Gawker.com article on Asperger's. Must be seen.

Post Reply New Topic

For your viewing anger:


http://gawker.com/5885196/the-tech-indu ... -or-insult


Special snippets:

The author is just a jealous little dweeb. Meaningless.

If what Zuckerberg is doing is so damned bad then why are so many people insistent on using it so much it ranks number two?

The answer is simple. A MASSIVE amount of people don't care enough about his faults to quit using Facebook.

They have spoken with their actions. This guy is just a meaningless nothing by comparison.

Why should I give two ****s what he uses the term Asperger's for? Not worth getting angry over. There have always been twits in this world and there always will be. Getting worked up over their stupidity has never done a lick for improving my life.

it's gawker, what you expect?

A smidge better. Dude, we're not Madonna!

No idea what you mean by this.

I agree totally that the guy's an idiot. It's just not worth my time to get all bent out of shape over it. Did you see the comments on the page? Even they didn't seem to take any of it very seriously. None of them, so far, have anything to say about the article itself. They're all trivial off topic comments. That tells me a lot about the value of the article. It's a piece of garbage and people seem to notice. Not much to worry about.

Sounds to me more like deliberate NT behavior, particularly the powerful ones at work -- the ones who really lack the empathy.

I read Gawker a LOT. They are being seriously harsh. Also, they pretty much hate Madonna. I honestly think we should be caring about this. Swap out the word/phrase "person of color" or "woman" or "gay" or anything else for "Asperger's" and you'll see how totally unacceptable this is. This is really nasty, bigoted stuff and I NEED to see them called out on it. This crap is never gonna stop unless we do something.

Well, I've been watching stuff like this for decades. I'm not saying nobody should say anything. Personally though, I tired of playing whack-a-mole a long time ago.

The problem with shutting people up who say outrageous things it that it may stop them from saying those things, but it won't stop them from thinking it. Shut one up, and there's some other wacko waiting in the wings to take their place. All you can really do is speak the truth and hope more people recognize IT than the BS. Freedom of speech is an all or nothing concept. It doesn't work any other way. If we could shut them up, someone else could shut us up.

I am displeased with the article, but the picture at the top blinked and that messed me up for a couple minutes

That picture bothered me so much...

I found this first comment to be insightful and not disturbing at all.

People don't normally tell you what they think about you. They usually express it in subtle non-verbal ways. This individual appeared to care enough to try to figure out that Zuckerburg had a different method of approaching the solution to a problem than most people, and that his communication was different than others.

In the disorder of Aspergers emotional expression is often blunted, but it doesn't mean it is not felt or the other person's communication is not meaningful. However, to the observer without the disorder or without any understanding of it, no emotional expression means no feelings, no empathy, and that one does not care about their opinion.

And on the other hand, there are subtle cues when one is talking to someone else, that elicits positive feedback from others. While one may feel the emotion, if they don't express it with facial gesturing, they are less likely to receive positive feedback as well, from the other individual that has no problems with reciprocal communication.

The other interesting aspect is that the same can apply when someone is visibly angry with someone, perhaps for good reason, and one responds with no sign of emotional concern.

The other person will see it as either a sign of disrespect or apathy, although neither may be intended.

The bad part of it is, not expressing one's emotions with facial expressions can mean not being able to express them when one is horribly stressed as well.

For those that are demanding of others, human limitations are determined by those expressions of stress, and if none are seen, no limitations are seen as well.

This can be a problem because it makes it appear like there are no boundries, which means one may push another passed the breaking point, without realizing they are close to it.

So, not much expression in times of stress can seem like a strength to others, but when one is communicating, it can be a sign of apathy or disrespect.

Some learn to bare their teeth enough and stare enough to make the other person feel uncomfortably engaged as well. But others without problems with non-verbal communication can immediately spot unnatural non-verbal communication in others.

It appears that Zuckerburg has been to busy with his interests to be too concerned with this.

It's no wonder the social environment for an individual with Aspergers is so demanding, however one cannot expect another individual, without any knowledge that it is an inherent issue, to automatically understand the individual with Aspergers, unless they take the time and effort to attempt that understanding as the individual that made the first comment did. It sounds like they had some prior understanding of Aspergers.

The other comments seemed to be based on what individuals gathered from Zuckerburg's lack of social reciprocity in non-verbal and verbal communication. This appears to have been the source of many of the criticisms that were expressed about his personality. They did not have the insight into Aspergers that the first individual had.

However, this was not the author's opinions, it was opinions expressed by others who have interacted with Zuckerburg, not been able to figure him out, and have drawn their own conclusions.

Regardless of Zuckerburg's differences in verbal, non-verbal communication, and social reciprocity, he has an amazing insight into what makes others tick, through his invention of facebook. A possible result of observing and analyzing rather than participating,

Personally I was never compelled to pay much attention to my high school annual, but I clearly remember the status people treasured in how many times their photos were included in the year book, the record of their accomplishments, and how many people they could get to sign their book with positive remarks.

Zuckerburg may be young and have little expression, but behind that stare that look like a deer stuck in the headlights, is a brilliance that now covers a world of humans addicted to being noticed in a highschool annual that lasts a lifetime.

Unfortunately, it doesn't make it any easier for anyone to understand him on a personal level.

And, if there are only 15,000 individuals diagnosed witih Aspergers in the US, as reported in the article, it means there are likely a great many out there who do not understand they have an inherent issue and so many more that do not understand that the lack of social reciprocity, is neither apathy, a lack of respect, or a lack of feelings.

And, there is no one that is going to be able to fully explain this to them, except for the individual with Aspergers, if they are even aware of it themselves, or can put it into words.

The only time I noticed my lack of expression was when I was talking to the person that cut my hair in front of the mirror. It took me close to fifty years to figure out what was going on.

But, I learned to smile, listen attentively, and stare directly into someone's eyes decades earlier, with intentional effort. I could never figure out how other people made those complex facial movements that I could feel, but not fully understand.

The problem with social acceptance of aspergers, is how in the world is someone supposed to identify what there is to be accepted. A lack of expression in the real world means apathy or disrespect or even strength in a stressful situation. But it doesn't necessarly mean disorder or problem.

While the individual with Aspergers cannot help it, the lack of expression communicates an emotion that may not be present at all.

The individual that made the first comment could probably give valuable insight to all the other individuals that delt with Zuckerburg. I haven't seen many people express that kind of insight that don't have a form of autism.

In my opinion this was an excellent article for a person with Aspergers to read, because these are the type of misunderstandings that people arrive at when they are communicating with people with Aspergers.

If we want people to understand what Aspergers is, we can't correct the misconceptions, unless we can see the specific issues with non-verbal communication in ourselves, that may result in those misconceptions.

Otherwise it is what you see is what you get. Zuckerburg is not in a position where he has to explain himself. He is the one in control and he has the option of doing things his way, not unlike the stories of others like Bill Gates. Their conditions are not disorders for them; the gifts they derive from their differences vault them to places that most could not imagine.

The article to me shows that some people likely have the insight to spot what someone might refer to as neurodiversity, understand, accept it, and praise the strengths of it, but most people don't have that kind of insight, unless they have exposure, knowledge of it, and even the capability of understanding it and accepting the inherent strengths of it.

At least it brings the topic to the forefront of a mainstream publication. It's not often that happens. We can thank Mark Zuckerburg's efforts in life for that attention. And, there is likely more to come, which will bring a better awareness that a condition like Aspergers even exists, among the general population.

It appears that they succeeded in putting Zuckerburg in the Uncanny Valley, with that effect.

you always find some way to justify all the bad things. i'll give you credit for being the best devil's advocate, thats for sure.

is there actual evidence that this zuckerberg dude has aspergers.is he diagnosed,is he an undiagnosed person who activly participates in autistic culture.how much do we realy know about this person.so everyone good with computers is aspiez

I try not to see things in terms of good and bad, rather actions and consequences. It gives me a better opportunity to objectively analyze a situation.

With articles like this, people do read the comments. There is the opportunity to correct misconceptions and provide clarifications to educate people. Otherwise the same misconceptions go on.

Although, from a first glance at the comments it appears no one took the time to do that, there are detailed comments on the issues if one expands them.

The problems of communication have to be specifically identified and explained, if anyone is going to understand them. The quote I provided, was an example of an individual who attempted to do that in the text of the article.

If that individual didn't have knowledge and/or attempt to understand the communication, they could have decided he wasn't a very nice person, instead of someone who had a difference in communication and thinking.

That is the kind of information that can be amplified in the comments section to educate people out there in the larger world and correct misconceptions. But, it won't work if it is a battle referenced as the bad people without autism who should automatically have the capacity to understand people with autism.

Understanding and acceptance in a condition like Aspergers is impossible unless one can explain it in detail, in a way that someone can understand it. The first person in the article did a good job of it, and deserves recognition. If more people had that ability the world would be a kinder place for people with autism.

The lack of empathy myth was reinforced in the article. It's pretty easy to rebuke it with referenced sources, in the comments section, if someone takes the effort to do it, to battle misconceptions. It's a step in the right direction to educate the public.

It's not going to be easy, though, to explain the difference in cognitive and affective empathy to the general public. They take it for granted, as a natural part of life. It's hard enough for an individual that has problems with cognitive empathy to understand it, unless someone explains it to them.

If an actual diagnosis is required for identification, acceptance, and understanding of differences in communication and thinking of others, then it is impossible that it is ever going to happen, because we don't have name tags that say we are autistic in real life.

And, there is evidence that there are a tremendous number of individuals that have these differences in communication and thought that have no diagnosis.

The majority of people that have good paying jobs in the high tech industry, engineering, science, auto mechanic, and whatever other niche they find in life, that have these communication differences are not likely diagnosed with an ASD.

The article points out the difficulty some people have in understanding differences in communication in others. It's not done in a flattering way, but it is reflective of what happens in the real world, not only of the difficulties of people that have these differences of communication, but those who attempt to communicate with them as well.

Without mentioning the potential of the disorder of Aspergers, there would be no reference point for the article to describe the traits, that he is suggested to share, that may be inherent ones, rather than something he has control of.

And it's the only way people are going to be able to learn to identify, understand, and accept the differences in the general population. There has to be a reference point of what the traits are and what you call them. That part is likely to get more confusing for those in the general public, that have finally learned about Aspergers, when the DSMV goes into effect.

The article points out what some consider as negative aspects regarding Zuckerberg, but his strength in what he has accomplished, is almost beyond comprehension. And, it continues to grow in the direction he intends it to move in, regardless if people like it or not.

A significant number of people don't like that, it is apparent in the article, but the influence of his efforts continues to grow, worldwide, largely unimpeded.