zlacker

>>Anon84+(OP)
BTW, there's research that shows that schizotypy (schizotypal/schizophrenia) is sort of the opposite of autism. You have to squint your eyes a bit, for example both of these neurotypes involve social difficulties, like the subjective feeling of being alien in the world (known as Anderssein in German psychiatry). However if you peel off the social layer then the remaining autistic features become anti-correlated with the remaining schizotypal features on the scale of the population. There are also some decent theories that suggest this should be the case - for example in the predictive coding theory it is believed that autistic brains over-weigh sensory inputs over their model of the world, whereas schizotypal brains over-weigh their model of the world over the sensory inputs. Or the Big Five traits, openness to experience is usually low in autism and high in schizophrenia.

>>H8cril+ya
I think I understand what you mean.

You're saying that relative to the 'typical individual', autistic brains weigh sensory inputs more heavily than their internal model. And that in schizotypal brains, relative to the 'typical individual', the internal model is weighed more heavily than the sensory input, right?

I don't know much about this area, so I can't comment on the correctness. However, I think we should be cautious in saying 'over-weigh' and 'under-weigh' because I really do think that there may be a real normative undertone when we say 'over-weigh'. I think it needlessly elevates what the typical individual experiences into what we should consider to be the norm and, by implicit extension, the 'correct way' of doing cognition.

I don't say this to try to undermine the challenges by people with autism or schizotypy. However, I think it's also fair to say that if we consider what the 'typical' person really is and how the 'typical' person really acts, they frequently do a lot of illogical and --- simply-put --- 'crazy' things.

>>Unlist+Xe
>However, I think we should be cautious in saying 'over-weigh' and 'under-weigh' because I really do think that there may be a real normative undertone when we say 'over-weigh'. I think it needlessly elevates what the typical individual experiences into what we should consider to be the norm and, by implicit extension, the 'correct way' of doing cognition.

No biggie, there's a real normative undertone to the world in general too.

Norm itself means "what the majority does" or the socially (i.e. majority) accepted yardstick ("norma" in latin was a literal yardstick-like tool).

It's not about the typical person _always_ doing things in a better way, or the autistic person always doing things differently. It's about the distribution of typical vs atypical behavior. So, it's not very useful to characterize such atypical behavior better or worse based on absolute moral or technical judgement. Morality changes over time, cultures, and even social groups, to a bigger or smaller degree.

If, however, we use "degree of comformity with majority behaviors/expectations" as the measurement, autistics do perform worse on that.

>>coldte+kh
Norm is descriptive. Normative is prescriptive.

Knowing the difference is important to understanding and empathizing with the person you replied to.

>>kelsey+QH
Normative is just the adjective form of "related to norm" - can still be perfectly descriptive in use. The difference you allude do is more about the practical enforcement of a norm (or lack thereof), than the kind of the part of speech use to refer to it.

I 100% understand and empathize, doesn't mean I agree.

>>coldte+Sa1
> Normative is just the adjective form of "related to norm"

You might want to recheck the definition of normative. Yours is a non-standard usage and you will be misunderstood if you continue to use it that way.

Norm is is, Normative is ought.

> Normative: pertaining to giving directives or rules

> Synonyms: prescriptive