Emotionalism...the bane of the Autistic...

Post Reply New Topic

No people with autism aren't immune to emotion and caring about emotional needs....nor do they always make decision based on reason vs. emotion. Basically no we aren't smarter and are also influenced by emotion....so no not really the bane of autism.

Though sometimes people on the spectrum could take it to the other extreme thinking they have all the facts and know all there is to know about reality.....which is just as dangerous a way to think as being satisfied to live in ignorant bliss whilst feeling pleasant emotions while the world around you is miserable for instance. I have not heard of any substantial proof/evidence that people with autism in general think any more logically than most people...we do however have a tendency to analylize things a lot, are able to remember a lot of facts and can recite a lot of information which can give us an appearance of being very logical...but not sure it actually implies people with autism are more logical than NTs when it really comes down to it.

your attempts at convincing the forum you only care about yourself and thus would buy the cheapest of cheap because all you care about is you...so much you'd make a point to not buy something more ecological really aren't showing a lack of human emotion on your part.

It was a joke, you can calm down now. I'm actually for Bernie in the primary, but he does do some weird stuff and can get very animated with his gesturing, hence the reason I mentioned it.

I was merely pointing out the normal American emotional response to eco-friendly vs. cost, not my own personal views. That being said, eco-friendly is about self-preservation on a logical level, if you're going to destroy your environment you're going to destroy yourself, or your descendants (your genetic line) at some point in the future. It's an emotional response that makes people want things and want things now with little regard to future consequences, that's a purely illogical approach.

That is true...though one could also come to the emotional conclusion that they don't want to contribute to things that harm the environment because it makes them feel bad....more so than because they actually rationalize the big picture. For some it might be a bit of both.

As it seem no one has read my post ( ), I repost it.

I kinda thought so, but you know us Aspies, with sarcasm and irony going over our heads and all.

You want a response, here it is: that paper is not research, it's a hypothesis that is using other research to bolster the claim. I'd be much more impressed if they followed the actual scientific method and actually conducted their own research with full results both positive to the hypothesis and negative to the hypothesis. If I were still going to school and had access to the literature I could make you a counter hypothesis with a book report of evidence to back it up as well. That's the problem with book reports disguised as actual research-- they're cherry picked to prove a point. It doesn't matter how fancy the jargon is, if you're not supplying the actual data, it's nothing more than an opinion-- just like everyone else here.

I saw, in a documentary about Nazi Germany, the Nazi agenda was what the German intellectual elite aspired to. It was the most advanced nation on earth at the time with intellectual power yet German intellectuals at universities were quite anti semitic and the majority of them supported social darwinism and believed it to be correct. The intellectuals were for euthanasia of society's undesirables and sterilization programs. The documentary argued this is why the Nazis gained control, not because of the economy, but because they reflected what the German nation stood for.
The Nazis did not have to do much convincing or appealing to emotions since they were basically demagogues.

Unfortunately, Germany was hardly the only country with those ideas. Here in the good ol' USA, there had been a thriving eugenic program that had been in effect in some cases as late as the early '70's, and the record for race hatred was hardly exemplary. It's just that the conditions were right in Germany for them to reach that peak of evil before anyone else, and so today still serves as an example for which all other nations must avoid.
While many German intellectuals were gung ho with the Nazi agenda, I'm not going to disregard the economic disaster which had befallen Germany, plus the humiliation they had been put through following the First World War, as I think it was hardly a coincidence that these things had coincided with the rise of Nazism. Plus, while said intellectuals might have courted the Nazis, most of the top leadership and their strong arm bullies in the Brown Shirts tended to be very ignorant, uneducated men (with the exception of the likes of Albert Speer), who were known to be disdainful of intellectualism and intellectuals - not unlike much of the American far right, today.

I'm not disagreeing with you on most of what you're saying. Since the rise of the Prussian state in the 1700's the Germans have been very systematic in their approach to everything: science, art, even politics. The Nazis utilized this highly effective and efficient approach in a variety of disgusting ways. My only point is that the systematic approach to progress that the Prussians started and carried with them into the unification isn't inherently the problem. The problem is when a society's negative emotions lead them to poor decisions and then that approach gets directed towards poor outcomes. The Nazis pumped through tons of propaganda about superiority and inferiority and basically extreme hierarchical thought that tapped into the efficient German system, but again this is an emotional appeal at it's core: We are superior, you are one of us, you are superior so feel proud. If a group starts to feel they're better than everyone else confidence turns to extreme arrogance and then morality is lost. Morality I posit is a logical device in so far as it's an extension of evolution: it's necessary for a society to have some sort of morality or it will destroy itself either by war with other nations (WWII) or revolution within (French Revolution), if society goes you go, therefore morality is a logical expression of self-preservation.

Social norms, nationalism, and the human tribal instinct are all one and same with human emotions, associated with social cooperation for survival.

The United States is spoiled as the closest thing we've had to a war on our soils for close to two hundred years, is 9/11.

And nationalism, the human tribal instinct, and social norms, in general, quickly became the rule over any political
emotional divide that exists before in going into a totally unrelated war with Iraq; that without 911 would never have come close to fruition as Nationalism, the favorite football team, favorite religion; or Quarter back of Jesus or John Elwood, does bring the bond of social AND EMOTIONAL UNITY for herds of humans as one force of change for better
or worse.

Dissension is suddenly quieted like a storm of STFU, for any possibility of going against the grain, both in general public and the halls of Senate and Congress.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent people do die for the allegiance of the American public in the trust of whatever is told to them from the pulpit of politics.

It's no different than Germany really; just in terms of number of people who die for a false speech from the bully pulpit of human tribal nature to get what one wants for subsistence; whether it is civilian contracts to rebuild Iraq once it is torn down and kill hundreds of thousands of innocents, or gas chambers of Germany where millions die.

The only difference is one is Muslim, and considered by the overall herd when it comes to war, as less than
human, per the same tribal instinct that rules human from the get go, where love does not exist.

The game changer now is broad band Internet access and world wide connectivity.

With the freedom of speech that is allowed now; and access to information worldwide;
the chances of something like that happening again become dampened as one can
say WTF they want to online and get away with it with FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

THE POWER OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION, overall, can be
the difference between a gas chamber and an Iraq, or much bigger 'THINGY',
FULLBLOWN..

And yes, overall, in real wars of peace for real reasons for subsistence;
Freedom of Speech and overall expression is worth fighting for;

Whether those guns have bullets or
ink..

We have established you are both wise and intelligent...since you agree with me...



There is that greater *tendency*, based on my life's experience...



Agreed...
The mob (or hyena) mentality is an integral part of the psyche of most people due to the brutal evolutionary process, imo...
Tribalism gone to the irrational and emotional extreme.
May/would have been useful during mankind's genesis of cultural development as a means of appropriating limited resources of the environment they were inhabiting.
This inherent nature of the human species was responsible for much of the atrocities during WWII.
...And was used cynically to manipulate/indoctrinate the ignorant/uneducated masses by the political hierarchy...surely...

Agreed...but with qualifications...

Your premise, in the context/example you have given is:
* Logic is used without considering humanistic elements.

I would like to point out that the use of logic does not necessitate an inherent lack/exclusion of compassion, for example.
You simply have to add the relevant components to the parameters of the logical argument.

In other words, you can present a logical argument which ignores humanistic factors...
...Or one which includes them...
Logic is NOT the villain here...
If there is a villain, it is the way it is used...surely...



Agreed...
That was the point I was making earlier.
You can be emotional when/while creating a logical argument...
But that isn't employing "emotionalism"...



One party can be logical and also consider humanistic elements/components...
The other party can present an argument which is purely emotionalistic without a logical foundation...

One argument has an intellectual component to it...
The other does not...

Consider a legal criteria:
A judge would employ both reason and humanism when determining an appropriate decision/judgement in a court of law...
Emotionalism would not only be inappropriate in such a context, it would be unethical, surely...
Contrast this with the garden variety social interactions we Autistics have to endure in NT dominated communities.

I believe the expression covering one's butt is appropriate here...