Some thoughts I had while reading the post, which seem even more relevant to your comment: insofar as we want to think about “how to handle weird people”, wheelchairs or deafness are the wrong analogy. Those are disabilities, but they’re disabilities which lots of people have, and therefore which most people already know about. Society has “standard APIs” for interfacing to wheelchairs/deafness/blindness/etc. They’re not really “weird” in the sense that society just doesn’t have APIs for them at all (though perhaps they are “weird” enough that those APIs aren’t implemented everywhere).
One of the things which makes weirdness specifically unusual/interesting is that we’re in a very-high-dimensional space, so there’s surprisingly many people who are very weird in ways which society simply does not have conceptual buckets for, at all. People who don’t fit the standard ontology of society. And what makes that weirdness uniquely interesting from a design standpoint is that, because high-dimensions, it’s plausibly not possible to build an API which will handle it all in advance.
From the perspective of a weird person, the main strategy this model suggests is: pick one of the standard APIs, whichever one works best for you, and use that. In other words, adopt a persona, something which matches some standard archetype which most people recognize, and play that role. For instance, I aim to give vague vibes of cartoon villainy, and that actually works remarkably well at getting people to interact with me the way I prefer.
From the perspective of a weird person, the main strategy this model suggests is: pick one of the standard APIs, whichever one works best for you, and use that.
I note that you seem to be arguing from a position of “make it work as best you can within the broken system” and that there is a separate mode of “try to fix the system,” and evaluating actions taken under one mode as if they are being taken under the other mode is a recipe for (wrongly) seeing someone as being silly or naive.
I do agree that your advice is pretty solid under the “make it work as best you can” strategy.
I am not quite sold on that being the right strategy.
Separately, it’s quite hard to do both at once but part of what you’re seeing is me trying to do both at once.
It feels like John came to the “make it work within a broken system” position because of his belief that “because high-dimensions, it’s plausibly not possible to build an API which will handle it all in advance”. I think I mostly believe this too, which is a bottleneck to me thinking that “try to fix the system” is a good strategy here.
I am highly sceptical of the idea that neurodivergence is rare in comparison to physical disability. Which numbers do you have in mind here? Even if we just count things like being highly gifted, autism and ADHD, the numbers are huge.
I am also sceptical of the idea that mental weirdness cannot be accommodated, because it is too individual.
People in wheelchairs are very, very different from each other. Some can walk, but the amount they can walk is unpredictable, so they are using a wheelchair to prevent a scenario where their steps for the day run out and they are stranded. Some have paralysed nerves, others malfunctioning ones, some are obese, some have joint diseases, some have muscle wasting diseases or chronic fatigue, many complex combinations of these. Wheelchairs and scooters are not the condition, which is varied, they are the measure taken for all these very different people to gain access.
Similar with people with visual impairments. You have people who are completely or partially blind in their eyes, from birth, or later in life. You can also have perfectly functioning eyes, but fascinating forms of cortical blindness, often acquired in adulthood such as through brain injury, such as blindsight, where they can do things like walk around obstacles and catch things, but not respond to them rationally and counterintuitively, because they cannot consciously see them, though their subconscious can. You have things like people seeing detailed textures and colours, but not shapes (which is bananas to think about when you realise they see multiple different textures and colours at once but still no shapes, e.g. someone seeing the exact texture and colour of your skin, and of your hair, and of your clothes, respectively, but they do not see a face or a human and these things have no spatial arrangement and connection). I know someone with partial cortical blindness who seemed completely normal and functional at a party in a dark room, then pulled out a cane when we left the building, and mentioned that she is completely incapable of using computer screens, because her body literally blanks when a certain light threshold is exceeded, so she works exclusively with screenreaders and tactile and audio input. If you focus less on how the specific person individually is, and more on things they say would help them, you still run into commonalities—like canes, support dogs, websites that operate with screen readers and do not need mouse input.
Similarly, if I offer varied forms of instruction in a classroom, the people who embrace a particular form and thrive with it are not identical, and might have different reasons for doing so. When my university recently replaced all light switches with an automatic and undimmable system of extremely bright white light, multiple people were super upset over this and requested control over light levels and their own space in their offices, and they had very different neurodivergencies that had them get stressed out over this. Similarly, the university currently wants to switch to none of us having desks and offices anymore and making everything flex spaces, and discussing this in groups on accessibility that are a crossover between physical disability and neurodivergence had us all very quickly hone in on aspects of this that were absolutely fucking with many of us, albeit for different reasons, from workspaces not customised to physical needs, to a lack of routine, to a lack of silence and privacy. If you include neurodivergent people in the planning process, and they consult other neurodivergent people, they tend to find that they are not alone in their problems. And while the result will still not fit everyone, it will include a lot more people, and that is a good thing.
But maybe having more buckets and more standard APIs is a big part of the solution. E.g. today we have buckets like “ADHD” and “autistic” with some draft APIs attached, but not that long ago those did not exist?
And the other part of it—maybe society need to be more careful not to round out the small buckets (e.g. the witness accounts example from the OP)?
I think this comment is pointing in the right direction. But I disagree with
E.g. today we have buckets like “ADHD” and “autistic” with some draft APIs attached
There are buckets, but I don’t know what the draft APIs would be. Unless you count “finding your own tribe and stay away from the neurotypicals” as an API.
In Europe at least, this is beginning to lead to accommodations like letting you work more from home, spend more time offline, getting a low sensory stimulation space for work and exams, skip excessive meetings, being allowed to move during meetings and work, being excused from social events, specialised tutoring, medication, therapy, etc.
Well, maybe I should have said “API in a drafting stage”, rather that an actual “draft API”, but I’d think today people tend to know these categories exist, and tend to at least to know enough to have some expectations of neuroatypical people having a [much?] wider range of possible reactions to certain things, compared to how a neuroatypical person would be expected to react, and many (most?) have at least a theoretical willingness to try to accommodate it. And then, maybe at least as importantly, given a name for the bucket and Google, people who are actually willing, can find more advice—not necessarily all equally helpful, but still.
Separately, I note that it doesn’t really feel like the above comment is an actual response to Logan? That’s sort of headlined by “some thoughts I had while reading” but I am in fact curious what you would say in direct response to Logan’s reply.
Some thoughts I had while reading the post, which seem even more relevant to your comment: insofar as we want to think about “how to handle weird people”, wheelchairs or deafness are the wrong analogy. Those are disabilities, but they’re disabilities which lots of people have, and therefore which most people already know about. Society has “standard APIs” for interfacing to wheelchairs/deafness/blindness/etc. They’re not really “weird” in the sense that society just doesn’t have APIs for them at all (though perhaps they are “weird” enough that those APIs aren’t implemented everywhere).
One of the things which makes weirdness specifically unusual/interesting is that we’re in a very-high-dimensional space, so there’s surprisingly many people who are very weird in ways which society simply does not have conceptual buckets for, at all. People who don’t fit the standard ontology of society. And what makes that weirdness uniquely interesting from a design standpoint is that, because high-dimensions, it’s plausibly not possible to build an API which will handle it all in advance.
From the perspective of a weird person, the main strategy this model suggests is: pick one of the standard APIs, whichever one works best for you, and use that. In other words, adopt a persona, something which matches some standard archetype which most people recognize, and play that role. For instance, I aim to give vague vibes of cartoon villainy, and that actually works remarkably well at getting people to interact with me the way I prefer.
I note that you seem to be arguing from a position of “make it work as best you can within the broken system” and that there is a separate mode of “try to fix the system,” and evaluating actions taken under one mode as if they are being taken under the other mode is a recipe for (wrongly) seeing someone as being silly or naive.
I do agree that your advice is pretty solid under the “make it work as best you can” strategy.
I am not quite sold on that being the right strategy.
Separately, it’s quite hard to do both at once but part of what you’re seeing is me trying to do both at once.
It feels like John came to the “make it work within a broken system” position because of his belief that “because high-dimensions, it’s plausibly not possible to build an API which will handle it all in advance”. I think I mostly believe this too, which is a bottleneck to me thinking that “try to fix the system” is a good strategy here.
I am highly sceptical of the idea that neurodivergence is rare in comparison to physical disability. Which numbers do you have in mind here? Even if we just count things like being highly gifted, autism and ADHD, the numbers are huge.
I am also sceptical of the idea that mental weirdness cannot be accommodated, because it is too individual.
People in wheelchairs are very, very different from each other. Some can walk, but the amount they can walk is unpredictable, so they are using a wheelchair to prevent a scenario where their steps for the day run out and they are stranded. Some have paralysed nerves, others malfunctioning ones, some are obese, some have joint diseases, some have muscle wasting diseases or chronic fatigue, many complex combinations of these. Wheelchairs and scooters are not the condition, which is varied, they are the measure taken for all these very different people to gain access.
Similar with people with visual impairments. You have people who are completely or partially blind in their eyes, from birth, or later in life. You can also have perfectly functioning eyes, but fascinating forms of cortical blindness, often acquired in adulthood such as through brain injury, such as blindsight, where they can do things like walk around obstacles and catch things, but not respond to them rationally and counterintuitively, because they cannot consciously see them, though their subconscious can. You have things like people seeing detailed textures and colours, but not shapes (which is bananas to think about when you realise they see multiple different textures and colours at once but still no shapes, e.g. someone seeing the exact texture and colour of your skin, and of your hair, and of your clothes, respectively, but they do not see a face or a human and these things have no spatial arrangement and connection). I know someone with partial cortical blindness who seemed completely normal and functional at a party in a dark room, then pulled out a cane when we left the building, and mentioned that she is completely incapable of using computer screens, because her body literally blanks when a certain light threshold is exceeded, so she works exclusively with screenreaders and tactile and audio input. If you focus less on how the specific person individually is, and more on things they say would help them, you still run into commonalities—like canes, support dogs, websites that operate with screen readers and do not need mouse input.
Similarly, if I offer varied forms of instruction in a classroom, the people who embrace a particular form and thrive with it are not identical, and might have different reasons for doing so. When my university recently replaced all light switches with an automatic and undimmable system of extremely bright white light, multiple people were super upset over this and requested control over light levels and their own space in their offices, and they had very different neurodivergencies that had them get stressed out over this. Similarly, the university currently wants to switch to none of us having desks and offices anymore and making everything flex spaces, and discussing this in groups on accessibility that are a crossover between physical disability and neurodivergence had us all very quickly hone in on aspects of this that were absolutely fucking with many of us, albeit for different reasons, from workspaces not customised to physical needs, to a lack of routine, to a lack of silence and privacy. If you include neurodivergent people in the planning process, and they consult other neurodivergent people, they tend to find that they are not alone in their problems. And while the result will still not fit everyone, it will include a lot more people, and that is a good thing.
But maybe having more buckets and more standard APIs is a big part of the solution. E.g. today we have buckets like “ADHD” and “autistic” with some draft APIs attached, but not that long ago those did not exist?
And the other part of it—maybe society need to be more careful not to round out the small buckets (e.g. the witness accounts example from the OP)?
I think this comment is pointing in the right direction. But I disagree with
There are buckets, but I don’t know what the draft APIs would be. Unless you count “finding your own tribe and stay away from the neurotypicals” as an API.
If you know something I don’t let me know!
In Europe at least, this is beginning to lead to accommodations like letting you work more from home, spend more time offline, getting a low sensory stimulation space for work and exams, skip excessive meetings, being allowed to move during meetings and work, being excused from social events, specialised tutoring, medication, therapy, etc.
I believe you that in some parts of Europe this is happening, witch is good.
Well, maybe I should have said “API in a drafting stage”, rather that an actual “draft API”, but I’d think today people tend to know these categories exist, and tend to at least to know enough to have some expectations of neuroatypical people having a [much?] wider range of possible reactions to certain things, compared to how a neuroatypical person would be expected to react, and many (most?) have at least a theoretical willingness to try to accommodate it. And then, maybe at least as importantly, given a name for the bucket and Google, people who are actually willing, can find more advice—not necessarily all equally helpful, but still.
Yes, that makes sense. Having a bucked is defiantly helpful for finding advise.
Separately, I note that it doesn’t really feel like the above comment is an actual response to Logan? That’s sort of headlined by “some thoughts I had while reading” but I am in fact curious what you would say in direct response to Logan’s reply.