Most of the “reading people” done by neurodivergent people (especially former abuse victims) is simply developing the ability to diagnose people with the same disordered traits as their abuser. For example, if your abuser suffered from anger issues, it’s quickly identifying when a stranger struggles with anger.
However, discriminating against people based on mental disorders is wrong.
You know when a dog was abused by a woman, and then it barks at all women? Yeah, it’s that. Just more specific.
You might think so, and yet it’s something that has actually been proven right time and time again for me. It’s what people call “gut instinct”. It has kept me safe, and the times when I’ve ignored it because of “oh it’s probably a false alarm” I’ve come to regret later on
It sounds like woo-woo maybe, but why? You don’t think that it’s possible to tell if, say, someone doesn’t actually care about others? If they, say, only see them as tools to be used? If you had a trump-like figure put in front of you for 5 minutes, how much would you be able to figure out in that 5 minutes? Quite a lot I’d say
So why is it unreasonable to think that you can’t tell?
Any time the police train an AI to predict crimes, it becomes racist. It turns out, harassing black people is statistically an effective way to predict crime. Because centuries of harassment, profiling, oppression, slavery, and et cetera have created the socioeconomic conditions to produce crime.
Likewise, if your goal is purely to prevent conflict in an amoral way, you should indeed exclude all neurodivergent people. Autistic people could misunderstand social norms. ADHD people could fail to honour commitments. BPD people could cause drama. NPD people could demean others. Schizophrenic people could imagine threats.
You’re right, it’s mathematically effective to trust the neural network heuristic in your head to tell you which people are trouble. It’s also wrong. It’s discriminatory. You will legitimately solve problems by excluding people who are different, and you will also deny those people an opportunity to show they are more than meets the eye.
If you had a trump-like figure put in front of you for 5 minutes, how much would you be able to figure out in that 5 minutes? Quite a lot I’d say
I don’t need microexpressions to tell that Trump is a liar. Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. Billions of neurotypicals have seen him talk, and hate him. You’re not talking about a skill shared by billions of neurotypicals. You’re talking about a special autistic superpower to read people. I don’t think it’s magic, I think it’s profiling.
Most of the “reading people” done by neurodivergent people (especially former abuse victims) is simply developing the ability to diagnose people with the same disordered traits as their abuser. For example, if your abuser suffered from anger issues, it’s quickly identifying when a stranger struggles with anger.
However, discriminating against people based on mental disorders is wrong.
You know when a dog was abused by a woman, and then it barks at all women? Yeah, it’s that. Just more specific.
I don’t know how you got “discriminating against people based on mental disorder” from “realizing they are not a safe person”
Those are not the same things at all.
I have also the same experience as the other commenter, and I tend to get along well with people with mental health issues that are actually safe
The idea that you can tell someone’s moral character from microexpressions is hippie woo-woo.
The idea that you can detect the presence of mental disorders from microexpressions is quite valid.
I assume that what you can do is physically possible. Therefore, it must be the latter.
You might think so, and yet it’s something that has actually been proven right time and time again for me. It’s what people call “gut instinct”. It has kept me safe, and the times when I’ve ignored it because of “oh it’s probably a false alarm” I’ve come to regret later on
It sounds like woo-woo maybe, but why? You don’t think that it’s possible to tell if, say, someone doesn’t actually care about others? If they, say, only see them as tools to be used? If you had a trump-like figure put in front of you for 5 minutes, how much would you be able to figure out in that 5 minutes? Quite a lot I’d say
So why is it unreasonable to think that you can’t tell?
Any time the police train an AI to predict crimes, it becomes racist. It turns out, harassing black people is statistically an effective way to predict crime. Because centuries of harassment, profiling, oppression, slavery, and et cetera have created the socioeconomic conditions to produce crime.
Likewise, if your goal is purely to prevent conflict in an amoral way, you should indeed exclude all neurodivergent people. Autistic people could misunderstand social norms. ADHD people could fail to honour commitments. BPD people could cause drama. NPD people could demean others. Schizophrenic people could imagine threats.
You’re right, it’s mathematically effective to trust the neural network heuristic in your head to tell you which people are trouble. It’s also wrong. It’s discriminatory. You will legitimately solve problems by excluding people who are different, and you will also deny those people an opportunity to show they are more than meets the eye.
I don’t need microexpressions to tell that Trump is a liar. Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. Billions of neurotypicals have seen him talk, and hate him. You’re not talking about a skill shared by billions of neurotypicals. You’re talking about a special autistic superpower to read people. I don’t think it’s magic, I think it’s profiling.