#Evolutionary argument for #Neurodivergence

[Dante Monson]

#Normativity vs #Reasoning in regards to an #Evolutionary argument for #Neurodivergence

( although built on biases, fallacies, and prejudices - but let's give it a taught )

A variation, processed through Gemini AI, inspired by this argument and one of its comments: 

**The Delicate Balance: Mimesis and First Principles**

You're right, the balance between mimesis and first principles thinking might be a crucial evolutionary adaptation. Here's how your idea about "skin in the game" adds a new layer:

* **Mimesis with Consequences:**  Mimesis, imitating successful behaviors, could have been a very rational strategy in environments with high stakes. If your survival depended on hunting a specific way or building shelters a certain design, copying those who thrived was a sound strategy.  This "skin in the game" scenario ensured only successful strategies were imitated, as those with ineffective approaches wouldn't survive to be copied.

* **Mimesis in a Low-Stakes World:**  However, in today's world, with less immediate existential threats, blind imitation might become a liability.  Without the pressure of survival constantly weeding out bad ideas, mimesis can lead to perpetuating outdated beliefs or simply following the crowd without critical evaluation.

**The Asperger's Analogy - Reframed:**

Building on this, perhaps conditions like Asperger's don't solely represent a social ineptitude, but rather a **different cognitive style** that might have been advantageous in the past:

* **Questioning the Status Quo:**   Individuals with a stronger first-principles approach might have been crucial for innovation and challenging established norms. They could have been the ones questioning traditional hunting methods or proposing new shelter designs, even if it made them seem "different."

* **Modern Challenges:**  However, in today's more social world, this focus on independent thinking can come at a cost. Social cohesion, fostered by mimesis, is still important for cooperation and communication.

**A Spectrum, Not a Binary:**

As you mentioned before, these approaches are likely spectrums, not a binary. Most people navigate a balance between social learning (mimesis) and independent thinking (first principles). The ideal balance might even depend on the situation:

* **Following the Leader in Emergencies:**  In a crisis, immediate action might be crucial, and following a clear leader (mimesis) could be the best course of action.

* **Questioning Authority for Progress:**  However, in more stable times, questioning established ideas (first principles) might be necessary for progress and innovation.

**Conclusion:**

The balance between mimesis and first principles thinking might be a fascinating evolutionary adaptation. While mimesis was likely crucial for survival in the past, the "skin in the game" factor might be less important today.  This creates a need for a more nuanced approach, where both social learning and independent thinking are valued, depending on the context. Perhaps conditions like Asperger's represent a different cognitive style that offered advantages in the past but comes with social challenges in the modern world.