Theory of Socializtaion

Post Reply New Topic

The contents of the thread have little sceintific basis unless specifically stated so; a good deal of this is primarily my obersvations and thoughts. In other words, it’s mostly a bunch of pseudoscientific crap that I can’t back up.






The need for people to socialize with each other is not something that is done strictly for pleasure. In many ways, it is the very fundament of human surival in human society (preindustrial, industrial, post-industrial) all over the globe. Communication allows man to barter, to share life-afirming information and most importantly, to influence his fellow man to get what he wants. To understand others and to be understood in large, complex societies, man conforms himself to a stereotype and derives his expectations from the sterotypes he holds of others. This is done in an act of self-preservation; those cut off from society at large hold little hope of exporting their skills and recieving that of others in return. In other words, extreme poverty goes hand in hand with a failure to conform. The separate sterotypes provide templates for human interaction; what to expect and not to expect. Different sterotypes vary enormously, providing a measure of freedom for one to pick and choose what they want to be. The way to distingish what sterotype a person is complex; race, color, sex, dress, body language and speaking accent.

Without a template (sterotype), a person will most likely be ingored and left in the background. Why? Simply because it is unknown. Socializing with an unknown quanity will likely bring about uncertain results; in other words, there is no guarentee that behavoirs that influence people of a specific group will do any good on someone who does not seem to belong to one. Of course, most normal people know this uncouicously, and act upon it because they have the instinct that templates they know will yield a more consistant result. They choose to become part of a template in a sort of social contract to surrender their individuality to seek a consistant result in their socialization, and hence secure greater odds of survival by creating a far more efficeint barter/influence system. This is all done without conciously ever being aware of it by their instinct for self preservation.

I think that the problems of autism/AS have more to do with the defects of the self preservation instinct. Sensory detail cannot be analyzed for the most immediate needs(self preservation), therefore the mind assigns it to all be immediatly important and one certainly cannot function that way; a person would overload. Of course, some of you are familar with the more obvious results of a lack of self preservation; lack of need to eat, inablity to do simple self-care tasks.

I wonder how TOM interacts with self preservation? The ablity to read expressions is a extraorindarly complex task that activates the amygdala a great deal in NT folks. The amygadala is a part of the brain that is associated with the emotions of self-preservation; in autstic folk this part has a tendency to have abnormalities (of what sort the scientests are still arguing).

This is just conjecture and is subject to change. I would take it with some skepticism.


Opions?

to lazy to read that...summarize!

People talk to each other for self-perservation. Self perservation is a problem with AS/Autism and I think the socialization problem aspect has more to do with self preservation. A problem with self perservation will have many different results; hence the diversity of symptoms in autism.

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that humans were originally intended (by evolution, design, or however you want to put it) to be "tribal" creatures assosciating with a select few. That way, the individual felt important, and could do something that would make a difference. Feeling this way is essential to your well-being, and consequentially (perhaps paradoxically), the more people you are with, the lonelier it is possible to feel. Even for those of us who live in big cities, we still only assosciate with a select few friends, relatives, and co-workers, while viewing strangers with indifference or suspicion because they are not part of our "tribe". I think Desmound Morris explores this theme more thuroughly in his book The Human Zoo, but I haven't yet read it in it's entirety.

Yes quite good, i agree with most of it. I need to actively work at self preservation whereas it comes more naturally to a lot of NT's.

I agreed with you up to the point where you said autism might be linked to a deficit in the self-preservation instinct. The effects of autism can cause problems with the ability to take self-preserving actions, but they don't fundamentally change the desire to do so. I would suggest that in people who have little motive to preserve themselves, other factors are at play, like depression.

Sorry, I don't agree with this at all. Then again, maybe I'm looking at things too much from my perspective and not from other people's.

Wow, I have never thought about it like this before but it sounds logical.

I know an autistic individual that is not aware of self preservation but is not depressed, just very unaware of dangers to his physical body. He does not dress appropriately for the weather and gets in situations that can become very dangerous without thinking of the results.

I have the desire for self-preservation, but I've had to work at getting the ability to do so all my life.

I think you're on to something with the need to pick a stereotype and clique and conform to its ideals. As an independent-minded person, I find having to submit my opinions and preferences to groupthink is poisonous. I like computers, but I see no reason to conform to the computer geek stereotype and also like animé and science fiction. I like to be artistic and poetic, but I don't want to dress in black. I am very attracted to women, but I don't want to drink beer in order to make myself "more appealing."

Part of my problem socializing may be that I refuse to accept a social niche. I want my eclectic set of interests and find it absurd that anyone would pattern their life after some clique. Of course, it can be tough when a bunch of people in a computer science class, for example, end up talking about animé and you just groan.

Yes, I find it absurd too - and that's why I don't agree with the theory.

Actually, a great deal of 'communication' comes down to establishing a hierarchy or 'pecking order' in the social 'food chain'. A great deal of 'influencing' is really only Brinksmanship and the imposition of another's will upon oneself.

In fact, it seems that the stereotype is 'imposed' from without. Some have suggested that individuals 'take on' a stereotype (eg. prefer one kind of music over another, dress a certain way, use a certain vernacular, etc), whilst they are in the process of 'finding themselves'. There certainly seems to be something to your line of reasoning concerning stereotypes though.

It certainly is true that a failure to conform to other people's expectations leads to punishment and in view of the politicking and internecine squabbling of the workplace, poverty is a very real and tangible manifestation of society's disaproval.

So it would seem, though there can be a tendency for others to cajole, harass and pressurise the individual to conformity.

I think this is why we have a Mass Media and only the activities that create a situation in which one must trade their individuality for membership of a group are esteemed highly in this society (eg Team sports over a solitary activity such as reading a book or being at the computer). It might also explain the sudden and emphatic shift from being able to work alone to being coralled into 'teamwork', in which the dominant 'personalities' are the real winners.

I wonder how much of it is an inability and how much of it is a simple unwillingness to distract oneself from something that is much more interesting? It isn't even necessary to posit the presence of AS/ASD to appreciate that many people (myself particularly), will often shirk chores and routine things for days on end if they are caught up doing something that interests them.

I have often thought it is more unwillingness than inability. It is priorties and sometimes these things just don't outweigh something else.

Y

Hmm...consciously, I want to preserve myself, but I am not sure if my subconscious is up to the task of keeping me alive without constant willful intervention. I have theorized that perhaps the thing that makes me a spectrumite is an abnormality in my subconscious more than anything else...Things just slip away if not kept at the forefront of my thoughts. I never had enough of a subconscious multitasking ability to try to be social and see if it benefitted me, let alone attempt to barter influence people. Of course, my disconnected psycholocial tangents only help me to speculate on why people can socialize when I cannot, but you seem to have adequately expressed a reason why they do. I do not know enough about humans to find fault with your theories about them.

I don't agree voted no

Even though man is tribal or family oriented somebody would take interest in one that takes no interest in the affairs of tribal or family matters. They would even tell one show the uninterested one what is going on in the tribe or family. The uninterested one has someone to fall back on too. These traits are in us all it maybe more or less in some.

People with AS have traits that even they would perceive needs so they would communicate it more or less to there needs.

I think you were right with the first comment you made. "It’s mostly a bunch of pseudoscientific crap". If anything, autism is more of a hyper self-preservation mechanism. Think about it. We feel threatened when we make eye contact; we don't like being touched, or our personal space invaded; we're only comfortable being ourselves when with people we know and are accustomed to. Inability to take care of ourselves is linked more to a deficit in decision-making areas of the brain, rather than a lack of self-preservation instinct. Also, what about the 'flight response' in many autistics when they meltdown? That's not LACK of self-preservation. That's self-preservation in effect.
Also, I think you're over-estimating the importance of stereotypes. Stereotypes is more about glavering. We develop our own views of what people should be like, and fit people into that view, whether they fit or not. Its the instinct to try and make sense of people/things around you, by trying to make it fit your view of what it is/should be. I have many friends, who make compensations for me; because I don't talk, or dress normally, and have odd mannerisms. They defy your theory entirely. I have met many people who I get along really well with. What's the odds I would meet mainly only those people able to break free from stereotypes, if that's the main way people's minds work when socializing? Highly improbable.
I have this same instinct. I stereotype/glaver all the time. How many of you don't? If this were really the problem, I should be right at home. And so should you.

Danlo