Unfortunately the classic essay “Understanding Neurotypicality” is gone, the owner’s web pages removed. But there are similar pages still available, for instance, this from Greg Egan
I said, if autism is a lack of understanding of others… and healing the lesion would grant you that lost understanding—”
Rourke broken in, “But how much is understanding, and how much is a delusion of understanding? Is intimacy a form of knowledge—or is it just a comforting false belief? Evolution is not interested in whether we grasp the truth, except in the most pragmatic sense. And their can be equally pragmatic falsehoods. If the brain needs to grant us exaggerated sense of our capacity for knowing each other—to make pair-bonding compatible with self-awareness—it will lie, shamelessly, as mush as it has to, in order to make the strategy succeed.”
“If the brain needs … to make pair-bonding compatible with self-awareness—it will lie, shamelessly, as mush as it has to, in order to make the strategy succeed.”
Neat typo: it preserves the meaning of the passage. If you don’t see how, read it as “If the brain needs you to feel romantic love, it will lie—as mush, it has to—in order to succeed.”
Unfortunately the classic essay “Understanding Neurotypicality” is gone, the owner’s web pages removed. But there are similar pages still available, for instance, this from Greg Egan
In http://wlug.org.nz/GregEganOnNeurotypicalSyndrome
And more indexed here: http://www.neurodiversity.com/neurotypical.html
Copy here.
Bitrot marches on; a copy at The Wayback Machine should be more durable.
“If the brain needs … to make pair-bonding compatible with self-awareness—it will lie, shamelessly, as mush as it has to, in order to make the strategy succeed.”
Neat typo: it preserves the meaning of the passage. If you don’t see how, read it as “If the brain needs you to feel romantic love, it will lie—as mush, it has to—in order to succeed.”