Re: Possible Aspie character on TV

[Guest guest]

Yes! Gil Grissom and Det. Goren are my two fav cop show characters. Grissom

fits nearly every bill for being an Aspie, though his readiness in some

social situations does go against the theory, but at his age it's possible

he learnt how...

Kaylee

Possible Aspie character on TV

>

> CSI is by far one of my favorite shows, and I'm almost convinced that Gil

> Grissom, the lead on the original CSI is an Aspie. He's into bugs and

> roller coasters, and sees things in a way few others do. Anyone agree?

>

>

> " You know I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I

> thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible

> things that happen to us, come because we *actually* deserve them? Now I

> take great pride in the hostility and general unfairness of the

> Universe. " - Marcus Cole

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think Grissom is an Aspie.

I identify with him a great deal, and a couple of friends turned me on

to CSI because they were raving for months and months that Grissom

reminded them of me... heh.

> Grissom

> fits nearly every bill for being an Aspie, though his readiness in some

> social situations does go against the theory, but at his age it's possible

> he learnt how...

This is a matter of degree for some people. Some Aspies just have more

trouble than others. I think the reason we aren't seeing more Aspies

who hold down jobs for example, is because these people are likely to

be undiagnosed; people don't just show up and say, " You gotta tell me

what's wrong, doc: I have a wife and I make enough money. "

There are probably some well-paid Aspie engineers and scientists, for

example, but they're not going to be showing up in the support groups.

No matter how eccentric a person might seem, they just aren't going to

show up to get diagnosed if there isn't some reason for them to.

But it seems like many, many people who seem to be functioning, would

be diagnosed now if they were seen as children. I (who am barely

functioning in some respects) am only diagnosable based upon childhood

history. This is true of many adults.

--

there are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall

about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other

is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in

them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors.

-- C.S.

[Guest guest]

Aspie-like characters have to be written more social on TV, or the

simplest of the NT audience would find them " boring "

Bourquin wrote:

> Yes! Gil Grissom and Det. Goren are my two fav cop show characters.

> Grissom

> fits nearly every bill for being an Aspie, though his readiness in some

> social situations does go against the theory, but at his age it's

> possible

> he learnt how...

>

[Guest guest]

Yeah :: nods ::

Kaylee

Re: Possible Aspie character on TV

>

> Aspie-like characters have to be written more social on TV, or the

> simplest of the NT audience would find them " boring "

>

> Bourquin wrote:

>

>> Yes! Gil Grissom and Det. Goren are my two fav cop show characters.

>> Grissom

>> fits nearly every bill for being an Aspie, though his readiness in some

>> social situations does go against the theory, but at his age it's

>> possible

>> he learnt how...

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Aspie-like characters have to be written more social on TV, or the

> simplest of the NT audience would find them " boring "

Speaking of Aspie-like TV characters, I can't go without mentioning

Charlie Eppes, the mathematician on CBS' new crime drama " NUMB3RS " ...

someone who deals with stress by going to the basement and trying to

work out a P-versus-NP problem surely isn't neurotypical, as I see it,

anyway.

--

Cody B. / " codeman38 "

cody@...

http://www.zone38.net/

[Guest guest]

I haven't seen NUMB3RS... I haven't even heard of it...

I live in Australia, and only get a few US shows. CSI(s) being some of them.

Kaylee

Re: Possible Aspie character on TV

>

> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:10:39 -0900, Holthaus

> wrote:

>> Aspie-like characters have to be written more social on TV, or the

>> simplest of the NT audience would find them " boring "

>

> Speaking of Aspie-like TV characters, I can't go without mentioning

> Charlie Eppes, the mathematician on CBS' new crime drama " NUMB3RS " ...

> someone who deals with stress by going to the basement and trying to

> work out a P-versus-NP problem surely isn't neurotypical, as I see it,

> anyway.

>

> --

> Cody B. / " codeman38 "

> cody@...

> http://www.zone38.net/

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Speaking of Aspie-like TV characters, I can't go without mentioning

> Charlie Eppes, the mathematician on CBS' new crime drama " NUMB3RS " ...

Definately! Especially a couple of weeks ago when his Dad tried to

sell the family house and he freaked out.

My two TV aspie sightings to add to the pile: Adam on " Mythbusters "

and Dr. House on " House " . Dr. House just has some aspie-ish qualities,

but if Adam isn't an aspie I will eat my hat. I don't currently own a

hat, but I will go out and buy one and eat it.

Wiley

--

By day, a mild-mannered Religious Studies major.

But by night, a mild-mannered Religious Studies major who's asleep.

> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:10:39 -0900, Holthaus

> wrote:

> > Aspie-like characters have to be written more social on TV, or the

> > simplest of the NT audience would find them " boring "

>

> Speaking of Aspie-like TV characters, I can't go without mentioning

> Charlie Eppes, the mathematician on CBS' new crime drama " NUMB3RS " ...

> someone who deals with stress by going to the basement and trying to

> work out a P-versus-NP problem surely isn't neurotypical, as I see it,

> anyway.

>

> --

> Cody B. / " codeman38 "

> cody@...

> http://www.zone38.net/

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Kaylee wrote:

>I haven't seen NUMB3RS... I haven't even heard of it...

>I live in Australia, and only get a few US shows. CSI(s) being some of them.

I live in the U.S.A. (in Seattle), and I hadn't heard of that show

either. Don't watch much TV anymore. It doesn't seem to interest me.

On Monday I did get the TV out to watch a one-hour documentary about

the Harlem Globetrotters. That was interesting (and fun to get to see

bits of their play).

Jane

[Guest guest]

Gil Grissom has undergone a personality change since

the origin of the t.v. show.

He used to be more sociable.

I think it is a writer's technique in light of

recent public knowledge about Asperger's.

Within the recent two months there was a character

who the other investigators considered odd but Grissom

identified as Asperger's. I watched carefully but

Grissom never confessed he shared the condition.

Grisson is on CSI which takes place in Las Vegas.

CSI:Miami has an investigator named Wolf, I think,

introduced this season whom I think is Asperger's. I

like that they show his lack of sociability increases

his concentration and his high degree of accuracy in

his work. The other lesser investigators to the lead

character make mistakes because of arrogance,

preconceived conclusions or failure to notice the

important minute details. Wolf's only mistake is lack

of experience.

I prefer the Wolf character who demonstrates there is

a place for Asperger's in a neurotypical world.

Grissom's character shows that people in management

are tolerated where other people are quickly judged to

be odd or otherwise unacceptable.

~~Bonnie

Grissom

> fits nearly every bill for being an Aspie, though

> his readiness in some

> social situations does go against the theory, ...

__________________________________

Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!

Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/

[Guest guest]

> My two TV aspie sightings to add to the pile: Adam on " Mythbusters "

> and Dr. House on " House " . Dr. House just has some aspie-ish qualities,

> but if Adam isn't an aspie I will eat my hat. I don't currently own a

> hat, but I will go out and buy one and eat it.

Ah, yes... forgot about Dr. House. I like his manner of thinking,

because I often end up doing something similar-- I'll come up, through

leaps of logic, with some idea that just seems totally 'out there' to

most people, but ends up working out quite well in the end. And he's

got that brutal honesty that so many of us are known for.

I haven't seen any of Mythbusters, but that seems like the sort of

thing I'd be interested in... reading Adam's bio on the Discovery

Channel site <http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/meet/meet.html>,

I can definitely see more than a trace of Aspishness. I'll have to

keep an eye out for it this coming week, since I'll be on spring

break.

--

Cody B. / " codeman38 "

cody@...

http://www.zone38.net/

[Guest guest]

This really isn't directed at the person who wrote the message I'm

replying to. It's more directed at the frustration I've had lately with

what I'm seeing as a redefinition of autism.

> Aspie-like characters have to be written more social on TV, or the

> simplest of the NT audience would find them " boring "

This, like other stereotypes, such as " all blacks play basketball " is not

true. Aspies are *not* " less social " . *SOME* ACs are less social, true.

But definitely far from " all " .

In fact, I'd say if someone's biggest autistic trait was that they " don't

like to socialize " or " socialize less " , they probably aren't autistic.

Autism is not a socializing disability.

I also know myself and other autistics (some *much* more then me) who

enjoy and even need significant social contact, sometimes even more then

NTs. And I don't like our part of autism getting ignored. Yes, I know

that there are some autistics who don't like to socialize. That's fine.

Please recognize that others with different views and desires exist,

though.

--

[Guest guest]

Another possible Aspie-like character (not Aspie as such) would be Odo from

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. At least in the early seasons.

Kaylee

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 2/03/2005

[Guest guest]

> This, like other stereotypes, such as " all blacks play basketball " is not

> true. Aspies are *not* " less social " . *SOME* ACs are less social, true.

> But definitely far from " all " .

Yep. The first diagnosed Aspie I knew, is the most social person I

know. She gets into trouble a lot because she has no social

inhibitions, or doesn't sense when people aren't receptive or need to

" shut down " . Interestingly, she gets along better with NTs because her

NT friends are better at telling her when they need a break. I can

only take her for about two hours at a time, tops, and I *can't* be in

a room with her and anyone else. Overload city.

> In fact, I'd say if someone's biggest autistic trait was that they " don't

> like to socialize " or " socialize less " , they probably aren't autistic.

> Autism is not a socializing disability.

Right.

Some people are shy. Some people have social phobia. And some people

just don't fit in, for some reason or another.

--

there are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall

about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other

is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in

them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors.

-- C.S.

[Guest guest]

In AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse , wrote:

<This, like other stereotypes, such as " all blacks play basketball "

is not true. Aspies are *not* " less social " . *SOME* ACs are less

social, true. But definitely far from " all " . Autism is not a

socializing disability.>

This stereotype is more that social skills are less of an innate

ability in autistics, than they are in NTs. Rather than lack of

social need, it is the lack of social skills which is the marking

trait. For us, this is not autism in itself, simply a problem

associated with it. Would we still be autistic if we had innate

social skills? Probably, since its a thinking pattern/thought process

more than anything else, which happens to be associated with various

identifying problems.

<I also know myself and other autistics (some *much* more then me)

who enjoy and even need significant social contact, sometimes even

more then NTs. And I don't like our part of autism getting ignored.

Yes, I know that there are some autistics who don't like to

socialize. That's fine. Please recognize that others with different

views and desires exist, though.>

Unfortunately, we don't have a perfect world. If everyone " recognized

that others with different views and desires exist " , what need would

there be for Autistic Advocacy?

Autistic Advocacy has me confused. Are they advocating that the world

needs to accomodate people who have no need for social contact, or

accomodate people who simply have no social skills? There's so many

different Advocists, its hard to identify what they're trying to do.

Having read mostly all I can find, I get the impression that they're

touting autistics as a group that have no social needs.

From my limited experience, everyone needs some social contact, even

if it is a very small amount. Why is it that autistics often get

depressed? From what I've read, its because they get " put down " , told

they're defective etc. But if they had no need for social contact,

they wouldn't care an iota what that person thought anyway. In my own

case, I get depressed because I need that social contact, but have no

skills to get it.

What's everyone else's opinion on this?

Shea

[Guest guest]

shealaver jotted this down:

> This stereotype is more that social skills are less of an innate

> ability in autistics, than they are in NTs. Rather than lack of

> social need, it is the lack of social skills which is the marking

> trait.

It isn't that we are *lacking* in social skills. It is that we naturally

socialize very differently from how NTs do... Most of us (to my knowledge)

interact best in " parallel " mode, where we do something quietly alongside

somebody we care about, whereas most NTs handle perpendicular/direct mode (doing

something interactive with somebody) better. It's just that people tend to

assume that the only options are direct-mode interactive skills or none at all.

> For us, this is not autism in itself, simply a problem

> associated with it.

I don't consider it a problem. I am quite happy interacting this way with my

autistic father, autistic friend, autistic partner, autistic online friends,

etc. That we do this naturally rather than directly interacting like NTs do

doesn't mean we have a " problem " IMHO. If anything, I consider it a neat

advantage: I've had some great " parallel monologue " email exchanges with others

on the spectrum that involved a depth of information/insight I could never get

with a neurotypical because of how their brains work.

> Would we still be autistic if we had innate

> social skills?

Yes, and we do. We just don't have NT social skills. There's also a lot more

to autism than interaction style.

> Probably, since its a thinking pattern/thought

> process more than anything else

Actually, in most of us it's a neurosensory configuration involving the entire

body, not just a thought process.

>, which happens to be associated

> with various identifying problems.

I don't consider it problematic...and that's not because I'm at all " mild "

autism-wise, either.

> Unfortunately, we don't have a perfect world. If everyone

>  " recognized that others with different views and desires exist " ,

> what need would there be for Autistic Advocacy?

That not enough people recognize something isn't a good reason to be willfully

ignorant, though. The path towards a better world is through educating

ourselves and others; it's shrugging off " well, nothing is perfect " that causes

long-term damage.

> Autistic Advocacy has me confused. Are they advocating that the

> world needs to accomodate people who have no need for social

> contact, or accomodate people who simply have no social skills?

We're advocating that our different needs and ways of doing things should be

accommodated, rather than expecting us to overburden ourselves trying to appear

as something we are not. It is in line with the other civil rights (gay,

female, minority, disabled) movements.

> Having read mostly all I can find, I get the

> impression that they're touting autistics as a group that have no

> social needs.

Which sites? It's certainly not at autistics.org or the other advo sites I've

been to, at least not that I remember.

> Why is it that

> autistics often get depressed? From what I've read, its because

> they get " put down " , told they're defective etc.

It is because we are constantly told and treated as a lesser form of human

being, pushed to hide our autism and pretend to be something we're not. It is

also the long-term result of the kind of outright abuse autistics often

encounter in childhood -- most of us have PTSD from it.

> But if they had no need for social contact, they wouldn't care an

> iota what that person thought anyway.

Not true. If you were held down screaming to a chair for hours every day, hit

if you stimmed, yelled at loud enough to hurt your ears over things you didn't

even understand, and your parents constantly talked in your presence about how

they hope you'll grow up to stop being yourself, then regardless of whether you

need social contact or not, the chemical setup for clinical depression would be

in place by a fairly young age. How you feel about the opinions of others

doesn't really factor in when your brain has been trained to hate itself.

> In my own case, I get depressed because I

> need that social contact, but have no skills to get it.

Find people that are more accommodating of differences... The issue isn't so

much that you " lack skills " as that you need to be around those that can accept

you as you are. My personal preference is to meet people through volunteering

for various organizations, as volunteers tend to be more accepting than most,

especially if I'm up-front and positive about being autistic. (I meet most of

my social needs online anyway, but for real-life I volunteer.) Other autistics

find non-bigoted NTs to meet their social needs through raves, special-interest

clubs, and so forth, though obviously that's easier if you live in a

diverse/accepting area in the first place.

--

DeGraf ~*~ blog: http://sonic.net/mustang/moggy

" I can understand trying to cure things that kill

people or make them sick, but why try to cure something

that just makes people different? " -- 8-year-old autistic

[Guest guest]

> This stereotype is more that social skills are less of an innate

> ability in autistics, than they are in NTs. Rather than lack of

> social need, it is the lack of social skills which is the marking

> trait. For us, this is not autism in itself, simply a problem

> associated with it. Would we still be autistic if we had innate

> social skills? Probably, since its a thinking pattern/thought process

> more than anything else, which happens to be associated with various

> identifying problems.

Yes, although I think our social skill differences are one of the more

minor parts of autism. I'd look for EF, sensory, cognitive, and language

issues long before I'd look at social areas to determine if someone was

autistic. But I don't write the DSM...

> Autistic Advocacy has me confused.

It's both confused and angered me.

> Are they advocating that the world

> needs to accomodate people who have no need for social contact, or

> accomodate people who simply have no social skills? There's so many

> different Advocists, its hard to identify what they're trying to do.

> Having read mostly all I can find, I get the impression that they're

> touting autistics as a group that have no social needs.

> >From my limited experience, everyone needs some social contact, even

> if it is a very small amount. Why is it that autistics often get

> depressed? From what I've read, its because they get " put down " , told

> they're defective etc. But if they had no need for social contact,

> they wouldn't care an iota what that person thought anyway. In my own

> case, I get depressed because I need that social contact, but have no

> skills to get it.

> What's everyone else's opinion on this?

I agree completely. It's really the " Mr. Data " problem. While it would

be nice to not really have any emotions or social desires, we aren't

robots. Even if we would have liked to be.

Although I certainly accept that some people handle emotions differently

then I do and some people have different levels of social interest then I

do.

--

[Guest guest]

> It isn't that we are *lacking* in social skills. It is that we

> naturally socialize very differently from how NTs do... Most of us (to

> my knowledge) interact best in " parallel " mode, where we do something

> quietly alongside somebody we care about, whereas most NTs handle

> perpendicular/direct mode (doing something interactive with somebody)

> better. It's just that people tend to assume that the only options are

> direct-mode interactive skills or none at all.

I don't know about this. I get very frustrated when I'm with a friend and

they are doing something *other* then interacting with me directly. I

feel that they are excluding me and that they would be just as happy

without me even in the room, which hurts and pisses me off. So when I'm

around autistics who are into the parallel-social thing, I am always

uncomfortable.

My idea of enjoyable social activity is to spend a few hours talking

(probably non-speech) with someone about a mutual interest.

Although I can even enjoy general social chit-chat with someone I like.

Which probably will have some saying that I'm not really autistic, but...

> > For us, this is not autism in itself, simply a problem

> > associated with it.

> I don't consider it a problem. I am quite happy interacting this way

> with my autistic father, autistic friend, autistic partner, autistic

> online friends, etc. That we do this naturally rather than directly

> interacting like NTs do doesn't mean we have a " problem " IMHO. If

> anything, I consider it a neat advantage: I've had some great " parallel

> monologue " email exchanges with others on the spectrum that involved a

> depth of information/insight I could never get with a neurotypical

> because of how their brains work.

Agreed.

> > Would we still be autistic if we had innate

> > social skills?

> Yes, and we do. We just don't have NT social skills. There's also a

> lot more to autism than interaction style.

EXACTLY!

> > Autistic Advocacy has me confused. Are they advocating that the

> > world needs to accomodate people who have no need for social

> > contact, or accomodate people who simply have no social skills?

> We're advocating that our different needs and ways of doing things

> should be accommodated, rather than expecting us to overburden ourselves

> trying to appear as something we are not. It is in line with the other

> civil rights (gay, female, minority, disabled) movements.

Except if it was like other movements...well, let me give an example of

what it would look like if it was the woman's movement:

SOME would be saying " Women need equal access to employment, voting, and

other rights in society. If we have the same ability to do something, we

should have the same chance to do it. " They would unfortunately not have

the loudest of voices.

Other women would be saying, " We should be trying to become men. And if

we want to do the things men do, we should be willing to undergo sex

change operations and other treatment. It might not even be bad to find

ways to eliminate women before birth since they'll have inferior lives. "

Yet others would be saying, " I want the men to make sure that my car is

repaired for me free, to give me a manager job even though I don't have

any credentials, and otherwise do my bidding because, look, I'm a woman. "

Others would be saying, " I have more womanhood then most women. So I

deserve more help. "

And others still would say, " I like our place in society. We should be

ruled by men. That's the order of things, like it or not, women have less

ability. "

And lots of other views. So it would be hard for anyone to say, " Oh, this

is what women want. " (or, even worse, someone could just pick some woman

that said some random and not wonderful thing and say, " See, women want

what we are doing to them. Jane Doe here says she loves being tied up in

bed and having sex with random men! " )

Now I know the woman's movement did (and still does) have a variety of

voices. But there is a general consensus on a great number of issues,

even if everything isn't agreed to. (for instance, even though some woman

somewhere may like being tied up and having sex with random men, very few

people would say the majority of women would enjoy that) Yet in the

autistic community, even things like institutions and murder of autistics

get debate as to their ethics - from inside the community.

> > Having read mostly all I can find, I get the

> > impression that they're touting autistics as a group that have no

> > social needs.

> Which sites? It's certainly not at autistics.org or the other advo

> sites I've been to, at least not that I remember.

I think this is coming from the current aspificiation of the autistic

movement, where autism is being attempted to be redefined as simply a

social disorder.

> > But if they had no need for social contact, they wouldn't care an

> > iota what that person thought anyway.

> Not true. If you were held down screaming to a chair for hours every

> day, hit if you stimmed, yelled at loud enough to hurt your ears over

> things you didn't even understand, and your parents constantly talked in

> your presence about how they hope you'll grow up to stop being yourself,

> then regardless of whether you need social contact or not, the chemical

> setup for clinical depression would be in place by a fairly young age.

> How you feel about the opinions of others doesn't really factor in when

> your brain has been trained to hate itself.

Agreed. I think a better way of proving the point would be to say, " If we

didn't have this social desire, why would there be so many 20-something

male autistics who were depressed over not having a girlfriend [and not

just because of the lack of sex, although that certainly may be the reason

for some of them being depressed]?

> > In my own case, I get depressed because I

> > need that social contact, but have no skills to get it.

>

> Find people that are more accommodating of differences... The issue

> isn't so much that you " lack skills " as that you need to be around those

> that can accept you as you are. My personal preference is to meet

> people through volunteering for various organizations, as volunteers

> tend to be more accepting than most, especially if I'm up-front and

> positive about being autistic. (I meet most of my social needs online

> anyway, but for real-life I volunteer.) Other autistics find

> non-bigoted NTs to meet their social needs through raves,

> special-interest clubs, and so forth, though obviously that's easier if

> you live in a diverse/accepting area in the first place.

Agreed.

I prefer autistics for friends personally, and even in my relatively

isolated area of the world I've found more then a few. I just wish there

were a couple living in my town currently that I knew and shared interests

and compatible personalties with.

--

[Guest guest]

> I don't know about this. I get very frustrated when I'm with a

> friend and they are doing something *other* then interacting with

> me directly. I feel that they are excluding me and that they would

> be just as happy without me even in the room, which hurts and

> pisses me off. So when I'm around autistics who are into the

> parallel-social thing, I am always uncomfortable.

Always?

I can recall a lot of conversations with you, but I can also recall

situations where we were doing things in parallel or doing the same

activities but not directly interacting with each other about it.

And I'm definitely into the parallel-social thing, although maybe I

do it less with you because you're not as into it? I don't know.

You haven't voiced much in the way of discomfort about my presence

though. And you *do* do parallel-monologue quite effectively.

I know a couple other autistic people around here and we went to the

park and fed ducks and occasionally talked to each other. And that

was cool.

> My idea of enjoyable social activity is to spend a few hours talking

> (probably non-speech) with someone about a mutual interest.

If you consider 12 or more hours " a few " ... <ducking>

, who enjoys -visits but can't pretend not to be exhausted

afterwards

[Guest guest]

What frustrates me is to be with a friend, interacting with them,

while they are doing something else - the something else (whether

playing a video game, watching TV, etc) nearly *always* is so

distracting to me that I can't otherwise carry on a conversation. I

dislike talking to one of my friends voice for this reason, because he

nearly always is playing on his computer or playing a video game, in

the background.

>

>

> > It isn't that we are *lacking* in social skills. It is that we

> > naturally socialize very differently from how NTs do... Most of us (to

> > my knowledge) interact best in " parallel " mode, where we do something

> > quietly alongside somebody we care about, whereas most NTs handle

> > perpendicular/direct mode (doing something interactive with somebody)

> > better. It's just that people tend to assume that the only options are

> > direct-mode interactive skills or none at all.

>

--

there are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall

about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other

is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in

them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors.

-- C.S.

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> > if it is a very small amount. Why is it that autistics often get

> > depressed? From what I've read, its because they get " put down " ,

> > told they're defective etc. But if they had no need for social

> > contact, they wouldn't care an iota what that person thought

> > anyway.

I have not seen anyone that has argued that autistics have *no* social

needs. What I have seen is that we have less social need than NTs,

which is not inaccurate.

Personally, I cared what people thought of me in school only because

those that did not like me tended to hit me, kick me, knock me down,

spit on me, threaten to kill me, put gum in my hair, spill milk or other

foodstuffs on me, steal my personal belongings, hold me under water

until I almost drowned (we had to do swimming in high school), threw

things at me, pinched my nipples until they turned weird shades of

purple, et cetera. If they just talked amongst themselves about how I

sucked without making it a big problem for me, I wouldn't have cared (or

noticed, probably). When they tell me with physical violence, or with

emotional violence (threats, etc), they force me to care.

> > In my own case, I get depressed because I need that social

> > contact, but have no skills to get it. What's everyone else's

> > opinion on this?

My depression was not a function of social isolation. It was a function

of the abuse I received in school, which was when it started. Social

isolation has been a big part of the solution to that problem (but not

as big as SSRI antidepressants).

> I agree completely. It's really the " Mr. Data " problem. While it

> would be nice to not really have any emotions or social desires, we

> aren't robots. Even if we would have liked to be.

Well, if it would be nice, then why not strive for that? We may never

reach perfection, but that does not make an endeavor that is worthless.

We can get closer to that if we don't pay undue attention to emotions

than if we pretend that they are the be-all and end-all of human

existence. As I see it, emotions are just evolutionary detritus,

obsolete remnants of a time before there was language to express ideas,

concepts, and codes of conduct. Emotions constantly get in the way of

logic and rationality... they lead people to do stupid things. Hardly

ever does one hear of an anecdote in which logic and rational thought

swept them away from emotion, and that led to a bad decision.

If it does, it is generally because what one thought was the rational

choice was not, but it seemed so under the pressure of emotion, or

because the person in question is operating based on emotion and not

logic after the decision has been made. It is emotions that usually

lead to the truly bad decisions, whether the emotion be anger, hate,

love, sadness, or what have you. This happens so often that emotional

interference is a standard excuse for bad decisions.

I feel angry, I feel happy, I feel tired, I feel hungry (I know the

latter is not an emotion, but it is a feeling). None of these things

changes a given fact that one may be pondering, but ALL of them are

likely to affect the way that people see that fact. That leads to

suboptimal results in many ways.

Emotional responses interfere with legislation, and of selecting those

that govern. They interfere with juries finding guilt or innocence

based on the facts; both the defense attorney and the prosecutor try to

make emotional appeals, when it is only the law, justice (sometimes

opposing the law), and fact that matter. They keep people from making

practical decisions in so many varied areas of life. They can prevent

clear thinking during a crisis, when clear thought is quite important.

Rationality is the gold standard; emotion is, so to speak, the lead

standard. We may be cursed with emotions, but that does not mean we

should pay undue attention to them, or to those of others. We can't

ignore them completely... wishing they were not there does not make them

cease to exist, but we should put rationality and logic ahead of emotion

every chance we get.

Mr. Data had one flaw-- he wanted to be human, and to have emotion. I

would prefer to be a Vulcan (my frame of reference here is the four most

recent Star Trek series). Vulcans were not biologically free of

emotion; they merely recognized that emotions get in the way of logic,

and that logic is very preferable to emotion. They figured out an

effective way to suppress their powerful emotions. I wish I could too,

because mine escape from their bindings more often than I would prefer.

My repertoire is mostly anger, irritation, and " happy, " where happy is

kind of an emotionless state in which rational thought is firmly in

control. Being " happier " than that can be just as annoying as being

irritated, if that makes any sense.

I write " kind of " because even the indeterminate state is not completely

emotion-free. I think that my likes and dislikes are still tied in with

emotion, and even in that relatively emotionless state, I still have

activities I like and those I do not like. Some of the dislikes are

based on obvious sensory reactions; I don't like parties or bars because

they are noisy, smelly, and full of excessive motion and way too many

people. Others are not based on specific sensory issues that I can

identify, although I usually can find a logical cause for each dislike

(for example, my dislike of leaving my apartment stems from my desire to

be in complete control of my environment (or at least having my

immediate environment be one in which there will be few or no unexpected

events). I prefer places where things will go as I expect; that is the

most likely to be the case in my apartment.

[Guest guest]

I have to say I get lonely a lot. I have one friend within 1300 miles right

now, and my husband found her. I haven't been able to make any friends

anyplace else in the two+ years we've been here. I miss the " social life " I

had established in Austin, even if it did revolve around a karaoke bar.

Elayne

http://cablespeed.com/~solinox/index.htm

" Those who refuse to support and defend a state have no claim to protection

by that state. "

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>>Rationality is the gold standard; emotion is, so to speak, the lead

>>standard. We may be cursed with emotions, but that does not mean we

>>should pay undue attention to them, or to those of others. We can't

>>ignore them completely... wishing they were not there does not make them

>>cease to exist, but we should put rationality and logic ahead of emotion

>>every chance we get.<<

Emotions are what make life worth living. Much of what you and I do is in

pursuit of happiness -- however we may personally define happiness.

And our perceptions of others' emotions affect how we treat them. It's

dangerous to claim (as I've heard done) that Autistics don't experience

emotions. If Autistics have no feelings, then others need never worry about

hurting their feelings.

If you didn't care, , you wouldn't be doing what you do. If you didn't

care, others wouldn't care about you. It's actually a good thing that

you're unable to hide the emotions that annoy and embarrass you so.

- Debra

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>Well, if it would be nice, then why not strive for that? We may never

>reach perfection, but that does not make an endeavor that is worthless.

>We can get closer to that if we don't pay undue attention to emotions

>than if we pretend that they are the be-all and end-all of human

>existence. As I see it, emotions are just evolutionary detritus,

>obsolete remnants of a time before there was language to express ideas,

>concepts, and codes of conduct. Emotions constantly get in the way of

>logic and rationality... they lead people to do stupid things. Hardly

>ever does one hear of an anecdote in which logic and rational thought

>swept them away from emotion, and that led to a bad decision.

There are people for whom emotion (under the control of reason-based

moral/ethical standards) is a powerful, creative, beneficent

motivating/energizing force. If I were going to strive to emulate any

non-me way-of-being, I think I'd strive for that (rather than for

suppressing emotion as much as possible).

There also are people, unfortunately, who claim to be operating

entirely on the basis of reason, who can give a very persuasive

imitation of emotionlessness, who accuse/denigrate their opponents by

saying " you're just being emotional, " yet who actually are playing

out their deep emotional needs under the guise of rationality. These

people are scary.

[Just in case, I will specify: NO, for heaven's sake! That last

paragraph was NOT a description of anybody here! The closest I've

come, personally, to one of those monsters in real life was decades

ago. Turned my stomach. Not sure I'd be able to recognize such a

beast online, and I hope I never have the misfortune to come across

one in a group like this, which I value.]

Jane

[Guest guest]

> > I don't know about this. I get very frustrated when I'm with a

> > friend and they are doing something *other* then interacting with

> > me directly. I feel that they are excluding me and that they would

> > be just as happy without me even in the room, which hurts and

> > pisses me off. So when I'm around autistics who are into the

> > parallel-social thing, I am always uncomfortable.

>

> Always?

Okay, maybe not *quite* always.

> I can recall a lot of conversations with you, but I can also recall

> situations where we were doing things in parallel or doing the same

> activities but not directly interacting with each other about it.

I guess that there are *sometimes* where I don't need to be directly

interacting, but it is usually my preference.

> And I'm definitely into the parallel-social thing, although maybe I

> do it less with you because you're not as into it? I don't know.

> You haven't voiced much in the way of discomfort about my presence

> though. And you *do* do parallel-monologue quite effectively.

I didn't voice much discomfort even when I've had it because most of those

times voicing it would have just stressed you out or required more

energy/socializing then you could do at the time. (I know, that's kind of

ToM-ish...) Sometimes friends don't *always* interact 100% to my

preferences <grin>, which I'm learning is something that is part of

having a friend.

As for the parallel-monologue, I'll have to take your word for that.

> If you consider 12 or more hours " a few " ... <ducking>

Yes, something like that. Or skipping sleep to do it.

> , who enjoys -visits but can't pretend not to be exhausted

> afterwards

Yes, me too.

The person I like who wears me out is Kathy - she has an even higher

tolerance for interaction then I have, and ends up wearing both herself

and me out (we *always* both end up taking an afternoon nap when we visit

each other).

--

[Guest guest]

> I have not seen anyone that has argued that autistics have *no* social

> needs. What I have seen is that we have less social need than NTs,

> which is not inaccurate.

It *is* inaccurate, at least when applied universally. YOU may have less

social need. Some other ACs may have less social need. But not

*everyone* who is autistic has less social need.

> > I agree completely. It's really the " Mr. Data " problem. While it

> > would be nice to not really have any emotions or social desires, we

> > aren't robots. Even if we would have liked to be.

>

> Well, if it would be nice, then why not strive for that? We may never

> reach perfection, but that does not make an endeavor that is worthless.

As long as your striving for it doesn't demean or put me down for *not*

striving for it, I have no problem with it. But too often, this striving

is seen as the all-time-positive-wonderful-autie-goal. And it's not.

<snip rant on how people like me are awful because we use emotion to

inform our life along with logic>

--