Finally, this may manifest itself into a lot more “simulating” of the world instead of directly acting upon it. When you just “get” the context you’re in and how to act at an intuitive level, you don’t really think about it, rumination and speculation are unnecessary because the first action that comes to you is usually correct, or at least not fatally embarrassing. Or rather, the kind of “simulation” you will run will be evidence-based, treating people as black-boxes or alien agents that you don’t really “get”, whereas a normal person could just go the empathy route and think that their behavior in a given situation is mostly analogous to anyone else’s.
Other way of looking at it:
This is why permissive and diverse cultures end up with the best minds and inventions.
Mix people, put people around others that don’t agree with them (for reasons that need not be genetic*). A setup that challenges people more like this may help them learn.
Having taken a stab at it, I think your model is better (although the view above might suggest ways to help ‘regular people’). It’s a better explanation of the phenomena. (Though more diverse groups existing in a society sort of facilitates this kind of conflict:
It could be that you are raised by ex-van-dwelling-hippies but attend a catholic school in a nationalist-leaning town.
)
*Is there work trying to predict religion based on genes?
Other way of looking at it:
Mix people, put people around others that don’t agree with them (for reasons that need not be genetic*). A setup that challenges people more like this may help them learn.
Having taken a stab at it, I think your model is better (although the view above might suggest ways to help ‘regular people’). It’s a better explanation of the phenomena. (Though more diverse groups existing in a society sort of facilitates this kind of conflict:
)
*Is there work trying to predict religion based on genes?