Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

VT_Squire t1_j9bv0u5 wrote

Yep.

Dog breeds, for example are often the product of intentional selection for behavioral qualities. Some breeds are typically more territorial, more gentle, more "independent minded," and so forth. Right along with that, some dogs have very little in the way of "speaking dog" to other dogs. No interest in sniffing butts, playing or seeing who lays down in a vulnerable position so others can check them out. In the great debate of nature vs nurture, there are many examples of dogs not being socialized with other dogs very well, so they end up with distinctly higher error rate when interpreting another dog's nip or bark or standoffish posture. They might take that as an attempt to initiate play when no such thing was meant. Likewise, their own communication through behavior and body language is often enough met with confusion by other dogs. And of course, sometimes they appear to be just plain born that way.

8

platonic-humanity OP t1_j9cbtch wrote

Hmm, the comparison to dogs does seem apt if we extrapolate the metaphorical, and not actually human relations are like dogs. I know that’s sidetracking the intent of this comment, but part of the reason I ask is to better understand the sociology of neurotypical-neurodivergent relations. So, I think the parallel to a species with differences we more commonly understand helps show the matter of neurodivergency being no better/worse, just sometimes not fit for the surrounding.

Makes me wonder if we’ve looked into other animal’s psychological differences, including their minorities, enough to understand much about how we view our own with mental ‘illnesses’. We aren’t fully sure how autism is caused nor how they survived in prehistoric times to still be genetically predisposed in many people.

0