Can't find like minded people you connect with ?

Orangutans are interesting - the wild ones are incredibly dumb - they learn *just* enough to get by (solitary, lone parent and long childhoods) - no shared skills -  but the ones in captivity are much brighter due to the enrichment of their environment and lots of interaction with keepers and watching the public.

I didn't know that about sickle cell, that's interesting!

Maybe one day autistic people will show some very useful trait and help the human race.

It's sorta the other way around - I'm watching an image consultant on Youtube  - his channel is highlighting that women are delaying/avoiding getting married  but still having kids by various Chads.    In some racial groups, 80% of men never father a child.      The women are in default poly-relationships.

But what about orang utans, one of our closest relatives? They aren't social and have 99% the same DNA as us, but we are more social than them, we don't all live separately to each other like they do. There must be something keeping us together apart from hunting and raising young.

What about love? No one has been able to quantify what causes people to fall in love with specific people and stay together. Most animals don't fall in love.

To be clear, my response was intended as a purely hypothetical exploration of the idea.

I will never make assumptions regarding people’s character. 
If I have or ever do give anyone the impression I am making value judgements based on these or indeed any personal criteria, it is most certainly not my intention and I apologise unreservedly.

Regarding people of lesser relative cognitive function or intelligence, as before I can see no reason to attempt to refute your logic.

No, but so far we've done a lot better in modern times than people in history haven't we. I mean we haven't been wiped out by climate events...yet.

And that would be the end of women forever, wouldn't it. We'd be culled.

Thank you so much for taking the time to compose this response. The knowledge and insight demonstrated here is genuinely useful and I appreciate it greatly.

I am somewhat at a loss for words to be honest which, it is not an understatement to say, is extremely rare.

ChaosLogrus said:

Thank you for this response, it really made my day.

Bonus! :-)

ChaosLogrus said:

Of the three aspects you identified the vertical one clearly presents the most obvious challenges to diversity.

Excessive competition involving the vertical authoritarian and regressive cooperation involving the horizontal equalitarian varieties of hierarchy ~ do tend in the unbalanced sense to muck things up somewhat, what with the unreasonable forces of excessive ‘competition’ (domination) displacing and replacing the reasonable forces of ‘cooperation’ (facilitation) ~ as they are socially by way of trauma habitually mimicked and unconsciously adapted to lesser or greater degrees, as by the same measure prevents the diagonal relativities of the hierarchical trinity (or ternary) from being applied in a balancing or stabilising way.

ChaosLogrus said:

I have often considered that it’s dominance as a governing factor in common social behaviour is prone to catastrophic errors of judgement due to a sort of endemic assumption that strength or resilience (both physical and mental) are the most appropriate means by which authority or respect are established.

As such neither ‘authority’ or ‘respect’ are established, as aggressive ‘dominance’ and submissive ‘compliance’ are more habituated instead ~ educationally, professionally and politically ~ involving more then unconsciously assumed senses of power as actually being ‘control’ over others, who in more or less disassociated or acclimatised states of fear serve those who are as such in charge.

In this way the natural tendency to consciously cooperate in a symbiotic way becomes more the unnatural tendency to compete in an unconsciously parasitic way, so rather than respect and authority there is more fear and loathing ~ with competitive behaviourisms becoming at worst combative, involving at least minor intellectual put downs to major psychological character assassinations.

ChaosLogrus said:

Similar to the misapprehension that the mechanism of evolution is survival of the fittest when in reality adaptation is of fundamental importance.

The infamous ‘survival of the elitist delusion’ as I more generally refer to it ~ with one of my favourite articles on the matter in part stating:

The “fittest” can be the most loving and selfless, not the most aggressive and violent. In any case, what happens in nature does not justify people behaving in the same way.

The phrase”survival of the fittest”, which was coined not by Darwin but by the philosopher Herbert Spencer, is widely misunderstood.

For starters, there is a lot more to evolution by natural selection than just the survival of the fittest.

There must also be a population of replicating entities and variations between them that affect fitness ~ variation that must be heritable. By itself, survival of the fittest is a dead end. Business people are especially guilty of confusing survival of the fittest with evolution.

What’s more, although the phrase conjures up an image of a violent struggle for survival, in reality the word “fittest” seldom means the strongest or the most aggressive. On the contrary, it can mean anything from the best camouflaged or the most fecund to the cleverest or most cooperative. Forget Rambo, think Einstein or Gandhi.

What we see in the wild is not every animal for itself. Cooperation is an incredibly successful survival strategy. Indeed it has been the basis of all the most dramatic steps in the history of life. Complex cells evolved from cooperating simple cells.Superorganisms such as bee or ant colonies consist of cooperating individuals.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13671-evolution-myths-survival-of-the-fittest-justifies-everyone-for-themselves/

ChaosLogrus said:

The foundation of which is of course diversity of physical and mental characteristics that historically the systems created by humans based on vertical hierarchical instincts typically seek to suppress.

Rather than so much ‘seeking’ to suppress diversity itself; most people have been compulsively ‘driven’ and habitually ‘steered’ into promoting their individuality through other people’s collective conformities ~ whilst finding little contentment in having their individuality assimilated within the inferior, mediocre and superior categorisations and segregations of delusional [survival of the elitist] society.

Thus most people as such get confused or annoyed by those who haven’t taken on or wont compete for the collective burden of their particular delusional conformities as well ~ whereas others by contrast can be more curious or even exemplary about cooperatively facilitating, identifying and affirming the evolutional development of individuality ~ in both the plural and the singular senses.

Traits that are deleterious when fully expressed can be valuable in lesser quantities and can be selected for. The classic case, and genetically simple example, is sickle-cell trait. If inherited from one parent the allele gives significant protection from severe malaria, but when inherited from both parents  the resulting homozygosity produces very serious illness.  Autism is genetically far more complex, but the principle is identical. Traits that can produce people who function sub-optimally in society can at the same time be valuable on a species level, and be selected for. The best proof of this is that we are still around and constitute 2%+ of the total population.

I've never said stupid people don't deserve love - but they are likely to overestimate their abilities and so get injured or killed doing something dumb.

wow my imagination started creating a very bizarre image there lol

climate events if very large can not be controlled. Nor will we be able to predict when they are coming. 

I don't imagine working for the Prince of Darkness in any capacity is a wise career mov. Even for a supervillain!  In my experience, there is always one answer to all such matters: 

All you need is love... and a good pair of noise-cancelling headphones.

I genuinely don’t entirely disagree in principle with any particular point that has been made. But if I may play devils advocate:

Variation in cognitive ability or relative intelligence could be considered in the same way as any neurological diversification. If we apply the most conventional morality to the subject, the general indication is that the more able have a responsibility to those who are not accompanied by obligation to treat them fairly. Is this not after all a similar understanding we as autistic people require?

Therefore, and I can barely believe I am even saying this, stupid people are valid?

I am a cat person, I find the fawning desire to please of dogs off-putting.  The ideal for me are Oriental cats, such as Siamese. Unlike the Disney image, they are immensely forthright and straightforward creatures. In contrast to most moggies they are talkative, demand a lot of attention and become very attached, often especially strongly to one particular person. They will also play fetch. 

Haha, same. I grew up with a dog always around, so I feel I just 'get' them. (Ok, so my profile photo might have given my preferences away...!)

I don't really understand cats. I don't understand how they can suddenly change and bite/scratch. But there ARE a few cats that can still my heart! They tend to be a bit more balanced, calmer... Perhaps I see people as like cats. Some make sense, others take advantage of you and train you to do as they please, others are all nice until suddenly they turn and hate you. Haha!!! Very glad for those few cats who are awesome and buck this trend!!

Everyone had a place back in the day - and yes, the idiots removed themselves from the gene pool.

I'm a tad miffed - I've done everything right - don't smoke or drink, surprisingly healthy and fit - but it's game over for me.

Yet the self-destructive ones will live to 90.

Life is not fair.

Ditto!

Round of applause for you! So true.

Also, I read that the problem with modern society is that the clever ones spend lots of time stopping the stupid ones killing themselves by accident e.g. drinking, taking selfies on cliffs etc.

For most of history, if you were stupid, you died. End of. You had to be clever, have initiative, have lots of skills, or you'd get killed somehow.

Now days, most people can get anything they want at the click of a button, there aren't any predators (apart from other humans), climate events can be predicted and/or controlled, medical care is state of the art so most people survive horrendous illnesses/ accidents.

Humans are victims of our own success.