Female traffic light signals at pedestrian crossings

Post Reply New Topic

It's the Streisand Effect allover again.

it is uncertain how many men would masturbate over the female walk sign and by the time they are finished, it says " don't walk" again.

i think it is totally inappropriate as it may clog the streets with flashers.

the curb crawling problem might explode when crossing requires dressing in dresses

No problem at all.

Now let's see. Imagine you have an electrical device. You plug it into some outlets, and it recieves power and functions as desired. You plug it into other outlets and nothing at all happens. Into some outlets, it won't even plug at all. What you wrote is the equivalent of observing these circumstances, and drawing the conclusion that something must be wrong with the cord.




That is a succinct and quite accurate assessment, yes. Though it's arguably a give-and take situation, and not just based on awareness or unawareness. Merely both being aspies isn't enough for what I would consider a connection.




What is unclear is that you seem to be occupying multiple contradictory positions at once.

You say the deficit in social skill can't be compensated for, but then you agree that practiced skills, such as analysis, can lessen the impact of the deficit (thus compensating), but then you maintain that the deficit is fundamental to autism and can never be improved on or compensated for.




No. If that were the benchmark, then single people could never be diagnosed as aspies. The benchmark is an estimate of the average persons degree of social competence, and then that is measured against that of a suspected aspie to determine if it's A: lower and B: so low that it can be resonably expected to cause problems for the person in the now and in the future. This is the dilemma for people seeking diagnosis late in life; to shut of their compensating strategies and put their actual difficulties on display. I've been there, and I suspect you have, too.

That being said, if an aspie was to be driven to work hard on their deficits and develop compensating strategies to the point where they may even come across as above average in social competence, it would still be considered a disability due to the hard work that they had to put in that "normal" people wouldn't have needed to.




That is true in general, but you're still not explaining anything with regards to how anything remotely similar would transpire in these two situations.

Scenario 1: Person marries a sociable, successful, charming and intelligent other person. Everything is fine and dandy, the perfect couple. They live together for, say 15 years, until one day when a partner goes berserk and murders the other.

Scenario 2: Person marries an aspie. Like all marriages, it has its ups and down, but sadly, over time, the partner finds that the downs are no longer outweighed by the ups, and decides to leave their aspie after, say, the same 15 years. Then they proclaim themselves to have developed a legitimate mental disorder from the marriage, and goes to complain online.




I don't have quite so high an opinion of myself and my power that I expect my mere presense and countenance to quell into submission the minds of the poor, feeble souls unfortunate enough to find themselves inside my predacious aura. (a fact sorely lamented by the more photophobic parts of my mind)

But just to be safe, I only surround myself with people understanding enough to know when they need to be accomodating, smart enough to appreciate my good sides and who know that I'm rarely malicious when I stumble socially, and with enough spinal fortitude to tell me when I'm being a dick.



The same is true for people in general, but I take your meaning.




In the interest of honesty, my relationships never went past an ill-defined "we're something" stage. But yes, I have been something a couple of times.




Same here. I have observed traits I'm very glad I don't have (don't think I could live without sarcasm), and I've been jealous of aspies with a functioning level higher than mine. I think my most annoying trait is that I'm a smug know-it-all, but that's hardly a trait exclusive to aspies.



See, I'm not convinced such a thing exists. Put two NTs and an aspie in a room together, and the NTs are probably going to get along better with eachother than with the aspie, but that's by no means a given and just as true for any number of other categories of people; two women and a man, two christians and a muslim, two conservatives and a liberal, two vegans and a carnivore et cetera.

I've seen nothing that points squarely at some ephemeral special connection that all people of average neurological makeup share with each other that we simply lack. My personal observations are, however, that NTs tend to have lower emotional walls, they make decisions I would consider very important (such as mate selection) with significantly less gravity and on much flimsier grounds, connect, disconnect and reconnect emotionally with relatively little fallout, and seem to me to exist on a significantly more superficial level.

I by no means want to disparage or generalize about NTs, but that is what the NT-majority social game looks like from the outside.




You have yet to establish aspies in functional relationships as being impossible. This is not a situation where an exception proves a rule, but rather one where an exception disproves it entirely. And I know for a fact that there are NTs on this site in relationships with aspies.





I don't think there is such a thing as a game that works for everyone.



I'll take your word on that. I've no plans to be married.


(Also, I apologize to the OP and to the mods for the OT, but I think the discussion was valuable.)

I think we just disagree. The ephemeral and elusive something's absence cannot be compensated for with learned behaviour, I think.

In which case I'm back to my original position of you being wrong.