Summary of a short exchange I had with a psychologist, which reflects views I have had since college in the early 2000s. I might be wrong, but to be clear, my view is :
1. The term neurodivergent is in the dictionary.
2. The term is furthermore used as jargon in the field of psychology.
3. In the field, the term refers to statistical deviation from a set of behaviours deemed to be normal.
4. I have referred to neurodivergence as a 'pleb term' .
5. I make this reference because I do not find it agreeable that the field has defined a set of behaviours deemed normal, without clearly highlighting that these normal behaviours are defined based on cultural norms, which are social facts, but of no other meta-ethical foundation. ( My view is that all moral positions are arbitrary, and to pick one as normal is a blight upon society, and the intelligence of people. )
6. Moreover it is disingenuous to frame psychology as a discipline, at this point in time, as having a seamless rooting in the natural sciences. So norms in psychology are neither rooted in clear meta-ethical foundations nor the natural sciences ... they are very much cultural norms.
7. I believe it is appropriate to refer to people who endorse specific cultural norms as 'plebs', and therefore I believe it is appropriate to refer to neurodivergence, which assumes specific cultural terms, also as a 'pleb term'.
8. What is most annoying is the concept of diagnoses based on social behaviour, which are classified as neurological instead of cultural. With regards to what sort of social behaviour is deemed normal, much of these are differences in cultural preference. Yes, all culture supervenes on neural states. No, please do not refer to behaviours as neurological rather than cultural, UNLESS THERE IS A WELL-DEFINED NEUROLOGICAL PATHWAY to be declared diverged from.
Further banter :
... the designation of a normal range of behaviour is political engineering. Just because most of us feel good when people smile and return smiles doesn't mean
- (1) the underlying neural pathway is simple, or thoroughly mapped,
- (2) that anyone should be socially obliged to comply with a social norm, even if that social norm has a simple or thoroughly understood underlying neural pathway.
The socio/cultural elevation of
- (i) a high frequency behaviour to
- (ii) an informally expected behaviour (see high-context culture), to
- (iii) a formally expected behaviour (low-context culture),
is a very distinct progression, that needs examination, lest people abuse each other about expectations without having established rules of abuse. 😛
Further banter :
re :"study of psychiatry is by definition difficult to formalise, whereas there are many existing bridges to neurology, and we still know so little about the sum of all parts" :
I think we are in complete agreement about (i) the state of the art (ii) the reasons for the current state of the art.
We probably differ in 'socio/cultural/political' preference, about what sort of language/behaviours should be condoned in the public sphere, given (i).
I have a specific view of the world which is quite boring ... I actually find that every iota of my personal experience is quantifiable, so I am not waiting for the rest of the world to come to the same conclusion. I simply live my life, and exert my politics in the world, based on my personal experience.
Culture is software ; meat is wetware ; as information systems, cultures are much, much simpler than meat. Which is why the current attempt to implement AI by modelling the meat is so wasteful.
All the best, to everyone else, who does the same from their various normal/non-normal points of view 😃
No comments :
Post a Comment