Playing the Autism Card May Be Harmful to Humanity

Post Reply New Topic

Tuttle wrote:

This is a rich comment which I would like to look at in more detail as it might apply to myself..You are in effect saying, as far as I can determine, that what you know about yourself is true. We all feel that about what we know about ourselves, because we know it:-) However, speaking from my own perspective and vast plethora of personal experience plus over fifty years of intentionally practicing some kind of self-observation, my own observations were often colored by many false ideas about myself and reality, which data was mechanically factored into my 'seeing,' so a form of confirmation bias, and I didn't even know it.

Tuttle, I forgot to mention this yesterday, but I do not understand who you meant in this quote by the word "we." Who is we? If you are meaning the autism community, then to me this would be an over-generalization, but I am not even sure this is what you mean.

When I collect data I allocate it into some kind of framework or pattern of what I already think/feel I understand. As mentioned yesterday, I found out later a lot of this was wrong. To give a somewhat recent example, I thought I was sensitive to other people (and to myself), but in actually, and sad to say I only found this out kind of recently, I was really cut off..and I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT. When I did find out, I was shocked....not at realizing I was insensitive, though that was kind of shocking, but the big shock was that I did not know. I am in no way saying this is you, as I do not know you, but this is my own personal experience, and I am thinking that it is probably the same with a lot of other people, if not even most people, regarding themselves and their own unconscious. If I am not conscious of something, even if it does exist, this means I do not know about it.

Ignore when I say we - its a habit in my writing because of me being a mathematician. We use "we" in our writing, not "I". I try to swap to using "I", but sometimes the "we" falls through.

In math papers when someone is saying "I've proven this" they say "We've proven this", because they're saying "the reader can follow what I'm saying". So, math people get into the habit of using singular we.



What about "What are the distances that I react to sensory input and to what strength do I react?" (Noises and smells)

"When do I use different stims?" (Frequently told by others) - building up what they mean (I've actually built up a large thing about what different stims mean, they have meanings.

"When do I pronoun swap? When do I noun swap? When do I preposition swap?" (What are the frequencies? Do they happen more in text or in speech? Do they happen more at night or in the daytime? Do they happen when I'm in a default state, sensory overload, excited, what?) (A few answers: preposition swaps happen in text and most frequently because they're not so strongly associated with any mood, pronoun swaps happen when I'm excited, noun swaps happen when I'm in sensory overload - noun swaps happen in speech not text)

A bunch of those ^ I actually am getting information without me having complete information. i.e. I get data about me swapping words by looking back at things I typed, I get information about stims when my therapist tells me (she actually is amazing at recognizing them and was the first to recognize some that I didn't know I had and told me about them and what they probably meant), I have reactions to scents when I don't see the thing that I'm reacting to, and then I see it later. (Which is one that a lot of people accuse me of being psychosomatic which is where I started the data collection because they couldn't believe how reactive I am there in terms of distances)

I have other things too, but these are a few to start with that are more just raw data and less subjective than the thing you were talking about. Also, more other people observing me and me being unaware of what I'm doing in some of the cases.

Those aren't additional interpretations. When people say things that fall into a particular script, they usually mean things related to that script. If someone says you're not trying hard enough, that is not because they have assessed your life and found you wanting, they likely just made a snap judgment that you haven't done something they could do, therefore you're at fault because of their perceptions and they need take no responsibility for imposing that on you (I mean the general you, not the specific you).



Not all opinions are equal. Many opinions are about expressing social dominance and asserting power over others who are seen as weaker. Statements like "you're making excuses" generally fall into that category. This particular type of opinion is also an expression of what it correct to say or do and what is incorrect to say or do. Saying that "I find X difficult because of my disabilities" is thus deemed incorrect, wrong, and a sign of laziness and not trying hard enough. This is not an additional interpretation, this is what such statements actually mean.

Many of the expressed opinions place people outside of the possibility of being experts on their own lives and experiences, and focus on the more privileged members of society as being the final arbiters of such things. For example, when one poster insisted that bisexual people are just following a trend and accused me of being "politically correct" when I told him he was wrong. This was not a neutral exchange of ideas and opinions, this was a person expressing his ignorance as fact, and trying to shout me down when I told him he was wrong and that it was not his place to decide what bisexual people are doing over bisexual people themselves.



The fact that you did not have those things in your mind does not make your perception more nearly accurate or more objective, however. Lots of people don't really pay much attention to the negative attitudes and prejudices about disability. That's part of the prejudice in ableism: Not seeing it for what it is, and instead seeing it as if it were a neutral or reasonable comment. But these comments are neither. They're coercive and demanding and highly critical and are often based on fundamental attribution errors. People see a disabled person say "Not going to do that" and incorrectly surmise that they must be lazy and not try hard enough, even when they do try, sometimes trying harder than any able-bodied or neurotypical person might try, and know their limitations. Maybe at that particular moment they lack the energy to do that and another thing they consider more important, so the other thing takes precedence. And sure, sometimes one might be making an excuse but... is that really anyone else's business? Everyone makes excuses, it's by far not unique or uniquely pernicious for a disabled person to do so.

Viewing discussions about disability without acknowledging the presence of ableist prejudice - even hatred - makes it virtually impossible to have a discussion about disability because snap judgments and accusations are viewed as morally or ethically neutral, or possibly even good when they can be anything but.

Last edited by littlebee on 06 Nov 2013, 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re what I wrote to Verdandi in the previous message, I think it is natural to want to impose ones own script other people, as acting out ones script involves a release of pent up energy and tension. It is also some form of creativity, of shaping the world, though I do not know how creative if it just involves repeitiion. I have done it a lot.

In terms of the call center scenario, after reevaluating bringing this up, I think it was a stroke of brilliance. First of all, no one is going to make or not make a room for autistic people in a call center because of what is written or not written here, but, if anything, the material here might inspire someone to actually work toward the goal of achieving that. I do not think anyone reading this thread is going to go around to various call centers and tell folks in charge not to give a private room to any autistic people who want one. The idea of that is so funny I am laughing while writing this.

In terms of the general slant of public opinion, I suppose this could affect that, but to such a minimal degree that it is negligible,.

So what's up with this call center pseudo drama?. I would say it kind of touches in the area of pretend play, so acting out ones inner drama complete with protagonist and antagonist.....and to some here the antagonist is me, which is one reason this thread is so popular. Everybody likes a drama with a 'good' villain, but different people with different contexts have different interpretations of the story...Now in pretend play, in a room with other little children, who is in charge? Well, kind of me, because it is my house (meaning thread, not my wrong planet), so I get at least a little bit more say about what game we play here, and I am actually pretty flexible...I like things to be interesting and even fun, but the one thing I am asking for is active thinking. Please do not just come here and start repeating your script. To me that is not imaginative. It is not joyful. It is not learning, no matter how clever the words may seem to be...

I understand a lot of us have suffered very deeply,,,,and many are still suffering...but repeating the same old play or story, no matter how intriguing some of the elements may be and ihow ntricately we may emotionally hook into it from various angles, is not going to offer a solution...only learning will do that....

littlebee wrote:

and Tuttle replied:

Hi Tuttle. I really love your message. Yes, I was speaking generally,so of looking of the whole picture of myself, but somehow missing seeing that I was not sensitive. The examples you have given are much more specific in that you are observing a lot of details. That is in in a kind of different mode of reference and cross reference, so fine tuning. I was, I suppose, speaking in the instance I gave, more from a right brain whole bite perspective.

I make these same kind of 'objective' observations as you about my own experience, but it is subjective in the sense that all human experience is contextual. The way one correlates various observed data back into the general picture can be wrong, or the general picture itself may in some ways be framed by false notions about physical reality--one can make objective observations and correlations regarding various phenomena one is experiencing and come up with the right answer, meaning the reason, but then one can still group it all in in a way that is not objective. For instance, the feeling and sense of "me, " of being me s a subjective phenomena. There is a natural sense of self, but a person can feel this "me" to be a concrete object that is separate from other phenomena. So the way one grades and sorts anything is regulated by this feeling of "me" existing apart from and outside of everything else, of being ultimately true, but in reality it is not a separate object but rather a subjective experiencing that is interconnected with everything, so the "me" cannot exist outside of everything in the way it may feel and appear to..

But you're right. What you are speaking of is a form of self-observation that though it is a soft science can be completely objective in the sense of impartially recording data about ones own sensory experiencing. I do not think hard science can process certain data about human experiencing. Only the kind of soft science you have described can do this.The examples you have given are really good examples of subjective phenomena that are objectively registered/recorded--- variations, gradations, spacial distances, when these things occur and in relationship to what other phenomena. Yes, these are very good examples. Thanks for writing this. It should be noted, though, that the way this information is allocated back in the data base of ones experience is still a subjective phenomena and is occurring in conjunction with any kind of impartial registration.

Littlebee wrote in response to Tuttle.

These two quotes are to point out how allocation works. Re what Tuttle wrote that I was responding to, I do not know but kind of guess that the various somewhat impartial observations that were being described were allocated back into the general context of being autistic (not to imply that it is not okay to do this) and general sense Tuttle has of being herself and what that means to her. People can have an idea, but no one but Tuttle really knows, and, at least in my case, but I think in the case of many, there are things a person does not know about oneself. In any case the raw data registered always needs to be put into context or it is meaningless.

So what is that context?

Sometimes it is necessary to make a new context in order to be able to sort certain things out. A lot of times I have just assumed various people knew my context, but this assumption was off. In other instances I have assumed they would want to know my context. That, too, was often way off.

And yet there is a certain general contexts that include everyone. For instance, most people's brains and bodies are approximately the same. Everyone has a desire to be happy and not feel pain. People need to relate to each other in order to survive.

I usually don't unbersmand the social scripts, so I am missing most of the things that people are implying when they are saying some things, so to me, those implications are additional interpretations, since I would have to make additional interpretations to know about them.

I sometimes think I'm reading interpretations into your messages that are not intended, but cannot help doing so, and at the time it seems very real to me. If so I apologize for this both to you and Verdandi. But sometimes I think I am not reading stuff into it. In fact I am at these times very sure. I am kind of on the edge about this, so generally choose to go with my own interpretations. Such as that ant on the wall thing. I knew you were just talking about an ant on the wall, but to me it was something else, very profound...ha ha..am laughing at myself....and I was sure you knew ants represented (to me at least, ha ha) left brain activity, and a wall.. ha ha---(am laughing aloud about now)---has profound psychological implications...you know, a wall ha ha..at this point I am cracking up...the wall is even cracking....

I think we reached the end of something. Now for the next set, but first:.

This thread seems to be getting a lot of hits, especially in the last twenty-four hours. I suggest not to pay attention to that but to treat it as an anomaly. Do not fall under the illusion that there is much more readership here than on my other threads, which readership I estimate at about 100 readers per day, which would be a lot if even a third are trying to actively ponder some of the material that is being presented here. Maybe the readership here is a bit more as a small percentage of the people hitting th e link to this thread are bound to become interested. I do not think these excess hits are from WP members, and people do like to press buttons, especially us, or at least me, so I am going to treat this as a regular thread..Also, there is plenty of rich and interesting material for anyone interested to go back and read, and I will do that myself..

Yo continue, no one wants to do anything that is harmful to humanity---or wants anyone else to think they are doing that. If I knew the reason why people are reading this thread it would affect my motivation to write here. What is fueling me on is the idea someone is going to actually understand what I am trying to say..This gives me hope to continue, but since I can only speculate, bias confirmation is playing into the situation. It is in some way similar to the placebo effect.

Communication is the most important thing. When I think of all the people stuck in their little subjective worlds without being able to communicate, that is very sad. I include my own self into this failed effort to communicate. This is not just autistic people who are stuck in their 'own' little world, but almost all people. .Any time we have an idea it will keep us enclosed in the framework of that idea. When interconnected with many other ideas that will form an even moire intricate framework, like a lattice. A person can easily become locked inside. Whether it one autistic person, a group of austistic people or a bunch of so called nt's clinging to each other I cannot see makes that much difference. I suppose it is more interesting to be in jail if there are other people locked in their with you, but not necessarily, as this other people could harass you. Or it could be a jail within a jail, solitary confinement. At least people wouldn't bother you then..

So you can see there is not much of a way out from the perspective of being inside, especially if you were born in a jail and do not even know you are inside.(This has actually happened to certain people). If a person is completely locked in solitary confinement, in a jail within a jail, so to speak, he would be dependent upon other people to bring him out, but if a person can grasp the concept of his own self being in jail and understand how the way he is thinking about himself may be contributing to his own situation, then the way in which was paved by various notions about the nature of himself, of others and of reality in general, many of these ideas wrong, can possibly be employed, by the use of skillful means, to make a way out.

Here is a link to a story from Grimm's Fairy Tales, Rapunzel: If you have a chance, look this over, and I will then try to explain how this material relates to human brain function.

http://www.worldoftales.com/fairy_tales ... unzel.html

The story of Rapunzel is classic allegory about human brain function

Remember, in the unconscious mind various 'logical' elements about the way things connect can be skipped, just as certain other details that were too traumatic were skipped by repressing them. This is why dreams, illusions, magical thinking or actually most anyone's thinking does not correspond with completely with reality. So if you look at the material above, you can see it is about being enclosed---looking out the back window into a beautiful garden with a wall, and longing to eat a green food..Of course these stories are for children and children relate to this kind of material directly. They do not have to think about it, but rather they process it with their whole selves. They know what green represents. They know what it means to long for a certain special food.

Before I go any further, a comment on the word enchantress. An enchantress is another name for a witch. In the version I read as a child and in a lot of translations, enchantress is translated as witch. When I read the word witch as a child, this struck a great fear into my heart. (but it occurs to me just now that enchantress is an interesting word. Chant means to repeat. I think the root "pun" as in Rapunzel relates back in one meaning to the idea of repetition, so the word enchantress may may have been deliberately chosen by this translator for this reason). But looking at the word "witch, it is very similar to the word "which," Wit is a symbol to a certain modality of brain function, such as a person has his wits about him, and the letter combination ch is very interesting. You would have to study many words with ch to get a sense of how these two letters are used again and again in various words to represent a certain quality, such as, for example, which, witch, change, choose, chant, cheat, chew...and then you see it! Of course this is what a child is struggling with, how to see things one way or another....

Bear in mind that this kind of material was not written for autistic children or gifted children or dim witted children or 'normal' children, but for all children.

To continue, if a person has anxiety, which many of us here have, this means we do not have faith, yet when I tried to write on a thread asking about AS and faith, a certain person could not understand that even though I was using the language of various religions, using that symbolism. I was not talking about religion but rather was talking about faith. He could not see through the veil of literal facts into a realm where one thing can be used to represent something else, and also that sometimes this is the only way to convey certain subtleties.This happens to people in conventional religions and also to people who have no religion. We skip details if we cannot fit them into our framework. That does seem to work for a while, but there is this discrepancy factor which begins to accumulate more and more data and kind of takes on a life of its own, so bigger and bigger pieces begin not to fit. I know all about this because it has happened to me, and it is a terrible thing. When I said I did not believe in anything, he just ignored that detail, so he didn't see me at all-- he wasn't even really communicating with me but rather functioning from an agenda and trying to fit me into it. I think this is what a lot of parents do with their children in all kinds of ways, so then we have the witch....very similar to another word, switch:-) It is difficult for an adult to remember and so understand what in a child's mind is the terror. of the witch. It can make a child's blood run cold, but as an adult we have developed all kinds of very sophisticated coping devices and also have a better idea of how physical reality actually works..