BBC: Autism 'hits body language skill'

Post Reply New Topic

Which is irrelevant in this instance since no one has suggested otherwise.

It is mysterious to me quite why you imagine that you could have any particular knowledge about my ideals. If you are able to describe these ideals accurately, then I will be able to construe that this knowledge you purport of my ideals is something other than fantasy on your part.

“Objective science” is not a joke, but rather an ideal to aspire to. Like” injury free sports”, we attempt to achieve this ideal knowing that it is desirable within the scope of practice to which it applies, and that we get closer to it than we would if we did not aim for it, but also taking sensible and rational precautions as indicated by our knowledge that the aimed for goal is implausible as a universal achievement.

Do you really believe that you have any reasonable grounds for suspecting such of me?


You might benefit from a careful re-reading of the article, because again your comments are not relevant to what is described by the article. Unless you are drawing on information not presented your comments simply do not make sense when applied to this article.

This is irrelevant because these are subjective evaluations, your mileage/results may differ, send no money now.

Nothing to do with what this article is describing was investigated, or its interpretations.

This investigation yielded particular results, and whatever the “big picture” is, if it is true, it will not be inconsistent with empirical investigation. The process of science relies on the "big picture" being evaluated on its ability to explain and always be consistent with any and every empirically observable detail.

Of course you can, and indeed this is how we are able to understand the big picture. What is true at the local detail level is true at any higher level. Of course the influence of all other local detail level truths is true at any higher level of the picture too. But the way to deal with that is to investigate all the individual components we plausibly can, and try to evaluate where and how they fit cohesively together to consistently correlate to the most plausible “big picture".

In all honesty, your criticisms do not make sense on these grounds since nothing about the article indicates that this investigation or its interpretations are not reasonably compliant with such notions.

I hope that insight into the effect of these antics on your overall credibility comes to you sooner rather than later as I am inclined to wish the best for people.

Actually consciousness is scientifically defined, or irrelevant to the scope of any investigation not directly claiming to evaluate some hypothetical definition of it.

Philosophically speaking, we could argue that any and every pursuit of knowledge is in essence an investigation/comparison of/between human consciousness/es itself/themselves…

According to you, but unless you can define this consciousness scientifically, we cannot even know how to test if it is even relevant to the investigation described in the article.


You are asserting that this investigation which describes investigating a particular functional trait, is making a comparison referencing this thing you claim is actually not a scientifically coherent category or entity, and wondering why this is not a problem scientifically?

Because science in an ideal world knows its place. It concerns itself not with what is beyond it, but with what it is up to. Humans are the ones actually applying it so you can expect results will often differ from anything resembling an ideal world. But the best outcomes in the actual world, rely on getting done what can be done, by working with what is available.

So for instance, it is quite appropriate to investigate visual perceptual functions and processes, speculate (then test) the relevance of findings to meta functions and processes, and in doing so, to make comparisons to test the implications of identifiable variables.

since u r unable to make the connection between moral or other so called subjective matters to the so called objective measurements of dots in 3D space i guess it make sense that it is also not possible for you to understand the relevancy of my comments to the article and your comments
u claim that "no one has suggested otherwise" made me realize that u don't even understand that your own comments "has suggested otherwise" by dismissing any faculty of human existence such as moral,or social development as irrelevant
probably because the primitive way too many people perceives objective science to be exclusive to machines with blinking light and exact measurment
i don't see how do u expect to make the links between low level and high level research when u fail to understand how your own words are linked to the topic
your ideals are reflected by the way u approach the current topic and this kind of "flat" and dry approach were too many simple minded people tend to identify objectiveness with the mechanic or the easily measurable is definitely places you in a too familiar and easily identifiable old fashioned technoctrats

again
the problem is not with the results but with the interpretation
that's why i suggested a broader view of the results which must be sounded very objectible to people like you because this broader view included human properties which fladheads consider to be subjective

the big picture of any test of human perception must include the historical,sociological,developmental,etc... which are by no mean less scientific than blinking dot on the screen


BTW
My experience showed me that the less capable,or talented a man is the quicker he is to ask for money for his false contribution
the less a man have to contribute the greater are his demands
u can see it hoards of pompous shrinks who charge a fortune for an hour just for the benefit of spending some time near their incredibly stupid head
lucky for them most man are really that stupid
unfortunately for I'm not and not in the habit of paying a man who can't even understand the implications of his own words
u don't have to send me any money
i give my input freely and happily and so you should

Ah, what would the world be like if we all had that mindset? It'd be paradise, that's what!

Actually i think the world is heading that way anyway and faster than most people think
Partly because the net which reflects and also constitute an infrastructure that make an instant freely available creative input of any kind and any media
i was born in a Marxist community and strongly believe that we are steadily advancing toward Utopian society as real meaningful creativity is a necessity and artists and scientist or anyone else for that matter shouldn't sell themselves like whores the way they do today
if anyone would have the freedom to pursue his obsession or passion and concentrate on the things that interest him naturally and act out of true love or curiosity (sorry about that) the quality of the output,whether in science, art ,engineering or any other thing ,would be much higher, and free,because if every one creates freely u don't have to worry about getting the stuff u need as surely somewhere there is some block who enjoy doing it and since he also doesn't have to worry about getting his stuff he can do much better work at supplying your needs/
i know it sound crazy but the sign of this silent revolution or evolution are adding up at an accelerated rate
u just have the right mindset in order to see them
we already can get free code and free music and free books and free information on anything,and instantly
the huge layer of pimping pigs that leech upon the creative forces loosing it stance,credibility,respect and reasons
the latest surge of the aspie voice and presence is also sign of this evolution as we are the "obssesed" one who "unwisely" dare to care about things that doesn't generate income or respect by the hoards of NT who can't stand any sign of free thinking or free acts or free interests that are driven by love and not by short sighted greed
i thing that at the end the hardest currency is attention and it is easy to see that currency become more abstract as we as a race progress
we started with the material itself than we replaced it with gold and from there we got to symbols that abstract that gold(notes,bonds,etc..) and today currency is no more than a current of electrons,
our means of exchange are becoming more abstract as times go by
one day we will get there because attention based economic is the most effective,creative,egaletarian and sound system there is
today every body want to be famous and the best at what he does
people actually invest a lot of money in order to get a channel that would allow them to give to the world their talents
people needs to create and they will do it even from the death row because that is one of the most fundemental part of our existence
many aspies creates because their level of integration permits them to see the links between the creative process and the love for another person
narcissism can and would metamorphose to a concentrated attention to individual uniqueness
and when it does we will live forever and when we do we will feel love for the first time and the last time
and forever
la la la
la la la

Try to understand how very little weight your comments above carry when you appear unable to yourself describe these connections (to which you refer) coherently, logically or persuasively.

It is completely unclear what you intend to communicate with the text above. It is beyond my ability to derive coherent sense from it.

I see no reason to believe that I fail to understand my own comments and their relationship to this thread.

Well at least we have clarified that your notions regarding my ideals are fantasy on your part.


Again, you have made post after post without yet manifesting any sound or strong basis for criticising the interpretations as they are described in the article.

Nothing whatsoever about this research or its interpretations prevents additional use of the data, or contrary interpretations based on correlations between this data and any other kind or amount of data.

What you are asserting appears like complete nonsense to me, but you are welcome to posit an argument supporting it.


That’s not by the way at all so far as I can see. It’s not even in the same country as the way, much less adjacent to it.

The body language page topic

I read very well what nara44 is writing. It makes senseto me.

Science is all about falsification, and more work needs to be done here.

The 3D thing that nara44 has mentioned has been researched by particle physicists, and it is applicable here concerning perception.

All science has a bias. it is written by human beings, and there is no final word on the study of autism.

That would be the thrust of the problem with such studies, yes. The baseline assumption is that their way is superior and must be proven to be so. Pre-determined assumptions of what the outcome means before the study is even conducted is an amateurish, unscientific method of operation and will not generate results of any substantial use other than to attempt reinforcing the psychological point that the conductor clings to.

In fact, think of what the meaning of neurotypical actually means in hard definition. Go ahead, do it. Now, if you have you may realize that it means the typical, more common neurology. Specifically, the way their brains and central nervous systems are hard-wired in relation to ASDs. Simply put, their minds are running a different operating system with different programming parameters.

This does not mean that such comparison is inherently useless, but it needs to be borne in mind that with the primitive state of understanding of the human brain that absolute technical specifications of the brain itself are not in fact understood with any degree of absolute certainty. Therefore, the utility lies more in the abstract sense than in the absolute. Any perceived differences can only be known as a relative value of one to the other, and a safe assumption would be that as it being a state of differentiated neurological wiring that it is a changing of the operation and not by default an inherent damage thereof. Should this indeed be the case, then it could also be assumed that shortcomings for one method of brain wiring will be mirrored with shortcomings in different areas for the other, and strengths with differing strengths.

Were more of a focus placed on objective study and causal relationships between differentiated operational parameters and observable differences in function then it might actually foster more useful results, perhaps into even more diverse areas of functional understanding of how the brain works. However, until scientific study gets over the self-centered approach of attempting to prove something as damaged by default then it won't see a lot of progress.

Well... there are a number of scientists who would most probably disagree that we have "no science of consciousness." V.S. Ramachandran has an excellent introduction to the science of consciousness . There are a number of physicians, neuropsychologists, neurologists, philosophers, etc who study consciousness as a phenomenon. There's no "-ology" specifically for consciousness, but it is studied as a scientific phenomenon... and we don't exactly know how or why it functions.

Evidence please. You see I can see that a number of posters have assumed these assumptions were operant here, but reading the article, there is a complete lack of evidence that such assumptions influenced the reliability of the results, or were involved in any materially relevant way whatsoever. To me it looks like much of the criticism arises from knee jerk assumptions about the research and researchers, that are grounded in what appears to be personal biases some posters in this thread have against anyone who dares to research or investigate anything to do with ASDs. I wonder if these are the same folk who complain about the insufficiency of empirical information and knowledge about ASDs.



What an ironic joke.

This research is reported as investigating a comparison in 2 particular functions between two groups. The sample size alone indicates the extent to which this investigation is tentatively preliminary.

The investigators considered that there might be some measurable difference in these functions and conducted a small sample size experiment that tests the viability of further investigation (replication over a larger sample size is obviously needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn, much less acted on, as the article itself clearly states).

This is perfectly legitimate science. Formulate a hypothesis and formulate an experiment that can falsify it. Consider the results speculatively for the purpose of informing any further investigation.

Determining absolute valuation differences between the two groups investigated is outside the scope of this investigation. It is neither necessary, nor scientifically appropriate to pre suppose the conclusion with nonsense assumptions that any relative impairment on the part of one group, will be exactly balanced by some relative impairment or weakness on the part of the other group. It is absolutely ridiculous to criticize research on the grounds that it made assumptions it did not make, when on further inspection, your real gripe is that it did not make a bunch of utterly irrelevant and unscientific assumptions that apparently constitute some social/political/worldview ideal you prescribe to.

It’s science, and every effort should be made to free it from bias, not mire it in your preferred biases.



Like the research in this article then? Interesting.

if u r too lazy to read the article properly u might be willing to dedicate a moment of your precious and costly time to the title
"Problems processing visual information may stop those with autism interpreting body language, harming their ability to gauge others' emotions"

they are not objectively comparing to systems
they are comparing the wrong way to the right way,the bad perception to the good perception
well,it may amaze u but some people doesn't think AS or autism are cancer or any other terminal disease so in that context "good" and "bad" or "harm" are as far from objective as possible
The research as too few open minded people on this forum is biased by definition
it shoots and then draws the target
but i guess it's no use as u could never see it as part of the NT wiring is compelling them to one dimensional perception of cause and effect
unfortunately there is no way to explain color to a blind man,perhaps your dear science might help u some say,i truly hope so as i encounter this appalling narrow mindedness on a daily basis
the matter of the interaction between body and consciousness is so intricate and involved that no scientist should be allowed to assign it value base judgment
its the basis for bullying and discrimination and cost me my livelihood few times among many other things that make the AS life unbearable
if that pass for a science then the the Nazi genocide of the Jews was based on scientific and objective data


i know quite well how NT process information and why it is meaningless to me (some honest NT will admit it is also quite meaningless to them)
this knowledge saved and saves my life
and since i'm not pretending to be objective and not so stupid to assume that such things even exists i have no problem in saying that the way they process information is causing most of the pains and injustice in this world
this so called peace of "science" is just a banal little example of the damage they inflict on their surrounding by spreading ignorance based on narrow minded stupid pride
lucky for me and for many of us and for society at large we learn to understand things by ourselfs as our experience showed us that "science" should not to be trusted in matter concerning autism
there are too few honest scientists who can see what we see and u can find them on the web if u like

Do you not know what the word “may” means?

Are you aware that the researchers being criticized are not the authors of this “popular” reporting, and that the phrase you are picking on is the wording of the article’s author, and is not cited as a direct quote from the researchers themselves?

Is there some reason why you should be calling me lazy because you have failed to make appropriate inferences regarding the use of the word “may”, and the fact that the phrase you complain about is an assertion of the article writer (rather than a quote from the researchers), writing for a popular audience where it is usual practice to simplify and summarize?

According to the information contained in the article they compared functional performance on two tasks between two groups. There is nothing that indicates to me the measurements of functional performance on these two tasks was not carried out by objective means.
That is your characterization and only you can be responsible for it. The fact remains that nothing described in the article gives reasonable grounds to question the objectiveness of the measurements themselves. I see no evidence of any materially relevant lack of objectivity negatively impacting the reliability or objectivity of the results of this investigation.

The problem being that there is no evidence that the researchers were applying concepts of “good” and “bad”. These are things you have introduced into this discussion, apparently because you lack the objectivity to not assume anyone researching ASDs must be applying such concepts, even where there is no evidence that they are doing so.
As for harm, plenty of things are neither cancer nor terminal but are construed as harmful quite reasonably.

As you have already conceded bias free science is not plausible at this time, and it probably never will be so long as humans are conducting it. In the first instance, it is not plausible to begin from the basis of “no knowledge exists” every time one sets out to engage in scientific investigation. Hence (as already explained) scientific investigation proceeds on the basis of what it has to work with. You have presented no evidence to undermine the existing body of scientific research and findings that this work assumed as best currently available knowledge, and it’s not non objective to fail to throw out all existing knowledge or reprove it anytime one wants to investigate associated phenomena.


Aha, do you actually think anyone is impressed with your obviously non objective and personally attacking groundless opinions of others that you keep positing in place of reasoned discourse? What do you think presenting yourself as an angry, unreasonably hostile and attacking person does for your credibility?


That might explain why there is no evidence that these researchers inserted all this “good” and “bad” nonsense that you non-objectively assume they inserted.

Your bitterness notwithstanding, an objective person might suggest that your attitude of unfairly criticizing these people just for attempting to investigate something related to ASDs is a manifestation of rather blatant discrimination against such researchers and investigators.


Arrived at this “knowledge” through objective investigation did you?


What is an “honest scientist”? Anyone who makes assertions that exactly match your personally held prejudices?

ofcourse the bolding of "may" was a mistake
the phrases i liked u to notice are "Problems processing visual information" , "stop those with autism interpreting","harming their ability"
u r expected to have some common sense u know

on second look i see that the bolding if "may" is of your making as in my original post the words that are in bold doesn't include "may"

it is the worst kind of demagogue to dismiss my writing as resulting from bitterns as it is quite clear that labeling a feature of human behavior as inferior would result in discrimination against the people having it
this is the harsh reality many AS have to deal with and your reaction reminds me of the stupid shrink who attribute everything u say to some flow in your character

i did presented some of my arguments but u dismised them as not being objective or sientific because they are not based on machines with blinking light
in principal,what i say is that any scientific research touching on the consciousness must take into account the social,historical,etc..
as a matter of a fact i think any field should at least reference this area as every think is linked
u may recall that modern science became more objective by taking into account it's unavoidable subjectivity
that what quantum mechanic and relativity is all about
we can get more objective only when we get rid of the illusion of objectivity
which is exactly what i'v been trying to do by suggesting that measurement of perception must be linked to data on the evolution and the current sociological situation
u accuse me of not suppluing counter view but when i do u dismiss it as to subjective
well,that's dishonesty in my book
science is based on dialog and criticism, to claim, as u did ,that any such criticism proves that I'm biased against the researches is worthless demagogue,counter productive and unscientific

No, I can assure you that I did it quite intentionally.


How is this not objective? Two groups were measured on their ability to perform 2 such tasks and relative to one group there were problems with the performance of the other as measured using objective means. What is not objective about that? The fact that you do not like results does not make them not objective.

None of these comments demonstrate any lack of objectivity, as is very clear when they are read in context using even the most minimal of common sense or good sense.


Yes, I bolded “may”; you might recall that you chose to interpret the title of the article not only as though it were written by the researchers and thus justified your’s and others’ criticism of them, but also as though some word other than “may” (as in might be so, might be not so) had been used, so I highlighted it in bold for your reading and comprehension convenience.

may is a neutral word
i bolded the subjective words but clearly u r unable to see the difference
and the title is not disconnected from the research as the researchers themselves,and you,are saying that one of the group failed(AS) or was "below" compared to the other(NT)
for instance
if the researchers,or you,had the slightest idea about AS they would know that many AS do not distinguish between "right" and "left" (and "me" and "you") the way the NT does so the result doesn't mean they don't detect the movement but they can't assign it what is consider by NT to be the right name
this is not an indication of disability but may indicate a value system or a perception that see any movement from multiply points of view
evidence for such a perception in an AS are numerous but since the researchers knows nothing outside their narrow field they are unaware of such basic knowledge
Many autistic see beyond the relative movements,u don't have have to research it,just open your eyes and see
if u want to practice science in the 21 century u should at least check your results against the available knowledge of many different fields before u marked one group as performing below the other because sloppy job in such crucial matters can inflict a lot of damage on innocent individuals

I have no idea why you think anything to do with leading or agitating people is necessarily entailed in identifying bitterness, nor in drawing conclusions about how that bitterness might influence the opinions of the person characterized by it.

I also have no idea why think that might be relevant to this discussion. It’s not as though I for instance have failed to give due consideration to your writings in this thread, despite the aggressive, personally attacking, and malcontent tone of them.

Given that you have been deliberately and unacceptably rude, engaging in persistent petty and pointless personal attacks, you ought to consider that your writings have been given far more fair and reasoned consideration than your conduct and their tone merits.

As for discrimination, it is my view that you are “living in a glass house” there. It is increasingly clear to me that you do not actually have any reasonable grounds on which to criticize these researchers and this research much less to become aggressive and personally attack someone who challenges your criticism against them. My conclusion is that your criticism arises entirely from unreasoned discrimination against people who research things associated with ASDs, and this is such an ingrained and strongly held prejudice on your part, that you cannot discuss the matter in a mature or reasoned matter.

You have failed to present any strong or compelling argument to criticize these researchers or this research on the grounds of lack of objectivity and bias. It’s that simple.

Well you are completely wrong about that in my view and you have completely failed to establish any grounds for reconsidering that view. The claim you have made is extraordinary and you should not expect to convince anyone of its truth without producing even so much as ordinary evidence.
Your comments make it difficult to believe that you have an adequate understanding of the pursuit of knowledge as an applied practice to facilitate any reasoned or reasonable conclusion being reached by you.

I shall repeat for your benefit the point that this argument is irrelevant. No one is disputing this issue. What is in dispute is whether or not, within these constraints, this particular research was objective in so far as is plausible to expect research to be objective.

No kidding, but precisely what aspect of the results of this research were negatively impacted in terms of reliability by some failure to do so. What evidence in terms of the specific research and researchers you are criticizing is there that this research in particular fails to be sufficiently objective due to a failure to take into account the constraints imposed by the subjectivity of humans and their methods and means?

You have failed to give any good reason why, any example of what kind of data you want it linked to, nor any indication as to how or why this would alter the results of this investigation.

Perhaps that you think this is an appropriate line of criticism, can be explained by what appears to be a complete lack of understanding as to how the effort to obtain and acquire knowledge occurs in application. If we proceeded along the lines you should be suggesting, we could not do nearly so well. We would not for instance be able to do quantum mechanics because for every experiment we would have to link up everything with the decline in the Aztec Empire, the discovery of soap and its trade history, the teeth of snails etc……..ridiculous. This is grossly unproductive, how long should someone ponder “what might this have to do with the price of fish during the reign of the Emperor Nero” before you can take a single measurement. Words cannot describe how very absurd it is to expect research to proceed like this.

I myself doubt that this is what you are suggesting. But I cannot fathom what else you might mean. Precisely what historical/cultural/sociological/whatever the heck factor or data point do you think has not been linked to this research, such that the failure to do so would influence the outcome results? What has not been linked that if linked would result in different results and how would those results be different?

There is nothing dishonest about it. Research and scientific investigation have an excellent track record as being the best tool we currently have by which to learn about the material and relational characteristics of our universe. These constraints against objectivity apply to the whole lot of it, and yet it still produces really very useful results. If you intend to criticize some particular piece of research as being non objective in particular, then you need to demonstrate what makes it different in terms of objectivity from research operating within the same constraints whose results you do not criticize and dispute on this basis.


I did no such thing. I criticized your criticism and not on the grounds that it appears to be bitter, but on the grounds that you cannot produce any coherent argument to back your criticisms, and nor can I see any such grounds for your criticisms.

You might want to note that there is quite some difference between reasoned dialogue and arbitrary criticism motivated by personally held ideology and prejudices, and smattered through with petty and childish insults and personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you or challenges you to substantiate with reasoned arguments your criticisms of the work of others.

You also might want to look up what demagogue means.