#ableism is stupid in this essay i will proceed to

[sneepity-snoop-snorpity-sneep]

I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON HOW AMERICAN SOCIETY HANDLES MENTAL DISABILITY AND I HAVE DECIDED TO talk about it to myself on my blog at moderate volume

THOUGHT NUMBER 1!!

OK so i’m pretty sure anyone who’s thought about it knows that the medical community (and other industries connected to it, like the insurance dudes), don’t consider brain-malfunction conditions to be on the same tier as other forms of healthcare, and give less priority to funding those departments, which means even if you HAVE got a bunch of medical professionals in those disciplines who DO take that ish seriously, they’ve got immediate barriers between them and the folks needing their services. which sucks.

that one i don’t have an immediate fix for, cuz i don’t think there IS an immediate fix, especially with how many more people are needing mental health treatments/evaluations these days. but you know what COULD have a nice big drastic impact on how people as a whole see mental health AND ALSO how large of a burden untreated mental health problems put on american society??

MAKE. ANNUAL. MENTAL HEALTH. EVALUATIONS. A. NORMAL. THING!!

like what parents are supposed to do with their kids and dr appointments is at least once a year, hop in the car or on the bus, and take their kid to get a physical! thats a totally normal thing people do, the idea being “even if there wasn’t anything obviously wrong before the appointment, its just a good way to keep an eye on our children’s health and catch problems sooner if a serious one does turn up!

well folks, that idea of monitoring one’s health preventing a lot of problems from becoming problems in the first place would also work with any and all forms of neurodivergency!! like how many people who struggle with a brain illness struggle mostly due to the fact that they weren’t prepared for it!? i’m totally projecting here btw, cuz guess what happened to me even though i WAS tested as a kid!! this exact issue right here!

obviously, a lot of mental illnesses specifically can’t be counted on to show up when you're still in childhood, where once a problem is revealed its the adults around you who are supposed to take care of you and make sure you’re getting what you need. BUT!!! but but but but BUT

if you DID come down with a condition as an adult, but you’d already been somewhat familiarized with what symptoms WERE IN FACT symptoms, and common treatments/solutions for said symptoms, due to having regular psychiatric checkups with a dr throughout childhood?

well, odds seems pretty good that you’d be much better prepared for that condition if/when it did come along, and it would probably take less time to notice it too!

say nothing of the fact that this would do a lot to de-stigmatize mental health, cuz if u arrange ur healthcare system so it is No Longer Assuming That Neurotypicality Is The Norm, then EVERYONE’S got that knowledge too, and even for the people who haven’t got a form of neurodivergence and never will -  them having a similar stockpile of background knowledge and awareness of mental health as those who do have a condition will do a ton to remove the obstacles in the way of effective society-wide treatment of brain illnesses (both on the stigma side of things, and on the practical symptom-treating side)

THOUGHT NUMBER 2!!

so this party-popper of thought was specifically inspired by a post i saw but can’t find (NVM I FOUND IT :D) that listed neurotypical traits in a similar manner as autistic traits tend to be talked about - i chuckled at it and then went like hey, what if tho, what if that could actually have some practical applications?

specifically, what if that exact premise was used as a the foundation of a unit in health classes in public schools?

like i know that even if you get a health curriculum and teacher that does a fairly good job of talking about what they’re required/allowed to talk about, there just isn’t enough time given to go into detail about a lot of important shit, and in the classes i got at least, neurodivergency vs. neurotypical-ness was one of the things not discussed (most of the ones i got focused on healthy relationships, which they did a good-but-not-great job on)

but if you had even just a couple lectures where the teachers first explain what each one is, give a few examples of neurodivergent conditions, and then follow it up with a talk outlining the neurotypical traits and explaining why/how they’re neurotypical traits?? it could definitely have a similar effect as the theoretical benefits to Thought #1

it would potentially re-frame the lack-of-condition that is being neurotypical - like i feel like the way people see it as ‘normal’ and while i get how that’s the impression people end up with, i think that’s a bad way to try and categorize the different ways the human brain functions - cuz what does normal even mean??? it doesn’t really describe anything except that ‘this person doesn’t seem to have anything going on with their behavior, they must be normal’ which. uh. hi there high-functioning folks, how y’all doing on this fine fall afternoon?

like if i’d been made aware that a lot of the stuff i did that i knew was what made me ‘weird’ were actually full-on SYMPTOMS that i actually shared with a ton of other people!? lemme tell you, it would’ve made a BIG difference in how much i measured the scope my problems based on ‘i’m weird though, so this is to be expected’

 Even (or maybe especially) though i didn’t actually know anybody personally with the same conditions, because hey! i didn’t know many people personally who also had asthma, but i never developed any hangups around how that affected my physical needs. why would I??! i’d already met a bunch of doctors about it, gotten an inhalor for it, and knew it was a Condition and that i was far from the only kid who had it. there wasn’t any empty space in my knowledge that i was left to fill with my own assumptions, that if i was so perpetually inadequate it must just be a trait i had and there wasn’t any point in trying to logic my way out of that burden

it doesn’t seem like it would be particularly difficult to close that knowledge gap when it comes to how people look at mental illness and neurodivergency, even just by explaining what’s really going into being allistic, neurotypical, or ‘normal’ would go a long way towards dispelling the idea that people have absolute control over their brains and behavior, as well as just being a great way to get folks with undiagnosed going-ons in their grey matter to shake off any assumptions they’ve made about how they should look at themselves for not being normal

ok yeah, having lectures where u explain how a person is neurotypical the same way you’d explain how someone is neurodivergent won’t help people with brain conditions know which one they’ve got or what to do about it - but i feel like the greater gain here is disrupting the idea that being neurotypical or ‘normal’ is something that awards merit or pride.

no one who’s not-neurodivergent got that way because of something they personally achieved or did. it wasn’t a reward they received from the universe for being a Certified Good Boi, they got lucky! they didn’t do anything to personally earn a brain that functions and on the flip side of that, starting out with a brain that functions isn’t actually some form of magical protection from losing that functionality if ur good luck runs out - a lot of forms of neurodivergence aren’t ones you’re born with after all.

and even the ones that ARE, same logic applies!! autism, adhd, and other conditions aren’t metaphorical coal in ur stocking for being naughty, they just are. nobody gets a say in what stats they have at birth!! (honestly the control we have even under our own agency and mobility isn’t that influential on our circumstances a lot of the time)

basically i feel like u want to start regularly introducing the idea that the perception of ‘normal’ is coming out of very measurable things in people’s brains. A perception which really just seems like another lazy way of assuming that those who have a functioning brain won’t ever have to worry about losing that, like it’s an inherent trait to you as a person or something - newflash! it ain’t. your mind, personality, and behavior are not magical airy-fairy things detached from measurable factors, their roots are all held within your brain, and your brain is an organ which can get sick or damaged. Not only that, but since its a very complex organ to boot, it doesn’t take a very big change to cause big differences in functionality!!

like yeah in theory it would be great if you could explain the difficulties people with disabilities face to those with no personal stake in that, and have them have sufficient empathy to consider that as something that matters. And although I’m sure there ARE folks out there capable of that, there’s also a lot of folks out there who will let you down BIG TIME on that front, so i think another tactic to use when trying to combat ableism would be to start requiring curriculums that gives all the folks across the board a nice big sip of

[tariqk]

Thinking about Lisp, software development and collaboration.

So like I've been reading a lot of Paul Graham's On Lisp, and Doug Hoyte's Let Over Lambda, and it's been... interesting.

Cut to spare the timeline.

Like, I don't pretend that I understand these works completely, or that I have anything more than a semi-functional understanding of Lisp — most of my work on Lisps have been on Emacs Lisp, which is really showing it's age, and I've honestly never touched macros in any reasonable level, because honestly speaking macros have a frightening reputation. Thanks to Graham and Hoyte's walkthrough of some of the concepts, though, I think my understanding's a little better, though it can only be tested if I can implement stuff on Common Lisp, if that day ever comes.

What struck me about the commentary was that, well, how much both Hoyte and Graham are fans of the language, and how they often extol its virtues. To both of them, Lisp is something that transcends other languages, that allow programmers to do things that are closer to the problem domain than anything else that people have made. That, when you make a programming language approach the kind of power, extensibility and flexibility that Lisp does, surprise! You've made another flavor of Lisp.

This is a seriously grand claim, but I kept being bugged by one question:

If Lisp Was So Good, Why Isn't It Used More Often?

Like, seriously, I kept reading these claims, and to some degree I could see them backing these claims with examples... and yet if you look at Common Lisp and Scheme projects on the Internet... they're like... scattered and fragmented. You can code, and most importantly, an overwhelming number of people do, from the beginning to the end, full-stack web applications in JavaScript. Lua gets used in everything from window managers to video games customization to desktop widgets. Python's still prevalent in web development to data sciences, and yes, some video games are customized in Python. Like, Ruby was everywhere for a while before it receded.

Like the only exceptions to this are, I guess, Emacs Lisp, which basically sticks with Emacs, and Clojure, which is tied to the JVM, and ClojureScript, which outputs JavaScript. Note how reliant they are on other software and frameworks.

The Answers I've Seen So Far

So, what gives? Like, I've been looking around, and I've seen basically two answers:

Lisp Isn't Popular Because People Are Stupid

No, seriously. This is the argument. Paul Graham engages in it:

People frightened by Lisp make up other reasons for not using it. The standard excuse, back when C was the default language, was that Lisp was too slow. Now that Lisp dialects are among the faster languages available, that excuse has gone away. Now the standard excuse is openly circular: that other languages are more popular.

(Beware of such reasoning. It gets you Windows.)

Popularity is always self-perpetuating, but it's especially so in programming languages. More libraries get written for popular languages, which makes them still more popular. Programs often have to work with existing programs, and this is easier if they're written in the same language, so languages spread from program to program like a virus. And managers prefer popular languages, because they give them more leverage over developers, who can more easily be replaced.

Hoyt engages in this, as well:

Macros have, not by accident, almost as much history as lisp itself, being invented in 1963 by Timothy Hart[MACRO-DEFINITIONS]. However, macros are still not used to the fullest possible extent by most lisp programmers and are not used at all by all other programmers. This has always been a conundrum for advanced lispers. Since macros are so great, why doesn't everybody use them all the time? While it's true that the smartest, most determined programmers always end up at lisp macros, few start their programming careers there. Understanding why macros are so great requires understanding what lisp has that other languages don't. It requires an understanding of other, less powerful languages. Sadly, most programmers lose the will to learn after they have mastered a few other languages and never make it close to understanding what a macro is or how to take advantage of one. But the top percentile of programmers in any language are always forced to learn some sort of way to write programs that write programs: macros. Because it is the best language for writing macros, the smartest and most determined and most curious programmers always end up at lisp.

I mean, the argument is pretty clear: because Lisp is so powerful, and that it takes so much study and effort to work at it, that only top-tier programmers are the only ones who understand Lisp. Implied, however, is the assumption that if you don't get Lisp, well, you're not a top-tier programmer, and you Just Don't Get It.

Which gets to the second explanation of why Lisp isn't popular:

Lisp Users Are Assholes

I mean, the above quotes are a sampling, and, honestly, a mild one, of the perceived attitudes of Lisp aficianados to the outside world. And it doesn't help that Hoyt then proceeds to call other non-Lisp Languages “Blub”, which, despite his many attempts to soften the blow, just makes him sound like an asshole. Like, you could have said “other languages”, dude. Sure it's less efficient, but you're dealing with people, not machines.

Like, Mark Tarver has an essay about the assholishness of Lisp users, which I don't recommend you read, because CONTENT WARNING ableism1. Maybe if you wanna take a look at commentary on that, you can go for Rudolf Winestock's The Lisp Curse, which is a little better, I guess?

Lisp is so powerful, that it encourages individual independence to the point of bloody-mindedness. This independence has produced stunningly good innovation as in the Lisp Machine days. This same independence also hampers efforts to revive the “Lisp all the way down” systems of old; no “Lisp OS” project has gathered critical mass since the demise of Symbolics and LMI.

[...]

Why [doesn't the Lisp community] make a free development system that calls to mind some of the lost glories of the LispM, even if they can't reproduce another LispM?

The reason why this doesn't happen is because of the Lisp Curse. Large numbers of Lisp hackers would have to cooperate with each other. Look more closely: Large numbers of the kind of people who become Lisp hackers would have to cooperate with each other.

The argument is, commercially, if you're a brilliant asshole, no one wants you. While your brilliance would be an asset for a while, what really makes organizations and enterprises scale isn't the fact that they hire brilliant people, but that they hire and use people brilliantly, in ways that are robust and don't rely on having the Right Kind of People on board. It's also why computer security is such a fucking thing to get right, because most of the solutions seem to be... hire the best in the industry and go with that? Which works great until your Chief Security Officer gets run over by a bus a better offer from the competition. Then what?

I mean, yes, capitalist models rely on you having a development workforce that is fungible, because it is cheaper in the long run, but it also reduces risk, even if reducing labor costs aren't a thing for you. It's also more democratic that way, because, yes, you need it to be accessible and approachable to the people who are affected by your code. And it needs to be reproducible, because if not, what if it's scientific work and we need to verify it?

But, even then, this diagnosis — that, charitably, the expressiveness of Lisp attracts brilliant assholes who can't even be convinced to work with one another rankles, because it fundamentally means that there's no solution. The language is too good for normies, and only assholes will use it, ∴ that's the end. Nothing more can be said.

I wonder if there's more to it. And I suspect there might be.

The Social Models Around Lisp Might Actually Be Toxic

Notice the commonality around the four people I've quoted above?

Yup.

They're all white dudes.

I'm not saying that the Lisp community is so toxic because the loudest voices within Lisp are all white men. I'm saying that the fundamental assumptions that these white men have about what is good might actually be a reason why Lisp's community might be so toxic.

There's a difference. Bear with me.

Graham actually talks about the process of developing software in Lisp — the bottom-up approach — but he talks about it in a way that assumes that development occurs with a single person, and that the final vision of the problem space is the insight of one person, or a small group of people with a common enough vision: sort of a Cathedral-style system. Does it have to be?

Why can't bottom-up development occur in a collaborative, cooperative system? Sure, Lisp “doesn't have syntax” (which always weirded me out — it does have syntax, just one that's “invisible” and “self-evident” to a certain class of mind). One that eschews the models that we're used to in capitalist and hegemonic systems. If Lisp is one of the purest forms of mathematical expression, what Hoyt refers to as a “U-Language”, shouldn't it be universally accessible and open to critique?

Maybe the reason why Lisp doesn't work is because the social models around Lisp — one that erases and diminishes the contributions and the lives of people who aren't white men of a certain analytical mindset — make it fail. Maybe whiteness — the social construct, one that lionizes individual brilliance of a specific kind, emphasizes competition over collaboration, pretends that there is an Objective™ Truth over the experiences of others, and considers all emotions other than violent, abusive ones weakness — is the reason why Lisp fails, despite its expressiveness and power.

Maybe the way to do it is to change the way people learn Lisp, and work with Lisp, and collaborate with Lisp, rather than the model we have today.

Could something like that, a system that allows easy, safe collaboration, and organisations that deliberately go for minority and disadvantaged groups, be something that could kick Lisp out of its doldrums?

He calls these people “brilliant bipolar minds”, because, of course. Just because you can diagnose the problem doesn't mean that you don't have the problem as well. ↩︎