Likewise, people with Williams syndrome may only need atypical caregivers and institutions because the type of care they need is abnormal in our society (unlike the type of care that consists of paying other people to make your food and bring it to stores near you). If almost everyone had Williams syndrome, maybe we would need supervisers.
I think that last “would” was supposed to be a “wouldn’t”, but still, I don’t think so. The deficits are just too severe. If everyone had Williams syndrome, we wouldn’t have a civilisation. Not all disabilities are socially constructed.
If average adult height was three feet, or eight feet, we could still have a civilisation like the one we have. Only when you’re a three or eight foot adult in a world of 5 to 6.5 footers does your height make things difficult. But lack of mental capacity is not like that. Mental capacity, not height, is what has given us our civilization, and if we were markedly stupider we would not have the civilization.
Williams Syndrome is not just “increased friendliness”. It is a whole constellation of changes, mostly for the worse. This is the sort of thing that happens when you just hack off a chunk of a chromosome.
If you want the good parts but not the bad, fine, but that isn’t Williams Syndrome any more.
I think that last “would” was supposed to be a “wouldn’t”
I meant “we, people without Williams syndrome”.
If everyone had Williams syndrome, we wouldn’t have a civilisation.
Plausible, but reversal test: there’s a saying among certain autistic groups that if there were no autistics, we’d still be gossiping over a raw mammoth leg in a cave. In the everyone-is-an-autie world, maybe AlternateRichardKennaway is saying “If everyone had neurotypicality, we wouldn’t have a civilisation”. Still, yeah, it’s quite possible that we’re on average just smart enough for civilisation but no smarter. (Also autism isn’t a raw intelligence increase, whereas raw intelligence decreases are common and Williams causes one, so that’s another asymmetry.)
Still, yeah, it’s quite possible that we’re on average just smart enough for civilisation but no smarter.
We evolved to this level of intelligence gradually, not in a single hop. Given that the length of time we have had a civilisation for is pretty much nothing in evolutionary terms, I would guess that we are pretty much exactly at the minimum level of intelligence necessary for a civilisation.
Yup, that’s what makes it quite possible. Not drop-dead obvious, though—there’s nonzero selection pressure for intelligence even now, environment has a huge load to do with intelligence so there are possibly big gains between the beginning to civilization and now, maybe civilization-making magic happens with enough geniuses (genii?) or is prevented by too many too stupid people so variance (and maybe population) matters more than average.
I’m not sure how much you’re agreeing or disagreeing there. To me, the mental deficits of Williams Syndrome are the showstopper. There are lots of other ways in which people can and do vary, and where we happen to be on those scales isn’t necessarily the way we would have to be, to have got here at all.
I think that last “would” was supposed to be a “wouldn’t”, but still, I don’t think so. The deficits are just too severe. If everyone had Williams syndrome, we wouldn’t have a civilisation. Not all disabilities are socially constructed.
If average adult height was three feet, or eight feet, we could still have a civilisation like the one we have. Only when you’re a three or eight foot adult in a world of 5 to 6.5 footers does your height make things difficult. But lack of mental capacity is not like that. Mental capacity, not height, is what has given us our civilization, and if we were markedly stupider we would not have the civilization.
Williams Syndrome is not just “increased friendliness”. It is a whole constellation of changes, mostly for the worse. This is the sort of thing that happens when you just hack off a chunk of a chromosome.
If you want the good parts but not the bad, fine, but that isn’t Williams Syndrome any more.
I meant “we, people without Williams syndrome”.
Plausible, but reversal test: there’s a saying among certain autistic groups that if there were no autistics, we’d still be gossiping over a raw mammoth leg in a cave. In the everyone-is-an-autie world, maybe AlternateRichardKennaway is saying “If everyone had neurotypicality, we wouldn’t have a civilisation”. Still, yeah, it’s quite possible that we’re on average just smart enough for civilisation but no smarter. (Also autism isn’t a raw intelligence increase, whereas raw intelligence decreases are common and Williams causes one, so that’s another asymmetry.)
We evolved to this level of intelligence gradually, not in a single hop. Given that the length of time we have had a civilisation for is pretty much nothing in evolutionary terms, I would guess that we are pretty much exactly at the minimum level of intelligence necessary for a civilisation.
Yup, that’s what makes it quite possible. Not drop-dead obvious, though—there’s nonzero selection pressure for intelligence even now, environment has a huge load to do with intelligence so there are possibly big gains between the beginning to civilization and now, maybe civilization-making magic happens with enough geniuses (genii?) or is prevented by too many too stupid people so variance (and maybe population) matters more than average.
I’m not sure how much you’re agreeing or disagreeing there. To me, the mental deficits of Williams Syndrome are the showstopper. There are lots of other ways in which people can and do vary, and where we happen to be on those scales isn’t necessarily the way we would have to be, to have got here at all.
Williams Syndrome isn’t all or nothing, BTW. Some anecdotal data.