Re: Pseudo Culture

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

ph Chilton Pierce

August 10, 2005

> The internet is not spoken language it is typed, it is very

different and how I articulate myself here is not the same in REAL

life.

Yes, and it provides a venue for people that have a hard time with

face-to-face exchanges to exchange information. Because we can take

the time to think out what we say, read and edit, we can communicate

more effectively. And for those that have spent much of their life

unable to communicate effectively with spoken words, it is real and

valuable.

Aspies do well in this kind of format.

Deaf people do well with ASL, although some of them can speak and

read lips.

IMHO, it's still real, and thank Goddess it's there!

Lizzie

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

ph Chilton Pierce

August 10, 2005

> The internet is not spoken language it is typed, it is very

different and how I articulate myself here is not the same in REAL

life.

Yes, and it provides a venue for people that have a hard time with

face-to-face exchanges to exchange information. Because we can take

the time to think out what we say, read and edit, we can communicate

more effectively. And for those that have spent much of their life

unable to communicate effectively with spoken words, it is real and

valuable.

Aspies do well in this kind of format.

Deaf people do well with ASL, although some of them can speak and

read lips.

IMHO, it's still real, and thank Goddess it's there!

Lizzie

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

ph Chilton Pierce

August 10, 2005

> The word 'infeasible' is not in my dictionary.

in·fea·si·ble

ADJECTIVE:

Not feasible; impracticable

Lizzie

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

ph Chilton Pierce

August 10, 2005

> The word 'infeasible' is not in my dictionary.

in·fea·si·ble

ADJECTIVE:

Not feasible; impracticable

Lizzie

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

ph Chilton Pierce

August 11, 2005

:-D :-D :-D

Thanks for a good laugh, !

Inger

:

> You know, if an NT is really ticking me off, NT is the last in a long line of things that I could call them. What good is the point of insulting someone if they don't understand what you mean? Calling them a, well use your imagination and a bit of creative mixing of 4-letter words and improbable sexual acots, and there you go, they will understand that. No having to explain the whole NT AS thing to someone you'd rather be punching out.

August 11, 2005

,

as Leif wrote, some of us have actually met. I've met him and Lotta and other Swedish Aspies in Stockholm. I talk to Tom on the phone all the time. I've seen on web-cam. They sure seemed awfully real to me. If none of us were real, we wouldn't be able to read and reply to your words, right?

Inger

Re: Re: Pseudo Culture

It is very much so different then the real life.

It is not the same as real life communications.

The compartive was an example of point view concerning textual realities such as this.

I'd like to think people were real here, but I am using a computer and to me its just text things.

VISIGOTH@... wrote:

In a message dated 8/9/2005 4:08:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

Then I must be dreaming right now. Being part of F.A.M. is an important part of MY real life. If I were not participating in real life at this very moment, then what is it that you imagine I AM doing? My computer is as much a part of my real life as my toothbrush, my clothes, and my lunch!

I agree. We may just be looking at a screen but there are real people on the other side. These messages aren't just coming out of the Ether.

Playing the Sims or something like that is not real and is just the computer. That is assuming that you aren't playing online of course.

August 11, 2005

In a message dated 8/11/2005 6:49:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

I see a clear pattern to your way of thinking now. You seem to assume that YOUR experiences and views are - or should be - universal and the same for all, when they are only representative of how YOU perceive things.

This is not uncommon with AS, though I am not sure it is purely an AS trait.

Maybe Aspies, myself included, tend to think that everyone knows what they know, that everyone has the same knowledge base. This isn't so of course. Many times in the past I have tried to explain things to people and they haven't understood. Other times I have made reference to things or events as part of an explanation with the same result. Even things meant as joked would go over their heads because they were rather arcane.

The same also applies to personal experiences. Aspies likewise can think that everyone has had similiar epxeriences and should be able to relate when we tell them something.

Now, like I said I don't think this is as unigue to AS as the medicos seem to think. Many times I have seen NTs express exasperation when others don't know what they are talking about. They are usually much more expressive about, often "shouting" with their body language: rolling or goggling their eyes, mouth dropping open, slumping at the shoulders, etc.

So this might be a species trait, not just an AS thing.

August 11, 2005

,

I see a clear pattern to your way of thinking now. You seem to assume that YOUR experiences and views are - or should be - universal and the same for all, when they are only representative of how YOU perceive things.

Because of the way YOU are wired, internet communication is not a good medium of communication for YOU. This is very common for what José and Hartmann call the Hunter type, who needs RL interaction for it to feel real.

As a Gatherer type of person, online communication is excellent for me. With my clairsentient abilities, I can not only read your words, I can also perceive some of your energy and mood. That does transmit along with your words, and even more so via your picture. I tend to prefer online communication because RL meetings are rather overwhelming and chaotic and I like to have enough time to think about what I want to say. I also like phone because that gives a closer connection, a swifter exchange of words, and more clues from the other persons vocal inflection, but it is not always that I can use my voice. I'm partially non-verbal.

If I may make a recommendation, it would be for you to start phrasing your views like "That does not make sense to ME. *I* don't think that is logical. *I* don't feel like online communication is real." Then you would actually be more accurate (and logical). ;-)

And not tick so many people off, who may perceive things differently than yourself. And who have every right to hold a different view.

Inger

Re: Re: Pseudo Culture

It is becuase I dont see how your opinion is intergrated in your life. How it is in more of a depth of meaning. The internet is not a good way of figuring others out. I can only reflect via association of self-experience and the subjectivity of the interpretation is great.

Learning what someone means when they say what they say takes time to learn. The internet is not a good medium for this or other types of interest to do with people and opinion. For me other people seem to blend with others online and its just the same.

All things are different with respects to how communications are done.

1. internet is non-sensory other then eyes but its completly different.

2. phone is via distance where the voice is modified by the quality of transmission. However the internet to also has voice chat and video chat but still very different then real life.

3. Real life is real life and the computer is no where near the same. The real life is somehow interacting with others but the PC does not count.

S W <scwmachinations@...> wrote:

,

Let me ask you.

Do you consider phone calls as an auditory thing not to be confused with face to face relations.

Let's face it, the computer has become a part of modern media in order to express oneself.

No less, no more.

I can easily express myself here but not "face to face".

Does that make my opinion less relevant cause its typed?

Shaun.natronpc <globalmerchantorg@...> wrote:

It is very much so different then the real life.

It is not the same as real life communications.

The compartive was an example of point view concerning textual realities such as this.

I'd like to think people were real here, but I am using a computer and to me its just text things.

VISIGOTH@... wrote:

In a message dated 8/9/2005 4:08:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

Then I must be dreaming right now. Being part of F.A.M. is an important part of MY real life. If I were not participating in real life at this very moment, then what is it that you imagine I AM doing? My computer is as much a part of my real life as my toothbrush, my clothes, and my lunch!

I agree. We may just be looking at a screen but there are real people on the other side. These messages aren't just coming out of the Ether.

Playing the Sims or something like that is not real and is just the computer. That is assuming that you aren't playing online of course.

Start your day with - make it your home page

August 11, 2005

> With my clairsentient abilities, I can not only read your words, I

> can also perceive some of your energy and mood. That does transmit

> along with your words, and even more so via your picture.

Me, too! Me, too! I can " read " energy, tone, emotion in on line

responses. I've even read things and pulled back from the screen

much like one would react to someone " stepping up " to them in face

to face situations.

> If I may make a recommendation, it would be for you to start

> phrasing your views like " That does not make sense to ME. *I*

> don't think that is logical. *I* don't feel like online

> communication is real. "

Using " I " messages is a very good way to not cause others to jump in

your face when ideas are expressed. By saying, " I think " , " I

believe " , " I have found ________ to be true " , one takes ownership of

the information and others don't interpret it as the information

being stuffed down their throat or thrown out as a challenge or as

the ultimate and absolute truth.

Nice post, Inger!

Lizzie

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

ph Chilton Pierce

August 11, 2005

Inger,

has a vision and he is expressing it in the only way he knows

how. In another post somewhere he was saying that he was

considering college as a way to learn how to express himself better.

If people don't agree with his viewpoint, they can refute it, or if

they are tired of hearing about it, then they can refrain from

responding.

has very few venues in which he can express his opinions.

While he'd like to see others agree with his vision, has

shown enough reserve that he isn't ramming it down our throats.

It seems that in his most recent posts he is more or less discussing

the concept rather than promoting it. Any discussion which stays

within the bounds of board rules is something I will allow.

Tom

,

I see a clear pattern to your way of thinking now. You seem to

assume that YOUR experiences and views are - or should be -

universal and the same for all, when they are only representative of

how YOU perceive things.

Because of the way YOU are wired, internet communication is not a

good medium of communication for YOU. This is very common for what

José and Hartmann call the Hunter type, who needs RL interaction for

it to feel real.

As a Gatherer type of person, online communication is excellent for

me. With my clairsentient abilities, I can not only read your words,

I can also perceive some of your energy and mood. That does transmit

along with your words, and even more so via your picture. I tend to

prefer online communication because RL meetings are rather

overwhelming and chaotic and I like to have enough time to think

about what I want to say. I also like phone because that gives a

closer connection, a swifter exchange of words, and more clues from

the other persons vocal inflection, but it is not always that I can

use my voice. I'm partially non-verbal.

If I may make a recommendation, it would be for you to start

phrasing your views like " That does not make sense to ME. *I* don't

think that is logical. *I* don't feel like online communication is

real. " Then you would actually be more accurate (and logical). ;-)

And not tick so many people off, who may perceive things differently

than yourself. And who have every right to hold a different view.

August 11, 2005

In a message dated 8/11/2005 3:07:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, globalmerchantorg@... writes:

I do not know who the person is talking to. IF me then I do not think any such ways. Perhaps my logic is to clearly simple and easy to understand if they are?

Might I recommend a book called Flatland?

This book is used to teach geometry but I think there is a good point in it for this situation.

The story begins with this fellow who is a square and lives in a perfectly 2-dimensional world. That is the world literarly has only length and width, no depth. He goes on to explain how thing work in the world and how shapes have a heirarchy. The circle is the perfect shape, but is unobtainable, because succeeding generations of shapes only add more angles and sides so that what looks like a ciricle is just a shape with many, many angles. However, because how many sides you have determines social status and what jobs you can have, parents often take their children to doctors who operate on them to add angles and sides. It rarely is successful and usually leaves the patient insane.

One day our hero hears a voice coming from nowhere. This puzzles and frightens him. He thinks it is God but the voice tells him it isn't. Just then a true smooth circle appears before him and grows. He still does not believe so the circle vanishes and he feels a terrible pain in his innards. The "circle" poked him in his insides.

How did this happen? Because the square wasn't dealing with a circle, but a Sphere, a 3-dimensional object that had been studying square's dimension from above it, as we would look at a piece of paper. Sphere takes square out of square's dimension and shows him the world from above. Very scary and quite a thrill.

Then, the two go to see a one dimensional world. This world was a line, only length existed. The creatures that lived here only knew what was immediately to their right and left and nothing else. Like square, they could not see off of their own dimension and so had no idea about the rest of the universe. They also weren't very intelligent because of thier small surroundings.

Then they go visit a point. A point technically has no dimensions but is just a, well point. There was a creature in there too. It was thinking out loud and and the two listen to its musing. It comtemplates itself in grand, almost godlike terms. Why? Because it is all that exists in its world, it can neither see nor comprehend anything else.

They do not go to higher dimensions because, like square, sphere can't leave his home dimension without help, and to date no one had come from the higher dimensions to visit him.

August 11, 2005

Lida,

It is a short book but does a good job of explaining basic geometry. It is told in the voice of the n era, England. So, so of the ideas and thoughts of the day come through. The book also lampoons some aspects of England of the time. The greatest example of that is square who thinks so highly of himself until sphere comes along and shows him the deeper world.

There was another point to my little story, but I'm waiting to see if anyone notices.

August 11, 2005

I do not know who the person is talking to. IF me then I do not think any such ways. Perhaps my logic is to clearly simple and easy to understand if they are?VISIGOTH@... wrote:

In a message dated 8/11/2005 6:49:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

I see a clear pattern to your way of thinking now. You seem to assume that YOUR experiences and views are - or should be - universal and the same for all, when they are only representative of how YOU perceive things.

This is not uncommon with AS, though I am not sure it is purely an AS trait.

Maybe Aspies, myself included, tend to think that everyone knows what they know, that everyone has the same knowledge base. This isn't so of course. Many times in the past I have tried to explain things to people and they haven't understood. Other times I have made reference to things or events as part of an explanation with the same result. Even things meant as joked would go over their heads because they were rather arcane.

The same also applies to personal experiences. Aspies likewise can think that everyone has had similiar epxeriences and should be able to relate when we tell them something.

Now, like I said I don't think this is as unigue to AS as the medicos seem to think. Many times I have seen NTs express exasperation when others don't know what they are talking about. They are usually much more expressive about, often "shouting" with their body language: rolling or goggling their eyes, mouth dropping open, slumping at the shoulders, etc.

So this might be a species trait, not just an AS thing.

August 11, 2005

>Nathon: "I do not know who the person is talking to." is responding to Inger. Rainbow

August 11, 2005

ok I got to go now it was a lovely day yesterday debating and thinking all day.

Good day."Rainbow ." <rainbow@...> wrote:

>Nathon: "I do not know who the person is talking to."

is responding to Inger.

Rainbow

August 11, 2005

Lida,

Now that you mention it it did have something of a philosophical part to it. If you can find it, it shouldn't be too expensive since it is a short book.

August 11, 2005

Lida,

Now that you mention it it did have something of a philosophical part to it. If you can find it, it shouldn't be too expensive since it is a short book.

August 11, 2005

,

Thank you, I liked that story very much. I will try to obtain 'Flatland'.

Lida

In a message dated 8/11/2005 3:07:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, globalmerchantorg@... writes:

I do not know who the person is talking to. IF me then I do not think any such ways. Perhaps my logic is to clearly simple and easy to understand if they are?

Might I recommend a book called Flatland?

This book is used to teach geometry but I think there is a good point in it for this situation.

The story begins with this fellow who is a square and lives in a perfectly 2-dimensional world. That is the world literarly has only length and width, no depth. He goes on to explain how thing work in the world and how shapes have a heirarchy. The circle is the perfect shape, but is unobtainable, because succeeding generations of shapes only add more angles and sides so that what looks like a ciricle is just a shape with many, many angles. However, because how many sides you have determines social status and what jobs you can have, parents often take their children to doctors who operate on them to add angles and sides. It rarely is successful and usually leaves the patient insane.

One day our hero hears a voice coming from nowhere. This puzzles and frightens him. He thinks it is God but the voice tells him it isn't. Just then a true smooth circle appears before him and grows. He still does not believe so the circle vanishes and he feels a terrible pain in his innards. The "circle" poked him in his insides.

How did this happen? Because the square wasn't dealing with a circle, but a Sphere, a 3-dimensional object that had been studying square's dimension from above it, as we would look at a piece of paper. Sphere takes square out of square's dimension and shows him the world from above. Very scary and quite a thrill.

Then, the two go to see a one dimensional world. This world was a line, only length existed. The creatures that lived here only knew what was immediately to their right and left and nothing else. Like square, they could not see off of their own dimension and so had no idea about the rest of the universe. They also weren't very intelligent because of thier small surroundings.

Then they go visit a point. A point technically has no dimensions but is just a, well point. There was a creature in there too. It was thinking out loud and and the two listen to its musing. It comtemplates itself in grand, almost godlike terms. Why? Because it is all that exists in its world, it can neither see nor comprehend anything else.

They do not go to higher dimensions because, like square, sphere can't leave his home dimension without help, and to date no one had come from the higher dimensions to visit him.

August 11, 2005

What I like is that it seems to me that it is a philosophical story as well, that is what I like about it. Now that you gave more details, I want to read it even more.

Lida

wrote:

Lida,

It is a short book but does a good job of explaining basic geometry. It is told in the voice of the n era, England. So, so of the ideas and thoughts of the day come through. The book also lampoons some aspects of England of the time. The greatest example of that is square who thinks so highly of himself until sphere comes along and shows him the deeper world.

There was another point to my little story, but I'm waiting to see if anyone notices.

August 12, 2005

Lizzie,

Common Sense is usually defined roughly as the ability to know when something is a bad thing to do. Think of it as a little voice inside your head that asks, "are you sure you want to do that?" I was trying to think of personal examples and I know they are there, but none are volunteering at the moment.

August 12, 2005

In a message dated 8/12/2005 7:45:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, ururu@... writes:

I thought that it ís an asperger trait, and that it has to do with 'theory of mind' ?

Lida

Lida,

It is an Asperger trait. I was just explaining that I have seen something similiar in other people as well. Perhaps I was looking at it wrong. Perhaps the others were exasperated that the others didn't know what they did not because they assumed they knew it too, but because they didn't see it as important. The teller would have invested the time and effort to absorb whatever knowledge and might be offended if the others hadn't done so as well.

Perhaps also it is a social thing, a form of bonding or feeling out who belongs. In that class I only got along just so well with the other guys because I wasn't that into sports. When they first talked scores and such to me, they looked at me kind of funny when I didn't know them. After that I was rarely included in most of their chats.

August 12, 2005

> Maybe Aspies, myself included, tend to think that everyone

> knows what they know, that everyone has the same knowledge

> base. This isn't so of course.

Wow! Is this an aspie trait, too? It took me years to understand

that because " I " know something it doesn't mean others know it, too.

I've always equated this with " common sense " . There are certain

things that each person defines as common sense, being defined as

information that is common to all humans. It isn't. It might be

common to a family group, a religious group, or regional group, but

not to all humans.

Or am I taking this too literally?

Lizzie