How can Aspies be conservative except under duress?

Post Reply New Topic

Why do you think it is that we categorize conservatism and liberalism as philosophies, rather than strategies? Wouldn't you behave opportunistically in an environment with low risk and ample resources, and cautiously otherwise? Maybe that would be too sensible...

I'm opposed to unnecessary and overreaching restrictions on abortion, which I deem to be parental notification laws, and laws which force women to view an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion. However, I'm not opposed to bans on partial-birth abortion provided there are exceptions when medically necessary.

With that said, I personally think that comprehensive sex education in schools, as well as greater access to birth control and contraceptives for those who need it, would help bring abortion levels down.



I don't think churches should be forced to perform same-sex marriages, either. Although most people who object to same-sex marriage do so on religious grounds.



I agree with the rest of your points.

They have every right to be conservative as NTs.

I'm not sure this was worked in the UK. Contraceptives and birth control are much more widely available but we have some of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe (and probably abortion rates too).

The reason why I mentioned "dogmas onto impressionable children" is that I am thinking about both sides - i.e. the Marxist left-wing pro-abortionist lobby and also the illiberal anti-abortion anti-gay Christian (or Muslim) religious lobby also. Neither having an influence on education is good.

That could be due to a number of underlying factors and not necessarily because of the wide availabality of birth control. Are the contraceptives being used properly? What is the nature of the sex education curriculum?

directly from the explanations of my cousins in ireland,

beyond abysmal and with no shred of objectivity, then again it is a catholic school they are attending.

Eh, I get the feeling that RikersBeard is just a conservative putting a positive spin on the matter. I mean, the needs of society above the needs of an individual is pretty common as a political justification. Even some libertarians use a similar kind of justification, in that utilitarianism puts greater needs above lesser needs.

Just some points to clear up:

First, merry Christmas and happy holidays.

Second, I live in Eastern Iowa, USA right now, so my perspective on conservatism comes from experiencing the highly evangelical/Catholic/Lutheran strain found here, not so much the British Tories; much of the replies seem to refer to the latter, so please do not presume any specific judgment on British politics here but apply what you will as appropriate.

Third, I respect spirituality but feel that organized religion can impose socially conservative ideas and even endorse socially organized power structures on "impressionable young people." However, I am under the impression, as an Aspie who has been told a lot of things by the NT majority, that while we are stereotyped as gullible in terms of individual facts or social situations, we are well-equipped to adjust our ideas to new knowledge and therefore difficult to indoctrinate to a lasting degree, therefore I wonder how we could ever be acclimatized to tradition in an organic way. I could attempt to follow traditions or express the "correct" dogmatic viewpoint on certain things as organized religion or any other social code dictates, but I doubt that I could ever, even with years of trying to pick up the habit, make the process natural, as it just isn't in what I see as my neurology to do so. It would be more of a strain than it's worth, but I see how an NT would feel "natural" doing it if that's how they're wired.

Some aspies like their rituals. Traditions are to some extent, a form of ritual.

Also, expressing a correct dogmatic view point can be done through two different mechanisms:
1) A lack of interest. An aspie who is not deeply interested will probably just adopt an opinion they are told to adopt like many other people would be.
2) A methodology and set of biases that promote the claim that this "correct" viewpoint is the correct viewpoint(or close enough to it so that the person expressing the correct view will not be a heretic). So, for instance, if an Aspie goes down an intellectual path, even if this path has justifications that appear circular, or weightings of variables that appear wrong, this can have the "correct" viewpoint as a result. The issue is that going down a bizarre intellectual path is reasonable if your sources and background encourage it. So, while an Aspie may be more likely to be unconventional as a conservative, they can still do so in this kind of a matter. (This is not very common, simply because it is very likely that a person going this direction will splinter off into heretical beliefs, but the point is possibility)

I can understand this, particularly if you think religion is obvious nonsense. If you just didn't have an opinion about it one way or the other, you might just convert though. However, if you are raised in religion and are taught to think about it a certain way, you may easily buy many of the justifications for the "correct" beliefs, or buy a justification that leads you close enough.

If I was a Christian I would say that article isn't representative of conservative Christian.
In UK Conservatism doesn't imply religion. Just political conservative.

I remember saying religion and socialism appear where science and truth are absent.
Though I do have a limited tolerance for religion as it evolves many positive traits, that
we are neglecting in modern society.

I realize that family traditions have an impact, even on a hypothetical, nonspecific person on the spectrum, perhaps an even larger one than for neurotypicals more likely to be absorbed into the broader community.

However, I'm not sure, even if an autistic became the most knowledgeable expert imaginable on a particular holy text or body of clerical law, that that autistic would be able to join the spiritual community of the congregation in its social and political initiatives any more integrally than the rest of the social milieus they inhabit. Of course, it could happen, but it would take some exceptional patience and open-mindedness on the part of the NT congregationers for this to happen, especially among those with significant social sway in the congregation.

I think this situation is more applicable to theist religions, which tend to be characterized by group worship of a particular god or otherworldly pantheon and rely on group ceremonies (e.g., mass or Friday prayers) [i]in addition to individual consultations[i] (e.g., confession) to knit the (usually at least semi-sedentary) community together on a fairly regular basis, usually offering services of some sort at least a few times a month. Theism allows individual belief in a God but renders worship practice dependent on social exposure and therefore some form of social interaction in a crowded public place. In animist religions, on the other hand, which tend to be characterized more or less exclusively by individual or small-group consultations (although Buddhism isn't strictly animist, some sects do meet the profile as well), with group ceremonies typically being less frequent or the domain of the secular chief, the autistic has less pressure to integrate socially to "prove" their spirituality and can therefore develop it in a way that feels more natural to them. Indeed, many have speculated on the possible presence of high-functioning autistics in the roles of shamans or media, relied on for their keen senses and objective detachment to provide wise observations on the natural world, a role that would be called science in a theist culture but is clearly religious to animists who view the entire material world as infused with spirits rather than impressions of a far-off god.

When philosophy and religion split in theism-land, we the autists were separated from the predominantly religious society as the philosophers, and when science and philosophy split, we were further isolated as the scientists, particularly after the post-Enlightenment capitalist-socialist dichotomy and the Industrial Revolution made science more of a tool for other ends than a human art in its own right. Monasticism is the closest theism comes to a compromise, and even then it relies on the principle of functional segregation rather than functional integration to fulfill its ends.

Are you just saying that autistics will do no better in religious groups than other groups? The issue is that autistics can arrive at some degree of success. The other issue is that there are issues with how well the autistic is known in the community, and the nature of the community that do vary. I mean, you have to realize that many evangelical communities accept their intellectual leaders as actually having some leadership, and this is despite the fact that these figures do not tow the status quo line in the clearest manners.


The problem is that this determines very little. Even if your thesis, that autistics have a better time with religious structures less typical for our society, is true, it says nothing about whether some autistics will join the typical religious structure. The problem is that theism is really a mixed bag. There are social factors, however, these social factors include some indoctrination, as well as rituals, and in religions with canonical texts, it provides theology. I can see an autistic mining Revelations for eschatological claims with some ease, actually, so this leads me to fail to understand your point.


While I recognize that philosophy and religion split... I do not recognize this as opposing forces. Religious philosophers have existed, and exist to this day. The notion of an autistic religious philosopher, or theologian does not appear bizarre to me. Even further, saying "autists are inclined to philosophy" does not mean that ALL OF THEM are going to be philosophical as opposed to religious.


I am not sure about that. You're assuming that autism entails an empirical bent. I don't think it does, actually. Some of the people who I think have autistic characteristics actually appeared to really side more with rationalism and enjoyed the formalisms provided by philosophy. Many people we have suspected of autism have been great mathematicians, rather than great empiricists.


Honestly, I am deeply confused by your claims. If we are "the scientists" then surely we must recognize that tendencies are not the same as laws. This means that every single consideration that you provide, even if the tendency is real, does not justify your claims that autistics will not be traditional and conservative theists. I mean, the simple fact of the matter is that most people are somewhat passive and accept the world they are taught to believe. The idea that autistics will necessarily deviate should be held to a higher scrutiny for that reason alone. Even further, I get the feeling that your views on animism are personal more than something deeper, as if anything, my experience suggests autistics are more likely to enter "free thought" ideas such as agnosticism, atheism, or even deism than animism, which is more associated with New Age ideas and New Age is very very non-aspie due to it's lack of sense of order. (I would even guess the next-best would be a form of theism above animism because most theisms side with the Enlightenment project at least by paying lipservice to science and to absolute truth, while New Age ideas, which animism is more associated with, do not side with the Enlightenment at all but rather tend towards postmodernism)

Here's something that I think will help you get a grasp onto why religious conservatism is something an Aspie could be sucked into: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNtnN_DiP3o[/youtube]

The issue is that despite the joking nature of this, there are a LOT of conservative Christian religious nerds, and some of the examples are pretty true to life. (like the bickering over the source text, etc)

A lot of it is down to the welfare state (especially teenage pregnancies but probably abortion too). It encourages this sort of behaviour via various benefit packages for, generally ill-educated, women.

I think in Britain there is a big lack of people taking responsibility for their actions which also explains it.

The general trend, in First World countries at least, appears to be toward "protection" from responsibility.

Is American conservatisim the same as British conservatism? In Britain our conservative party care only about themselves and a few rich people. They say they want people to be hard working and inovative but they don't help them to do so. They give crap education and have been doing for many years.

Labour are not much better but at least they sound like they care about the ordinary person. Lib Dems don't even need to be mentioned when it comes to politics.