The DSM-V definition of autism is as follows:
A. Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts, as manifested by the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaustive, see text):
- Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, ranging, for example, from abnormal social approach and failure of normal back-and-forth conversation; to reduced sharing of interests, emotions, or affect; to failure to initiate or respond to social interactions.
- Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, ranging, for example, from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication; to abnormalities in eye contact and body language or deficits in understanding and use of gestures; to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal communication.
- Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships, ranging, for example, from difficulties adjusting behavior to suit various social contexts; to difficulties in sharing imaginative paly or in making friends; to absence of interest in peers.
B. Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities, as manifested by at least two of the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaustive; see text):
- Stereotyped or repetitive motor movements, use of objects, or speech (e.g., simple motor stereotypies, lining up toys or flipping objects, echolalia, idiosyncratic phrases).
- Insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, or ritualized patterns or verbal nonverbal behavior (e.g., extreme distress at small changes, difficulties with transitions, rigid thinking patterns, greeting rituals, need to take same route or eat food every day).
- Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus (e.g, strong attachment to or preoccupation with unusual objects, excessively circumscribed or perseverative interest).
- Hyper- or hyporeactivity to sensory input or unusual interests in sensory aspects of the environment (e.g., apparent indifference to pain/temperature, adverse response to specific sounds or textures, excessive smelling or touching of objects, visual fascination with lights or movement).
C. Symptoms must be present in the early developmental period (but may not become fully manifest until social demands exceed limited capacities, or may be masked by learned strategies in later life).
D. Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning.
E. These disturbances are not better explained by intellectual disability (intellectual developmental disorder) or global developmental delay. Intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder frequently co-occur; to make comorbid diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability, social communication should be below that expected for general developmental level.
NOTE: Individuals with a well-established DSM-IV diagnosis of autistic disorder, Asperger’s disorder, or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified should be given the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. Individuals who have marked deficits in social communication, but whose symptoms do not otherwise meet criteria for autism spectrum disorder, should be evaluated for social (pragmatic) communication disorder.
So to try to simplify this, autism is basically the combination of poor social skills and repetitive behavior. But why are these two core conditions lumped together instead of treated as two separate disorders? Is this just reification or is there a scientific explanation? I heard one professor suggest it’s because for reasons that are not understood, they occur together far more often than would be expected by chance, but they need to figure out why. Is one causing the other or is there a third variable causing both? And are these two traits correlated in the general population, or just in the clinical population?
Are autistics qualitatively different from neurotypicals or are they just the extreme end of normal variation? If it’s the latter, what’s the opposite of autism? Some scientists say it’s schizophrenia, but that’s not a perfect fit. In theory, the opposite of autistics should be extremely socially skilled people whose behavior is extremely non-repetitive.
Pumpkin Person 
So to try to simplify this, autism is basically the combination of poor social skills and repetitive behavior.
that’s not what the DSM says. i don’t have to read it to know that.
“social skills” isn’t their problem. their problem is zero interest in other people. this is what “autism” means etymologically. auto- = self. they are 100% looking inward 100% of the time.
peepee also forgot that they talk funny and walk funny. this is evident from birth. this is why autism is a neurological disorder rather than a psychiatric disorder per se.
Same as dementia.
But many mental illnesses are part neurological.
Its very tricky seperating the illness bit from the archictecture.
”why autism is a neurological disorder rather than a psychiatric disorder per se.”
This is very true.
a hermit or a rude person is not autistic. one tell is autistic people are incapable of drama. they can’t act. three examples of people with an autistic way of speaking all jews. ron unz, david einhorn, saul kripke.
[rest of comment redacted by pp, aug 11, 2017]
Kripke?
Explains the legal approach to his ‘philosophy’.
The opposite of autism is Williams syndrome
I believe the opposite of autism is Williams syndrome
Yes, in certain genetic regions, they are indeed opposites, but so little is known about the genetics of autism.
Prader-Willi’s Syndrome is similar to ASD. Extreme weight gain can occur and they can eat themselves to death.
Would you publish an article on PWS this week PP? It’s a very interesting disorder.
I don’t know that much about it. If you do, write a guest article at a time of your convenience.
Here’s my 2 year old article on the matter. They have around a 70 average IQ. I’m going to expand on that article this week. It’s very interesting.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/30/how-to-use-current-knowledge-to-effectively-treat-the-symptoms-of-pws-patients/
I know a good documentary to get the basics. I’ll link it later l. It’s kinda sad too.
Let me know what you think of the article when you read it.
Williams people also have poor social skills because they are too naive. Good social skills is not just to be receptive and perceptive of other people.
Usually when people talk about GOOD social skills they are really talking about GOOD and not EXCELLENT. So the main criteria is about be averagely adaptive and not at excellent potential and many people with social anxiety struggle in this area not because lack of social/emotional skills but excess.
Or “excess”
It’s complicated maybe in many cases of autists and non-autists with achieved or perceived poor social skills because many factors can have a impact. For example many people may be so comfortable with themselves and with higher imagination skills that they may neglect completely the interpersonal interactions at “normal” levels. That’s my case, I’m so fine with myself and with my imaginary world that i don’t feel I’m losing something about exterior world specially when this exterior world is pathetical. Autosta and non autists, or many them, can be quite behaviorally perfectionists but the human social workd is not about perfectionism at least at universal criteria but at “evolutionary” criteria.
when pill uses “autistic” he’s not using it in its very narrow clinical sense peepee. he’s using it to mean someone who is beyond naive about people and peoples.
Autism like narcissism is becoming one of those terms that has a clinical definition and a pop-cultural definition. But there is a scientific term called “broader autistic phenotype” which refers to people who display autistic traits but at the sub-clinical level. About a third of autistics have at least one parent who has the “broader autistic phenotype” though the numbers are much higher in families with multiple autistic kids.
The core definition or trait of autism is not poor social skills and repetitive behavior but hyper sensorial sensitivity and in combination with this two traits.
Autism is confusing to me for a number of reasons:
1. I know people who are extremely high on some of those traits but not others (I’m fact, I might even say that about myself). Are they autistic?
2. Is autism a binary trait or a continuous one? Maybe it’s like dwarfism, where it’s superficially similar to a human trait that’s continuous (height) but genetically very distinct.
3. What percentage of the increase in autism is due to an actual increase in this illness. Or is the diagnosis just being used as euphemism for mental retardation (or childhood schizophrenia, or some other illness?)
Anyhow, I would say a number of smart people I’ve met over the years fulfilled some of these criteria. Or take an example I noticed recently, Martin Shrekli. His body language screams autistic. But a lot of people with these traits are highly functioning and successful.
Mugabe is such an interesting person.
So smart, so insightful.
I think I know now why I am different. It is an intriguing distinction. This is what it is. I pay attention to peoples emotions. And because I do I can tell their character. I can tell exactly the kind of person you are. I know the core of your emotional being.
The antithesis of my abilities is that people like philosopher are always observing people behaviors. I observe peoples feelings. And that is a real difference.
When observing what people do it is another way to distinguish character. But it is a dispassionate way of doing so. People are just reacting to internal and external mechanisms. Everything you do is due to a cause.
The hannibal lecters can see those causes.
The way I am I have a sensitivity to the state of a person.
Knowing the state of a person I know exactly what their reactivity is.
Knowing a person’s reactivity level is my superpower.
I understand their irrationality because I can feel it.
Females are exceptional at understanding emotions.
They have that feminine intuition.
They know what a person act irrationally.
Men are generally supra rational,
they need a cause for everything.
irrationality confuses them.
It does not confuse me.
(I am a 16-year-old girl still in high school)
Autists block out other people.
That is why they have poor social skills.
Mugabe is right that they look inward extensively.
When Mark Zukerburge is speaking it like he is talking to himself and not the audience. That stare is the stare of an internal reality excluding the external.
Three more distinctions.
Self-awareness is not
Self-knowledge is not
Self-understanding.
I have been increasing my awareness by constantly focusing on the self.
I have been in a constant state of self-monitoring my body and my brain.
Perceptual resolution has been increasing and pain has been decreasing.
I am becoming more fluid and more attuned to energy flowing inside me.
(I am a 16-year-old girl still in high school
You act like a young girl sometimes, but in reality you’re a grownass man who needs to get a job 🙂
Word.
Good idea, I will talk to my therapist about it.
No one answered my question in the other article.
What are you supposed to do if a girl asks you to have her babies and her IQ is 10 points higher than yours?
interesting***
How are you gonna carry a baby?
When she says she wants me to have her babies it means she wants me to impregnate her. (which involves sex)
The way language works what she said was a grammatically correct way of asking me to be the dady. (girls usually say this when they are turned on by you)
it’s a tarp! do you like,realy think women have s*x with men in this day and age? it’s 2017,there’s no such thing as getting a girl pregnant.like,that’s a toatal myth. i’m seriously starting to think that the stork is how women have kids,because i have knot seen any evidence like that a man can impregnate a woman.
Wow that’s amazing! You should be really proud of yourself, I think.
Pacas is a troll. And has been trollin for some time.
Insightful*
where*
Maybe you want make sex with him, ;))
”Men are generally supra rational”
Nope, men are usually LOGIC and not RATIONAL. It’s not in the same vibe.
Rationality is the extension of logic ALSO for EMOTIONAL/PERSONAL issues while LOGIC is ”just like” a psychopathic-thinking type, hyper-systemizing BUT illogical when to deal with emotional/personal issues.
So even when men is more capable to understand or to predict behavior than women, NAMELY about other men, they tend to hyper-systemize this understanding
result: wars, conflicts, fights, whatever-violent-and-machobubbling…
RATIO-nal is always, at priori, and in the perfect conditions, the capacity to think in more than a binnary perspective, and it’s mean, think in both, empathizing and in systemizing systems.
Thanks
Its not ‘mysterious’.
But i would add psychopathy is as much an opposite as schizo. Mostly becauae autists have extreme high affective empathy especially in white autists.
Asian autists are lower empathy but wont break rules and follow orders unlike paths.
Autism is probably more understood than schizophrenia because it tends to be the same thing again and again.
One of the ways you can tell autism is the result of husbandry is its complete absence in blacks.
And of course, the prevalence of schiz and psychopathy in blacks is sky high.
A nore intrresting q is how achiz and psychopathy relate to each other. Theres no relation there. As i observe schiz people are truthful people and can be high empathy as well but are the opposite to autists on disorderly thinking, fashion sense and charisma and imagination .
Paranoid thinking is common with both schizos and psychopaths. Also with conspiracy theorists.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227084-300-creativity-chemical-favours-the-smart
I don’t understand this but seems very interesting. Why* Maybe this correlate with threshold hypothesis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4137690/
Interesting, people who score higher in divergent thinking tests tend to score higher in both ”empathizing” and ”systemizing” systems, differently than typical autists that tend to score lower in ”empathizing” and higher in ”systemizing”. I think i score higher in cognitive than or not in invariable ways in affective, humans annoy me.
”The empathizing–systemizing (E–S) theory suggests that people may be classified on the basis of their scores along two dimensions: empathizing (E) and systemizing (S). It measures a person’s strength of interest in empathy (the ability to identify and understand the thoughts and feelings of others and to respond to these with appropriate emotions) and a person’s strength of interest in systems (in terms of the drive to analyse or construct them).”
I take ”empathy test” https://psychology-tools.com/empathy-quotient/
and i score 40.
”Scores above 30 are generally not indicitive of an Autism Spectrum”
Jeeeeesus,
i score 21 on systemizing… super-lower
http://www.aspietests.org/sq/index.php
WHY Dog, why
Score
Test taken by you on 11 August 2017 21.0
The average score for males with ASD (427 people took this test) 78.8
The average score for females with ASD (473 people took this test) 77.9
The average score for males with suspected ASD (2837 people took this test) 80.8
The average score for females with suspected ASD (4957 people took this test) 75.3
The average score for male neurotypicals (1624 people took this test) 70.6
The average score for female neurotypicals (2308 people took this test) 64.0
this result is real***
Mamma mia, i know i’m little mess..y but not too much…
Maybe i’m weirdly pseudo-hyper empathiser not because i’m too much empathetic, but because i lack on systemizing, maybe there is a black hole in my little bitchy brain…
Your Empathy Quotient score was 61 out of a possible 80.
Scores above 30 are generally not indicitive of an Autism Spectrum disorder.
The Systemising Quotient (SQ)
Your Score was 50
What a normie-result!!! It’s a outrage!!!
I empathize with your feelings about this.
my empathy score was 21 points above yours.
I am so sorry.
(on the plus side I systematize 14 points lower than a neurotypical female)
Well but on cognitive empathy…
No way you scored 50 on systemising. No way. You must have done the scale backwards.
Recheck the scale. Most agree was to the left. Be careful of negative phrased questions. That can trip people up. 100% you completed the test wrong.
If anime is less autistic than most women the test is wrong and should be thrown out and redesigned.
Weather statistics do not interest me.
The test mentions little in the areas I actually systematize in.
For example,
it fails to mention how much I love to stare at door nobs for hours on end.
I am so entranced by door nobs, I am surprised that was not on the test.
I scored 44 on systemising.
36 on empathy.
The empathy test assumes affective empathy is cognitive empathy.
Most jews would score similar or lower to me. Especially at not really feeling anything when someone is crying.
I can understand why the person is crying, even the deeper reason. But I won’t well up and hug the person.
Im less aspergers than most women.
And women are very rarely aspergers. Sth like 9/10 aspies are men.
Maybe this tests is on avg. On avg autistics tend to score lower on empathy (or sympathy). Some questions seems about extroversion and not about empathy.
Iluminaticat seems very empathetic. I’m more cognitively empathetic than affective bur I’m still very affective. But about ayatemizing I have little doubt if this results really reflect my way even it’s mostly about engineering. I’m mot super lower systemic in psychology, am I??
I thought the sex ratio on autism spectrum is less disproportional to men than what we tended to believe because many autistic women namely those on the high functioning is good to emulate social neurotypical behavior than men.
Baron Cohen is trying to measure autism in a standard way, rather than an precise way.
Develop this, sound interesting.
I got 62 on the systemizing test and a 25 on the empathy one.
The lower number and the type of people on the web who do this type of tests maybe is having a impact in this “neurotypical averages”. Or not.
http://personality-testing.info/tests/EQSQ.php
Your Empathizing Quotient is 44. Baron-Cohen (2003) suggests that this means “you have an average ability for understanding how other people feel and responding appropriately. You know how to treat people with care and sensitivity”.
Your Systemizing Quotient is 6. Baron-Cohen (2003) suggests that this means “you have a lower than average ability for analysing and exploring a system”.
Interesting, i think i will score higher on cognitive than affective empathy, or my systemizing is so lower than it increase my empathetic skulls…
Or ”empathetic” is in true, here in this test, ”sympathetic”, it’s not exactly the same thing.
Iluminaticat,
and in this test*
What is your results*
I think systemizing test is more accurate than empathizing or “empathizing” test because it’s easier to know if a person have such mechanicist interests than to know how good the person is to emphatize. No way I’m not at least above average on empathizing.
I’m very much into repetition but it’s more mental than in the behaviour. I’m not socially akward for people who don’t know me, but when people see me many times, I’m then considered very bizarre. Sometimes, I don’t even understand why something I do is so weird.
Last time, I was with a girl who was extremely choked that I wasn’t able to buy food for a meal at the supermarket and prepare a meal. Once I just offered her to have some peas and she found that crazy. When I don’t go to restaurant, I tend to think in ingredients I can eat separately or together. I know I could think about 14 meals with 3 courses and then prepare them, but I don’t see the importance of it. It completely astonishes me to discover that for such type of behaviour, people can think I belong to a psy hospital … Thanks god I have achieved a good professional status that protects me.
When I was a child, my mum said I never plaid with any toy/gift that was giving to me. A would take a piece of string and turn for hours in my room telling myself stories. Those stories would entail to know an enormous amount of data about any subject and sometimes I would stop only to reasearch the subject in encyclopedia. When a story was done, I could repeat it many times. Sometimes, I would need to repeat a phrase or a small part of the story (like counting things), many many times.
Another thing, I discoverd that when I walk, I always walk very close to the walls. And when I walk with people, I tend to push them to one side. Both being weird (and scary for the people who don’t know me) because I’m quite a big guy.
I also tend to put clothes upside down. And I struggle to stay clean when I eat. I just discovered this summer that my mum has the same (I only notice before she always change herself but I didn’t imagine it’s because she got spots) and my grand-mother told me that she also had the “tunring around in a room for hours” thing.
But I was considered has having very good communication skills and not being shy because I tended to speak to adults easily. In plane, I travelled first class and had conversation with many interesting people that gave me their number and wanted my parents to call them since the age of 5 yo. I remember the CEO of a big news company in France called my mum – I was 9 – because he wanted me to become friend with his son – 12 yo – and they lived also in Paris. My mum didn’t want to (I dont remember why) and I found the father interesting but not the boy. I didn’t find any children interesting.
I bet the stories werent of people. I bet the stories were more ‘explanations’, like a tour guide giving a primer on an artifact in an exhibit in a museum.
I often daydreamed about being on a political talk show or being a pundit for football and being asked my opinion, and then I would expound at length in my head the rights and wrongs.
I used to rant at imaginary people in my head about a political, economic or other topic.
When I was in college I would spend most of the commute debating philosophy in my head and weighing up arguments for and against which would go on for hours. There was a time I could spend an hour or two sitting on my bed thinking about something.
For some reason, I don’t explore topics as much anymore. The answers usually come in prompts. I think its because I have enough information and patterns stored on various things, that I can use those, rather than explore a topic de nouveau itself.
One thing I answered slighly disagree to was looking tables and figures in journals, academic papers and the like. I don’t go for them straight away when I read things, but I used to keep up to date with all the european football leagues or I would read The Economists’ world atlas and read tables and tables of HDI, GNP PC, literacy rates etc etc.
I’m not aspergers in the sense I would remember everything I read like Buffet, but I would have a sense of what regions of the world exhibited what social and economic features.
Its the same with figures on occupations and incomes, sexual market surveys, or celebrity dating histories. I’ll spend an hour or two at length just reading through celebrity heights and comparing it to success in the sexual market or type of stardom.
I’ve told someone about it before, and they said it was interesting but very odd.
from each according to his ability to each according to his need.
sounds like lenin admitted that people differed in ability.
unlike boxwallah sundar pichai.
i don’t know about canada but the US economy isn’t working for women either. labor force participation rate for females age 24-55 in the Us peaked in 2000.
google AND facebook have “chief diversity officers”.
do such exist in big businesses outside silicon valley?
if not, this confirms pill’s claim that computer people are autistic.
damore is an obvious case.
but he’s interesting because he violated the taboo unwittingly whereas he might have violated it knowingly. if knowingly then his social intelligence would be superior to that of google’s c-suite.
google’s c-suite is an example of how social stupidity is REWARDED in america.
Thats actually common in most banks I’ve seen, to have at least a ‘diversity department’ or ‘diversity officer’ of some sort in HR.
I keep saying its the ceos who are trying to tell the jews that they aren’t racist.
Look at his twitter Hahahahahahahaha. I havent laughed like that in a long time. Every picture has a black person in it. Look at his tweets! Its SJW crazy.
Jesus, i didn’t realise a ceo of a tech co could be a raging Narrative warrior.
Its like his a dem party operative or something.
Pichar doesn’t get human psychology. The more you buckle. The more you give in. The more you lose face. The more they will take and take until one day they will want to replace you with a black man.
I actually see a nefarious intention behind all his tweets in the sense you wouldn’t have to keep saying youre not racist unless you were one. But most people will think hes just a brainwashed idiot.
If Sundar announces hes ‘in transition’ to becoming Sundaisy I will fly to california and shake that mans hand as a mark of respect to his genius level social IQ to rip the piss like that.
there are deep and nefarious purposes behind the promotion of what is called “diversity” which pill has not addressed.
1. when groups X, Y, and Z are identified by name this gives carte blanche for discrimination for any other reason.
2. establishing certain groups as protected from discrimination gets them to vote for the CORPORATE democrats. thus the CORPORATE dems can pretend to be the party of the little man and call all who oppose them names like “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobe”, etc. while they do NOTHING for the little man of any kind.
zizek has made the same comment. identity politics is a DISTRACTION. and at some level it is intentional.
it’s also OBVIOUS that the only reason why objective standards are objected to is that the consequences of being a “loser” in america are so obscene. that is, if getting into harvard meant a lot less, then people would care a lot less if it had only 3 blacks or whatever.
——————————————————————
ideally the civil rights laws would be scrapped and replaced by, “hiring, firing, promotion, admissions, etc. decisions will be OBJECTIVE and will relate EXCLUSIVELY to the ability to do the job or there will be law suits.”
”zizek has made the same comment. identity politics is a DISTRACTION. and at some level it is intentional.”
At some levels***
At total levels, it’s the divide and conquer itself.
i for one have little interest in people or things. my interest is ideas.
but my greatest interest is fat black lesbians.
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2017/08/the-james-damore-psy-op/
Jee
Other sjw-autist-borderline quote
Without anti (((Christian))) narrative, this “google memo fairy tale” look strange or uneapontaneous…
(((chirstianism))) against ((Marxism))) and (((xionism)))
White-tards always praying for some jewy.
I don’t forget you (((libertardianism)))
(((nazism)))??
Interestingly he had a very long and narrow face, most trustworthy type??
Have 😌
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fresize6.indiatvnews.com%2Fen%2Fresize%2Fgallery%2F860_-%2F2016%2F03%2Fsundar-pichai-2-1459333635.jpg&f=1
Pichai has a small head.
Most guys good at math I’ve met in my life had small heads.
If anything I would have said large heads were related to testosterone and muscle mass.
Because he have a little forehead**
Forehead size is indicative of brain size*
I find it amusing to watch Autism and Schizophrenia and Psychopathy be compared and contrasted for their relative advantages against each other, as though you all want to be king of the defectives, or is it queen now, Phil?
Well, maybe to be tinged with some sociopathy is not wholly a bad thing, but to have no sensitivity whatever surely is, sensitivity incentivises you to act, surround yourself with the right people and sensitivity to their problems will result in the strengthening of your own position. I call it the Adenauer solution.
I think psychopathy is optimal for survival. But not meta optimal. You cannot have a functioning civilisation without a dictatorship with most of the population like that e.g. Pakistan. And it will be a shithole anyway.
If you ever wondered why Israel never had a state for hundreds of years, despite other minorities, tribes or sects remaining in the levant area as polities, a lot of it has to do with doing over each other.
I genuinely think Israel would collapse into a millitary dictatorship without the hundreds of billions in aid and other safeguards.
I never said schiz was optimal – Ive said hundreds of times africa is a mess.
Same with autists in East Asia.
But the majority of the world is not goldilocks in these spectrums like whites, and I suspect indians so they’re worth contrasting for HBD purposes.
Speaking as a gender neutral xemen.
Psychopathy to the individual itself is not a disadvantage, and seems it’s a paradoxal problem. Schizophrenia is one of the least possibly-compensatory psychiatric disorder because it affect a very basical perceptive capacity. Autism in my view look like a diversely moderated continuity of Savant disorder, but often with less of ”unique genius touch” that characterizes Savant. Would be interesting to see respective analogous ”mental order” of this three: corageous, imaginative/creative and talented*
Psychopathy is the extreme individualization of tribalism, that is the collective psychopathy but directed to other groups.
US/collective-self and THEM
ME/individual-self and ALL/them.
Tribalists are master to ”rationalize” the faults against other groups, regardless the group [nationality, race, etc].
More hyper-tribalist you are, more prone to COMMIT and to ”rationalize” your own ”faults” [euphemism]. Psychopaths, namely the ”active”, do it at individual levels.
When ”you” are selecting for hyper-tribalists inevitably you will be selecting for hyper-self-tribalists, aka, psychotrashick typos,
jews for example.
>I never said schiz was optimal
I never said that you did, I said that you people always want to see the advantages of your respective conditions and hold them over one another, to me it looks like someone trying to be King of the Defectives.
>I think psychopathy is optimal for survival. But not meta optimal
Psycopaths have two problems: Their reduced sensitivity weakens their incentive to act, even if you have intellectual empathy if you don’t immediately feel threatened you won’t respond as quickly as you would if you did feel threatened, and secondly if everyone socializes on the assumption that everyone is trying to take advantage of everyone society becomes paranoid, interaction becomes at best slower and more difficult and at worst quickly-self destructs in a paranoid mess.
That last one’d be your “Meta-optimal” idea.