.
“Irrational” = a privative concept, expressing not merely an absence of rationality, but an absence where presence is seen as having been possible.
How widely or narrowly you draw the line around “irrational” depends on how much of a counterfactual difference you are imagining being possible. Draw it widely enough, and sandstone is irrational for being so easily eroded by the wind. Narrowly enough, and everyone is perfectly rational all the time, in the same way that the Pentium III with the FDIV bug worked flawlessly. Somewhere in between there is a reasonable place to draw that line, but arguing over where to draw it is an argument about what to call things, not an argument about what properties those things have.
I agree.