I don’t think so. I’m explicitly saying that talking about weird perceptions people might have, such as mental subprocess implantation, is better than the alternative; this is more likely to realize the benefits of neuro-atypicality, by allowing people to recognize when non-neurotypicals are having accurate perceptions, and reduce the risk of psychiatric hospitalization or other bad outcomes.
I guess my point was that a community that excludes anyone who has mental health issues would score well on your metric, while a community that is welcoming would score poorly.
I think when people are comparing philosophers they’re usually trying to compare novel contributions the person made relative to what came before, not how much raw philosophical knowledge they possess.
Another possiblity is that they might be comparing their ability to form a correct philosophical opinion. This isn’t the same as raw knowledge, but I suspect that our epistemic position makes it much easier. Not only because of more information, but also because modern philosopher tends to be much clearer and explicit than older philosophy and so people can use it as an example to learn how to think clearly.
I guess my point was that a community that excludes anyone who has mental health issues would score well on your metric, while a community that is welcoming would score poorly.
Another possiblity is that they might be comparing their ability to form a correct philosophical opinion. This isn’t the same as raw knowledge, but I suspect that our epistemic position makes it much easier. Not only because of more information, but also because modern philosopher tends to be much clearer and explicit than older philosophy and so people can use it as an example to learn how to think clearly.