O.G. Rose | 5. Belonging Again II.1 (Book 1, Chapter II, Section 1) by O.G. Rose (Live Audio) @O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel | Uploaded October 2024 | Updated October 2024, 9 hours ago.
Everything I know about neurodivergence is thanks to Lorenzo Barberis Canonico, and the piece “Neurodiversity Overcomes Rational Impasses and Stops Eugenics” (which I will incorporate here) found in Thoughts explores some of the ideas which I learned from Lorenzo (and I suggest to everyone his presentation “Christianity & Bioethics: How to Defeat Eugenics with Collective Intelligence”). Lorenzo discusses the famous “Prisoner’s Dilemma” and how rational individuals in that dilemma will produce irrational outcomes—the only way for a person to escape this “trap” is for someone to act nonrationally. Lorenzo makes a point not to say “irrationally,” for if the final outcome of a “nonrational” act is “the best outcome” for everyone involved (such as the case in the Prisoner’s Dilemma), it wouldn’t make sense to call it “irrational.” And yet it doesn’t fit to say “rational” either, for those involved had to act against their (apparent) self-interest in order to achieve “the best outcome.”
What kind of people think nonrationally though? Not “neurotypical people,” for they would do what was rational and find themselves stuck (which suggests “normal” and “best” aren’t always aligned). States where rationality led to “suboptimal results” is what I have called “Rational Impasses,” which the famous “Nash Equilibrium” helps us identify. To offer a definition, a “Rational Impasse” is a situation in which rationality keeps itself from reaching its overall best outcome, and that means we cannot improve our situation by being more rational. Lorenzo’s address is neurodiversity, with a nod to Deleuze and primacy of “difference”...
Find on Amazon today:
amazon.com/Belonging-Again-Address-Part-II-1-ebook/dp/B0D1PN8VG4?ref_=ast_author_mpb
For the full list of II.1 entries, please see:
o-g-rose-writing.medium.com/list/belonging-again-part-ii1-by-og-rose-9787b7ecc50d
Everything I know about neurodivergence is thanks to Lorenzo Barberis Canonico, and the piece “Neurodiversity Overcomes Rational Impasses and Stops Eugenics” (which I will incorporate here) found in Thoughts explores some of the ideas which I learned from Lorenzo (and I suggest to everyone his presentation “Christianity & Bioethics: How to Defeat Eugenics with Collective Intelligence”). Lorenzo discusses the famous “Prisoner’s Dilemma” and how rational individuals in that dilemma will produce irrational outcomes—the only way for a person to escape this “trap” is for someone to act nonrationally. Lorenzo makes a point not to say “irrationally,” for if the final outcome of a “nonrational” act is “the best outcome” for everyone involved (such as the case in the Prisoner’s Dilemma), it wouldn’t make sense to call it “irrational.” And yet it doesn’t fit to say “rational” either, for those involved had to act against their (apparent) self-interest in order to achieve “the best outcome.”
What kind of people think nonrationally though? Not “neurotypical people,” for they would do what was rational and find themselves stuck (which suggests “normal” and “best” aren’t always aligned). States where rationality led to “suboptimal results” is what I have called “Rational Impasses,” which the famous “Nash Equilibrium” helps us identify. To offer a definition, a “Rational Impasse” is a situation in which rationality keeps itself from reaching its overall best outcome, and that means we cannot improve our situation by being more rational. Lorenzo’s address is neurodiversity, with a nod to Deleuze and primacy of “difference”...
Find on Amazon today:
amazon.com/Belonging-Again-Address-Part-II-1-ebook/dp/B0D1PN8VG4?ref_=ast_author_mpb
For the full list of II.1 entries, please see:
o-g-rose-writing.medium.com/list/belonging-again-part-ii1-by-og-rose-9787b7ecc50d
