How are you treated by NTs?

Post Reply New Topic

It is correct to say that money is essentially paper with conceptual value, that its value only exists because of our society. Any form of currency only exists because of society. However, without a society, without values, how would human civilization exist? You can refer to this societal collective as a hivemind, however it does not only concern NTs. You show this below:



You have made it very clear that you see NTs to be insane (and with exclusion of non-NTs) as they 'preoccupy' with their identities and social connections, essentially anything that is not physically 'real'. These lie within the realm of all non-perceptual thought processes, such as emotion or desire of fulfillment.

Life is motivated by imaginary purposes. You eat because you feel hungry, and you feel hungry because the chemical reactions in your body cause the sensation. Dopamine is then released when you eat, and the negative sensation goes away. You have not been concerned with anything 'real', yet it was necessary for survival. The exact same principle can be applied to all social relations. You make friends because you feel lonely etc.

If racism is conceptual and persists only due to existence of the hivemind, the same must be true for every idea and theory. An idea may be based around something perceived to be real, but it is entirely imaginary. If humanity had not shared ideas (the hivemind as a whole), civilization would not exist, and intelligence would not have evolved as it has.



I didn't claim that you said such a thing, but you have posted that the majority of NTs are psychopaths. You have also stipulated that this is only possible through the hivemind.



How do you define 'Neurotypical' as being different from psychopaths? What does an NT individual possess that a psychopath or any other individual outside your definition of NT, does not?

Why do ASD folk imitate NTs, yet not the psychopaths? What differentiates NT from ASD in this hivemind? How can you be so sure that the ASD need is different from the NT need? Can you provide examples as to why the reasoning makes sense?



This is assuming that you're presumptions about NT thought patterns are accurate. Money is a concept, but must be treated as real. You can consciously realize that money is conceptual, yet that does not affect how you make decisions. If you suddenly decide that money is fake and you're going to stop caring about it, then you're not going to have access to modern advances. NT individuals do not generally regard money any differently than an autistic individual.

I relate it to agnosticism. Agnostics live a life that resembles an atheist, yet they maintain a theory of knowledge - that some things are beyond our scope of knowledge. It's a conscious grasp of information, that does not interfere with how one behaves.



What is the factual basis of your belief, that NTs subconsciously see things where autistics must simulate?

Various posters have provided anecdotes about autistic individuals bullying/teasing them at autistic-only venues. These behaviours were not learned from NTs, but were part of their nature.

Some autistic individuals may not have the capacity to bully/tease, but factors that cause that are not exclusive to negative aspects.



You're referring to human experience being subjective, rather than objective.



And by this, claiming that autistic individuals are strictly objective. This makes no sense, as our sensory perceptions provide us with varying experience of the 'real' world. It is literally impossible for us to experience what is actually 'real', unless you claim there to be an imaginary limit that I'm not aware of.

If you were a dog, you would not know of colours beyond the few you could see; most visual information would be interpreted by your brain as grey (a conceptual term also, as is all language, and thus all communication by living organisms). How would you then define 'real', as a dog?

You're essentially saying that if you take away life, you are left with the 'real', but this is only based on what you think you know, which is again based on what humanity, and life have taught you.



I'm not sure as to the intent of these points. I'm fairly certain that an autistic individual who had just won the jackpot would be excited, and not due to conscious simulation.



A great majority of posters on this forum wish to be socially accepted, and they aren't NT. This forum is for social purposes. I don't understand how NTs are so different in this regard.

Evolution does not care about anything other than reproduction. If a hivemind is more successful in reproducing than anything else, that is what results over many years.

While I admit that I do find some sense in referring to society as a hivemind, I believe that you have a vested interest against NT individuals based on the congruity of your posts. You have provided your personal beliefs behind the driving of NT behaviour, but haven't presented external evidence as to why it should be accepted. A lack of definition (e.g. 'Neurotypical') makes it difficult to interpret the post.

From my perspective, it is as if I'm reading a religious transcript, where the fundamental argument for is that it cannot be disproven.

Last edited by Norny on 26 Aug 2014, 6:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

If I were to describe how I have been treated by neurotypicals in one word, I would use the word "nightmare."

When I reached Kindergarten, on the second day, I was written up and suspended for a week for "Creating an Anarchy." I didn't understand that I had to follow the rules and routines of the school. I was sent home, where I was promptly grounded for a month and beaten. After a few more incidences, the school realized that they had a problem child and realized that they could improve their disciplinary statistics if they pushed blame on me for the deeds of other children. I was unwilling to say a single word to school authorities. I would speak about the incidence only to my parents, who would then tell me that I was liar and that I was being rude for contradicting the school. For lying, I would be beaten more than usual. I quickly learned to accept my fate and confess to everything. I would also be chastised for failing to show respect to the school authority, including not making eye contact. I spent three years getting written up every other day and being whipped every day I was written up... Not spanking mind you, but things like spatulas and belts. I spent the majority of that time grounded, which means I spent much of three years locked in an off white room. I was forcibly isolated. One day, I was caught with playing with a pen and an eraser, using them as toys, that got me double beatings that day.

My parents realized the school's scheme near the end of 2nd grade, so they apologetically sent me to another school which was far, far worse. During the summer my parents took me to a Shrink. I recall that we would all sit in a room, and I would spend most of the time in great agonizing fear. Most of the questions were answered by my parents and I would mentally disagree with much of it. I would receive a diagnosis, but only my parents were told what that diagnosis is and to this day I don't officially know what he diagnosed, but it isn't hard to guess.
I do know though that my parents had a thirty minute long meeting with my third grade teacher and my teacher in first grade started off the school year knowing all my weaknesses.

She exploited each one of those weaknesses. For example, my handwriting was held up to the class and ridiculed. Sometimes she would confiscate all my writing utensils and assign a journal entry or another writing assignment saying, "you don't deserve to write, all you'd do is waste the paper." For not making eye contact, she would prompt the class to laugh at me and often make me stand up in front of the class and she would criticize me in front of the class. I would accomplish a task and destroy me work, telling me to do it again and that it was worthless. The worst of all memories is when she decided that she thought I walked a bit funny. So, she would line the class up and force me to walk a stretch of the hallway again and again. She would have the class laugh at me and she would make various comments about me. When she got bored, she wrote me up for disturbing class. Luckily, she accidentally got me expelled after a month or so. I still remember the pissed look on her face when she found out that her fun and games had gone too far.

Luckily, I had reading abilities prior to kindergarten and had polished them off by the end of the year. Something about only having school books to entertain yourself is a bit of a motivation to read.

I tried to provide a fairly thorough explanation, but perhaps it was missing a few key parts that I will try to provide now.

In your replies, my sense was that you were restating what I had said, but your statements had different meanings or assumptions that I had not stated before.
I don't want to sound accusatory, but that is the sort of thing NTs do with my communications more than not. NTs also find it extremely difficult to come to grips that most of their lives are based on imaginary processes that were thought up by other people centuries ago. What feels intuitively to them as freedom of choice is really something else entirely. That is just too difficult for many people to consider, let alone admit to. NTs also find certain processes very difficult, such as sorting between the real and the unreal, reverse engineering their own thought processes (meta-cognition), or thinking about perceptions of reality that exist outside of what the hive-mind has dominion over. It makes me suspect that you may be NT, or at least NT enough to experience these issues. If so, then I don't hate you. I will try to do a better job of explaining my thoughts by addressing your statements below. I'll try to add a summary as well to wrap up some ideas or include other helpful examples.

Concepts are smaller algorithms (like subroutines) that we construct in our imaginations using conscious thought. We use them as tools that are quick and efficient because they use associated (not experience), and truncated data that has been pre-sorted by conscious thought (constructed algorithms). The conscious thought does not require the associations to be made or tied with anything real, so more than not they are tied to other imaginary concepts. As a quick example we can say that the concept of money is tied to value, which is just another concept that will also make the logic of the algorithms work. The assumption is that money and value are real things. Of course they are not. These types of multiple layers of conceptual association, along with using imaginary things to make significant parts of the algorithms "work" ensures that massive errors in logic are the result, and that the conclusions of such thinking are far removed from anything real. I'll discuss this layering more later.

For now let's say that neither values nor civilization are real things, so using them in conditionals or equations will not result in a representation of a reality based on real things.
Basically your statement reinforced the idea I was trying to explain.
Yes, without the layers upon layers of imaginary data being used as though it were real, there would not be the hive-mind as we know it today.
Instead, we may have a system intelligence guiding us that is based completely on the real world, and our brain's capacity for imagination may be much less developed. Our society might more closely resemble the topology of an ant colony.

And yes the hive mind concerns ALL humans. I never said that it didn't.
The humans acting on (being controlled by) imagination make real changes in the environment and that affects all life. The hive-mind has been modifying our surrounding landscape for a very long time.



Of course that depends on how you define insanity. If acting on delusion is the requirement, then yes they are insane. If deviation from the behaviors of the majority is the requirement, then delusion is the normal "healthy" state. Judging from the overall results/consequences of human society, I feel that the first definition is more accurate. I'm also personally biased towards the real world.



Correction: Chemicals are not imaginary. The processes of chemical motivators was first developed based on real factors in the environment, and solidly based in the laws of physics. It is true that the algorithms of the hive-mind have relatively, and recently hijacked these processes, and we have learned to partially manipulate these processes through the administration of foreign chemicals/drugs. The imagination or a drug can make you feel hungry even when you do not require food, so the code of the hive-mind software has essentially discovered how to side-step the laws of physics in order to gain behavioral control over us.

A sensation directly linked to a chemical produced by the body naturally is only one step away from "real", and does not require unnecessary layers of conceptual association. This is a key factor. Our brains are designed to do this in order to enhance individual survival in a real environment.

A sensation that was the result of multi-layered concept that was produced by the larger system intelligence of the hive-mind is not based on reality. You may feel lonely because the hive wants you to feel lonely. The hive algorithms are spread more efficiently when you interact with more people. In the same way a flu virus is more successful if it causes you to cough, and at the same time require interacting with others. If the flu is so bad that it causes you to stay home, or die, then it is not as successful in spreading.



Yes, MOST every idea and theory is conceptual. A key point here is in how many layers removed it is from the real world. A concept/idea that is based mostly on real things or processes may be validly used in thinking to produce results that are consistent with the real world.

A concept/idea that is based mostly on other concepts is unlikely to produce a result that reflects what happens in the real world.

Some ideas represent real processes taken almost completely from observations of the real world. Most people find them of little interest though.




I'm not sure where you got this. I would have never stated that. I use very specific wording normally. Perhaps I slipped?
I would have said, or meant to say that the majority of NTs are imitating psychopathic type behaviors. That doesn't necessarily mean they are psychopaths, but knowing that for sure is difficult to determine, or guess. It is possible.
Only possible through the hive mind? I know I didn't say that.
I would have said that the hive mind is responsible for the majority of NTs desire to imitate those types of behaviors.
Perhaps you could deduce that the hive mind is indirectly responsible for encouraging and training new aspiring psychopaths. LOL. Yeah that's probably true.

Either this or you simply misunderstood what I was trying to say. Most often I am only saying what I type, and nothing more.





NTs may feel a wide range of strong emotions, but become conditioned so that they outwardly reflect either something different, or a crafted over-exaggeration of what the hive expects that emotion to look like.
I believe that a true psychopath does not feel that wide range of strong emotions. True psychopaths "may" be relatively rare, but as I said, that could be difficult to determine.
Being unhindered by emotion, a true psychopath may be able to efficiently use processes, and other humans or animals, in order to achieve high positions in hierarchy, thus reinforcing the perceived "value" of their methods in the minds of NT observers.




They do imitate psychopaths both directly and most often indirectly due to added layers of conceptual separation. There is a conceptual layer between psychopaths and NTs (explained above) by definition alone. Then there is the added layer of separation between perceived realities that applies to ASD folks when compared to NTs.

The social environment created by the hive-mind exerts great pressure on individuals to conform and fit into the current structures that are acceptable to the hive. Almost all individuals will feel this great pressure, because there are punishments involved, and also chemical rewards in the brain. In this way the NT and ASD "needs" look very similar, but the difference is once again in the perception of the process. To an NT, fulfilling this "need" is a very intuitive thing that directly serves their identities. In fact an NT will tell you that they are just being themselves, or that's just who they are, or "I like people", or "I like to be liked by people", or "I'm a cool person", etc...

An ASD type may see the whole process as confusing, nonsensical, delusional, cruel, and a great many other things, - anything but intuitive.
It most often comes down to the ASD telling themselves "ok I'm cool and accepted for doing this", but never really understanding how or why. The biggest plus to the whole thing is that they are getting less negative attention or punishment for failing to be "cool".

So, superficially the reason may look very similar, but when you reverse engineer the process to simpler terms, the difference is great.

NTs imitate psychopaths, and ASDs imitate the NTs.





Yes, it presumes that my claims about how the different thought processes are working are either correct, or functionally close enough(which is a more likely probability).
I was a machine language programmer. I have functional ability to reverse engineer complex algorithms outside of multi-layered concept of languages. Still, I know of no absolutely certain
way to determine exactly what is happening in one's own brain, or the brains of others. Forming theory models is something we HAVE to do because we cannot see processes happening in front of us directly. We only see the footprints or patterns left by those processes. The processes are not what we could call "real" things, but they do leave observable effects in our real world. That's all we've got. Could I be wrong? Yes of course. That's the nature of knowledge, and there is a big difference between knowledge and certainty. Things only hold true within a window of tolerance, ultimately limited by our physical ability to perceive.

That said, I think you may have still missed the boat overall about how concept is separated from the real world.
You say "money MUST be treated as real". No, that's not true.
"Does not affect how you make decisions" - No, that's not true either. It may be true for you, and you may well be an NT.
"if you stop caring .... not going to have... modern advances" - so what?

What happens? the hive does not approve of your actions and you are punished.

If no other humans were around, then nothing would change at all, because it was NEVER real to begin with.

If no other humans were around that shared this mind-virus concerning money and value, then nothing would change....

Your argument here ONLY has any validity in the realm of the hive-mind/imagination, and then only in an environment of other humans who currently share this hive-mind assumption of reality.
It is in absolutely no way shape or form part of the real reality.

If you were to make a large jump in time, or more practically were dropped off in a remote Amazon village, then you would have to dump all of your pretend reality as useless for the time being. It would be as though you walked off of a set of a movie and got out of your fake movie character and became the real you again.






What I said is left above. I didn't say "see", but close enough. Intuition (instinct) is information that bubbles up into conscious thought from the subconscious.
When you play ping pong you do not consciously calculate trajectories or your current move. Your subconscious does it, and it does it extremely quickly. Ask a player why they just made a specific movement and they can't explain other than that they felt like it would work. That is the brain doing calculations and reasoning in the brain's own native language, far removed from our imaginary world of concept. If we had only our conscious reasoning then we would have to slog through physical processes like playing ping pong, and it would look quite slow and awkward.

NTs navigate social interaction intuitively. ASD folks navigate social interaction using conceptual conscious thought, and it is slow and awkward.

Observe NTs. Observe ASD folks. There's your answer.
Look closer. Reverse engineer the process. You will still see the answer.
I can look inward and see this process happening in me. It makes sense.
It follows observation and is predictable. It could be wrong or partially wrong, but I haven't made an observation that suggests such.

The fact that most NTs have a massive lack of meta-cognition, or awareness of what is happening in their brains is a big clue. They can't exactly explain the how and why of how they navigated a social situation, other than it just felt like the "right" thing. This speed and lack of analyzation suggests intuition, with the calculation being done subconsciously.




Absolutely!
I was bullied and abused badly as a child. I observed the process. I concluded that I wanted to be the bully instead of the victim. I wanted to feel good, happy, powerful, and get the respect and admiration of the others around the bully. The bully was left alone by other people, so they had gained some power of protection. I wanted it. I learned to mimic the bullies to a level that surpassed them. I analyzed what worked best, logical traps, how to amplify the effects. I became what I hated for a while.
It took me some time to finish up this analyzation once I had the comfort of the position of being the bully myself. I could think more about what is really happening from this new perspective.

I found significant inconsistencies.

What I had observed in the bullies is called "Shadenfreud".
When a bully would be abusing me, the bully would seem elated, empowered, happy, in that they were feeling a great reward of personal strength, as well as acceptance of their peers. I was amazed such a thing could happen, and I wanted to learn the trick. Perhaps it is acceptable to make one person suffer so that others can feel better I thought. One day it would be my turn.

So, after a few years of conditioning, committing the observations to memory, and planning out how the methods might work for me, I was pretty convinced that it would feel great to bully others. I had conceptually convinced myself that I could be allowed to feel good at the direct expense to others, - that some kind of magical "happy" force would leave the victim and enter my body as a result of my bullying them. My previous observations had suggested just that.

After I had started bullying others, I was initially elated in that I had reached my long-term goal and no longer had to worry about others abusing me anymore. That was a huge relief and a big step mentally. However, it did not take me long to realize that Shadenfreud is 100% illusion, or imaginary. I was temporarily convincing myself that I felt good after bullying someone else, but that was my own doing, not a real thing happening. I could just as easy sit at home and imagine myself feeling good. Nothing really changes. No matter how hard I tried, even with massive public acceptance, I could not get myself to really feel good about making others feel bad. In fact, just the opposite happened. I could see my past self in the victim, and I concluded that bullying was not justified, illogical, and was also morally wrong.

I had allowed a mind virus to fool me with illusion, and further go on to control my desires and behaviors, even though there was no basis in reality for any of it. The algorithms that use aggression had been passed (downloaded) to me by others. I had become a host, and then likely passed it on to others. I was used by an idea to spread and cause suffering. I learned it from NTs. Most of the NTs involved were just not bright enough to ever deduce what they had actually done, or anything significant about the process. They were only acting out of intuition. It felt right to them at the time to bully.

NTs generally make great hosts. They are so caught up in identity that they rarely if ever self-reflect to the point of questioning the basis of their identities.

I made a poor host. I questioned it all from the start. I observed, experimented, analyzed, and eventually rejected the process as imaginary garbage.

Why didn't the chemical reward pathways work the same for me as in so many others?
It goes back to the basics of how the brain filters the real from the unreal. NTs perceive conceptual things as real, and therefore get much MORE chemical rewards in the brain for jumping through certain conceptual hoops. Just watch "The Price Is Right" show and you see what some dirty slips of paper do to people. Look in a casino. Watch bullies get respect from their peers.
They are driven by the lure of the candy of chemical rewards in the brain, and are essentially drug addicts.
They are insane and being controlled by aggressive self-serving mind viruses.
The situation is both frightening and disturbing.






Yes I am. To me it's obvious that most of it is to most people I observe.
My experience is also subjective by definition. I am aware of this and consciously do my best to keep track of just how many layers of concept are being applied as my brain sorts through observations. - Damage control.

I am not without infection from brain virus. I work to keep it at the minimum allowable.





Nope, I didn't do that. I just explained that the information is stored very differently.
If I tell you that for the time being the letter "A" is equal to the number "1", then you store that via associations to concepts, and the process is handled by conscious thought. The type of memory is different.
If I tell you to stop what you're doing and remember this exact moment in time, then that is experience. No associations are needed for your brain to process this. All perceived input may be stored as it really is, with no conscious modification. Tomorrow you may recall this information as a package of sensations such as temperature, lighting, pressure, body position, mood, scents, sounds, etc... all together as an experience. Ten years from now you may recall this memory the exact same way. Ten years from now the letter "A" will not equal the number "1".

Autistics can also store conceptual and subjective data all day long.

It's how the brain filters and what it does with the data that is very different.





I will get to this at the end.



No, I'm absolutely NOT saying that.
If you take away the imagination, then you are left with the real.






I have been in situations like that and I did not over-react at all. In fact NTs around me would think something is wrong with me. Even though my expression may not have changed other than raising an eyebrow or something mild, the NTs would assume that I'm sick or sad, and ask if I'm feeling well. I did not meet their expectations for behavior by over-reacting.
That would be great to win a large sum of money because of what it then allows me to do, - hopefully some good in the world. Just possessing the money does NOT make me feel happy or anything like that. Doing some good in the world (real things) would make me feel good. I would experience some anticipation ( like slot players anticipating jackpots ), but my brain realizes that anticipation is imaginary, so I do not force my body to respond excessively.

Depending on the circumstances (if I were a child), then I "might" act happy to satisfy my peers, or actually feel happy because my peers had increased their level of acceptance of me for winning something. I'm not saying autistics can't really feel happy, - especially for real reasons, or conceptual reasons not far removed from real consequences. To be clear, increased acceptance of peers could result in a reduction of abuse from them. That's a real consequence, and autistics can consciously reason through this process. If you add more conceptual layers to the process, then maybe not. And then, it's not that they just can't, but they don't, or don't feel the need to do so.




Yes about the evolution. The landscape has created a successful hive mind for now. It is also a key part of evolution for branches to be pruned back, normally due to changing environment, and ultimately due to the laws of physics. I think the hive will be pruned severely because it is not sustainable within physics. Time will tell. That is a subject for another involved discussion.

As I explained in the above example of Shadenfreud, the NTs serving the hive mind are a huge danger to humanity in general, and to the rest of the planet. The situation is difficult because it's hard to wake someone from their slumber when they have no realization that they are asleep, or more precisely being controlled by mind viruses. The hive mind has evolved defense mechanisms, immune systems, incentive traps, and many other self-supporting subsystems.
Thou shall have no other reality than the hive. It is a religion. It cannot be attacked head-on because it is adapted to that situation. Ideas compete with each other at lightning speed when compared to genetics. We are dealing with a very highly developed set of algorithms at this point. It represents the biggest threat to life on this planet that has ever been so far.
NTs are the primary medium for this virus. Other neurotypes spread the virus as well, but the efficiency is much lower, - like spreading the flu while wearing protective gear.

If you think about it in terms of accepting that this situation is true and exists, then you can easily observe multitudes of supporting processes seen in the behaviors of NTs. For example when ASD folks fail to spread the currently accepted brain viruses, the NTs actively pressure or punish them for their failures, or encourage them to spread the virus more efficiently. The incentive is the chemical feel-good for being more socially accepted.

Aliens from another planet would see all of this for what it is, which is pure garbage.


Now, back to where to draw the line between the real and unreal.
I've said before there are a couple of easy ways to clearly distinguish.
The first is the time-travel or cave-man question. If you can travel far back or forward in time, and the thing in question still represents something in the real world, then it's likely real.
If cave-men would have no idea what you're talking about, then it's likely not real.
The second is the extraterrestrial test.
If you can't explain it clearly to aliens without just referencing other concepts, then it's probably not real.
Finally, if all the human brains vanished, then would the thing in question still exist? If so, then it's real.

Our brains are more complex than this though, so the line is not always clear. The issue then becomes: how many layers of separation are there between the thing in question and the real world? Is the thing a result of reasoning being done using conceptual conditionals or real conditionals? What percentage of each is being used? How many layers of concept must be added to make the equation work?

I'll try an example to simplify this situation a bit.

The sentence: "The flower is a beautiful red."

What is really says is: "There exists a red flower."

"Flower" is a concept, but it is only one or two layers removed from real observation of patterns that we perceive and distinguish apart from others with our eyes.
We're not sure at this point if the flower is the real living object, or merely a representation of a flower ( model, picture, image on screen, etc...). Normally this is close enough to fly as is. It's pretty real. It assumes the reproductive structure of a certain classification of plant life. We can call this label objective.


"Red" is a concept, but is only one or two layers removed from real observations, in that we can visually distinguish between input that we have assigned the labels (associations) of the words for colors to. Not really a big deal here either. It's a pretty straight-forward association, though like flower, depends on an agreed upon language that is used for assigning associations. To me, this is an acceptable number of layers removed from reality. It can fly. We can call this label objective.

"Beautiful" is a concept, and is many, many layers removed from anything real or observable in the real world. It's not only an association in a language, but has multiple, often conflicting associations within other conceptual structures. As such, the definition of beautiful is not very constant or predictable. There are too many variables an too many layers of removal. The reasoning for determining beauty is based completely on conceptual (garbage) associations, that either have NO basis in the real world at all, or associations that change unpredictably over time. It basically does not say anything at all, and cannot fly. Explaining this to an alien might take you all day long, still with poor results. Explaining beauty to a cave man may even backfire. It requires too many conceptual leaps, or an intuitive connection to the hive mind. This label is absolutely subjective.

The point here being the number of layers removed, the basis of which something is defined (supported by real things, or other concepts), the amount of conceptual "contamination" that is introduced when used in reasoning, and how volatile the connections to patterns are. These are criteria I use for filtering observations and storing information.

Hopefully you can see now that when an intuitive assumption is made such as "I know what beauty is", then the following reasoning process that uses this information is going to be so contaminated and flawed by imagination, that the results will essentially be garbage, with no chance at all of remaining predictable over a significant stretch of time.

So, most NTs live within a world that is structured by imagination, and not just imagination, but imagination that is current in time. It is an entirely intuitive process that their subconscious brains handle for them. I find their interest in the real world to be minimal, and deduce that is so because real things do not serve identity. Imagined things can always be manipulated to serve anything the individual wishes.

Dog reality?
The objective reality of the dog is that everything is a shade of grey.
The objective reality of most humans is that everything visible is of a relatively narrow range of colors.
Both are correct.
Neither is the determiner of all that is real, and neither adds unnecessary layers of concept to differentiate between patterns.
More added layers would then start becoming subjective, and very far removed from all that is real.
Our brains do not need an extra language to differentiate patterns.

Last edited by olympiadis on 26 Aug 2014, 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It seems to me that your teacher would rather adopt what she believes is her "accommodating personality of special needs children" than understand how to treat you appropriately. This is unfortunate, however don't take it to heart because in the most sincere way possible she is doing her "best" (what she believes is the best she can do in the situation, she may not have extra time to learn about autism and how to treat you better). Demand that you be treated as an equal to your peers, suggest ways of challenging you that possibly could help you out and draw less focus in the meantime. Calmly explain to her what you need help with and that there is nothing further she can do after that.

I have so far had a very bad success rate with claiming I have autism (I'm diagnosed with Asperger's); most people think I'm a psychopath or an idiot, rarely much in between. I divulged at work where there are a few suspected spectrum people and it's completely backfired; they think I'm stealing money from the drawer and walk around/talk around me as if I have the plague.

It would be awesomely amazing to be with anyone else who understood autism and didn't try so damn hard to "understand" in ways that are honestly offensive to those of us of higher intelligence, and disrespectful to the rest of us anyway.

Mainly I ask not to be treated any differently, to be treated decently if I had to clarify a social misunderstanding, etc. Like any other human being I just want my contribution to be of value.

I hope this helps explain some of what's going on. On one hand it's hard to avoid the stigma and on the other hand some situations have me completely at the mercy of others. I suppose an NT would have not told the teacher their condition, using Theory of Mind to suppose that the teacher was looking for a specific way to treat them and thus avoided it.

Either they sense something strange about me or they act very kindly but it's in a patronising way.

i f*****g hate when people do that. i could never put up with that type of s**t, and honestly i never do. i dont think you should either.

i feel like people just asume were all stupid honestly, the sad thing is i think most of us aren't. i think a lot of us are really smart but i dont see the perception that we are all ret*ds changing anytime soon and its kind of sad. i remember i used to go around online acting like a complete sped because people thought it was funny and i thought it was the only way id ever be excepted. i agree that you should demand your treated with respect, i dont think taking that kind of BS is healthy and i dont think its going to help you in the long run. i think that you shouldn't have to hide under a rock your entire life like it's some sort of horrible ailment that can never be fixed and i think that you should be treated with dignity.

Perhaps you could just ask Norny to read Simulacra and Simulation by Jean Baudrillard, and then you can both take this to another thread?

Your discussion, while intriguing, is kind of distracting and off topic.

For non-autistic people in real life who know me I am treated well. Those who don't I'm told they avoid me or stare at me. Some kids laugh and say mean stuff to each other about me. On the forums I'm on I have been treated very well.

Forgive.
Many have posted here about being treated badly by NTs.
I was trying to explain some of the how and why of that process, and answer Norny's questions.

Thank you for the tip on Baudrillard. That is fascinating.

As a child I was treated horribly. As a young, shy, but by societys standards quite attractive, people were protective of me.

The last few years have definitely been the most perplexing. I live in a community that is almost a microcosm of society.There are a number of autistics here.They are mostly extremely introverted. I am not. When things became terribly dysfunctional here, as someone obsessed with fairness, I sufferred greatly from being an"uppity"autistic and everything about me was picked apart and judged negatively [this was the period of time that I was accused of faking cancer, even by those who had been in the hospital with me when I had my mastectomy, or been with me to chemotherapy infussions. This was at a nudist club where only 3 days after surgery people saw the tubes where my breasts had been, so everyone SAW my chest] The few people who stood up for me were pushed out.

I think that individually NTs' can be pretty awesome, but when their groups are dysfunctional, as a group they can be monsters.

They are chameleons, or psychological shape-shifters.

Individually they may not be mean, but when acting as part of a system intelligence they are capable of anything. The mind virus forces them to do very bad things.

I never revealed I had autism (I didn't know myself until recently) so they reacted to any unusual traits of mine as being just a bit 'different' at best and 'screwed up' at worst. Usually however I could win over the confidence of people by being persistent and responsible and succeeding/excelling at the tasks.

Words and labels are of very limited use and mostly trip preconceptions/bias in people. Most people you meet will not have the time or inclination to understand the complexities of autism.

So my approach is to suppress identifiable austistic behaviors as much as possible. Instead, make your mark by accomplishments and competence, as people will respect that, and then judge you less.

you do realize that your talking about more then 90% of society probably including most of your freinds and fammily right? saying everyone who dosn't have autism is some sort of backstabing psycopath is kind of like saying everyone who isnt a furry or dosn't practice voodoo is a horrible person who should be thrown in jail.

Yes I do.
That last part, though no, that's not what I said.
No need to make a straw man.

I thought I made it clear that real psychopaths are probably rare, but most people effectively imitate them. I also said that ASD folks often imitate them as well. So, it's not so clear cut as your post suggests.

i really dont think most people try to imitate psycopaths, maybe you do. i sure as f**k dont, and i have yet to meet anyone else who does either.