*Edit: I checked some of the stuff more out in detail. While some concepts on this are valid and backed up by sience, others like RSD are not. Use this as a springboard for learning, not as a valid source in itself. Yes it says so in the corner already. But spelling it out might help.
People are more complicated then a diagram from the internet. Never forget that.
This chart hits me hard, in so many ways.
There are certain traits common to neurotypicals which I have always considered to be detrimental to not only that person in whom I've observed the trait, but to society as a whole -- but because I'm the one who is considered "different" I usually find that it's easier to just keep my trap shut, rather than be browbeaten by NTs for my strong opinions.
As a very obvious example: "Highly developed morals" is tucked away in the corner of the Autism/Giftedness sub-quadrant. I'm going to make the obvious assumption that Ms. Higgins Lee clearly did not intend to imply that only neurodivergents hold that trait... but, anecdotally, I have nonetheless on more than one occasion observed that far too many people who are considered by the larger populace to be "normal" not only appear to lack that trait, but actively despise anyone who holds such high morals.
NTs so often derisively label us as "autistic" or "neurodivergent" or (my personal favorite) "nerds"... like these are all somehow bad things -- but maybe society as a whole needs to reevaluate the entire notion of what constitutes "good" and "bad".
Sorry... am I being too divergent? Should I shut my trap... yet again?
I think “Highly developed morals” in this context doesn't mean being a "better" person by following a "superior" code of conduct.
It means a higher chance to follow any established code out of principle - even to one's own detriment - even with zero chance of getting caught cheating - even without getting to have bragging rights on upholding integrity. (But only if that code is properly understood first and deemed reasonable. Arbitrary BS-rules don't have that effect) There was a study about it, I think, from Bazil?
You're probably right -- but let's pick that apart for a bit. What you are basically describing is "doing what's right when nobody is watching." How is that not a "superior code of conduct," as you put it?
Social codes don't have inherent value. They vary over time, places, culture, etc...
Right and wrong are subjective. You can try to debate for moral absolutism, but I won't respond.
I was describing "doing what one thinks is expected to be the right choice as defined by code without incentives to do so other than the personal desire to uphold the code by making the choice it suggests"
Maybe: More closely adhere to whatever their morals may be. Good, bad, or otherwise.