Re: The Post that's going around & around

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>There is just something disturbing about us simultaneously decrying the

>curebie tendency to doubt the validity of everything an autistic writes

>that does not support their agenda, when some in our community do the

>same thing with autistics that don't support our agenda. It is wrong to

>declare that someone must not be autistic because they have certain

>opinions that run counter to the opinions of the autistic community. We

>ought to know better than to have such an expectation of conformism

>within our ranks.

I agree. And it's also going ad hominem instead of

sticking to arguing the content/substance.

Jane

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> What Clay is talking about is closer to (although not

> exactly) " believing in magic " than " magical thinking " ,

> and it can be culturally appropriate and therefore at

> least again by mainstream definitions not a delusion.

Thanks, , I do appreciate the effort, but I don't believe in

magic either. What I do believe in is what has always been my

experience, and is one of the first things that I wrote about when

I first came onlist back in Feb 2000. You may recall that I spoke

of my ability to get the meanings of words I had never heard before

by withdrawing and repeating them to myself six times. When I

was done, I knew what the word meant. Later, after I went to school,

when I did that, I'd also know how to spell it, and from which language

it had been derived. I gave the example, (and I especially recall it be-

cause it was like my first Aspie moment), of when I was in kindergarten

and the teacher was teaching us to raise our hands when we knew the

answer. She played this " barnyard " game, saying, " How many of you

know what sound a cow makes? " Everyone raised their hands to say

" Moo " . Then she asked, " What sound does a duck make " , and most

everyone raised their to say " Quack " . Then she asked, " What sound

does a horse make? " and I was the only one with my hand up. I said

(proudly), " They say " Neigh " , (because I had read it in a Duck

comic). She got a strange look on her face, and said, " Well, if they

say " Nay " , they should run for Parliament. " I wanted to say, " N-E-I-G-H,

look it up! " , but she had said, " Parliament " , and I hadn't heard of that

before, and Had to process it. What I got was " form of government in

England and her colonies " , but by then, the moment had passed.

The class had already laughed at me, she had moved on to the next

animal, and I felt humiliated.

I got all my words that way. It doesn't work with technological words,

professional jargon, or words or recent coinage (after 1900 or so). It

was because of that that I developed my own theory of reincarnation,

(before I had ever heard of it elsewhere). I thought that I must have

been an English professor or something in a past life, but remembered

only the words.

I asked if anyone had a similar experience, or had any rational explan-

ation for it. There were no responses. I brought it up on this List last

year, hoping that another savant would have something to say, but that

didn't happen. Whether or not there is any interest in it, this has been

my experience, and is a core feature of whatever the hell it is I am.

I've never been able to explain it, (and don't seriously believe in rein-

carnation as an explanation), but I was always able to withdraw and

then pick up information about words as if out of the ether. I will say

that it " felt " like remembering feels.

> > There is no savant ability that is able to accurately manufacture

> > answers that are not there. -

Again, there are stranger things than what you know, and some things

don't answer to logic.

> Actually, I've seen autistics who *can* accurately do things like that,

> although I don't know that I'd call it a savant ability. The thing is

> that a lot of the things it can depend on, including a very specific

> thinking style, also open it up to enough margin for error that it's

> best to check one's perceptions against some hard facts before saying

> that they're absolutely real, no matter how heavily one *feels* that

> they're real. Having a strong feeling like that is, IMO, something that

> may *guide* a person's actions (it certainly does mine at times,

> depending on the context) but it's not the sort of thing I'd ever

> present as absolute fact because there are too many possible confounding

> and/or distorting factors (and this is, because someone asked once, not

> because of " lack of confidence " in something about *me*, but because of

> fairly extensive study of what's actually going on).

Yes, and believe me, I've always been suspicious of what I've picked up

about people in that way. It used to drive me nuts, because a lot of times

what people said and what I picked up about them were so different.

Uhhh, sorry, I should explain that " picking up on things " is not exactly

the same thing as when I accessed words. Word meanings and spellings

and derivations are factual things, and can't be confused. Information

about people is subject to many other factors. You may recall that I

tested this ability online, last year. A woman was writing about her

mother and her parenting skills, (which were lacking). I picked up on

something and asked for verification. You () can check the

ANI files under these dates:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In a message dated 2/11/03...

Hi Xxxxx,

When I read the following paragraph, I got a weird feeling that our

mothers had more in common than their mothering skills. This

may sound like (the medium) or something, but is/was

your mother also named " Elsie " ? If so, that would be a strange

coincidence.

Clay

In a message dated 2/12/03...

> So strange, Clay. My mother-in-LAW from my previous marriage

> is named Elsie. She's sweet to me, in spite of her son having

> dumped me 20 years ago. I have no problem with her.

> Sometimes those little details about fate and the universe and

> all that get just a little tangled from the Big Plan, apparently.

Hi Xxxxx,

Yeah, I guess I just got the details mixed up. That happens a lot.

I get these strange things and never know what to make of them.

(Hey, I told you guys I was weird when I came here.) 8<{)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, sometimes things do get mixed up. Maybe she was thinking

about her mother-in-law while she was writing about her mother, and

that's the reason I was confused. But what are the chances that I

" just guessed " that we had a Elsie-mother figure in common, so

strongly that I just had to verify it, and possibly make a fool of myself

in the process? I didn't *know* it, but I was sure enough to take the

chance. Delusional, my ass.

I don't always get impressions like that. Usually, I have that (whatever

it is) turned off, because otherwise it can be too overwhelming. I use

it when I want to, or need to. The first time I went to Autreat, I used

it with just three people, out of all who were there. I won't go into de-

tail, but I will say that long after the meeting, I learned that my impress-

ions were very accurate. Anyway, yes, I've long been in the habit of

waiting for some concrete evidence to back up what I perceive. And

I always made mental notes that I used as a guide while dealing with

that particular person, and also realized that my perceptions may be

distorted, and would have to give the benefit of the doubt. But lately,

(in the past 5 years), I've learned to rely on it more, as I'm convinced

there's something to it, and there's some similarity to it and the un-

canny ability with words. Nope, can't explain it, but I'm willing to sub-

mit to any tests, short of vivisection. ;-)

I said last night that I am not going to challenge the veracity of Omri's

supposed writing; you all feel it's politically incorrect or something, so

I won't do it, even though no one has explained to me how it would

cause us any Real damage in any way. There may actually be an

Omri, and he is probably isolated from any thinking other than his

parent's and whatever group they subscribe to, but I will say once

more that I got the feeling that he didn't write it, it was written for him,

and is nothing but DAN propaganda on-a-stick. You're just missing

an opportunity to expose a fraud, is all.

Clay

[Guest guest]

adamsCLAYADAMS@... wrote:

> Thanks, , I do appreciate the effort, but I don't believe in

> magic either. What I do believe in is what has always been my

> experience, and is one of the first things that I wrote about when I

> first came onlist back in Feb 2000. You may recall that I spoke of

> my ability to get the meanings of words I had never heard before by

> withdrawing and repeating them to myself six times.

Magical thinking.

> When I was done,

> I knew what the word meant. Later, after I went to school, when I

> did that, I'd also know how to spell it, and from which language it

> had been derived.

More magical thinking. This is just nonsense. All kinds of delusional

people really think their delusions are real-- their memories always

seem to fit in with those delusions.

> I asked if anyone had a similar experience, or had any rational

> explan- ation for it. There were no responses.

You have one now. Delusion.

> I brought it up on

> this List last year, hoping that another savant would have something

> to say, but that didn't happen.

You're not a savant, at least not with anything you have described in

this letter. This is a delusion. If you want people to identify with

this, you might try posting on a list dealing with conditions where

delusion is one of the symptoms. I kid you not-- I bet you will get

some responses.

[Guest guest]

> > What Clay is talking about is closer to (although not

> > exactly) " believing in magic " than " magical thinking " ,

> > and it can be culturally appropriate and therefore at

> > least again by mainstream definitions not a delusion.

> Thanks, , I do appreciate the effort, but I don't believe in

> magic either.

Hence the " not exactly " , by the way. I knew it wasn't " magic " , but I

knew it was closer to that than " magical thinking " .

> You () can check the

> ANI files under these dates:

Unless you have asked permission prior to posting, you *really*

shouldn't be sharing other people's direct ANI messages off the list

without asking, even with the names deleted. Seriously. The rules *do*

go that far.

> You're just missing

> an opportunity to expose a fraud, is all.

There are plenty of other ways to check on whether he's real or not

besides saying, " This guy's not real. Prove to me that he is. "

Nothing to do with political correctness, just plain *consideration*.

--

" For most of us, 'cure' sounds exactly like 'kill the person you are,

but animate your body with some alien force.' For most of us

'prevention' sounds exactly like 'genocide'. " - Tisoncik

[Guest guest]

> > When I was done,

> > I knew what the word meant. Later, after I went to school, when I

> > did that, I'd also know how to spell it, and from which language it

> > had been derived.

> More magical thinking. This is just nonsense. All kinds of delusional

> people really think their delusions are real-- their memories always

> seem to fit in with those delusions.

And some people actually remember things, with witnesses, that defy

simplistic explanation as a delusion. (There may be more complex and

" standard/rational " reasons, or there may not be, but " delusion " isn't

generally the first conclusion I'd jump to.)

For instance, I used to know someone (offline, people here wouldn't know

her) who, if she dreams something three times the same way each time,

she writes it down (learned that through practice). It happens, in

detail, later. There could be rational explanations for this besides

" she dreams this thing before it happens " , but " You're delusional "

doesn't strike me as the first place to start given that she tends to

have written (or spoken, if she tells someone about it) evidence. (Nor

does a desire for attention or recognition, seeing as she tells very few

people and is pretty scared of it given that it's usually highly

negative events with specific places and people in them. I'm only

posting about it here because I don't know anyone here who could

possibly identify her on this amount of information, and anyone who

*could* would keep quiet about it.)

I don't tend to have rational explanations for things like that -- or

for some of the things that have happened in my own life (by which you

would think, at times, that I inspired hallucinations and delusions in

*others*, although I *have* heard " isn't *on* drugs, she *is* a

drug, " before, so... <grin>), or heard about from my family.

But while there are things I really do think are impossible, a lot of

that stuff I just shove into the " I don't know yet " category. I don't

think there's sufficient rational evidence to prove or disprove some

things, and many things I think are neither provable nor disprovable.

In any case, I don't tend to dwell on it much, but I don't think what

Clay talks about is anywhere near the level of immediately dismissible

as delusional any more than I think Omri is immediately dismissible as

fake. Insufficient evidence.

> > I brought it up on

> > this List last year, hoping that another savant would have something

> > to say, but that didn't happen.

> You're not a savant, at least not with anything you have described in

> this letter. This is a delusion. If you want people to identify with

> this, you might try posting on a list dealing with conditions where

> delusion is one of the symptoms. I kid you not-- I bet you will get

> some responses.

If I wanted to find a " within the realm of standard rational thought "

explanation for what Clay does, I'd *start with* " very hyperlexic and

read an entire unabridged dictionary somewhere before the age of 1.5 " .

Not that I care too much why he does it.

--

" Time spent with cats is never wasted " -Collette

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> And some people actually remember things, with witnesses, that defy

> simplistic explanation as a delusion. (There may be more complex and

> " standard/rational " reasons, or there may not be, but " delusion "

> isn't generally the first conclusion I'd jump to.)

It is for me, if someone says that he can divine the meaning of a word

by saying it six times. That's not a lot different than the example you

used of magical thinking.

I remember things that happened, before several witnesses, that don't

make sense without believing in supernatural stuff (which I did at the

time, possibly forming a pretext for delusion on my part). I don't want

to admit that they were delusional at that moment, but it is the most

rational explanation that I can think of. Either that, or the belief in

supernatural allowed access to the subconscious (of a non-supernatural

type) where the data I needed was stored, but inaccessible on the surface.

> For instance, I used to know someone (offline, people here wouldn't

> know her) who, if she dreams something three times the same way each

> time, she writes it down (learned that through practice). It

> happens, in detail, later. There could be rational explanations for

> this besides " she dreams this thing before it happens " , but " You're

> delusional " doesn't strike me as the first place to start given that

> she tends to have written (or spoken, if she tells someone about it)

> evidence.

I would have to hear from her the " prediction " before it happened to

even begin to believe it. If the report comes after the event, it can

be a false memory. In addition, it would have to be pretty specific,

and something that was not reasonably certain to happen by chance, or

was expected to happen (and thus causing her to dream about it), and it

would have to be something that her own belief in predictive power could

make happen (kind of like a form of the placebo effect). Without knowing

specifics, I would have to guess that the answer can be found in one of

these caveats.

> But while there are things I really do think are impossible, a lot of

> that stuff I just shove into the " I don't know yet " category.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and as yet, there has

been no proof that psychic phenomena are any different than the myriad

other forms of superstition that have been properly written off as

interesting but incorrect pieces of folklore.

> I

> don't think there's sufficient rational evidence to prove or disprove

> some things, and many things I think are neither provable nor

> disprovable. In any case, I don't tend to dwell on it much, but I

> don't think what Clay talks about is anywhere near the level of

> immediately dismissible as delusional any more than I think Omri is

> immediately dismissible as fake. Insufficient evidence.

I don't know. I would say that someone who thinks that he can say a

word six times (provided the word was in use before a certain date) and

know the meaning, etiology, and other things about that word, is pretty

obviously delusional. Stating that Omri is fake because he hit all of

the CAN talking points in one letter, as Clay said, is a whole lot less

obvious.

> > You're not a savant, at least not with anything you have described

> > in this letter. This is a delusion. If you want people to

> > identify with this, you might try posting on a list dealing with

> > conditions where delusion is one of the symptoms. I kid you not--

> > I bet you will get some responses.

>

> If I wanted to find a " within the realm of standard rational thought "

> explanation for what Clay does, I'd *start with* " very hyperlexic

> and read an entire unabridged dictionary somewhere before the age of

> 1.5 " . Not that I care too much why he does it.

I have seen hyperlexia described as a savant skill before. This may or

may not be so. If he wrote of that in the letter to which I replied, I

missed it.

That would not explain his " ability " to " know " that Omri is a fake,

based on the same ability. The way he stated his " ability " with words

was to hear a word he had _never_ encountered before and to know its

meaning and etiology. If he had encountered the word before, by reading

a dictionary, that would invalidate the claim that he had never

encountered the word before. I was going on what he wrote, that he had

never encountered the word before (at all).

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>For instance, I used to know someone (offline, people here wouldn't know

>her) who, if she dreams something three times the same way each time,

>she writes it down (learned that through practice). It happens, in

>detail, later. There could be rational explanations for this besides

> " she dreams this thing before it happens " , but " You're delusional "

>doesn't strike me as the first place to start given that she tends to

>have written (or spoken, if she tells someone about it) evidence.

My mother came from a family in which the women tended to have

the ability to " know " what was going to happen (not everything

that was going to happen, but with prescience about certain

unchosen events). Being a very logical, rational person, she

deliberately quashed her abilities in this area. I found it

interesting that, despite her preferences in the matter, she

could not deny the reality of the experiences. Instead, she

chose to keep her world/mind coherent by learning not to use

the " ability " (or whatever it was) she seemed to have

inherited.

Like , I believe there are more rational explanations

than we (humans) have discovered so far for some of the

" non-rational " occurances and abilities that crop up now and

then. This does *not* mean I believe in the paranormal (as

it is usually presented). It does mean that I don't see any

need to deny the reality of other people's experiences -- as

long as they are willing to be agnostic about them with me.

That is, I consider someone delusional if s/he says, " I know

the future because a little angel whispers the facts into my

ears as I lie sleeping. " But if someone says, " I have had

this recurring experience that looks like future sight [or

unexplained vocabulary ability] and I have no idea why, "

then I think it is incumbent upon me to consider that person's

report of his/her experience as s/he reports it, holding in

abeyance my desire to tie up all the world's loose ends.

I don't have to " believe in it. " But until specific proof

exists to show the mechanism behind it, or until specific

proof exists to show that the person is mistaking his/her

own experience, then I reamin agnostic on the matter.

Skeptics can be open-minded, too.

Jane

[Guest guest]

" Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from

magic. " Arthur C. e

Ride the Music

AndyTiedye

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> wrote:

> >For instance, I used to know someone (offline, people here wouldn't know

> >her) who, if she dreams something three times the same way each time,

> >she writes it down (learned that through practice). It happens, in

> >detail, later. There could be rational explanations for this besides

> > " she dreams this thing before it happens " , but " You're delusional "

> >doesn't strike me as the first place to start given that she tends to

> >have written (or spoken, if she tells someone about it) evidence.

> My mother came from a family in which the women tended to have

> the ability to " know " what was going to happen (not everything

> that was going to happen, but with prescience about certain

> unchosen events). Being a very logical, rational person, she

> deliberately quashed her abilities in this area. I found it

> interesting that, despite her preferences in the matter, she

> could not deny the reality of the experiences. Instead, she

> chose to keep her world/mind coherent by learning not to use

> the " ability " (or whatever it was) she seemed to have

> inherited.

My family is like that (the women in particular), which is why I was

raised to believe in it. My grandmother was afraid that it came from

the devil, and my mother didn't want me raised with that fear. I think

my mother went too far in the other direction (pretty close to New Age

accepting *everything*, although I think she's mellowed on that over

time), though. My hope is that I am more balanced.

My general view is that I will not seek after things like that (for a

number of reasons -- I don't think it's the sort of thing that is good

to go after actively), but that when they happen, I have no need to sit

around trying to think up a " rational " explanation for something I know

I can't yet explain. I'm comfortable enough not knowing.

> Like , I believe there are more rational explanations

> than we (humans) have discovered so far for some of the

> " non-rational " occurances and abilities that crop up now and

> then. This does *not* mean I believe in the paranormal (as

> it is usually presented). It does mean that I don't see any

> need to deny the reality of other people's experiences -- as

> long as they are willing to be agnostic about them with me.

> That is, I consider someone delusional if s/he says, " I know

> the future because a little angel whispers the facts into my

> ears as I lie sleeping. " But if someone says, " I have had

> this recurring experience that looks like future sight [or

> unexplained vocabulary ability] and I have no idea why, "

> then I think it is incumbent upon me to consider that person's

> report of his/her experience as s/he reports it, holding in

> abeyance my desire to tie up all the world's loose ends.

That is similar to how I see it, as well. I am not sure humans can

explain everything (in fact I'm pretty sure we can't), and there are

many belief systems I do *not* subscribe to on these matters, but I do

think something goes on and I am not satisfied with the current

scientific explanations for a number of reasons, despite the fact that

they may *sometimes* apply.

> I don't have to " believe in it. " But until specific proof

> exists to show the mechanism behind it, or until specific

> proof exists to show that the person is mistaking his/her

> own experience, then I reamin agnostic on the matter.

> Skeptics can be open-minded, too.

There are some things I believe in, and some things I don't believe in,

although those beliefs would change with sufficient evidence. I am more

agnostic on that in the literal sense that something like " I don't think

this can be proven or disproven with current 'rational' thinking

techniques. " -- I *have* some beliefs (or they could be called that) on

the matter but they're not founded in that particular kind of thinking.

I know that I have been basically forced not to totally deny the

existence of some things that I *thought* were delusions for a long

time.

But I rarely talk about this stuff publicly, also. It is often misused,

not the least in autism contexts, and I think it would be foolish of me

to discuss some things openly where they *could* be misused. (And I've

been pressed by NTs on the matter before, which is *highly* annoying.

I've also been exploited by NTs because of their *beliefs* (note the

word " their " ) about me, which I find worse than annoying.)

--

Random recommended webpage:

autistics.org

http://www.autistics.org/

[Guest guest]

Jane wrote:

> > My mother came from a family in which the women tended

> > to have the ability to " know " what was going to happen

> > (not everything that was going to happen, but with pre-

> > science about certain unchosen events). Being a very

> > logical, rational person, she deliberately quashed her

> > abilities in this area. I found it interesting that,

> > despite her preferences in the matter, she could not

> > deny the reality of the experiences. Instead, she chose

> > to keep her world/mind coherent by learning not to use

> > the " ability " (or whatever it was) she seemed to have

> > inherited.

and responded:

> My family is like that (the women in particular), which

> is why I was raised to believe in it. My grandmother was

> afraid that it came from the devil, and my mother didn't

> want me raised with that fear. I think my mother went

> too far in the other direction (pretty close to New Age

> accepting *everything*, although I think she's mellowed

> on that over time), though. My hope is that I am more

> balanced.

Thanks, both of you. On " people " things, that is how it is.

I sometimes pick up on something, and have no idea where it

came from. It happens on a random basis, and isn't some-

thing I can " try " to do. It may happen while I'm reading,

as with P5C5, the thought just jumps into my mind, unbidden.

As for what I was saying about my thing with words, that I

must insist on, because that is my experience. You both may

remember when I wrote of my first memory, also to do with a

word. I was in a baby buggy, in our living room, pointed

away from the front door. Some loud sound occurred behind

me, apparently on the street, and we lived on a corner. I

assume it was an accident, but all I remember was the loud

sound, and then my parents and sisters ran past me toward the

front door, looking out the windows of it and saying " What hap-

pened? " This was before I could talk, well before a year old. I

lay there wondering, " What's a " happened " ? " I'm not sure I used

the words to think it, but I remember thinking it. It seems

natural I would repeat it in my mind, trying to figure it out.

I learned that I could. Hey, I thought everyone could, until

some point when I realized they couldn't.

I know that my sisters sometimes noticed that I was mumbling

to myself, and commented on it at the time. They didn't

actually make fun of me for it, just said stuff like, there

he goes talking to himself again. I never explained to them

what I was doing. I didn't mean there was any " magic " in

repeating a word six times, I often " got it " after 2 or 3

times. I used to say " about six times " , because I usually

had the definition by then. One time it Didn't work, even

though I repeated it dozens of times. The word was " tattoo " ,

and though I had the spelling, I couldn't get the meaning no

matter how many times I said it. Years later, I learned that

it was of Polynesian derivation. Too foreign for me I guess.

wrote:

> If I wanted to find a " within the realm of standard rational thought "

> explanation for what Clay does, I'd *start with* " very hyperlexic and

> read an entire unabridged dictionary somewhere before the age of

> 1.5 " . Not that I care too much why he does it.

Yeah, hyperlexic, but I read that generally hyperlexic people don't

have good comprehension of what they read. I have a test score

from when I started college that says my verbal comprehension was

333 out of a possible 333. And I started reading at the age of three,

by asking my sisters to point at the words as they read the funny

papers on Sunday. One sister, the one who wrote me recently, once

tried to trip me up with the Katzenjammer Kids strip, but I could easily

figure out what they were saying in their German-English dialect.

We had one Dictionary in our house, a red one about 3 and a half

inches thick. It was in lettering too small for me to read, and I didn't

need it anyway.

Clay