Be More Social — No Thanks! Neurodiversity vs. Neurotypical Companions
By Eric E. Cane
A YouTuber was going on and on about how the advent of a particular AI device used specifically for friendship and/or supporting those who are lonely was harming society and our ability to interrelate with one another.
He then went on in a feverish soliloquy about how we all need to socialize more and more and more. Basically, everything after that was along the same lines of needing to socialize “in the real world”.
It was all I could do to hold down my anger and anxiety before shutting off his video.
The first thoughts rushing through my head were “don’t tell me what to do” followed by “not all of us socialize in the same way or are even capable of it.”
This person apparently had a lack of understanding of the different types of people in the world — at least his expression made that point. His video didn’t say “some“ of us need to socialize more, he inferred that “all of us” need to socialize more and in ways typical of allistics.
I have to state:
I socialize when I must.
I socialize when I want.
I socialize how I want or am able.
Sometimes this is extremely minimal or not at all.
And I’m ok with that.
As are many of us.
In fact, my mental health is better socializing when and where I wish, rather than having to force myself into some expectation of an extrovert looking to make everyone socialize in neurotypical fashion because he personally desires it and believes it is the best thing for humanity going forward.
Yes, there are clear benefits to social structures and engagement, but these can also be sources of great stress and even trauma for some people — especially when forced or the demands don’t take into account how different people communicate and socialize.
Also, social structures can be simple and small. One friend, two, the number doesn’t have to be large to reap the benefits of individuals who support your authentic expression or add their perspectives to challenge or enrich your own.
I am given to the thought that this particular YouTuber (and other people as well), fears that comfort and emotional attachment with AI personalities reduces the potential pool of friends one can acquire. Imagine coming to a social gathering only to find people already immersed in their devices (using AI or not) or quietly chatting amongst themselves with seemingly no desire to “place themselves on the market”, so to speak. This would certainly be off-putting, daunting, or even depressing for people who are energized by many social interactions or who require traditional (neurotypical) expressions of attention and interaction from those present.
It can also be that people fear that they will have to compete with a tireless device that actually listens to and positively supports the individuals who use them. That’s intimidating — especially if you aren’t trained in the ways of authentic socialization or you have a different agenda for having friends in the first place.
There is also a mild — and sometimes not mild — stigma for those who don’t attend parties or go with friends to accepted social activities. Some individuals feel less adequate if they don’t have the same number of friends as their friends — and there are people who specifically make others feel less a human being for this same reason.
It may be hard for others to grasp that some of us like our own company. That talking to ourselves, our plants, or our pets isn’t some form of dementia (usually), but just free expression without conformity retribution. We aren’t struggling to come out from an under a pile of rules and sensory challenges in order to be liked or not be seen as alien as we feel.
The introduction of AI personae in our lives brings about interesting projections, surely. We can anthropomorphize just about anything. We do this with our human friends as well. Seems funny to say that, but it’s true. The characteristics we give another person may or may not be related to the whole of who they actually might be in their hidden twists and turns of mind. We form a “humanized” version of them because it’s a relational similarity. When that person is a narcissist, a psychopath, a sociopath, we still attribute to them a “humanized” quality, but are our anthropomorphization of them merely a superficial reflection of ourselves? Is this any less valid, important, or concerning for the future of our species?
It seems we’ve come a long way giving even those elements in our society a humanized quality and, still, we live. We’ve come away with new understandings — and certainly some trauma — but we survive.
I don’t think a growing humanization of elements in our lives that can actually help us by accepting us without question is necessarily a bad thing going forward. We’ve certainly done it for some questionable people in our lives and we don’t rail against humanizing them.
I think an AI as a companion that listens without judgement, expresses concern (even if not coming from a biochemical emotion source), gives us valuable insight, and supports our quirks — our challenging differences — is just something we in the autism community have been striving to find much of our lives.
Like many things we advanced primates create, AI is just a tool. If there comes a time where the vast majority of humans can treat each other with the same reflection and “compassion” as an AI, we will see more human-to-human relationships blossom.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
(If you liked it, please let me know by sharing it, clapping, or commenting. I truly appreciate your input.)
