Re: Possible Aspie character on TV

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>

>

> > 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.

Ah-- I thought you might say that. It is accurate, because if you

compare like to like, we're still going to require less social

interaction. If you were to rank all autistics and all NTs (in separate

groups) in terms of the social interactions they need, and if you took

one of the autistics that had the greatest need for social interaction,

the corresponding NT with the same percentile rank would certainly

require even more.

> 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.

Should be, but not just for auties-- for all sentient beings.

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

> inform our life along with logic>

All people, unfortunately.

[Guest guest]

> > 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.

>

> Ah-- I thought you might say that. It is accurate, because if you

> compare like to like, we're still going to require less social

> interaction. If you were to rank all autistics and all NTs (in separate

> groups) in terms of the social interactions they need, and if you took

> one of the autistics that had the greatest need for social interaction,

> the corresponding NT with the same percentile rank would certainly

> require even more.

I *still* disagree. I think your sample is skewed by the type of people

who go to support groups and online groups.

I also think some of us learn to cope with little social interaction not

because it is our inate desire, but because of circumstances. And we

learn to be happy with it.

Certainly, I agree there are some ACs that don't like social interaction.

That's fine.

But I will continue to argue against anyone who says a symptom of autism

is reduced social interest, especially when so much of that is dependent

upon environment and culture.

<snip more insulting " and others like him are pursuing shitty goals

because they aren't interested in eliminating emotion>

--

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>

>

> >> 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.

> >

> > Ah-- I thought you might say that. It is accurate, because if you

> > compare like to like, we're still going to require less social

> > interaction. If you were to rank all autistics and all NTs (in

> > separate groups) in terms of the social interactions they need, and

> > if you took one of the autistics that had the greatest need for

> > social interaction, the corresponding NT with the same percentile

> > rank would certainly require even more.

>

> I *still* disagree. I think your sample is skewed by the type of

> people who go to support groups and online groups.

And what is your sample based upon?

Isolating oneself and avoiding social contact is one of the hallmarks of

autism, from childhood on.

The kind of people that go to support groups and online groups may, in

fact, be the ones that tend to be more desirous of social contact.

> But I will continue to argue against anyone who says a symptom of

> autism is reduced social interest, especially when so much of that is

> dependent upon environment and culture.

Well, it is an autistic trait, even if you argue against it. That does

not mean that all autistics are like that, but as a group, they are much

more than NTs.

> <snip more insulting " and others like him are pursuing shitty

> goals because they aren't interested in eliminating emotion>

If you are insulted by that, it is your choice. It is my opinion that

people (all of them) should strive for rationality and logic above all

else, because of the reasons I mentioned before (which you found easier

to dismiss as a " rant " and ignore). I am not especially concerned about

emotions, so I am not going to pretend that I care about that when I

state my opinion. Perhaps if you worked on being rational rather than

emotional, you would not be insulted by this, and would instead choose

to answer these things rather than dismissively " snip " them. Ah well,

you can lead a horse to water...

[Guest guest]

> Well, it is an autistic trait, even if you argue against it. That does

> not mean that all autistics are like that, but as a group, they are much

> more than NTs.

Even if this was true, which I'm not convinced it is, it does not alter my

statement that the statement " autistics are less desiring of social

contact " is wrong. The correct statement is " some autistics are less

desiring of social contact. "

> > <snip more insulting " and others like him are pursuing shitty

> > goals because they aren't interested in eliminating emotion>

>

> If you are insulted by that, it is your choice. It is my opinion that

> people (all of them) should strive for rationality and logic above all

> else, because of the reasons I mentioned before (which you found easier

> to dismiss as a " rant " and ignore). I am not especially concerned about

> emotions, so I am not going to pretend that I care about that when I

> state my opinion. Perhaps if you worked on being rational rather than

> emotional, you would not be insulted by this, and would instead choose

> to answer these things rather than dismissively " snip " them. Ah well,

> you can lead a horse to water...

I can think of a two word response to an arrogant statement like that, but

I try not to use that very often.

--

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> I can think of a two word response to an arrogant statement like

> that, but I try not to use that very often.

" You're right? "

[Guest guest]

> 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).

That's actually quite similar to how Surak (a Vulcan philosopher) is

portrayed as thinking in _Spock's World_. Later Vulcans took him too

literally and came up with " all formal logic, suppression of emotions " .

> 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.

I've encountered people doing similar things to that offline (maybe

not what you described, but a similar dynamic). What I've often found

disturbing:

1. They usually have a lot more power than me.

2. That power, not an inherent strength they have, is the main reason

they can make a pretence to emotionlessness.

3. Their ideas don't affect *them* with the same direct threat they

affect *me* with.

4. They refuse to acknowledge the power imbalance.

5. They then decide I'm " just being emotional " when they voice ideas

that might have a life and death effect on me (but don't on them, so

they can sit around pretending to be perfectly rational, where

" perfectly rational " seems to mean " upholding their prejudices and

dominance structures without looking at them " ).

Actually there was one person online awhile back -- in a public area

-- who fit more with what you described. He claimed to be completely

emotionless and rational, and then called for the extermination of all

people who weren't " perfect " like him. (I'm not sure whether he was

trolling or not.) Sort of like " Nomad " in " Star Trek " .

[Guest guest]

> > I can think of a two word response to an arrogant statement like

> > that, but I try not to use that very often.

>

> " You're right? "

>

>

That wasn't the first words that came to mind, though.

Maybe we should talk about something we can agree about like the right to

teach young children how to shoot guns.

Oh, that reminds me...while driving from Wyoming to California to visit

a couple months back, while driving through one of Wyoming's more

rural towns, I heard the following on the local radio station (Yes, *THE*

station) right before Christmas:

" Where does Santa Claus and the elves buy their guns and ammunition? "

" At [can't remember the exact name] Hunting Supply! "

(you found out later in the commercial that Mrs. Claus also buys her

hunting stuff there)

I don't think you could get away with a commercial incorporating Santa

Claus and guns in most areas of the world...

--

[Guest guest]

alfamanda wrote:

> That's actually quite similar to how Surak (a Vulcan philosopher) is

> portrayed as thinking in _Spock's World_. Later Vulcans took him too

> literally and came up with " all formal logic, suppression of

> emotions " .

Yes, you have mentioned that before, which was why I mentioned that my

frame of reference in describing Vulcans was the last four series, where

the later Vulcan mindset was in effect.

> Actually there was one person online awhile back -- in a public area

> -- who fit more with what you described. He claimed to be completely

> emotionless and rational, and then called for the extermination of

> all people who weren't " perfect " like him. (I'm not sure whether he

> was trolling or not.) Sort of like " Nomad " in " Star Trek " .

" I am NOMAD, I am perfect. That which is imperfect must be sterilized. "

[Guest guest]

> Oh, that reminds me...while driving from Wyoming to California to visit

> a couple months back, while driving through one of Wyoming's more

> rural towns, I heard the following on the local radio station (Yes, *THE*

> station) right before Christmas:

Oh, I forgot, in that small town the only commercial station there was a -

deep breath - Clear Channel station. ARGH!

--

[Guest guest]

> Isolating oneself and avoiding social contact is one of the

> hallmarks of autism, from childhood on.

Actually, the *appearance* of doing that is one of the hallmarks of

autism. There are several reasons for *appearing* like that, only one

of which is lacking social desires. I have known a lot of autistic

people -- myself at times included -- whose attempts to socialize

weren't recognized as attempts to socialize and who were described

outwardly as lacking any social desire, isolating ourselves, and

rejecting social contact. One person I was friends with was described

this way *specifically because* she was defined as " severely autistic "

which automatically meant " incapable of social desires " (our

friendship was needless to say never recognized as a friendship).

It's outsiders -- non-autistic people -- who defined autism by what

they *thought that appearance meant*. Starting with Kanner (who also

mistook autistic people's early feeding problems, from vomiting a lot

to being unsure how to nurse, for a symptom of the same personality

trait, if you want to talk about mistakes he's made attributing inward

intentions to outward behavior). And going on from there, until it

became supposedly established wisdom.

I see no reason to give primacy to one out of the many reasons

autistic people can look this way, just because Kanner and some others

screwed up on interpreting it a long time ago and continued their

mistakes to the present day.

[Guest guest]

alfamanda wrote:

>

>

>

> > Isolating oneself and avoiding social contact is one of the

> > hallmarks of autism, from childhood on.

>

> Actually, the *appearance* of doing that is one of the hallmarks of

> autism.

A good point. I will have to ponder that.

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>

>

>

>

>>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 think many of us need it in smaller doses, because it is a lot more

effort for us.

I can dance all night, but a few hours of socializing wears me out.

Ride the Music

AndyTiedye

[Guest guest]

> > Oh, that reminds me...while driving from Wyoming to California to visit

> > a couple months back, while driving through one of Wyoming's more

> > rural towns, I heard the following on the local radio station (Yes, *THE*

> > station) right before Christmas:

>

> Oh, I forgot, in that small town the only commercial station there was a -

> deep breath - Clear Channel station. ARGH!

There really ought to be some sort of anti-trust case made against

Clear Channel. It's just getting ridiculous...

(Well, I'm sort of trying to bring the topic back-- um, OK, not

really, but TV and radio both use the same airwaves? )

--

Cody B. / " codeman38 "

cody@...

http://www.zone38.net/

[Guest guest]

Debra Bettis wrote:

> 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.

That has been the one part of the Vulcan archetype that I have not been

able to figure out. Vulcans do play games and take part in activities

that have no logical use. Of course, they are not emotionless, even

though that is their claim. They are just free of the more overt kind,

the kind that interfere with their logic. This is what I hold as ideal,

even though I know I will never get there. Full rationality is the

goal. I wish it was everyone's, and it triggers my irritation emotion

when others let emotion cloud their judgment when they could prevent

it. They do sometimes interfere with mine, but they do not if I can

help it.

> 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.

I have heard that, but I certainly have never claimed it. People have

claimed that animals do not have emotions either, which is pretty

silly. None of them ever saw a dog that was happy to see them, or an

animal that was angry?

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

I know.

> It's actually a good

> thing that you're unable to hide the emotions that annoy and

> embarrass you so.

They do not embarrass me... they just annoy me and frustrate me. I hate

annoyance, and frustration, and hate. Wow, that's the tightest circle I

have ever turned

What bothers me most is that others do not work to overcome their

emotional baggage (and it's all baggage to me) and think rationally at

all times. How many less wars would the world have experienced without

hatred? How much easier would it be to suggest to people that autistics

deserve to exist if our curebie opponents didn't have such a powerful

hatred of autism, and a fear of it? How many legislators would quit

making stupid laws that do nothing but make things worse, but which make

people " feel like " the government is doing something? Almost everything

bad that people do (intentionally) can be attributed to them listening

to their emotions and failing to act rationally-- me included.

So, I guess I would be satisfied if emotions could be reduced to the

levels of the Vulcans (fictitious that they are) in Star Trek's last

four series, not totally eliminated.

[Guest guest]

> What bothers me most is that others do not work to overcome their

> emotional baggage (and it's all baggage to me) and think rationally

> at all times. How many less wars would the world have experienced

> without hatred? How much easier would it be to suggest to people

> that autistics deserve to exist if our curebie opponents didn't

> have such a powerful hatred of autism, and a fear of it? How many

> legislators would quit making stupid laws that do nothing but make

> things worse, but which make people " feel like " the government is

> doing something? Almost everything bad that people do

> (intentionally) can be attributed to them listening to their

> emotions and failing to act rationally-- me included.

Then again, how many people would be dead because they would not be

capable of conscious thought fast enough to get out of the way of

falling objects, without the emotional/irrational/adrenaline reaction

that causes most people to jump out of the way before they have *time*

to think rationally?

And what would be everyone's " rational " response to people who were

physiologically incapable of doing what you talk about? Would they be

second-class citizens, not hated but also not considered quite as

important as the " rational " people?

[Guest guest]

alfamanda wrote:

> Then again, how many people would be dead because they would not be

> capable of conscious thought fast enough to get out of the way of

> falling objects, without the emotional/irrational/adrenaline reaction

> that causes most people to jump out of the way before they have

> *time* to think rationally?

That is not an emotional response. It is a reflex. When I touch a hot

stove, my hand jerks away before I can feel pain; that is not

emotional. When the doctor whaps that little hammer on my knee, it

jerks; that is not emotional. Emotion would be the thing that makes

people freeze like a deer in the headlights when something is falling.

I have studied the art of self-defense, and it is the emotional response

that usually gets in the way. The one time I was threatened by a gang

member with a gun, I had no overt emotional response, and I am glad that

I didn't.

> And what would be everyone's " rational " response to people who were

> physiologically incapable of doing what you talk about? Would they

> be second-class citizens, not hated but also not considered quite as

> important as the " rational " people?

People should be rational to the maximum extent of their ability, that's

all. No one is sitting there with a clipboard assigning scores based on

how rational anyone is. Not all rationality, of course, is based on

words; a lot of my rational thought is in a mode that I cannot fully

explain, but which seems the most like your descriptions of spatial

thought. It's not visual, and it's not verbal, and it is impossible for

me to explain how concepts that are inherently non-spatial can be

processed that way, but that's my preferred mode.

[Guest guest]

> What bothers me most is that others do not work to overcome their

> emotional baggage (and it's all baggage to me) and think rationally at

> all times. How many less wars would the world have experienced without

> hatred? How much easier would it be to suggest to people that autistics

> deserve to exist if our curebie opponents didn't have such a powerful

> hatred of autism, and a fear of it? How many legislators would quit

> making stupid laws that do nothing but make things worse, but which make

> people " feel like " the government is doing something? Almost everything

> bad that people do (intentionally) can be attributed to them listening

> to their emotions and failing to act rationally-- me included.

Of course emotion also causes people to do tremendous good sometimes, at

risk of personal injury (or even death) and even at risk of low chance of

success. Even when a logical and thoughtful analysis would say, " You

know, if I helped me neighbor with that, he may be grateful and help me

later, but the chance of either of us surviving is relatively low so I'm

going to let the evil happen to him. " I'm not thinking of instinctive

things, but when someone, for reasons of love or even emotional

concern/friendship, or even just to avoid the emotion of regret and

sadness, does something good. It does happen.

Of course I believe logic *or* emotion outside of a moral context will

tend toward evil.

A movie that is entertaining (although probably not illuminating to this

issue) that deals with this is Equilibrium.

--

[Guest guest]

>...People have

>claimed that animals do not have emotions either, which is pretty

>silly. None of them ever saw a dog that was happy to see them, or an

>animal that was angry?

Humans tend to claim that animal reactions are " instinctual, " by

which they mean (apparently) " biological " as opposed to " mental " in

nature. Since there really isn't (as far as I can tell) a clear

distinction between brain (biology) and mind (mentation), that

distinction is a case of chosen self-delusion, IMO.

What bothers me a lot sometimes is that a person (or a mob or

persons) will claim " rights " on the basis of sheer emotion (e.g., the

" right " of the victim or the victim's family to emote wildly in court

in order to try to influence the sentence passed on the victimizer;

or any " vengeance " claimed as " justice " ) and yet continue to claim,

simultaneously, that what sets humans apart from other animals is our

ability to reason. I personally do not feel degraded to be a

mammal/animal. But I do think that if our species is (as it claims)

so powerfully rational, people should do a lot more to control their

emotional outbursts (bigotry, hatred, panic, etc.) and thus make the

world a much safer, kinder place for all.

Jane

[Guest guest]

On 3 Mar 2005, Cody B. commented:

> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 20:37:37 -0600, Wiley Sherer

> wrote: > 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.

A possibly unusual sighting, I think, is the Asian psychiatrist

on Law & Order: SVU. I don't know if I can explain well why I

think so. Early in the show, he could be really cold-blooded

about his attitudes toward the " perps. " Not cold-blooded as in

hating the bad guys, but not caring about the crime as much as

his own cleverness -- like he's not really " there, " I guess.

Even now, while he makes strong statements about their

activities, it's more like he thinks they're Breaking The Rules.

And when he does evaluation interviews, it seems he cares less

about what's going on with them, than about how clever his

techniques are. But that might just be (a) poor judgement on my

part, or ( poor acting. Could it be unintentional?

The other psychiatrist doesn't seem like that at all.

[Guest guest]

On 5 Mar 2005, Klein commented:

>

> alfamanda wrote:

>

> > And what would be everyone's " rational " response to people who

> > were physiologically incapable of doing what you talk about?

> > Would they be second-class citizens, not hated but also not

> > considered quite as important as the " rational " people?

>

> People should be rational to the maximum extent of their ability,

> that's all. No one is sitting there with a clipboard assigning

> scores based on how rational anyone is. Not all rationality, of

> course, is based on words; a lot of my rational thought is in a

> mode that I cannot fully explain, but which seems the most like

> your descriptions of spatial thought. It's not visual, and it's

> not verbal, and it is impossible for me to explain how concepts

> that are inherently non-spatial can be processed that way, but

> that's my preferred mode.

I'm struck by the assumption that Rational exactly equals non-

emotional. People -are- emotional, albeit some more or less

than others. If it is natural for folks to be emotional, then

it is irrational to try to be entirely unemotional, isn't it?

Note that I'm -not- arguing there's something irrational about

being autistic. It is entirely rational to accept that one is

autistic, since in reality, one -is- autistic. Rationality is

about reality, not about wishful thinking or a love of fiction,

even " logical-sounding " fiction.