Re: On success

[Guest guest]

ViridianThumm@... wrote

> As far as your advice above, while the encouragement may be

>appreciated,

>it also seems a bit naive. Especially for those who live on

>assistance/disability.

One could say, " Hey, isn't it great I haven't had my

>utilities cut off this month " , or " Hey, isn't it wonderful I got to feed my

>kid some nutrious meals without having to resort to spam and macarroni and

>cheese " ....not quite the usual barometers of " success " this society of ours

>deems worthy.

>Nanne

As far as I know most of the people with Asperger's do NOT require

assistance as social interactions is their only problem. Now, true, it would

be silly to say it to the extend you are saying. However, its often the case

that you are taking as given something that is NOT to be taken as such. For

instance you might take high marks as given, or going to top school in the

country as given, etc. So sometimes it is helpful to review your thinking

process whether or not you miss out something that is not to be missed out.

Whether its the case that your glass is well-over-half full and you are

concentrating on the small part thats empty. That often happened, at least

in my experience.

Besides making you feel happy, it will also encourage you to hold on to what

you have. One of the mistakes I personally keep making is that when I have

something I think of it as given and do nothing to keep having it. Then,

when I lose it as a consequence, I would no longer think of it as given and

try to think ways of getting it back, but it would be late if not

impossible. For instance I might not care about friends. I might even piss

them off just for a hell of it or simply ignore them. BUT I would realize

that someone was my friend only when I lost that person, etc. So , besides

optimism, saying isn't it great that... would incourage you to hold on to

it.

By the way your example " Hey, isn't it great I haven't had my

utilities cut off this month " is not that silly. Last summer I went to hot

springs in Siera Nevada with Green Tortoise tour and decided to swim there.

When I swam to the middle I decided to see how deep it was, so I started

swimming vertically downwards. Then suddenly I burned my feet which made me

react very quickly to swim upwards as fast as I could. So as I reversed the

dirrection of my swimming very quickly, I dislocated my shoulder. So then I

was thinking " wouldn't it be great if I just didn't decide to swim in hot

springs. How greatful would I be... " But then when surgeon poped my sholder

back in and I could think of it with a bit more objectively, I realized that

if I didn't dislocate my shoulder I wouldn't be greatful about it at all

since it wouldn't have occured to me that I could. So if I *were* greatful

about things that didn't happen, perhaps I would think a bit harder before

taking risks.

POSTED BY FRANK:

>To hell with the normal measures of success in society, I say. They just

>do

>not apply to me. I have never thought that the standard " game show "

>definition

>of a person really means anything-- which is to say age, place of

>residence,

>and source of money. " This is Phil; he's a 29-year old investment banker

>from

>Redondo Beach, California. " Ok... now what do we know about Phil after

>that?

>Is he a good person? Honest or dishonest? Do we have anything in common

>with

>him, in terms of hobbies or interests? None of this seems to matter--

>because

>in NT society, a person is defined by his job.

But the thing is that you seem to postulate that being AS is superior to

being NT. This postulate doesn't work just as the postulate of being NT is

better then being AS didn't. The thing is that you aren't a walking AS

label; you are who you are.

Personally, what worked for me the best is precisely the job. The thing is

that if something would make me, personally, greatful for personal reasons

it would in a sense not be real. After all, the next day I might change my

ming and not like what I liked the previous day. On the other hand, if

something is considered prestigious in our society, it would always be that

way, no matter how I feel. In fact, when you feel depressed, which was the

original topic (re: " Feeling blah " by SkzGirl)

Anyway, since that reply was originally adressed to me, let me tell you

this. I was lucky enough to have my greatest interest coincide with what is

considered prestigious in the society, which isn't a fake at all. In fact, I

had the interest of figuring out how the world works right from early

childhood when I happened to watch a movie on lazers for high school

students. I couldn't understand what they were talking about, so I asked my

father, who was a physicist. When he explained to me some quantum on a

layman's level, I found it counterintuitive (as most people do) and decided

to come up with my own intuitive explanation of it. Then I figured that it

would also make me world-famous-- a lucky coincidence. When I felt a total

disilusionment with physics a couple of years ago due to academic overload,

I felt disilusionment with everything else as well. I was simply feeling

depressed. So physics stayed my top preference, which means your advice

wasn't very applicable.

I hope everyone else could also make their top preferences coincide with

everyone else's top preferences. Otherwise it would feel like you have a

homework to do and here you are, not doing it and having fun instead.

_________________________________________________________________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

[Guest guest]

Roman Sverdlov wrote:

> As far as I know most of the people with Asperger's do NOT require

> assistance as social interactions is their only problem.

Roman, with all due respect, you do not have a clue what you are talking about

here. Social interaction is not the only problem that anyone on the spectrum

has... not by a long shot. I have to admit that I am surprised that anyone

that claims to have AS would think that. You really need to go do some

research before you go making statements like this one. And to say that most

people with AS do NOT require assistance... well, where did you get that

particular statistic? The only statistic I saw on that topic was a UK estimate

that 90% of people with AS cannot hold a job, which I consider to be equally

questionable. A very significant percentage of aspies are on some form of

disability, and those that are not are often grossly underemployed and in

constant danger financially. You have to remember that AS and autism are

spectrum conditions, and that means that a lot of people are going to be less

able to deal with living and working in an NT world than you are.

> So if I *were* greatful

> about things that didn't happen, perhaps I would think a bit harder before

> taking risks.

You could drive yourself nuts with that. I am glad I did not go to the store

today because I might have been hit by a drunk driver. I am grateful I did not

go outside to enjoy the fresh air because I may have been stung by a bee. You

can always invent a hypothetical situation that justifies not doing something.

> POSTED BY FRANK:

> But the thing is that you seem to postulate that being AS is superior to

> being NT.

It is to me. And, for the record, I am more autistic than aspie, best I can

tell.

> This postulate doesn't work just as the postulate of being NT is

> better then being AS didn't.

I can support the premise that the NT brain is obsolete in western society, and

I have in the past. NTs think they are superior because it is in their nature

to think that conformity equals superiority. They make great sheep, and the

plodding masses would not be the same without their hive-mindedness. They are

not logical; they are not innovators; they are not thinkers. Without abnormal

people that think " outside of the box, " they would still be wearing animal

skins and living in caves.

> Personally, what worked for me the best is precisely the job. The thing is

> that if something would make me, personally, greatful for personal reasons

> it would in a sense not be real. After all, the next day I might change my

> ming and not like what I liked the previous day. On the other hand, if

> something is considered prestigious in our society, it would always be that

> way, no matter how I feel. In fact, when you feel depressed, which was the

> original topic (re: " Feeling blah " by SkzGirl)

I am having difficulty determining what you are attempting to say here. Are

you using the consistency of prestige in society to justify striving for goals

that have been placed upon you by the collective, rather than your own? That

is faulty on several levels. First, societal prestige is NOT consistent.

Having a job as an investment banker may have been prestigious in the 1980s,

but in the 1990s, that sort of thing lost a lot of its prestigious position.

This is true for all sorts of status symbols. In the 80s, conspicuous wealth

and consumption was the order of the day; the new rich would buy a flashy car

or ride in a limo to announce to the word that they had arrived. That became

gauche in the 90s, when such flashiness passed out of favor. You cannot count

on anything remaining prestigious.

Further, the idea of striving for what society thinks is " hot " rather than what

you want is really silly. Who are you out to please? NTs get happy when they

please others around them, or if they make others jealous. Their own wants are

so tied up in their desire to fit in and impress others that they cannot tell

what their real interests are. There is no line that demarcates " my wants "

from " society wants " in the NT mind. It sounds very much like you are of this

mindset.

> Anyway, since that reply was originally adressed to me, let me tell you

> this. I was lucky enough to have my greatest interest coincide with what is

> considered prestigious in the society, which isn't a fake at all.

What if it didn't? What if your interest was UNprestigious? According to what

you wrote above, then you would still go for the prestigious rather than what

you want? Or, more insidiously-- is it possible that it was not LUCK that made

your interest coincide with what is prestigious? NTs very typically have their

interests coincide with what is prestigious. SUVs are prestigious in the US

now, and damned if most NTs don't seem to want one. Those are not fake at all

either-- those NTs really do want that which " happens " to be prestigious. If

that which is prestigious changes, they miraculously find that their interest

changes too.

> In fact, I

> had the interest of figuring out how the world works right from early

> childhood when I happened to watch a movie on lazers for high school

> students. I couldn't understand what they were talking about, so I asked my

> father, who was a physicist. When he explained to me some quantum on a

> layman's level, I found it counterintuitive (as most people do) and decided

> to come up with my own intuitive explanation of it. Then I figured that it

> would also make me world-famous-- a lucky coincidence.

And not a thought that autistic people are likely to have. I have no concept

of, nor desire to be, famous. I think it would be a living hell to have people

approach me as if they knew me. I do my best to keep strangers away. I do not

think fame matters much, if at all, to autistic spectrum people.

> When I felt a total

> disilusionment with physics a couple of years ago due to academic overload,

> I felt disilusionment with everything else as well. I was simply feeling

> depressed. So physics stayed my top preference, which means your advice

> wasn't very applicable.

My advice is to do whatever you feel like doing. Of course it is applicable.

> I hope everyone else could also make their top preferences coincide with

> everyone else's top preferences.

That is called being NT. NTs really do genuinely want things that the group

wants. It's not fake... it is real. It is not that they are faking interest

to get group approval (which they do sometimes, but not always)... they are

programmed to want what the group wants. Worker ants really do want to find

food and support the colony. They want whatever the collective dictates they

should want. NTs are no different. They're just as hive-minded as any

hymenaptera.

> Otherwise it would feel like you have a

> homework to do and here you are, not doing it and having fun instead.

That assumes that you are going to capitulate and do what society says anyway,

not follow your interests.

You know, I have written before on how doctors are overinclusive in their

diagnosing of AS. Lots of people have the basic AS traits, but not " enough " of

it to really be considered to be on the spectrum. There is a name for these

people... BAPs, short for broader autism phenotype. They are the people that

have the genetic predilection to be autistic, and who are somewhat

autistic-like in some ways, but are on the NT side of the line. Many of us

that do not have overtly ASD parents have BAP parents. I probably do. On the

spectrum that reaches from the most impaired low-functioning autistics to the

most social, popular NT out there, the line between AS or PDD (the mildest end

of the autism spectrum) and BAP has to be drawn somewhere. Generally, that

standard is clinical significance in terms of deviation from the norm.

Many doctors, though, have been ridiculously zealous in their diagnosing of

AS. Rather than diagnose those that really meet the spirit of the term

" Asperger's Syndrome, " they diagnose anyone that even loosely fits the

profile. Thus, the term AS has been diluted, and many people think of it as

being milder than it really is as a result. This is where ideas like AS only

consisting of social differences come from. This is where ideas like most

people with AS not needing any assistance comes from.

I think you are BAP, not AS. Your writing style has a very NT-ish feel to it,

and your ideas about prestige and all of that are right out of the NT

handbook. There is a distinct " separation from the group " mentality that is

evident in statements by autistic spectrum people, and I do not see that in

your writing. Maybe there was a reason you scored just over half of the group

average on the AQ test. This is not an insult; just a simple statement. I am

usually quite good at picking out people that seem autistically inclined, and I

don't see that in you.

[Guest guest]

>Roman, with all due respect, you do not have a clue what you are talking

>about

>here. Social interaction is not the only problem that anyone on the

>spectrum

>has... not by a long shot.

DSM 4 says " E.There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive

development or in the development of age-appropriate self-help skills,

adaptive behavior

(other than in social interaction), and curiosity about the environment in

childhood "

PLEASE CHECK THIS WEBSITE FOR YOUR REFERENCE:

http://aspergers.com/aspcrit.htm

And to say that most

>people with AS do NOT require assistance... well, where did you get that

>particular statistic? The only statistic I saw on that topic was a UK

>estimate

>that 90% of people with AS cannot hold a job, which I consider to be

>equally

>questionable.

Well, in many sources I read that while autistics in general are severely

disabled, Asperger's is a very special form of autism. They say that people

with Asperger's can hold job, get married, have children and lead a nearly

normal life. In fact they weren't even diagnosed with anything at all before

about 10 years ago.

I also once saw that people with Asperger's are OVER-represented in academia

due to their unique ability to concentrate. In fact Einstein had Asperger's

along with and few others.

You have to remember that AS and autism are

>spectrum conditions, and that means that a lot of people are going to be

>less

>able to deal with living and working in an NT world than you are.

The word " spectrum " means that they are not equally impaired, but rather

fall into the whole range of levels of ability. Asperger's is defined to be

the top end of the spectrum, which means that people with Asperger's are not

too impaired.

>You could drive yourself nuts with that. I am glad I did not go to the

>store

>today because I might have been hit by a drunk driver.

Please don't exagerate what I say. I don't say go drive yourself crazy with

that. All I said was pay attention to big things. I don't drive myself crazy

saying it was great I didn't get under the car. All I did was gave you an

example. I hope you have heard of technique of perswasion by giving an

exaple that tells you to do even more then what was intended. Anyway, here

is what I say. Tell yourself how great it is you hold a job. OK?

> > This postulate doesn't work just as the postulate of being NT is

> > better then being AS didn't.

>

>I can support the premise that the NT brain is obsolete in western society,

>and

>I have in the past. NTs think they are superior because it is in their

>nature

>to think that conformity equals superiority.

Okay. *In western society* people think chierarchially: if you have two

options, one is superior to the other. Either NT is superior to AS or AS is

superior to NT. You didn't like the western concept that NT is superior to

AS, so, in a very western thought manner, you picked the opposite: AS is

superior to NT. All I say, don't fight western manner with western manner

itself. Go sideways. Say neither of the two is superior or inferior. You

seem to keep saying that every single thing applicable to AS is applicable

to everyone on the list and everything that is so called NT is just

bullshit. Why? The world doesn't consist of walking AS labels and walking NT

labels. Each is individual. And remember, AS is NOT Down's. There is no

single cause for autism/ Asperger's and there is no typical autistic or

aspergerian. Thats what AQ test demonstrates: everyone has some autistic

symptoms and noone has all. Its just the matter of how much and how little.

So why just imply that all NT ways are bullshit just because we happened to

be in AS list. To anybody on this list NT ways will be more applicable in

some respects while AS ways in most other respects. I have just shared my

experience and thought it could be helpful. If its not applicable to you,

then no one is forcing you to do it.

They make great sheep, and the

>plodding masses would not be the same without their hive-mindedness. They

>are

>not logical; they are not innovators; they are not thinkers.

A typical western way of bashing who are different from you and what you

don't understand. Racists say that blacks aren't thinkers, too. Yes, I am

aware that Einstein had Asperger's and some others. But its not exclusive.

Just think of it this way: how come it happened that Asperger's produces

Einsteins instead of us being more lucky and get the majority of Einsteins

by having NT produce Einsteins? Well, because if NT produced Einsteins, then

the first Einstein would produce something really great, while the rest

would come up with the same thing that the first one came up, so that they

wouldn't be Einsteins any more. So may be thats what happens. NTs are just

as good Einsteins as Einstein; but what they come up with is in line with

what others came up with, so its viewed as a normal common sense instead of

something great. On the other hand, what Einstein comes up with is something

nobody before him ever came up with. Thus, on one hand, he is viewed to lack

" common sense " while on the other hand he is viewed as such a great man to

come up with relativity. But really, what he came up with is just an

equivalent to common sense. Its neither better nor worse on objective

grounds. Likewise, if for instance, on Mars the majority were autistics,

then autistics would be viewed as normals while so called NTs would be

Einsteins there, that is, geniouses without common sense. But really, the

two are just equivalence with neither being superior or inferior to the

other. No reason to bash the other side.

>I am having difficulty determining what you are attempting to say here.

>Are

>you using the consistency of prestige in society to justify striving for

>goals

>that have been placed upon you by the collective, rather than your own?

SURE.

>First, societal prestige is NOT consistent.

At least more consistent then likes or dislikes of one person: you. You

might like something and then in a year regreat about it. On the other hand

for society it would take decades to change its mind.

>Having a job as an investment banker may have been prestigious in the

>1980s,

>but in the 1990s, that sort of thing lost a lot of its prestigious

>position.

At least my job: theoretical physicist, would be prestigious for centuries.

Once again, I am not saying that you all should be physicist; I am just

trying to give bits and pieces of my own experience and you can take or

leave any part of it.

Their own wants are

>so tied up in their desire to fit in and impress others that they cannot

>tell

>what their real interests are.

Okay, accidentally when I said " In fact, when you feel depressed, which was

the

original topic (re: " Feeling blah " by SkzGirl) " I accidentally erased what I

said afterwards. What I meant to say was the following. WHEN YOU FEEL

DEPRESSED YOU LACK YOUR OWN INTERESTS AND THE PRESTIGE WOULD BE THE MAIN

FACTOR THAT WOULD KEEP ME UP. So lets say this: SkzGirl asked for advice on

how to fight her depression so I told her what is applicable for DEPRESSION.

Otherwise, sure, you have your own interest and prestige isn't needed for

satisfaction. In fact I remember very well how in my high school years I

would derive satisfaction just by understanding the textbook, which I didn't

even share with anyone. But WHEN YOU ARE DEPRESSED, its never the case, at

least in my experience.

I mean if not prestige, I would have dropped out of school when I felt I was

losing it. And then what would I do? I didn't have any interests more

pronounced than physics. Never. So there would be no substitute that would

be less prestigious and yet more interesting. I would simply lose all the

desires at all and never get out of that state.

I mean think about it: a lot of you went to college. College takes normally

4 years or so. Was there anything in your life you would pursue for FOUR

YEARS, and then choose to go to yet another FOUR YEARS do your Ph.D?

Prestige is what keeps you going, really. Its very UN-prestigious to fail or

drop out of school, thats why so few people do that. Sure, it IS your

interest. In fact, don't people CHOOSE what they want to specialize in?

However, even though they chose to work in their fields, profs have to grade

their assignments. Why? Because they know that students themselves wouldn't

have enough will power to CONSISTENTLY pursue something, no matter how

interesting. And in fact I am very thankful to profs who never got off my

back with their homework and frustrated me at that time. Why? Because due to

their pressures I managed to learn enough physics to contemplate about

paradoxes in quantum WHICH I AM VERY CURIOUS ABOUT. NOT JUST PRESTIGE. BUT

INTELLECTUAL CURIOCITY. I WANT TO KNOW HOW THINGS WORK. I AM DISTURBED BY

THAT SHRODINGER'S CAT, EPR EXPERIMENT, ETC. I WANT TO FIND WAYS TO

UNDERSTAND IT. But without the motivation of the prestige I wouldn't be able

to get that INTELLECTUAL satisfaction since I wouldn't push myself through

those middle steps.

> Or, more insidiously-- is it possible that it was not LUCK that made

>your interest coincide with what is prestigious?

No, actually it is luck. When I was little I was obsessed with asking my

father different questions about physics before I ever had any idea that

there is anything for ME to discover and be famous with. Even at the stage

when I though my father was all knowing and could answer everything I ask

(which would mean there is nothing for me to do) I was still asking.

In fact, one of my main problems with Asperger's was that on lectures i

would interrupt with questions. Or I would ask other people things that are

rather private and inappropriate to ask. All this is very UN-prestigious, in

fact even inappropriate, and yet I did it.

>And not a thought that autistic people are likely to have.

You forgot the word " most " . Autistics are all different.

Worker ants really do want to find

>food and support the colony. They want whatever the collective dictates

>they

>should want. NTs are no different. They're just as hive-minded as any

>hymenaptera.

Well, how comes then different NTs choose different areas to major in in

college, different jobs, etc? I mean sure, prestige is one of the factors.

But there are other factors. If you just get out on the street and look you

will find different NTs have different likes and dislikes, etc. They aren't

just robots.

>

>I think you are BAP, not AS.

Let me go step by step on that DSM 4 link that I gave you and show how I

HAVE AS.

PART A (only 2 is needed, but I have all 4)

A1. My voice is monotone. It often lowd especially when I am excited. I

often point to people to get their attention, start jumping when I want to

interrupt and we happend to stand. I would also sometimes come to people too

close when I am too involved in an argument.

A2. I never had any friends and don't even know many names of people around

me. For instance I only know a couple of students in my class by their

names. Especially back in Russia (before I was 14) I was teased a lot. I

also have difficulty initiating or pursuing a conversation. For instance

when I am at a party I don't know how to approach people just to say how

they are doing. When they approach me, which is rather rare, I don't know

how to keep up with an ordinary conversation. Like for instance when they

told me what they study, and I tell them what I do, I don't know what else

is there to ask or say.

A3. The consequence of A2. If I don't have friends there is nobody I would

share achievement with.

A4.When I want to ask people questions I would ask whether or not they have

time to answer. I would keep asking over and over untill I get the

satisfactory answer. That is, a logical layed out explanation of what I am

trying to understand. People often find it annoyind.

PART B (only one is needed; I have exactly one)

B1.

When I was little I was interested in exploring basements. Since in Russia

there was no electronics I was interested in calculators when I came to US.

I would try to divide 1 by 0 on different calculators and see what each

would give. I also was interested in medicine and for instance would ask

people what meds they were taking and why. I was interested in eye exams. So

I made a program on graphing calculator that tested peoples vision by

drawing letter X and Y on different scales and I was asking whether it was X

or Y. I mostly used it in the calculus course that I took in college while

still being Freshman in high school. Thats because I knew all the material

and found the course too easy for me and boring. So I would disrupt the

class to test others students vision when I am too bored. More recent

preoccupation was with mental illnesses which was a consequence of my

learning my diagnosis.

Right now of course none of the above is applicable any more BUT I am

preoccupied with studying. I was studying math and Physics ahead of the

program so that for instance I first learned derivatives and integrals when

I was still 13 years old. I graduated from high school one year early,

despite that I was taking college level math and physics while still in high

school which made it more difficult to fulfil requirenments. Then I

graduated from college one year early with double major in Physics and Math

and having had 4 physics graduate courses and 4 math graduate courses before

I graduated.

B2,B3, and B4) NOT APPLICABLE. BUT since I have B1 and only one is

sufficient for B, I have the whole B.

C-F) Sure. All they say is that I shouldn't have some of the problems I

don't have.

So the bottom line is that I meet the criteria and therefore I have

Asperger's.

Your writing style has a very NT-ish feel to it,

>and your ideas about prestige and all of that are right out of the NT

>handbook.

DSM 4 is a definition. The rest is just how often or how rare it applies to

those people who meet or don't meet a criteria and therefore have or not

have a disease. Based on DSM 4, I have Asperger's. Thats a fact.

_________________________________________________________________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

[Guest guest]

Roman Sverdlov wrote:

>

> >Roman, with all due respect, you do not have a clue what you are talking

> >about

> >here. Social interaction is not the only problem that anyone on the

> >spectrum

> >has... not by a long shot.

>

> DSM 4 says " E.There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive

> development or in the development of age-appropriate self-help skills,

> adaptive behavior

> (other than in social interaction), and curiosity about the environment in

> childhood "

And the lack of a significant delay means that all is normal? There are a lot

more aspects to a person's mind than those. All aspies I know of have

differences in social communications, self-image, communication, reaction to

stress, restricted patterns of interest, et cetera. You're not going to find

the nature of a typical person with AS in the DSM. Go and get to know a few

aspies well, and you will find that the differences are in every area of being,

not just in the social areas.

> And to say that most

> >people with AS do NOT require assistance... well, where did you get that

> >particular statistic? The only statistic I saw on that topic was a UK

> >estimate

> >that 90% of people with AS cannot hold a job, which I consider to be

> >equally

> >questionable.

>

> Well, in many sources I read that while autistics in general are severely

> disabled, Asperger's is a very special form of autism. They say that people

> with Asperger's can hold job, get married, have children and lead a nearly

> normal life. In fact they weren't even diagnosed with anything at all before

> about 10 years ago.

Some can, some can't. Some can get a job, but not hold it; others can get a

job, but not one that pays enough to live on. Also, the term " Asperger's

Syndrome " was coined in 1987, and there have been people diagnosed with that

starting then, seven years before it made it into the DSM. Before AS, they were

diagnosed as having all sorts of other things... ADD/ADHD, OCD, sometimes

disorganized schizophrenia, or any number of things that also do not fit.

> I also once saw that people with Asperger's are OVER-represented in academia

> due to their unique ability to concentrate. In fact Einstein had Asperger's

> along with and few others.

Sure, but that does not work in the inverse. Even if 75% of academia are aspie

(which is wildly exaggerated), that does not mean that most aspies have jobs.

> The word " spectrum " means that they are not equally impaired, but rather

> fall into the whole range of levels of ability. Asperger's is defined to be

> the top end of the spectrum, which means that people with Asperger's are not

> too impaired.

That is not the intent of an autistic spectrum disorder. Those that are not

" too " impaired are BAP, as I have described. AS was intended to be a severe

condition when Lorna Wing coined the term (as I mentioned) in 1987.

> Please don't exagerate what I say. I don't say go drive yourself crazy with

> that. All I said was pay attention to big things. I don't drive myself crazy

> saying it was great I didn't get under the car.

Your example of not swimming in a hot spring because you might dive down and

burn your foot and dislocate your shoulder swimming away is not any less crazy

than the examples I gave.

> I hope you have heard of technique of perswasion by giving an

> exaple that tells you to do even more then what was intended. Anyway, here

> is what I say. Tell yourself how great it is you hold a job. OK?

I don't.

> Okay. *In western society* people think chierarchially: if you have two

> options, one is superior to the other. Either NT is superior to AS or AS is

> superior to NT. You didn't like the western concept that NT is superior to

> AS, so, in a very western thought manner, you picked the opposite: AS is

> superior to NT.

I make no effort to disguise my disdain for the way NTs think. I like the way

my kind thinks; I prize logic and accuracy and the ability to disconnect the

emotions when making rational decisions. NTs are impaired in these areas.

> Say neither of the two is superior or inferior. You

> seem to keep saying that every single thing applicable to AS is applicable

> to everyone on the list and everything that is so called NT is just

> bullshit. Why?

That was your interpretation. You seem to be the one saying that people with

AS can work, people with AS can do this or that, as if they are all the same.

I am the one that is arguing with you that not all are the same.

> The world doesn't consist of walking AS labels and walking NT

> labels. Each is individual. And remember, AS is NOT Down's. There is no

> single cause for autism/ Asperger's

You know this for sure? I have no idea what the cause is, other than the

rather notable genetic factor.

> and there is no typical autistic or

> aspergerian. Thats what AQ test demonstrates: everyone has some autistic

> symptoms and noone has all. Its just the matter of how much and how little.

There are stereotypical presentations, but there is also a lot of heterogeneity

within the spectrum. However, certain core things are nearly universal, in my

experience. I have communicated with many, many people with AS via email, and

several in person. There are common threads.

> So why just imply that all NT ways are bullshit just because we happened to

> be in AS list.

I am an unabashed proponent of the ways of my own kind-- that is why. If I am

seeming to imply that NT ways are bullshit, then I have made an error. Let me

correct it. NT ways are bullshit. Now I said it overtly; it is no longer

implied. <g>

> They make great sheep, and the

> >plodding masses would not be the same without their hive-mindedness. They

> >are

> >not logical; they are not innovators; they are not thinkers.

>

> A typical western way of bashing who are different from you and what you

> don't understand.

Oh, I am not bashing them because they are different. I could not care less

that they are different. I have no concern for them. Most of them are no more

than ambulatory objects to me... different, same, alive, inanimate... I am not

going to waste my time hating anyone for being different.

> Racists say that blacks aren't thinkers, too.

Yes, but that is not based in neurology-- it is based in ideology. Now,

understand, I am coming from the standpoint that the AS/vHFA manner is

normative. We tend to be very analytical and think about things a whole lot

more than NTs. I have often been told that I think too much. Anyone that can

conceptualize " thinking too much " is not a thinker, almost by definition.

Compared to dogs or pigs or bumblebees, NTs are thinkers. Compared to aspies,

they are not.

> Yes, I am

> aware that Einstein had Asperger's and some others. But its not exclusive.

> Just think of it this way: how come it happened that Asperger's produces

> Einsteins instead of us being more lucky and get the majority of Einsteins

> by having NT produce Einsteins? Well, because if NT produced Einsteins, then

> the first Einstein would produce something really great, while the rest

> would come up with the same thing that the first one came up, so that they

> wouldn't be Einsteins any more. So may be thats what happens. NTs are just

> as good Einsteins as Einstein; but what they come up with is in line with

> what others came up with, so its viewed as a normal common sense instead of

> something great. On the other hand, what Einstein comes up with is something

> nobody before him ever came up with. Thus, on one hand, he is viewed to lack

> " common sense " while on the other hand he is viewed as such a great man to

> come up with relativity.

Einstein perseverated on physics; normal people perseverate on social functions

and sports and other such things. Einstein had a logical, analytical mind; he

was unconstrained by the bounds of what was accepted. It would be doubtful

that an NT mind would have come up with relativity.

> But really, what he came up with is just an

> equivalent to common sense. Its neither better nor worse on objective

> grounds. Likewise, if for instance, on Mars the majority were autistics,

> then autistics would be viewed as normals while so called NTs would be

> Einsteins there, that is, geniouses without common sense. But really, the

> two are just equivalence with neither being superior or inferior to the

> other. No reason to bash the other side.

If you call discussion of the differences bashing, then so be it. If my

opinion that one is better than the other is bashing, then I suppose I am. In

the broader sense, though, I am doing the exact same thing that the NT

researchers do to ASD types. They " bash " us by talking about all of our

deficits and impairments, all from a very NT perspective. Yes, I admit-- we

make pretty piss-poor NTs. And they make poor autistics. I make no apology

for being partisan on the issue.

> >First, societal prestige is NOT consistent.

>

> At least more consistent then likes or dislikes of one person: you. You

> might like something and then in a year regreat about it. On the other hand

> for society it would take decades to change its mind.

Not always. Watershed incidents can change societal opinion overnight.

However, consistency is not relevant... I have no interest in doing things

because the humans on the planet think it is peachy.

> Okay, accidentally when I said " In fact, when you feel depressed, which was

> the

> original topic (re: " Feeling blah " by SkzGirl) " I accidentally erased what I

> said afterwards. What I meant to say was the following. WHEN YOU FEEL

> DEPRESSED YOU LACK YOUR OWN INTERESTS AND THE PRESTIGE WOULD BE THE MAIN

> FACTOR THAT WOULD KEEP ME UP.

And that is why I said I think you are not on the spectrum. No aspie I know

gives a rat's posterior about prestige. Prestige is the most NT of concepts;

even if I skip the value judgment, it is undeniable that prestige is not

something that autistics really care about.

> So lets say this: SkzGirl asked for advice on

> how to fight her depression so I told her what is applicable for DEPRESSION.

Who is this Skzgirl?

> Otherwise, sure, you have your own interest and prestige isn't needed for

> satisfaction. In fact I remember very well how in my high school years I

> would derive satisfaction just by understanding the textbook, which I didn't

> even share with anyone. But WHEN YOU ARE DEPRESSED, its never the case, at

> least in my experience.

Ok, I understand what you are getting at now, but I am here to tell you that

prestige does not matter a whit to autistics in general.

> I mean if not prestige, I would have dropped out of school when I felt I was

> losing it. And then what would I do? I didn't have any interests more

> pronounced than physics. Never. So there would be no substitute that would

> be less prestigious and yet more interesting. I would simply lose all the

> desires at all and never get out of that state.

And that is precisely what happened to me when I got depressed. That is what

happens to a lot of us when we get depressed. That is why your " pull yourself

up with your bootstraps " approach fails frequently, probably especially with

autistic spectrum folks. If our own perseveration is not strong enough to

break through the depression, certainly prestige is not. Prestige means

absolutely NOTHING to me. It is a social relatedness concept, and I have no

idea why anyone would care about whether something was prestigious, " cool, "

fashionable, " in, " or any of that. I am interested in what I am interested in,

and I have no real perception as to whether others like my topic, or whether

they care. It just is not an issue.

> I mean think about it: a lot of you went to college. College takes normally

> 4 years or so. Was there anything in your life you would pursue for FOUR

> YEARS, and then choose to go to yet another FOUR YEARS do your Ph.D?

> Prestige is what keeps you going, really.

Not the people on this list, if I may take the liberty to speak for them. I

have no idea what motivates NTs. For the autistics I have known (and I include

aspies in that), it is perseverative interest and/or ambition that makes it

work. I only went to college because I was given a choice of college or work

when I finished high school, and school was much more like what I was used to

than was work. I dislike change, so I stuck with what I knew.

> Its very UN-prestigious to fail or

> drop out of school, thats why so few people do that.

Oh, I had no problem telling anyone that I was on academic probation from

failing so many classes, and I have no concern telling anyone I dropped out.

Maybe this is a factor for NTs; I do not know, never having been one. It was

not for me. I got lousy grades in classes I did not like (in other words, the

un-prestigious nature of failure was not a motivating factor); I got very good

grades in classes in which I was interested. I got 114% in my California

Geology class, for example; I did extra credit when I knew that an A+ was a

lock anyway. My only motivating factor was my interest. I had no ambition, so

I tended to fail classes in which I had no interest. I think that ambition is

what gets autistics through those non-interesting classes.

> Sure, it IS your

> interest. In fact, don't people CHOOSE what they want to specialize in?

Yes, but don't forget that a part of my argument was that NTs cannot tell their

own wants and desires from those that have been dictated by the collective. As

one list member wisely put it, talking about advertising: " You tell an NT he

wants something, and sure enough, he wants it. "

> However, even though they chose to work in their fields, profs have to grade

> their assignments. Why? Because they know that students themselves wouldn't

> have enough will power to CONSISTENTLY pursue something, no matter how

> interesting.

They would if they were autistic and were perseveratively interested in it. It

seems that you d not understand the power of perseverative interest. My

Cal-geo grade of 114% is testament to that.

> And in fact I am very thankful to profs who never got off my

> back with their homework and frustrated me at that time. Why? Because due to

> their pressures I managed to learn enough physics to contemplate about

> paradoxes in quantum WHICH I AM VERY CURIOUS ABOUT. NOT JUST PRESTIGE. BUT

> INTELLECTUAL CURIOCITY. I WANT TO KNOW HOW THINGS WORK. I AM DISTURBED BY

> THAT SHRODINGER'S CAT, EPR EXPERIMENT, ETC. I WANT TO FIND WAYS TO

> UNDERSTAND IT. But without the motivation of the prestige I wouldn't be able

> to get that INTELLECTUAL satisfaction since I wouldn't push myself through

> those middle steps.

But a perseverating autistic would. Einstein did not have a college professor

pushing him to figure out relativity. That pressure came from within,

entirely. I have spent every waking hour for weeks perseverating on things

like that... analyzing, researching, diagramming, thinking... often forgetting

meals and other things that I would otherwise do. That is what I mean when I

say NTs are not thinkers. They do not want to think too much about things EVEN

THAT THEY ARE INTERESTED IN unless there is some outside pressure.

> No, actually it is luck. When I was little I was obsessed with asking my

> father different questions about physics before I ever had any idea that

> there is anything for ME to discover and be famous with. Even at the stage

> when I though my father was all knowing and could answer everything I ask

> (which would mean there is nothing for me to do) I was still asking.

Ok, point taken.

> >And not a thought that autistic people are likely to have.

>

> You forgot the word " most " . Autistics are all different.

It was accurate as-is. I said " likely, " not " going. "

> Well, how comes then different NTs choose different areas to major in in

> college, different jobs, etc? I mean sure, prestige is one of the factors.

> But there are other factors. If you just get out on the street and look you

> will find different NTs have different likes and dislikes, etc. They aren't

> just robots.

I know, but the social pressures play a large part in NT likes, disli. One of

the core features of the autistic mind is the lack of the social connection.

The disconnection from the collective is what defines autism, and that includes

AS. Prestige is not something that someone that is autistic ( " aut- " meaning

self, and " -istic " meaning something like concern for... if anyone knows a more

accurate translation, please feel free to interject it here.)

> A1. My voice is monotone. It often lowd especially when I am excited. I

> often point to people to get their attention, start jumping when I want to

> interrupt and we happend to stand. I would also sometimes come to people too

> close when I am too involved in an argument.

DSM for AS, part A1: " marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal

behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and

gestures to regulate social interaction "

I do not see how your description above satisfies this.

> A2. I never had any friends and don't even know many names of people around

> me.

Ok.

> A3. The consequence of A2. If I don't have friends there is nobody I would

> share achievement with.

The point of A3 is to get to the lack of social connectedness, and if you even

have a concept of prestige, I would say that you feel more socially connected

than someone that would fail to meet this one. Maybe you would have shared if

you had friends.

> A4.When I want to ask people questions I would ask whether or not they have

> time to answer. I would keep asking over and over untill I get the

> satisfactory answer. That is, a logical layed out explanation of what I am

> trying to understand. People often find it annoyind.

A4 is " a lack of social or emotional reciprocity. " I do not think the above

qualifies.

> B1.

> When I was little I was interested in exploring basements. Since in Russia

> there was no electronics I was interested in calculators when I came to US.

> I would try to divide 1 by 0 on different calculators and see what each

> would give. I also was interested in medicine and for instance would ask

> people what meds they were taking and why. I was interested in eye exams. So

> I made a program on graphing calculator that tested peoples vision by

> drawing letter X and Y on different scales and I was asking whether it was X

> or Y. I mostly used it in the calculus course that I took in college while

> still being Freshman in high school. Thats because I knew all the material

> and found the course too easy for me and boring. So I would disrupt the

> class to test others students vision when I am too bored.

None of this says that the interests were abnormal in intensity or focus. This

is getting at perseveration, and as I indicated above, you do not seem to

really " get " perseveration. If you did, you would understand that it would

motivate more than prestige does to an NT, let alone to an autistic.

> More recent

> preoccupation was with mental illnesses which was a consequence of my

> learning my diagnosis.

Everybody has interests... even preoccupations sometimes. However, that does

not mean they have perseverative interests like autistics do. I do not get the

impression that you understand what I am talking about.

> Right now of course none of the above is applicable any more BUT I am

> preoccupied with studying.

Usually there is only one interest at a time in autistics. It lasts as long as

it lasts; it could be a week, or it could be a lifetime. But for that time,

nothing else matters much. Once it is over, it is over. It can recur; I have

several that have recurred more than once. But it is not the same as getting

" into " anything you do. It is something that prevents much interest in

anything else. It is very different than what you seem to have. You seem to

be a person that gets " into " things when he does them. That's concentration,

not perseveration.

> B2,B3, and B4) NOT APPLICABLE. BUT since I have B1 and only one is

> sufficient for B, I have the whole B.

>

> C-F) Sure. All they say is that I shouldn't have some of the problems I

> don't have.

C is the one designed to keep BAPs from being diagnosed as AS. It is really a

hard one, since many doctors use it to exclude people that are successfully

married or who have good jobs, which is inaccurate. The gist of this criterion

is that it should be more profound a difference than just being an

autistic-like personality.

> So the bottom line is that I meet the criteria and therefore I have

> Asperger's.

Well, I do not think that you fit the intent of the requirements. You can

" make " a lot of diagnoses fit. I once looked at the criteria for

schizo-affective disorder, and you can " make " those criteria fit me

(disorganized type) if you try. That does not make it so. The AS definition

in the DSM is problematic; expect it to change notably in the next DSM. There

is a lot of controversy over the DSM criteria for AS, and the delineation from

autism.

> Your writing style has a very NT-ish feel to it,

> >and your ideas about prestige and all of that are right out of the NT

> >handbook.

>

> DSM 4 is a definition. The rest is just how often or how rare it applies to

> those people who meet or don't meet a criteria and therefore have or not

> have a disease. Based on DSM 4, I have Asperger's. Thats a fact.

Based on DSM-IV, I have schizo-affective disorder in the same way. That's not

a fact. The criteria are just one part of the question. That's why there are

all sorts of complicated diagnostic scales, lists of traits that indicate or

contraindicate AS, often lengthy visits to make a dx. If it was always as

simple as getting out a checklist and marking three boxes, we could be

diagnosed by mail. I have spent countless hours analyzing whether I am

high-functioning autistic (HFA) or AS... I meet the autism criteria easily in

the DSM, though. You have to have six of twelve traits AND significant

language or social abnormality in years 0-3 to be autistic, and I have ten of

the traits, and a whole lot of stuff before I was three (that looks very

classically autistic). Still, I spent months analyzing myself, scouring every

source of data I could find, to see if I really am HFA. The conclusion I came

to is that I am. If I believed the DSM was enough, I would not have bothered

with all of that.

[Guest guest]

>

\

> I mean think about it: a lot of you went to college. College takes

normally

> 4 years or so. Was there anything in your life you would pursue for FOUR

> YEARS, and then choose to go to yet another FOUR YEARS do your Ph.D?

> Prestige is what keeps you going, really.

To interject here ... I persevered through six years of grad school because

(a) I love astronomy and from age eight I always knew it was what I wanted

to do professionally, ( there was nothing better to do with my life at

the time, and © I wasn't mature enough to move out into the " real world " .

Doug

[Guest guest]

Roman...

In your perseverative researchings into mental illness, did you

come across one termed phallicephaly? I think you present a very

good case for the official recognition of that diagnosis, personally.

CZ

[Guest guest]

, you seem to be saying that NTs can't get out of their box while

aspies can. But think of it that way: NTs claim that aspies are the ones who

can't get out of their boxes. So if the whole picture is so symmetric, how

do you know who is right and who is wrong among them?

I think that everyone is constrained by something. In fact in set theory

itself there is a theorem that you can't prove consistancy of set theory;

and set theory is the basics of mathematics. You have to ACCEPT FOR GIVEN

something which is called " model " , that is, a box within which you work in.

Unless you can violate the whole math, that would apply to everyone, whether

AS or NT or whatever.

I THINK THAT NT VS AUTISTIC " CONTROVERSY " IS JUST OF THAT SERT. Autistics

have one box, while NTs have another box. Neither of the two parties sees

their own box. Thats impossible since to see your box you have to get out of

it. On the other hand each sees the other party box. Thus each sees itself

superior to the other. But really they are stand on equivalent grounds.

To give you another example. Imagine people in the matrix are made to feel

that they put the other group of people into the matrix. Besides that, they

are made to feel that they made the other group feel how they put the

original group into the matrix and make it feel all that. In this scenario

neither of the groups can say who is right and who is wrong. Each would see

itself right and the other wrong, but if each thinks a bit harder it would

find it has no grounds for this prejudice.

A better example would be that they are both inside the two different

matrices and each makes each group think it puts the other in the matrix.

Thats what is happening between AS and NT. They both have their own matrix

and realize only the matrix of the other. But the truth is that not only

they have a matrix, but they wouldn't be able to operate outside of it since

it. Neither NTs nor aspies can think outside of the box-- thats mathematical

fact.

On any event, I think it was a good point that most of the people in

academia are normal-- DUE TO NT BEING MAJORITY ON THE FIRST PLACE. I mean

sure, if there are N% aspies in the general polulation, there might be 2N%

aspies in academia. But 2N is still much less then 100. By the way, just for

the record, Nazi thought that the only good physicists are Germans. This

also seem to pararell what you are saying about aspies. I mean sure, there

are some advantages to being German-- for instance they are known as

organized people. But it doesn't contradict at all that Jews (whom Germans

hated so much) are great thinkers, including Einstein.

Likewise, I can see some advantages to being aspie, but apart from that

there are other advantages of being someone else. And by someone else I

don't mean to have some other mental illness, I mean just to be simply be

someone else. I mean each person is individual and has his own individual

differences. Only those that causes some severe impairment would be labeled

as mental illness. But can't there be a difference that would make you think

creatively and yet NOT cause a significant impairment. Sure. There was some

significant differences about every single one great physicist-- or else

they wouldn't be great physicists. But there is no evidence of all of them

having a mental illness of some kind.

By the way, while aspie thought process helped Einstein in relativity, it

would be disadvantageous in some creative activities, such as quantum. You

see, as original as relativity is, there is nothing fuzy about it. On the

other hand quantum mechanics is very fuzy. Autistics seem to lack as far as

fuzy logic--nothing but to say in some other words your statement that NTs

can't think logically. But ability to think fuzzily is nothing but the

ability to get out of the box that is constrained by logic. A lot of

physicist described how they have a very fuzy ideas that are more feelings

or emotions really, and then tried to bring it back into the logical box,

which often meant comming up with a new box. I never understood it before

last fall when I was contemplating on the course of quantum. I descovered

that its nothing but going away from thinking in terms of position,

velocity, etc. but instead comming up with a larger framework of states and

state vectors and position and momentum being nothing but a very specific

versions of those. Measurment is nothing but bringing that more general

state into the one you are looking for. This seems very similar to fuzy

logic vs plain logic. You first see something fuzy. Then when you try to

write it down you " measure " it so-to-speak to bring it back to the realm of

plain logic. And of course there is randomness and hidden variables in the

process of measurment. After all, the plain logic is nothing but the subset

of fuzy logic. So to say that something fuzy is equal to something plain is

nothing but the lie (and here I remember one of the Russian writers-- though

don't know who he was--saying " the word pronounced is a lie " ), so the lie

can be a bit random since you don't have apriori as to which way you want to

lie. But then you will be stuck on your lie in the box of plain logic.

However, you might come up with come other box that would better fit your

lie. And that other box, or a totally different logical framework, would be

similar to momentum space being another sub-box of so called state vectors.

Personally, I always hated quantum mechanics on intellectual level (except,

of course for becoming famous after explaining it). But once I realized

those philosophical implications of it, I came at the stage of actually

LIKING it, INTELLECTUALLY. After all if everything were classical it

wouldn't allow me to contemplate on deep philosophical implications in

physics. It would be nothing but a cheap play in the two dimensional plain

logic; but now there is a way to go fuzzy and look for a different plain

playground, which is more deep.

On any event, I am drifting a bit aside here, but what I wanted to say is

that aspies are constrained in the plain logic, which wouldn't allow them to

do those jumps. Just as if all particles were constrained in our ordinary

classical space, they wouldn't show us their quantum jumps; that is, our

classical mashinery won't see what it see. On the other hand, of course they

would do better as far as perseveration goes and they would be better

players in a plain logic playground. But you should never judge one over the

other. Up untill half a year ago I strongly prefered plain logic, but one

more course on quantum changed it all. You never know.

>Roman Sverdlov wrote:

> >

> > >Roman, with all due respect, you do not have a clue what you are

>talking

> > >about

> > >here. Social interaction is not the only problem that anyone on the

> > >spectrum

> > >has... not by a long shot.

> >

> > DSM 4 says " E.There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive

> > development or in the development of age-appropriate self-help skills,

> > adaptive behavior

> > (other than in social interaction), and curiosity about the environment

>in

> > childhood "

>

>And the lack of a significant delay means that all is normal? There are a

>lot

>more aspects to a person's mind than those.

Which? Please give me few examples when an aspie needs support for reasons

other than the ones they can't have.

>Some can, some can't. Some can get a job, but not hold it;

Then why did I read in several sources that they can and that thats what it

means to have AS?

>Your example of not swimming in a hot spring because you might dive down

>and

>burn your foot and dislocate your shoulder swimming away is not any less

>crazy

>than the examples I gave.

C'mon, all it said was that something THAT crazy actually happened with me,

so something less crazy would be even more likely. I intended to argue for

something MUCH LESS crazy and make argument stronger with this real crazy

illustration. I am sorry you didn't realize what I was going to say, but

thats just what the intention was, thats all.

>I make no effort to disguise my disdain for the way NTs think.

Well, you said that if everyone was NT we would still be at a stone age.

THAT is something I disagree with.

I like the way

>my kind thinks; I prize logic and accuracy and the ability to disconnect

>the

>emotions when making rational decisions. NTs are impaired in these areas.

Well, aspies are impaired in some other areas and as argued earlier, you

can't make an objective comparison.

>You know this for sure? I have no idea what the cause is, other than the

>rather notable genetic factor.

But it is very heterogeneous, that is, there are many genes that cause it

and in fact genotypes of different aspies are different, each consisting of

more then just one gene. In fact I read somewhere that some people think

that the whole autism spectrum could be broken down into about 80 different

conditions. ON THE OTHER HAND, Downs have a single genetic cause: non

disjunction in 21 st chromosome. Thats why all people with Downs have exact

same symptoms while people with autism have so many different levels of

functioning and expression of it.

>Oh, I am not bashing them because they are different. I could not care

>less

>that they are different. I have no concern for them.

Thats how it seems to you. But what really happenes is that you don't

understand them because they are different. After all, NTs also simply have

no concern for aspies, but the real reason is that aspies are different so

NTs don't understand them. What else could be the reason that both NTs look

down on aspies and aspies look down on NTs?

>

>Yes, but that is not based in neurology-- it is based in ideology.

Ideology is simiilar to neurology. After all, just as was described above,

you can't objectively prove one ideology better then the other. The same is

true about not being able to objectively prove one skin color better than

the other. Besides, cultural differences cause differences in ideology in

other levels. For instance there is common ideology behind Eastern religions

and there are common ideology behind western traditions. Each could think of

the other as inferior; in fact orthodox religious people do. But its really

just a differences in frameworks and the boxes they put themselves into.

Same is happening here.

Anyone that can

>conceptualize " thinking too much " is not a thinker, almost by definition.

>Compared to dogs or pigs or bumblebees, NTs are thinkers. Compared to

>aspies,

>they are not.

That is definitely plus. But there is more then one paramenter to a thinker.

What if you just think too much about oranges being yellow? The context is

also important. And, as I pointed out earlier, there are both advantages and

disadvantages in terms of context in being NT. The advantage would be that

NTs can get out of the box of strict logic; the disadvantage is that they

can't get out of the other boxes. So if you take into account the whole

picture, there is no objective way to weigh it.

>Einstein perseverated on physics;

By the way, do you know that after he graduated from university he couldn't

even think about physics for a year or two? The thing is that in

universities the coursework is too formal for original thinker, such as an

aspie. I always perseverated on physics before college. In college, due to

intensive amount of routine computations that I could never do right due to

math errors and such, not having enough time to study due to all the time

put on problem solving, etc. I lost the interest and felt depressed--

something similar to Einstein. HOWEVER, now, as the workload is less I

regain it, just as Einstein did.

To be honest I wouldn't say I perseverated on it whole day and couldn't do

anything other than that. But lets say when I were going for a walk I would

think about physics. I would also read some books on physics. So each given

day I would spend quite a bit of time thinking about it.

>Not always. Watershed incidents can change societal opinion overnight.

Well, in most cases not. In some yes, but lets not try to look at extreme.

>Who is this Skzgirl?

Someone on this list.

That is why your " pull yourself

>up with your bootstraps " approach fails frequently, probably especially

>with

>autistic spectrum folks.

Well, you just told me yourself one of the advantages of being NT. You just

admitted that when aspies get depressed they drop out of school while NTs

don't. I didn't-- because of prestige. So may be there was some advantage

that I have a concept of prestige-- that kept me far away from academic

probation and staying around B average despite being depressed.

>Oh, I had no problem telling anyone that I was on academic probation from

>failing so many classes, and I have no concern telling anyone I dropped

>out.

Well, how about having it on a transcript that stays with you forever?

Besides, if I were you I wouldn't have anything else to do, really, facing

the fact of being expelled. I just wouldn't be able to face it if it would

ever happen with me.

>I got lousy grades in classes I did not like (in other words, the

>un-prestigious nature of failure was not a motivating factor);

Well, did you get all 0-s? Did you complete a single one assignment in those

classes? If you did, no matter how poorly, your mere doing an assignment for

a class you don't like reflects that you care about prestige, just so

slightly that you don't notice.

I got very good

>grades in classes in which I was interested.

That would apply to me too. And to *some* NTs as well.

>Yes, but don't forget that a part of my argument was that NTs cannot tell

>their

>own wants and desires from those that have been dictated by the collective.

Then all NTs would choose the same field-- namely the most prestigious one.

But its not the case. Every field has at least one NT choosing it.

>But a perseverating autistic would. Einstein did not have a college

>professor

>pushing him to figure out relativity.

True, but as I said, Einstein was pushed to do his academic work. He was

pushed so hard that he couldn't even do physics the whole year after

graduation. He at first didn't even think he would ever work in physics. Yet

he didn't drop out. So what kept him going is that he thought dropping out

is UN-prestigious.

>DSM for AS, part A1: " marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal

>behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and

>gestures to regulate social interaction "

>

>I do not see how your description above satisfies this.

Well, pointing hand at someone to get their attention is one of the forms of

non-verbal communication.

>

> > A4.When I want to ask people questions I would ask whether or not they

>have

> > time to answer. I would keep asking over and over untill I get the

> > satisfactory answer. That is, a logical layed out explanation of what I

>am

> > trying to understand. People often find it annoyind.

>

>A4 is " a lack of social or emotional reciprocity. " I do not think the

>above

>qualifies.

>

>

By social reciprocity one means responses to other emotions. If when others

don't like me keep asking them a question and I ask them anyway, that means

I don't respond to their signals, which means I lack the reciprocity.

>None of this says that the interests were abnormal in intensity or focus.

>This

>is getting at perseveration, and as I indicated above, you do not seem to

>really " get " perseveration.

Okay, if you say its not abnormal, then you imply its normal. Which means

that most students would disrupt classes they find boring to give eye exams

to their peers. This is just not the case. I think it is very abnormal. AND

IN FACT PSYCHIATRIST SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IT IN REPORT OF MY DIAGNOSIS.

>Everybody has interests... even preoccupations sometimes.

Okay, DSM 4 is not any kind of poem that one has to interprete. It was

intended to be read just what it said. Literally. So if you just forget what

you know about aspies and NTs and the degrees of their impairment and just

look at what it says in B1 with an open mind, as if its not a criteria just

a single statement comming out of the blue... well, then you will find that

my interests in physics meet it. The reason *a lot of NTs* who have those

interests don't have AS is that they don't also meet at least two criteria

from A. Well, I do, or at least I think that I do.

>Usually there is only one interest at a time in autistics.

Usually isn't always. DSM 4 doesn't say that.

>C is the one designed to keep BAPs from being diagnosed as AS.

Once again, please read what it sais and don't try to read between the lines

so much. Yes, I *do* have a clinically significant impairment. For instance

I was kicked out from one of my physics classes for asking questions so

much. Also I weren't taken into the Hillel trip to Israel because I annoyed

too many people with questions. This is quite significant.

By the way, let me throw this question at you: If you claim that you aren't

socially related at all, then why did you subscribe to this list?

_________________________________________________________________

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Roman Sverdlov wrote:

> , you seem to be saying that NTs can't get out of their box while

> aspies can. But think of it that way: NTs claim that aspies are the ones who

> can't get out of their boxes. So if the whole picture is so symmetric, how

> do you know who is right and who is wrong among them?

NTs by nature are built to be social creatures. They are part of a herd, a

collective. They think as a part of a group, and they readily accept

boundaries that are placed upon them. Autistics by nature are in a culture of

one; even the autistic people as a " group " is more of a conglomeration of many

individuals than a cohesive group. There is no box because there is no concept

of a box. Convention and social expectation create the box.

> Likewise, I can see some advantages to being aspie, but apart from that

> there are other advantages of being someone else. And by someone else I

> don't mean to have some other mental illness, I mean just to be simply be

> someone else.

Some OTHER mental illness? So you are under the impression that AS is a mental

illness?

> By the way, while aspie thought process helped Einstein in relativity, it

> would be disadvantageous in some creative activities, such as quantum. You

> see, as original as relativity is, there is nothing fuzy about it. On the

> other hand quantum mechanics is very fuzy. Autistics seem to lack as far as

> fuzy logic--nothing but to say in some other words your statement that NTs

> can't think logically.

Because fuzzy logic is not really logic. If enough facts were known, pure

logic would work.

> Which? Please give me few examples when an aspie needs support for reasons

> other than the ones they can't have.

Strawman fallacy. I am telling you that the ones that you think they can have,

they do.

> >Some can, some can't. Some can get a job, but not hold it;

>

> Then why did I read in several sources that they can and that thats what it

> means to have AS?

Because you are reading a book written by clowns? How should I know why you

read something? If you have a specific citation or excerpt, I will be happy to

comment upon it. There is nothing in any of the criteria for AS that means

they can work or hold a job-- and I have seen them all. I suggest you pick up

the book " Asperger Syndrome " by Ami Klin, et al, 2000. It might give you a

more realistic view of AS. Yours is so far off the mark that I cannot even

begin to correct it.

> >I make no effort to disguise my disdain for the way NTs think.

>

> Well, you said that if everyone was NT we would still be at a stone age.

> THAT is something I disagree with.

Ok, bronze age. On the outside. Maybe.

> Well, aspies are impaired in some other areas and as argued earlier, you

> can't make an objective comparison.

Sure I can. I am quite capable of disconnecting emotion and using straight

logic.

> But it is very heterogeneous, that is, there are many genes that cause it

> and in fact genotypes of different aspies are different, each consisting of

> more then just one gene. In fact I read somewhere that some people think

> that the whole autism spectrum could be broken down into about 80 different

> conditions.

The most recent works on the subject say probably three or four interacting

genes. There is an environmental factor of some sort; the concordance rate of

monozygotic twins is not 100%. If one monozygotic twin is autistic, there is a

60-75% chance that the other will be. Given that the most recent evidence

strongly suggests that autism and AS happen prenatally, it could be as simple

as blood supply differences due to position in the uterus, or other things of

that sort.

> ON THE OTHER HAND, Downs have a single genetic cause: non

> disjunction in 21 st chromosome. Thats why all people with Downs have exact

> same symptoms while people with autism have so many different levels of

> functioning and expression of it.

Don't forget the environmental factor. Not all with the autistic genotype will

end up autistic.

> Thats how it seems to you. But what really happenes is that you don't

> understand them because they are different. After all, NTs also simply have

> no concern for aspies, but the real reason is that aspies are different so

> NTs don't understand them. What else could be the reason that both NTs look

> down on aspies and aspies look down on NTs?

NTs look down on anyone that is different. Aspies look down on anyone that

ostracizes them and frustrates them. I have no dislike for people of different

races, for example, but I dislike the way NTs think. I understand their

programming quite well-- I just don't like that programming. They molest me

with their insistence on social protocol, greetings, empty " friendly "

questions, et cetera.

> That is definitely plus. But there is more then one paramenter to a thinker.

> What if you just think too much about oranges being yellow?

There is a difference between thinking too much or being obsessed with one

thing like that. I am not knowledgeable about OCD, but this seems like that.

> >Einstein perseverated on physics;

>

> By the way, do you know that after he graduated from university he couldn't

> even think about physics for a year or two? The thing is that in

> universities the coursework is too formal for original thinker, such as an

> aspie. I always perseverated on physics before college. In college, due to

> intensive amount of routine computations that I could never do right due to

> math errors and such, not having enough time to study due to all the time

> put on problem solving, etc. I lost the interest and felt depressed--

> something similar to Einstein.

Interests often change. When I started college, I perseverated on computers.

I majored in computer science. Around the time that I was beginning to think

of quitting, I lost interest in computers. I changed to geology. I " couldn't "

think about computers then either. But the perseveration came back later.

> To be honest I wouldn't say I perseverated on it whole day and couldn't do

> anything other than that.

I have done this probably at least a quarter of the days I have been alive

since I can remember, and to a lesser degree on many more than that. I think

you are talking about interest, not perseveration.

> >Who is this Skzgirl?

>

> Someone on this list.

Never saw anyone by that name on this list.

> Well, you just told me yourself one of the advantages of being NT. You just

> admitted that when aspies get depressed they drop out of school while NTs

> don't. I didn't-- because of prestige. So may be there was some advantage

> that I have a concept of prestige-- that kept me far away from academic

> probation and staying around B average despite being depressed.

It's certainly not a very solid advantage, because a lot of NTs drop out when

they get depressed too. I would say that there are advantages to being NT-- it

is a much easier life for them, and they generally get to skip the ostracism

and abuse that nearly all ASD people get to one degree or another. They are

probably happier as a group because of that. They just go and live their lives

and work their jobs and never question any of it, and never think twice about

any of it-- whereas we have to work like hell to do some of those things, if we

even try. Sure, there are a lot of advantages to being NT... but I still don't

want to be one.

> >Oh, I had no problem telling anyone that I was on academic probation from

> >failing so many classes, and I have no concern telling anyone I dropped

> >out.

>

> Well, how about having it on a transcript that stays with you forever?

Obviously it was no bother, since I did it. What difference does a transcript

make? I'll readily tell anyone how badly I did in college-- strangers,

acquaintances, friends, family. Makes absolutely no difference to me.

> Besides, if I were you I wouldn't have anything else to do, really, facing

> the fact of being expelled. I just wouldn't be able to face it if it would

> ever happen with me.

I was disqualified after my first year in school (university) for never having

had a single term off of academic probation, but my department chair got me in

for one more quarter to show improvement. I didn't, and I quit and went to

community college for a year and a half.

> Well, did you get all 0-s? Did you complete a single one assignment in those

> classes? If you did, no matter how poorly, your mere doing an assignment for

> a class you don't like reflects that you care about prestige, just so

> slightly that you don't notice.

In many of the classes, I not only did not do any assignments, I did not even

show up for class or for the exams. If I did a class I do not like, it proves I

care about something, but not that it is prestige. In those few classes I

hated but passed, I stayed in there because I wanted to stay in school and keep

my meal ticket. Dropping out meant entering the work world, which I did

finally after six years in school (and only enough credits to barely finish my

second year).

> >Yes, but don't forget that a part of my argument was that NTs cannot tell

> >their

> >own wants and desires from those that have been dictated by the collective.

>

> Then all NTs would choose the same field-- namely the most prestigious one.

> But its not the case. Every field has at least one NT choosing it.

Perceptions of what is most prestigious vary. Local pressures, family

pressures, et cetera, play a role as well. And it certainly is not the only

factor. I am not saying that NTs cannot think-- just that they prefer not to

much of the time.

> True, but as I said, Einstein was pushed to do his academic work. He was

> pushed so hard that he couldn't even do physics the whole year after

> graduation. He at first didn't even think he would ever work in physics. Yet

> he didn't drop out. So what kept him going is that he thought dropping out

> is UN-prestigious.

That is a pretty big leap to make. This is a fallacy known as false

dichotomy. If it was not his perseverative interest, it must have been

prestige. There are not only two choices here.

> >DSM for AS, part A1: " marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal

> >behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and

> >gestures to regulate social interaction "

> >

> >I do not see how your description above satisfies this.

>

> Well, pointing hand at someone to get their attention is one of the forms of

> non-verbal communication.

You really missed the point on this one. The nonverbal behaviors listed are

the ones you really need to think about. Pointing-- many autistic children

don't, and most AS kids do. That alone means nothing.

> >A4 is " a lack of social or emotional reciprocity. " I do not think the

> >above

> >qualifies.

> >

> >

>

> By social reciprocity one means responses to other emotions. If when others

> don't like me keep asking them a question and I ask them anyway, that means

> I don't respond to their signals, which means I lack the reciprocity.

Not responding to signals is asked directly in the first criterion in this

section. This one is not about that. You are really stretching the definition

to fit you. If it were a rubber band it would have broken by now.

> Okay, if you say its not abnormal, then you imply its normal. Which means

> that most students would disrupt classes they find boring to give eye exams

> to their peers. This is just not the case. I think it is very abnormal. AND

> IN FACT PSYCHIATRIST SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IT IN REPORT OF MY DIAGNOSIS.

And I had one psychiatrist that may have diagnosed me as schizo-affective. Let

me tell you-- they get it wrong as often as they get it right. What you

describe is more like hyperactivity than AS. ADHD is a subset of AS; all of

the ADHD symptoms are also core AS symptoms, but the reverse is not true.

> >Everybody has interests... even preoccupations sometimes.

>

> Okay, DSM 4 is not any kind of poem that one has to interprete. It was

> intended to be read just what it said. Literally. So if you just forget what

> you know about aspies and NTs and the degrees of their impairment and just

> look at what it says in B1 with an open mind, as if its not a criteria just

> a single statement comming out of the blue... well, then you will find that

> my interests in physics meet it. The reason *a lot of NTs* who have those

> interests don't have AS is that they don't also meet at least two criteria

> from A. Well, I do, or at least I think that I do.

You have not made a convincing case that you meet any of them. If you are

going to say you have it, it should not have to be forced to fit. Me, on the

first one-- I never make eye contact. I never use body language. I do not use

gesture at all. My facial expression is flat much of the time. That fits me.

It does not fit you.

>Usually there is only one interest at a time in autistics.

>

> Usually isn't always. DSM 4 doesn't say that.

Quit with the DSM-IV. There is a reason that it is a book for psychiatrists,

not for lay-people. You need to know a little about the condition before you

go making diagnoses based on the criteria. They go to school to learn about

this stuff, and they get it wrong a lot of the time... the only way you are

going to be able to properly read the criteria is to learn about AS, and you

obviously have not, as is evident in your statements. In short, you do not fit

the DSM criteria for AS, and if you knew enough about AS to properly interpret

the criteria, you would see that too. if you read the criteria as loosely as

you do, aspies would be half of the population of the planet. I know a lot of

aspies, and I can pick out my own kind very quickly. This is something all

autistic people seem to have, even young autistic children. I do not get the

sense that you are on the spectrum. Further, your statements show that you do

not know what perseveration feels like, regardless of what your NT paychiatrist

thinks. You only know what the DSM says, and that is such a tiny subset of

what AS is... please, take my word for it and go read about AS.

> >C is the one designed to keep BAPs from being diagnosed as AS.

>

> Once again, please read what it sais and don't try to read between the lines

> so much. Yes, I *do* have a clinically significant impairment. For instance

> I was kicked out from one of my physics classes for asking questions so

> much.

That is not a clinically significant impairment. That is plain old

hyperactivity. I am not reading between the lines; I am interpreting what they

mean. The book was written for NT psychiatrists to interpret. You are taking

definitions and stretching them to fit. If you really had AS, it would fit

much better than it does.

> Also I weren't taken into the Hillel trip to Israel because I annoyed

> too many people with questions. This is quite significant.

Clinically significant impairment is not the same as any irritating trait.

There are specific meanings for words like " impairment " in the context of the

autistic spectrum. You need to go learn what they are before you go thinking

that this fits you.

> By the way, let me throw this question at you: If you claim that you aren't

> socially related at all, then why did you subscribe to this list?

I created this list!

[Guest guest]

> NTs by nature are built to be social creatures. They are part of a

herd, a

> collective.

I agree with this box. But it doesn't refute that meanwhile aspies are

confined in some other box.

> Some OTHER mental illness? So you are under the impression that AS

is a mental

> illness?

Well. The way I think of it is that everything listed in DSM 4 is

*called* a mental illness. It is NOT worse then NT. It is just the

meaning of the word mental illness: something listed in DSM 4. You

could come up with some other meaning: just as you could call a table

a chair. But thats a conventional meaning. Whether or not mental

illness is good or bad is another story.

By the way, it was off track. Whether or not AS is or isn't a mental

illness, my point was that you don't need either or both of the two in

order to be an original thinker. Sure, you need to be different in

some ways. But you can be different in some ways other than those

socially-disproven ones. I mean ways that brings you advantages in

terms of your original thought pattern while leaves you able to

function so that you don't get under-estimated by the society.

> Because fuzzy logic is not really logic. If enough facts were

known, pure

> logic would work.

But enough facts aren't known. And they aren't known because of

inaccessibility of small world to human senses, whether NT or AS.

After all there was no single person who claimed to see electrons. So

people with AS wouldn't be able to know enough facts to use pure

logic.

> > Well, aspies are impaired in some other areas and as argued

earlier, you

> > can't make an objective comparison.

>

> Sure I can. I am quite capable of disconnecting emotion and using

straight

> logic.

Well, but pure logic doesn't include concepts of better or worse.

Those are things one needs to postulate. So aspies postulate it

differently from NTs. And if you get out of both boxes you can't use

purest logic to prove one over the other.

There is an environmental factor of some sort; the

concordance rate of

> monozygotic twins is not 100%.

That only supports my point. My point was to say that there is no

single cause for autism. So by saying that there is more then one gene

I implied the previous statement since different genes are independant

causes. Now environment is yet another cause. So by saying that

environment also plays a role you make even more causes and thus you

make my case even stronger.

My point was that the more causes you have for autism, whether

genetic, environmental or whatever, the less similarity there would be

between different autistics since each one became such due to

different subsets in those causes.

I contrasted it with Downs since it has AS OPPOSED TO AUTISM only one

cause: non disjunction in 21 st chromosome. Environment plays a role

in autism BUT it doesn't play a role in Downs. Autism has more then

one gene causing it, while Downs have only one genetic cause.

THEREFORE while autistics are so different from each other, Downs are

alike.

What I objected to was that you seemed to imply that all autistics are

alike by speaking for all of them. I said that they aren't. People

with Downs are all alike, but autistics aren't. Thus while people with

Downs ALL have deformed faces in the same ways, etc., autistics might

and might not have each of the particular symptoms.

They

molest me

> with their insistence on social protocol, greetings, empty

" friendly "

> questions, et cetera.

>

Well, but aspies also molest NTs on their perseveration. For instance,

you said that aspies are thinkers. But how about some things

mentioned in AQ test such as tracing patterns, fascination with

numbers, and dates, memorizing peoples birth days, etc. Those aren't

really thinking since it doesn't help you to come up with anything

fundamentally new such as relativity. So it frustrates NTs, even

thinking ones.

> There is a difference between thinking too much or being obsessed

with one

> thing like that. I am not knowledgeable about OCD, but this seems

like that.

Well, if you want to attribute tracing patterns, etc. to OCD, then how

could you score 46 on that test, unless you also claim to have OCD?

> It's certainly not a very solid advantage, because a lot of NTs drop

out when

> they get depressed too.

Well, but the social factor would at least strongly discourage NTs

from dropping out. Thus, when their interest comes back they don't

find themselves sorry that they dropped out.

I would say that there are advantages to

being NT-- it

> is a much easier life for them, and they generally get to skip the

ostracism

> and abuse that nearly all ASD people get to one degree or another.

Somehow I am glad that I am not fascinatted by numbers. Its NOT

because it would be disadvantage. Rather, its because I would rather

spent my day thinking about physics then doing multiplications of 4

digid numbers in my head. I am not good in arithmetic at all, but

there are calculators, so I am not sorry about it. BTW, fascination

with numbers was listed in AQ test and you scored 46. So somehow you

think of it as part of thinking...why?

They just go and live

their lives

> and work their jobs and never question any of it, and never think

twice about

> any of it

May be you just didn't have any NT friends so you don't know. Nobody

just takes the job at random. That is normally a big decision what job

to take, etc. Have you ever heard of psychological tests as to what

job would fit you best? Or of career advisors discussing with you

which school to apply if any? Do you think this is all made for

aspies?

Okay, let me suggest you do something what you suggest me to do. Pick

some good book written by an NT, preferably autobiography, and see how

much thinking went on in that life.

> Perceptions of what is most prestigious vary. Local pressures,

family

> pressures, et cetera, play a role as well. And it certainly is not

the only

> factor.

Good. Thats what I was getting at all alone. Prestige is not the only

factor for NT and statements of the sert " tell NT what they want and

sure enough they want it " is a gross over-simplification.

> You really missed the point on this one. The nonverbal behaviors

listed are

> the ones you really need to think about. Pointing-- many autistic

children

> don't, and most AS kids do. That alone means nothing.

I mean I do it INAPPROPRIATELY. It frustrates others, so its

inappropriate. They said inappropriate use of body postures, which is

what I do.

>

> Not responding to signals is asked directly in the first criterion

in this

> section. This one is not about that.

Then what is the " true " meaning of the word reciprocity?

What

you

> describe is more like hyperactivity than AS.

Well, I am not feeling hyper by myself. For instance in criteria for

ADHD they mention things like fidging on a seat, etc. Those don't

apply to me. I am feeling IMPATIENT to ask a question due to

frustration of not understanding so I try to interrupt the other

person and get attention. This is not exactly a hyperactivity.

> You have not made a convincing case that you meet any of them.

First, you might remember you agreed that I meet A2, at least.

If

you are

> going to say you have it, it should not have to be forced to fit.

Somehow, if I just forget its purpose (to identify AS) and just read

it as plain statements, I see them fitting without any forcing. Its

that you, due to your knowledge of AS, look only for autistic ways of

meeting them, so you don't really say I don't have *it*; rather you

say I don't have *what they are looking for*. But if you forget the

context of autism (and thus forget *what they are looking for*), you

will see that I meet them quite naturally.

Me, on the

> first one-- I never make eye contact. I never use body language. I

do not use

> gesture at all. My facial expression is flat much of the time.

That fits me.

It doesn't matter which way you fit it, just fit it! So we both fit

it, just for different reasons. Perhaps you are in a majority of those

who fit it while I am in minority. But the fact is that we both fit

it.

> Quit with the DSM-IV. There is a reason that it is a book for

psychiatrists,

> not for lay-people.

Okay, if a person using DSM 4 is assumed to have a knowledge of

condition, then why use DSM 4 at all?

> please, take my word for it and go read about AS.

Well, why not take my psychiatrist's word for it instead? If half

psychiatrists are making a mistake, then how do you know you aren't?

> Clinically significant impairment is not the same as any irritating

trait.

Well, in my case I irritated people by perseviration and

obsessiveness, which is at least in a dirrection of AS. Besides, as

you said yourself that AS people are impaired due to not being

accepted in society for thinking. In my case it was similar: due to my

tendencies to ask too many questions (which is part of thinking) I

irritated others.

> > By the way, let me throw this question at you: If you claim that

you aren't

> > socially related at all, then why did you subscribe to this list?

>

> I created this list!

Okay, then why did you create this list if you aren't socially

oriented at all? The point being is that if you weren't at all

socially oriented there would be no reason for you to create this

list, and in fact, there would be no reason for you to say anything to

anyone. You would appear as non-verbal autistic (meaning totally

mute-- no single word) if you weren't at least slightly socially

oriented.

[Guest guest]

roman057 wrote:

> > Some OTHER mental illness? So you are under the impression that AS

> is a mental

> > illness?

>

> Well. The way I think of it is that everything listed in DSM 4 is

> *called* a mental illness. It is NOT worse then NT. It is just the

> meaning of the word mental illness: something listed in DSM 4. You

> could come up with some other meaning: just as you could call a table

> a chair. But thats a conventional meaning. Whether or not mental

> illness is good or bad is another story.

Autism and AS are neurological conditions... developmental disorders, which are

distinctly different than mental illness. " Mental illness " has a distinct

meaning, and it is not congruent to " anything in the DSM. "

> What I objected to was that you seemed to imply that all autistics are

> alike by speaking for all of them.

There are a lot of similarities. I know a lot of autistic people, some very

well. I have talked to even more. There are things that are pretty much

universal within the ranks of autistic spectrum people. You do not have enough

experience with them, or enough " book " knowledge to even comprehend what I

mean-- which is evident in your messages.

> They

> molest me

> > with their insistence on social protocol, greetings, empty

> " friendly "

> > questions, et cetera.

> >

>

> Well, but aspies also molest NTs on their perseveration.

That does not bother me.

> For instance,

> you said that aspies are thinkers. But how about some things

> mentioned in AQ test such as tracing patterns, fascination with

> numbers, and dates, memorizing peoples birth days, etc. Those aren't

> really thinking since it doesn't help you to come up with anything

> fundamentally new such as relativity. So it frustrates NTs, even

> thinking ones.

Not all autistics are thinkers... not all aspies are either. And not all

thinkers are thinking 100% of the time.

> Well, if you want to attribute tracing patterns, etc. to OCD, then how

> could you score 46 on that test, unless you also claim to have OCD?

OCD and autism spectrum disorders have a lot in common. Many OCD traits are

typical in autistics.

> I would say that there are advantages to

> being NT-- it

> > is a much easier life for them, and they generally get to skip the

> ostracism

> > and abuse that nearly all ASD people get to one degree or another.

>

> Somehow I am glad that I am not fascinatted by numbers. Its NOT

> because it would be disadvantage. Rather, its because I would rather

> spent my day thinking about physics then doing multiplications of 4

> digid numbers in my head. I am not good in arithmetic at all, but

> there are calculators, so I am not sorry about it. BTW, fascination

> with numbers was listed in AQ test and you scored 46. So somehow you

> think of it as part of thinking...why?

Invalid use of logic. I never claimed that.

> May be you just didn't have any NT friends so you don't know.

Not now, but I have. I have NT parents, an NT brother, and I lived eight years

with an NT roommate. I have had two NT girlfriends. I am no stranger to NTs.

> Nobody

> just takes the job at random. That is normally a big decision what job

> to take, etc. Have you ever heard of psychological tests as to what

> job would fit you best? Or of career advisors discussing with you

> which school to apply if any? Do you think this is all made for

> aspies?

No, but the thinking that NTs do is tainted by emotion and social pressure and

all sorts of other non-logical factors. NTs are more likely to " feel " their

way through life instead of thinking. They do psychological tests because they

cannot think of what they want to do with their life... whether aspie or NT,

this is not evidence of thinking.

> Okay, let me suggest you do something what you suggest me to do. Pick

> some good book written by an NT, preferably autobiography, and see how

> much thinking went on in that life.

Oh, puh-leeze... those NTs are everywhere; I need not read any book to know

about them.

> Good. Thats what I was getting at all alone. Prestige is not the only

> factor for NT and statements of the sert " tell NT what they want and

> sure enough they want it " is a gross over-simplification.

Not from my perspective. From an NT viewpoint, probably.

> I mean I do it INAPPROPRIATELY. It frustrates others, so its

> inappropriate. They said inappropriate use of body postures, which is

> what I do.

That is not what that means at all. Not even close!

> > Not responding to signals is asked directly in the first criterion

> in this

> > section. This one is not about that.

>

> Then what is the " true " meaning of the word reciprocity?

It is difficult for me to explain. It's much more than what you have said in

reference to yourself, though.

> What

> you

> > describe is more like hyperactivity than AS.

>

> Well, I am not feeling hyper by myself. For instance in criteria for

> ADHD they mention things like fidging on a seat, etc. Those don't

> apply to me. I am feeling IMPATIENT to ask a question due to

> frustration of not understanding so I try to interrupt the other

> person and get attention. This is not exactly a hyperactivity.

You were talking about your interrupting to do eye exams or something similar,

not wanting to interrupt because you did not understand.

> > You have not made a convincing case that you meet any of them.

>

> First, you might remember you agreed that I meet A2, at least.

Yes, you are right. My mistake.

>

> If

> you are

> > going to say you have it, it should not have to be forced to fit.

>

> Somehow, if I just forget its purpose (to identify AS) and just read

> it as plain statements, I see them fitting without any forcing. Its

> that you, due to your knowledge of AS, look only for autistic ways of

> meeting them, so you don't really say I don't have *it*; rather you

> say I don't have *what they are looking for*.

Uh, yes... but look at what you just wrote. I, due to my knowledge of AS, know

the ways that someone with AS meets the criteria. That is what the criteria

were intended to do-- to identify AS. A person with AS meets the criteria in

ways consistent with people with AS. Reflexive property of AS? <g> I see what

you mean that it does not seem, to someone that is not already knowledgeable

about AS, that your ways of " fitting " the criteria are forced. But that is

precisely why the DSM is only distributed to psychiatrists, psychologists,

counselors, and other professionals in the field!

> But if you forget the

> context of autism (and thus forget *what they are looking for*), you

> will see that I meet them quite naturally.

Go through the DSM; without the context and " what they are looking for, " you

will meet a lot of the criteria in there. You have to think of it in the other

order. You are thinking that the DSM defines the condition. It does not; the

condition is defined by the traits of those that have it, and the DSM is an

attempt by humans to operationalize a definition that can lend some consistency

to the diagnostic process among different doctors.

> Me, on the

> > first one-- I never make eye contact. I never use body language. I

> do not use

> > gesture at all. My facial expression is flat much of the time.

> That fits me.

>

> It doesn't matter which way you fit it, just fit it! So we both fit

> it, just for different reasons. Perhaps you are in a majority of those

> who fit it while I am in minority. But the fact is that we both fit

> it.

That is not a fact. You fit the out-of-context, ignorant (word intended sans

connotation) definition of the criteria. I meet them as they were intended.

The things that the writers of the criteria were trying to identify as key

points of AS/autism are present in me, and not in you. One of the key points

in AS and autism is a lack of eye contact, body language (like using certain

stances to indicate receptiveness or other such things), facial expression (I

do have facial expression, but often it is " flat " or otherwise not connected to

what I am thinking or feeling), and I do not gesture when I talk. That is

absolutely typical of autistics, and it is a key point. There is a reason it

is the first criterion. These things as I listed are very important in

diagnosing an autistic spectrum disorder. Pointing and annoying people is NOT

one of the things that is usually identified with autistic spectrum disorders.

In fact, autistic kids and more severely autistic adults generally do not point

at ALL.

> > Quit with the DSM-IV. There is a reason that it is a book for

> psychiatrists,

> > not for lay-people.

>

> Okay, if a person using DSM 4 is assumed to have a knowledge of

> condition, then why use DSM 4 at all?

Because it serves to stabilize diagnosis between doctors. Otherwise, some will

diagnose AS for anyone that has a reasonably high IQ and is on the spectrum,

even if they are much more autistic than AS. Such a doctor may label Temple

Grandin as having AS if she presented for evaluation right now... but she is

clearly autistic, and her 0-3 years show that (as do mine). If not for the

DSM, doctors might be more inclined to set their own standards, which serves to

make the diagnostic labels irrelevant between different doctors.

> > please, take my word for it and go read about AS.

>

> Well, why not take my psychiatrist's word for it instead? If half

> psychiatrists are making a mistake, then how do you know you aren't?

I have three diagnoses by three separate psychiatrists. My life history

matches the verbal HFA definition exactly (see under " the verbal individual

with autism " at http://www.pitt.edu/~nminshew/participate_who.html ). And, of

course, I know what each of the DSM criteria attempts to operationalize, and I

meet the criteria as neatly as a hand fits in a glove. And, like every other

person (who reported a score) on this list but you, my AQ is in the 40s.

Further, On Dr. Jim Gilliam's GARS-R autism diagnostic scale, I scored 91st

percentile for autistic stereotyped behavior (normed among confirmed

autistics), 50th percentile for communication impairment, 75th percentile for

social interaction, 50th percentile for developmental disturbances. The

standard score for the composite " autism quotient " was 46; I scored 110. On

the AS scale, I scored high as well... standard score 48 for AS quotient, and I

scored 97.

Answer your question?

> > Clinically significant impairment is not the same as any irritating

> trait.

>

> Well, in my case I irritated people by perseviration and

> obsessiveness, which is at least in a dirrection of AS. Besides, as

> you said yourself that AS people are impaired due to not being

> accepted in society for thinking. In my case it was similar: due to my

> tendencies to ask too many questions (which is part of thinking) I

> irritated others.

That is not why people with AS are not accepted. It is because of the

inability to recognize and comply with " the unwritten rules, " as well as the

inability to interpret or project body language. Perseveration is not the

reason I was ostracized in school; I rather hid my perseveration from my

peers. I may have been thinking of fleas (which was one I had in 9th grade)

when I was supposed to be thinking about whatever was in the lecture, but I did

not bother my peers with it. I ignored them-- I never even wanted to interact

with them on most days. Further, I do not doubt that you are in the direction

of AS; I did say you are probably a BAP, which is like an aspie but not aspie

enough to be called one.

> > I created this list!

>

> Okay, then why did you create this list if you aren't socially

> oriented at all?

I never said I was not social at all. I am in limited ways, and generally for

short duration. But I will answer. I created this list because the one AS

list I was on (which was also populated by a minority of NTs) was too much

banter and fluff and too little information. If I wanted to socialize with

aspies, I need not have created this list. I created this as an informational

list, mostly-- but I did not make that a rule. Anything is on-topic here...

but because it is restricted to people on the spectrum only, there has been

zero fluff on here in the five or so months it has been online. I like

information. Aspies and other people on the upper end of the spectrum tend to

like information, but dislike empty communications that are only for social

purposes. That does not mean that we never engage in them... some of us do, in

varying amounts. But that was not the purpose for creating the list.

> The point being is that if you weren't at all

> socially oriented there would be no reason for you to create this

> list, and in fact, there would be no reason for you to say anything to

> anyone.

Mmm... false. I talk to people to get information or to get things done. I do

not call Pizza Hut to socialize with the person on the phone-- I call them

because I want to order a pizza.

> You would appear as non-verbal autistic (meaning totally

> mute-- no single word) if you weren't at least slightly socially

> oriented.

I never said I was not somewhat socially oriented. In comparison to NTs, I am

socially aloof. That is what we were talking about, wasn't it?

[Guest guest]

By the way, I have seen a photo of Einstein riding a bicycle. I have

also heard that Einstein was playing musical instruments. I remember

you once said that if something is a true autistic perseveration then

it would exclude everything else and fill the whole day. However,

Einstein played musical instruments even during his most productive

years. Furthermore, he invited some other physicist to play musical

instruments with him. This seems nothing but socially oriented.

Thus I AGREE that aspies are LESS socially oriented. But less doesn't

mean not at all. Thus, the concept of fame might influence aspies LESS

then normal people, but it doesn't mean not at all.

Also, you once said that people who aren't on the spectrum aren't

thinkers. But one of the greatest Russian physicists Landau is

certainly aren't on a spectrum. I heard he was very social, liked to

paarty a lot and had lots of girlfriends and a good sense of humor.

However he done a lot in physics. I mean I take the point that some

great physicists, such as Einstein, are on the spectrum. But some

doesn't mean all.

> Autism and AS are neurological conditions... developmental

disorders, which are

> distinctly different than mental illness. " Mental illness " has a

distinct

> meaning, and it is not congruent to " anything in the DSM. "

But DSM 4 reads " Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of MENTAL

DISORDERS " . If not everything in DSM 4 was a mental illness, they

would throw out the last two words.

BTW what is the distinction between mental illness and neurological

condition? In my view any *mental Illness* has a neurological basis

since neurology means a staff in your brain.

> > They

> > molest me

> > > with their insistence on social protocol, greetings, empty

> > " friendly "

> > > questions, et cetera.

> > >

> >

> > Well, but aspies also molest NTs on their perseveration.

>

> That does not bother me.

But it bothers NTs. So NTs bother aspies and aspies bother NTs. Quite

symmetric. No need to make one side better than the other.

> Not all autistics are thinkers... not all aspies are either. And

not all

> thinkers are thinking 100% of the time.

Good. But in the previous E mail you were saying just the opposite.

You said that something of a sert of my interest in physics is an NT

type of interest since it doesn't take 100% of the time. And you were

also saying that NTs aren't thinkers. Thus, you must have implied that

thinkers think 100% of the time.

> OCD and autism spectrum disorders have a lot in common. Many OCD

traits are

> typical in autistics.

Well, so isn't OCD one of the disadvantages of being autistic? It

would disract you from the thinking about physics.

> Not now, but I have. I have NT parents, an NT brother, and I lived

eight years

> with an NT roommate. I have had two NT girlfriends. I am no

stranger to NTs.

By the way, if you aren't socially oriented, then how come you had

girlfriends? What was the point of it?

Also, if you don't care about other people's opinion about you (re:

fame), then how come you are bothered by NTs looking down on you?

And furthermore, if you are not feeling like a part of society at all,

then what motivates you to fight for " your kind " ?

> > Good. Thats what I was getting at all alone. Prestige is not the

only

> > factor for NT and statements of the sert " tell NT what they want

and

> > sure enough they want it " is a gross over-simplification.

>

> Not from my perspective. From an NT viewpoint, probably.

Okay. Here is a pure logic. If prestige was the only factor, then they

wouldn't take those psychological tests since they don't tell what is

more prestigious then what. Therefore prestige is one of the important

factors. Certainly. But not the only factor.

Now, as you admitted, you can have OCD, which is distinct from

thinking. Therefore aspies aren't pure thinkers either. Aspies'

thought is disrupted with their OCD while NT's thought is disrupted

with emotion. In either case there is thinking component and in either

case there is disturbing component.

> You were talking about your interrupting to do eye exams or

something similar,

> not wanting to interrupt because you did not understand.

Both is applicable. On that one boring course I interrupted in order

to do eye exams. On other courses I interrupted because I didn't

understand. Now, eye exams wasn't pure hyperactivity either. If it

was, I would be thinking of many different ways of interrupting.

However, I was giving eye exams every time I wanted to interrupt that

course. That seems a bit aspergerish.

But

that is

> precisely why the DSM is only distributed to psychiatrists,

psychologists,

> counselors, and other professionals in the field!

By the way, I just remembered how DSM 4in the schizophrenia section

wrote the whole page explaining what they meant by delusion and

hallucination. If they were adressing it to psychiatrists, those

explanations wouldn't be needed.

> Further, On Dr. Jim Gilliam's GARS-R autism diagnostic scale, I

scored 91st

> percentile for autistic stereotyped behavior (normed among confirmed

> autistics)

By the way, the doctor who diagnosed me in 1995 or 1996 also referred

me to see Brina Siegel in Spring 1997. Since I was a minor at that

time, my mother brought me and filled out a bunch of questions as to

what I did when I was little (such as how often I was scared in

elevator, or how often did I withdraw when new people came, etc) on

the basis of never, rare, often, usually, or almost always (or

something of that sert). Then I had a videotaped interview where I was

asked things like why asking a stranger for handkerchief is

inappropriate, or what am I happy/sad/angry/afraid of. Then they

concluded that I am more high functioning then 99.5% of aspies. So it

seems like the higher the percentage the MORE high functioning you

are. But you seem to think just the opposite. So could it be different

kind of test or what?

> That is not why people with AS are not accepted. It is because of

the

> inability to recognize and comply with " the unwritten rules, " as

well as the

> inability to interpret or project body language.

Not to walk close to a person, point at them and ask questions in a

lowd voice are all " unwritten rules "

\ Perseveration is

not the

> reason I was ostracized in school;

I rather hid my perseveration

from my

> peers.

However, I remember reading that aspies engage in a long monologue of

the topics of their interest. So they don't hide it. Long momnologues

is certainly NOT what I did. However I *instead* was questioning till

I get to the bottom of it, which is also perseviration.

> I never said I was not social at all. I am in limited ways, and

generally for

> short duration.

So similarly aspies might worry about prestige somewhat but not as

much as NTs do. For instance, I don't care whether my clother are

fashionable or not. I wouldn't even care of differences in prestige in

smaller jobs. What I *do* care is the record of my progress in

physics. I would somewhat mind telling people about probation (in a

hypothetical case if I had one) but not too much. HOWEVER it would be

a tragedy for me to have it on a transcript or not being able to study

physics in a way that all courses that I do go on a transcript.

Likewise, while I have an intellectual satisfaction out of seeing

problem solved, it would definitely be a plus if I see it published

under my name. Not that I want to go along the street and seeing all

the strangers screeming how a great physicist I am. Certainly NOT!

That would wear me out. However, I find it quite satisfactory to see

my work published.

Anyway, as much or as little as the public recognition and official

academic record means to me, it kept me studying through the couple of

years when I felt depressed and lack of interest. So thinking about

official record might help in cases of depression and lack of one's

own interest.

Aspies and other people on the upper end of the

spectrum tend to

> like information, but dislike empty communications that are only for

social

> purposes.

1)Well, I have read somewhere that while autistics aren't interested

socially, aspies might actually seek friends by the time they passed

the early childhood, but not know how to get them.

2)I have seen lists designed by and for aspies that are more dirrected

towards communication.

By the way, I have studied it quite a bit. In fact during my last year

in High School I was going to the and Noble for about an hour

after school just glossing through the literature on psychiatry. While

I would look at different disorders, I certainly was more focused on

AS. Anyhow, that year I had a sense I was learning new every day, but

now whenever I open a book on AS it seems like the old staff I already

know and nothing too surprising any more-- to your point of my not

knowing AS.

Anyway, I also read " Emergence: Labeled Autistic " by Temple Grandin

and " Nobody Nowhere " , " Somebody Somewhere " and " Like Color To Be

Blind " by Donna . Though in Like Color To Be Blind I only read

it to the place where Donna was tested by neurologist and how

they went to visit autistic community. I didn't have time to read

further.

While Temple Grandin seems a lot like you describe with her

perseveration on that cattle mashine despite school staff not liking

it, it doesn't apply that much to Donna . I didn't see

anything Donna seemed to perseverate on. Besides, her

description of " loosing herself " seems incompatible with

perseveration. I still remember a quote " nothing more complex then

color and indescernable sound " . By the way, Donna seemed very

emotional and you said that only NTs are being driven by emothion

while autistics aren't.

I also had some contact with some aspies and in fact some of them seem

to be less affected then I am. For instance, you might and might not

have seen a person with nickname " autismas " (the one who went around

different MBs arguing that vaccines don't cause autism, that autism is

genetic disorder, etc). She has two kids: a son who is severely

autistic and a daughter who has Asperger's. She once gave us each

other E mail so we could E mail. Well, that daughter sounded NT

compared to me. In fact she told me she liked going shopping and

such and was asking me what sports I like, do I have girlfriends, etc.

She found me too perseverating and asked me not to E mail her any

more. Likewise, I was once E mailing Donna about her book.

She found my obsessiveness intrusive and asked me not to write any

more. I was also once part of a mailing list for students with AS. I

offended them with questions about their level of functioning (they

scorned me for *apparently* trying to establish a " chierarchy " on the

list) and when I brought up racist theories of intelligence (in

connection with autism) it was the last drop that broke the camel's

back and I was unsubscribed. This is to your point of aspies thinking

without emotion. I did NOT mean to be racist or offensive (in fact I

myself do NOT have any racist likes or dislikes). I wasn't even sure

my theories were " right " . It was more or less a may be may be not

hypothising which every thinking mind has to admire. In particular I

said that since Jews rock during prayers and Asians meditate in the

fassion Donna did, then may be Judaism as well as Asian

religions were founded by autistics. This migiht well be true since at

the time people weren't aware of neurological basis of autism they

could think of those people as divine messengers. This in fact

happened in Russia when they thought of " blessed fools " as divine

messengers while in fact they are autistic. Now, the above is more

likely to happen in races that are more successible to autism since

the proportion of clinically autistics is greater, so they are more

likely to be noticed. Now, studies have shown that autistics on

average have larger brains then non-autistics. On the other hand it

was shown that Jews and Asians have larger brain size and higher IQ

then most whites. Therefore, this suggests (not proves but just

suggests) that Jews and Asians, due to larger brain size, are more

succeptible to autism. So on one hand they have more so-called

" blessed fools " that influenced their religious practices. On the

other hand, the rest of Jews and Asians, who are NT, might have so

called shaddow signs of autism. Those shaddow signs raise their IQ

since it was found that people with Asperger's have higher IQ. In

fact, I have heard how Jews and Asians are being very successful

mathematicians and scientists (in fact at one time the math department

of Moscow University was mostly Jewish and also a great physicists,

including Landau and Einstein, were Jews), but I haven't heard of them

being successful writers in that large a scale (though there are some

good Jewish writers for sure). So this seems similar to aspies being

successful in math and science. On the other hand, I argued, latino

and blacks are deviated from whites in a dirrect opposite dirrection

from Jews and Asians. They have smaller brains and therefore are

counter-autistic. Thus, whites being more aspergerish then blacks are,

due to their shaddow asperger, have advantage over blacks on IQ test.

Thus, while there are few black writers (such as Ellison) or poets

(such as Langston ) there aren't any black mathematicians or

scientists. This is in line with autism giving advantage in math or

science, thus puting whites further ahead in those specific areas.

Since classical music seems to have a clear melody while rock, Jazz,

etc. are rather unpredictable, autistics would prefer classical music

and not like other music. Thus, since blacks are the least autistics

of all other races, they shough be in most favor to rock, Jazz, etc.

This explains why blacks invented Jazz.

Anyway, while this was just a contrmplation, everyone on the list

jumped at my mentioning that blacks have smaller brains then whites.

So it means that they are thinking emotionally rather than logically.

By the way, the moderator, who had AS herself, of the list was very

reluctant as to whether subscribe me there on the first place since

she saw that I was asking inappropriate questions elsewhere on the

list. When I told her that its because of my AS, she disagreed with me

and told me that AS doesn't stop people from being moral. She even

cited Kant and told me that to be moral means to act in such a way

that you would want it to be the universal rule for everyone; she

claimed you could have AS and still be moral in this sense. But it

doesn't seem in line to your saying that people with AS are

individualistic.

[Guest guest]

> BTW what is the distinction between mental illness and neurological

> condition? In my view any *mental Illness* has a neurological basis

> since neurology means a staff in your brain.

Neurology relates to the nervous system and disorders of it. That is

not necessarily the brain, but can include the brain. Disorders like

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and other environmentally induced

illnesses can hardly be diseases of the physical nerve system.

Certainly they are not of physical origin. Perhaps you should try

looking up a dictionary if you are going to use medical terminology

in your arguments.

CZ

[Guest guest]

<<

While Temple Grandin seems a lot like you describe with her

perseveration on that cattle mashine despite school staff not liking

it, it doesn't apply that much to Donna . I didn't see

anything Donna seemed to perseverate on. Besides, her

description of " loosing herself " seems incompatible with

perseveration. I still remember a quote " nothing more complex then

color and indescernable sound " . By the way, Donna seemed very

emotional and you said that only NTs are being driven by emothion

while autistics aren't. >>

I'd like to toss something in here. Donna's descriptions of losing

herself into patterns and colours fits very well with perservation. This is

something I also did to an extreme extent as a child/youth for both defense

mechanisms and sheer pleasure. In my teens I turned it into a passion for

painting (or excuse to continue perservation on my pleasures).

Also remember please that not all AS folks are scientific and purely

logical....we are leaving out the artists, poets and musicians when we say

this. There is a sensory kind of thinking, not exactly logical and not

exactly emotional, that has as much value as logical/scientific thinking.

Nanne

[Guest guest]

<< On the other hand, I argued, latino

and blacks are deviated from whites in a dirrect opposite dirrection

from Jews and Asians. They have smaller brains and therefore are

counter-autistic. Thus, whites being more aspergerish then blacks are,

due to their shaddow asperger, have advantage over blacks on IQ test.

Thus, while there are few black writers (such as Ellison) or poets

(such as Langston ) there aren't any black mathematicians or

scientists.

This is in line with autism giving advantage in math or

science, thus puting whites further ahead in those specific areas.

Since classical music seems to have a clear melody while rock, Jazz,

etc. are rather unpredictable, autistics would prefer classical music

and not like other music. Thus, since blacks are the least autistics

of all other races, they shough be in most favor to rock, Jazz, etc.

This explains why blacks invented Jazz.

--------- And you are basing your information on what sources? The

'scientists' who supported Hitler?

Just for your information, jazz evolved out of the blues, which evolved

from the old call-and-response songs the slaves sang, mixing the language

enough so that the slavemasters could not decipher the messages.

Anyway, while this was just a contrmplation, everyone on the list

jumped at my mentioning that blacks have smaller brains then whites.

So it means that they are thinking emotionally rather than logically.

---------- You personally cannot name any black scientists or mathematicians

so you base your info on this? Use your 'logic' you hold so dear and dig a

bit deeper before making such assumptions, will you?

By the way, the moderator, who had AS herself, of the list was very

reluctant as to whether subscribe me there on the first place since

she saw that I was asking inappropriate questions elsewhere on the

list. When I told her that its because of my AS, she disagreed with me

and told me that AS doesn't stop people from being moral. She even

cited Kant and told me that to be moral means to act in such a way

that you would want it to be the universal rule for everyone; she

claimed you could have AS and still be moral in this sense. But it

doesn't seem in line to your saying that people with AS are

individualistic.

>>

----------- I wouldn't argue that blacks don't have smaller brains out of any

moralistic stand, but rather than it just is not the case and has not been

proven.

If your brain is so much larger, I cannot fathom why on earth you are

coming across as such a dope.

Nanne

[Guest guest]

==> From: ViridianThumm@...

In a message dated 2/10/02 0:21:08 AM EST, rsverdlov@...

writes:

<< Since classical music seems to have a clear melody while rock,

Jazz,

etc. are rather unpredictable, autistics would prefer classical

music

and not like other music. Thus, since blacks are the least autistics

of all other races, they shough be in most favor to rock, Jazz, etc.

This explains why blacks invented Jazz.

--------- And you are basing your information on what sources? The

'scientists' who supported Hitler?

Just for your information, jazz evolved out of the blues,>>

And in turn a lot of classical composers, from the American Copland

to the Frenchmen Ravel and Milhaud, admired jazz and incorporated its

elements into their classical-style compositions.

I find that a lot of pop music *does* have a clear melody. I don't

think that classical (in the broad sense including baroque, romantic,

etc.) has a monopoly on that. Personally, I like Beethoven best of

all composers due to the power of his music, and the heights to which

he takes relatively simple melodies. In pop music, I like

Denver because of the poetry of his lyrics.

Bela Bartok, a 20th century composer who was somewhat modernist in

style and didn't place a high importance on melody, was probably

Aspie.

As for the racial difference in intelligence, Jay Gould (whom

I suspect is Aspie himself) examines the history of this concept in

his wonderful book " The Mismeasure of Man " , showing how data can be

(and was) manipulated, sometimes unconsciously, by scientists who

knew what point they wanted to prove (that European males are

superior) before they started the investigations. Re-examining the

data using e.g. double-blind techniques (the investigator measures

each skull without knowing what race it belonged to) shows no

statistically significant differences in cranial capacity among

races.

<<---------- You personally cannot name any black scientists or

mathematicians

so you base your info on this? >>

I know a few quite good ones, and have heard of others by reputation.

Doug

Need Computer training ? check out MindLeaders

http://link.mindleaders.com/e-learn/default.asp?associd=COBWEB001

[Guest guest]

>

>

><<

> While Temple Grandin seems a lot like you describe with her

> perseveration on that cattle mashine despite school staff not liking

> it, it doesn't apply that much to Donna . I didn't see

> anything Donna seemed to perseverate on. Besides, her

> description of " loosing herself " seems incompatible with

> perseveration. I still remember a quote " nothing more complex then

> color and indescernable sound " . By the way, Donna seemed very

> emotional and you said that only NTs are being driven by emothion

> while autistics aren't. >>

>

> I'd like to toss something in here. Donna's descriptions of losing

>herself into patterns and colours fits very well with perservation. This

is

>something I also did to an extreme extent as a child/youth for both defense

>mechanisms and sheer pleasure. In my teens I turned it into a passion for

>painting (or excuse to continue perservation on my pleasures).

> Also remember please that not all AS folks are scientific and purely

>logical....we are leaving out the artists, poets and musicians when we say

>this. There is a sensory kind of thinking, not exactly logical and not

>exactly emotional, that has as much value as logical/scientific thinking.

>Nanne

>

I'd like to add something to this. My son has always found complex,

repetitive visual input to be very calming. It has the same effect on him

as things like deep pressure or swinging.

[Guest guest]

-----Original Message-----

>As for the racial difference in intelligence, Jay Gould (whom

>I suspect is Aspie himself) examines the history of this concept in

>his wonderful book " The Mismeasure of Man " , showing how data can be

>(and was) manipulated, sometimes unconsciously, by scientists who

>knew what point they wanted to prove (that European males are

>superior) before they started the investigations. Re-examining the

>data using e.g. double-blind techniques (the investigator measures

>each skull without knowing what race it belonged to) shows no

>statistically significant differences in cranial capacity among

>races.

On a related topic, I recently finished reading a book called Guns, Germs

and Steel. It did an analysis of why European males " conquered the world " .

It has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of racial superiority. It's a

good book.

[Guest guest]

Wnndy wrote;

>On a related topic, I recently finished reading a book called Guns,

Germs

and Steel. It did an analysis of why European males

> " conquered the world " .

It has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of

>racial superiority. It's a

good book.

Could you summarize it? How does it explain how Europeans won the

world?

Nanne wrote

Also remember please that not all AS folks are scientific and

purely

> logical....we are leaving out the artists, poets and musicians when

we say

> this.

I agree with this. This was exactly my point to and exactly why

I brought it. seemed to insist that while NTs are confined

within a " box " of emotions, aspie are purely logical and in this sense

superior. I don't agree neither with aspies being purely logical nor

with it being superior. I totally agree with your point that logic is

not neceserely superior to emotions. And everyone has emotions,

whether aspie or NT. It is just different kinds of emotions. After

all, we aren't saying that all aspies are robots, are we.

Nanne wrote

>There is a sensory kind of thinking, not exactly logical and not

exactly emotional, that has as much value as

>logical/scientific thinking.

I agree.

>And you are basing your information on what sources? The

'scientists' who supported Hitler?

If you read what I wrote carefully, you will see that my source can't

possibly be comming from Hitler since Jews are the ones who have the

HIGHEST IQ according to the study I am referring to. Hitler would give

Jews lowest one, I imagine. Furthermore, the study I refer to does not

single Germans out as a superior race. Rather, it lumps all the Whites

together (singling out Asians and Jews). According to study I am

referring to, Jews have on average IQ of 115, Asians have IQ of 107,

whites have 103, Latino have 90 and Blacks have 85. In fact I have

NEVER read Mine Komph or any other Nazi literature.

>As for the racial difference in intelligence, Jay Gould (whom

I suspect is Aspie himself) examines the history of

>this concept in

his wonderful book " The Mismeasure of Man " , showing

>how data can be

(and was) manipulated, sometimes unconsciously, by

>scientists who

knew what point they wanted to prove (that European

>males are

superior) before they started the investigations.

>Re-examining the

data using e.g. double-blind techniques (the

>investigator measures

each skull without knowing what race it belonged to)

>shows no

statistically significant differences in cranial

>capacity among

races.

To be more specific, I got what I refer to from a newspaper that I

read about 3-4 years ago in order to write an essay in my English

class on IQ. In fact, as you referred me to Gould, the title of an

article was " Mismeasures of Gould " and one of its main points was to

explain how Gould manipulated a data in order to cover up racial

differences in intelligence while really they do take place. Since I

have read it 3 years ago, I can't remember the detailes, but it gave

several examples of Gould's work and illustrated his lies quite

perswasively. For instance it mentioned the case how one of his points

in the argument of the older edition of his book was shown wrong and

he agreed with the objection. However, in a new edition he stated

again what he already knew was wrong (or something of that sert).

Of course I understand that there is similar twisting of facts on the

" racist " side of the debate too. But since its not just racist side

that twist facts but both sides do, I don't see any conclusive

evidence of racist side losing the argument. I don't have conclusive

evidence of racist side winning the argument either. In fact given

that I only read a few sources I can't pretend to have my viewpoint.

So as I said, all I am saying is a hypothesis. Just *may be may be

not*. But its still interesting to come up with hypothesis that

explains so many things at once: from rocking Jews to meditating

Buddhists to blacks comming up with Jazz.

By the way, I don't hold nearly as extreme views as Hitler. According

to Hitler, every single person from the superior class is better then

every single person from the inferior class. After all, during

Holocaust, he attempted to kill every single Jew. In fact he would

even kill Einstein if he didn't leave for US. No single Jew can do

anything valuable in science, according to Hitler. HOWEVER I do NOT

claim anything like that. In fact, back at UC Berkeley I remember a

black female student who was a physics major and was doing much better

then a lot of white male physics students! What I am talking about is

ONLY STATISTICS AND AVERAGES. All I am saying is that AVERAGE IQ of

all blacks is smaller then AVERAGE IQ of all whites. However, as a

physicist, I understand about fluctuations, bell curve, etc. Thus I do

not apply in any way anything about any one representative of those

races. Besides, UNlike Hitler, I do not attach a qualitative judgement

to this. In fact, as I said, larger brain might be better in terms of

IQ but its worse in terms that it makes one more succeptible to

autism. So whilt whites ON AVERAGE are better in science, blacks ON

AVERAGE are better in Jazz. And both is ON AVERAGE. Fair enough.

Finally, Hitler viewd his work as a second Bible. On the other hand,

as I said above, for me its just a hypothesis and could well be wrong.

<You personally cannot name any black scientists or mathematicians

so you base your info on this? Use your 'logic' you

<hold so dear and dig a

bit deeper before making such assumptions, will you?

Since, as I said, I am talking about statistics and averages, you

wouldn't refute my point by bringing in few black scientists. It is

still true that there are much more white scientists then there are

black scientists.

>I wouldn't argue that blacks don't have smaller brains out of any

moralistic stand, but rather than it just is not the

>case and has not been

proven.

I agree that it hasn't been proven. But the thing is that all I am

saying is bringing in a HYPOTHESIS, not a theory. Therefore, all I

said is *may be* its the case and then see how beautiful HYPOTHESIS

can I come up with that would explain rocking and strict autistic-like

traditions in Judaism, meditation in Buddhism and other asian

religions, Blacks comming up with Jazz, Jews being very good

scientists, Jews and Asians to become rich so fast in US, blacks not

being very successful....... and all just in turns of larger brain

size causing autism. NONE OF IT IS THEORY. EACH AND EVERY THING ABOUVE

LISTED COULD BE WRONG. BUT IT IS STILL A NICE HYPOTHESIS TO THINK OF.

>And in turn a lot of classical composers, from the American Copland

to the Frenchmen Ravel and Milhaud, admired jazz and

>incorporated its

elements into their classical-style compositions.

As I said, I don't saying anything extreme. After all, classical

composers weren't clinically autistic. All I say is that if autistics

who have *huge* brains don't like Jazz at all, white composers whose

brains are only *slightly* larger then blacks might still like Jazz,

but not enough to become Jazz composers themselves.

>I find that a lot of pop music *does* have a clear melody. I don't

think that classical (in the broad sense including

>baroque, romantic,

etc.) has a monopoly on that.

Not as clear and predictable as classical... autistics like

predictability. Once again, I am not claiming anything extreme here.

Since it is more-less type of an argument, the fact that classical

music has clearER melody is sufficient to STATISTICALLY influence the

racial difference in response to it.

[Guest guest]

<< Therefore, all I

said is *may be* its the case and then see how beautiful HYPOTHESIS

can I come up with that would explain rocking and strict autistic-like

traditions in Judaism, meditation in Buddhism and other asian

religions, Blacks comming up with Jazz, Jews being very good

scientists, Jews and Asians to become rich so fast in US, blacks not

being very successful....... and all just in turns of larger brain

size causing autism. NONE OF IT IS THEORY. EACH AND EVERY THING ABOUVE

LISTED COULD BE WRONG. BUT IT IS STILL A NICE HYPOTHESIS TO THINK OF.

----------------I still question your motivation, due to the use of

" beautiful " and " nice " hypotheses.

>And in turn a lot of classical composers, from the American Copland

to the Frenchmen Ravel and Milhaud, admired jazz and

>incorporated its

elements into their classical-style compositions.

As I said, I don't saying anything extreme. After all, classical

composers weren't clinically autistic. All I say is that if autistics

who have *huge* brains don't like Jazz at all, white composers whose

brains are only *slightly* larger then blacks might still like Jazz,

but not enough to become Jazz composers themselves.

------------Apparently my brain must be lopsided as I like them all.

>I find that a lot of pop music *does* have a clear melody. I don't

think that classical (in the broad sense including

>baroque, romantic,

etc.) has a monopoly on that.

Not as clear and predictable as classical... autistics like

predictability. Once again, I am not claiming anything extreme here.

Since it is more-less type of an argument, the fact that classical

music has clearER melody is sufficient to STATISTICALLY influence the

racial difference in response to it.

>>

--------------- According to this, then all autistics should love reggae,

with its predictable and repetitious beat...but, uh oh, its mostly blacks who

perform it, so what do we do now?

And you are quoting a newspaper article which you can't remember, to

dismiss Gould's work...... I'm curious, was the article in The Limbaugh

Letter, by any chance?

Roman, again, using " nice " and " beautiful " to describe your hypotheses

reveals where you are coming from and where you are going with this. And I

find it all very highly offensive.

Nanne

[Guest guest]

roman057 wrote:

>

> By the way, I have seen a photo of Einstein riding a bicycle. I have

> also heard that Einstein was playing musical instruments. I remember

> you once said that if something is a true autistic perseveration then

> it would exclude everything else and fill the whole day.

I never said 'would.' I said that it could, and sometimes (or often) does.

> Thus I AGREE that aspies are LESS socially oriented. But less doesn't

> mean not at all. Thus, the concept of fame might influence aspies LESS

> then normal people, but it doesn't mean not at all.

This is getting extremely tiresome. If you are going to pay so little

attention to what I write, why should I bother? I have already mentioned that

I am speaking in relative terms. However, I doubt that any real aspie would

care about fame. There is a whole level of social relatedness that is required

for such things, and that is quite a bit different than saying that aspies are

not social.

> Also, you once said that people who aren't on the spectrum aren't

> thinkers.

No, that is not what I said. Comparitively speaking, NTs are not thinkers.

That does not mean that every aspie is a thinker, or that no NTs are thinkers.

> But one of the greatest Russian physicists Landau is

> certainly aren't on a spectrum. I heard he was very social, liked to

> paarty a lot and had lots of girlfriends and a good sense of humor.

> However he done a lot in physics. I mean I take the point that some

> great physicists, such as Einstein, are on the spectrum. But some

> doesn't mean all.

No shit.

> But DSM 4 reads " Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of MENTAL

> DISORDERS " . If not everything in DSM 4 was a mental illness, they

> would throw out the last two words.

Oh, give me a break. That is so idiotic that I don't even want to waste my

time replying. You know what? People like you are the reason that they don't

sell the DSM to anyone that wants one. Go do some research outside of the DSM,

reread these statements you are making, and you will see how ignorant they are.

> BTW what is the distinction between mental illness and neurological

> condition? In my view any *mental Illness* has a neurological basis

> since neurology means a staff in your brain.

I do not have a staff in my brain. If I did, I might be diagnosed with

multiple-personality disorder. Unless the staff you refer to is a large piece

of wood, in which case that would still not be the same as " neurology. "

If you do not know the difference between mental illness and neurological

disorders, then you have not done even the most basic reading on the topic.

You lack the knowledge necessary to debate me on this topic.

> You said that something of a sert of my interest in physics is an NT

> type of interest since it doesn't take 100% of the time.

No, again you misunderstand. This, btw, is the precise kind of

misunderstanding that I have had time and time again with NTs. You are so used

to " filling in the gaps " of the terse NT communication style that you cannot

stop doing so when adequate information is given. What I said is that

perseveration can and does often make the person use up the entire day with the

interest. I was saying this, as I mentioned, as an illustration of how

powerful perseveration is. It is NOT simply a persistent or strong interest.

I said that nothing you have said indicates that you even know what

perseveration is.

> And you were

> also saying that NTs aren't thinkers. Thus, you must have implied that

> thinkers think 100% of the time.

That was an inference you made, not an implication on my part. I don't imply

things. If I have something to say, I shall say it.

> > OCD and autism spectrum disorders have a lot in common. Many OCD

> traits are

> > typical in autistics.

>

> Well, so isn't OCD one of the disadvantages of being autistic? It

> would disract you from the thinking about physics.

Yes, but what is your point? There are lots of things that are disadvantages.

The bowel problems I have on a regular basis are a disadvantage. The pain in

my head when I hear a loud noise that is trifling to others is a disadvantage.

The abuse that NTs thrust upon us is a disadvantage. The stress we probably

universally feel is a disadvantage. I never said it was a dream existence. No

doubt it is harder than being NT. Ignorance is bliss?

> > Not now, but I have. I have NT parents, an NT brother, and I lived

> eight years

> > with an NT roommate. I have had two NT girlfriends. I am no

> stranger to NTs.

>

> By the way, if you aren't socially oriented, then how come you had

> girlfriends? What was the point of it?

Because I was lonely. Not being socially oriented is not the same as not

wanting to be social. Social orientation has to do with seeing oneself as a

part of the big picture, of feeling like a part of it all. This is the one

thing that autistics, by definition of the word, lack. That does not mean that

I do not want a female to be my companion.

> Also, if you don't care about other people's opinion about you (re:

> fame), then how come you are bothered by NTs looking down on you?

Oh, I don't care what they think. I care what they do when it affects me. I

also care what they do when it affects one of my kind (to a lesser degree, of

course). I don't care if they silently hate me and think I am just the pits,

as long as they don't let that dislike affect me. If they start making

comments or hitting me or trying to force their autistic child to be normal,

then I have a problem with them.

> And furthermore, if you are not feeling like a part of society at all,

> then what motivates you to fight for " your kind " ?

Not sure. Maybe a way of excising the demons that haunt me still from the

abuse I experienced as a child? Maybe because I have always had a way of

advocating anything in which I am interested?

> Okay. Here is a pure logic. If prestige was the only factor, then they

> wouldn't take those psychological tests since they don't tell what is

> more prestigious then what. Therefore prestige is one of the important

> factors. Certainly. But not the only factor.

Aargh! Are you trying to be extra dense here? I never said it was the only

factor. The fact that it matters at ALL to NTs is incomprehensible to me.

> Now, as you admitted, you can have OCD, which is distinct from

> thinking. Therefore aspies aren't pure thinkers either.

I never said aspies were pure thinkers. Sheesh, I know that no person is a

computer or a Vulcan. Believe me, I know that from my own personal experience

very well.

> Aspies'

> thought is disrupted with their OCD while NT's thought is disrupted

> with emotion.

Oh, ours can be interrupted by emotion too. Most of the time I know it is

emotion, and I can easily intellectualize and bind the emotion into a tidy,

harmless little package. Not always, though. For NTs, though, emotion cannot

be disconnected at all, and in fact, there is no clear line between emotion and

logic. This is especially pronounced in the female NTs. I am talking about

everyday thinking here.

> Both is applicable. On that one boring course I interrupted in order

> to do eye exams. On other courses I interrupted because I didn't

> understand. Now, eye exams wasn't pure hyperactivity either. If it

> was, I would be thinking of many different ways of interrupting.

> However, I was giving eye exams every time I wanted to interrupt that

> course. That seems a bit aspergerish.

" A bit " is not enough to warrant the diagnosis.

> By the way, I just remembered how DSM 4in the schizophrenia section

> wrote the whole page explaining what they meant by delusion and

> hallucination. If they were adressing it to psychiatrists, those

> explanations wouldn't be needed.

Has the ignorance any bounds? Come on, it is only sold to psychiatrists,

counselors, and psychologists! You or I are not even supposed to know what it

says, as far as the American Psychiatric Association is concerned. It is for

psychiatrists that it is written. You can't diagnose anything-- why would it

be for you??

> By the way, the doctor who diagnosed me in 1995 or 1996 also referred

> me to see Brina Siegel in Spring 1997. Since I was a minor at that

> time, my mother brought me and filled out a bunch of questions as to

> what I did when I was little (such as how often I was scared in

> elevator, or how often did I withdraw when new people came, etc) on

> the basis of never, rare, often, usually, or almost always (or

> something of that sert). Then I had a videotaped interview where I was

> asked things like why asking a stranger for handkerchief is

> inappropriate, or what am I happy/sad/angry/afraid of. Then they

> concluded that I am more high functioning then 99.5% of aspies.

Functioning level is the same as intelligence. That does not make sense in the

context that you have used here.

> So it

> seems like the higher the percentage the MORE high functioning you

> are. But you seem to think just the opposite. So could it be different

> kind of test or what?

You don't even understand percentiles? You have an undergrad science degree

and you don't understand percentile? Didn't you have to take at least one

statistics course? Of course they are different. Assuming that " more high

functioning, " in the context you used above, means more normal, then it is easy

to imagine that you would be more normal than 99.5% of aspies, since I do not

think you are one. Percentiles are different. In a test for autistic traits

where the answer is given as a percentile, higher numbers indicate a higher

rank relative to the normed group. Thus, scoring 91st percentile for

stereotyped behavior means that I show more stereotyped (stimming) behavior

than 91% of the autistics they used to norm the test. 50th percentile means

that I am middle-of-the-pack... but since the norm group is all autistics, that

is still a strong positive result.

> So similarly aspies might worry about prestige somewhat but not as

> much as NTs do.

To even understand prestige requires social connectedness that is not

compatible with autism. Some do care; not naturally, but because they have

learned that it matters, and they choose to try to act in accordance with the

NT view of prestige to try to fit in. There are lots of NT things autistics

can learn. That does not mean that they are autistic traits. They are not--

they are attempts to live in a hostile world.

> For instance, I don't care whether my clother are

> fashionable or not. I wouldn't even care of differences in prestige in

> smaller jobs. What I *do* care is the record of my progress in

> physics. I would somewhat mind telling people about probation (in a

> hypothetical case if I had one) but not too much.

Ok, before it was enough to keep someone from dropping out when he was were

depressed, but now it is " not too much? " Let me tell you... I have been

depressed, and something that matters to you " not too much " is not going to

amount to anything in terms of a motive as such.

> HOWEVER it would be

> a tragedy for me to have it on a transcript or not being able to study

> physics in a way that all courses that I do go on a transcript.

It might be tragic to me if my transcript prevented me from being allowed to

study as I wish... but that is not the same at all as prestige. If things

prevent me from being able to do what I want, you bet it affects me. I just

don't care if it is prestigious.

> Likewise, while I have an intellectual satisfaction out of seeing

> problem solved, it would definitely be a plus if I see it published

> under my name.

I would not care if my writings were published under my name. If someone else

plagiarized my writings, it would bother me because I had been robbed, so to

speak, but if I simply used a pseudonym, it would make no difference to me. I

write... I think my writings are good. They matter to me. I do not know that

I actually feel pride in them, though. I do not write for the glory. I write

because I like writing, exercising my mind, and getting down thoughts as

eloquently as possible. I don't care if people think I am wonderful because of

it. Case in point: I was recently asked if someone could use one of my

articles for something, and s/he was sure to say that s/he would give me

credit. I responded that I do not require any credit. I know what I wrote.

> Not that I want to go along the street and seeing all

> the strangers screeming how a great physicist I am. Certainly NOT!

> That would wear me out. However, I find it quite satisfactory to see

> my work published.

I like that too. However, it is not because I enjoy the prestige. I like that

the validation that my logic in the article is validated. I am not immune to

feeling positive things when I succeed at various tasks. It is just that

prestige is not a motive.

> 1)Well, I have read somewhere that while autistics aren't interested

> socially, aspies might actually seek friends by the time they passed

> the early childhood, but not know how to get them.

Again, you must keep clear the different meanings of " social. " The lack of

social relatedness is a fact; whether that translates into social aloofness is

variable. In my case, it did, although I have had a few friends through my

life. I have never sought friends (female companions excepted), nor have I

lamented my relative friendlessness. I prefer not having many/any

friendships. Friends are a pain in the ass a lot of the time. They think that

if I do not talk to them for a few months, then something must be wrong... they

either want to terminate the friendship, or they want to find out what is

wrong. They ask for favors and do not accept it if I do not wish to do them.

I have never had more than two or three at a time, and I could not imagine the

demands that having that many friends would put on me. It seems rather awful.

> 2)I have seen lists designed by and for aspies that are more dirrected

> towards communication.

Umm... that is what language is for, is it not? This list is for

communication. That is not the same as " socializing. "

> By the way, I have studied it quite a bit.

It does not show.

> In fact during my last year

> in High School I was going to the and Noble for about an hour

> after school just glossing through the literature on psychiatry. While

> I would look at different disorders, I certainly was more focused on

> AS. Anyhow, that year I had a sense I was learning new every day, but

> now whenever I open a book on AS it seems like the old staff I already

> know and nothing too surprising any more-- to your point of my not

> knowing AS.

You don't. It is obvious. You may be reading, but not truly comprehending.

If you think that pointing inappropriately satisfies the lack of nonverbal

language requirement in the DSM (which gets at a core trait of those on the

spectrum), then you simply do not get it.

> While Temple Grandin seems a lot like you describe with her

> perseveration on that cattle mashine despite school staff not liking

> it, it doesn't apply that much to Donna . I didn't see

> anything Donna seemed to perseverate on. Besides, her

> description of " loosing herself " seems incompatible with

> perseveration. I still remember a quote " nothing more complex then

> color and indescernable sound " . By the way, Donna seemed very

> emotional and you said that only NTs are being driven by emothion

> while autistics aren't.

I said that NTs are unable to separate logic from emotion, and that they are

driven by emotion. It is a bit of an oversimplification and a taking of my

statements extra-contextually to say that I said that NTs are driven by emotion

and autistics are not. Autistics are driven, usually, by fear and anxiety. It

would be incorrect to say that we live our lives like a bunch of androids.

Relative to NTs, the AS/vHFA population is much more logical and analytical, as

Temple Grandin did comment upon, but that is not the same as being free of

emotion.

As for Donna -- I have never read her books, but I do know that some

people doubt that her problem is autism. She is the only person that claims to

be autistic that I have ever heard as saying things to the effect of the autism

is not her... that the autism is like a shell that she is stuck in. That is

the polar opposite of what I and the vast majority of ASD people will tell

you. The autistic condition is NOT a shell-- it colors every single experience

I have, and my autistic thinking patterns go right to the center of my being.

If you stripped it away, bit by bit, as you might peel at an onion, you would

run out of before you ever got done stripping away the " autistic. " The

sensation is not at all like being normal under a shell of some kind. It is

more like being on a planet of strange beings that look like us but are very

different in side. A cat living among dogs does not think he is really a dog

under a cat veneer.

> I also had some contact with some aspies and in fact some of them seem

> to be less affected then I am. For instance, you might and might not

> have seen a person with nickname " autismas " (the one who went around

> different MBs arguing that vaccines don't cause autism, that autism is

> genetic disorder, etc). She has two kids: a son who is severely

> autistic and a daughter who has Asperger's. She once gave us each

> other E mail so we could E mail. Well, that daughter sounded NT

> compared to me.

Female aspies are often quite different from male aspies. Female NTs are even

more socially oriented, more adept at nonverbal communication, more emotional

than male NTs. Overlay AS over the normal female and you will have a result

that may differ from the " standard " AS presentation, which is based on the male

expression of the condition.

> This is to your point of aspies thinking

> without emotion. I did NOT mean to be racist or offensive (in fact I

> myself do NOT have any racist likes or dislikes). I wasn't even sure

> my theories were " right " . It was more or less a may be may be not

> hypothising which every thinking mind has to admire. In particular I

> said that since Jews rock during prayers and Asians meditate in the

> fassion Donna did, then may be Judaism as well as Asian

> religions were founded by autistics. This migiht well be true since at

> the time people weren't aware of neurological basis of autism they

> could think of those people as divine messengers.

And I have heard some things that support that idea within Judaism. I am not

well-versed in Jewish lore, so I have no idea as to their accuracy.

> This in fact

> happened in Russia when they thought of " blessed fools " as divine

> messengers while in fact they are autistic. Now, the above is more

> likely to happen in races that are more successible to autism since

> the proportion of clinically autistics is greater, so they are more

> likely to be noticed. Now, studies have shown that autistics on

> average have larger brains then non-autistics. On the other hand it

> was shown that Jews and Asians have larger brain size and higher IQ

> then most whites. Therefore, this suggests (not proves but just

> suggests) that Jews and Asians, due to larger brain size, are more

> succeptible to autism.

That is not logical. Larger brain size in autism is a function of the

neurological difference; the cause of that is whatever is the cause of autism.

The apparent causative factor is in the reduction of pruning or culling within

the brain during development, where many formed neurons are destroyed by the

brain intentionally. This does not, though, suggest a connection to whatever

purportedly causes the enlarged brains in Jews or Asians. There is

insufficient information in what you have suggested to support or refute the

assertion you made.

I also question the accuracy of the reports as to brain size. It sounds an

awful lot like the eugenic crap that was used to justify all sorts of racism in

the past. I would look very skeptically at any data you see on that topic.

> So on one hand they have more so-called

> " blessed fools " that influenced their religious practices. On the

> other hand, the rest of Jews and Asians, who are NT, might have so

> called shaddow signs of autism. Those shaddow signs raise their IQ

> since it was found that people with Asperger's have higher IQ.

Generally speaking, that does appear to be the case.

> On the other hand, I argued, latino

> and blacks are deviated from whites in a dirrect opposite dirrection

> from Jews and Asians. They have smaller brains and therefore are

> counter-autistic. Thus, whites being more aspergerish then blacks are,

> due to their shaddow asperger, have advantage over blacks on IQ test.

I can see why people would have taken offense to that. I would have to say

that there are too many other factors to truly establish that, though. For one

thing, whites (in the US at least) come from a subculture that prizes education

more greatly, and IQ test performance is influenced by education level and the

amount of intellectual " exercise " the brain has had. The greater IQ test

performance of caucasians as opposed to negroids in general is a fact.

Establishing the reason is much harder. The cultural differences render any

direct observation on test scores alone invalid.

> Thus, while there are few black writers (such as Ellison) or poets

> (such as Langston ) there aren't any black mathematicians or

> scientists.

None at all, anywhere in the world? Wow. How do you know that? And, even if

that were true, how do you know that it is not culturally-based?

> Since classical music seems to have a clear melody while rock, Jazz,

> etc. are rather unpredictable, autistics would prefer classical music

> and not like other music.

Well, that is where you are wrong, at least with me. I like my rock.

> Thus, since blacks are the least autistics

> of all other races, they shough be in most favor to rock, Jazz, etc.

> This explains why blacks invented Jazz.

Those are some pretty huge leaps in logic. The scientific word for what you

are doing is that you are making a " wild-ass guess. "

> Anyway, while this was just a contrmplation, everyone on the list

> jumped at my mentioning that blacks have smaller brains then whites.

> So it means that they are thinking emotionally rather than logically.

It may or may not be true. The eugenic movement from 1900-1950 or so had lots

of little things like that, and most of it was outright fabrication. Most of

the time, when those things are mentioned, it is because the person is

attempting to show some way that blacks deserve lesser treatment.

There are several areas that your hypothesis makes logical leaps that are too

great, given the facts you listed. First, you present no evidence that the

rate of autism in blacks is lower than in whites. Maybe it is, maybe it is

not. You need more data to show that the brain size differences between the

races are real, given the questionable nature of so much of that sort of thing,

and you need to show a connection between the cause of that and autistic

spectrum disorders. As it is, the hypothesis is too easily defeated logically

to really be worth general consideration.

> By the way, the moderator, who had AS herself, of the list was very

> reluctant as to whether subscribe me there on the first place since

> she saw that I was asking inappropriate questions elsewhere on the

> list. When I told her that its because of my AS, she disagreed with me

> and told me that AS doesn't stop people from being moral. She even

> cited Kant and told me that to be moral means to act in such a way

> that you would want it to be the universal rule for everyone; she

> claimed you could have AS and still be moral in this sense. But it

> doesn't seem in line to your saying that people with AS are

> individualistic.

I have no idea what happened in that incident, so I cannot comment accurately.

AS is not a license to be abusive or immoral, in my view. I know people that

use their AS bluntless as a bludgeon. It sounds like you are making excuses to

me.

[Guest guest]

> Wnndy wrote;

>

> >On a related topic, I recently finished reading a book called Guns,

> Germs

> and Steel. It did an analysis of why European males

> > " conquered the world " .

> It has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of

> >racial superiority. It's a

> good book.

>

>

> Could you summarize it? How does it explain how Europeans won the

> world?

It basically boils down to Europeans being able to take advantage of the

domestication of plants and animals that took place in the fertile crescent,

therefore making it possible for them to move from a hunter-gatherer society

to a society with fixed centers of population. The ability to cultivate

food led to the development of classes of people who would have been

traditionally " non-productive " ...a ruling class, a class of technology

developers, etc...which gave them a distinct advantage over societies that

never developed writing or large scale food cultivation.

Another result was the development of diseases that came from domesticated

animals and living in close proximity to the waste products of human

society. The members of societies that developed with diseases (smallpox,

malaria, etc.) eventually developed a level of natural immunity to those

diseases that allowed them to carry the diseases and wipe out previously

unexposed civilizations.

Although plant and animal domestication developed in other parts of the

world...Sub-Sahara Africa, Meso-America, New Guinea...there were some very

important factors that prevented the same level of civilization from

developing:

1. Lack of suitable large animals for domestication. Llamas were

domesticated in the Andes, but they were never taken full advantage of the

way cattle were in Eurasia, for plowing, etc.

2. Lack of suitable species of crop plants.

3. Geologic and climate barriers that prevented the spreading of technology

(starting with crop cultivation). The biggest advantage that Eurasia had

here was its east-west axis and huge land mass. Fertile crescent crops

required less adaptation to spread west at a basically constant latitude and

were therefore passed along more quickly than crops that had to be

transitioned across a great longitudinal distance. Also, Eurasia is not

broken up by large geologic barriers...oceans, deserts, a very narrow

Central America.

The author argues that any group of people, if given the same advantages

that were available in Eurasia, would naturally have developed into a

dominant civilization. It makes much more sense than any goofy racial

superiority theory.

It's really a good book. I enjoyed reading it.

[Guest guest]

<<

As for Donna -- I have never read her books, but I do know that some

people doubt that her problem is autism. She is the only person that claims

to

be autistic that I have ever heard as saying things to the effect of the

autism

is not her... that the autism is like a shell that she is stuck in. That is

the polar opposite of what I and the vast majority of ASD people will tell

you. The autistic condition is NOT a shell-- it colors every single

experience

I have, and my autistic thinking patterns go right to the center of my

being.

If you stripped it away, bit by bit, as you might peel at an onion, you would

run out of before you ever got done stripping away the " autistic. " The

sensation is not at all like being normal under a shell of some kind. It is

more like being on a planet of strange beings that look like us but are very

different in side. A cat living among dogs does not think he is really a dog

under a cat veneer.

>>

Just for the record, , in Donna's earlier books her description of

autism in her childhood was with the reference to being like in a shell.

And as her writings progressed she came more to be at peace with autism and

does not consider it seperate from herself. If you look at her website you

would see that she celebrates it as a different way of being rather than a

problem.

I've been in some discussions about Donna on other lists where it was

debated she couldn't be autistic, and perhaps it was b/c some of the males

there could not relate to her writings, as they also dealt with abuse issues.

But for myself and a number of other females, her writings were greatly

helpful in coming to terms with our own AS issues.

Nanne

[Guest guest]

>

> Just for the record, , in Donna's earlier books her description of

> autism in her childhood was with the reference to being like in a shell.

> And as her writings progressed she came more to be at peace with autism and

> does not consider it seperate from herself. If you look at her website you

> would see that she celebrates it as a different way of being rather than a

> problem.

> I've been in some discussions about Donna on other lists where it was

> debated she couldn't be autistic, and perhaps it was b/c some of the males

> there could not relate to her writings, as they also dealt with abuse issues.

> But for myself and a number of other females, her writings were greatly

> helpful in coming to terms with our own AS issues.

> Nanne

>

I agree that Donna's view of herself now is much

different than in her first books. She is an

excellent example of how someone can be autistic

and also have other significant issues.

Jerry

[Guest guest]

jwholphin48@... wrote:

> > I've been in some discussions about Donna on other lists where it was

> > debated she couldn't be autistic, and perhaps it was b/c some of the males

> > there could not relate to her writings, as they also dealt with abuse

issues.

> > But for myself and a number of other females, her writings were greatly

> > helpful in coming to terms with our own AS issues.

> I agree that Donna's view of herself now is much

> different than in her first books. She is an

> excellent example of how someone can be autistic

> and also have other significant issues.

Just to be clear, I would like to iterate that I am not one of those that

claims that Ms. cannot be autistic. I have never read any of her

stuff, nor have I any details on her at all... my intent in typing about her

was that her statements that " the autism is not me " differ very much from that

which I experience and what I have heard from other ASD folks... and that the

quotes from her that have been posted seem to center on sensory difficulties

rather than on the autism itself. Certainly, the sensory issues are a part of

it, but it would be a mistake to say that they ARE autism. I can see how

someone could feel trapped in a shell of dysfunctional senses, but that is not

the same as being trapped in an autistic shell. If she is autistic, then the

differences in the way she thinks will run as deep as they do in the rest of us

on the spectrum... the only thing that would be like a shell would be the

sensory problems.

[Guest guest]

>

> > > I've been in some discussions about Donna on other lists

where it was

> > > debated she couldn't be autistic, and perhaps it was b/c some of

the males

> > > there could not relate to her writings, as they also dealt with

abuse issues.

> > > But for myself and a number of other females, her writings

were greatly

> > > helpful in coming to terms with our own AS issues.

>

> > I agree that Donna's view of herself now is much

> > different than in her first books. She is an

> > excellent example of how someone can be autistic

> > and also have other significant issues.

>

> Just to be clear, I would like to iterate that I am not one of those

that

> claims that Ms. cannot be autistic. I have never read any

of her

> stuff, nor have I any details on her at all... my intent in typing

about her

> was that her statements that " the autism is not me " differ very much

from that

> which I experience and what I have heard from other ASD folks... and

that the

> quotes from her that have been posted seem to center on sensory

difficulties

> rather than on the autism itself. Certainly, the sensory issues are

a part of

> it, but it would be a mistake to say that they ARE autism. I can

see how

> someone could feel trapped in a shell of dysfunctional senses, but

that is not

> the same as being trapped in an autistic shell. If she is autistic,

then the

> differences in the way she thinks will run as deep as they do in the

rest of us

> on the spectrum... the only thing that would be like a shell would

be the

> sensory problems.

>

>

Okay, I am not the one to debate facts so lets start from facts first.

How about these:

1)Donna had ecolalia as a child

2)Her first non-ecolalic world started when she was 3 and a half.

3)As a child she went to special school since she was diagnosed as

autistic.

4)As an adult she was given an extensive test that confirmed her

childhood diagnosis of autism.

5)Again, as an adult, she was given a neurological test that revealied

that some parts of her brain were still in infant stages: she still

had womb reflexes.

6)She traced patterns a lot-- a typical autistic behavior.

7)She had a lot of social interaction problems.

So please don't deny facts because they don't fall into your view

of autism; revise your view instead. Newtonian view of physics

held for three centuries and then when new knowledge came that

contradicted something that wasn't refuted for 3 centuries... then

Einstein was smart enough to refute it.

Now, this being said (and AFTER we are straight on the facts) let me

say the following. She said that autism isn't her only at the end

of Somebody Somewhere--when she was adult. On the other hand, in

the very beginning of Nobody Nowhere she identified herself with

autism and there was no part of her that wasn't autistic. She

viewed others who tried to counter her autism as intruders into

" her world " . Only a little after she went on to develop

characters of Willie and Carol in order to cope. That is, she

became autistic in normall shells, which is a polar opposite to

what you said. Only as an adult she in some sense developed

normal " her " and became a normal in autistic shell (and only *in

some sense*-- as I will explain below). So given that childhood

years are the most relevant to diagnosis of autism, she *is* the

autistic according to your concept of it, at least as a child.

Then you might think of her going through recovery, and still

nowhere complete one. Besides, even though she says autism isn't

her... BUT she also refers to " simply being " AS her, even though its

also part of her autism.