25 Nov 2019, 6:20 am
25 Nov 2019, 8:01 am
naturalplastic wrote:
EzraS wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
You mean that you want to take THAT guy's idea, and make it gospel?
Well...okay. Lets go with that.
I got snared into debating him because I misunderstood him. I assumed that he was going by the more common vertical "functioning levels" of autism, and that "100 percent autistic" would mean the ultimate LFA: a totally nonverbal, and totally nonfunctioning, totally unreachable, person in a ward (as opposed somekind of ideal NT being 0 percent autistic). He was in fact using a totally different horizontal scale for his "percentage of autism" notion.
You can be on any functioning level of autism and still vary on his perpendicular scale of "percentage of autism". What he is talking about how machine-like or how robot like you are, as opposed to being ...I dunno...how "human like"... you are. My understanding of his understanding of it is that a 100 percent autistic would be like Spock, or like Jaime the Robot in the Sixties spy sitcom "Get Smart". High functioning, well dressed, articulate, intelligent, but...machine like, pure logic, not emotional in the usual sense, and also impaired at sensing nuance, context, or being able to "read between the lines", taking things literally..
And actually there is a certain logic to what he is saying. I have seen trainwreck conversations between folks on WP when one person (who may have a higher IQ than the other person and have a better job than the other person, but) make an idiot of themselves when talking to the other person because the first person takes thing too literally and doesn't read between the lines the way an NT or the second person does. Further - the guy who started that thread may well be an example of what he is talking about. In this dichotomy that he invented he himself would be "close to 100 percent autistic". He is rather robot like in the way he takes things literally.
How would you tell such a person? Well... the more they act like Jaime the robot, the closer to a 100 percent they are!
Well...okay. Lets go with that.
I got snared into debating him because I misunderstood him. I assumed that he was going by the more common vertical "functioning levels" of autism, and that "100 percent autistic" would mean the ultimate LFA: a totally nonverbal, and totally nonfunctioning, totally unreachable, person in a ward (as opposed somekind of ideal NT being 0 percent autistic). He was in fact using a totally different horizontal scale for his "percentage of autism" notion.
You can be on any functioning level of autism and still vary on his perpendicular scale of "percentage of autism". What he is talking about how machine-like or how robot like you are, as opposed to being ...I dunno...how "human like"... you are. My understanding of his understanding of it is that a 100 percent autistic would be like Spock, or like Jaime the Robot in the Sixties spy sitcom "Get Smart". High functioning, well dressed, articulate, intelligent, but...machine like, pure logic, not emotional in the usual sense, and also impaired at sensing nuance, context, or being able to "read between the lines", taking things literally..
And actually there is a certain logic to what he is saying. I have seen trainwreck conversations between folks on WP when one person (who may have a higher IQ than the other person and have a better job than the other person, but) make an idiot of themselves when talking to the other person because the first person takes thing too literally and doesn't read between the lines the way an NT or the second person does. Further - the guy who started that thread may well be an example of what he is talking about. In this dichotomy that he invented he himself would be "close to 100 percent autistic". He is rather robot like in the way he takes things literally.
How would you tell such a person? Well... the more they act like Jaime the robot, the closer to a 100 percent they are!
Hymie the robot. And there was nothing robotic or Spock-like about "your_boy" both in his descriptions of what makes him a 2.0 superior human nor in the way he reacted to the posts made by others.
Well..I guess I shoulda spelled it with an H to avoid confusion. But since I never meet an Anglo person named "Hymie" in real life I spelled it the Spanish way on impulse.
I did spelled it Hymie the last time I talked about that TV character on WP a few months ago. Just a random choice. You could go either way like a coin toss. Lol!
In Spanish "J" is pronounced like "h" (like in "Juan"). And that first name is more common in Spanish speaking countries. So that's why I spelled it that way. It's a Spanish equivalent of "James".
The way our boy (who calls himself "Your-boy") talked is so weird - it aint typically human.Thats for sure. In some ways it was rather blunt and machine like.
That's the problem with text. It does make a difference what tone of voice you imagine the person is speaking in.
I took him at his word ...that he honsestly doesn't understand why he is pissing folks off. And I heard him as him just keeping on being his weird self- and getting everyone even more riled. You might imagine him getting emotional and defensive from reading the same words.
Of course I skimmed most of the later part of the thread, and I especially skimmed most of what HE said (because it was walls of text about his neocortex, or something) Lol! So you probably know it better than I do.
Ha I didn't plan on wasting my life on all that. I read enough to ascertain that it was poorly written claptrap and him talking about himself got boring fast.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
25 Nov 2019, 9:18 am
25 Nov 2019, 9:28 am
25 Nov 2019, 1:18 pm
25 Nov 2019, 1:26 pm
25 Nov 2019, 1:57 pm
25 Nov 2019, 2:07 pm
25 Nov 2019, 3:51 pm
25 Nov 2019, 4:18 pm
25 Nov 2019, 4:22 pm
25 Nov 2019, 5:02 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
Given current knowledge this is pure nonsese.
We don't know what genes are related to autism. There seem to be many. Autism maybe caused by a complex interaction between those genes and other with genes, and with each other. A person with a small number of autism related genes might be autistic, and the next person with many may be NT. And environment (stress, nutrition, birth order, etc) might activate certain genes toward, or away from autism (which would make it epigenetic). We are far from getting any handle on any of it. Its not like hemophelia, or like sickle cell anemia: conditions pegged to one gene which enables them to peg individuals as being 1)carriers, 2)having the disease and or 3)genetically free of it.
Even if you could peg autism to one easily found gene you still have to explain why the "phenotype" is not just on-off, but comes in a whole "spectrum". A higher functioning autistic might have fewer autistic genes than some low functioning autistics. So would that invidual "percentage" of autism, or a "lower percentage" than the other person?
Beliefs are not required to solve a conundrum, just a good observation ability, time, knowledges, intelligence and lateral thinking.
25 Nov 2019, 9:01 pm
Barbibul wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Given current knowledge this is pure nonsese.
We don't know what genes are related to autism. There seem to be many. Autism maybe caused by a complex interaction between those genes and other with genes, and with each other. A person with a small number of autism related genes might be autistic, and the next person with many may be NT. And environment (stress, nutrition, birth order, etc) might activate certain genes toward, or away from autism (which would make it epigenetic). We are far from getting any handle on any of it. Its not like hemophelia, or like sickle cell anemia: conditions pegged to one gene which enables them to peg individuals as being 1)carriers, 2)having the disease and or 3)genetically free of it.
Even if you could peg autism to one easily found gene you still have to explain why the "phenotype" is not just on-off, but comes in a whole "spectrum". A higher functioning autistic might have fewer autistic genes than some low functioning autistics. So would that invidual "percentage" of autism, or a "lower percentage" than the other person?
Beliefs are not required to solve a conundrum, just a good observation ability, time, knowledges, intelligence and lateral thinking.In other words "yes Naturalplatic, you are right, science has not advanced enough yet.".
26 Nov 2019, 2:16 am
26 Nov 2019, 2:20 am
Barbibul wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
In other words "yes Naturalplatic, you are right, science has not advanced enough yet.".
Your beliefs and prejudices are not needed, you don't even know about advancement of the science before it is published.
You are the one who is putting the carriage before the horse, and thinks that science is already certain of things that it hasn't actually discovered yet.
26 Nov 2019, 4:34 am
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Having Autism |
11 Jul 2026, 11:01 pm |
| Autism influencers on IG, X, TikTok, etc. |
15 Jul 2026, 3:36 am |
