Edit: A few people have interpreted the title as serious, so I wanna clarify that it was meant as a sarcastic joke about how little sense the neurotypical world makes to me, but it is still legitimately me asking for help understanding said neurotypical world.
Was having a conversation with a friend today about why I seem unapproachable to people online. Apparently it's for 2 reasons.
One is that I say "K." all the time, as a short way of saying okay. She pointed out that most people find this rude and offensive. This kinda baffled me, because like why? She explained that like, if somebody were to give a long emotional speech and I just responded "K." that would be offensive. That confounds me. So it's rude in one context, and neurotypicals have decided to be offended by it in all contexts? But the reason it's rude is what confuses me more. Apparently it's considered lazy because you could have just typed out the word, but like, that applies to all text speech and nobody's mad about people shortening those words.
But it got more confusing when she explained the second reason, which is that I end all of my sentences with proper punctuation, which she said "makes people feel like I'm done with the conversation and not interested." But just a second ago improper grammar was rude, and now proper grammar is rude instead.
It baffles me. You can't just use proper or improper grammar. Use too much improper grammar and you're lazy and rude. Use too little and you're also rude. But you can't just use any improper grammar, you have to use the very specific subset of improper grammar that's been deemed acceptable and not lazy (even though it's exactly as lazy as what they do consider lazy.)
To be clear, I'm not bitter, and I'm definitely gonna adjust my behavior to hopefully seem a little less rude to people. I think that's just a nice thing to do. I just find the neurotypical mind utterly fascinating. I don't think they even realize how many contradictions exist in the social rules they all so easily accept.
I hope I won't be too long on the topic. This is an historical question.
Why it's like this, why are NTs deciding for us? It began in the Renaissance period with René Descartes. He was a philosophe and saw the human body as a machine. He wrote about this vision of the human. Each organ, muscle, bones are a piece of the machine. He did a direct comparison between the human and the material.
Later in the first half of the 19th century, an astronomer, and statistician had the idea to use statistics for human. Prior, statistic were in majority an instrument used for astronomy. Adolphe Quételet studied Scottish soldiers to make statistics of the human. He went further and did not only statistics on the body. He did statistics about injuries, body, and a lot more. With all of this, Quételet invented the average person. Without statistics, you can't have an average person. This idea is important for the following. It's also the key idea at the beginning of eugenic.
Someone was very interested in this topic. At the point, he coined the word “eugenic” itself. Francis Galton was the half-cousin of Charles Darwin. He came from a wealthy family and really like the work of his half-cousin on evolution. But, Galton wanted to apply it to society. He was also inspired by the concept of the average person of Quételet. Galton diverges of both of his predecessors. For Galton, the average person was not the person in the middle. No, it was the person at the bottom. There is a shift down compared to Quételet.
The poorer, the people without education, disabled, slaves, race shouldn't be considered with Galton. There were just this average for the one able to work and earn what they need to survive. The others were not even at the bottom of the social ladder.
People with education, wealthy people, were of course at the top of this ladder. Galton also believed in birth control based on the assumption of the categorization of the human. Wealthy should reproduce as their genetic was better.
On this base, Galton developed a lot of theories that we still use nowadays, and in particular in psychology and psychiatry. But, his ideas in pathology survived.
More general, some of his ideas and theories are still around. Eugenic was very popular at the beginning of the 20th century – Galton began his work at the second half of the 19th century. People founded during this time eugenic society, university cursus, etc.
With WWII, eugenic fall in disgrace. People working in the field made a shift in their career. They went to psychology, psychiatry, philosophy, sociology, anthropology…
In the 50s and later in the 60s and 70s, a new movement emerged with anti-psychiatry. In this ideology, you will find many points of view. They had and have in common that we should not intern people that aren't the average person, in other words the norm. Yes, the average person of Galton became a norm. If people are disabled, they don't produce anything and aren't included in the norm. They interned these unproductive people. Some went against it.
But, in one side of anti-psychiatry, you had people who think that people with psyachiatric issues were faking it. The idea is that people are lazy and invented their illness, condition, difference to do nothing. These people in anti-psychiatry wanted to close the asylums, so people will have to work. Spoiler alert: It didn't work, and people ended on the street or in jail.
But, all these people thinking people were lazy were in the normal at least. This scheme continued to today, and we end with NTs in charge of deciding...
I can only recommend the read of the book “Empire of Normality; Neurodiversity and Capitalism”, by Robert Chapman.