On “Christianity & Bioethics: How to Defeat Eugenics with Collective Intelligence” by Lorenzo Barberis Canonico
Is neurodiversity the best way to escape Nash Equilibriums?
Lorenzo Barberis Canonico recently gave a presentation in which he argued that rational individuals in the Prisoner’s Dilemma will produce an irrational outcome, that the only way to break through this “trap of game theory” is for someone to act “non-rationally.” Lorenzo makes a point not to say “irrationally,” for if the final outcome of a “non-rational” act is “the best outcome” for everyone involved (such as the case in the Prisoner’s Dilemma), it wouldn’t make sense to call it “irrational.” And yet it doesn’t fit to say “rational” either, for those involved had to act against their (apparent) self-interest in order to achieve “the best outcome.”
Who acts non-rationally? Not people who think normally, that’s for sure, but this suggests that “thinking normally” isn’t always “thinking best.” In fact, in certain game theory situations, “thinking normally” is precisely what gets us into trouble. With the dilemmas of game theory in mind like the Prisoner’s Dilemma, if all we have is “the normal way of thinking,” we’ll never escape various “stuck states” where the benefits of rationality cancel one another out. I will call this stuck condition “Rational Impasses,” which the famous “Nash Equilibrium” helps us identify. To offer a definition, a “Rational Impasse” is a situation in which rationality keeps itself from reaching its overall best outcome.
But how do we overcome Rational Impasses if rational and normal ways of thinking are what cause them? By being more rational? Lorenzo’s solution is neurodiversity, to include people in our systems, businesses, and the like who are not bound to “normal ways of thinking.” This is similar to the thinking of the philosopher Giles Deleuze, who stresses difference as the key to escaping “normalities,” but, personally, I prefer Lorenzo’s prescription. This is because Lorenzo focuses on diversity in the mind, which to me is what counts. If everyone in the world is wearing different outfits, creating new businesses, and expanding difference infinity on the surface, but the ways of thinking under that surface remain the same, consequential difference will be lacking. Diversity will be an appearance. This isn’t to say Deleuze didn’t care about neurodiversity: it’s just that I appreciate Lorenzo’s laser focus.
Lorenzo stresses the value people on the spectrum add to enterprises, citing for example Michael Burry, the investor behind The Big Short, who made billions by doing someone that no one “in their right mind” would have ever done. Lorenzo then expands on the power of “collective intelligence” to generate, on average, better results than experts, and he notes that “a collective intelligence entailing neurodiversity” is the best tool for decision making. By dialectically putting “the rational” and “non-rational” in conversation with one another, problems will become solvable that otherwise would never be overcome. We cannot let thinking be “locked in the normal,” for otherwise, as we learn from game theory, thinking could be stopped by Rational Impasses.
Beautifully, Lorenzo uses his argument on how neurodiversity can break through Rational Impasses to uplift the marginalized. Lorenzo stresses the need to value people with Downes Syndrome, for example, as people who could think “non-rationally” and thus help us avoid Rational Impasses. If neurodiversity is our goal, it is the marginalized who are most likely to be a source of that diversity, precisely because people tend to be marginalized who don’t think like most people do (a quick glance through Foucault makes that clear). The impoverished, the orphaned, the downcast — all of these are much likelier sources for solving Rational Impasses than Harvard and Yale.
Additionally, with the introduction and expansion of gene-editing technology, Lorenzo is adamite that the only way to stop eugenics from making a reappearance in the 21st century is through a celebration of neurodiversity and understanding of its practical value in helping us overcome Rational Impasses. Individuals are increasingly able to figure out if their children will have Downes Syndrome before they are born, and it will be tempting for these parents to abort their children — in some parts of the world, this is already happening. Telling people “that’s wrong” will not be enough, Lorenzo stresses: a positive vision must also be presented, which is a vision Lorenzo offers.
Able to think “non-rationally,” not stuck in “the normal” like what concerned Foucault and Deleuze, the neurodiverse can be the “first movers” in producing new ways of thinking that save us from out-of-date systems and Rational Impasses. There is no telling what challenges the future will hold, but if we lack neurodiversity, from those challenges, we won’t be able to break free.