My sudden realisation with some ( sadly most) neurotypicals

[Judge]

Getting this wrong isn't free. Putting unreasonable expectations on other people has significant negative consequences.

Ironically a message conveyed to society long ago by French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville, in his treatise "Democracy in America". In which he outlines the classic consequences of a "tyranny of the majority".

In this instance one being driven largely by a combination of societal indifference and ignorance. That for any overwhelming majority of society who neither experience autism, nor necessarily know anyone that does.
All compounded by the consensus of a majority, based on a general principle most of us cherish.

Leaving any extreme minority to ponder that this is the will of a majority, and that we are bound by the same compact to respect it, let alone having to endure it.

Conversely one must then ponder whether it is a logical- even reasonable expectation for 98.2% of society to fully recognize and understand 1.8% of their population in the first place. Where some societies may choose to abandon a consensus of a majority, yet the outcome would likely be worse- not better for any extreme minority or majority.

 

[Hypnalis]

@Judge

whether it is a logical- even reasonable expectation for 98.2% of society to fully recognize and understand 1.8% of their population in the first place.

This is where we are now. The threshold for understanding is too high, so we get little attention or support from society.

In principle we'd be due some proportion of 1.8% of the total amount of support provided by society to individuals from taxes. We probably get less than we should, but we're terrible at lobbying, so we just have to accept that.

BTW - de Tocqueville was writing about politics. His point is good, and has certainly stood the test of time (I may have used it here myself). But politics is about things that are "in play" for society as a whole.

It doesn't map onto individual responsibilities and behavior except through political decisions and laws/regulations to influence individual behavior. Without that you get what you get.

 

[Judge]

@Judge


This is where we are now. The threshold for understanding is too high, so we get little attention or support from society.

In principle we'd be due some proportion of 1.8% of the total amount of support provided by society to individuals from taxes. We probably get a bit less that we should, but we're terrible at lobbying, so we just have to accept that.

BTW - de Tocqueville was writing about politics. His point is good, and has certainly stood the test of time (I may have used it here myself). But politics is about things that are "in play" for society as a whole, and are at least in principle, understood equally well by all sides in the discussion.

It doesn't map onto individual responsibilities and behavior except through political decisions and laws/regulations to influence individual behavior. Without that you get what you get.

Of course there is a current partial counter-example, but that's not a means available to most of us.

Have to disagree. The scope of De Toqueville's treatise could- and is broadly interpreted. In this respect his treatise applied then, as well as it does now. Besides, all relationships between humans are inherently political ones. Where one fundamentally wants something from another. Whether as an individual or a group.

A threshold of understanding becomes a moot point when people have no perceived incentive in even bothering. In a society where there is no mandatory methodology for learning about other peoples.

Majority tyranny not necessarily being malevolent, but rather the product of indifference that lacks incentive to learn about the plight of others. Where the caprice of a majority for better or worse can be detrimental to any number of majorities. - Whether they can truly understand them or not. By choice- not intellect.

 

[Hypnalis]

You can certainly use it at the micro level (I use it (repackaged a little) to use when people are slow ordering in a restaurant).

But micro-level relevance doesn't do anything for us.

We can't get e.g. a group of colleagues to wait through an explanation of ASD sufficient for them to adjust their behavior to our convenience. And if we did, they'd realize that it couldn't necessarily be used with the next person with ASD they meet.
It's easier to negotiate simple accommodations to resolve immediate issues, and forget about the big picture.

I'd hope a different approach would be possible with e.g. a spouse of course. But posts here suggest that it's possible in some cases, but doesn't happen in all.

 

[ra49]

Jumbled thoughts and not sure this will come out correctly, but still:

#1, cannot legislate or even request proper behaviour, now that common social agreements like stop signs and red lights are flagrantly disregarded in spite of danger to others: personal convenience trumps social responsibility

#2, we each (nt or nd) choose our own thoughts and responses in each situation with every person or creature or thing, in every moment (hopefully for better but possibly for worse in that moment)

#3, every principle (enduring truth across eons and unchanging regardless of location in time and space) gives firm ground to stand if we take time to think

#4, lost my train of thought . . .

If any of this advances the conversation, I am not sure

 

[tree]

@Suzanne
What is your best hope for this thread?

Anything beyond noting that people differ?

 

[Suzanne]

@Suzanne
What is your best hope for this thread?

Anything beyond noting that people differ?

Have no idea! Just wanted to post.