My New Theory on the Spectrum

Post Reply New Topic

It proves no such thing Tantybi. As I ahave already explained, my preferred definition of disability is consistent with social models of disability and certainly would not make establishing your premise any easier. Restricting you to my definition of disability would be playing semantic games, so I consider my preferred definition of disability to be completely irrelevant (although I have none the less given you sufficient information that if it truly interests you, you could obtain a fairly accurate idea of my preferred definition, for instance by googling “social models of disability”).

As to personality, I have already stated that this includes traits such as whether one is introverted or extroverted, and that AS does not control or dictate this, nor do all people with AS fall largely into the same category in respect of this personality trait. The same is true with a large number of enduring patterns of behavior widely accepted as being personality traits/dimensions. All of this has been covered already and you have failed to get past this barrier.

If you expect that if you can show AS matches something purporting to describe personality, that this proves that thing is a personality you are wrong. This argument can only work if the definition exclusively describes personality. If you think that whether or not it is possible for someone to produce such a description has any bearing on the truth of your premises then you are wrong. If you cannot actually describe what possible purpose there might be in my positing a definition of personality, then I am not going to go to that effort. I would not be surprised to find on further examination that personality is a concept for which there is no exclusive definition possible (like “game”).

I have already given you an example of another argument in the same logical form as the one you are presenting when you list attributes of personality and then claim that AS matches these attributes and so is a personality. This is a plain and simple instance of confirming the consequent. "If something is a personality then it will fit the attributes listed; AS fits the attributes listed, therefore AS is a personality". This is exactly the same argument_form as "if something is me, then it has two legs, President Obama has two legs, therefore President Obama is me". Utterly invalid logic form Tantybi. It does not matter what content you place within a “confirming the consequent” argument, it’s always invalid and therefore always unsound.

I do not know why you think I did not enjoy your semantic games. Until you stated you were playing such, I simply found myself doubting your reading and comprehension skills. I was not bothered either way, and as I have already stated, I was not playing semantic games to begin with. I do not believe that I have missed "the point", but rather think it is you that have missed the point. You have failed to give any reasonable account of what point is actually being missed in your view. Nor have you yet to provide any reasoning that would indicate that the issues of definition I have raised are beside the point rather than crucial to the point.

It seems more likely to me, that you are assuming that I must be playing such games and have completely overlooked the points I am making because you are too taken up with your assumptions about what point_I may or may not be making.

No I do not keep changing my arguments. Assumptions that you might make about my arguments, but not actually contained within or necessarily implied by my arguments are your assumptions and are not my arguments. The difference is quite significant. For instance, I have never claimed that Attwood is a great source.

Take this astounding example. Attwood has never met me and is to my knowledge unaware of me, a point that I did make. I have never claimed he has ever read me like a book or any other object. I claimed that Attwood is able to make very detailed predictions about the behavior of children characterized by Asperger Syndrome as is relevant to bullying. Nothing to do with reading me like a book.

Attwood is certainly highly respected in the field and this is not entirely without cause. I would not on this basis alone conclude that he knows more than any particular person though. I would conclude that he knows more than you primarily on the basis that you appear to be not all that familiar with the subject matter and Attwood is clearly somewhat more familiar than you are presenting yourself as being.

Wow. I do not know if you are being hyperbolic here or if you actually believe your comments are somehow representative of the facts. I referred to two of the most prominent experts in the field (chosen because of their accessibility so that you could more easily verify or check for yourself if you were not familiar with sources of pertinent information on this particular issue) without stating whether or not the information they have published in this area that confirms of what I was arguing, is factual or opinion.

Your response is that some claims made by some experts are sometimes claims about opinions rather than facts. Never mind that such claims might be right a lot of the time and so even if you proved that these particular claims were merely claims about opinions rather than reports about observable facts, this would not be cause to dismiss the claims in and of itself. The fact is you do not know if these particular claims are fact claims or opinion claims; apparently you seem to think the mere fact that some claims are about opinions suffices to dismiss any claim that be inconvenient to something you are arguing.

You do not know whether or not these claims are about opinions or are reports of observable facts. Why you think I would need more reason than that to consider you are not in any position to question the process by which the claims were arrived at, I cannot imagine.

Actually I questioned whether or not Dr Attwood believes that AS is not a clinical disorder. In support of this I pointed out that Dr Attwood certainly acts as though he believes AS is a clinical disorder. He writes about it and researches it clinically, he treats is as though it is a clinical disorder, diagnosing it as a clinical disorder in patients, delivering clinical treatment to people solely on the basis that they are dignosed clinically with the condition, he has even founded the Hearts and Minds clinics, facilities that exist for the purpose of treating Asperger Syndrome as though it is a clinical disorder. Odd behavior if he believes Asperger Syndrome is not a clinical disorder.

The larger problem comes back to your propensity to assume things all over the place. Citing an authority with regards to a particular claim is not an endorsement of the authority’s credibility with respect to some other claim. An authority who was persistently and inerringly right about absolutely everything throughout their tenure as an expert/authority in their field, is frankly implausible. If you assume someone’s use of an authority opinion on one particular issue is identical to claiming the authority’s other opinions on related subject matter are universally correct, every time you do so, you are making a wild and highly implausible assumption.

In reality Tantybi, nothing I have said implies that I accept that Dr Attwood is in my opinion generally credible or credible beyond the scope of issues of childhood bullying as pertains to children with Asperger Syndrome. Anything beyond that is entirely your imagination.

No I have not. I have not disputed that testosterone explains increased levels of aggression in boys, not because I could not dispute it, not because I necessarily agree with it (I neither entirely agree nor entirely disagree with it), but because it’s largely irrelevant to the actual subject of discussion. Just an example off the top of my head. I see no value in tracking back through the thread to look for every such example.

As I have said earlier, I think that the assumptions you make are crowding out any possibility of you comprehending the points I am making. Your opinion relies on there being some kind of Autism mild enough to not be construed as disability. You provided sources to demonstrate that Asperger Syndrome is such. That you are unable to properly read and comprehend those sources and that they actually prove you wrong and me right in respect of facts that are core to the truth or falsity or your central claim is obviously a very relevant point.

Your sourced information claims that Asperger Syndrome is a condition that causes clinically significant impairment in no less than one important domain of functioning and that it can prevent someone living independently as an adult. This is obviously not irrelevant to your claim that AS is more a personality, nor irrelevant to my objection (and “effectual” counter claim that it as much a disability or more a disability than it is a personality). In fact I cannot imagine how you could interpret this as being anything but the central core point of the discussion.

I simply cannot understand how you can conclude that such commentary is not entirely about your opinion. To me this claim on your part is absurd and indicates that your concerns about the point being missed would be better directed at yourself.

Can you explain why your source confirming that AS is a condition that always entails clinically significant impairment in at least one important domain of functioning, and can prevent independent living in adulthood, is not directly and obviously relevant to your opinion about Asperger Syndrome being more a personality?

My other choice at that point Tantybi was to simply assume you were doing what you have gone ahead and accused me of doing, being argumentative for the sake of it (rather than assuming that you might be earnestly unaware of what you were doing, and hence might benefit from someone pointing this out for you).

You claim Asperger Syndrome cannot prevent independent living in adulthood while quoting a source that claims the contrary. You make trite and flippant comments in order to try to minimize clinically significant impairment in an important domain of functioning by trying to play silly syntax games (describing it as being not able to make friends as though this changes the facts that the social impairment described is much more pervasive, widespread and debilitating than merely not being Ms or Mr Popularity, while ironically accusing me of playing syntax games). All the while your own cited information contradicts you and substantiates my claims but still you argue away.

After all this you then accuse me of flipping around because I cited an authority in respect of a particular set of facts. I have never claimed that this authority is wrong about those facts nor necessarily right about any other facts, but if I do not accept everything this authority may say about anything, that is me being inconsistent in some way. Meanwhile if you quote an authority claiming it substantiates your viewpoint, and then argue against what the authority states in the quote, this is not you being inconsistent, and the fact that the quoted text contradicts the central points that you are relying on for your opinion is in your view irrelevant and beside the point.

Wow. Just wow.

I have done so Tantybi although this may have been crowded out in your view by all these assumptions you keep making.

You are assuming the phrase “mild Autism” in the text means some particular thing and that whatever this is (you refuse to clarify) that it does not entail disability. The text makes no claim that when it describes Asperger Syndrome as “mild Autism” that this means it is a mild condition, that it will never entail disability, nor does it attribute any wider meaning to the phrase at all. The text does assert that Asperger Syndrome always entails clinically significant impairment in one or more domains of functioning.. You ignore this because apparently you cannot understand how the traits of Asperger Syndrome would have such an effect. You have no reason to believe that these traits cannot have this effect other than it is not intuitively obvious to you how this is so.

The text also asserts that even with treatment Asperger Syndrome can prevent independent living in adulthood. This is not convenient to your argument so you ignore it.

In effect nothing in the text indicates that AS is not a disability, and only by making assumptions not asserted or implied by the text could you conclude otherwise (such as making assumptions as to what is meant by “mild Autism” in the text). Further, you can only retain these assumptions and believe the text might support your opinion if you ignore the fact that it asserts Asperger Syndrome always causes clinically significant impairment in at least one domain of functioning, and that it asserts Asperger Syndrome can cause impairment sufficient to prevent independent living in adults (even with early intervention).

Is that a clear enough statement as to what you are assuming and ignoring in respect of the text you quoted?

this is like watching a used car sales-man trying to debate. all smoke and craftiness, no real substance. an answer for everything, no clue about when to quit!! fun!!