
The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech - nailer
http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-speech/
======
wvh
The trend of outrage posses armed with pitchforks and torches in politics,
gender debates and whatnot is particularly worrying for those of us that need
some slack and don't deserve to be crucified by an angry mob because we used
the wrong word or said the "wrong", e.g. politically incorrect thing; even as
most of that crowd of the offended know very well no actual harm was intended,
they still choose to dramatise the situation for their own political or
psychological needs.

This is why I defend freedom of speech and freedom to offend, because I know
that I am somewhat on that autistic spectrum and can say things that might
offend some people, and that even though those people know deep down inside
there was no the intention to hurt or say bad things, they still want to make
a point out of it. Having a strong feeling about something doesn't make you
right. Emotional drama can make you an asshole, too.

I can pretend this is merely about ideological matters, but in all honesty, my
stance likely finds its true origin in my own neurological "layout" and life
experiences – as probably counts for anyone who has a strong opinion about
something.

People who are somewhat on the autistic spectrum tend to have an affinity for
rationality and some difficulties with emotions and "group-feel", and it's sad
that this irrational polarising climate isolates them more and makes them
avoid others as much as possible.

We really need to get away from this mindset of: the other side is wrong and
they are nazis and hence deserve bad things happening to them and we will get
you fired and come and rape you and an angry soapbox SJW will piss in your
shoe.

It's the 21st century, get your shit together, no matter what side you are on
or what crazy thing you believe in.

~~~
eesmith
You have overgeneralized the description so it's meaningless.

Those with coprolalia also say 'the wrong word or [say] the "wrong", e.g.
politically incorrect thing; even as most of that crowd of the offended know
very well no actual harm was intended', yet they do not receive the
"pitchforks and torches" treatment, to repeat the phrase that you have to
"dramatise the situation for [your] own political or psychological [need]."

You are, of course, talking about metaphorical torches. Those marching with
real torches recently had very different views.

I defend the freedom of association, which is a necessary balance to the
freedom of speech. Without both, there is no liberty.

------
Asdfbla
Is the hypothesis that seems important for the article - that civilization was
mostly advanced by lone neurodiverse geniuses - actually true? Sounds dubious,
but who knows. At least modern science seems to be a very collaborative
affair.

Was there ever a poll or study to find out if university faculty as a whole
actually is scared to offend people or threatened by some hypothetical PC
police? I would imagine that the debate is only relevant for the social
sciences anyway, since you shouldn't have opportunities to offend people in
more technical subjects anyway.

~~~
Cthulhu_
No, but it mainly points out that _some_ of the people which are globally seen
as geniuses that advanced the world, with names that are written down in the
history books - Newton, Einstein, Jobs - all had neurodivergent disorders.

It indicates that those people wouldn't have fit in in modern universities,
but I don't know enough about those people, whether they were politically
incorrect or whatever. I know Jobs was a dick (based on reading a biography),
but again, not sure if that would've been different if he lived in the age of
college speech rules or code of conducts - I think he wouldn't have given a
fuck and would've done his things regardless.

The article mentions Newton too, who, or so I read recently, published some
pretty blasphemous stuff - e.g. agreeing with the Copernican view of the
universe - but managed to add some nuance and such at the end of his treatsie,
making sure to point out that God works in mysterious ways and such.

~~~
eesmith
"Newton, Einstein, Jobs - all had neurodivergent disorders"

There are many people who claim that.

Is it true?

Because every time I've looked into it, it comes across as wishful thinking.
It's almost like "<famous person> paid attention to detail and didn't have a
normal social life so must have been on the autistic spectrum." What are the
diagnostic tests for evaluating neurodivergent disorders of historical
figures, and how accurate are they?

Next, I don't know how you can say those people "wouldn't have fit in in
modern universities".

First, there's the obvious problem the historic Newton of 1700 could not be
employed by a modern university, so you mean something different than that.
What do you mean?

Second, there are two issues: going to college as a student and doing research
at a college. Jobs went to Reed College for two years, but unlike Einstein was
never a professor.

Third, Einstein went to the Swiss Federal Polytechnic. Einstein was able to
live under the strict policies they had in 1896. Why wouldn't the modern
Einstein not be able to live under the modern Harvard restrictions?

("Strict policies"? I quote from [http://www-history.mcs.st-
and.ac.uk/HistTopics/ETH_history.h...](http://www-history.mcs.st-
and.ac.uk/HistTopics/ETH_history.html) :

> the Polytechnic's governing bodies maintained strict discipline and punished
> transgressions accordingly. Polytechnic students were not granted the same
> freedom as their University counterparts, both with regard to academic
> matters and expected code of conduct. As a result of these differences a
> rivalry between the two different cohorts developed, which even led to duels
> [5, p. 106-109]. In 1881, partly due to a petition by its alumni association
> GEP, the Polytechnic revised some of its regulations. Students were given
> more flexibility in their final year of study, ... More comprehensive
> reforms were only implemented in the early 20th century.

That is, even during Einstein's time, the Polytechnic required stricter
discipline than Swiss universities at that time.)

"The article mentions Newton .. agreeing with the Copernican view of the
universe ..."

You have confused Galileo and 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
Systems' with Newton.

------
azangru
> Newton also wants to publish Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, to
> explain the laws of motion governing the universe. But his literary agent
> explains that he can’t get a decent book deal until Newton builds his
> ‘author platform’ to include at least 20k Twitter followers

Is this really a thing? Can authors nowadays be required to have a strong
social media presence?

~~~
matt4077
If you're a Harvard professor, you'll find someone to print your book. No
worries.

For others, it could obviously be something that makes it easier to find a
publisher. Not because it somehow proves your PC-credentials, but simply
because it's sort-of proof that you have an audience.

~~~
pjc50
Harvard has _its own press_ for this sort of thing. They produce all sorts of
books with tiny print runs.

------
stared
There is one more hidden bias, which (IMHO) have much stronger impact for
aspies - application forms and grant proposals.

Even though officially it's all about merits of accomplishments and ideas,
almost always there is an expectation to deliver it in a form of "sales
pitch". So, any honest and straightforward presentation is unlikely to stand a
chance with one full of "soft bullshit" (e.g. promises to cure cancer, create
universal quantum computer, etc).

~~~
mickronome
Not only that, as you undoubtedly know, but the implicit social expectations
and judgments are strongly present even in supposedly objective areas such as
courts of law.

I don't remember all the specifics and I've lost most of the references since
then, but I've read some research on this, and regardless if you are a victim
or accused for a crime, if you have ASD you are at a massive disadvantage.

One example: Research appear to show that while people with ASD commit violent
crimes at about the same rate as the general population, they are incarcerated
at a much higher rate. I've seen numbers between 2 to 4 times the incarnation
rate.

------
matt4077
This article already fails with it little thought experiment. Because if
there's one thing we can probably agree on it's that freedom of speech today
is larger than it was in 17th century England.

Since he was able to publish back then, he would be able to publish today.

Other than that, this is just the slippery slope again, although I appreciate
that they throw in Newton–considering he's arguably the inventor of the
slippery slope.

~~~
chippy
The Newton example is not about free speech but rather his behaviour, actions,
and perceptions of non academics. The example given implies that he would be
able to publish, but he wouldn't be able to get a decent (i.e. well promoted,
popular) book deal. The example of Newton at the beginning of the article is a
little thought experiment where we consider how having odd or off coloured
views, or behaving strangely is treated differently by the outside of the
academy. Such a thought experiment leads me to think that in the 17th Century
it was easier to be a genius, odd, socially awkward mad professor than it is
now. I don't know what it was actually like back then, but I do know that
today the academy is in the spotlight more than it was when I was in it.

~~~
Keysh
But it's a really bad example. In real history, Newton was able to keep quiet
about views that would have gotten him fired and possibly imprisoned. Most of
the "weird" Newtonian stuff the author is referring to are things Newton kept
private, not stuff he published; we only know about them because of work done
by historians in the 20th Century.

In particular, we know from Newton's private writings that he had strong
Unitarian tendencies (that is, he doubted the validity of the Trinity). Had he
made those views public, he would certainly have been fired and possibly
suffered worse. (By the late 17th Century, it was illegal for Oxford or
Cambridge to hire or even teach people who weren't proper Anglicans; denying
the Trinity would have put Newton into this category.)

~~~
notahacker
It's also a bad example because "Greek alchemy, Biblical cryptography, fiat
currency, Jewish mysticism, or how to predict the exact date of the
Apocalypse" are not the sort of thing which are censored by even the most
ardent proponents of political correctness today.

They might expose him to _ridicule_ , but that's actually an integral part of
free speech, as well as being far less onerous than the explicit bans on the
religiously unorthodox having any involvement in academia in Newton's time

------
roceasta
Thank goodness we are still able to make the case. The only alternative to
free speech is violence. I want to be able to hear what the alt-right has to
say, what Islamic extremists have to say, what misogynists have to say, etc.

~~~
sideshowb
Hoping that's not a sarcastic comment (it's hard to tell online).

I want to be able to hear what all those people have to say, so I can try to
persuade them that they're wrong.

~~~
roceasta
Not sarcastic.

Yes, persuade people they are wrong where they are wrong; learn from them
where they are right (we are all fallible). Persuade _other_ people that they
are wrong; teach other people where they are right. Plus an unlimited number
of other possible responses.

>I can try to persuade them that they're wrong

That assumes you know what their ideas are. If present trends against free
speech continue, it's not a luxury you're necessarily going to have.

~~~
sideshowb
Yes, learn from people where they are right as well - +1 to that. It might be
that they're none of the horrible things people claim and are just victims of
unfortunate name calling or mud slinging.

------
eesmith
Pure BS. Newton wouldn't be able to publish through a modern Harvard because
nothing would be new. Recall too that the publication of Philosophiæ Naturalis
Principia Mathematica was completely funded by a private party, Halley.

"Sooner or later, he would say ‘offensive’ things that get reported to Harvard
and that get picked up by mainstream media as moral-outrage clickbait."

Again, BS. Newton was an anti-trinitarian. He believed that worshiping Christ
as God was idolatry. And he was a fellow at _Trinity College_. Had he
mentioned this, he would have lost his job, at the very least. (It would have
been a powerful weapon for the Leibniz side during the so-called calculus
wars.) He even managed to get the job requirements for his position changed so
he wouldn't have to lie about his beliefs.

Instead, he kept his heretical ideas secret that it wasn't until long after he
died that others had an clue about them. In other words, "picked up by
mainstream media as moral-outrage clickbait".

He was used to it then, and he would be used to it now.

~~~
ggreer
> Pure BS. Newton wouldn't be able to publish through a modern Harvard because
> nothing would be new.

It's a thought experiment. Hypothetical modern-day Newton would have some
hypothetical novel discovery.

> Instead, he kept his heretical ideas secret that it wasn't until long after
> he died that others had an clue about them.

It's true that Newton kept some of his religious views secret, but he made
other controversial views known and was widely regarded as a misanthrope. Had
modern university speech codes existed back then, Newton would have likely
been fired over some controversy. As a result, science would have advanced
more slowly.

That's the article's core argument: University speech codes filter out many
eccentric geniuses, reducing the quality of ideas and slowing scientific
progress. It's something I hadn't considered before, and I'm hard-pressed to
find a good counterargument. It's definitely not dismissible as, "Pure BS."

~~~
eesmith
It's a thought experiment using an ahistoric Newton as a straw man to fit the
argument.

An argument by an author who likes to make lists of famous people who are
conjectured to have Aspergers ... I write "conjectured" because most of those
assignments seem more based in hope than any historical reality, as pointed
out in the comments to the essay.

Thought experiment: university speech codes allow other types of geniuses.
Modern science is highly collaborative, and misanthropic lone geniuses like
Newton will do little to advance most fields, but much to retard them by
creating an environment which rejects geniuses that don't wish to be in a
misanthropic environment.

See, BS handwaving is easy!

~~~
eesmith
To follow up, Newton can be characterized various ways, including "English
academic around 1600", "possible Asbergers", and "possible asexual".

The argument is something like "Newton was neurologically atypical and the
Newton of the 1600s couldn't manage the speech codes at modern Harvard
therefore the speech codes at modern Harvard discriminate against the
neurologically atypical."

However, replace "neurologically atypical" with "English academic around
1700s", which could include Hooke, Boyle, Halley, and many others. Would
_they_ be able to be at a modern Harvard? I suspect not all of them would.

On the other hand, the author lists many scientists "who seem, given
biographical records, to have been on the autism/Asperger’s spectrum." Two are
Barbara McClintock and Alan Turing. I selected them because I have read
biographies about their lives.

Would they be able to be at a modern Harvard? Almost certainly.

So it's not obvious that rejecting Newton implies rejecting all those who are
on the autism/Asperger’s spectrum.

------
dfboyd
The article is unreadable on Chrome on Android; after load is complete, the
related-articles div fights with a pop-in div for control, both of them
rendering repeatedly on top of each other and continually yanking the scroll
to the bottom of the page.

------
matt4077
It's funny how you're arguing a case where an angry mob "crucifies" the poor
sap who accidentally used a wrong word, when the actual event that kicked off
this debate was an actual angry mob, with real torches, honest swastikas, and
loaded semi-automatic weapons who not-so-metaphorically ran over a completely
non-threatening young woman.

The people marching and screaming "Jews will not replace us" also don't strike
me as the autistic type abhorring "group-think", considering their enjoyment
of shouting hateful slogans in unisono.

And lets not get into your contention that these peoples' only fault is
somehow being "too rational". Just take a look at any photos from that rally
and decide for yourself if they seem to be the sort of people who got an extra
helping of rationality. Hint: some of them have face tattoos.

~~~
lhnz
This was posted on the 18th of July. The Charlottesville rally is not
relevant.

~~~
matt4077
Edit (previous, sarcastic comment below): I belief it is disingenuous to try
to discuss such issues without addressing the elephant in the room. I also
felt the imagery (angry mob/pitchforks/etc) more than subtly pointed in that
direction.

In addition, I feel there are two mechanisms in play here that undermine an
honest debate: First, there's a glut of people insisting they're only
defending "free speech" and not supporting people such as those at that rally.
It reminds me of the "movement for ethics in game journalism" that had nothing
to do with misogyny, no sir.

Secondly, the debate is moved to some other subject where people will agree
with the idea that it would be absurd to, for example, censor something like
the Principia Mathematica. That agreement will then, in turn be used to defend
things that are definitely not scientific masterpieces. The underlying idea
is, once again, the slippery slope, or some sort of inability to differentiate
things that are obviously different.

(Previous reply mocking the objection regarding the timeline: "At the moment I
posted, my post did not yet exist, nor did your objection to it. Therefore, I
will refuse to take it into consideration.")

~~~
Inconel
>First, there's a glut of people insisting they're only defending "free
speech" and not supporting people such as those at that rally.

I'm sorry but I'm really having a hard time understanding your reasoning here.
Are you really suggesting that the majority of people on HN who are defending
the right to free speech of the neo-Nazis we saw in Charlottesville are doing
so because they actually agree with the message those neo-Nazis and white
supremacists are spewing? If this is what you believe, then please just come
out and say that anyone defending this type of speech is in fact a neo-Nazi.
You talk about mechanisms that undermine an honest debate but in the very next
sentence you essentially argue that anyone in support(I'm adding an edit here
to clarify: I mean support for the right to this kind of speech, not support
for it's actual content) of this kind of objectionable speech is a Nazi in
disguise. That certainly seems like undermining the debate to me. I don't like
this kind of character assassination in disguise. Either be willing to call
people out as Nazis and white supremacists, and back up your assertions, or
give them the courtesy that they might be taking a stand in defense of a
principle they actually believe in regarding speech, even in cases where they
disagree with contents of said speech.

I personally don't believe a reasonable person can be a neo-Nazi and thus I
have very little interest in arguing or engaging with these types of people.
When it comes to free speech I tend to fall on the side of having fewer
restrictions on speech, although even here my views aren't really set in stone
and do change on occasion. With that being said, unlike my views on Nazism, I
do think reasonable people can disagree on the issues of where to draw the
line on speech. Again, while I personally fall into the less restrictions
camp, I don't think its unreasonable for someone to want restrictions on
certain types of speech and thus I don't automatically assume those arguing
for these restrictions are authoritarians in disguise. If you think this makes
me a neo-Nazi I would prefer you just come out and say it, this is of course
in the interest of "honest debate".

Edited for spelling and grammar.

~~~
pjc50
> defending the right to free speech of the neo-Nazis we saw in
> Charlottesville

I have become suspicious of which kinds of speech and which contexts people
choose to become vocally defensive of.

In the context of "what can you say without being fired by your employer",
there are people fired every week for trying to organise unions at work.
Somehow there isn't the same outrage from HN at _those_ people having their
free speech impaired.

(Random example in case people claim this doesn't happen:
[https://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/newark-workers-
alleged...](https://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/newark-workers-allegedly-
fired-union-activity-reach-settlement-seiu) )

It's not that people supporting the free speech of Nazis _are_ transitively
Nazis, but people doing so ought to take a good hard look at themselves and
why they choose to spend their time and energy on this cause rather than
others.

Not to mention that there really are a lot of dedicated Internet trolls
constantly probing the velociraptor fences of exactly how close to Nazi
ideology they can get on any given platform without being spotted.

~~~
Inconel
Interesting, so now we've gone from labelling people Nazis if they vocally
defend specific free speech rights, to being suspicious that they might be
Nazis if they don't vocally defend other specific speech rights, speech that
may concern topics that might never get to the front page of HN resulting in
widespread discussion?

Again, personally I tend to fall on the side of the government having less
ability to restrict speech but it doesn't really bother me if companies want
to restrict the kind of speech their employees can engage in at work, or what
kind of speech they'll allow on their platforms. This gets trickier in cases
where the companies might have businesses that approach what I would consider
a utility, but that's a different topic, and really that has more to do with
regulating companies as utilities.

I'm not positive in this, but I do suspect that if stories like the one you
linked found themselves on the front page for hours at a time, perhaps if some
Googlers tried to unionize and they were all fired, we would probably see
quite a few people be defensive of their right to speech. I doubt we would see
a complete overlap, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if we would see some
overlap in the posters defending their speech rights with those defending the
speech rights of neo-Nazis. I suspect we might also see some posters who think
all Nazi speech should be outlawed but think this kind of unionization related
speech should be protected.

You're of course correct that these topics do tend to bring out the trolls,
but on a site like HN I tend to find it relatively easy to identify trolls,
even if not through a specific post they make, a quick glance through their
posting history often reveals whether they are engaging with the community in
good faith.

~~~
pjc50
A quick check reveals a discussion of Amazon unionization, which has no
mention of speech at all.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14566059](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14566059)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7559869](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7559869)
somewhat old, one comment saying "It will be interesting to see whether the
people rallying to Eich's free speech rights despite his homophobia will be
similarly impassioned about rallying to yours despite your rejection of
serfdom."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14905937](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14905937)
Nissan: not very highly voted, probably never made it to front page. No
mention of speech.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14973506](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14973506)
fired for speaking at DEFCON: astonishingly, nobody bothers with the "free
speech" argument.

> suspicious that they might be Nazis if they don't vocally defend other
> specific speech rights

If someone only bothers to make the "free speech" argument in that context?
I'm going to infer some things from that.

~~~
Inconel
Those are all good points, and I don't have much to rebut.

I guess the only thing I still take issue with is the notion that so much can
be inferred not just from which topics people comment on but which ones they
don't. Especially if that inference comes with the tacit accusation of Nazism.

Again, going by my own experience, I tend to be pretty limited in the topics I
comment on. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, I don't have a ton
of time to browse HN so the most likely topics for me are those that are on
the front page long enough for me to see. Second, I'm no where near
knowledgeable enough to comment substantively on the more technical topics,
which leaves me with the more social/political ones. At the same time I don't
want to get into the habit of commenting extensively and only on those topics
since I don't think that's good for the community. Thirdly, if I'm being
honest here, my lack of education and poor writing ability is a constant
source of embarrassment, I try very hard to formulate my ideas into coherent
comments and I suspect it takes me much longer to do this than it does for the
average HN user. I try not to make quick low effort comments, but the
alternative requires a pretty serious time commitment on my part.

The main point I'm attempting to illustrate here, possibly quite poorly, is
that I already feel I have to be very careful in my commenting. This isn't a
bad thing, it's arguably what makes HN's comment section so much better than
anywhere else I've found, but after your comments I now also feel like in
addition to making sure my comments aren't too political, or that I'm not only
commenting on political topics, and that my arguments are actually coherent,
again all good things to think about when engaging with a community, I now
also have to think whether someone might mistake me for a Nazi because I
commented on one topic and not on another.

This of course is by any measure a pretty meaningless hardship, there are much
bigger worries in life, and while I don't think I add much to the HN
community, I think we should be extra careful when accusing others of being
Nazis. It carries a fairly heavy social penalty, in most places at least, and
rightfully so, and can make people more hesitant to speak. I'm not saying this
is something you've done, in fact I usually recognize your username and you
definitely aren't guilty of this, but I've seen quite a few comments over the
last few weeks implying that anyone standing up for certain free speech
rights, and in this case I'm specifically referring to government action
regarding speech not corporate action, is siding with Nazis.

Sorry if this comment is somewhat rambling.

------
rbanffy
It's fascinating to see an article about neurodiversity and freedom of speech
with the comments section closed.

~~~
Cthulhu_
Just because of all that doesn't mean it's not controversial - that's kind of
what the article is trying to point out.

I wanted to share it with e.g. colleagues as a thoughtpiece, but decided not
to because of what it might say about me.

~~~
rbanffy
Still, I'd imagine someone who publishes an article defending the extremes of
freedom of speech would not have the comments section closed.

------
rbanffy
They lost me when they used the word "Inquisition".

We have a need of unbiased discussion. This is not it.

~~~
notahacker
A quick Google suggests the author was subject to a bit of adverse publicity
for tweeting "Dear obese PhD applicants: if you didn't have the willpower to
stop eating carbs, you won't have the willpower to do a dissertation #truth"
and continues to publish and teach at the same institution after making his
excuses and apologies and getting a formal warning.

It's a sad irony indeed if it's people frowning on that comment that's lead
him to lecture everyone else on [censorious academic culture] arbitrarily
deterring marginalised people from study.

~~~
aussieguy1234
The Author is Autistic. It's likely he didn't realise what we was saying was
offensive until after the fact.

~~~
Asdfbla
And is it a bad thing to let him know it is offensive? If he can't comprehend
it naturally, maybe he can at least learn.

I guess you could make a case that people who are diagnosed to lie on the
autistic spectrum should get a bit more leeway from the administration with
regard to disciplinary action (because it's not really their fault), but what
else are you gonna do? Give them a free pass? I don't think that even has much
to do with the feared political correctness anymore.

~~~
aussieguy1234
No, but do we let him know by educating him, or should his "lesson" be getting
fired from the University or facing disciplinary action that is likely to
worsen his condition? Hopefully he will take legal action against the
universities policies if it's the latter on the grounds of unfair disability
discrimination.

~~~
Asdfbla
Seems hard to judge which of his statements are caused by his condition and
which by him just being a vocal and opinionated person in general - but I
guess that's a point in his favor because if that distinction is hard to make,
it's probably better to err on the side of free speech instead of trying to
figure out what's typical and what's atypical behavior which gets a free pass.

