I think the explanation for the latter is that most neurotypicality *is* just successful conditioning (dependent on innate capability and willingness to do so) to perform it.

Many of the same traits and behaviors that overlap with "neurotypicality" also lie on the vast spectrum of neurodiversity, and are not the product of conditioning. But most instances are probably the result of conditioning, to the degree that "neurotypicality" would not be a majority/default if you only included people who just happened to be that way without conditioning.

I mean, some of the neurodivergent 'moral rigidity' is really just because of a greater need for consistency. And a lot of instances of injustice have components of inconsistent applications of rules (not necessarily the whole of it though, and not necessarily all instances of injustice).

I don't really know enough to theorize on why there's a shared need for consistency - just some vague thoughts on consistency helping with cognitive processing efficiency - but it seems to be a shared feature across ADHD and autism.

@dartigen
I wonder if there is a socialization component for this need for consistency.

Something ADHD and autistic folks have in common is being frequently misunderstood as children & being punished/corrected for things that don't make sense & aren't clear to them.

I think it makes sense to develop a need for consistency in that context. If people want us to abide by their rules, we would argue they had better spell them out and then abide by all the logical consequences of those rules.

@dartigen
We also are forced to explain our actions and justify our choices significantly more often than others, so we probably are more likely to approach a question like "what should I do about x thing?" from the existing mental framework that we use to try to convince others to treat us fairly & with consistency.

I think about how I would justify my actions to others to the point it is unhealthy, but I have always had to explain my choices to people who misinterpreted or misunderstood them

This could be a big component of it, yeah!

I was thinking more along the lines of how moral rules, like lots of other rules and rule-like frameworks, help to provide a cognitive shortcut. If it's always right to refill the coffee pot if you used the last of it, for example, you don't have to waste any cognitive energy considering if it's good in this instance to refill the coffee pot - it's always good, therefore refill coffee pot. Or if you always eat soup for lunch on Wednesday, you can cut down on the cognitive energy needed to decide on what to eat for lunch on Wednesday - you can bypass all other food categories and jump straight to deciding what kind of soup, instead of having to start from 'all possible lunch foods' and drill down to 'all possible types of soup'.

I feel like some of it may also run into empathy as well though - or maybe we all take the 'imagine yourself in this person's situation' description of empathy way too literally, and actually do that, and figure that we'd find that situation upsetting or infuriating and would probably react similarly, or we can at least understand how that person came to that reaction.

Heuristics, yes!

A lot of organized religions really lean on this "we did the heavy thinking so you don't have to / because you can't be trusted to" thing where they hand down dogma you're just supposed to default to without actually analyzing it in depth or even questioning it at all.

I was always an instinctive questioner (me at like 6 in Sunday school: "the Lord is my shepherd?? Shepherds EAT sheep!") so it's hard for me to wrap my head around the way so many people are much more comfortable following rules and really really don't WANT to look deeper because it genuinely freaks them out.

Yes, that is something very basic in the relationship between sheep and shepherds that xtians completely fail to grasp.

@violetmadder @dartigen @artemis