Understanding the model NTs operate on
01 May 2012, 4:37 am
Cogs wrote:
My core way of thinking is in a web of concepts, which are visually represented.
The field guide to earthlings book that was recommended earlier, talks about poeple thinking in a web of symbols.
So are other people aware of thinking in a web of symbols, concepts etc. or have I misunderstood this?
The field guide to earthlings book that was recommended earlier, talks about poeple thinking in a web of symbols.
So are other people aware of thinking in a web of symbols, concepts etc. or have I misunderstood this?
In my opinion most people think in terms of categories/boxes and they are very quick to categorise everyone and everything. So a person will immediately be placed in the 'good looking' or 'not good looking' box or the 'cool' or 'not cool' box, 'intelligent' or 'not intelligent' box and (one of the most important ones) 'like me' or 'not like me' box. They make snap judgments and once a person has been categorised it's hard to jump categories.
01 May 2012, 5:40 am
Cogs wrote:
My core way of thinking is in a web of concepts, which are visually represented.
The field guide to earthlings book that was recommended earlier, talks about poeple thinking in a web of symbols.
So are other people aware of thinking in a web of symbols, concepts etc. or have I misunderstood this?
The field guide to earthlings book that was recommended earlier, talks about poeple thinking in a web of symbols.
So are other people aware of thinking in a web of symbols, concepts etc. or have I misunderstood this?
Are people aware of this web of symbols type thinking?
Yes, If they have an introspective abilty. This is boiling it down to introversion and thinking alone, with a fair measure of intelligence in people.
01 May 2012, 8:42 am
nessa238 wrote:
If half are above average in cognitive ability why are 99% of those I meet downright thick - it doesn't exactly add up does it?
If you have an IQ above 99th percentile, 99% of the people you meet would have a lower IQ (And thus potentially be perceived as "thick" to you). Yet no matter how smart you think they are, half of them (50%) will be above average intelligence. Because above average means exactly that, since average IQ (100) is set at 50th percentile (in theory, anyway).
But if you were above 99th percentile, you shouldn't need that explained.
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
01 May 2012, 8:48 am
NarcissusSavage wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
If half are above average in cognitive ability why are 99% of those I meet downright thick - it doesn't exactly add up does it?
If you have an IQ above 99th percentile, 99% of the people you meet would have a lower IQ (And thus potentially be perceived as "thick" to you). Yet no matter how smart you think they are, half of them (50%) will be above average intelligence. Because above average means exactly that, since average IQ (100) is set at 50th percentile (in theory, anyway).
But if you were above 99th percentile, you shouldn't need that explained.
When did everyone take this world-wide IQ test?
Most people haven't had their IQ tested so how can you know what percentage have a specific IQ?
It's all hypothesis and extrapolation in my opinion
And I don't have a particularly high IQ myself either - I have common sense though, which even people with the highest IQs often lack
I'm not understanding the logic that says half of them have to be any particular IQ - people don't fall into neat percentages just because there's a scale to measure them against
I think you are saying half will be of above average IQ without even bothering to test them
I'd prefer to administer the test on everyone to prove your hypothesis
01 May 2012, 6:46 pm
nessa238 wrote:
I'm not understanding the logic that says half of them have to be any particular IQ - people don't fall into neat percentages just because there's a scale to measure them against
They do if the scale is made by people and defined so that half of people fall above a certain mark, and half below it. Which is the case with IQ.
Of course, since they didn't test everyone, it's roughly half, rather than exactly half.
As far as how we can know that, well, they test a sample of people and use that to set the norms for the test. Presumably they test a representative sample so that we can be reasonably sure if reflects the general population.
Of course, you can still argue that IQ tests are not valid, or don't measure anything real.
Nonetheless, if the sample used to set the test scoring is representative of the general population, then the population will be basically evenly divided above and below the median mark, which is 100 for IQ tests.
_________________
not aspie, not NT, somewhere in between
Aspie Quiz: 110 Aspie, 103 Neurotypical.
Used to be more autistic than I am now.
02 May 2012, 4:24 am
Mysty wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
I'm not understanding the logic that says half of them have to be any particular IQ - people don't fall into neat percentages just because there's a scale to measure them against
They do if the scale is made by people and defined so that half of people fall above a certain mark, and half below it. Which is the case with IQ.
Of course, since they didn't test everyone, it's roughly half, rather than exactly half.
As far as how we can know that, well, they test a sample of people and use that to set the norms for the test. Presumably they test a representative sample so that we can be reasonably sure if reflects the general population.
Of course, you can still argue that IQ tests are not valid, or don't measure anything real.
Nonetheless, if the sample used to set the test scoring is representative of the general population, then the population will be basically evenly divided above and below the median mark, which is 100 for IQ tests.
I understand what you mean.
It's still basically an assumption in my opinion and therefore doesn't have much scientific value
I've noticed society has a tendency to over-assume intelligence in the 'average' person but I'd be inclined the other way. I think normality and confidence are often mistaken for intelligence as they are traits that are valued by society so there is inherent bias towards these traits and an assumption that they also signify intelligence.
I think what happens is that the average person relies a lot on 'group intelligence' ie they follow what the group does and are reliant on the intelligence of their group (highly risky as the group can often be unintelligent itself!) so that when forced to rely on their own intelligence they are seriously disadvantaged as they never developed any significant intelligence of their own due to coasting along, relying on the group.
25 Jun 2012, 7:22 am
nessa238 wrote:
From my own experience, if you think about all the things you hate in terms of communication style and topics of conversation - that's what NT's like! This is the very reason I have no wish to emulate them - I can't stand most of them! Their conversation is mainly very competitive, aggressive and context-specific ie what is right in front of their noses - they don't generally like to think about anything in any depth or anyalse anything; their main focus is on strategising to try and give themselves advantages - at any one time they will be thinking 'Is this person getting something I'm not and if so can they help me to gain access to it too?
They have their 'eye on the main chance' all the time. It's all about bettering themselves and they use socialising to do this, as the more people you know and talk to, the more advantages/opportunities you get. They basically have a pretty ruthless mindset and this helps them survive. People on the spectrum in my experience lack this ruthless 'killer instinct' and the average NT will pick this up instantly and not see us as being of any standard 'use' to them in terms of giving them access to advantages or advantageous situations as they will feel we are socially/mentally weak and therefore will be lacking in useful social contacts. Therefore we will often only be of use to them as someone to exploit.
They will generally not respect anyone just for being intelligent or nice as their main aim is what they can get out of a person or situation ie how they can improve their own social position in order to get more 'benefits'.
This might seem cyncial but I'm afraid it's true to a greater or lesser extent.
We spend all our time trying to gain these 'precious' social skills or trying emulate them but I think we often fail to understand the whole pretext behind them - they are just a tool to make useful connections with others in order to gain advantages, both emotional and financial - that is the essence of social communication. I just don't want to be like them full stop and in many ways I'm glad my lack of social skills keeps me out of the whole gladiatorial arena of NT interactions as it's just not nice at all - it's nasty, selfish, brutish and no place for a person with half an ounce of sensitivity and integrity!
So think of all the things you loathe in others and that will be a template for what the average NT respects and seeks in a person!
Also, you're going to get varying advice on here as some people will be acting more to an NT model of behaviour than others as they can see the advantages it holds or they just happen to be more NT anyway. Many people with Aspergers have a foot in both camps in my opinion and also you can't help but absorb some aspects of the dominant 'host' culture ie the NT one.
We all get brainwashed with NT concepts in my opinion and it's very hard to shake off the programming.
They have their 'eye on the main chance' all the time. It's all about bettering themselves and they use socialising to do this, as the more people you know and talk to, the more advantages/opportunities you get. They basically have a pretty ruthless mindset and this helps them survive. People on the spectrum in my experience lack this ruthless 'killer instinct' and the average NT will pick this up instantly and not see us as being of any standard 'use' to them in terms of giving them access to advantages or advantageous situations as they will feel we are socially/mentally weak and therefore will be lacking in useful social contacts. Therefore we will often only be of use to them as someone to exploit.
They will generally not respect anyone just for being intelligent or nice as their main aim is what they can get out of a person or situation ie how they can improve their own social position in order to get more 'benefits'.
This might seem cyncial but I'm afraid it's true to a greater or lesser extent.
We spend all our time trying to gain these 'precious' social skills or trying emulate them but I think we often fail to understand the whole pretext behind them - they are just a tool to make useful connections with others in order to gain advantages, both emotional and financial - that is the essence of social communication. I just don't want to be like them full stop and in many ways I'm glad my lack of social skills keeps me out of the whole gladiatorial arena of NT interactions as it's just not nice at all - it's nasty, selfish, brutish and no place for a person with half an ounce of sensitivity and integrity!
So think of all the things you loathe in others and that will be a template for what the average NT respects and seeks in a person!
Also, you're going to get varying advice on here as some people will be acting more to an NT model of behaviour than others as they can see the advantages it holds or they just happen to be more NT anyway. Many people with Aspergers have a foot in both camps in my opinion and also you can't help but absorb some aspects of the dominant 'host' culture ie the NT one.
We all get brainwashed with NT concepts in my opinion and it's very hard to shake off the programming.
This. Brilliant.
01 Jul 2012, 6:16 pm
BuyerBeware wrote:
What I don't understand is why, when the facts of the situation contradict their story, so many NTs choose to ignore the facts rather than re-evaluate the story (and the judgment and reaction that follow from it).
That's one of the hardest things for me to deal with-- exercising control over what they perceive so they won't make up an inaccurate story and therefore judge wrongly and react inappropriately.
That's one of the hardest things for me to deal with-- exercising control over what they perceive so they won't make up an inaccurate story and therefore judge wrongly and react inappropriately.
You're extremely ahead if you already discovered this. Knowing the "why" is less crucial, but anyway, here it is: it's a defense mechanism against what they don't want to see. Eg: when my friend was 16 she was sent to live with her uncle and aunt's family (to follow her studies in their city, the capital, where the university was). One day the uncle decided he'd had enough as a dorm and told her to get lost. She was a most quiet and well-behaved "nice" girl. She ran to her father to tell him she was homeless. Her father told her she was lying and never to mention such a thing again. At 18 y/o she found herself in the streets and not knowing where to go or what to do. Why? Because it would've been terribly painful for her dad to accept the truth that his brother was garbage (his brother owed him enough favors that they had made an agreement he'd host the student for the duration of her degree).
As to having to constantly make an effort to control others' perception so that they see what they want to see - you've defined the meaning of politics and power. This is what NTs do all day - the more talented they are at this control, the more powerful they become in society.
_________________
There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats - Albert Schweitzer
01 Jul 2012, 8:56 pm
When you look at a neurotypicals political beliefs an autistic would find it mathematically impossible for anyone to hold the party line on each and every one of the 100 different political issues that the party stands for. However the party line is held not because the person agrees on all the issues but rather this is the only way that the neurotypical can fit in.
