Guest guest Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 I should not have answered the last email because I knew it was entirely irrelevant at the time. Asking me what made me such an expert presumed that I had ever claimed to be one, and asking me about my certification in the field of psychology was wholly irrelevant to my knowledge of the over-application of pop psychology. Anyway, the request: Can people please debate my *claims*, and not *who I am*? I'm fully willing to be corrected, to be given information that shows me that co-dependence is *not* a pop-psychology term, and that it is used (in reality, not just ideally) in accordance with a strict definition in a very narrow range of addiction-related dynamics. This would contradict the evidence I've seen, which is: 1. That it is a term that is associated primarily with a number of self help books and teachings. (Which in itself doesn't *necessarily* make it false.) 2. That it is technically *supposed* to describe a very narrow range of addiction-related dynamics (as described by Jane in further depth). 3. That it is frequently used (including against people I've known) in broader contexts, such as being thrown around as an insult, to persuade perfectly ordinary people (who care about each other and occasionally put the other person first with neither one of them having a problem with it) to become more selfish people in general, to persuade partners of disabled people that they are only in a " perpetual caretaker " role and that this is the only reason they have taken a disabled person for a partner, and various other contexts it was never intended for in the first place (if indeed the original context has as much validity as it is given). I'm not really willing to sit around debating whether or not I personally am trained in psychology. Please debate my points if you have to debate anything. I'm sure there are other people on this list who value actual discussion of issues over discussion of the people discussing the issues. I'm not going to get into discussing the character or training of the person who asked me the questions, and I would ask the same courtesy in return. I apologize for answering those questions and will not answer any further such questions. Thank you. , uncommonly sick at the moment of having things turned around to be about her when she prefers to discuss *the things being discussed* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 alfamanda wrote: > I should not have answered the last email because I knew it was > entirely irrelevant at the time. Asking me what made me such an > expert presumed that I had ever claimed to be one, and asking me about > my certification in the field of psychology was wholly irrelevant to > my knowledge of the over-application of pop psychology. > > Anyway, the request: > > Can people please debate my *claims*, and not *who I am*? Once again, the letter to which you are referring is an example of what I have deemed the gist-credibility method of deciding whether something is factual. I do not know if the person who wrote the letter claims to be NT or not, but I have very often complained of the propensity of NTs to use this method to determine whether someone is credible, rather than the more cognitively intensive (and accurate) method of critical thought. Many of the autism texts describe the tendency of the autistic to be unable to " properly " separate the gist of what (they think) needs to be communicated from the supporting details. The claim made is that we tend to overprovide support data, when all that is needed is the thesis sentence, so to speak. This dovetails with (as one example) my rather limited experience as a speaker at autism conferences (thus far, always as a panelist, not as a featured speaker). At one conference, one of my fellow panelists asked to be a featured speaker at the next conference, to which the promoter of that conference responded, " Have a book published and you can be a featured speaker, " or something to that effect. It puzzled me at first when I heard that. Having a book published does not, to the best of my knowledge, make you any more credible than not having written a book, nor does it indicate that the person will be a good speaker. I have read a whole lot of pure nonsense in books; I think I do a reasonably good job of providing non-nonsense information, despite the fact that I have not had a book published. Both of the paragraphs above underscore the commonality of the gist-credibility method. When a person using this method listens or reads, he only wants to hear or read the conclusion reached by the speaker or writer. Support data is not necessary; the listener only wants the conclusion, and enough data to establish the credibility of the speaker on that topic. Attempting to provide supporting data will be ignored; those things (facts) have little effect upon people using the gist-credibility method. Things like celebrity, having had books published, letters after one's name, et cetera, confer credibility, and tell the listener that you have enough standing to probably know what you're talking about. The person could be spouting the biggest load of nonsense, but if they have enough credentials (in the eyes of the listener), what they say is often taken seriously. I have debated people on a broad variety of topics, and I have often run into the argument that since I am not (perceived) as credible to write on a given topic as (whomever), then I must be wrong. Often, this concept is delivered with a heaping helping of sarcasm-- to the effect of " Oh, yeah, , you're smarter than (name of person with more credibility than I). " I have tried to get them to actually argue the _issues_... and while that has infrequently worked, my opponent has invariably returned to the gist-credibility stuff within a few letters. I guess that people that are preprogrammed to be in awe of those with more social status are unlikely to dare to question their edicts unless they have similar credentials, but I don't care about perceived credibility. I deal in facts, and facts are facts no matter which person may be mentioning them. Despite what my mother, the people at the Pitt autism study, and others have said, I do not have difficulty separating the gist from the rest of the stuff. It's just that I realize that there is no difference; there is no gist without support data (that would be a " wild-ass guess. " You have to have a schema to have a gist). Separating the conclusion, and ignoring the support data, would be a lot like telling only the punch line of a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Attacking the character of the speaker in order to discredit what they are saying, is called an " ad hominem " argument and it's not even considered good critical thinking for NTs. Apparently though, good critical thinking doesn't seem to be a requirement for NT autism " experts " , even if it's expected of other types of " experts " . > alfamanda wrote: > > > > I should not have answered the last email because I knew it was > > entirely irrelevant at the time. Asking me what made me such an > > expert presumed that I had ever claimed to be one, and asking me about > > my certification in the field of psychology was wholly irrelevant to > > my knowledge of the over-application of pop psychology. > > > > Anyway, the request: > > > > Can people please debate my *claims*, and not *who I am*? > > Once again, the letter to which you are referring is an example of what I > have > deemed the gist-credibility method of deciding whether something is > factual. I > do not know if the person who wrote the letter claims to be NT or not, but > I > have very often complained of the propensity of NTs to use this method to > determine whether someone is credible, rather than the more cognitively > intensive (and accurate) method of critical thought. > > Many of the autism texts describe the tendency of the autistic to be unable > to > " properly " separate the gist of what (they think) needs to be communicated > from > the supporting details. The claim made is that we tend to overprovide > support > data, when all that is needed is the thesis sentence, so to speak. > > This dovetails with (as one example) my rather limited experience as a > speaker > at autism conferences (thus far, always as a panelist, not as a featured > speaker). At one conference, one of my fellow panelists asked to be a > featured > speaker at the next conference, to which the promoter of that conference > responded, " Have a book published and you can be a featured speaker, " or > something to that effect. > > It puzzled me at first when I heard that. Having a book published does > not, to > the best of my knowledge, make you any more credible than not having > written a > book, nor does it indicate that the person will be a good speaker. I have > read > a whole lot of pure nonsense in books; I think I do a reasonably good job > of > providing non-nonsense information, despite the fact that I have not had a > book > published. > > Both of the paragraphs above underscore the commonality of the > gist-credibility > method. When a person using this method listens or reads, he only wants to > hear > or read the conclusion reached by the speaker or writer. Support data is > not > necessary; the listener only wants the conclusion, and enough data to > establish > the credibility of the speaker on that topic. Attempting to provide > supporting > data will be ignored; those things (facts) have little effect upon people > using > the gist-credibility method. > > Things like celebrity, having had books published, letters after one's > name, et > cetera, confer credibility, and tell the listener that you have enough > standing > to probably know what you're talking about. The person could be spouting > the > biggest load of nonsense, but if they have enough credentials (in the eyes > of > the listener), what they say is often taken seriously. > > I have debated people on a broad variety of topics, and I have often run > into > the argument that since I am not (perceived) as credible to write on a > given > topic as (whomever), then I must be wrong. Often, this concept is > delivered > with a heaping helping of sarcasm-- to the effect of " Oh, yeah, , > you're > smarter than (name of person with more credibility than I). " I have tried > to > get them to actually argue the _issues_... and while that has infrequently > worked, my opponent has invariably returned to the gist-credibility stuff > within > a few letters. > > I guess that people that are preprogrammed to be in awe of those with more > social status are unlikely to dare to question their edicts unless they > have > similar credentials, but I don't care about perceived credibility. I deal > in > facts, and facts are facts no matter which person may be mentioning them. > Despite what my mother, the people at the Pitt autism study, and others > have > said, I do not have difficulty separating the gist from the rest of the > stuff. > It's just that I realize that there is no difference; there is no gist > without > support data (that would be a " wild-ass guess. " You have to have a schema > to > have a gist). Separating the conclusion, and ignoring the support data, > would > be a lot like telling only the punch line of a joke. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 > When a person using this method listens or reads, he only wants to > hear or read the conclusion reached by the speaker or writer. > Support data is not necessary; the listener only wants the > conclusion, and enough data to establish the credibility of the > speaker on that topic. Attempting to provide supporting data will > be ignored; those things (facts) have little effect upon people > using the gist-credibility method. That's kind of what I suspected. I would not at all have minded someone asking me " What have you seen that supports your conclusions? " (although it will take me longer than normal to formulate words around that, which is why I haven't answered the person that did in fact ask that, that and that I've been extremely busy lately so this hasn't been a priority), but instead I was asked about whether I'd had certain specific varieties of training and certification that don't actually *confer* expertise in that area. I don't expect people to simply believe me (thus don't mind being asked what my facts are), but I don't think that even if I had letters after my name I'd use them in this context because they're meaningless when it comes to this. (In fact people with letters after their name have a wide variety of opinions on this and nearly all other issues in their field so I can't imagine why the presence or absence of letters would be relevant.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 > > speaker at the next conference, to which the promoter of that conference > responded, " Have a book published and you can be a featured speaker, " or > something to that effect. , That is a business fact but there are other ways to convince people that you deserve to be featured as a speaker. I know, because I spoke at well over 100 conferences before ever writing a book. 1. Get on a national TV or radio story ( I didn't intentionally plan that, but it happened ) 2. Promote your website activity. 3. Be featured in the newspaper of a big city, like Los Angeles, Phoenix, New York etc... > > It puzzled me at first when I heard that. Having a book published does not, to > the best of my knowledge, make you any more credible than not having written a > book, nor does it indicate that the person will be a good speaker. That is true but the book indicates that somebody, namely a publisher, was willing to risk easilly the cost of a conference, to put you in print. I have read > a whole lot of pure nonsense in books; I think I do a reasonably good job of > providing non-nonsense information, despite the fact that I have not had a book > published. You do! Just take it to a higher level and you won't even need any public assistance once those speaker fees and book royalties roll in. > > Things like celebrity, having had books published, letters after one's name, et > cetera, confer credibility, and tell the listener that you have enough standing > to probably know what you're talking about. The person could be spouting the > biggest load of nonsense, but if they have enough credentials (in the eyes of > the listener), what they say is often taken seriously. Like Kerry. He reminded me of people in school who had nothing to say but were listened to because they were tall and rich. > , you have a heck of a lot to offer. Jerry Newport > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.