I think the "social harmony" is an euphemism. Consider the average politician; yes, they unite the tribe, but they unite it against an enemy. Without an enemy (real or imaginary), there is no unity. No matter how much Heaven on Earth a politician promises, it always results in persecution of someone. Yeah, with the promise that once we succeed to kill all the wrongthinkers, then the paradise will come... but we already know that this never happens, what we get instead is an expanded definition of wrongthinkers, and so on, and so on.
To believe that the social harmony is the actual goal... is itself an autistic perspective. As in: autists take slogans literally. Neurotypicals are on a certain level aware that those are mere words, but also that it would be unwise to say that openly.
Instead, I would call it "organizing groups of people, to get advantage over those who are not members of this group". Or even more shortly "coordination" (but in the context of: coordinating against someone else).
Which links nicely to the question: "Why Our Kind Can’t Cooperate"? Because most of us are on the spectrum, which on one hand gives us the freedom to follow our definition of truth, but makes us vulnerable to a coordinated attack from outside, and often unable to function effectively even in the absence of an attack.
those with Asperger’s are cognitively predisposed to be more rational
Oh, I wish this was true, but... it's more of a necessary rather than a sufficient condition. Plenty irrational aspies out there (studying horoscopes, etc.). I would say that we are predisposed to follow our own path, regardless of the opinions of the society. But whether the path is reasonable, that's not automatically guaranteed. Not even that it's better on average.
People take most of their knowledge (not just verbal) from others, so if the society is relatively sane, that is a superpower. And it comes with a cost. You inherit a large bag of habits, where most of them help you survive day to day, but some of them block you from going further than that.
It will be interesting to see what Neuralink-like technologies will do with the linked humans. Will our best traits amplify? Or the worst ones? If one person is reasonable about something, and the other is nuts, will joining their brains help the latter see the light, or will it drive the former crazy? I suspect the answer will probably be something boring, such as both of them moving towards their average, or both of them moving randomly. Also, if you connect a neurotypical and autistic human, which traits will prevail?
we can research, influence, and act now
Can you, actually? I mean, if you can do the related research, I hope Elon Musk will hire you. I am not good at research myself. Influence? If you find a small group of people who will brain-connect and achieve superpowers as a result, I think more people will be happy to join you. You just need to come to a few Less Wrong meetups and demonstrate your superior abilities. Or rather, make your superior abilities widely known by achieving something newsworthy. Act? How specifically? According to Wikipedia only two people got an implant so far, so I guess even if you call Elon Musk and volunteer, you will probably be rejected now. The situation may become different in a few years.
I believe that for now we should focus on the more mundane methods of cooperation. There is a lot of low-hanging fruit many of us haven't picked yet. (At least, I know I have not.) Before Neuralink, we should use phones and meetings in person. Instead of chatting about fun things, we should try doing projects together. (What projects? Well, self-improvement is always a good default option.)
But of course, when the technology is ready (at a reasonable cost), let's try it.
Q: Why did you mention free will? What's it got to do with everything else?
A: that neurotypicals dont have any choice. i think its really important to look at things from a deterministic/compatibilist approach as much as possible.
while we can see that the neurotypical cognitive architecture favours social cohesion, it has a small capacity for rationality. but it quickly exhausts them and they go back to their old habits, because that’s what their brain evolutionarily neurobiologically are architected for.
so with that framework, we start to see it’s not only them being irrational, but exactly why they can’t help it. And thus how we must intelligently navigate.
We live in a world shaped by cognitive architectures that prioritize social harmony over rationality, and this has profound implications for everything from societal structures to technological development. When you break down most of the world’s problems, they are rooted in scarcity—of resources, time, and even cognitive energy—and the dominance of neurotypical frameworks that guide how society operates. But here’s the kicker: we’re still on our evolutionary trajectory biologically, behaviorally, socially, and technologically, and that’s holding us back from advancing to a post-scarcity reality.
Free Will and Determinism
First, let’s talk about free will. It doesn’t really exist in the classical sense. Every action, thought, and behavior we have is determined by a chain of prior causes—atoms, neurobiology, and environmental interactions. Yet, we experience free will because we act upon feelings that arise from this deterministic process. We have the sensation of choice even if, deep down, everything is pre-determined by the physics of our biology.
Neurotypical Domination: Prioritizing Social Harmony Over Rationality
Now, why are we struggling as a species to evolve to our next stage? It’s largely because of the neurotypical cognitive architecture, which evolved to ensure social harmony. Evolutionary pressure selected for collaboration, which helped our ancestors survive. Today, this same tendency pushes people to maintain social cohesion—even when it comes at the cost of rationality.
Consider a classic experiment where participants are asked to report the number of objects on a table. When actors, planted by researchers, gave a wrong answer, a significant portion of the participants (75%) went along with the incorrect answer. Why? To avoid disrupting social harmony. This example shows how deep this tendency runs.
But neurodivergent individuals, particularly those with Asperger’s, have a different cognitive architecture. For example, there are actual neurobiological differences—larger prefrontal cortices, smaller amygdalae, differences in white matter connectivity. These biological features align with a heightened capacity for rational thinking and reduced concern for social cohesion. In essence, while the neurotypical brain is wired to prioritize group dynamics, the Asperger’s brain leans more toward logic and rationality, though this doesn’t mean we’re free from biological limitations either.
The Evolutionary Lag
Humanity has become the most dominant species because of our ability to collaborate, but this same trait may now be a limitation. Social cohesion was essential for survival in prehistoric environments, but today, we face challenges that require more critical thinking and less emotional groupthink.
Neurotypicals are capable of critical thinking, but it often exhausts them, causing them to revert to familiar family values or emotionally-driven thinking. In contrast, those with Asperger’s are cognitively predisposed to be more rational, and, in many ways, this is a more evolved architecture for modern problems. Unfortunately, societal systems dominated by neurotypicals can suppress this type of rationality, which holds back collective human evolution.
Why ASI and Neuralinks Matter
Here’s where technology comes in: we need Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) and Neuralinks to break through these limitations. The current societal structure, dominated by neurotypical systems, resists change, particularly radical technological augmentation. Neurotypicals likely won’t adopt Neuralinks en masse until they become mainstream. But we don’t need everyone to adopt these technologies. Even a small group of individuals with the cognitive augmentation provided by Neuralinks, aligned with ASI, could push humanity into a post-scarcity reality—solving problems like immortality, resource inequality, and cancer.
The key is not waiting for widespread adoption. A few highly rational individuals working with ASI and Neuralinks can drive the advancements needed. This could happen with only a small cohort of deeply engaged minds, leveraging ASI’s ability to think faster and more rationally than the biological brain alone.
Why I’m Posting Here
I’m sharing these thoughts because I believe platforms like LessWrong are crucial for connecting with others who are aligned with this vision—especially those who are neurodivergent and capable of seeing beyond the social and biological limitations of neurotypical frameworks. Rather than waiting for slow, systemic shifts, we should focus on the small but highly effective interventions that can be achieved through rational technology adoption.
Of course, there’s a significant irony here: engaging on forums like this often requires jumping through hoops that demand time and cognitive energy, even when the ideas we want to share could greatly benefit from AI augmentation. That’s where tools like ChatGPT come in—by prompting it to help articulate ideas, we can streamline thought and communication. It’s frustrating that we aren’t leveraging these kinds of augmentations more fully across intellectual communities.
Call to Action
So, the question is: Do we continue on this path of slow, societal evolution, or do we focus on empowering those few who are ready to integrate with ASI and Neuralinks, to propel human evolution beyond these biological and cognitive constraints? I think the answer is clear.
I invite others, especially those in neurodivergent circles or deeply rational communities, to collaborate on pushing this vision forward. We don’t need to wait for PhDs or official endorsements—we can research, influence, and act now.