My tentative name for the modern neurotypical human being, of course it’s far from correct, we are not different species that require different names – sure, it’s a laughable Autistic attempt at clickbait – but hear me out, bear with me, the language is some combination of undeveloped around this stuff still, and just something so new that I haven’t learned it yet. Part of this is to establish the totality of the concept of “neurotype,” and for that the “typical,” type needs a name and a definition.
I propose “robust,” or something like it, to describe what we call “typical,” which presently lacks any sort of description other than the socially understood numerical superiority. That’s all “typical,” means – and it doesn’t really even have to be true, just has to sound right, when there is no description. Popularizing half of a concept is an all too common form of oppression, you must conform, but we don’t write the rules down, so you can never prove you’re compliant, there is never a defense against conformity. Lawyers, arguments don’t help you.
“Type,” is the sort of concept that applies to everything, though, everything is a “type,” of whatever it is – “normal,” people too.
I started my journey by critiquing the core concept of punishment, and this led me to seeing all the ways in which human society makes itself stronger, and that in a world of war, it seems the adults begin training the children to fight at an early age, and all grow up strong, every human group prides itself on its strength and credits its existence to it, against the neighbors, who unfortunately are also rather strong. It is my contention that the stress and beatings of human childhood are intended to, and generally succeed in producing this strength, as well as the suppression of other traits in the process, in order to reach the same goals.
I’m always trying to talk you out of it, I always say that and then quickly add, “not an endorsement!,” but today, my disapproval isn’t the point.
It is what it is today.
And today that’s a neurotype, because I think it works better on some people than others. I escaped the roughest sorts of it, but I got the idea, and I’m not tougher. Just like the rightly critiqued Chagnon said about the children applying this process to one another, it doesn’t work on everyone. He said they would goad the ones it didn’t work on until it either did and they fought, or they let themselves be killed, but he said there were such – surely there are trans kids and gay kids and Autistic kids and perhaps simply non-violent kids everywhere (and if I’m leaving people out, I’m sorry).
It clearly works best on the “typical,” neurotype, clearly more of the Autistic etc. kids are the ones subject to escalations of the process, such as ABA and conversion “therapies,” than the “normal,” type (again, that’s all “typical,” means), because it doesn’t take so readily in some types. Always, the practice has mystified me, while no-one around me understood my confusion. I spent sixty years with no idea why so many people don’t like their childhood beatings but somehow learn to love the process as adults – I didn’t realize there were different neurotypes until very recently, and now I can sort of accept that different things make different sorts of sense to different sorts of minds, and I am simply not of the type that normal human discipline makes any sense to.
Plus, the sort it does make sense to seems like everybody, so I guess it’s a “neurotypical,” sort of sense – but again, numbers are not the point, so let’s name that, it makes sense to the neurorobust (add to dictionary). To the neurorobust, some welts on your ass aren’t going to kill you, you’re fine. To the neurorobust, shutting up and doing as you’re told isn’t so bad, why wouldn’t you? To the neurorobust what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. You want these people with you when the fighting starts, straight up, but of course they probably started it too.
To Chagnon’s probably over-simplified and worse Yanomami neurorobust boys, beating your weird little brother to death isn’t so bad, I guess, while the dead boy had decided that death was better than hitting his brother or something, I assume the pacifist boys didn’t have the robust neurotype – please note, our weird, non-gregarious boys get singled out for “extra,” too, as I said, ABA, conversion ordeals. I don’t know Chagnon, and I’m not defending him, but if he had said, as I am, that he was talking about us when he described the boys’ basic training murders, we may have disliked him even more, or somebody would have.
How do you like me so far?
That’s all I want to do, call the “typical,” a type, say that is has tendencies, identifying cognitive elements, suggest a name for it – and there’s always the next one. Be careful out there.
Oh, yes –
and to contrast that new name with Autism, say why I like it – because it is the Autists that have all the so-called, “comorbidities,” which add up to frailty, the opposite of robustness, Autistic brains, built from Autistic genes perhaps, with perhaps Autistic bodies and co-resident medical over-variance, that’s us, and Robust brains, built from Robust genes and with more Robust, trouble free meatsuits, that’s the more numerous sort of human being, at least apparently the more common neurotype.
Jeff
May 15th., 2023
Abuse with an Excuse 