NT Mental and Emotional Handicaps: Your Thoughts?

Post Reply New Topic

This is from a blog by a guy who calls himself Izgad. If you get a change to read through it, please do. And no, I'm not him.

http://izgad.blogspot.com/2010/03/neuro ... al_19.html

I came across his blog while doing an internet search, and in this particular piece, I find his mindset seems to match my own. While it's his personal theory, it's fascinating how much of what he shares seemed to match my personal mindset long before I'd ever heard of Asperger's.

His general premise is that NTs collectively organize in hierarchies, and even the underlings abide by the system because they hope to move up within it. Whereas his view is individually based, and that society is, and should be, a collection of individuals. Moreover, he touches on a reality that for most people emotions are given as much legitimacy as rational thought, and why he feels having to abide by such is counter to the liberty of the individual.

But don't respond based on my synopsis. If you get at change, read through it and share your thoughts.

It's an interesting point of view and I understand what he's trying to achieve by saying things should not be run on emotions but on reason alone.

I've always known the hierarchical stuff too and that if a person is benefiting from their place in the hierarchical structure they will have no incentive to want to change anything

There's two problems as I see it:-

1. It's one thing to say 'keep emotions out of it' but another to effect it - it can't be done in my opinion. Most humans are inherently emotionally-biased.

2. How is reason/rational thought being defined? People are going to have their own subjective definitions of it so you will
still have problems reaching a single, universally agreed stance on anything.

From what I gather:

1. He admits that it's not 100% possible, as it would be "social suicide" since the majority of people abide by this system. Nonetheless, just because it's prevalent doesn't mean it's "right," at least I think that's what he means.

2. It's not so much about reaching common ground on defining rational. It's a rejection of the idea that one person's personal feelings are enough to justify mistreatment of someone else. And it's not just one NT allowing his emotions to justify such abuse, but how other NTs seem to stand in solidarity with such emotion-based "rationale."

Yes, he doesn't like 'how society is' - a lot of us don't

When you aren't thriving in society you are resentful towards it; if you are thriving you think it's just fine

His very perspective is based on emotions I would say ie being annoyed with the way his feelings aren't taken into account by NTs

When you're in the minority this kind of thing tends to happen ie you don't 'count'; you don't have a voice that's going to be listened to or taken account of

You can either try and change the system or disengage from it - I prefer to do mainly the latter, with some low level efforts to effect change but nothing that's going to wear me out

he's effectively trying to get humans to act more like machines

Perhaps we need to be governed by robots to ensure that things are run in a non-emotional manner

Agree and disagree.

It's a good point you make about rejects taking issue with their rejection.

Personally, however, I feel that even if a magic wand was waved and I was suddenly became socially successful, I'd still agree with this article because I've lived it. I can't say for sure as I'm not in that position, but after experiencing life the way I have, acceptance into such a system would not make me accept/embrace the system that is.

I can't speak for the author, but the general premise isn't just emotional. In theory, it isn't just about him, or me, or you, but rather a universal ideal that seems like it should naturally apply to all, even though in reality this isn't the case.

But if you'd always been socially successful, with no experience of what it's like to not be, can you be so sure you wouldn't just be happily enjoying the benefits, completely oblivious to how it feels to be on the 'losing' side?

Life is very unfair - taking this fact on board helps me to cope better than expecting the system to start taking my needs into account any time soon

Animals get a very hard deal from humans but are we likely to stop using them in all manner of cruel ways just because it's essentially unjust? No

Chicken or the egg?

Is my lack of success the reason I came to question these things. Or is my natural propensity to question these things the reason I'm unsuccessful, that my mind set doesn't adhere to the norm?

I don't want to drag in nationalism, but as an American, much of what the author advocates is what, ideally, Americans should value or are told to value in our ideals of liberty. I can see why implementing such concepts were revolutionary and quite miraculous that they even came to form a basis in law.

The guy addresses this when he talks about special interest groups see securing their rights in the sense of a GROUP, rather than as individuals who want to secure their individual freedoms.

A lot depends on how a person defines success
I re-define it to suit my situation

People have to work together as groups to gain influence and power - this is where the NT strategy will always beat the Asperger one as we are too individualist to come together as one voice, hence we will always lack power and influence

No a world run on no emotion would be colder than it is now and far more barbaric.

Compassion, love, empathy...all vital. Human beings are not robots.

You need a balanced mixture of reason and emotion. Not one or the other.

The problem is societies overemphasis on success, materialism, status and power....These kinds of desires etc are what drive most of the problems within society and people are brainwashed into believing that if they don't live up to them they are defective in some way.

These things make the world the way it is.

Life is not about success for me, life is about pursuing my passions, love, developing my understanding, learning and sometimes just being alive so that I can experience the beauty of the planet I live on through my various senses.

I want to opt out of 'society (as much as I am able) and adopt a slightly more natural way of life (with a few useful mod cons thrown in) for that reason.

I don't think I could live a life without the beauty of emotions such as love and passion and I don't think I would want to live a life without any reason or logic at all either. They both have their benefits. The trick is learning how to use them wisely in beneficial ways...not abolishing one of them completely!! !! !! !!

There are reasons I love both art and science and can never decide which one I adore more.....! Ergo why I always have interests related to both...

If I cannot do something creative (which is often emotion based as it is about expression a lot of the time) I can become depressed and if I do not feed my intellectual mind I can become bored and fed up.

It is about finding the right balance (both in regards to my interests and society), one that allows things to run more smoothly.

I agree. Any action can be rationalized. It is emotional reactions (like disgust and horror) which get people to fight against barbaric actions.

Consider slavery. In a social system run entirely on rationality and reason, slavery is ok. It is entirely rational to own slaves and work them mercilessly until they die. The only cost is very minimal food and housing plus armed enforcement to keep them in line. It isn't fair and it's a horrible thing to do but "fair" and "horrible" are concepts rooted in emotion. If you are guided by nothing but reason, then the only reason not to have slaves is if the costs of keeping and controlling them are greater than the benefits of free labor.


The concept of "rights" is an emotional concept, not a rational one. Without emotion guiding social systems, ethics aren't possible. There is only pragmatism. And the pragmatic thing to do is sopmetimes to brutalize people so that you can get maximum benefit out of them. Criminal organizations are run on pure rationality (although the people occupying the low rungs of those organizations are likely to be irrational).

Emotion without reason leads to chaos. But reason without emotion leads to sociopathy. Balance is needed.

I'm the OP. It's interesting how people can read a piece and have different responses. But while you both raise good points, I have to ask, did you read the article?

The author never says the world should be void of emotion. And he openly states he too has emotion, we all do, that's not debated and that's not what the piece was even about.

Using your idea of balance, the author is stating that the scale is tipped too far in favor of emotion as opposed to reason. Meaning that it's unbalanced in the opposite direction.

More importantly, I saw this writing more as an observational analysis of some of the core fundamental differences between the NT and AS minds. It wasn't a "my life sucks, let's change the world now!" piece, I don't know how people came up with that.

And ultimately, his biggest gripe seems to be that others hold him in contempt if he fails to honor how they feel emotionally, while simultaneously not granting him the same respect regarding how he feels emotionally. And why should either party's emotion be the sole basis of whether or not to respect the other?

'Why is OK for you to allow your emotions to justify mistreating me, while not affording me the same respect? How can your emotion alone allow you to behave in a manor, while hypocritically not wanting to be treated that way yourself? Why is OK for you to have a feeling, and expect it to be justified and honored, but simultaneously OK for you not to afford me the same liberty?'

I think that was the message.

Oh, and he wasn't really talking about group behavior, but how members of this collective group behave as individuals, especially when interacting with an outsider, in this case himself.

Ironically on another thread, Ayn Rand - who advocated reason over everything, is being torn to shreds!

http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php? ... 65#5299365

The writer of the article in this thread is not saying anything new in other words.

I did read the article and much of it is fine until I got to this bit: 'Since the former is not practical, the only ethical solution is to say that no person's emotional concerns are of any value outside of their own heads.'

I would interpret that as being no different from NT behaviour. NT's often do not consider other peoples feelings and really don't care if they hurt them. That is part of the damned problem. They only consider the feelings of people they like and even then they are usually more concerned with the self than the other person.

Yes reason is needed so that the feelings and rights of all human beings are considered to be equal despite their status in life (I already live by this philosophy regardless of my whatever my neurology happens to be...I have no idea if I am NT or Aspie but I suspect ASD) but again balance is needed to achieve this...not going from one extreme to the other.

It may have less to do with neurology and more to do with moral development actually. My moral development was tested several times as advanced so maybe that is why I think the way I do, a strangers feelings are just as important to me as that of a close loved one regardless of their social status...I care little for status, power and hierarchy.

Perhaps we need to work on their moral development a little bit instead of doing the same to them as they do to others, or in other words instead of playing what seems to be a game of tit for tat.

No one ever wins when it becomes a tit for tat contest. War just breaks out!

PN I read the article very quickly during a bought of insomnia and will go back and read it again later when my neurons are more rested!

Emotion is a vital and largely inseparable aspect to reason. You can't remove it from your thought processes or act in a strictly unemotional manner. The rejection of emotion is itself an emotional argument. People who are truly without emotion have been found to have extreme difficulty making decisions. The lack of emotion significantly interferes with their ability to make rational decisions.

The notion that we can all exist as discrete individuals with no connection to anyone else is also fallacious. We all live in a system where some degree of dependence on others to meet some of our needs is virtually a requirement. I am not talking about disability, but about infrastructure, transportation systems, food production, shops, factories, and so on. Everyone is an individual but everyone is also part of a collective, perhaps part of multiple collectives.

@ Verdani:

With all due respect, did you read the article or any of the subsequent posts in this thread?

It seems like you just read my original post and misunderstand what the article is about.