Plasticbrains is a term invented by Promethea to refer to a particular cluster of people who are disproportionately likely to be transgender. “Plastic” is a joking reference to BPAs, an endocrine disruptor in plastics, which some people have hypothesized is linked to transness. (There is no evidence that this is true, and “plasticbrains” is a joke.)
Common Traits of Plasticbrains
Plasticbrains people, as you can guess from the joke in the name, are disproportionately likely to be trans. However, not all plasticbrains people are transgender! While plasticbrains people are much more likely than baseline to be trans, many plasticbrains people are not transgender. It seems likely to me that half to two-thirds of plasticbrains people would not qualify as definitely cis, if you include “would transition in the glorious transhumanist future and but doesn’t want to now”, “happily only out as nonbinary to a few trusted friends”, “girl in the streets and dude in the sheets”, “socially dysphoric in very gendered spaces but otherwise fine”, “on hormones but not socially transitioning”, “I do not want to see or be seen by gender”, “??????”, and so on.
Plasticbrains people are most comfortable in situations with clear rules, consistently applied, which one can optimize within. This is probably why plasticbrains people are disproportionately represented in programming and math. Plasticbrains people often come up with clear and consistent rules for situations that don’t have them and then loudly insist that these rules are objectively correct. For instance, plasticbrains people often adhere to a specific philosophical school of ethics (egoism, utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics) instead of relying on intuitive morality. They often have odd political beliefs which they have worked out from first principles. (Anarchocapitalists and communists are both quite common. Even centrist liberal plasticbrains can generally explain to you why centrist liberalism follows from the basic principles of uncertainty and respect for experts.) But plasticbrains rules can apply to everything from programming languages (“Haskell is objectively correct”) to grammar (“prescriptivism is wrong and evil”) to social rules (“it is never morally wrong to make a request of anyone”).
Plasticbrains people often have a strong interest in optimization. Once they come up with a set of rules and goals, they will often try to optimize for their goals within their rules. Again, this probably explains their affinity for programming. This often leads to very strange behavior: for instance, plasticbrains people may adopt a variety of more or less evidence-based strategies for self-improvement, live on Soylent because that is the optimal way to save time and avoid cooking, or believe it is morally wrong to donate to the Red Cross because other charities use that money better.
There is no consensus among plasticbrains people what rules are actually the objectively correct rules. One would think that the fact that other plasticbrains people are going about saying “anarchocapitalism is obviously correct!” would make the plasticbrains communists think a bit, but as far as I know this has never happened. While in general plasticbrains people are pretty self-aware about their mental health issues, plasticbrains people are usually not self-aware about their rules. They can easily recognize that other plasticbrains people are adhering rigidly to their rules even in situations where there is more nuance, but then they will turn around and say “actually, lying is morally wrong and never justified and if you lie to people I will never interact with you again.” Occasional examples of plasticbrains people having nuance about their rules have been observed, but upon closer inspection these universally turn out to be plasticbrains people who have adopted “nuance exists!” as a rule. (I myself as I was typing this attempted to give “people in the developing world are exactly as important as people in the developed world, and the low level of foreign aid from developed countries is probably as bad as the Holocaust” as an example, but then my soul rebelled. Obviously, my own personal rules are just true.)
Plasticbrains people generally have engrossing and obsessive interests. These tend to be fairly intellectual interests, such as programming, linguistics, and history; however, obsessions with particular pieces of media are also common. The happiness of a plasticbrains person is directly correlated with how much time they spend talking about, collecting information about, or participating in their interest. Plasticbrains people often find other people’s interests to be just as interesting as their own interests, which leads to many happy plasticbrains friendships.
Plasticbrains people often have a hard time interacting with people who aren’t plasticbrains, although if they put time into developing the skill they can sometimes get pretty good at it. If a plasticbrains person has not put effort into the skill, then non-plasticbrains people will generally find them strange, off-putting, and uncomfortable to be around. This is possibly because plasticbrains body language tends to be unusual: for instance, they may come off as emotionless or robotic, or flap their hands when they’re happy or distressed. Plasticbrains people generally have a hard time understanding the behavior of non-plasticbrains people, but usually understand each other fairly well. That said, they have two consistent theory of mind failures which apply even to other plasticbrains people: “My Interests Are Interesting To Everyone And If They Aren’t Then I Clearly Have Not Explained Them Well Enough” and “My Rules Are Obviously Correct And If You Do Not Follow Them It Is Because You Are A Bizarre Moral and Intellectual Mutant.” If a plasticbrains person has adopted social rules that don’t work very well, this may also cause social failures.
Plasticbrains people tend to be introverted, but their level of social motivation ranges widely. Some plasticbrains people feel little to no desire to interact with anyone, while others enjoy regular social interaction. Some plasticbrains people may find interacting with certain people stressful and overwhelming in the same way they find loud noises stressful and overwhelming. Many appreciate quietly reading or writing in the same room as other people. Many plasticbrains people are very lonely, because their difficulties interacting with non-plasticbrains people makes it hard for them to fulfill their social needs.
Plasticbrains people usually have unusual sexualities. They are disproportionately likely to be bisexual. They are not disproportionately likely to be attracted the other assigned sex at birth, but the number of trans people means that many are lesbians or gay. Many plasticbrains people are asexual or low-libido or experience periods of asexuality. Plasticbrains people are often kinky. Many plasticbrains people enjoy and seek out casual sex. Some find touch much more rewarding than most people do, while others find it upsetting or painful.
Plasticbrains people typically find text-based interactions easier than verbal interactions. They like books. They are averse to phone calls. They may have entire relationships conducted solely over the Internet. While savant skills seem to be uncommon, hyperlexia is the most common.
Plasticbrains people combine neophilia with a strong aversion to change. Neophilia is the tendency to loathe tradition, easily become bored, and seek out novelty to the point that it becomes an obsession. Common areas for plasticbrains people to experience neophilia include art, literature, science, ideas, drugs, sex, and personal projects.
Interestingly, plasticbrains people also tend to dislike change. The specific ways in which they dislike change are very individual. For instance, one plasticbrains person may eat the same things for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day, while another plasticbrains person may object to working anywhere other than their home office which has been set up to their specifications, and a third plasticbrains person may have a strict daily routine and be distressed by disruptions.
Plasticbrains people typically have difficulties with executive function. However, their difficulties span a wide range. Some may have relatively ordinary problems, such as procrastination, difficulty planning how long tasks will take, constantly forgetting why they walked into this room, and never knowing where they left their cell phone. Others may have deeper executive function problems, such as “sometimes I can’t stand up because standing up has too many steps.”
Plasticbrains people are typically quite smart and do well in academic fields. Many of them are autodidacts.
Plasticbrains people often have sensory issues. For instance, plasticbrains people may have trouble following a conversation that takes place in a noisy room or when the television is on. They may find car alarms, fireworks, the sound of people chewing, or other noises to be viscerally upsetting. They may be easily distracted by small sounds. They often find weighted blankets comforting.
Plasticbrains people fidget. They may chew on their fingers, their clothing, or random objects. They may pace. They often enjoy playing with Rubix cubes, tossing balls hand to hand, or playing with a toy designed for fidgeting. They sometimes move around a lot.
Possible Plasticbrains Traits
A high number of plasticbrains people I know are Jewish, but I am uncertain if Jewish people in general are more likely to be plasticbrains.
Anecdotally, it seems like many plasticbrains people tend to suffer from generalized shame disorder, but this trend may just be because people who have excessive shame tend to talk to me about it.
Plasticbrains people often experience anxiety and depression. It is unclear to me if this is a product of the underlying brain difference or the fact that plasticbrains people often have awful childhoods because children are much more likely to express their discomfort with plasticbrains people through bullying and assault.
I am uncertain whether plasticbrains people are disproportionately likely to have mood disorders other than depression and anxiety. While I certainly know many plasticbrains people who go through hypomania-like episodes, I am not sure if that is a central trait.
Plasticbrains and Autism
It is very common to refer to plasticbrains people as being autistic, and many of us have autism diagnoses. I tend to agree with the excellent Rethinking Autism (piratable here) that it doesn’t make sense to think of autism as a single condition, or even as a bunch of related conditions. Instead, we should think of autism as being something like fever: a symptom cluster with a wide variety of underlying causes, some of which lead to different associated symptoms. While some ways of treating fever work for all fevers, regardless of cause, it wouldn’t make sense to research fever as a single thing with a single etiology or call the flu a “fever spectrum condition”.
Not all plasticbrains people qualify for an autism diagnosis, or even any sort of diagnosis at all. Many autistic people are not plasticbrains. Even so-called high-functioning autistics are often not plasticbrains: for instance, Temple Grandin is definitely not. However, I expect that this cluster will turn out to have a single underlying cause. I expect (in spite of the name) the cause will turn out to be genetic, because it seems to run in families.
This multi-faceted description seems so broad as to encompass a huge percentage of the “normal” adult population. Is this the intent?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am intending to point to a distinct cluster. If one does not have *most* of the traits described, then one is a different sort of thing (although perhaps an overlapping thing). I predict this cluster is a minority in the world (although probably a large minority in some groups, such as programmers).
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think what I’m trying to get at is that many chunks of this read like the sort of horoscopes that people like because they’re endlessly interpretable in a way to apply to “you”, where “you” is almost anyone. Like- “you like new things, but strongly want some things not to change”, and “you may have trouble following a conversation in a noisy room”, and “you might feel little to no desire to socially interact, or want to interact with lots of people”, and “you often have a hard time interacting with very different people from yourself”, and “you get really into your interests”, etc., etc.
I mean, I *know* what you’re getting at here, but the descriptions are extraordinarily vague, wide-encompassing, and wishy-washy.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Side-prediction: If my description/hypothesis is accurate, a large plurality or majority of people will think this describes them pretty well, even though they are very dissimilar to each other in more useful categorizations. (to borrow from rationalist lingo, I guess, you aren’t “carving reality at the joints”)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree that this is horoscope-esque, in that I read it, related to it, and then saw someone else in the comments explain how they weren’t it and related to that too. I also used to have a lot of people assume I must be the same kind of autistic as Temple Grandin when I am decidedly not, but I guess they were just really confused as to what to do with an intelligent-but-not-really-functional-in-any-way natal female (but decidedly not acting it even by autism standards) child. (Words are not my first language, but neither are pictures. And I’m ~*~*~nEuRoDiVeRgEnT~*~*~ in ways that aren’t autism and are occasionally considered the diametric opposite of autism too, so there’s that.
(I agree with the ‘this is autism, there is nobody like this who is not autistic’ assessment.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is always going to be subjective, but I really don’t think that it does. For instance, thinking about my workplace, which encompasses about 100 people from a variety of different backgrounds and fields, I can’t think of a single one who I’d describe as a plasticbrains person.
LikeLike
I agree with Emma. The preponderance of programmers among plasticbrains doesn’t mean that most programmers are plasticbrains. For example, if you walk into the math department at the school from which I just graduated, you might find some guys playing computer games or girls with hair twirling around their fingers, but nobody walking around in a circle holding a conversation too loudly while trying to solve a Rubik’s cube type item, which instead lies bereft and dusty on the table.
LikeLike
further datapoint: I’m an androgynous bisexual programmer who is very interested in optimizing things but still felt I was clearly not the thing while reading. I do not think my interests are Objectively Most Interesting, am unsure if my rules are the one true rules, don’t hate traditions, don’t have many sensory issues, etc.
LikeLike
This is me alright.
LikeLike
What is the difference between plasticbrains and autism? You distinguish between the two, but the description you gave of plasticbrains is very similar to descriptions I’ve heard of autism. Also, you just described me eerily well.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Temple Grandin, one of the most famous autistic people, is definitely not plasticbrains.
LikeLiked by 2 people
While Grandin isn’t plastic brains, it’s entirely possible that all plastic brains are autistic. Are there any anti-autistic traits of plastic brains? Like rarely having extreme sensory preferences about smells or something
LikeLiked by 1 person
IME, some plasticbrains do not have sufficiently strong traits to qualify as diagnosable with anything (although they might be broader autism phenotype) and some have ADHD diagnoses instead. (Of course, there is a lot of comorbidity between ADHD and autism.)
LikeLike
I claim that this kind of seemingly harmless joke is actually very bad for our collective epistemology, because it provides an out for people to (unintentionally or not) commit motte-and-bailey maneuvers! Here’s how it works: first the “autism ↔ plasticbrains ↔ trans ↔ BPA” meme spreads, encouraging people with whatever cluster of traits corresponds to “autism” to transition. Then, when anyone points out that autistic trans people have a completely different etiology (if you’re familiar with this pseudonym, you know what I’m talking about), you say, “Oh, don’t take the term ‘plasticbrains’ so literally; it’s just a joke!”
If transitioning were literally zero-cost, there really would be no harm in the joke. But in our world, transitioning is actually really expensive! This matters!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have several objections!
(1) There is absolutely no reason to believe that “type-two transness is caused by autogynephilia” and “type-two transness is caused by BPAs” are mutually exclusive. Endocrine disruptors might cause a particular sexual fetish.
(2) Your preferred etiology has an identical problem with getting people to transition when they maybe shouldn’t, it’s just that yours applies to sexual fetishists rather than autistics.
(3) I agree that ‘plasticbrains’ is a bad terminology (for one thing, it’s quite unclear, and for another it links the thing to a probably untrue etiology). But I haven’t thought of a better word. And there are benefits to pointing out clusters, even if the terminology isn’t great– for one thing, it might help with the “autism is all one thing” nonsense people keep spewing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[snickering at motte-and-*bailey* in a Blanchardian context]
That aside, ‘autistic trans people are an entirely different cluster’, ‘trans people‘ is a statement people should not make when they mean ‘trans women‘. (I recognize I am saying this as someone who supports the Blanchardian typology, to someone else who also supports the Blanchardian typology, and am hilariously hypocritical as a result.) Autism is both associated with A*P and with neuromasculinization (yes, I believe in the SBC ‘extreme male brain’ theory), which means trans men just kinda get it both ways, and of the massive, all-consuming, a solid half of the people I have met in my life number of autistic AAP trans men I have met none were all that plasticbrains.
LikeLike
As far as I can tell, plasticbrains are “autistic” people who happen to be trans (where “autism” is closer to autism-the-insult than autism-the-mental-condition).
LikeLike
But yes, autism-the-insult refers to these people, but I consider autism-the-insult to be an unsatisfactory word for the cluster because of confusion with autism-the-mental-condition (which contains many people who are not plasticbrains at all).
LikeLike
I’m not sure that autism-the-insult refers to the same cluster, because I doubt that anywhere near as many as half of “autistic” people have gender dysphoria. More likely to be trans than the general population, maybe, but still a relatively small minority. Indeed, “‘autistic’ people, many but not all of whom are trans” doesn’t feel like a natural category to me – “autistic” people are also disproportionately likely to use Linux, but that’s not its own cluster. But we may be working with different samples.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Experiences some level of gender dysphoria” is different from “is trans”, I think. I agree that trans people are disproportionate but definitely not half. I think it is very likely you would get over half if you include “socially dysphoric in highly gendered spaces, otherwise fine”, “doesn’t want to transition right now but would definitely transition in the glorious transhumanist utopia”, “is out as nonbinary only to a few trusted friends and is totally happy that way”, “girl on the streets and male in the sheets”, “on HRT but not socially transitioning”, etc.
(I noticed this was unclear and edited it into the post.)
LikeLiked by 4 people
I am plasticbrains and very not trans. I think this as subtype of autism+slightly less autistic people works.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Total sidenote but I’m curious about what “very not trans” is like. Could you elaborate?
LikeLike
Well, it depends on your execution of “very not trans”. I mean personally I’m a radical feminist and aggressively invested in my self image as a cis woman, but I obsess over the rules of gender a lot and feel sad about “losing” and have more than zero trans friends. So, I can see where this is coming from as it applies to myself.
LikeLike
I am not plasticbrains (am intuitive, run a lot of S1 models of social dynamics, prefer to do what feels good day-to-day over structure or Objective Correctness, prefer ethics that feel good over structured or Objectively Correct ethics), but I am most comfortable in environments that contain a lot of them. They’re often reflective and consistent in a way that makes talking about their worldviews an absolute joy.
I have *so much fun* socially modeling them. Socially modeling neurotypicals is doable, but I tend to struggle with condescending feelings there, like I think I know their values better than they do. I don’t like having these feelings and would rather not have them, but even if I did not have them I think modeling plasticbrains people would still be much more actively enjoyable.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Plasticbrains people combine neophilia with a strong aversion to change.
c a l l i n g m e o u t
LikeLiked by 2 people
I went into this with the intent of learning about plasticbrains people. It then turned out I hit every item on the list. The main reason I didn’t think it would apply is because I never actually transitioned, I merely experience a lot of gender dysphoria. Which in hindsight pretty obviously matches up well with a trans people cluster.
Though I was pretty much constantly panicking that even though this is a very accurate description of myself, using it for myself might be bad because other people probably identify with it better, you then brought up the idea of Generalized Shame Disorder so I’m not even sure I can use that as an excuse.
Also didn’t realize the trait of assuming my special interests are obviously interesting and people not being interested is solely the fault of my explanation applied to me until you mentioned it, at which point I immediately thought of examples of people being obviously bored by my explanation leading to me attempting to explain harder.
Which is pretty disquieting, all in all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
With regards to the anxiety/depression thing: I fit virtually every descriptor of plasticbrainsness (except that I don’t have generalized shame), including anxiety and depression, despite not really having been mistreated by my peers or by adults when I was a kid.
LikeLike
Yeah I don’t think it has anything to do with mistreatment. I’m just depressed, as an almost fundamental part of my existence. My parents treated me well and the only big mistake was giving me the wrong genes or something.
LikeLike
Maybe people with a tendency for depression and anxiety just tend to be more satisfying targets. On the other hand, mistreatment might be one of many possible contributing factors. There’s no way to tell if, in the parallel universe where I wasn’t bullied in school, I’d be feeling better now.
Without some very unethical long-term experiments, I don’t think one can tell definitively in which direction(s) the causality goes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On the genes note — have you been tested to see if you metabolize non-methylated B vitamins? Apparently this is a reasonably common mutation that causes depression due to not processing B6 and B12 correctly. It won’t show up in an ordinary blood test because it’s not a deficiency — the body just can’t do much with the non-methylated forms. This is something you can do a home genetic test for, and methylated vitamins can be ordered online without a prescription.
LikeLike
My Objectively Correct rule is that you should never work out anything from first principles. First principles are not to be trusted. Even in pure math, most things that are interesting are not analytically tractable. Outside of math, nothing at all is tractable. For everything that really matters, there are judgment calls that cannot be eliminated. There’s no principles, no foundation that is really “rock-bottom”. There’s nowhere to think outside your own head. There’s nowhere to stand outside the universe. That being said, “working things out from principles” is an indispensable tool. You just have to remember that there are no principles to tell you what principles to apply to what situation.
LikeLiked by 4 people
working things out from first principles assumes first principles. Consequently, I don’t think the line of argument beginning with “there is no foundation that is really ‘rock-bottom'” is very effective. The principle of working things out from principles is that we presuppose the truth of certain first principles. Bayesian epistemology, a Popperian view of science, minimal-information priors, the axiom schema of separation as well as the other ZF axioms along with countable choice (though there is some disagreement on uncountable choice – I believe countable choice is a theorem though) and a linear aggregation of utility seem to be popular places to start in this community.
I agree that the task of finding exact solutions to most interesting problems is not computationally feasible. I think it is premature to preclude the existence of well-approximations. (“Well” can be measured by aggregate utility change from the optimal solution – if a scientific problem, utility can be replaced by any other energy-type function, such as the aggregation of distance of variables of measured solutions to those of theoretical solutions).
I apologize if this doesn’t make much sense. I am tired.
LikeLike
“working things out from first principles assumes first principles”
Assuming you mean
“working things out from principles assumes first principles”
Which I vehemently disagree with. Newton and Leibniz came before Cauchy and Riemann. Yes, rationalistic deductions have to start somewhere, but they don’t have to start at the *beginning*. In fact they never start at the beginning because there is no beginning. Yes, it’s always desirable to shore up our foundations if we can. It’s desirable to dig deeper, but no matter how deep you dig, you’ll never hit bottom. Things that seem like first principles today may be derived from something more primitive tomorrow, or revealed to be relative, contingent or parochial.
Rational, scientific, and even mathematical practice has never proceeded from an agreed upon and stable set of first principles. Foundations have always been a subject of debate. They have been frequently revised and updated. I don’t think a single generation has gone by since the renaissance without some “fundamental” principle being upended or called into question. And yet this community of practice *exists*.
How do I know rational practice is possible without foundations? Because we’ve been doing it for centuries and we’ve never had any foundations.
There’s a metaphor from a famous meditation instructor that expresses all this better than I can:
“The bad news is you’re falling through the air, nothing to hang on to, no parachute. The good news is there’s no ground.”
We’ve always been falling. Sometimes we find something “ground like” and it’s incredibly powerful. But that’s falling too. The idea that we needed the ground in the first place was always an illusion.
LikeLike
Coming from the latest Twig chapter, I thought this was going to be about mental flexibility in some way – sexual flexibility, gender flexibility, conformity-as-a-skill, that sort of thing. What it actually was was also good though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I feel like this would have been a great description of me 7 or 8 years ago, but only a so-so description of me now. Have you noticed plasticbrains changing with age?
LikeLiked by 1 person
What evidence is there to correlate or otherwise connect various non-gender-related descriptions of “plasticbrain”-ness with adult transness? I know a 2012 study found that trans men were far more likely to be autistic than the controls of cis women and trans women. The majority of studies I have seen tended to be focused on children and adult studies do not seem to support a correlation between autism and the condition of being trans female.
LikeLike
The study that found increased autism traits in trans men compared to controls of the other four combinations was done by Blanchardian principles and segregated straight/androphilic and bi-or-lesbian/gynephilic trans women into separate categories. (It did not do the same for trans men.) Trans men were found to be Super Autistic and for a solid half to be broad autism phenotype or higher (around 20% full diagnosis eligible). Gynephilic trans women were found to have the same number of autistic traits on average as cis men, and androphilic trans women were found to have the same as cis women. The study also noted increased autism rates (rather than traits) in the trans women profiled, about 3% compared to a general population estimate of 1%, but did not note the sexual orientation of those trans women.
(I may be mixing up studies. But I think this one was from 2012, and it’s usually the one people quote.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
In that case, could someone link a pdf or something of the study? I would be interested in going through the methodology (because it obviously sounds dodgy) and I am not presently tied to a university system.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here it is:
http://libgen.io/scimag/ads.php?doi=10.1007%2Fs10803-011-1227-8&downloadname=
LikeLike
I think you might significantly overestimate the rates of transness in plasticbrains. It’s more like 5% to 20%.
LikeLike
Ozy was using a…lenient definition of ‘trans’ as ‘anyone who has any experience that’s kind of like gender dysphoria if you squint’. I can believe 3/4rds of people with that neurotype may experience something kind of like gender dysphoria if you squint.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In particular, “would transition in the glorious transhumanist future and but doesn’t want to now” might just select for flexibility.
In the glorious transhumanist future where I live forever and can do whatever I want, I can see myself trying out a lot of stuff, but I think that might be more a function of imagination and curiousity than dysphoria.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Plasticbrains and Jellicle Cats
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ozy have you met any conservative plastic brains who believe maintaining irrational traditions because they’ve read Burke and so they’ve derived conservatism from first principles? I think that would be funny.
LikeLike
Doesn’t “plasticbrains” here basically just round off as “nerds”? I’m semi-nerdy and semi-recognise myself in this article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How is this different from “not geek not autism”?
LikeLike