The site where they BASH Aspie husband and wives. :O

Post Reply New Topic

So true. I experienced such a situation as you describe recently when someone else helped clarify what I was attempting to express.

Thanks again for your efforts to translate. Unfortunately what I see is a lot of psychobabble in Olympiadis' posts. What's worse is that other people are blindly buying into his nonsense.

I'm not trying to offend anyone but when someone wants others to believe that most, if not all NT's are psychopaths - I feel the need to speak up in defense. Most of my friends and family are not autistic and I can comfortably say without a doubt they are not psychopaths nor do they exibit such behavior.

Simply put, I don't think it's healthy to go around believing that our relationships are purely imaginary and most everyone we encounter in life is a psychopath.

I can understand why this could be confusing.
One idea is internal and another idea is shared by two or more.

If you and I agree to believe that the sky is green, that's still an idea and not real.
The belief that a relationship exists is a choice, not a real thing.

Can you not think of many shared beliefs that have no basis in reality?
These beliefs still have real effects though.
con artists take advantage of this all the time.

Why is the distinction important?
Because trying to apply the laws of nature/physics to imagined things results in significant error.
When you apply logic in your thoughts to a combination of both real and imagined things, you get garbage conclusions.

Except that a relationship between 2 people is not just an idea. It's a real thing where 2 people provide support to each other, emotional and otherwise.

You are taking concrete thinking to absurd heights.

I must confess that I can also take concrete thinking quite far. However, just because something is abstract, it does not mean that it isn't "real". As a demonstration of that fact, the very fact we want girlfriends, and most likely olympiadis does himself, mean that we want relationships. Essentially, we are actually wanting the same thing that NT's want and are important to them, so it's a bit ironic for someone like olympiadis to say that it doesn't exist when it's something that he nonetheless actually wants himself.

You have just demonstrated the fallacy that I pointed out where people feel pressure to believe things are real based on social pressure, and then go on to use complex abstractions within their logical thought process.

As the social pressures change over time, the beliefs have to change, and then it becomes clear (or should) that the belief was only a temporarily shared idea, and was never a real thing.
I thought my example of the Monopoly game would illustrate this, but apparently that failed.

It's more accurate to say that social pressures cause people to distort their logic. When someone doesn't distort their logic they are pressured by being called things like "absurd".
Then it's suggested that abstractions like what someone might choose to want are automatically real because they have effects in reality.
There's a great many abstractions that have real effects in reality, especially when the shared abstraction is agreed upon to be treated as real, even temporarily, like the Monopoly game example.

Perhaps you are reaching conclusions intuitively rather than reasoning this out in conscious thought.

I don't have the motivation to respond to every aspect of this post, but I will attempt to cover as much as possible.

1. I understand that such a demarcation could precipitate behavioral differences, but I am yet to see this applied in reality. It appears intellectual, it appears scientific, but it does not seem represented in reality (pathological, from my perspective). I have yet to see any scientific support for such a claim. Furthermore, my understanding of the underlying nature of posters on this forum is that it is very much the same as if they were NT. The few differences I have noticed can be pinned down primarily to alexithymia, concrete thinking (due to frontal lobe differences) and unique social pressures presented by this website - pressures applied by those with AS onto others with AS. It's so remarkably similar to any other website.

2. Personal experience is necessary, however not scientifically valid on its own. If that were true, anything could be published as accurate, hence my disapproval of personal experience as your primary factor in creating the theory. You're correct, in that biased perspectives often result from emotion, however the presence of emotion does not mandate that a point of view be dismissed. As an example, simply because I express my post using emotion, does not make it incorrect, but there is a possibility of delusion. Many of your posts have intentionally (or in some cases, given impression without doubt) disgraced NTs. Whether or not you are aware of the affects of that, is relevant, because you will not accept emotional backlash if you do not believe it has a place. The burden of proof, is on you, as you're presenting the theory despite having autistic neurology, and what is clearly prejudice towards NTs (I do not claim it to be unjustified, but it exists). Posting history here reveals that you identify particular behaviour as being 'NT' among other posters (myself included), yet I have seen many autistic individuals dispute your claims in similar fashion, which raises doubt to your theory, as the number of what you refer to as 'exceptions', grows. You emphasize a logical model, though ultimately, have not yet related it to reality.

3. I don't fail to admit that NTs 'engage in psychopathic behaviours' (nor might I necessarily agree with that, as you seem to define terms differently to myself), but you outline it to be in complete contrast of the autistic life experience. It is not convincing that it is strictly the neurological differences between NT and autistic brains causing all your theorized differences.

4. Your emotions (displayed through posting) reflect NTs to be the problem. You are allowed to consider them the problem if that's how you feel, it is not shameful that it is not 'logical'. Your logic can exist independent of your feelings, however misjudgement in logic will impact the affective outcome and likely vice versa. Without a doubt, I feel that I am not reading into this myself. I was not necessarily referring to the post I quoted as being reinforced with malice, but many of your posts are clearly vindictive, so it isn't disastrous to make that assumption.

The presentation of emotion does not warrant denigration of a conclusion, but can be a reason for flaws in logic being overlooked. When there is a flaw in the logical model, the whole idea crumbles, hence why, when an inconsistency is detected (as I believe there are many) alternatives should be explored, rather than shut down. Your persistence in abiding by your one logical model without venturing down other pathways convinces me that you are not as unbiased as you have led yourself to believe.



1. You undermine the complexity and misjudge the consequences of neurotypical neurology. The definition you use refers to all those that are not autistic, and is thus ignorant of all difference (which is relevant, as I will explain in response to your snowflake analogy). It completely neglects the individuality of each person. You show this by claiming that 'NTs' do what society etc. expects of them, proceeding by claiming that Aspies will never have not grown up without these social forces. Every person has grown up with these social forces. Our civilization mandates that we are obedient to authority figures. Could you imagine a society in which there were no police and law to obey? Conforming/obeying etc. may be side effects of social behaviour, but you postulate chaos with your suggestions.

If the Aspies were aware of the social forces, I speculate that while it is likely they would conform less than the NTs, many would still follow through with the orders. I have not seen 'The Ascent of Man' so I can't comment regarding that.

There are criticisms of Milgram's work that actually suggest it was forced far more than what he describes in his papers. Perhaps a better example to look at would be the Asch conformity experiments. I suspect that autistic individuals would be far less likely to conform to the group in such scenarios, but that is in no way comparable with animal cruelty.

2. I do not relate to nor could I understand the actions of those that would abandon their cats, leaving them on the streets, simply because they desired the social benefits of having a larger home. I own two cats myself, and I would never give them up for any social reward. In my whole life, I have not encountered an example akin to this one that you provide.

As for 'the ends justifying the means', your example fails to assure me that it is specifically NT behaviour. What you describe to me seems like a singular, generally selfish act. I have encountered numerous posts throughout my short time as a member of this forum, where cause of 'poor behaviour' is mistakenly placed upon the neurological differences between AS and NT. It is this type of misplacement, that I struggle to understand.



That was not your thread. It was off-topic and I was asked not to respond to prevent it from derailing further.

I presume that you were referring to myself getting caught up in an emotional response, but I disagree that I was unable to focus on the logical model. I did not, and still fail to accept what your theory stipulates to be a result of strict differences in neurological wiring. As I (believe I have) posted previously, it may seem as scientific or as intellectual as the best paper ever published, but it's pathological in nature if it cannot be applied to reality.

I don't care for quoting this part, but only wanted to clear that up.



1. I can't be bothered finding examples (as it's relatively unimportant), but referring to NTs as things like (this one is recent) 'irrational, poop-throwing baboons', consistently replying '+1' to short snippets of information that negatively refer to NTs, and pouncing at an opportunity to discuss a relevant shortcoming all reveal your hatred, whether you can detect it or not.

2. What you suggest promotes chaos and violence. It is not a hivemind function to prevent expression of honest hatred, but courtesy. As an NT, I can tell you, that I do not hold back for the sake of impressing others or any other social reward, but because I know the consequences had everyone act in that way. I will explain this further below.

3. The presence of emotion does not negate the logic within an argument. Your statement overlooks the usage of emotion, representing a context where it is true, but not this context, in which it is a useless, general statement.



You're wrong, here. The opinion others will have of me did not influence my decision to type that. Assume that nobody suppressed emotion, the result is a world of chaos. I actually cannot understand why you would think a 'hivemind' is the prime reason for sayings such as that.

What you have said there, is not part of any logical model, but your misguided presumption. I believe I can accurately predict how you will respond to what I am about to say, but what you display here is the epitome of black and white thinking.

If I truly cared so strongly for my reputation here at WrongPlanet, why would I not just deceive you, as an example, pretend that I am autistic rather than be part of the 'away team'? Furthermore, why would I say such things here, if autistics are not part of the hivemind to begin with? Am I just another psychopath trying to manipulate some Aspies?



I agree with this, but much of what you post seems to reflect personality or other different aspects of a person not relevant to the specific wiring differences of the neurotypical and autistic brains. It is again, another general point that takes the context out of the situation. You have said it yourself that there are exceptions to your theory, but perhaps there are more than you would realize.



You're not wrong to suggest that I may have difficulty relating to both experiences, but I do not believe there to be one 'NT experience'.

I don't feel that this environment is more accepting of difference, however. That is clear by how much hatred is misguidedly directed towards the social idea of 'neurotypical' neurology.


I will respond to the rest, when I can be bothered. It would take far too long to coalesce my thoughts into a meaningful whole.

Have a nice night, darling Olympiadis.

Most of don't hate NT's. You'll notice that myself and most others argued against what Olympiadis said. Also, there are many NT members of this forum even though it's primarily targeted to those of us on the spectrum.

sometimes i wish english was my main language. What olympiadis and norny post makes me go aaaaarrrrgggghhh!! I cannot understand it! Its just a huge list of expensive words. I'll try again tomorrow to See if it helps

I do see/observe tangible support. Perhaps you will also eventually see it, even without me having to specify instances which would likely get dismissed to a host of other rationalized possibilities rather than attributed to one consistent model. A similar thing happened in astronomy where many strange space phenomenon were observed and explained separately by various theories, but eventually were all described more efficiently by the black hole model.




The structure of this forum is copied directly from NT forums, and I think most of us had already been pre-conditioned for navigating NT forums, so your observation is not surprising at all.



It's not just mine, - the experience or the theory.



I think you read most of that into what is posted. However, this is a forum for autistics and the autistic experience. Prejudice is relative. For autistics, NTs and their structures/expectations DO present a problem, and therefore I expect prejudice to be found here. I think you should expect that too.




Yes, I tried to explain this before. The behaviors themselves do spread over all neurotypes. Many AS members here strive for being more NT in appearance, and/or more able to blend in with NTs, and admit as much. Some of it is intentional, some mimicry, and some of it from pure conditioning over time. BUT, the outward behaviors themselves are NOT the main point at all. It is the underlying mechanisms of processing information that differ, and so the origins and motivations behind the behaviors are what matter to me. In my posts I do a combination of pointing out the motivations as well as generalizing about outward behaviors. You make it sound as though I'm trying to claim X-neurotype is incapable of Y-behavior. I don't do that.




False. I explained how I approach the subject of behavior above. The psychopathic behaviors can be observed across all neurotypes, but their origins and motivations vary along clear lines in my model. Think: intuitive vs consciously constructed, and minimal layers of concept vs excessive layers of concept applied.




I explained above, that in a relative sense to this context, NTs are a problem generally speaking. More precisely it's how NTs operate that presents the problem. That is relative and conditional, NOT an absolute that should be considered an insult. In a society of all AS individuals, NTs would no longer present a problem. However we are on an AS forum. That's just how it works.




And I will go back to the black hole example. Adding complexity to keep up with many variations is not as helpful as finding simpler common logical links.



False. I do not.



All work is criticized. Comparing by using superficial attributes overlooks the purpose of the experiments. It's the underlying logic creating the driving force behind behaviors that is the important factor, not each way that force can be expressed in various environments.




I'm trying to help you understand. I explained a few paragraphs above.
I don't attribute a "poor behavior" to a neurotype. I'm attributing the origin and driving force for that poor behavior to neurotype. You have to look far below the surface of what you see to determine the exact logical paths that are being used.



No, I wasn't. However, you do read extra emotions and levels of emotion into my posts.
It's possible that you also have a strong emotional response when things like psychopathic behavior is mentioned.



Your use of "negatively" is arbitrary, and your use of "hatred" is presumptuous, and hopefully not a projection. Have you asked yourself if you may be overly sensitive to things that lead you to suspect hatred of individuals?

Please take a look at this video concerning baboons with an open mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4UMyTnlaMY




False. What I suggest is efficient honesty.




Well, since the statement about the bigger man is meaningless to me, as it says essentially nothing real, then you used the statement for the benefit of who exactly?

Does it not strike you as odd that pretty much every other non-primate species can exist sustainably in your presumed world of chaos?



The hive-mind is NOT the origin of a saying like that. The fact that the saying is still being used today means that it serves the goal of the hive mind by keeping people controlled inside identity.
The association between the saying and the servitude of identity is not even an obscure one. It is clearly intended to produce a chemical punishment for not succumbing to social pressures. Even thought it says absolutely nothing real, the statement controls/drives behaviors and clearly references a hierarchy of the controlled person being higher than the uncontrolled person. I actually cannot understand why I'd have to even explain this one.



False, and I just explained part of the logical support.




Consciously or not you are actively trying to destroy dissent from the hive structure here, and I have been taking it quite well so far. I doubt you are anywhere near psychopathic. I can't really say why you are here though. Perhaps you're on a mission to squash any perceived "hate" ?
Perhaps you want autistics to understand NTs better, or maybe think better of them? You tell me.



See above. And, I accept you.
I think if anything we autistics are in a better position to study the social reflection of NT neurology because we are less embedded within the structures. I would hope you find the information useful. No matter the wording used, there is no expectation for you to use the information to justify any kind of hatred. That's a very individual decision.

I think this thread was started in order to point out the difference of the NT forum where social expectations/pressure IS created to "feel" a certain way about aspies. It doesn't seem to point out the underlying motivations involved, but offers insults, and suggestions like avoiding aspies.

You may feel that my approach is similar, but I don't think so.

On the argument of relationships being real or imagined:

If relationships are imagined,by that logic, everything we supposedly know is actually imagined.

Everything we experience passes through the filter of our mind, and therefore one could argue that everything is imagined. But the fact that we are limited to our own mind's perceptions and don't truly see things as they are doesn't actually change the things we are seeing or experiencing themselves. We just come up with different ways to understand and describe them.

If we agree the sky is green, yes, it's an idea. So is agreeing the sky is blue. But it doesn't change that there is a reason we see the sky a certain way, does it? It's because, beyond our perception of it, there is a fundamental truth about it, and our brain processes that information, and stores it away.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, olympiadis. But to me, it seems that you are saying, "Facts aren't really facts, they are just agreed upon opinions, imagined ideas that are shared by many." I don't agree. While the concept of facts is just that, an idea, it doesn't mean the thing it describes isn't real. It's the same idea behind the question, "If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" No, because by the definition of sound, it involves the brain processing it as such. But just because a brain didn't process the noise it made, which are simply vibrations, doesn't mean the vibrations didn't happen.

It is like looking at a picture of a ball, and saying the ball isn't real, because the picture itself isn't a ball. No, the picture is not a ball, but the reason it looks like the ball is because there is a ball, and the camera took the raw information it got from the ball and made the picture, which simply displays a replication of the light reflecting off of the ball on a screen or piece of paper. The ball is the relationship itself, the mutual attraction and affection, which is real, regardless of what we call it and how our brain processes and classifies the information it receives. The picture represents our perception of raw information.

I don't know if I'm being clear, it is honestly very difficult to communicate what I'm thinking. Basically, my idea is that, even if we didn't process anything in our mind, and had no senses, it doesn't mean that the things, the things themselves, that we sense are imaginary.

Yes, every sensory input of the real world becomes conceptual in the context of the brain's natural language at the very least, often with extra layers of concept added for convenience.

The division is this: how many conceptual layers are added to information, and primarily if the information came directly from sensory input, or from our imaginations.

If all human brains vanished, then everything that is left behind is real, including your vibrations in the forest. If it requires a working human brain to exist, then it is imaginary.

In a human relationship where one human has more mass than another human, the relationship is based in reality. Minimal layers of concept are needed to describe this real relationship, and physical law can be used to test this relationship and make accurate predictions.

A human relationship where one person loves another is completely imaginary, does not follow physical law, and does not allow accurate predictions. The people are real, interactions happen, but the agreed upon shared information is completely imaginary and isn't even consistent when described individually. Each person has a different idea of what they believe their relationship is or looks like logically.

I hope this helps.

This topic now seems completely derailed. To get back on topic, most of the people in this thread here say that we should never have relationships:

http://forums.delphiforums.com/aspartners/messages/?msg=13388.1

By the way, using personal experience on it's own is actually the worst way of finding out what's going on. If you really want to understand the NT's behaviour, you should look for some books on the subject. Like this one:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Field-Guide-Earthlings-autistic-neurotypical-ebook/dp/B004EPYUV2

The only post in this thread that matters. She is rude, resentful, and I wouldn't be surprised if her husband shut off to her because of her nasty attitude, and not because he's an Aspie.

Plus, if the situation was reversed, everybody would still be blaming the man instead of the woman.

What irks me when I read those posts, is how many of those partners have actually been diagnosed with AS? or otherwise, how many of those women have a truly reasonable and reliable suspicion that their partner actually has it? The posts I've read there don't sound like they have much objectivity about it.

The OP on that thread says she recently found out her husband has AS, but doesn't say whether he was diagnosed. What she describes actually sounds more like OCD.