Re: Pseudo Culture

[Guest guest]

Using this logic there is no such thing as Americans or British or Europeans as these are just a geographical phenomena . This form of logic was in fact used by the wing of socialism known as Trotskyism (Leon Trotsky and the fourth international) Nowadays coming under a general term of political correctness.

The world and its disparate forms really then have no identification and we are all just a polymorphous mass. Come to think of it there will be no negros or asians(mongoloids) or any other race as these are just terms used to describe branches of the human races that were morphed by geographical isolation and evolution.

I'm looking at a dog now and I'm having problems seeing it's difference now because after all it has seven neck vertabrae, is warm blooded, gives birth to live young and has two eyes, four limbs and similar skeletal structure. I think its divisive and derogatory calling it a dog so lets just identify ourselves as mammals. Your right about the illogical concept of cult like belief. Im now going to identify myself as a vertabrate. I have come to this conclusion because even identifying as a mammal really shows disrespect to birds, reptiles and fish. We all share a backbone and a cerebellum.

Thanks for califying my errors in identication with such a narrow band and Im now ready for the world as a vertabrate.

Evan

natronpc <globalmerchantorg@...> wrote:

There is no such thing as N.T there is you and the rest of the world and it's people. Then there are those that have general similarities given a medical label called A.S. A.S is not a form of social identification unless ones lives the label.

The N.T label is part of an elusive culture based upon a hyper-divisional social construct that in its cult like conceptualized belief splits humanity into two different types of people, N.T and A.S.

Illogical

- My Mind Speaks For Me, No one else for me.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en & lr= & oi=defmore & q=define:Disillusionment

Definitions of Disillusionment on the Web:

the act of disenchanting, especially to disappoint or embitter by leaving without illusion.library.thinkquest.org/12523/glossary.html

disenchantment: freeing from false belief or illusions wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Disillusionment is the process of removal of an illusion from the human mind. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disillusionment

Start your day with - make it your home page

[Guest guest]

Your reply using comparative reasoning was not a proper comparative. It simply does not compute relatively.

You did however take indirect “betweens” and it was interesting.Evan Sinclair <cennis007@...> wrote:

Using this logic there is no such thing as Americans or British or Europeans as these are just a geographical phenomena . This form of logic was in fact used by the wing of socialism known as Trotskyism (Leon Trotsky and the fourth international) Nowadays coming under a general term of political correctness.

The world and its disparate forms really then have no identification and we are all just a polymorphous mass. Come to think of it there will be no negros or asians(mongoloids) or any other race as these are just terms used to describe branches of the human races that were morphed by geographical isolation and evolution.

I'm looking at a dog now and I'm having problems seeing it's difference now because after all it has seven neck vertabrae, is warm blooded, gives birth to live young and has two eyes, four limbs and similar skeletal structure. I think its divisive and derogatory calling it a dog so lets just identify ourselves as mammals. Your right about the illogical concept of cult like belief. Im now going to identify myself as a vertabrate. I have come to this conclusion because even identifying as a mammal really shows disrespect to birds, reptiles and fish. We all share a backbone and a cerebellum.

Thanks for califying my errors in identication with such a narrow band and Im now ready for the world as a vertabrate.

Evan

natronpc <globalmerchantorg@...> wrote:

There is no such thing as N.T there is you and the rest of the world and it's people. Then there are those that have general similarities given a medical label called A.S. A.S is not a form of social identification unless ones lives the label.

The N.T label is part of an elusive culture based upon a hyper-divisional social construct that in its cult like conceptualized belief splits humanity into two different types of people, N.T and A.S.

Illogical

- My Mind Speaks For Me, No one else for me.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en & lr= & oi=defmore & q=define:Disillusionment

Definitions of Disillusionment on the Web:

the act of disenchanting, especially to disappoint or embitter by leaving without illusion.library.thinkquest.org/12523/glossary.html

disenchantment: freeing from false belief or illusions wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Disillusionment is the process of removal of an illusion from the human mind. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disillusionment

Start your day with - make it your home page

[Guest guest]

> There is no such thing as N.T there is you and the rest of the world and

it's people.

Disagree

> Then there are those that have general

> similarities given a medical label called A.S. A.S is not a form of social

identification unless ones lives the label.

It easily becomes a social identification when Aspies share similar social

instincts.

> The N.T label is part of an elusive culture based upon a hyper-divisional

social

> construct that in its cult like conceptualized belief splits humanity

into two different types of people, N.T and A.S.

> Illogical

I disagree. I think it is fine if you can reason with CAN, but I'm not going

to drop the NT

label, because it is highly useful for describing something very real. I did

think about

the possibility of using the term non-autistic, but decided this would not

be correct. The

reason this is not correct is that non-diagnosed autistics are not

automatically NTs. NT

to me is a set of behaviors / preferences, and not a set of absent behaviors

/ preferences,

and thus the term non-autistic is wrong. Non-autistic implies absent

autistic behaviors / preferences.

I think making a NT-quiz, which positively identifies NT-behaviors /

preferences in people,

would be a very good complement to the Aspie-quiz. Then a better Aspie-quiz

could be

a mix of the previous Aspie-quiz and the NT-quiz, the result been degree of

NT and Aspie.

Leif

[Guest guest]

Simple compartmentalized logic does not denote the truth of the real reality of universal difference and similarities.

What is the culture beyond that of textual self-comparatives socially? Perhaps it takes a special type of persons with A.S to adapt to the N.T conceptualities.

An N.T is simply another person, so is another individual whom is uniquely different then that of the self.

I do not see the logic of not knowing other A.S individuals but considering everyone else I see when I walk as N.T's. It is not logical.

It is a conditioned philosophy, a typological ideology that is based upon generalities.

I figure it is some sort of social requirement to adapt to fit in and is inconsistent most of the time with anything of fact. How and why did you adapt to its ideology? Was it a feeling to fit in with others of the alike? I would like to know as this is a Simi-constant, well as of late part time interest.

Perhaps said more simply it is some sort of social adaptation that requires conformity despite illogicality. Conformity in the sense of how certain behaviors are of N.T and another A.S whereas some of those with A.S do what is described N.T’s do.

It is inconsistent, illogical and is not in textbooks as far as I have seen.

Persons are not labels. They are conscious beings all very unique and truly different. The N.T conceptuality is false and nothing more then a reference point to other people. People are people and the group mentality in its structure and its reverse labeling is not logical. A method and way of fitting in socially in a textual world known as the internet.

Transforming to the minds ways of relating to the world.

Leif Ekblad <leif@...> wrote:

> There is no such thing as N.T there is you and the rest of the world andit's people.Disagree> Then there are those that have general> similarities given a medical label called A.S. A.S is not a form of socialidentification unless ones lives the label.It easily becomes a social identification when Aspies share similar socialinstincts.> The N.T label is part of an elusive culture based upon a hyper-divisionalsocial> construct that in its cult like conceptualized belief splits humanityinto two different types of people, N.T and A.S.> IllogicalI disagree. I think it is fine if you can reason with CAN, but I'm not goingto drop the NTlabel, because it is highly useful for describing something very real. I didthink aboutthe possibility of using the term non-autistic, but

decided this would notbe correct. Thereason this is not correct is that non-diagnosed autistics are notautomatically NTs. NTto me is a set of behaviors / preferences, and not a set of absent behaviors/ preferences,and thus the term non-autistic is wrong. Non-autistic implies absentautistic behaviors / preferences.I think making a NT-quiz, which positively identifies NT-behaviors /preferences in people,would be a very good complement to the Aspie-quiz. Then a better Aspie-quizcould bea mix of the previous Aspie-quiz and the NT-quiz, the result been degree ofNT and Aspie.Leif

[Guest guest]

Perhaps you must be more familiar with my logic behind this? If you didn't

already know it,

I see Aspie and NTs as a two extremes in a hybrid species. The pure forms of

Aspies and

NTs (which do not exist anymore) where separate species.

Since NTs and Aspies no longer are isolated species, they cannot be

described with

generalisations that NTs have this-and-that trait and Aspies have

this-and-that trait.

They both need to be described as syndromes or sets of behaviors.

You might not like or agree with this way of describing Aspies and NTs, but

this

is my way of dealing with the AS-label (and many other labels as well), and

it

seems to work well. Already the Aspie-quiz has been successful in describing

many preferences that are part of Aspies, but not *all* Aspies. Aspies are

individuals

and so are NTs, but they still can be statistically correlated with certain

behaviors.

Therefore the terms Aspie and NT are meaningful and not social

constructions.

Leif

> Simple compartmentalized logic does not denote the truth of the real

reality of universal difference and similarities.

>

> What is the culture beyond that of textual self-comparatives socially?

Perhaps it takes a special type of persons with A.S to adapt to the N.T

conceptualities.

>

> An N.T is simply another person, so is another individual whom is uniquely

different then that of the self.

>

> I do not see the logic of not knowing other A.S individuals but

considering everyone else I see when I walk as N.T's. It is not logical.

>

> It is a conditioned philosophy, a typological ideology that is based upon

generalities.

>

> I figure it is some sort of social requirement to adapt to fit in and is

inconsistent most of the time with anything of fact.

> How and why did you adapt to its ideology? Was it a feeling to fit in with

others of the alike? I would like to know as

> this is a Simi-constant, well as of late part time interest.

>

> Perhaps said more simply it is some sort of social adaptation that

requires conformity despite illogicality. Conformity in

> the sense of how certain behaviors are of N.T and another A.S whereas some

of those with A.S do what is described N.T's do.

>

>

>

>

> It is inconsistent, illogical and is not in textbooks as far as I have

seen.

>

> Persons are not labels. They are conscious beings all very unique and

truly different. The N.T conceptuality is false and

> nothing more then a reference point to other people. People are people and

the group mentality in its structure and its reverse labeling is not

logical.

>

> A method and way of fitting in socially in a textual world known as the

internet.

>

> Transforming to the minds ways of relating to the world.

[Guest guest]

So it is a compartmentalized system and methodology of interpreting what others are in an unofficial sense. Introduced by like minds sharing similarities spread and built upon conceptuality and is perhaps subconsciously derived from ones own experiences with others.

To feel not normal or rather different and or unable to fit in resulted in finding others of the alike, the alike then forming groups and philosophies of thought emerging, converging and making itself normal to itself.

I fear something of this, it is a worry. The NeuroTypical concept and its conformed social belief of concept subconsciously divide the mind in the real reality. I cannot understand it or why it is adapted too.

It is not as if my questions even the more simple ones will be answered.

I would have to say that you are conformed to its ideology. What that means cannot be known really but some seem to speak its references. What that means I cannot determine.

There is human diversity not pointing extremes in an imaginary scale of self to group differences, especially given the subjective nature of the whole.

An interesting word and its definition.

SYMPTOMATOLOGY

Noun

1. The doctrine of symptoms; that part of the science of medicine which treats of the symptoms of diseases; semeiology.

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/english/Sy/Symptomatology.html

Leif Ekblad <leif@...> wrote:

Perhaps you must be more familiar with my logic behind this? If you didn'talready know it,I see Aspie and NTs as a two extremes in a hybrid species. The pure forms ofAspies andNTs (which do not exist anymore) where separate species.Since NTs and Aspies no longer are isolated species, they cannot bedescribed withgeneralisations that NTs have this-and-that trait and Aspies havethis-and-that trait.They both need to be described as syndromes or sets of behaviors.You might not like or agree with this way of describing Aspies and NTs, butthisis my way of dealing with the AS-label (and many other labels as well), anditseems to work well. Already the Aspie-quiz has been successful in describingmany preferences that are part of Aspies, but not *all* Aspies. Aspies areindividualsand so are NTs, but they still can be

statistically correlated with certainbehaviors.Therefore the terms Aspie and NT are meaningful and not socialconstructions.Leif> Simple compartmentalized logic does not denote the truth of the realreality of universal difference and similarities.>> What is the culture beyond that of textual self-comparatives socially?Perhaps it takes a special type of persons with A.S to adapt to the N.Tconceptualities.>> An N.T is simply another person, so is another individual whom is uniquelydifferent then that of the self.>> I do not see the logic of not knowing other A.S individuals butconsidering everyone else I see when I walk as N.T's. It is not logical.>> It is a conditioned philosophy, a typological ideology that is based upongeneralities.>> I figure it is some sort of social requirement to adapt to fit in and isinconsistent most of the time with anything of

fact.> How and why did you adapt to its ideology? Was it a feeling to fit in withothers of the alike? I would like to know as> this is a Simi-constant, well as of late part time interest.>> Perhaps said more simply it is some sort of social adaptation thatrequires conformity despite illogicality. Conformity in> the sense of how certain behaviors are of N.T and another A.S whereas someof those with A.S do what is described N.T's do.>>>>> It is inconsistent, illogical and is not in textbooks as far as I haveseen.>> Persons are not labels. They are conscious beings all very unique andtruly different. The N.T conceptuality is false and> nothing more then a reference point to other people. People are people andthe group mentality in its structure and its reverse labeling is notlogical.>> A method and way of fitting in socially in a textual world known as

theinternet.>> Transforming to the minds ways of relating to the world.

[Guest guest]

> So it is a compartmentalized system and methodology of interpreting what

others are in

> an unofficial sense.

You might call it something like that, but I'm actively studying relevant

science disciplines

like evolutionary psychology and anthropology to create the best system

possible. Nobody

in psychiatry obviously have studied AS from a non-deficit, evolutionary

standpoint.

> Introduced by like minds sharing similarities spread and built upon

conceptuality and is

> perhaps subconsciously derived from ones own experiences with others.

I started out with only my own family as an reference, which is built a lot

on

natural Aspie behaviors. As I met others, I realized they too conformed

largely to my natural instincts as well.

It is a mistake to believe that humans are driven only by culture, and are

equal

inside. Unless we accept that people are different not only because of

culture

and upbringing, but because of genes, we will never truely understand AS

either.

> To feel not normal or rather different and or unable to fit in resulted in

finding

> others of the alike, the alike then forming groups and philosophies of

thought

> emerging, converging and making itself normal to itself.

As I wrote above, it really didn't start out like that. I'd been in a

natural, autistic

family almost ten years before I new anything about AS. I think others have

similar experiences. IOW, this " culture " wasn't created online. It is the

way Aspies end up if they follow their natural instincts.

> I fear something of this, it is a worry. The NeuroTypical concept and its

> conformed social belief of concept subconsciously divide the mind in the

real reality.

How is that? Isn't it so that every Aspie that wants to communicate with

non-Aspies

needs to become divided? I don't see how this can be avoided unless NTs

learn

to communicate with Aspies in their natural way, but then they will instead

become

divided. ;-)

Leif

[Guest guest]

There is the fact however of the subjective nature of the individual. One aspie to another aspie might be completely alien in comparison, that simply being an example of saying the extreme of difference. Whereas one aspie would have more in common with non-aspies however still have A.S.

Personally I have nothing much in common with anyone and regular people are certainly alien to me and I to them.

Alien to represent the general disconnection/difference socially and of being.

Still despite my obvious Aspieness ( a group derivative using the label as its foundation conceptually) I cannot consider them all as N.T's or A.S.

To me you are another person or text "thing", Neither N.T or A.S simply sharing some commonalities however not so different then regularly with others.

It is the mentality of living and being the label, perhaps it is the label acting as the explanation that has made one understand self as something of valid explanation given the unique differences we share. However it seems to have developed into a social philosophy that is rather reality infecting, which is obviously based upon uncertain common agreements collectively.

It's like speaking the slang of a social click, a group or club saying. However not being valid at all and an ingrained group belief it has no validity, fact nor truth. It is a simple construct, constructs are real as a way of identifying a logical model of thought.

The construct is the complex in this explanation.

N.T is what one is typically not.

A.S is what one is typically with a few similarities however more differences then what one realizes of others with A.S.

People are people and not labels in a very diverse world.

Leif Ekblad <leif@...> wrote:

> So it is a compartmentalized system and methodology of interpreting whatothers are in> an unofficial sense.You might call it something like that, but I'm actively studying relevantscience disciplineslike evolutionary psychology and anthropology to create the best systempossible. Nobodyin psychiatry obviously have studied AS from a non-deficit, evolutionarystandpoint.> Introduced by like minds sharing similarities spread and built uponconceptuality and is> perhaps subconsciously derived from ones own experiences with others.I started out with only my own family as an reference, which is built a lotonnatural Aspie behaviors. As I met others, I realized they too conformedlargely to my natural instincts as well.It is a mistake to believe that humans are driven only by culture, and

areequalinside. Unless we accept that people are different not only because ofcultureand upbringing, but because of genes, we will never truely understand ASeither.> To feel not normal or rather different and or unable to fit in resulted infinding> others of the alike, the alike then forming groups and philosophies ofthought> emerging, converging and making itself normal to itself.As I wrote above, it really didn't start out like that. I'd been in anatural, autisticfamily almost ten years before I new anything about AS. I think others havesimilar experiences. IOW, this "culture" wasn't created online. It is theway Aspies end up if they follow their natural instincts.> I fear something of this, it is a worry. The NeuroTypical concept and its> conformed social belief of concept subconsciously divide the mind in thereal reality.How is that? Isn't it so that every Aspie that wants

to communicate withnon-Aspiesneeds to become divided? I don't see how this can be avoided unless NTslearnto communicate with Aspies in their natural way, but then they will insteadbecomedivided. ;-)Leif

[Guest guest]

> There is the fact however of the subjective nature of the individual. One

aspie to another aspie might be completely alien in

> comparison, that simply being an example of saying the extreme of

difference. Whereas one aspie would have more in common

> with non-aspies however still have A.S.

Very few seems to be like that. If somebody has more in common with

non-aspies I'd say

the label was put on them wrongly.

> Still despite my obvious Aspieness ( a group derivative using the label as

its foundation conceptually) I cannot

> consider them all as N.T's or A.S.

You shouldn't. You could be 90% Aspie and 10% NT. That is acceptable in a

non-black-and-white world.

> To me you are another person or text " thing " , Neither N.T or A.S simply

sharing some commonalities

> however not so different then regularly with others.

Why put so much importance in labels? It is the underlaying traits that

define the labels that are of interest

and not the labels themselves. I don't have a label, so I cannot identify

with it. I identify with Aspie,

because I see it as a value-free concept, while I don't like the DSM AS dx

because it implies a pathology.

Leif

[Guest guest]

,

I agree that people are individuals first and foremost. And that there IS a danger when you get together with a group of like-minded people and start looking down on everyone outside that group.

Archit tried to warn of this too and used his own ethnic minority as an example. From having been repressed by the other peoples in India and looked down on, it cut itself off, emigrated to East Africa and eventually turned into the most racist, superior group of people one can imagine; looking down on everyone else and treating Africans as bad as any European had ever done.

Like him, I see a real danger of this happening to us as well if we are not careful.

As I've written earlier, I first found the NT designation useful for describing what are considered the "normals" of this world, as opposed to us atypical folks. I was also glad to see more and more Aspies realizing they had gifts and abilities too and as much worth as anyone else. But since the word NT has become a derogatory term, I will not use it anymore.

I still think we atypical people ARE different. And often different in similar enough ways that we can successfully communicate with, understand and sympathise with each other, even though we come from many different countries, cultures, religions, professions, social classes, age groups etc. Many of us have not been able to do so with anyone else before, even with our own family members. How can that be explained, if it wasn't for us having a substantial enough number of traits which make it easier to connect with each other than with our own country-men or kin?

But you do have a point about us also being individuals, and the rest of the population being individuals too. Not all 6 billion out there are the same. Some of them like violence, others do not. Some are very compassionate and enlightened, others are not. Just like there are some Aspie who are really bright and friendly, and others who just love to pick a fight and cause trouble.

There are Aspie women who have publicly stated that they really love violence - the sicker, the better! - and Aspie men who have publicly indicated they'd be happy to become a new führer and exterminate everyone who failed to live up to their own twisted standards. Hitler himself may well have been an Aspie. And likely also quite a few serial killers, assassins, rapists, paedophiles, forgerers, hackers and web-trolls. We're not all saints just because we're atypical.

Perhaps that can be good to keep in mind.

Inger

Re: Pseudo Culture

There is the fact however of the subjective nature of the individual. One aspie to another aspie might be completely alien in comparison, that simply being an example of saying the extreme of difference. Whereas one aspie would have more in common with non-aspies however still have A.S.

Personally I have nothing much in common with anyone and regular people are certainly alien to me and I to them.

Alien to represent the general disconnection/difference socially and of being.

Still despite my obvious Aspieness ( a group derivative using the label as its foundation conceptually) I cannot consider them all as N.T's or A.S.

To me you are another person or text "thing", Neither N.T or A.S simply sharing some commonalities however not so different then regularly with others.

It is the mentality of living and being the label, perhaps it is the label acting as the explanation that has made one understand self as something of valid explanation given the unique differences we share. However it seems to have developed into a social philosophy that is rather reality infecting, which is obviously based upon uncertain common agreements collectively.

It's like speaking the slang of a social click, a group or club saying. However not being valid at all and an ingrained group belief it has no validity, fact nor truth. It is a simple construct, constructs are real as a way of identifying a logical model of thought.

The construct is the complex in this explanation.

N.T is what one is typically not.

A.S is what one is typically with a few similarities however more differences then what one realizes of others with A.S.

People are people and not labels in a very diverse world.

Leif Ekblad <leif@...> wrote:

> So it is a compartmentalized system and methodology of interpreting whatothers are in> an unofficial sense.You might call it something like that, but I'm actively studying relevantscience disciplineslike evolutionary psychology and anthropology to create the best systempossible. Nobodyin psychiatry obviously have studied AS from a non-deficit, evolutionarystandpoint.> Introduced by like minds sharing similarities spread and built uponconceptuality and is> perhaps subconsciously derived from ones own experiences with others.I started out with only my own family as an reference, which is built a lotonnatural Aspie behaviors. As I met others, I realized they too conformedlargely to my natural instincts as well.It is a mistake to believe that humans are driven only by culture, and areequalinside. Unless we accept that people are different not only because ofcultureand upbringing, but because of genes, we will never truely understand ASeither.> To feel not normal or rather different and or unable to fit in resulted infinding> others of the alike, the alike then forming groups and philosophies ofthought> emerging, converging and making itself normal to itself.As I wrote above, it really didn't start out like that. I'd been in anatural, autisticfamily almost ten years before I new anything about AS. I think others havesimilar experiences. IOW, this "culture" wasn't created online. It is theway Aspies end up if they follow their natural instincts.> I fear something of this, it is a worry. The NeuroTypical concept and its> conformed social belief of concept subconsciously divide the mind in thereal reality.How is that? Isn't it so that every Aspie that wants to communicate withnon-Aspiesneeds to become divided? I don't see how this can be avoided unless NTslearnto communicate with Aspies in their natural way, but then they will insteadbecomedivided. ;-)Leif

[Guest guest]

Very few seems to be like that. If somebody has more in common withnon-aspies I'd saythe label was put on them wrongly.

Not necessarily as I was diagnosed via the DSM-IV and this social philosophy is not like me or what I see to be logically of. Therefore I am not incorrectly diagnosed for not conforming to it of course, having been referred to from a developmental psychologist experienced with both the deaf culture and persons with developmental differences. I had I.E.P meetings, true and valid differences that protected me under the law under what is called an I.D.E.A in California. So I am not misdiagnosed, that I know for sure.

I would say that most individuals with clinical A.S know nothing of the N.T concept and I do hope they don’t become indoctrinated by it as it is reality changing. The “so called logical” differences of one and with it sharing that with others textually providing the illusion of the group mentality, the culture and its philosophy are quite literally a bunch of wires in an optical illusion <laugh snort>

---

You shouldn't. You could be 90% Aspie and 10% NT. That is acceptable in anon-black-and-white world.

Lets look at this with a bit of balanced rationalism, but then again whose rationality?

The comparative reference of generalized statistics are indifferent to the reality of fact, that being it cannot be held guilty of falsity nor should it be seen as truth. What is aspie and what is not aspie is subject-able to the counter point of individuality and the group’s collective mentality. What is presumed, assumed and collectively of the illusion. Said fairly is the individual complex of the label that has become a social philosophy focusing on differences rather then similarity of the human condition itself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Why put so much importance in labels? It is the underlaying traits thatdefine the labels that are of interestand not the labels themselves. I don't have a label, so I cannot identifywith it. I identify with Aspie,because I see it as a value-free concept, while I don't like the DSM AS dxbecause it implies a pathology.

Aspie is a way of fitting in with the label and its common traits, it becomes a way of relating no more.

Nothing is wrong with pathology. There is nothing wrong with having Asperger’s syndrome.

I’d greatly enjoy understanding or reading an article from the perspective of psychopathology concerning this seemingly simple though complex reverse labeling of N.T.Leif Ekblad <leif@...> wrote:

> There is the fact however of the subjective nature of the individual. Oneaspie to another aspie might be completely alien in> comparison, that simply being an example of saying the extreme ofdifference. Whereas one aspie would have more in common> with non-aspies however still have A.S.Very few seems to be like that. If somebody has more in common withnon-aspies I'd saythe label was put on them wrongly.> Still despite my obvious Aspieness ( a group derivative using the label asits foundation conceptually) I cannot> consider them all as N.T's or A.S.You shouldn't. You could be 90% Aspie and 10% NT. That is acceptable in anon-black-and-white world.> To me you are another person or text "thing", Neither N.T or A.S simplysharing some commonalities> however not so different then regularly

with others.Why put so much importance in labels? It is the underlaying traits thatdefine the labels that are of interestand not the labels themselves. I don't have a label, so I cannot identifywith it. I identify with Aspie,because I see it as a value-free concept, while I don't like the DSM AS dxbecause it implies a pathology.Leif

[Guest guest]

I still think we atypical people ARE different.

What is atypical and whom is atypical?

Inger Lorelei <inglori@...> wrote:

,

I agree that people are individuals first and foremost. And that there IS a danger when you get together with a group of like-minded people and start looking down on everyone outside that group.

Archit tried to warn of this too and used his own ethnic minority as an example. From having been repressed by the other peoples in India and looked down on, it cut itself off, emigrated to East Africa and eventually turned into the most racist, superior group of people one can imagine; looking down on everyone else and treating Africans as bad as any European had ever done.

Like him, I see a real danger of this happening to us as well if we are not careful.

As I've written earlier, I first found the NT designation useful for describing what are considered the "normals" of this world, as opposed to us atypical folks. I was also glad to see more and more Aspies realizing they had gifts and abilities too and as much worth as anyone else. But since the word NT has become a derogatory term, I will not use it anymore.

I still think we atypical people ARE different. And often different in similar enough ways that we can successfully communicate with, understand and sympathise with each other, even though we come from many different countries, cultures, religions, professions, social classes, age groups etc. Many of us have not been able to do so with anyone else before, even with our own family members. How can that be explained, if it wasn't for us having a substantial enough number of traits which make it easier to connect with each other than with our own country-men or kin?

But you do have a point about us also being individuals, and the rest of the population being individuals too. Not all 6 billion out there are the same. Some of them like violence, others do not. Some are very compassionate and enlightened, others are not. Just like there are some Aspie who are really bright and friendly, and others who just love to pick a fight and cause trouble.

There are Aspie women who have publicly stated that they really love violence - the sicker, the better! - and Aspie men who have publicly indicated they'd be happy to become a new führer and exterminate everyone who failed to live up to their own twisted standards. Hitler himself may well have been an Aspie. And likely also quite a few serial killers, assassins, rapists, paedophiles, forgerers, hackers and web-trolls. We're not all saints just because we're atypical.

Perhaps that can be good to keep in mind.

Inger

Re: Pseudo Culture

There is the fact however of the subjective nature of the individual. One aspie to another aspie might be completely alien in comparison, that simply being an example of saying the extreme of difference. Whereas one aspie would have more in common with non-aspies however still have A.S.

Personally I have nothing much in common with anyone and regular people are certainly alien to me and I to them.

Alien to represent the general disconnection/difference socially and of being.

Still despite my obvious Aspieness ( a group derivative using the label as its foundation conceptually) I cannot consider them all as N.T's or A.S.

To me you are another person or text "thing", Neither N.T or A.S simply sharing some commonalities however not so different then regularly with others.

It is the mentality of living and being the label, perhaps it is the label acting as the explanation that has made one understand self as something of valid explanation given the unique differences we share. However it seems to have developed into a social philosophy that is rather reality infecting, which is obviously based upon uncertain common agreements collectively.

It's like speaking the slang of a social click, a group or club saying. However not being valid at all and an ingrained group belief it has no validity, fact nor truth. It is a simple construct, constructs are real as a way of identifying a logical model of thought.

The construct is the complex in this explanation.

N.T is what one is typically not.

A.S is what one is typically with a few similarities however more differences then what one realizes of others with A.S.

People are people and not labels in a very diverse world.

Leif Ekblad <leif@...> wrote:

> So it is a compartmentalized system and methodology of interpreting whatothers are in> an unofficial sense.You might call it something like that, but I'm actively studying relevantscience disciplineslike evolutionary psychology and anthropology to create the best systempossible. Nobodyin psychiatry obviously have studied AS from a non-deficit, evolutionarystandpoint.> Introduced by like minds sharing similarities spread and built uponconceptuality and is> perhaps subconsciously derived from ones own experiences with others.I started out with only my own family as an reference, which is built a lotonnatural Aspie behaviors. As I met others, I realized they too conformedlargely to my natural instincts as well.It is a mistake to believe that humans are driven only by culture, and

areequalinside. Unless we accept that people are different not only because ofcultureand upbringing, but because of genes, we will never truely understand ASeither.> To feel not normal or rather different and or unable to fit in resulted infinding> others of the alike, the alike then forming groups and philosophies ofthought> emerging, converging and making itself normal to itself.As I wrote above, it really didn't start out like that. I'd been in anatural, autisticfamily almost ten years before I new anything about AS. I think others havesimilar experiences. IOW, this "culture" wasn't created online. It is theway Aspies end up if they follow their natural instincts.> I fear something of this, it is a worry. The NeuroTypical concept and its> conformed social belief of concept subconsciously divide the mind in thereal reality.How is that? Isn't it so that every Aspie that wants

to communicate withnon-Aspiesneeds to become divided? I don't see how this can be avoided unless NTslearnto communicate with Aspies in their natural way, but then they will insteadbecomedivided. ;-)Leif

[Guest guest]

All this is simply part of the way the brain works. The brain, like a computer, needs organization or it can't function properly. Very often speed is essential. Imagine one of the ancient ancestors (or yourself for that matter) walking through the woods when an angry bear steps out in front of you. Our organized brain automatically knows bear with sharp pointing teeth is bad so you run away. It does this in an instant, probably just after it sends the command to loose the bowels. If the brain were not organizes and had to search for all those seperate bits about the bear, you'd be dead.

So what comprises "Bear" in the mind? First is appearance: big, hairy, color can change, different kinds of bear, and of course, big teeth and claws. What else is there? Probably tales from other people about bears and what they have witnesses and heard. You might have seen TV shows about bears or in ancient times seens plenty of bears first hand, seen what's left of their kills, or maybe even have seen them kill or maul friends. All of that is under the general heading of "bear". So when "bear" is accessed, all those linked files pop up too. Very handy. If the brain hand to dig around for all those associated files seperately, there might be just enough delay to end up bear chow.

Because this system works so well, it applies to all functions of the brain. Consider it like Windows for the brain (or Linux or what have you). You use the same basis system for everything and all other "programs" link to it. So, you might learn a skill, say pottery, and that is a skill program within the main operating system. Unlike Windows, the basic brain operating system intrudes on all other programs. Therefore, while you are running "pottery" the basic program is supervising and learning too. It can apply the same system as "bear" to pottery allowing you to spot flaws and quality in pottery. This can be done with a glance without conscious thought once the program is established.

The same applies to people. People and nations are put into categories. All people are different but fit into rough Archetypes. This is how we categorize the people we see everyday. There can also be multiple categories, like "family: crazy uncle: (name)" or in my case "family: crazy uncle: y: he's got a beautiful and smart daughter: we are too closely related to marry (shoot): she just got married anyway (oh well)." Its possible to flip through all of that in an instant, much faster than having to dredge up each little bit by itself.

On the other hand, this also allows us to see people and judge them as threats or not, just like the bear. This keeps us safe today, or it tries too anyway. It also pidgeonholes people based on how they present themselves. People make a lot of fuss about this like this is somehow wrong, but I don't see it that way. People choose how they present themselves and if that is how they want to be seen then they should accept judgement accordingly. The good thing about it is that this system is maleable. If you judged someone in a low category at first glance, they can later show that you were wrong and you can recategorize them. Same goes the other way around too. So, it is a fine system, not unlike what business and government uses to judge and assign all of us, usually based on numbers and not our real selves and without easy recourse for reassignment.

NT is much the same. I have two categories of NT. The first is just people who aren't AS and carries no other connotation. I also have Uber-NTs who are the ones who give cause for complaint like: drunkards, rude people, criminals, attention hogs, loud people, etc. Sometimes regular NTs get bumped up to Uber-NTs on a temporary basis, but can be put back down when they decide to behave, though that person't file will be annotated automatically (can't be helped, its in the software managing memory).

Still, most NT behavior is seen as odd, and when we talk about it it can seem that we are disparaging it. Perhaps we are but that is talking about the behavior itself and not the people. Its just how they are. Now the Uber-NTs are the kind of person that even bothers the NTs. They classify those people, and everyone else, as well. Its just the way our brains work.

[Guest guest]

Atypical is anyone who functions differently than the majority. Who have different needs, values and ways of thinking, feeling, perceiving, communicating and doing things.

Inger

Re: Pseudo Culture

There is the fact however of the subjective nature of the individual. One aspie to another aspie might be completely alien in comparison, that simply being an example of saying the extreme of difference. Whereas one aspie would have more in common with non-aspies however still have A.S.

Personally I have nothing much in common with anyone and regular people are certainly alien to me and I to them.

Alien to represent the general disconnection/difference socially and of being.

Still despite my obvious Aspieness ( a group derivative using the label as its foundation conceptually) I cannot consider them all as N.T's or A.S.

To me you are another person or text "thing", Neither N.T or A.S simply sharing some commonalities however not so different then regularly with others.

It is the mentality of living and being the label, perhaps it is the label acting as the explanation that has made one understand self as something of valid explanation given the unique differences we share. However it seems to have developed into a social philosophy that is rather reality infecting, which is obviously based upon uncertain common agreements collectively.

It's like speaking the slang of a social click, a group or club saying. However not being valid at all and an ingrained group belief it has no validity, fact nor truth. It is a simple construct, constructs are real as a way of identifying a logical model of thought.

The construct is the complex in this explanation.

N.T is what one is typically not.

A.S is what one is typically with a few similarities however more differences then what one realizes of others with A.S.

People are people and not labels in a very diverse world.

Leif Ekblad <leif@...> wrote:

> So it is a compartmentalized system and methodology of interpreting whatothers are in> an unofficial sense.You might call it something like that, but I'm actively studying relevantscience disciplineslike evolutionary psychology and anthropology to create the best systempossible. Nobodyin psychiatry obviously have studied AS from a non-deficit, evolutionarystandpoint.> Introduced by like minds sharing similarities spread and built uponconceptuality and is> perhaps subconsciously derived from ones own experiences with others.I started out with only my own family as an reference, which is built a lotonnatural Aspie behaviors. As I met others, I realized they too conformedlargely to my natural instincts as well.It is a mistake to believe that humans are driven only by culture, and areequalinside. Unless we accept that people are different not only because ofcultureand upbringing, but because of genes, we will never truely understand ASeither.> To feel not normal or rather different and or unable to fit in resulted infinding> others of the alike, the alike then forming groups and philosophies ofthought> emerging, converging and making itself normal to itself.As I wrote above, it really didn't start out like that. I'd been in anatural, autisticfamily almost ten years before I new anything about AS. I think others havesimilar experiences. IOW, this "culture" wasn't created online. It is theway Aspies end up if they follow their natural instincts.> I fear something of this, it is a worry. The NeuroTypical concept and its> conformed social belief of concept subconsciously divide the mind in thereal reality.How is that? Isn't it so that every Aspie that wants to communicate withnon-Aspiesneeds to become divided? I don't see how this can be avoided unless NTslearnto communicate with Aspies in their natural way, but then they will insteadbecomedivided. ;-)Leif

[Guest guest]

I dont really understand that. I was told atypical was typical and A.S was not atypical.

Inger Lorelei <inglori@...> wrote:

Atypical is anyone who functions differently than the majority. Who have different needs, values and ways of thinking, feeling, perceiving, communicating and doing things.

Inger

[Guest guest]

Atypical means NON-typical. It's a Greek or Latin prefix. Just like asexual means non-sexual (not interested in sex) and agnostic means "does not know" (does not have gnosis = knowledge).

Typical = common, conforming to the majority.

Atypical = deviating from the standard norm.

Inger

Re: Re: Pseudo Culture

I dont really understand that. I was told atypical was typical and A.S was not atypical.

Inger Lorelei <inglori@...> wrote:

Atypical is anyone who functions differently than the majority. Who have different needs, values and ways of thinking, feeling, perceiving, communicating and doing things.

Inger

[Guest guest]

That’s what I get for reading for a website instead of factual information’s. However I have no books concerning.

I'd say there is no such thing as either or, instead simply differences with no average point of normality. Normality itself is false or so I gathered from Freud.

Abnormality for certain..

Different knowledges, different logics.

Inger Lorelei <inglori@...> wrote:

Atypical means NON-typical. It's a Greek or Latin prefix. Just like asexual means non-sexual (not interested in sex) and agnostic means "does not know" (does not have gnosis = knowledge).

Typical = common, conforming to the majority.

Atypical = deviating from the standard norm.

Inger

Re: Re: Pseudo Culture

I dont really understand that. I was told atypical was typical and A.S was not atypical.

Inger Lorelei <inglori@...> wrote:

Atypical is anyone who functions differently than the majority. Who have different needs, values and ways of thinking, feeling, perceiving, communicating and doing things.

Inger

[Guest guest]

Sure, everyone is unique in their own way, and very likely there is no such thing as normal. But there are certain traits which leading psychiatrist have subjectively decided to call normal just because they are very common, and most Aspies I have communicated with - or who have done our Quiz - seem to deviate more from that subjective norm than those who have not gotten an AS, ADHD, TS, dyslexia etc. dx.

Psychiatry is not an absolute science and never can be. There will always be a cultural and personal bias, much guesswork, generalizing, oversimplifying, and seeing only what one is looking for.

But I believe one can still have use for classifications, and I think the more we learn about ourselves and each other, the better. It is a journey without end.

On this quest I have found everything from classical psychology (especially Maslow and Jungian typology) to astrology, iridology and color analysis a help in getting clues about myself. AS explains a lot, even though it's just an arbitrary label for a specific set of traits. I presently choose to identify myself with it, even though at the same time I know who/what I REALLY am.

I am ME. :-)

Inger

Re: Re: Pseudo Culture

I dont really understand that. I was told atypical was typical and AS was not atypical.

Inger Lorelei <inglori@...> wrote:

Atypical is anyone who functions differently than the majority. Who have different needs, values and ways of thinking, feeling, perceiving, communicating and doing things.

Inger

[Guest guest]

Lief said:

NTto me is a set of behaviors / preferences, and not a set of absent behaviors/ preferences,and thus the term non-autistic is wrong. Non-autistic implies absentautistic behaviors / preferences.I think making a NT-quiz, which positively identifies NT-behaviors /preferences in people,would be a very good complement to the Aspie-quiz. Then a better Aspie-quizcould bea mix of the previous Aspie-quiz and the NT-quiz, the result been degree ofNT and Aspie....................................

I have been learning lots after engaging in lists like this one, and reading on other sites about aspiety, but still is not very clear for me the difference between the two groups.

Like, on the previous topic it was said that the nt women like chocolate and flowers, etc, and aspie women do not, but I did enjoy the times I got these items.

It is also said that aspie people tend to understand each other better, but I do find many differences between aspies themselves and if they are different than what I am it is as hard to understand them as it is to understand regular people.

I also know that nt people also have difficulties getting along with nt, as well as with aspies.

There are so many differences between aspian traits...the quiz itself shows that. Each part of the quiz enphasizes certain areas, and one can score high in one and low in other, and both will be on the autistic thing, but the 'symptoms' will be so different....

Well, in short it seems to me that nowadays I can understand-ie, identify as being aspian or nt- better certain behaviours, either from aspies or non aspies...but at the same time I do find each person so unique, so easy or hard to undertand, love, live with, accept, be freinds, accept...that it matters just a little as to which groups she/he belongs.

Am I losing somehting?

kisses

Marilia

[Guest guest]

>

> There is no such thing as N.T there is you and the rest of the world

and it's people. Then there are those that have general similarities

given a medical label called A.S.

And there are those that have general similarities and given a medical

label called NT.

Lizzie

http://pg.photos./ph/chain3turn/my_photos

http://www.livejournal.com/users/samplerlady/

http://literarylady.blogspot.com/

" To live a creative life, we must lose our fear of being wrong. "

ph Chilton Pierce

[Guest guest]

I have collected all the responses and will respond to them all at one time.

greebohere <julie.stevenson16@...> wrote:

"To feel not normal or rather different and or unable to fit in resulted in finding others of the alike, the alike then forming groups and philosophies of thought emerging, converging and making itself normal to itself."I think to some extent this above is a natural (possibly logical?) conclusion that some of us come to. If I am treat as if I am not normal - If I am called a 'freak' a 'weirdo' etc - so if I find a place where for once I am accepted and not considered a freak - a place where I feel comfortable being me - am I not going to find this place natural - even normal?, to me at least. A place where although all are individuals there seems to be some similar vien of experience - a way of being.Before I knew about autism, AS, aspie, NT and the like - I was very quickly made to realise I did not fit in - I was told I

was not typical and other such things - I made up my own theories from what I observed of people. I held that there was flock mentality - or some may call it herd mentality ;-) and then there were those who seemed seperate to this - thought for thierselves - questioned things - so even without Aspie and NT - I was already dividing the world into two groups - those I could relate to and could relate to me and those that seemed to be worlds apart that I could not understand nor they understand me.

[Guest guest]

I have concluded it is nothing other then a social mentality.

In some cases if you do not fit in or do not comply with its philosophy your considered the N.T. That is to say you are considered % N.T and not the reformed mind of its philosophy. So in a way it is like religion.

It has developed in to sub-classifications when it was supposed to be some kind of parody. I can say for myself that it was more then mildly confusing for a while as I took it VERY literally.

I suppose if one does not comply to its ideology one is not as they are diagnosed or simply not of it?

I do not agree with the N.T labeling, individuals seem to take many tests online. The N.T label is not a real diagnosis it is based upon differences in relation to the whole.

So what exists is self (one) in comparative relation to diagnostic criterion. Essentially it is a diagnostic label becoming the social identity then self and group to another I-Complex (individual Complex, another person)

I am not autism, autistic, aspie or Asperger’s. I am myself not pseudo labels.

I suppose it is like a game in a way perhaps. Or a movie and or fan club sayings as to fit in within a social group.I could use the N.T label but it just doesn’t seem to be logical, it seems as if it is based on polarities of extremes of differences in an obviously non-factual highly subjective though rigid conceptual model.

I don't know what words to use to explain, none seem to match my thought.

I'm nothing like anyone I've ever met even those with similarities.. So I'll go ahead and be the black sheep (the odd one out).

Individuals diagnosed with A.S are called odd so some individuals with A.S call the made up label N.T odd. NeuroTypicals don’t exist however, only people not like one-self.

It's simple reversion.

[Guest guest]

Natron, just curious, are you an Objectivist?

>

> I have concluded it is nothing other then a social mentality.

>

> In some cases if you do not fit in or do not comply with its

philosophy your considered the N.T. That is to say you are considered

% N.T and not the reformed mind of its philosophy. So in a way it is

like religion.

>

> It has developed in to sub-classifications when it was supposed to

be some kind of parody. I can say for myself that it was more then

mildly confusing for a while as I took it VERY literally.

>

> I suppose if one does not comply to its ideology one is not as they

are diagnosed or simply not of it?

>

> I do not agree with the N.T labeling, individuals seem to take many

tests online. The N.T label is not a real diagnosis it is based upon

differences in relation to the whole.

>

> So what exists is self (one) in comparative relation to diagnostic

criterion. Essentially it is a diagnostic label becoming the social

identity then self and group to another I-Complex (individual Complex,

another person)

>

> I am not autism, autistic, aspie or Asperger's. I am myself not

pseudo labels.

>

> I suppose it is like a game in a way perhaps. Or a movie and or fan

club sayings as to fit in within a social group.

>

> I could use the N.T label but it just doesn't seem to be logical, it

seems as if it is based on polarities of extremes of differences in an

obviously non-factual highly subjective though rigid conceptual model.

>

> I don't know what words to use to explain, none seem to match my

thought.

>

> I'm nothing like anyone I've ever met even those with similarities..

So I'll go ahead and be the black sheep (the odd one out).

>

>

>

> Individuals diagnosed with A.S are called odd so some individuals

with A.S call the made up label N.T odd. NeuroTypicals don't exist

however, only people not like one-self.

>

>

>

> It's simple reversion.

>

>

[Guest guest]

No, not really I think of things as many ways as possible without being an "ism" or "otherwise". I just cannot make sense of it (figure it out) and what it means or could mean. I am interested the mentality and it's many interpretations <possibilities> from various angularities of thought.

I have no intent to be negative, its just seems the culture and its terminologies seem not compatible with my mind. This though despite attempting at one point but I couldn’t stop myself from thinking of its concept for such a long period of time.

joe <spaceplayer2112@...> wrote:

Natron, just curious, are you an Objectivist?

[Guest guest]

-

Cool, no offense meant, just curious.

-- In , natronpc

<globalmerchantorg@s...> wrote:

>

> No, not really I think of things as many ways as possible without

being an " ism " or " otherwise " . I just cannot make sense of it (figure

it out) and what it means or could mean. I am interested the mentality

and it's many interpretations <possibilities> from various

angularities of thought.

>

>

>

> I have no intent to be negative, its just seems the culture and its

terminologies seem not compatible with my mind. This though despite

attempting at one point but I couldn't stop myself from thinking of

its concept for such a long period of time.

>

>

>

>

> joe <spaceplayer2112@h...> wrote:

> Natron, just curious, are you an Objectivist?