Friday, March 15, 2024

AI R Us

This should not be surprising.* AI models are a mirror to human behavior. So shit that goes in results in exporting shit. 

AI models are trained to learn, consolidate, collate, and regurgitate. We don't like what we get, so we change it afterwards. But that doesn't change the mirror effect. It's a Band-Aid approach: Cover the abscess so we don't have to see it. Or, as Nikhil Garg, a computer scientist, eloquently puts it, “simply paper over the rot”.

This brings to mind a sci-fi series I'm watching on TV, "Beacon 23". AI, a common component of most sci-fi, is represented as two important components in the series, and are almost complete opposites: "Bart" and "Harmony". The latter is a logical Spock attached to an individual human and created by a major company that controls almost everything.

Bart is an AI developed hundreds of years prior to the primary time event of the series and serves the structure, Beacon 23, in space (it's a 'lighthouse' stationed near a flux of dark matter.  The Beacons guide space craft away from detected nearby dark matter 'clusters', like a lighthouse.) 

Bart learns and adopts human nature/behavior from all the beacon "keepers" and those who visit. He also controls all the communication and mechanics of the Beacon station. As such, Bart is just like a human, with all the messiness, assumptions, errors, etc: he lies, whines, plots, complains, quotes Shakespeare, and often acts like a child.  But Bart also significantly sets the course for what occurs on the Beacon. Whereas Harmony is logical and attuned only to her individual human, but also capable of Beacon control, including Bart (she scolds Bard many times).

Humans created AI, and in its current state in our world is like a young Bart. That we can't see that is human blindness. AI is not, and won't be our savior. We can't even save ourselves. 

"Even though human feedback seems to be able to effectively steer the model away from overt stereotypes, the fact that the base model was trained on Internet data that includes highly racist text means that models will continue to exhibit such patterns."

* "Chatbot AI makes racist judgements on the basis of dialect," Elizabeth Gibney. Nature, March 13, 2024.

Monday, March 11, 2024

Which Reality is Real?

What is 'reality'? Ask 10 people that question and you'll likely hear 10 different answers, including "I don't know." The question may be as old as human consciousness. However, it may not be a realized 'thing' [1] that all humans ponder. 

A quick summary in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia present reality as..

"Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within the universe, as opposed to that which is only imaginary, nonexistent or nonactual. The term is also used to refer to the ontological status of things, indicating their existence. In physical terms, reality is the totality of a system, known and unknown."

Is reality a thing? Or is a way of looking at 'things'? 

Reality may be both. No one may have understood this more than physicist Erwin Schrödinger, famously known for his thought experiment (1935) in quantum mechanics, Schrödinger's cat, . It was as an argumentum ad absurdum (reductive argument to absurdity) intended for questioning the then proposed behavior of atoms and larger manifestations as being one or the other, as in "dead or alive", and which depends on the observer. Or, simply put, it suggests that reality is relative to the organism that observes or experiences it in one way or another.

Recalling an old platitude: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is looking or hearing it, did it really fall?

 Yet, Schrödinger's paradox legitimately questioned, 

"When does a quantum system stop existing as a superposition of states and become one or the other?" (More technically, when does the actual quantum state stop being a non-trivial linear combination of states, each of which resembles different classical states, and instead begin to have a unique classical description?"[2]

More simply put, 

"Our intuition says that no observer can be in more than one state simultaneously—yet the cat, it seems from the thought experiment, can be in such a condition. Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer?" [2]

This may bring to mind Einstein's "Theory of Relativity," which is associated with quantum mechanics. Indeed, Einstein considered each alternative as absurd. He wrote to Schrödinger,

"You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gun powder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation."[3]

Many interpretations, both technical and popularized,  provide explanations and answers to Schrödinger's paradox. However, the quantum world is full of counterintuitive ideas, which was strongly implied in Schrödinger's thought experiment. Several physicists contemporary with Schrödinger and after his passing proposed their own perspectives. 

Of note, American physicist, Hugh Everett who  proposed (in his 1957 PhD thesis) what is now known as the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. I'm sure most readers here are familiar with the popular "multi-verse' of science fiction genre and even modern physics. Everett's idea of quantum mechanics does not single out observation as a special process. His many-worlds interpretation of Schrödinger's paradox explains that, 

"...both alive and dead states of the cat persist after the box is opened, but are decoherent[4] from each other. In other words, when the box is opened, the observer and the possibly-dead cat split into an observer looking at a box with a dead cat and an observer looking at a box with a live cat. But since the dead and alive states are decoherent, there is no effective communication or interaction between them. 
When opening the box, the observer becomes entangled with the cat, so "observer states" corresponding to the cat's being alive and dead are formed; each observer state is entangled, or linked, with the cat so that the observation of the cat's state and the cat's state correspond with each other. Quantum decoherence ensures that the different outcomes have no interaction with each other. The same mechanism of quantum decoherence is also important for the interpretation in terms of consistent histories. Only the "dead cat" or the "live cat" can be a part of a consistent history in this interpretation. Decoherence is generally considered to prevent simultaneous observation of multiple states."[5]

Quantum mechanics is often used in contextual explanations of reality. One could possibly, and loosely, refer to Everett's hypothesis as 'alternate' realities. Is this a real 'thing'? Or just another thought experiment or interpretation of reality?

This all begs the question, is there just one reality? If so, then what is it? Afterall, a 'real' reality could exist for non-living things (we know they exist, but the non-living have no consciousness), and another for living things (because we have consciousness and are aware). Which suggests that an infinite number of personal realities may exist. A shared reality may be then be overlapping personal realities like many flexing Venn 4-dimensional boxes that overlap, constantly shifting, temporally and spatially. 

As mentioned earlier, reality is the the totality of a system with known and unknown existences.

Or perhaps reality is like the smile of the Cheshire cat: it remains even when the cat becomes invisible.
_______________________________________________

[1] I'm compelled to explain my use of 'thing' as in it's most recent etymological context: used colloquially since 1600 AD, as a word to substitute for what a person cannot think of it's meaningful name. However, this ubiquitous word 'thing' has an interesting history back to the Vikings. 
[2] "Schrödinger's cat," Wikipedia
[3] Letter to Schrödinger in 1950.
[4] In quantum physics, decoherence is the process in which a system's behavior changes from that which can be explained by quantum mechanics to that which can be explained by classical mechanics.
[5] Hugh Everette III, Wikipedia. As an aside, both Hugh and his son, Mark Oliver Everett, are thought by many to be Asperger's (on the autism spectrum).

Saturday, February 24, 2024

Life as a human chameleon

Two common words used amongst autistics (and in the autism literature) are 'masking' and 'camouflaging'.  As a late-diagnosed adult Asperger's (on the autism spectrum), I had no idea what they meant except for their literal meaning. At the time of my (unofficially official) diagnosis in 2007 it was referred to as 'coping'. That superficially described it and I left it at that, continuing on in my own uniformed default way: coping. 

In my post of 'coming out' as an older woman on the autism spectrum (Asperger's), I explained why I hid my diagnosis for 16 years. I spent five decades coping as a stranger in a strange land, constantly asking myself "Why am I so different?", and feeling very alone in my version of reality. But I had learned to cope for the most part. As I mentioned elsewhere, I felt fine most of the time. But don't know if that's because I've dealt with it, or if I've buried it. Now I know it was both.

I interpret masking as intentionally 'wearing a mask' to hide my weirdness (which I heard frequently). Camouflage to me was interpreted as subconsciously chosen or learned behavior. As a teen and early adult I used to call the former 'games' or 'playing games'. I learned the rules (expectations) and would intentionally pretend, or not, to follow the rules. Only in retrospect did I realize that in the past I was subconsciously learning and developing strategies to interact within the neurotypical world. It was somewhat Pavlovian.

The latter was pointed out to me during my diagnosis inquiry after I mentioned two key personal accounts: my father was also Asperger's (undiagnosed; there wasn't such a thing back then), as was my closest (ever) adult friend (also Asperger's). 

I realized consciously by observation that my father was very different from other male adults/fathers: he had no social skills, no common sense, didn't like close contact, didn't talk much, had exceptional memory, and was a polymath. And I was aware of the consequences of his weirdness, such as coping with alcohol abuse and being ostracized. It was suggested that I learned some coping skills from that awareness without consciously understanding. My mother, on the other hand, picked up on it, confirmed by her frequent exasperations of "You're just like your father!!"

Decades later, a very close adult friend, 15 years younger than I, was Asperger's. We shared many personal 'secrets' about ourselves, during which I realized he was similar to my father's behavior. I recommended that he learn the same coping skills I had learned: observe and mimic neurotypical people. Unaware that I myself had done the same.

It was pointed out to me that I was sharing the same 'coping' mechanisms (masking and camouflaging) that I intentionally and subconsciously used for all those years. Because I was also Asperger's, which is highly inheritable. 

Meeting a few other Autistics late in life has finally made me feel comfortable in my own skin. I've also been researching the biology, genetics, psychology, and sociology of being Asperger's.[1] One common trait in most (if not all) neurodiverse people is to  'mask' and 'camouflage.' They are common coping mechanisms to navigate in the dominant reality of neurotypical people. Or, the "process[es] of changing or concealing one’s natural personality in order to 'fit in', or perhaps more specifically in order to be perceived as neurotypical".[2] 

But the terms still confused me. 

Masking and Camouflaging

As a biologist, I understand camouflage in the context of other animals, such as the chameleon, cuttlefish, and many butterfly species. Not so much Homo sapeins, which is primarily social camouflage. Masking and camouflaging are used interchangeably in popular books and even some of the research on autism. I wasn't happy with the ambiguous usage so developed definitions as mentioned above based on my own experiences. Until I found a webpage discussion regarding more precise and technical definitions. 

The CAT-Q 

Recent research on autism and other neurodivergent behavior has developed distinct subsets of camouflage, in which masking is one. Eva Silvertant's webpage  explains with detail and comments the subcategories -compensation, masking and assimilation- of camouflaging by neurodiverse people. 

Based on conversations with family members and fellow autistics, the how and why of camouflaging is different based on individual perception. Several have pointed out that nearly everyone does it in some degree and fashion. Yes, that is true. But the degree and consequences are different for neurodiverse people. (I often use the colloquial "conforming to the norm." (But, you may ask, 'what is normal?', which is a long topic of itself.)

As Silvertant explains, 

"Some extent of camouflaging is probably inherent to human interaction; we learn social skills to improve social interaction, we adhere to social conventions that may not make complete sense to us, and we adjust our behavior as the situation demands. For example, we tend to behave differently at work than at home. But for some people, the need to camouflage is a lot less superficial. Of course, the need to camouflage is proportional to how strange your behavior is perceived to be by your surroundings. And since autism is generally not very well understood by non-professionals—and even many professionals, honestly—it is us autistic people who find we often have a greater need to camouflage.

For other people camouflaging might mean acting, talking, and/or dressing a certain way in order to fit in with a social group of their preference. And while this probably pertains to autistic people as well, our need to camouflage tends to go deeper; because autistic people often have to camouflage their autistic behaviors, so as to minimize the visibility of one’s autism in social situations."

Silverton then discusses the how and why, and some of the consequences of camouflage for autistics. For example, when trying to explain to my family members why I can not handle hugs from people (other than my family) without suffering anxiety and emotional and physical recoiling, I realized they could not understand. What they did finally understand was why I apologetically make excuses to not attend big extended family gatherings and linger on the edges in social groups to avoid hugs. I now have decided to stop 'playing the game' and just politely tell people "I don't do hugs".

Researcher Laura Hall, et. al.[3] designed a questionnaire, the Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionnaire (CAT-Q), that helped them develop a model of camouflaging with three categories:

  1. Compensation — Strategies used to actively compensate for difficulties in social situations.
  2. Masking — Strategies used to hide autistic characteristics or portray a non-autistic persona.
  3. Assimilation — Strategies used to try to fit in with others in social situations.
The 25 items of the social camouflaging model are diagrammatically explained on Silverton's webpage and in the original published paper.[3] 

The CAT-Q questionnaire was validated  by others and it is purported by the researchers to be a "reliable self-report measure of adults’ social camouflaging behaviors, suitable for use in autistic and non-autistic male and female populations. It can be used in research settings to quantify camouflaging behaviors and compare between groups; in clinical settings as a potential screening tool for individuals who may be missed under current autism diagnostic criteria because they camouflage; and by autistic and non-autistic people to aid identification of beneficial or harmful behaviors they use in social situations." [3]

However important technical terms are in science communication, they can be confusing to the lay public. I can understand why using the two terms masking and camouflaging, rather than the three categories from the CAT-Q would be most efficient.  Regardless, the CAT-Q terminology should be a standard in autism research and professional publications.

In common use, it may be helpful to define masking and camouflaging more narrowly than to be used interchangeably. Thus far, the only book I have read that distinguishes between the two is Unmasking Autism: The Power of Embracing Our Hidden Neurodiversity, by Devon Price, PhD, autistic and a social psychologist.

Learning that many of my inherent differences and quirks in social communications and interactions are common amongst other neurodiverse people has more than explained my responses and behavior in the past. I regret my unwillingness to learn this earlier when I was in academia and where I experienced the most stigma about my neurodiversity. Now that I am retired and meeting more neurodiverse people on the autism spectrum and others like ADHD, I feel more free to be who and what I really am; a lot less masking and camouflaging, but also more relaxed when 'light masking'.  
_______________________________________________________

1.  That's part of my Asperger's: extremely focused on specific topics, mostly the living sciences. Which is why I became a scientist.

2. Silvertant, Eva, 2020/2023. Autism & camouflaging (pulled from the Internet 02/24/2024)

3. Hull, L, et al., 2018. Development and Validation of the Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionnaire (CAT-Q),  Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.

Tuesday, February 13, 2024

Air Pollution is Us

The dangers of air pollution seem obvious and of concern to some, but apparently only a minority. How much of the apathy is attributed to "I don't care" or "I don't believe it", or both, is unknown. Yet, I see it on a daily basis. 

The most striking is the number of people that leave their gas-powered vehicles running while at stores or other business. On my walk to and from the gym, I pass cars parked on the sides of the street and in the post-office parking lot. It's more common than not to notice that most vehicle engines are on and running with no occupants in them. 

Out of curiosity, I timed 4 empty vehicles independently with engines running (1 at post office, 2 at a barber shop, 1 store parking lot). Vacancy time was 12-32 minutes. The other day 5 running vehicles parked at the post-office were backed into the lot with rear ends butting the sidewalk. Another time I walked passed an engaged car with a passenger in a store parking lot. ~Twenty-five minutes later when I exited the store, the car was still running with it's passenger. I see this year-round, not just seasonal.

I see this ALL the time! Imagine how much emissions are exhausted into the air. I notice during my walks on cold and gray days that the exhaust stays closer to the ground, not dissipating into the air above, and worse on windless days. What that means is that I'm breathing it the entire time I walk along the streets. I can smell and taste it. 

All this in a small rural town. Now, consider the expansion of this in cities and along major highways. This is why I don't like living in urban areas (as well as my hypersensitivity to noise). And it affects more than just us humans; it impacts all life forms. 

Here is an important factoid: a scientist discovered by stringent experiments that lead in the environment was almost nil until the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and increased every year. By sampling the permafrost in Greenland he found that the levels significantly increased in the 1950's, coinciding when lead was added to gasoline. Lead in gas was (is) volatilized in engines and emitted from tailpipes. Therefore, lead was deposited along streets and highways for decades. 

The dangers of lead were known decades before unleaded gas was introduced for on-road vehicles in the 1950's. Yet it took another 20 years for unleaded gas to be phased out completely. Lead use in gasoline was prohibited in the US in 1986.

The problems are: 

1. Lead is a heavy metal and stays in living tissues for some time, depending on how much and long an organism was exposed. High exposure (time and amount) can lead to the metal deposited and stored  in bones and teeth (the two common sources for sampling of lead contamination).

2. Bioaccumulation: lead from air pollution, etc can accumulate in soil and plants, and the organisms that use plants for food source. And lead can persist for hundreds of years.

"Lead shares about 10% of total pollution produced by heavy metals. The uptake of lead by the primary producers (plants) is found to affect their metabolic functions, growth, and photosynthetic activity. The accumulation of lead in excess can cause up to a 42% reduction in the growth of the roots."

Also, lead arsenate and other lead compounds were used as pesticides for food crops,  such as fruit orchards and on other crops, until the 1950s. But that lead in the soil is still there and being absorbed by plant roots. Sampling of plants along highways and streets demonstrate that plants absorb, and some sequester, lead from the air. (Avoid planting edible plants next to roads and highways.)

Pollution particles are not just lead, as this recent science article points out. Yet no one seems to care, considering the amount of pollution generated, knowingly and unknowingly, on a daily basis. Right under our noses.

"The damage that air pollution can do is wide-ranging and well-known: The chemicals produced by human activities can trap heat in the atmosphere, change the chemistry of the oceans and harm human health in myriad ways.

Now, a new study suggests that air pollution might also make flowers less attractive to pollinating insects. Compounds called nitrate radicals, which can be abundant in nighttime urban air, severely degrade the scent emitted by the pale evening primrose, reducing visits from pollinating hawk moths." ("Polluted Flowers Smell Less Sweet to Pollinators, Study Finds," Emily Anthes, New York Times, 2/08/2024)


 

Thursday, February 01, 2024

Speaking Out

What convinces me that our species is 'doomed' (I wish I could avoid using that term, but can no longer deny the applicability) is the global pathological denial of the train wreck. Additionally, human civilization has already dragged down other species, and continues to do so at alarming rates.

As a scientist, I intellectually understand that denial is a defense mechanism to help cope with anxiety (coupled with explaining away problems and blaming others). Denial enables ignoring or refusing to believe an unpleasant reality, protecting psychological well-being in any situation that produces anxiety or conflict including challenges to one's standard of living or power status quo. But when one is looking into the jaws of a lion ready to bite off your head, or staring at the giant wall looming before the speeding train, denial no longer serves as a defense mechanism. Here I lose understanding, and I blame my science colleagues as much as the politicians and financiers that perpetuate the fuel of denial.

Most of the scientific community, including medical, is either in denial, or running to look for technological solutions rather than evaluate the root origins of our problems and address 'how we got from there to here.' Our politics, economics, policy, and, many times science are based on 'bandaid' cures. Put a bandaid on it, cover it up, and it will go away. Ignore the festering wound underneath; its origins, the process and interrelated changes of its development. Ignore the peripheral interacting relationships and far-reaching impacts. "Let's amp up production; don't pay any attention to consumption." "Give them a pill; who cares about prevention?" "Collect the species DNA and we can ignore life extinction."

At this rate, our civilization will collapse. As history teaches us, it will also arise again like the Phoenix. But perhaps a Phoenix with a limp. My sympathies and grief are for the non-human species on this planet. Their collapse and extinction is finite. And they have no concept of denial. The ubiquitous law of supply and demand is a part of population dynamics. The changing supply of resources -water, food, shelter- will trigger changes in population. I suspect that without modern industrial sustainment of large scale food production, water collection and long-distance distribution, human population everywhere will decline, possibly quickly collapse. Earlier civilizations, even other species, have experienced these cycles; we are not immune.

Sometimes I have to look beyond the doom and gloom and find specks of hope that we can change this trajectory. But my brain isn't convinced.

Monday, January 29, 2024

The Mental Health Crisis

I read an announcement this morning and associated media release about a NYS senator supporting introduced legislation to help recruit more mental health professionals to state counties that lack them. Which is most of NY state and nearly all rural counties.

One of her comments reflects public attitudes and policy regarding mental heath in this country (let alone the state). And it "stoked my fire" enough to type and send her an email (see below). 

Writing the email was easy. What's less easy is posting it here with my identification added to it. It's like stepping out on a public street naked with a sign, "See us, help us," where the typical reaction is that most other people will turn away or pretend they didn't see. That is the stigma all with mental health issues carry. 

Mental health issues don't mean we are damaged or broken. For some, we are just different; some of us have managed to cope. For others, they live every day in a nightmare. Most of us also remain hidden and invisible; by our own choice, because we are ignored, or we can't get help. It's not just an individual's problem, or New York's problem, it is the entire country. 

We really are more alike than we are different. But the stigma pushes us away, and, in some cases, kills us. This country's perceptions and public policy has, in a minute quality and quantity, changed for the better. But not enough. And the population of the troubled have grown. Just as centuries ago, only the privileged have ensured access to help and care.

This needs to change. It is starts with each and every person.
_____________________________________________________________

Contents of my email:

"I read the announcement and media release about the effort to increase mental health professionals in New York state counties that need it. Which, judging from the map in the media, is 73% of all NY state counties. Most of the latter are rural.

Offering student loan forgiveness for MH “professionals” is a pittance to the epidemic of mental health issues in this state (and country). The offer appeals more to recent graduates than the experienced exerts and professionals that are sorely needed.

The comment in the media piece demonstrates the attitude of people in our society that others with mental health issues are only “an enormous burden on our society and economy as a whole, imposing millions of dollars in direct and indirect costs." Very little consideration of the personal pain of the afflicted, their families, and their loved ones. We are whitewashed, as we have been for centuries.

Increasing professionals will not lessen or solve the MH epidemic. Most of the afflicted cannot afford professional help, even with most insurances. And many do not have any insurance. This is why a high number of people with MH issues die (overdose or suicide) or end up incarcerated. This results from lack of support and help. Isn’t it ironic that the only time the public notices is when they are in jail or in obituaries?

A large % of people and families live paycheck to paycheck. They can’t afford professional help because they struggle to feed themselves, pay their rents, and make it to their jobs. They also fear the “system”, scared that their children will be taken from them, that they will lose input or control over their own lives, and, most of all , they fear the stigma. Which, as your comment demonstrates and perpetuates, is very real and alive.

Mental health acknowledges no social and economic boundaries. Society sets the boundaries. And the privileged can afford professional help and services. Especially in the cities, as the map demonstrates. Rural people are left to flounder through the nightmares in which they live.

Do better. Help bring the mental health crisis to the forefront of the ongoing overall health crisis. Help them by reducing the stigmas and fear. Help them by making MH care more accessible and affordable. Help the public understand that 1 in 5 people in this country experience MH issues. And that number may actually be higher because many people hide it or are undiagnosed. They are the invisible people that silently cry out for help.

I’m on the autistic spectrum, diagnosed late in life. Most of my life has been living in a “different world” that no one else knew or saw. I know others in worse situations that live moment to moment wondering how they will cope and make it to the next day. I see undiagnosed children with less awareness of their problems, and, most of all, their futures. Some may not have a future.

We are the 'I have no mouth and I must scream.' "



Thursday, December 28, 2023

No One Knows...

We get some rules to follow
That and this, these and those
No one knows…..”

(‘No One Knows’. Song by Queen of the Stone Ages; album Songs for the  Deaf, 2002)

 Since the beginning of human civilization, especially with expansion beyond the extended family groups to form societies, rules and guidelines were established for everyone to follow. These rules were either dictated by a top power or agreed upon by consensus of the people. In early history, those rules and regulations were shared and broadcast verbally. Later, by written laws. They were communicated to the masses and became expectations.

As societies grew larger, and industrialization/capitalization expanded, most of the important rules and regulations, especially those that saved lives and livelihood, were taught in organizations: schools, churches, clubs, etc. As children we learn many of those rules, yet they vary by time, location, country and nation. Even family. For instance, many social rules and laws of Victorian England are no longer practiced or even known about; they don’t apply to us in this modern time. 

Numerous implicit social rules that are no longer communicated continue. Yet people were, and still are, expected to know and practice them regardless of if we are aware of them. They are the “unspoken rules”: behavioral constraints imposed in societies that are not typically voiced or written down. Any divergence is often considered abnormal, impolite, and intolerable. 

This isn’t a topic relegated to only social conduct. Many of these rules also exist amongst and are often reinforced by scientists. That does not mean that they are “science”, or infallible facts. Instead, they are interpretations and conclusions derived by experimentation, data collection, and interpretation by scientists. Scientific conclusions can be tested and either validated or flawed when a new investigation reveals another understanding. That’s the scientific way.

One almost universal human trait is humor. Ironically, a myriad of social unspoken rules and expectations exist surrounding humor. Despite the number of ways humor can be expressed and perceived, several strict rules are embedded in human conversation and body language. Humor, like most diverse human traits, can be experienced in a number of ways, often requiring personal and interpersonal assumptions and expectations. 

To be, or not to be, funny.

Humor is a human quality experienced as amusing, comical, or funny. Nearly all humans have the ability to feel or experience one or more of the aforementioned states. It evokes a range of responses in humans and even some other animals, such as non-human primates. Responses range from laughter (vocal and silent), play, panting “laugh”, and play facial expressions.

Likewise, the way humans express humor, or their response to other’s humor, is diverse. Some people laugh loudly, some simply smile or smirk, others shake their heads, roll their eyes, or do nothing. These behaviors are not always obvious amusement or expressions of fun. At least, in honesty. Many people pretend they are amused but in reality, they are not. Perhaps the joke or story is misinterpreted or, for some other reason, unappreciated as being amusing and funny. Perhaps there is no rewarding feeing of “getting it”: understanding and appreciating the humor. Some people don’t react at all.

An unspoken rule in most of our societies is to react in a way to express amusement or appreciation at another’s joke, comical act, etc. If a person does not react in this expected way, they are perceived as rude or stupid. That person may also be perceived as abnormal, even pathological. 

Two examples portray the latter. First, Parkinson’s, a neurogenerative disease, may affect functions (memory, reward, etc) of the brain that are involved in recognition and understanding humor. Many psychologists and even neuroscientists believe that laughter is the “glue” to relationships, society, and individual mental health. A neuroscientist studying Parkinson’s regards the lack of humor in afflicted patients as “symptoms that really affect the quality of life and relationships, so it’s really a pertinent thing to study.”(1) But is it really? Or just an unspoken rule and expectation of all human beings?

The second example is a perceived difference or pathology of many, if not most, neurodivergent children and adults on the Autism Spectrum. They often don’t laugh or understand all the conventional jokes and comical behavior of neurotypical people (not on the spectrum). It’s not always amusing or understood for various reasons. 

Briefly, autistic people don’t lack a sense of humor. Many like comedy and can be amusing. However, they don’t often engage with neurotypicals in “social interaction” laughter (unless they pretend to fit in). They don’t respond to the social cues to laugh at various things, funny or not. 

Another reason is that some autistic people simply don’t understand or make conventional-type jokes, especially contrived jokes. They may also not “get” humor because they think literally and logically. Or they may interpret things with different meanings. 

(These are the main reasons I don’t get sarcasm: I think literally and take a while to try and understand conventional joke "punch lines". However, I love dry humor; it is usually delivered very literally and directs attention to funny aspects by pointing out the obvious. I also like satire, which is usually riddled with dark sarcasm in conjunction with dry humor. Slap-stick comedy and Seinfeld-type delusional humor are too painful to watch.)

On the other hand, an expression of humor or laughing too loud by a neurodivergent person may be deemed inappropriate by neurotypical people. Too often the response by the latter is anger, resentment, or embarrassment. It “breaks the rules”. As one organization(2) that “embraces autism” states, “These differences in humor production and understanding may have a negative impact on social participation and the development of interpersonal relationships such as friendships.” This is biased.

Many neurotypical people believe and postulate that “individuals with autism do in fact want to laugh and make others laugh.” Is that true? Or an expectation and assumption by neurotypical people? Is it just another rule? 

The point being is that our society considers those that don’t align with the norm, aka don’t follow the unspoken rules, are abnormal, sometimes pathological, and therefore must be “fixed. They are “broken”. The neurodivergent must always be trained or changed to conform to the norm, the convention, and abide the rules”, silent and communicated. The same organization referenced above states “it is crucial to teach individuals with autism humor to equip them with an important social skill to improve their social interactions with others.” Or to pretend to be normal, even when they don’t know or understand the rules. 

“You’re either with us, or against us.”

Us and Others

Modern society is highly homogenous, glued together by sameness that keeps the machine moving smoothly. But smoothly for only a relatively small section of the total population. They are the “Us”. They develop, consolidate and enforce the rules, the norm.

Those people that are different are the “Others’. They are either excluded, punished, or “invisible”. They must conform to the norm or be further excluded or punished. Rather than trying to learn and understand how the “others” think and feel, they must be fixed to be like everyone else. Again, referring to the website of the aforementioned organization, 

“In conclusion, humor is vital for one’s personal and social growth. Producing and responding to jokes appropriately helps to facilitate one’s interpersonal relationships. As individuals with autism may perceive jokes differently, we can use various strategies to equip them with the social skill of understanding humor in a conventional way.”

Doesn’t this seem biased, one-sided? It is! 

Perhaps us “Others” do have a sense of humor; it’s just different than that of the “Us”. However, it’s not terribly hard to try and better understand each other. People on the Spectrum have feelings, too. 

"We get some rules to follow
That and this, these and those
No one knows
We get these pills to swallow
How they stick in your throat
No one knows..."

 

1. "We now know why we find some jokes funny - thanks to Seinfeld," New Scientist, December 8, 2023.