Friday, February 01, 2013

Profile of an Autistic

Some autistics can be creative in an abstract way but since abstract creativity is rare in the general population, we aren't going to talk about that here. We're going to talk about an abstractly uncreative autistic, and show what it means for them to be concretely uncreative as well.

I've already explained in this blog how there are four fundamental cognitive traits. Of those, intelligence (memorization) and intellectualism are irrelevant here. Which leaves only analysis (passive logic) and synthesis (unforced creativity), which compose together to form Judgement (meta-level reasoning). Autism is a severe cognitive deficiency of synthesis which cripples Judgement.

Incidentally, I find it utterly laughable how conceited some Asperger sufferers are when they claim that their mental deficiency is an evolutionary advantage of some kind in our modern world. It is not, it's a form of retardation and an evolutionary dead-end.


Now, let's take a look at our autistic, shall we?

HG is logical and intelligent, but she is even more uncreative than the least creative normal person (the definition of autism), she's obsessed with rules and memorization, she's incapable of judgement. Like maybe what the house elves say they want is more important than what she herself thinks they want!!

Hermione has been raised and indoctrinated with a certain code of interactional conduct (which people misleadingly call "morality", the same way they say New York when they mean USA). She is incapable of looking at the raw data of house elves' behaviour, their stated wants, and their proven needs, and deriving from that an entirely NEW code of interactional conduct logically appropriate to house elves.

Hermione imposes her own code of interactional conduct on a completely different and alien species of sophonts (what fools call "sapients" thanks to Star Trek despite the fact domestic cats are sapient) from her own species, not because she projects her own insecurities and neuroses on others, but because she's as creative as a stone!

She is literally incapable of coming up with an alternative idea, let alone a whole entire system of ideas. And being logical she is unwilling to accept that the pissers in the Whizzy world are right because those same pissers say she's a second class citizen and/or ought to die. And how, logically, can it be possible for her to be a second class citizen when she is "the greatest witch in her generation" according to one of the Whizzes?

Hermione is utterly incapable of creating new categories. If she were told to sort the words "train, car, fruit, and cake" she would come up with the categories "method of transportation" and "food" only because those categories ALREADY EXIST in her mind, having been put there by someone else (a textbook's author, a professor, her parents). If she didn't know those categories beforehand, she would be unable to create them.

This is why she is capable of understanding Dark Magic versus Light Magic. Or Charms vs Transfiguration. But she is incapable of creating the category 'Technomany spells' because it doesn't already exist! The same for "blatantly underused spells" or "blatantly underpowered spells" or "spells that really should be legal but are not".

Hermione isn't some creative genius. She never put any food in that bag of hers. And her conception of original is to use a shoulder bag rather than a backpack or a mokeskin pouch or a trunk. What most people would consider a trivial derivation.


The reason why Hermione marries Ron Weasley of all people ... has to be explained. Especially since it isn't that she's a born victim like HP. Her inability to form judgements from raw data ... does explain it. She's unable to conclude from "lazy, slob, anti-intellectual, angry, jealous, prejudiced, bigoted, violent, hair-trigger temper" that Ron Weasley would make a terrible husband and especially a terrible husband for HER.

Because that's an example of taking raw data and creating a conclusion out of it on the META-level.

Unless you've gone to a spousal abuse worshop where they will carefully spoonfeed the profile of the typical spousal abuser into your brain, you have to actually create the pattern out of the raw data of common stories (gossip) of spousal abuse. This takes Synthesis which Hermione doesn't have. Though IFF she DID know that Ron Weasley were a spousal abuser just like his mother, she would then be able to logic that he makes a bad prospective husband.

Hermione can use logic to come to conclusions on the same level as the data. So conclusions like "Ron Weasley's personality traits are all undesirable" are possible for her. As are things like math. But she can't come to conclusions on the meta-level, the level of abstraction ABOVE that. "Ron Weasley would be a terrible husband" is impossible for her.

She's capable of extrapolating from the present to a specific future. But not from the present to the entire space of possible futures. So she is incapable of testing the boundaries of that space in her mind. She is also incapable of extrapolating from one specific idea to the space of all ideas. Or any of the many, many kinds of meta-level jumps which normal people routinely do and which creative geniuses do as easily as breathing.


Other examples of meta-level thinking which HG is incapable of deriving from level thinking are: WANT from IS, and SHOULD from WANT. HG is incapable of figuring out what she wants out of life, for example, beyond what people tell her. She is an important person (because people tell her so), important people go to the Ministry (because people tell her so), therefore, she goes to the Ministry (logic).

Hermione is so mentally crippled that she's even incapable of creating a rule for whom to believe from the contradictory things people tell her. The rule she has adopted (higher authority wins) is simply what everyone has always told her. She didn't create that rule nor even choose to adopt it from a set of alternatives. She's practically incapable of doing what most people consider genuine thinking, relying on rote memorization and regurgitation.

As a worst case, HG will marry RW and never figure out that she's unhappy in that marriage or didn't want it. She HAS a marriage and no basis from which to conclude that she doesn't WANT it (eg, she's always yelled at RW so yelling is normal behaviour hence unremarkable, rather than tiresome or draining). And even if she were capable of figuring that out, it would require yet another impossible leap of cognition for her to conclude she SHOULD NOT have married him at all, rather than that she made an "honest mistake".

Unless of course someone in authority tells her this. And then she'll whine that they didn't tell her earlier! And then that person will look at her puzzled by her obvious mental deficiency when she is so "smart".

In canon, HG is incapable of figuring out that mind-wiping her parents is a bad thing. It isn't a crime after all. It isn't something anyone has explicitly TOLD HER is bad nor can that conclusion be derived using pure logic from other things she knows are crimes. It would require synthesis (the creation of a new concept, a new pattern for pattern-matching purposes) to conclude that mind-wiping is bad.


As a result of her mental deficiency, Hermione Granger's brain is incapable of spontaneously forming core values, and so her mind is unable to ascend cognitive valuation meta-levels.

META-LEVELS OF COGNITIVE VALUATION - psych-emotional maturity

  • 0. infant (senses) -- you learn to feel and perceive
  • 1. toddler (rules) -- you learn to act
  • 2. child (hypotheticals) -- you learn to plan
  • 3. juvenile (agents) -- you learn to emote
  • 4. adult (cost-benefit) -- you learn to manage your desires
  • 5. celestial (core values) -- you organize your mind

Where psychopaths are stuck at #1 and narcissists are stuck at #2, definitively, uncreative autistics are perhaps stuck at level #3. I know for a certainty that autistics can't ascend to level #5 no matter how logical they are, but I also have serious doubts they ever get to #4.

Besides, it makes sense. Theoretically, there HAS to be some form of cognitive deficiency which gets people stuck on #3. #2 as I said is narcissism. #4 ... is normal people. Whom I variously call insects and cattle and NPCs, depending on what personality trait I want to emphasize and how scornful I am of that personality trait. So that leaves only #3.

The only question really is whether creative autistics can climb higher. And answerinng that question is equivalent to defining in exact detail exactly what concrete creativity is. IFF cognitive valuation is concrete then autistics (lacking it) can't climb higher than #3. IFF cognitive valuation is abstract then abstractly creative autistics can climb higher than #3.

Climb, ascend, grow up. Different words for the same thing.


Hermione Granger is mentally handicapped. Because autism really is a mental handicap, of the cognitive kind specifically. She is incapable of forming judgements about abstract things (eg, house elf rights), or things she observes in her own life (eg, RW is a terrible prospective husband), or even about her own person (eg, suckups to higher authority are scorned for a reason, she herself is mentally handicapped, she has a horrible marriage, her life sucks and she's miserable).

Oh yeah, only people possessed of Core Values are Good People, because Core Values ARE a person's independent conception of Goodness. Since different people can possess different sets of Core Values it follows that Goodness is Chromatic. It occurs in colours, and never in black and white. The fact that you NPCs all think Good and Evil is Black and White is sufficient proof that you don't understand Good. And solid evidence that you're incapable of ever understanding it.

Hermione Granger, being an uncreative autistic, is incapable of ever being a Good person. Her being selflessly fucked up and mentally retarded doesn't make her Good. It merely makes her Lawful. She is Lawful Neutral.

1 comment:

Garland said...

this is brilliant. you should think about posting this on mugglenet. might be controversial but analysis has gotten stale over there imo. this take could be good for them