Stop Bashing Autism Speaks!

Post Reply New Topic

Well, no one is going to retest everyone. Just as bad, those Graduated from Psychobabble School

are not going to be updated, like Windows or such.

More like auto parts where a one page update of twenty parts is filed in the back of the book.

The human mind is more than any person can understand. Psych Majors are not scientific.

Expanding the base, group size for Psych gives them less to remember, "All the red ones go in this box."

For a Corporate structure, it is Market Base. It is they way they see the world.

For the few Autistic, Now a rare and endangered species, autism is about looking inward.

Our few noted differances, general groups of Asperger's, HFA, and some that got the worst of it,

Helped us see and make some sense of our lives.

Psych has changed the words and meds every five years when the lawsuits started coming in.

It is cheaper than defending the undefendable. Changing groups seems to follow government funding.

Call me self centered, inward looking, say I have a differance of thought and perception.

Say I do not like sudden change. When there is no reason for change. I am Autistic.

I do see it in black and white. Meeting three of twelve criteria for Autism,

and most here could meet more, is our little world. It was funded and became a dumping ground.

What about everybody else, has produced confusion, the intent, Autism is not now about Autism.

It is about soft ideas from Psych, untestable in the lab, Corportions wanting more, and money.

If you think we have lacks, which some do, write a helpful guide. Autistics have learned to overcome.

Most of us did it on our own.

The Sacred DSM did not exist, revisions change nothing for us. The flaws in the non scientific human

trying to define any one brain is impossible. All, the wild guesses keep getting broader.

It seems driven by what the government defines as disabled, and who they will pay to rank them.

A branch of Social Services, not Science.

Nothing has changed for the autistic, we are still on our own.

Corporate research will not help. Fund raising will always be the main focus.

Psychology, they should start with themselves, there are deep seated reasons people study the field.

Identify and catalog, does not help us, except the Social Services part.

They have no scores like Small Pox eradicated, Polio almost, or even what Public Health has done.

According to Psychology, there is a growing epidemic of mental health problems.

Perhaps it is just them, the type the field attracts. Perhaps it is growing, and they are the cause.

Autism used to be defined as meeting the criteria, and having no mental health problems otherwise.

If they could define what we are supposed to be lacking, produce a book on it, I could score A+.

Many of us have gotten very good at things we used to be bad at. Psychology could too.

A mind turned outward, seeking Universal views, engaging and dominating conversations,

they could never have the answers for. An overwhelming demand for being right, undisputable truth,

Claiming absolute knowledge of every mind, and every sparrow that falls?

wtf

do you guys need a beer?

Pints of Guinness would seem most appropriate, given its monochrome tendencies.

They aren't leading nowhere at all Tambourine Man. It's interesting to see that when they are being argued against people instantly try to make false claims and use trite words in order to criticize my style when before they were quite happy to let me do the same thing whilst protecting them.

The only reason why this part of the forum has such close oversight as it does today is because I did not think it was good enough that some rapacious demagouge could go on here and make as many false claims, trite insults or soulless arguments as they wanted in order to browbeat any one they wanted and so I kept on arguing with them, each lie, each conniving statement, each little hidden trick of language. I know I am not perfect, but I admit to grave errors. Others fester in hypocrisy.

Yes, of course. Now you just try and make it all seem small when indeed you were arguing against me several times yourself. It only comes to this because it is clear that you were incapable of marking out what you said as right. And you did argue with me. Only now you decide to say it was unimportant?

Also I'd like to see what perseveration you are even referring to, or tangentiality, or indeed any of this other guff.


Wrong, as usual. This is just a perversion of the peculiar and focused interests idea transplanted somehow to argument. As for arguments it is a fool who does not look at things deductively by looking at it piece by piece.


Your intentions don't change anything. What you said must be taken on the basis of what you said.



I have got a better name for your charade:
It's called two thin-skinned people try and say that part and parcel doesn't mean what it means whilst one guy says that they can't get away with lying.

I will stick to apple juice, clear. It's very easy to make things clear when you stick to them really. You just need the right tools.

what does part and parcel mean anyway.i know what it means generaly,but not in the context of this discusion

That is untrue. It was also not a point I was even talking about, ever.
You said that part and parcel to you didn't mean integral to. There's no point worming out of it.





What are you talking about? There is no metaphorical interpretation of part and parcel that doesn't mean integral literally. No amount of wordplay ignores the fact that part and parcel means integral when it is idiomatic.

Look at this. Seems you are trying to change your tack again:




Not just earlier you were even saying that you argued that part and parcel meant integral; now you're saying that it was metaphorical because something is an idiom, thus you didn't actually mean to say part and parcel meant integral at all. How convenient.
As a side note an Idiom is a phrase that has a figurative meaning that can stand in for a word or phrase's literal meaning. So part and parcel doesn't have anything to do with parts or parcels, but it literally means integral or uunavoidable. It doesn't metaphorically mean integral. That is a major english error.




No you didn't. I did. I gave it. I'll show you right now. You were saying that part and parcel didn't mean integral. It says it at the top. Now to show you when I proved you were wrong:






You say this but you don't try to solve the problem by actually making the quote, which would make this sentence redundant. Just another convenient phrase you knocked out.


You're making the claim that it was abstract reasoning and not communcative deficits and repetitive behaviour, which by the way is the actual scientific reason. Why should I do anything?

YES!

And I'm going to be honest, I had never heard that expression until you said it in a pm.

Buddy, honestly, what do you want me to say? I had a different understanding of the phrase. I didn't realize that you would take it 100% literally and I had not bothered to google the exact definition.

I was trying to say "...the black and white thinking, commonly considered to symptomatic of autism." But I've said this. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Let it go.

Last edited by Tambourine-Man on 27 Oct 2011, 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Let me take a look at what was put:

That does not sound like a question to me. That sounds like you were telling me that I was wrong in assuming that autistics around mostly did not know about autism speaks when I did not mean us as in all autistics at all.



You didn't need to say this at all. Why? Context. I was replying to this:

And we all know that you must be talking about people on this site and not in the whole word, otherwise you'd be contradicting yourself. So I was.



You already showed me it the first time and in between time I have been able to highlight the intransigently obvious doublethink of the paper in the process.
As you can see not only does the paper say that AS individuals occasionally do better in theory of mind and abstract reasoning tests but it then tries to claim later that all AS individuals apparently have worse abstract reasoning and metarepresentational tests.

Apparently their excuse is that apparently this can be put down to higher intellectual ability. This only throws up more questions about the fact that abstract reasoning itself is the foundation of the higher intellectual ability of Humans in general and I doubt it is any different for us.
Not only does it lead me to question the methodology of these tests that inquire about theory of mind in general (as I have always doubted as a theory) among other things, given that some AS individuals defy all expectations of the tests, but it also makes me wonder whether these people actually have a clue.

It means integral or an unavoidable part of something.

It's long past just saying excuse me I'll change it. You've already tried to defend yourself and now are trying to play the whole affair down.


There isn't one? :]
Maybe you should have asked me why I said what I did to begin with rather than stick your head in the sand and rattle off various 'symptoms of autism' that were vague passes at my determined behaviour, criticisms that seem all the more ungrateful when you remember that it was that same behaviour that beat Zeraeph and AlanTuring off you. I lost a friend because of that exchange. It was like tearing my arm off.


100% Hyperbole one doth say. How dare I ask that you say what you mean and be truthful. And it's not even like I didn't give you chances.


Ironic that you follow this so closely and then say this? I didn't cause the problem. No point even suggesting that I make the solution.


What does this even mean? Run that by me again if you want.

Ok, I think the record is broken.

First, note as bolded above in your statement you misattributed a quote to me that belonged to Nostromo in saying you could prove me wrong. I'm assuming it was an honest mistake. Maybe this is what is you causing to to misunderstand what I actually said?

Metaphorical is a synomym for figurative. I wasn't suggesting that part and parcel was a formal metaphor, I was suggesting it had a metaphorical meaning when used as an idiom. Sorry I confused you with the word metaphorical, figuritive would have been a better term, but they mean the same thing.

Your definition of what an idiom is okay, but you interpret the definition in regard to "part and parcel" as opposite from the definition of an idiom. In your quote below you state that part and parcel literally means integral.

Part and parcel are unrelated words that don't make sense together if taken literally. Figuratively (synomym for metaphorically) used as an idiom, "part and parcel" means integral and several other alternate figurative meanings depending on where one lives, and the acceptable usages of it within the culture:

Gedrene's quote:
"As a side note an Idiom is a phrase that has a figurative meaning that can stand in for a word or phrase's literal meaning. So part and parcel doesn't have anything to do with parts or parcels, but it literally means integral or unavoidable. It doesn't metaphorically mean integral. That is a major english error."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom

from wiki:





In America integral is not the only figuritive meaning for the idiom "part and parcel":

http://www.americanidioms.net/part-and-parcel-of-(something)/



While the idiom "part and parcel" does mean integral to or as they state necessary here, it also can be used as an idiom to indicate something is an important part of something.

I stated "The idiom part and parcel that means integral to, is not one that I would have used."

This means I would not have used the idiom that was used (part and parcel, that means integral to). I probably wouldn't have used an idiom at all, I usually use formal terms, not colloquial ones.

I didn't state: the idiom "part and parcel" that doesn't mean integral to, is not one that I would have used.

You are suggesting that I opposed the definition that the idiom "part and parcel" means integral to, instead, I provided it, no where did I say that is doesn't mean integral. If you think the statement I actually made means that, break the sentence down to show me where you get "doesn't mean integral"out of it, because it doesn't exist in my sentence as I illustrate above.

Here is the context of the full statement I made regarding it, before you misread it somehow as me suggesting that integral was not the definition of part and parcel. I specifically stated that "part and parcel means integral to"in my statement. I said it was not an idiom I would use, I didn't say it didn't mean integral to. You responded with definitions that agreed with the definition I gave, after my post.

Aghogday's quote on page 9:
"The idiom part and parcel that means integral to, is not one I would of used, nor would I personally state that deficits in abstract reasoning is integral to autism, based on my personal opinion, but it is a view that some hold as valid within the scientific community. As far as I know there is no current research that refutes this view."

Maybe you can understand it better if I use a different idiom, to illustrate my same sentence structure. Look at the example below and tell me how it is different from the way Wiki words the definition of the idiom "beating around the bush" in the quote I provided from wiki above.


"The idiom "beating around the bush" that means to hint or discuss obliquely, is not one I would have used, nor would I personally state that you are discussing this in an oblique fashion.

This is the sentence structure that Wiki used: "The idiom "beating around the bush" means to hint or discuss obliquely"

The only difference in the two sentences is that I qualify that it is not an idiom that I would have used.

I don't think Wiki is saying that beating around the bush here does not mean hint or discuss obliquely, by the same token I am not saying it either, with the same sentence structure that I used in my post that you apparently misunderstood.

I do not oppose the figurative/metaphorical meaning of integral for the idiom "part and parcel", but it is not the only acceptable figuritive meaning in the USA, as evidenced above. Maybe it's not acceptable to use the idiom "part and parcel" figuratively to mean an important part of something where you live, but it is in the USA.

In the very first post in the response to the statement I gave other evidence that suggested that many people with ASD's use black and white thinking. Is it an integral part of Autism? I would personally disagree, but for individuals in the scientific community that understand it as a way of thinking that many people with autism share, it is an important part of autism to them, although I doubt many of them would use an idiom like part and parcel, which is an idiom in the USA that has an acceptable figurative meaning of "an important part of" to relay that message.

The research on HFA/AS and abstract reasoning I provided has been cited in the scientific community for years and peer reviewed. There is no double speak, if there was it would have never passed peer review, that would be an obvious error that would not be missed.

The research acknowledges occasionally scores are higher in abstract reasoning for individuals with AS because of higher intelligence and verbal capabilities. They are comparing AS to HFA as having higher scores, not AS to the general population. This is where it appears you are seeing doublespeak that is not there. Overall all they suggest abstract reasoning is a difficulty shared among HFA and AS individuals.

They see difficulties with abstract reasoning as an important part of understanding the symptom profile of ASD's.

Communication deficits and Repetitive behaviors are part of the symptom profile of ASD's; the reasearchers suggest that difficulties in abstract reasoning shared among those with HFA and AS may provide a cognitive explanation for the foundation of the symptom profile of ASD's.

In other words difficulties in abstract reasoning may be what lies beneath communication deficits, and other criteria that make up the symptom profile of ASD's.

While I suggest that all individuals with HFA/AS don't necessarily have problems with abstract reasoning, there is no research that suggests that it is not a common difficulty.

If you read the entire article it states that the more serious problem is only with one type of abstract reasoning, not both types. Concept identification remains fairly intact, while the difficulties are more apparent with Concept formation.

Last edited by aghogday on 28 Oct 2011, 4:07 pm, edited 5 times in total.