|
|
|
|
|
|
by iamnothere
3100 days ago
|
|
|
This is an interesting perspective. I would add that there may be multiple "healthy" modes of being human that are quite different, and some of these modes may be a small minority. In a small tribe these cognitive differences may have been valued (depending on the tribe of course!), but in our modern, highly systematized society these people are often considered a social "misfit" for being unable or unwilling to play along. For better or worse, the rules of society are designed by the neurotypical majority, who are often unable to see that the concept of "normal" is frequently just a fig leaf for the majority consensus. This can get wrapped up in politics through layers of metaphor but is rarely (if ever) engaged with directly in public debate. |
|
|
That's another way of putting it. I'm not sure the majority are neurotypical however.
I think, rather, "neurotypicality" is a background assumption of certain institutions because it's easier to design for an average even if it doesn't exist (no 1 human being is mean in every respect).
However those who experience life-long mental health, and esp. for most of their childhood, I think are overwhelmingly "conservative" in their personalities. And I think these sort do tend to find themselves in more elite/visible positions.
Political systems represent those who hold power. They do not represent a majority (power is the mechanism of representation, not mere existence).
In democracies, there is more "tending towards the majority". But still, it is very much a symptom of who can be elected, who is elected, etc.