" the goal is to keep the ability to duplicate itself"

You are talking about putting all your eggs in the tribal cohesion basket.

That doesn't deal very well with black swan events. Not putting all your eggs in one basket maintains the ability of the tribe to "duplicate itself".

So given that I have provided an mechanism for improved survival of the group, that doesn't require the group to be completely homogeneous, please explain how I strawmanned your argument.

Or maybe point out what point you were trying to make, as it evidently isn't very clear

▲

rglullis 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> You are talking about putting all your eggs in the tribal cohesion basket.

Sorry, that's waaaay off the mark.

I am taking about OP's remark where he wants experts to not "talk about his brain (development) having a genetic mistake", and I am saying that any individual with a brain that has developed in a way that diverges from the norm (and consequently makes it more difficult to socialize, empathize and find a mate), then we can definitely say that this brain has a "genetic mistake".

▲

benj111 7 hours ago | parent [-]

So explain "If we are talking about genes, the goal is to keep the ability to duplicate itself"

That is your basis for 'mistake', and the general position that you are objectively right.

I am saying divergence from the norm can also be a benefit towards the goal of keeping the ability to duplicate. Therefore you can't say that the genetic imperative to duplicate proves you are objectively right. Therefore you can't really support the view that it is a "genetic mistake", unless you want to make the claim that everything thatmakes us different from our proto 1 celled ancestors is a "genetic mistake".

▲

rglullis 6 hours ago | parent [-]

You are once again taking the worst possible interpretation: every mutation is a "mistake" in the process of cellular duplication, that's all I said. Whether this "mistake" will have good or bad consequences will depend on how this is manifested in the individual and how it will fit with the environment.

▲

benj111 4 hours ago | parent [-]

No. I don't think so. Your original comment is basically 2 parts.

"If we are talking about genes, the goal is to keep the ability to duplicate itself."

We have already discussed the above. You then proceed on that basis.

"If there is anything about this duplication process that has lead to the individual's brain development with difficulties to adapt to life with their tribe, socialization and chances of finding a mate are also hindered"

You are basically restating evolution through the process of natural selection, with the implication that Neurodivergency is bad, because you are less genetically fit.

I have, I hope demonstrated that that isn't necessarily the case. Neurodivergency can make the tribe more genetically fit, therefore the inference we are meant to draw from your post is incorrect.

Unless we are expected to ignore the context, and you are just talking about evolution abstractly. But I would hope everyone here knows the basics of evolution, so why did you repeat them for no particular reason?

Edit. Ps. My first response was more than fair, and you accused me of constructing a strawman, so please don't accuse me of using an unfair interpretation.

▲

rglullis 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> I hope demonstrated that that isn't necessarily the case. Neurodivergency can make the tribe more genetically fit.

You are conflating fitness of the individual with population robustness against systemic shocks.

> But I would hope everyone here knows the basics of evolution, so why did you repeat them for no particular reason?

Because (1) not everyone understands the basics of evolution, (2) to make my argument I wanted to establish where I am coming from and (3) this is a public forum and I am not addressing you in the particular, you might feel like I am "stating the obvious" but to other people this is a pretty standard and effective way to ensure the communication is clear.

> the implication that Neurodivergency is bad, because you are less genetically fit.

I am not implying anything and I tried to be clear that there is no "good" or "bad" when you have "experts describing what is normal/typical".

▲

benj111 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>You are conflating fitness of the individual with population robustness against systemic shocks

Yes and as per my first example, the ones who don't drink the contaminated water survive. The population robustness is people doing things differently and not dying. Fitness of the individual is population robustness where that individual does something different.

>(1) not everyone understands the basics of evolution, (2) to make my argument I wanted to establish where I am coming from

Right. So did you get past (1) or not? Your argument seems to be that neurodivergents are less likely to pass on their genes. I'm saying that isn't necessarily so.

	▲	rglullis a few seconds ago \| parent [-]
		> the population robustness is people doing things differently and not dying. No, you created a completely contrived example in an absurdly complex and dynamic system and assumed your outcome is the only one possible. You are fantasizing a completely stereotypical behavior (neurotypical people act like sheep) to say "they would all drink poisoned water and die", when the story could just as well be that the second group of people would notice the source of danger and go after the others who are drinking something else. The advantage of diversity in the population would be determined if individuals in an heterogeneous group by the same threat or pathogen survived at different rates. > I'm saying that isn't necessarily so. Not necessarily so doesn't stop it from likely being so, and I posit that neurodivergent people are likely to have far fewer children than neurotypical ones.