Future crimes against cure/treatment developers?

Post Reply New Topic

playing a guitar actually accomplishes useful things such as producing an art form and entertaining people.

i dont see the point of asking whether someone's second cousin's son is doing great in his karate lesson.

It's how non-autistic people (and some autistic people) show they care about each other. Cementing social ties is important to most members of a social species that depends on each other for survival. It's like grooming. And it's not a bad thing just because not all of us can do it.

'anbuend' you wrote this before:


Here you seem quite elitist, or grandiose, as I discussed in my recent thread "Psychological Cure: Denial, Grandiosity, NT Denigration" http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt55926.html. I discussed how this grandiosity is used as a psychological self-help treatment or cure, that is, to cure yourself of any depressing or anxiety causing reflections about autism or Aspergers.

Here you also seem to be stating that you, as an autistic person, have the superior ability to "live in the real world" to a greater extent, and more of the time, than non-autistic people. And, the clear implication you make is that non-autistic people are inferior to you because they do not have this superior ability. The two people listed above denigrate neurotypicals for certain of their abilities, and here you seem to be denigrating neurotypicals for not being capable of living in the real world to the same extent and the same amount of time that you are able to. And here you seem to be claiming that you have a superior ability, namely living in the real world, which, to allege that someone has a lesser ability to do this is to criticize them for something rather fundamental in nature, namely, again, living in the real world, or attachment to reality, etc.

As an aside, from viewing your self-taken videos, and autistic people, and in considering some core discussion in the field of autism study, a major observation and consideration of autistic people is that there is a very limited ability to "live in the real world", as most seem to have considerable difficulty engaging with stimuli and people, are often affected very adversely by stimuli and people, and often are withdrawn into their thinking and mental imagery and daydreaming with little awareness of the world around them.

Another comment you made referring to the two individuals criticisms of neurotypicals at the top of this post:


I noticed you seem to emphasize the evaluative measures of logic, fact, and accuracy with regard to the discussion I and others have presented. The two people's complaints about neurotypicals have nothing to do with logic, fact, or accuracy, but rather, as is the case with most of my own discussion, it has to do with competing ideas and concepts and preferences. It is a common tactic to try to interpret the nature of a discussion as being one that is resolved by logic and facts, but it is only a tactic, and avoids the truth of the nature of the discussion, which is that the discussion is about competing ideas and preferences, and logic and truth and falsity are not the right evaluative measures for this kind of discussion. Rather, as is the case in most humanities disciplines, the evaluative measures are the strength of the arguments, the quality of the ideas, the creativity, reasonableness, the use of other conceptions as the foundations, the clarity, how they withstand criticisms and objections, etc.

they dont care about each other. they just want other people to think that they do. that's my problem. if they really care about the other person, then i dont mind they ask how he's doing. but if they only do that because they want the other person to return the favor, then i totally disagree with that behaviour.

It's important to provide the quotes of what I wrote, on which you are basing your statements, and also, your interpretation of those quotes, and most importantly, your reasons and discussion and ideas for your criticism.

Here you are referring to other original posts and subsequent posts I made at other threads, and it is useful to confine discussion related to other threads in that thread, and use the relevant quotes of that thread and in that thread. It's also useful to try to maintain focus on the original post of a thread, or, if you don't have any comments on the original post, then it's useful to not post an off-topic comments. Yes your comments are about certain matters, but my original post was about future speculation of various things, not about what you wrote. I've noted your consistent tendency to, as I've commented before about you, go way off-topic and use other people's threads to tell your own unrelated stories and provide your own either unrelated or distantly related arguments of various things.



In my post before this, I commented on your use of the standards of logic and truth as tactics to evaluate the quality of other people's ideas, and that these ideas have nothing to do with logic, but rather what I discussed above in my last post. This tactic is used by many as a sort of public relations strategy to emotionally sway opinion. Many politicians also use this tactic. Much of your discussion has the spirit of superficial political bargaining debates, which seem to largely have the nature of public relations, advertising, and marketing. I am more interested in the ideas themselves, as are most serious about these matters.

Secondly, contrary to what you stated, I do not insist I know the motivations of other people, but rather, I speculated on what may be, and seem to be, a multitude of psychological factors and ideas that underly what many anti-cure and anti-autism-is-an-illness people believe and state. The issue here, contrary to what you think, is not of confirming what people do in fact believe, but rather, the ideas that underly what they believe and state. And this, also, has nothing to do with logic and truth: I'm not talking about the ideas that, in fact, underly what they and you believe and state, but rather, the ideas that seem to underly. An unrelated example: Someone may avoid the ocean water at all cost, and complain about those that waste their time swimming, but never provide their reasons for why they feel this. Then, someone else may speculate that they are generally fearful of the water, or dislike having their skin wet, or dislike having their makeup removed from their face, or their hair wet, or that the water causes them to have adverse emotions, or they specifically fear drowning, or fear being attacked by a shark or jelly fish, or fear an undertow will carry them out to sea, or are embarrassed of their body in a swim suit, or have a bodily structural problem such as a growth or skin problem, etc. Obviously in this example, the person can be asked about his or her reason, and it's likely he or she will have an answer. But in more complicated circumstances about others issues that are related to one's self and well-being and treatment and other's views of him or herself, the underlying reasons, or, if not reasons, factors, are not known by the person, due, perhaps, to limited critical reflection, other psychological factors, unclear and disorganized concepts, emotions, needs, etc.

Autistic people saying they have a specific ability that non-autistic people don't (and perceiving the real world directly is one that is actually considered by scientists to be something autistic people do a lot more of than non-autistic people -- which causes us as many problems as it does advantages), is not the same as being elitist.

Yes, autistic people are more likely to perceive the world as it is than non-autistic people. (By which I mean in a really concrete sort of way, our perceptions are less frequently filtered in a certain way.)

Saying that is no more elitist than saying that non-autistic people have all the advantages that come from blocking a good deal of their direct perceptions of the world, and substituting other things instead.

There's a difference between saying that autistic people tend to have skills that non-autistic people don't (or that non-autistic people have skills that autistic people don't), and saying that autistic people are better than non-autistic people, or that non-autistic people's abilities are stupid and pointless just because they have clear deficits.

Saying that non-autistic people are better at small talk and autistic people tend more in the direction of discussing factual information of certain sorts without a lot of small talk, is something that most people would agree on when it comes to conversational styles. What would be wrong is to say that it is stupid/pointless/defective to make small talk, or that it is stupid/pointless/defective to talk about one's interests.

The reason I mention the part about autistic people engaging with raw perception more readily is because of the stereotype that autistic people are in our own little worlds -- when the opposite is true, we are less often in our "own worlds" than in the real one, as compared to non-autistic people. It's the sheer amount of information we get from the real world that likely makes a lot of things difficult for us, although it also makes some particular things easier. Both ways of dealing with information are efficient for different things, and neither is stupid or pointless.

It's interesting to me how easy it is to be accused of elitism simply for discussing autistic strengths or non-autistic deficits, or the ways in which one or the other do better in certain situations or at certain tasks. Discussing strengths and deficits is not elitist, strengths and deficits are real and exist in everyone. (And any sort of science studying how people work would be completely impossible without discussing their existence.) But some people start saying that other people are stupid, pointless, worthless, etc., and that is elitism and that is what I oppose. If I've ever said otherwise, then either (a) I misspoke, (b) I'm being misconstrued, or (c) I did something wrong and changed my mind, and the fact that I might have said or done something that either was elitist or appeared elitist (the latter being more likely recently than the former), does not change the fact that elitism is wrong and that I can say elitism is wrong.

--

Last edited by elan_i on 07 Feb 2008, 2:03 am, edited 5 times in total.

Drat! I thought the post was 'assination of cure disciples', who like many disciples, keep ramming their opinions down people's throats. Now that might have neen a fun topic!

Grossly incorrect. Most scientists and doctors believe autistic sensory perception to be highly fragmented, distorted, hyper-focused or hypo-focused, etc, and as such, missing of what there is in reality - such as missing the whole of objects and settings, being oblivious to stimuli at times, hearing only aspects of sound, often missing the differing tones of sounds, often not hearing much sound, often not perceiving sensory stimuli together (called "cross modal extinction"), etc, etc. Donna Williams, Tito, and others discuss their "fragmented" perception often in their books etc.



This is very unclear and vague, as is common in much of what you write of this nature. You often seem to try to emulate what others with autism have said, and do a short job of it. I'd be interested, anyway, in what you mean.



Your mentions of "raw perception" and "autistic people engaging with raw perception more readily" are completely vague. For one, people don't engage with perception. They engage with stimuli via their sensory perceptual faculties. In any case, what you mean by "raw perception" is vague and you provided no discussion.

Furthermore, the structure of your discussion rings as follows: most people believe autistic people are in their own worlds; I mention the part about autistic people actually being more in the "real world" than neurotypicals because most people believe we are in our own worlds. You're tactics are quite obvious. Here you try to provide a response to a commonly held view of autistic people that bothers you in some way, and your response is one of grandiosity and appears quite self-fulfilling, and partially delusional as well, including your mention of the following about scientists, which is grossly inaccurate:

I discuss this common grandiosity at
Psychological Cure: Denial, Grandiosity, NT Denigration
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt55926.html

I had a long (and factual) answer typed out, including references, but I don't think you want a real answer, nor do you seem to want me or my inconvenient-for-you experiences to be involved in discussions of autism at all. The key point that showed that was that when I agreed with you on something, you found a way to argue with it and say insulting things about me even then. That made it clear this was personal and not about facts or ideas or anything else that I can actually deal in. Saying all this isn't conceding any of the points you've made, it's just saying that I think further discussion would be completely futile because you're not actually taking my points into account, you're just playing social games that are way over my head. I can deal with disagreement, but that's not all you're doing -- you're using pejorative psychiatric terms at me, among other things, such as "delusional" and "grandiose" simply for being bad at paraphrasing research I've read, and for having imprecise language apparently, me being the same person you've accused of not having language problems -- and that and all the other petty little gameplaying is stuff I have no particular need or desire to deal with.

Except it is stupid and pointless to make small talk (not necessarily "defective" though).

This guy is sounding like a lame Freudian kook.

I know where you stand, by now. I think that we all do. There's a variety of things that you can post about. I like Routemasters. You don't see me making countless threads, about them. I like movies. You don't see me making countless threads, about them. I love the 1970s. You don't see me making countless threads, about that decade. If you want a cure for yourself, that's great. Don't agitate us, anymore.

"Communicate" and "socialise" are two different things in this context. The delay IS a good thing because it improves and focus's the communication lines that Aspies are able to use easily - and cast off the useless parts (as previously alluded to by ToadofSteel) that NT's consider so essential to social life.

That's a part of the Aspie culture. (Something Freud would have had a seizure over, Odin!)

Social activity isn't a bad thing. It's something that makes NTs happy, and if you consider it unneccesary, you're free to have that opinion. But socializing is still a very live thing, and a neccesary one to reciprocate people's politeness and goodwill.

I learned of the value of socializing, and how important it is in forming meaningful relationships, friendships, and unspoken respect for those around you. People think you don't like them if you don't spend a little time with them and speak to them. It's the social structure, that you are willing to interact with people.