Taken from "Why Do We Shun Those in Despair"

Post Reply New Topic

Wrong. I really don't care all that much about my own survival(I seriously don't. I actually value my life less than the lives of most others), and I would definitely make a point of valuing every member of the tribe, no matter how useful. I wouldn't even consider withholding food from the less useful members of the tribe. If that decision absolutely had to be made, I would let others do it.

It was a generalized statement not about an individual. Sorry if I said it wrong.

That's okay, no offense taken. Looking back on my last post, I kind of unintentionally made myself look like a saint... I'm not. I can be downright selfish and rude sometimes. But overall I have a strong altruistic side to my personality, and don't really value my own life that much.

That is actually an AS trait. But we can also be the other way. I think we are extreme in either sense compared to the average (read nonstandard distribution with 2 fat tails(scientifically correct term google it if needed)).

I was trying to say that on average the %chance of someone with autism being aggressive is higher. As in evolution time the characteristic to avoid us might be linked to that. If someone might be a killer even a .1% chance is enough for a mother to tell her children not to go near that man. We do it with people who look "creepy".

The social acceptance of a different look is fairly new in our evolution.

The response was pretty "saint like" though. Thanks

What makes some people to let their intellect rule their tribal insticts (if present), and others to be enslaved by the very same insticts?

Keyman, that's a very intelligent question. In my opinion, it's education. The level of self-confidence that a human attains as a result of the measure of exposure they had to enlightenment. How good our parenting was at instilling a deeply rooted sense of self-esteem and self-confidence is the most determining, as a basis for the person to have the psychological peace of mind necessary to allow enlightenment into their minds.

This kind of self-confidence stems from a deeply rooted and not necessarily conscious knowledge that one has what is needed to survive in more complex circumstances.

The more self-confident someone is, the less they reject us. People who (deep inside) feel under constant threat to their survival, are the first to reject / scapegoat us.

Edited because MoonDust's response made more sense.

Last edited by CyclopsSummers on 13 Oct 2012, 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

It would mean one should strive to operate within environments that require a sufficient high baseline of education to even be there. And it should be a place where resources is no big deal.
One could also screen for people that had the right upbringing.

Ain't hard to figure out what environments that suit these parameters

This is why I flee closed-minded people like the plague. They become very dangerous when exposed to something "different" to what they've always known and that gives them the sense of security they constantly crave.

I don't know, but maybe we can have better chances with people who aren't threatened by extreme possibilities - UFOs, conspiracies, etc.

That's why the simplest jobs are the most difficult for us aspies to keep - because the simplest people are the quickest to feel threatened by a "different" colleague.

I think parenting is such a strong determinant that these open-minded people who aren't threatened by the "different" and sometimes even welcome it can be found anywhere. I read a story about such a woman in one of the poorest and most primitive places in Africa. That's the problem, it's a lifetime job of finding the pearl among the oysters...

I live in a tiny and fundamentalist country, so for me not much hope. If you live in a huge, first world country, your chances are better, I think.

Fundamentalist country? sounds like middle east or asia.

Anyway the game changer is the internet. It can be used to bypass the whole NT goo.

OT, but: While people with kids can be more patient and accepting, there are plenty of parents who see danger everywhere.



I honestly think parenting is way overrated here. Parents can tell their kids to be nice as much as they want, but the kid will still do what they want the moment they turn their back to them. Kids don't need to learn bullying, it's innate. Some research show that it starts as early as age 2 or 3, and kids who are seen as bullies or victims at that age (although the experts disagree on whether or not you can call it bullying in day care age), are the same that are bullies or victims in school.
I tend to recognise the bully type, the predator type, immediately, and they me, so there is some innate thing there.


Very good question.

I think it's more down to the individual than anything else.


I think dazedorconfused is right about us being able to be predators in another setting, If civilization were to break down, I would definitely do what it took to keep my family fed; steal and hide food, even kill perceived or real threats. If it's 'us or them', I pick 'us' every time, and I'm enough of a hoarder and worrier that I'd take more than I needed if the opportunity presented itself. But so would pretty much every one else too, I think. Once the rules of civilization are not in effect, wouldn't it be everyone against everyone?
Would most really sit there and starve with their own tribe? I'm not sure we'd be here today if that 'solution' had been that frequent.
I don't know how it would play out in a tribal environment, but I can't imagine not keeping food for my own in times of need, while I would not cheat my beloved ones at all.
Keeping anyone off food directly would depend on me having that kind of power, though.