Belonging Again II.1 (Book 1, Chapter II, Section 1)
Lorenzo Barberis Canonico and Neurotypically Stuck at Rational Impasses
Everything I know about neurodivergence is thanks to Lorenzo Barberis Canonico, and the piece “Neurodiversity Overcomes Rational Impasses and Stops Eugenics” (which I will incorporate here) found in Thoughts explores some of the ideas which I learned from Lorenzo (and I suggest to everyone his presentation “Christianity & Bioethics: How to Defeat Eugenics with Collective Intelligence”). Lorenzo discusses the famous “Prisoner’s Dilemma” and how rational individuals in that dilemma will produce irrational outcomes — the only way for a person to escape this “trap” is for someone to act nonrationally. Lorenzo makes a point not to say “irrationally,” for if the final outcome of a “nonrational” act is “the best outcome” for everyone involved (such as the case in the Prisoner’s Dilemma), it wouldn’t make sense to call it “irrational.” And yet it doesn’t fit to say “rational” either, for those involved had to act against their (apparent) self-interest in order to achieve “the best outcome.”
What kind of people think nonrationally though? Not “neurotypical people,” for they would do what was rational and find themselves stuck (which suggests “normal” and “best” aren’t always aligned). States where rationality led to “suboptimal results” is what I have called “Rational Impasses,” which the famous “Nash Equilibrium” helps us identify. To offer a definition, a “Rational Impasse” is a situation in which rationality keeps itself from reaching its overall best outcome, and that means we cannot improve our situation by being more rational. Lorenzo’s address is neurodiversity, with a nod to Deleuze and primacy of “difference.”
Lorenzo argues that society seems doomed to fall into Nash Equilibria if we do not incorporate neurodivergence into our “collective intelligence.” The details of this argument are explored in “O.G. Rose Conversation Episode #10,” but basically where those of the Rationalist Community may look to address “The Meta-Crisis” through “evolving consciousness” or “improving rationality,” Lorenzo places the emphasis on “making space for neurodivergence,” as seen in Asperger’s, Autism, Downs Syndrome, etc. Lorenzo explores numerous social problems in which “greater rationality” only made the problem worse, and suggests that if we are to avoid these Rational Impasses, it will not prove sufficient to employ a “collective consciousness” that is only in the business of greater rationality (this could lead to the terrors of “autonomous rationality” discussed throughout O.G. Rose). If the “collective consciousness” does not incorporate neurodivergence, there are Game Theory problems which might cause the social order to devolve. For more, please see Lorenzo’s excellent TedTalk, “Diversity: The Key to Collective Intelligence in the Age of AI, ” and also our conversation about “Conspiracies and Pandora’s Rationality” (Ep #37) for how neurodivergence could also help us readily avoid “internally consistent systems” from which we cannot escape (“the map is indestructible”).
Perhaps rationality can advance to such a point that it becomes “practically neurodivergent,” as perhaps something similar applies to “evolving personality” and consciousness. I don’t know, but I much prefer emphasizing the language of neurodivergence. I am skeptical of all language we are comfortable with, and I fear that when we tell people to “be rational” or “evolve their consciousness,” people nod and are excited, but if we tell them to “work to be more neurodivergent,” they will likely stare back, uncertain. I also like language that suggests those often outcast are who we need to be more like (we as a society are often cold to those who are not like us, and the neurodivergent have suffered). It’s also not possible for those who aren’t born neurodivergent to ever fully be neurodivergent, and so that too is humbling. Furthermore, the Shaman Class which Alexander Bard discusses seems neurodivergent, and there is an emphasis in Liberal thought to incorporate diversity. I am not proposing an idea here which isn’t present in the works of others, but I am suggesting that the language of neurodivergence is closer to “The Absolute Knower” than is the language of “greater rationality” or “advancing consciousness.” Such might lead to something like neurodivergence, but I think the emphasis matters. Also, I think it is good to make our model those often rejected by society, and who we can perhaps never be fully like due to our birth, while if the goal is “evolving consciousness,” we have all the tools we need. The language of “rationality” and “consciousness” might become egocentric, tribal, and elitist.
Lorenzo stresses the value people on the spectrum add to enterprises, citing Michael Burry, the investor behind The Big Short, who made billions by doing something that no one “in their right mind” would have ever done. Lorenzo then expands on the power of “collective intelligence” to generate, on average, better results than experts, and he notes that “a collective intelligence entailing neurodiversity” is the best tool for decision-making. By putting “the rational” and “nonrational” in dialectical conversation with one another, problems will become solvable that otherwise might never be overcome. We cannot let thinking be “locked in the normal,” for otherwise thinking could be stopped by Rational Impasses. Beautifully, Lorenzo further uses his argument to uplift and empower the marginalized, defending for example those with Down Syndrome from bioengineering. Once the neurotypical can edit genes, we might “rationally” change children and the globe to fall into Nash Equilibria…
Able to think “nonrationally,” not stuck in “the normal” like what concerned Foucault and Deleuze, the neurodiverse can be the “first movers” in producing new ways of thinking that save us from out-of-date systems and Rational Impasses. Furthermore, returning to our central question, a neurodiverse person could leave Plato’s Cave on their own; the neurotypical would likely stay in place, never seeing “rational reason” to question if the shadows were in fact just shadows. Indeed, Plato’s Cave is a “Prisoner’s Dilemma,” per se, and the neurotypical would likely remain in the cave all their days unless someone dragged them out. Please note that intelligence is not what distinguishes the neurotypical from the neurodiverse, for there can be extremely smart neurotypical people who are still neurotypical. The difference is mainly “a way of seeing” and “a way of thinking” that is more formal and essential, while intelligence is often gaged “within” one of these forms. The neurotypical are A/A while the neurodiverse are A/B, and we can be geniuses who are A/A, and yet that alone will not help us “leave Plato’s Cave on our own.” Something deeper is needed, something Illich and McGilchrist might call “Awareness.”
Another way to think of neurodivergence might align with what Andrew Sweeny and I discussed involving “magic” (Episode #138), which we discussed in the context of the Hip-Hop Cypher (a critical image and metaphor for Belonging Again, forever indebted to Bernard Hankins). It seems like magic when people in a cypher are just able to come up with lines “off the dome” in response to what everyone else said, as a jazz improvisation or improvisational dance can also seem like magic. A conversation, a party, a festival—where time passes quickly—these too can be examples of magic, suggesting the possibility of humans living according to a different flow of time and according to a different occupancy of space than what is usually experienced (we usually live according to A/A (Understanding), but it seems possible for us to live according to A/B (Reason)). Sweeny and I discussed how “a purpose of humans is to be magical,” and what we described is not reducible to intelligence; rather, it is to be practiced and skilled in something which is “formally” different.
I’ve made distinctions between “causation” and “creation” in the past, discussing how humans create but what we create is always “dressed” in causality, making it seem like only causation has ever occurred. When I speak, I create and direct causation in a “different direction,” which makes it seem like I only caused, but the entire reason this change of causation occurred is because of a creative act (“On Words and Determinism” expands this line of argument). The move from the neurotypical to the neurodiverse could be overlain with a move from “causation” to “creation” (“low order” Discourse to “high order” Rhetoric), and though of course both are always needed and in play, the point is that an emphasis on “creativity” is to suggest an entirely different way to think about how the world emerges and operates: it opens a new “horizon” according to which we can understand life (like the movement in Hegel from Understanding to Reason). Where there is a distinction between “causation” and “creation,” the universe is no longer the “typical” place we thought it was: possibilities suddenly open that otherwise were closed (like “leaving Plato’s Cave on our own”).
The topic of “creativity” overlaps with the topic of “intrinsic motivation,” for to create is for something to seemingly “come out of nowhere” (“high order”), while “causation” is more extrinsic, linear, and predictable. If I am able to motivate myself to myself and by myself to do x, that is an act which is more “creative” than “caused,” for nothing in facticity or the world forces me to do x (I practically act as my own “ground of becoming”). Sweeny noted how “divinity” was once associated with inspiration, and since I would associate “meaning” with “motivation,” we could see here reason to think of divinity as generating motivation. In this sense, “leaving Plato’s Cave on our own” is a “divine act,” which is to say it is a “magical act,” a “creative action,” and/or an “act of intrinsic motivation” which moves us toward being more “neurodiverse.” The neurodiverse are capable of magic; they can overcome Nash Equilibria.
Alright, but how can we “spread neurodiversity,” which is suggested here as basically “spreading Childhood?” Aren’t we either born neurodiverse or not? Ultimately, yes, and I don’t mean to claim that anyone can easily “become” neurodiverse; rather, I am using neurodiversity to describe how Childhood is not so much a matter of intelligence but a formal change in thinking, orientation, and “towardness” (from A/A to A/B, Discourse to Rhetoric). We will not address Plato’s Challenge through becoming smarter, for indeed Plato was very smart and ended up with his Republic; rather, we must think differently and deeply. We learn from say Thomas Sowell that intelligence is not inherently a virtue (indeed, it can be a vice), and here we hope to clarify that addressing Plato’s Challenge requires a new way of thinking, not simply a more educated way of thinking. Yes, we need to be educated, but what is necessary will not necessarily be sufficient.
There are studies which have suggested that many CEOs in America are sociopaths. They do not think like most of us, and so they can handle stress, rejection, etc., which more “typical” people usually cannot handle without psychologically breaking down. In this way, it could be the case that the West already relies on some degree of “neurodiversity” for the system to work and function (similar to how “wage labor” requires an unacknowledged “shadow work” to be possible, as described by Ivan Illich); unfortunately, the neurodiversity or mentidivergence we rely on might be akin to sociopathy, which though perhaps helps large corporations and States avoid Nash Equilibria, this particular neurodiversity might worsen our overall “Meta-Crisis.” Furthermore, this neurodiversity versus that of a Child might have a useful Game Theory function only because we have made our systems and institutions too large (as Leopold Kohr discussed), but this is a situation which is as a whole “suboptimal” and does not help “spread Childhood,” only perhaps “spread sociopathy.” This is not the way, though it does suggest that neurodiversity plays a critical role: the question is only if we might be more intentional about it and incubate a different kind of neurodiversity, mainly Childhood. To put this another way, the greater the scale, the more we require mentidivergence to avoid Nash Equilibria, and if we aren’t intentional to assure that this mentidivergence is Childlike, then the mentidivergence we might end up (through self-selection, processes of elimination, etc.) to “help” avoid Nash Equilibria could be sociopathic or the like (more AI/Capital-like), meaning we might deal with one problem by creating another.
As “shadow work” for Ivan Illich enables economies, so perhaps neurodiversity has always been in the “shadows,” making possible the creation of wealth through people like Nikola Tesla or the operations of large corporations thanks to sociopaths or the advancement of technology thanks to those with Aspergers. Hard to say, but if this is so then addressing Plato’s Challenge might involve us acknowledging neurodiversity and shining light on its role in our lives. That way, we can intentionally move from A/A to A/B, from proving typical and stuck in Plato’s Cave to someone who is different. But how can we do that without being totalitarian or a central planner? Indeed, that suggests “the problem of scale”—a central concern of our work.
If we understand a metric of success is to the degree we can make people like “neurodiverse Children,” which is to the degree they are able to “participate in a Cypher” and “create magic,” then we can begin to approach how to be intentional about a “socioeconomic incubator” which brings about Children. But that’s a lot early on; here, we will first explore more the topic of neurodiversity, Game Theory, and focus on an example of a Child Saint in Simone Weil to better think about how we might approach Plato’s Challenge.
.
.
.
Review presentations of II.1 so far:
.
.
.
For more, please visit O.G. Rose.com. Also, please subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Instagram and Facebook.
Very interesting and complicated. I new only one Ivan Iliich. He was and always will be the famous character of Lev Tolstoy. About him I read a lot of essays. But they are different characters.