Disability, “No True Scotsman,” And “Zero Sum Thinking”

Post Reply New Topic

The most outrageous conspiracy theories now reach and influence mainstream politics. Gut instinct, and just plain prejudice, are now rapidly replacing evidence to drive the most drastic actions at the very heart of our democracy. It seems like flawed reasoning has become something of a popular trend.

One of the things that makes this all so hard to cope with is that untrue and irrational arguments are presented in seemingly rational clothing.

And we find it not just in Right wing populism, or in the more radical fringes of the Left. Most smaller, more specific communities and subcultures have their own unhealthy relationships with flawed thinking. This includes the disability community, both from outside and within.

One bizarre example is the recent social media trend of “debunking” the accomplishments of well-known deaf and blind activist Hellen Keller. The core argument seems to be that Keller’s accomplishments were not her own, but instead engineered by others. It’s an idea based on a mix of unmoored skepticism and pure ableism. Since it seems so amazing that Helen Keller did so much, (or so the argument goes), maybe common sense tells us that she really didn’t after all.

“The name "No True Scotsman" comes from an odd example involving Scotsmen:

‘Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

So how does this formulation play out in discussions about disability?

The most common instance has to do with who is and isn’t considered “truly,” “significantly,” or “severely” disabled, and by extension, who can and can’t authentically represent the disability community. Here the conflict is typically between a disabled advocate and some variety of skeptic or opponent of something the advocate stands for.

These exchanges sound something like this:

Skeptic – “Really disabled people can’t take care of themselves or fully and responsibly exercise the same rights and freedoms others take for granted.”

Advocate – “But I’m disabled and I am able to take care of myself and exercise freedom responsibly.”

Skeptic – “Yes, you are. And good for you! But you’re not truly disabled.”

Arguments like this happen all the time in disability discourse, but maybe most often regarding autism. Autistic advocates who are able to speak, organize, and engage in effective advocacy for the rights of autistic people are often dismissed as not being genuinely autistic, or of being such a fundamentally different kind or “level” of autistic that their views and principles don’t apply. Instead of readjusting their idea of autism to allow for more competence and personal agency, these critics redefine autism to exclude and discredit inconvenient exceptions to their stereotypical views.

In an NBC “Today” story, newly elected autistic Pennsylvania Representative Jessica Bentham says:
”People will say, ‘Not everyone can be like you,’ … We have to change who we value and who we assign value to. I am not more valuable as a state representative than a kid who needs to communicate with an iPad.”

Essentially, Bentham is talking about how the “No True Scotsman” argument is used to discount or delegitimize autistic people who achieve certain markers of conventional success or capability. Rather than celebrated, their successes are used to sever them from other autistic people, or outright deny that they are autistic in any meaningful way.

Arguments like this are regularly used to justify disability policies and practices that might otherwise be regarded as outdated and overly restrictive – like subminimum wages, sheltered workshops, and residential facilities where disabled people’s lives are closely regulated and supervised.

Of course, “No True Scotsman” can also be a way for some disabled people to exclude other disabled people from membership in the community, or deny them disability rights and recognition.

“Zero-sum thinking, or zero-sum bias, is a cognitive bias used to describe when a person believes that a situation is a matter of win-lose or loss-gain. In other words, they believe one person’s loss is another person’s gain.”

Simply put, “Zero Sum” is a habit of thinking that assumes that any gain for one person or group requires a loss by another. As the familiar phrase goes, “One person’s gain is another’s loss.

“Zero Sum Thinking” is more of an instinct than a formal system of thought or strategy. Nor is it technically a logical fallacy, or always entirely false. Scarcity is often quite real, as is competition between equally justified groups for a seemingly limited supply of resources and attention. The problem is the tendency to view all situations involving goals and needs as competitive, and all collaboration as futile.

Meanwhile, even when it is more united, the disability community itself can’t seem to stop measuring its own power and social status by comparing its perceived position with that of other marginalized groups. The argument here is that disabled people are uniquely neglected and powerless in society, while “other minorities” seem to get much more attention, sympathy, and resources. But the implication is that disabled people need to fight for resources and attention against other “minorities,” rather than collaborate with them.

‘Zero Sum Thinking” may be the greatest single barrier to broad-based cooperation among people with all disabilities, between the organizations that represent them, and with all who seek freedom and equality.

The most common instance has to do with who is and isn’t considered “truly,” “significantly,” or “severely” disabled, and by extension, who can and can’t authentically represent the disability community. Here the conflict is typically between a disabled advocate and some variety of skeptic or opponent of something the advocate stands for.

Interesting read.
No true Scotsman: Don't we know it from experience? Actually, the author stresses autism as probably the most commonly affected by this fallacy. I believe "no true Scotsman" will always emerge when someone advocates for "one size fits all" solutions.

Zero-sum thinking is, I think, a problem affecting much broader society than just disability communities. It's feeding the wolf-eats-wolf "disposable" culture.

It is implicit in the "you don't look autistic" comment. There have also been comments at WP about "high-functioning" autistics that promote neurodiversity. The argument implies they are just using autism as a badge because it is cool, not because their autism is sever enough to be disabling and therefore not a true autistic. Similar things have been inferred about me at WP.

This was also a problem with the first version of the Americans with Disabilities Act, were courts would always side with employers as if the disability was so debilitating, then the employee could not meet the employment requirements in the first place. In other words, if you were disabled, you should not have been able to get the job in the first place and so you could not be discriminated against. The ADA was updated to solve this circular logic.

Here is an interesting piece on ADA and autism: People with Autism Spectrum Disorder in the Workplace: An Expanding Legal Frontier