For Stef and the other Buddhists here:
Serene Vannoy
(It is a review of a book titled "Sex, Sin & Zen: A Buddhist Exploration
of Sex from Celibacy to Polyamory and Everything in Between")
Serene
--
"Sex is just one of many pleasurable activities. I don't think of it as
special--sometimes I'd rather read a book. Where are the rules about
reading?" -- Kai on alt.poly
Aahz Maruch
Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rotondi/brad-warner-zen-_b_873882.html
>
>(It is a review of a book titled "Sex, Sin & Zen: A Buddhist Exploration
>of Sex from Celibacy to Polyamory and Everything in Between")
Either you misread the article or it changed: it's not a review, it's an
interview with the author.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
"Sometimes I think you guys and I go to different restaurants that just
happen to have the same name." --dke...@best.com, ba.food
Stef
>
>(It is a review of a book titled "Sex, Sin & Zen: A Buddhist Exploration
>of Sex from Celibacy to Polyamory and Everything in Between")
Quote:
#my feelings about polyamory are not entirely negative by any means --
#I've met some people who seem to be able to make it work. But I first
#heard of polyamory because people had written to me in some distress
#asking, essentially, "How can I find calmness and centeredness in my
#polyamorous lifestyle?" My response to them was that perhaps the
#lifestyle itself was contributing to their mental distress. Now, I'm not
#even saying that they need to give up polyamory, but at least
#acknowledge that they've chosen a lifestyle that is going to be
#inherently stressful for certain kinds of people. Okay, it doesn't seem
#to be inherently stressful for everyone who practices it, but it causes
#a great many people a great deal of stress trying to juggle multiple
#lovers, which is not easy even if everyone, in theory, agrees to it.
I think all of that is absolutely right. First, that some people make it
work. Second, that some people are very stressed about it.
What he doesn't quite come out and say is that stress around polyamory
is as an example of a larger phenomenon.
I know a lot of people who are stressed because they are trying to do
too much. I think that's partly because, in my corner of Western
culture, there's a belief that success in life means having as many
different positive experiences as you possibly can, or reaching for as
many things as possible that you perceive as good.
[Note, I also know a lot of people who are stressed because it's hard to
survive. People who are stressed just because they are trying to grab
all the good stuff have a lot of privilege.]
#you can't expect to simply override your cultural programming. That's
#one thing Zen has shown me, on so many levels. It's not something that
#works on an intellectual level; yes, you can work on your cultural
#programming, and eventually even successfully overcome it, but it's very
#deeply ingrained, and you don't simply override it just by deciding that
#you will.
I think all of this is absolutely right too. I had a lot of difficulties
with polyamory at first, and I didn't overcome them by just deciding
that I would.
He doesn't go on to say in the article that if you try to overcome the
programming by doing more complex and sustained work, not leaving it all
to the intellect and expecting to be able to snap your fingers and have
it change, you sometimes can. Anyway, it worked for me around polyamory
and some other kinds of cultural programming.
--
Stef ** st...@cat-and-dragon.com **
** cat-and-dragon.com/stef ** firecat.dreamwidth.org**
**
If entropy is increasing, where is it coming from?
Todd Michel McComb
>I know a lot of people who are stressed because they are trying to do
>too much. I think that's partly because, in my corner of Western
>culture, there's a belief that success in life means having as many
>different positive experiences as you possibly can, or reaching for as
>many things as possible that you perceive as good.
Well, I'm sitting in a bar, reading alt.polyamory on my netbook.
Why? No real reason, I suppose, but I definitely find myself
spending less time just relaxing and doing nothing. I don't think
it's striving for success, but just sort of a result of the kind
of sensory overload we get in modern life. And with needing/wanting
to check in on ongoing projects, wherever I am, because that's
become the cultural expectation. The might be "success" in the
sense of keeping one's job, at least for some, but I don't think
it's reaching for more experiences. They're just there, like it
or not.
Steve Pope
>Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rotondi/brad-warner-zen-_b_873882.html
>>
>>(It is a review of a book titled "Sex, Sin & Zen: A Buddhist Exploration
>>of Sex from Celibacy to Polyamory and Everything in Between")
>
>Quote:
>#my feelings about polyamory are not entirely negative by any means --
>#I've met some people who seem to be able to make it work. But I first
>#heard of polyamory because people had written to me in some distress
>#asking, essentially, "How can I find calmness and centeredness in my
>#polyamorous lifestyle?" My response to them was that perhaps the
>#lifestyle itself was contributing to their mental distress. Now, I'm not
>#even saying that they need to give up polyamory, but at least
>#acknowledge that they've chosen a lifestyle that is going to be
>#inherently stressful for certain kinds of people. Okay, it doesn't seem
>#to be inherently stressful for everyone who practices it, but it causes
>#a great many people a great deal of stress trying to juggle multiple
>#lovers, which is not easy even if everyone, in theory, agrees to it.
>
>I think all of that is absolutely right. First, that some people make it
>work.
I am going to nitpick by observing that a statement that it works for
some people (which is a true statement, in my opinion) is not quite the
same as saying it works for "certain kinds" of people (a statement
that is going to require more evidence before I accept it as true,
because it is the beginning of an attempt to categorize people).
[snip comments about stress and success, with which I agree]
Steve
Miche
mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:
> In article <itdqfp$g1q$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Stef <st...@panix.com> wrote:
> >I know a lot of people who are stressed because they are trying to do
> >too much. I think that's partly because, in my corner of Western
> >culture, there's a belief that success in life means having as many
> >different positive experiences as you possibly can, or reaching for as
> >many things as possible that you perceive as good.
>
> Well, I'm sitting in a bar, reading alt.polyamory on my netbook.
> Why? No real reason, I suppose, but I definitely find myself
> spending less time just relaxing and doing nothing.
For some people "doing nothing" is definitely NOT relaxing.
Miche
--
Electricians do it in three phases
Steve Pope
>In alt.polyamory, (Steve Pope) wrote in
>>I am going to nitpick by observing that a statement that it works for
>>some people (which is a true statement, in my opinion) is not quite the
>>same as saying it works for "certain kinds" of people (a statement
>>that is going to require more evidence before I accept it as true,
>>because it is the beginning of an attempt to categorize people).
>Except in the trivial sense that it works for "certain kinds" of people,
>those being defined as the kinds of people for whom it works. :)
Right. :-)
>In another poly place, it has been proposed that there is a significant
>correlation between poly and conditions such as Asperger's. On the
>group in question, somewhere around 15-20% of the regular posters has
>come out as AS to some extent, so there seems at least anecdotal support
>for the correlation.
>
>Does anyone here resonate with that? It makes a certain kind of sense
>to me, as one of the characteristics of that condition is to not take
>much notice of social conventions unless they make some sort of rational
>sense.
It resonates, and I think it might make sense, but there's a
possible bias -- forums full of poly people are not an unbiased
sampling of poly persons, but rather a sampling of poly persons
attracted to such forums. It could be the latter characteristic
that correlates with Asperger's spectrum.
(I don't know if it means much, but I always get a high score on
supposed Asperger's questionaires.)
Steve
Todd Michel McComb
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>In another poly place, it has been proposed that there is a significant
>correlation between poly and conditions such as Asperger's.
I've seen the suggestion before also. I don't think there's been any
hard research to confirm or refute it.
(These days, it's generally preferred to discuss Autism Spectrum
Disorders, ASD, rather than Asperger's or such.)
Steve Pope
>(These days, it's generally preferred to discuss Autism Spectrum
>Disorders, ASD, rather than Asperger's or such.)
I'm not sure what's preferred. I have a friend with an autistic
person in his family, and he generally discounts the idea that
what people tend to call Asperger's is anywhere near the same.
So maybe two separate names is reasonable.
Steve
Doug Wickström
wrote:
>In another poly place, it has been proposed that there is a significant
>correlation between poly and conditions such as Asperger's. On the
>group in question, somewhere around 15-20% of the regular posters has
>come out as AS to some extent, so there seems at least anecdotal support
>for the correlation.
>
>Does anyone here resonate with that? It makes a certain kind of sense
>to me, as one of the characteristics of that condition is to not take
>much notice of social conventions unless they make some sort of rational
>sense.
Does not work for me.
On-line fora may well tend to preselect for people who don't
communicate well in a meatspace setting.
--
Doug Wickstr�
Miche
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> In another poly place, it has been proposed that there is a significant
> correlation between poly and conditions such as Asperger's. On the
> group in question, somewhere around 15-20% of the regular posters has
> come out as AS to some extent, so there seems at least anecdotal support
> for the correlation.
>
> Does anyone here resonate with that? It makes a certain kind of sense
> to me, as one of the characteristics of that condition is to not take
> much notice of social conventions unless they make some sort of rational
> sense.
No, but I'm non-neurotypical in another way, so I don't know how much my
opinion is worth here.
Miche
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> In alt.polyamory, (Todd Michel McComb) wrote in
> <itggg4$30t6$1...@pangkur.medieval.org>::
> Does ASD include ADD? In which case, colour me autistic (mildly).
Some researchers think there's an intersection between mood disorders
and the autistic spectrum, an that ADHD might be on or near that
intersection somewhere. That's by no means a universal opinion, though.
I have to say, though, that I'm a bit tired of unconventional behaviour
being attributed to/written off as autism. For fuck's sake, there's
more to weirdoes than that.
Aahz Maruch
Two-thirds serious: is there anyone, anywhere, who is neurotypical?
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
"It is commonly believed by the shallow and the ignorant that human
attitude, character, and opinion is immutable." --SKZB
nickie{D}
>
> No, but I'm non-neurotypical in another way, so I don't know how much my
> opinion is worth here.
>
Why, it's worth every penny I paid for it, of course! :-)
--
nickie{D}
Kai Jones
>I have to say, though, that I'm a bit tired of unconventional behaviour
>being attributed to/written off as autism. For fuck's sake, there's
>more to weirdoes than that.
Sure...but I think it helps me to attribute my co-workers' annoying
behaviors to "being on the spectrum" or the like, because I'm more
forgiving and tolerant when I think of it that way. Although I am
conflicted about it: it doesn't seem fair to them or to people who
have medical diagnoses.
--
Kai Jones sni...@panix.com
Smartass by nurture as well as nature. Oh yeah, and I'm contrary, too.
Kai Jones
>Two-thirds serious: is there anyone, anywhere, who is neurotypical?
Yes. Me.
David Weinshenker
> Two-thirds serious: is there anyone, anywhere, who is neurotypical?
I've wondered that myself...
-dave w
Aahz Maruch
Kai Jones <sni...@panix.com> wrote:
>On 18 Jun 2011 05:10:07 -0700, aa...@pobox.com (Aahz Maruch) wrote:
>>
>>Two-thirds serious: is there anyone, anywhere, who is neurotypical?
>
>Yes. Me.
Can you define neurotypical? You may want to refer to Wikipedia's
definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotypical
David Weinshenker
> I think it helps me to attribute my co-workers' annoying
> behaviors to "being on the spectrum" or the like, because I'm more
> forgiving and tolerant when I think of it that way.
What do they do that annoys you, and why do you find that
thinking about it in this way facilitates forgiveness?
-dave w
(genuinely curious here...)
Miche
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> In alt.polyamory, (Miche) wrote in
> <micheinnz-4A0EF...@dynamic-24-42-201-193.knology.net>::
>
> >In article <o4qnv6phr0lh97kvf...@4ax.com>,
> > Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> In alt.polyamory, (Todd Michel McComb) wrote in
> >> <itggg4$30t6$1...@pangkur.medieval.org>::
> >>
> >> >In article <mrenv6tbdoe34ds4a...@4ax.com>,
> >> >Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >>In another poly place, it has been proposed that there is a significant
> >> >>correlation between poly and conditions such as Asperger's.
> >> >
> >> >I've seen the suggestion before also. I don't think there's been any
> >> >hard research to confirm or refute it.
> >> >
> >> >(These days, it's generally preferred to discuss Autism Spectrum
> >> >Disorders, ASD, rather than Asperger's or such.)
> >>
> >> Does ASD include ADD? In which case, colour me autistic (mildly).
> >
> >Some researchers think there's an intersection between mood disorders
> >and the autistic spectrum, an that ADHD might be on or near that
> >intersection somewhere. That's by no means a universal opinion, though.
>
> Oh, I don't do the (H) bit. If anything, I tend toward the hypoactive.
> :)
That's nice.
> >I have to say, though, that I'm a bit tired of unconventional behaviour
> >being attributed to/written off as autism. For fuck's sake, there's
> >more to weirdoes than that.
>
> And "AD(H)D" as a euphemism/excuse for "poorly disciplined" gets on my
> tits, too.
And mine.
Kai Jones
>In article <mahpv658feps216l9...@4ax.com>,
>Kai Jones <sni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>On 18 Jun 2011 05:10:07 -0700, aa...@pobox.com (Aahz Maruch) wrote:
>>>
>>>Two-thirds serious: is there anyone, anywhere, who is neurotypical?
>>
>>Yes. Me.
>
>Can you define neurotypical? You may want to refer to Wikipedia's
>definition:
No. I am normal, I am neurotypical.
Kai Jones
<daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Kai Jones wrote:
>> I think it helps me to attribute my co-workers' annoying
>> behaviors to "being on the spectrum" or the like, because I'm more
>> forgiving and tolerant when I think of it that way.
>
>What do they do that annoys you, and why do you find that
>thinking about it in this way facilitates forgiveness?
I should have been more general, in that I attribute the annoying
behaviors to people having serious difficulties that might include
Aspergers but might also be depression or other issues.
One complains constantly; zir approach to life is relentlessly a
self-centered dirge. Nothing ever works for zir even when it works
for the rest of us; it's all going to go wrong no matter what. Zie
has a lonely life and a negative outlook; I try really hard to be
grateful and look for positives in my life, and remember that stuff
just happens, it's not a conspiracy against me. I find this person's
attitude to be detrimental to my mental health; I can't be around zir
without suffering myself. Pretending that zie is ill helps me be
sympathetic and tolerant (while still keeping my boundaries around not
spending time with zir, or supporting zir negative pronouncements)
instead of resentful and dismissive.
Another both interrupts constantly (shouting to be heard over others)
and eavesdrops then butts into conversations when zie was not asked,
often giving instruction contrary to what the person in authority
gave. Zie genuinely seems to miss the conversational signals that
mean it's another person's turn to talk, but I can't tell whether it's
cultural, personal, or what (this person is from a different culture
than mine). Again, making up a story about this person perhaps being
on the Aspie spectrum helps me keep my mouth shut (which is the
appropriate response here as this person is sometimes in authority
over me, just not always on the subjects under discussion). It helps
me frame a calm, coherent explanation of why I'm not doing what zie
suggests, and helps me refrain from responding in kind to the
interruptions at the top of zir voice. It also helps me start
conversations in a way that has worked better than assuming zie was
just rude or arrogant.
This is a tool I use to improve my work environment; I don't pretend
to myself that I have accurately diagnosed these people.
Todd Michel McComb
Miche <mich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Some researchers think there's an intersection between mood disorders
>and the autistic spectrum, an that ADHD might be on or near that
>intersection somewhere. That's by no means a universal opinion, though.
Interesting ideas. As you suggest, it's not followed by public service
providers, however.
I clipped your comment (or it was in another post?) complaining
about people who attribute random behavior to ASD and such. My
partner generally finds it rather irritating when undiagnosed people
(and likely people who could never get a diagnosis, since their
symptoms are not debilitating in any way) talk about how they are
or are basically like someone with a medically diagnosed neurological
condition.
Todd Michel McComb
My wife's mother also considers herself to be normal.
David Weinshenker
> Zie genuinely seems to miss the conversational signals that mean
> it's another person's turn to talk, but I can't tell whether it's
> cultural, personal, or what
This seems to be a frequent point of frustration and confusion in interpersonal
interactions in general, as reflected in common phrases such as "monopolized the
conversation", "couldn't get a word in edgewise", etc.
Like any nonverbal communication, the sort of "conversational signals" you mention
can work well among people who have compatible "symbol sets" and expectations, but
that's the sort of assumption that can easily go astray even without there being a
specific illness involved, just from differences in interactional "orientation".
-dave w
nickie{D}
I don't know your wife's mother, but I have to say considering yourself
to be normal does not necessarily mean others will agree with you.
In our household M considers herself to be normal and defines anything
that isn't the way she does things as not normal. I'm not sure that
normal, outside the strict statistical sense of the word is a useful term.
--
nickie{D}
Kai Jones
wrote:
>On 19/06/2011 04:41, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>> In article<heaqv6dsqi44geqln...@4ax.com>,
>> Kai Jones<sni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> No. I am normal, I am neurotypical.
>>
>> My wife's mother also considers herself to be normal.
>>
>
>I don't know your wife's mother, but I have to say considering yourself
>to be normal does not necessarily mean others will agree with you.
My normal is not self-defined. Nor is its definition so narrow as to
only include the behaviors I exhibit.
nickie{D}
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:53:08 +0100, nickie{D}<nit...@bulldoghome.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 19/06/2011 04:41, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>>> In article<heaqv6dsqi44geqln...@4ax.com>,
>>> Kai Jones<sni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> No. I am normal, I am neurotypical.
>>>
>>> My wife's mother also considers herself to be normal.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know your wife's mother, but I have to say considering yourself
>> to be normal does not necessarily mean others will agree with you.
>
> My normal is not self-defined. Nor is its definition so narrow as to
> only include the behaviors I exhibit.
Thanks - in case you thought I was implying that about you, I wasn't,
and hope I didn't cause offence.
--
nickie{D}
David Weinshenker
> Can you define neurotypical? You may want to refer to Wikipedia's
> definition:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotypical
ITYM http://web.archive.org/web/20090315162315/http://isnt.autistics.org/
-dave w
Steve Pope
>http://web.archive.org/web/20090315162315/http://isnt.autistics.org/
I love it. I'm not sure it's much good other than for venting of
frustration, but it definitely fingers a real phenomenon.
Steve
Russ Allbery
> On 18 Jun 2011 09:12:49 -0700, aa...@pobox.com (Aahz Maruch) wrote:
>>> Yes. Me.
>> Can you define neurotypical? You may want to refer to Wikipedia's
>> definition:
> No. I am normal, I am neurotypical.
My personal reaction is a lot like Kai's here. I consider myself
neurotypical.
I think I see what Aahz is getting at, but maybe I'm coming at it from
another direction. I have friends who are not neurotypical. They have to
deal with a whole bunch of crap that I just don't have to deal with.
Neurotypical is the privileged position.
For me to claim to not be neurotypical because I'm introverted or
occasionally have mood swings would feel, to me, like approaching far too
close to the behavior of privileged white people claiming to totally know
what it's like to be discriminated against because they once felt
uncomfortable in a non-white part of town.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Steve Pope
>I think I see what Aahz is getting at, but maybe I'm coming at it from
>another direction. I have friends who are not neurotypical. They have to
>deal with a whole bunch of crap that I just don't have to deal with.
>Neurotypical is the privileged position.
>For me to claim to not be neurotypical because I'm introverted or
>occasionally have mood swings would feel, to me, like approaching far too
>close to the behavior of privileged white people claiming to totally know
>what it's like to be discriminated against because they once felt
>uncomfortable in a non-white part of town.
I get where you are coming from, and I don't feel "discrimination", but
I do feel there's a real effect here. In addition to obtaining
high scores on (supposed) AS questionaires, I self-assess that I do not
exhibit the levels of indirect communications and the overactive
theories of mind that are (supposedly) deemed neurotypical, or that
might often be the social expectation. I do assess that a lot of people
find types of communication to be normal that I find intrusive and/or
manipulative.
But I further believe that because I am privileged in many ways, I
recognize that I might have traits that would attract more criticism were
I not as privileged generally. Non-typical communications traits are one
candidate for such traits.
Steve
David Weinshenker
> Neurotypical is the privileged position.
Yeah - this sort of touches on something I think about the whole
civil rights struggle, the whole dynamic of "privilege", "oppression",
etc. - which is that all specific forms of privilege are instances of
the general class of "normal privilege": in the end, "privilege" means
that (in some particular way) you are entitled to claim membership in
the Set of Normal-People.
The civil rights struggle, in its specific recent histories, has
been focused on gaining this "membership in the Normal" for specific,
identifiable oppressed populations: racial integration, gay rights,
women's liberation: the movements have certainly been doing necessary
work in addressing extant wrongs, but their focus has been on gaining
"access to normality" for specific previously-excluded groups, and,
thus pieced off into individual movements, and focused on pragmatic
ends (such as legislation and litigation), they have done little to
challenge the underlying "normalism".
Acceptance - not "tolerance", which is the suspension of opposition:
if I "tolerate" something, that implies an expected antagonism which
I am merely choosing not to embody - but genuine acceptance of diversity
remains an elusive goal. (For example, the question of "gay rights" often
gets hung on the question of "gender expression": maybe it's OK to let
someone in a same-sex relationship keep their job, but <gasp> Men-In-Dresses?
Can't allow that! It would be just weird! You have to leave us some weirdos
to discriminate against!)
It's that attitude, that it's on some level basically OK to discriminate
against "the weirdos" (even if certain Special Groups are "protected")
that any genuine civil rights movement must address in the future.
-dave w
(for the "post-normal" society)
Russ Allbery
> Yeah - this sort of touches on something I think about the whole civil
> rights struggle, the whole dynamic of "privilege", "oppression", etc. -
> which is that all specific forms of privilege are instances of the
> general class of "normal privilege": in the end, "privilege" means that
> (in some particular way) you are entitled to claim membership in the Set
> of Normal-People.
Hm. My first reaction was to agree strongly with that, but then I ran
into the question of class privilege, which seems to go directly against
that picture of privilege. I don't think there's a perception that rich
people, or high-class people in societies where class and wealth aren't
quite the same thing, are "normal" and that's why they're privileged.
They're privileged because they're perceived as *better* than normal.
There's some of that going on with gender, too, I think. Women weren't
(largely) seen as abnormal; they were seen as normal *for women*, as
opposed to normal *for humans* (and particularly not normal *for men*).
And there is generally at least some lip service paid to the idea that men
and women were both better at different things. It just so happens that
the things that men are said to be better at are mostly the public things
that convey privilege, and women were supposedly better at things like
obeying and supporting.
> The civil rights struggle, in its specific recent histories, has been
> focused on gaining this "membership in the Normal" for specific,
> identifiable oppressed populations: racial integration, gay rights,
> women's liberation: the movements have certainly been doing necessary
> work in addressing extant wrongs, but their focus has been on gaining
> "access to normality" for specific previously-excluded groups, and, thus
> pieced off into individual movements, and focused on pragmatic ends
> (such as legislation and litigation), they have done little to challenge
> the underlying "normalism".
I think I mostly agree with this for racial integration, but I'm not sure
I agree for gender equality (where I think there's been a lot of effort to
break down the entire concept that men and women are anywhere near as
different as people thought), and I don't think I agree at all for gay
rights. There are some very specific parts of the gay rights movement,
like gay marriage, that could fall into that general category, but there
are a bunch of others that are more about broadening the idea of normal.
A lot of what I see in GLBT activism seems to be actively challenging
normalism directly, not just trying to have some additional specific
sexualities accepted as normal. "We're here, we're queer, get over it"
and so forth. There's been a real trend in that direction recently, too,
which is nicely symbolized by adding more letters on to the end of what
used to just be gay pride until you get quiltbag.
> Acceptance - not "tolerance", which is the suspension of opposition: if
> I "tolerate" something, that implies an expected antagonism which I am
> merely choosing not to embody - but genuine acceptance of diversity
> remains an elusive goal. (For example, the question of "gay rights"
> often gets hung on the question of "gender expression": maybe it's OK to
> let someone in a same-sex relationship keep their job, but <gasp>
> Men-In-Dresses? Can't allow that! It would be just weird! You have to
> leave us some weirdos to discriminate against!)
Acceptance versus tolerance does, I think, run into some pretty deep
tendencies in human behavior to divide the world into in and out groups.
I can see the appeal of pushing for tolerance as a possibly more practical
goal, since it acknowledges the fact that we're not really sure how to
break down the us/them distinctions in human thinking, but we have had a
fair amount of success in improving people's behavior towards "them."
Serene Vannoy
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 20:19:03 +1200, Miche<mich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I have to say, though, that I'm a bit tired of unconventional behaviour
>> being attributed to/written off as autism. For fuck's sake, there's
>> more to weirdoes than that.
>
> Sure...but I think it helps me to attribute my co-workers' annoying
> behaviors to "being on the spectrum" or the like, because I'm more
> forgiving and tolerant when I think of it that way.
That seems to me to be a flaw in your decisionmaking (or other
inclination) toward kindliness, not a reason for categorizing them the
way that makes you more kindly toward them.
> Although I am
> conflicted about it: it doesn't seem fair to them or to people who
> have medical diagnoses.
Yeah. Plus, if your volitional behavior depends on a diagnosis you don't
or can't know, you could probably instead base your volitional behavior
on wanting to treat everyone (barring a reason not to) more kindly.
Serene
--
"Sex is just one of many pleasurable activities. I don't think of it as
special--sometimes I'd rather read a book. Where are the rules about
reading?" -- Kai on alt.poly
Serene Vannoy
>
>> Two-thirds serious: is there anyone, anywhere, who is neurotypical?
>
> Yes. Me.
Me, too.
Steve Pope
>David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> Yeah - this sort of touches on something I think about the whole civil
>> rights struggle, the whole dynamic of "privilege", "oppression", etc. -
>> which is that all specific forms of privilege are instances of the
>> general class of "normal privilege": in the end, "privilege" means that
>> (in some particular way) you are entitled to claim membership in the Set
>> of Normal-People.
>Hm. My first reaction was to agree strongly with that, but then I ran
>into the question of class privilege, which seems to go directly against
>that picture of privilege. I don't think there's a perception that rich
>people, or high-class people in societies where class and wealth aren't
>quite the same thing, are "normal" and that's why they're privileged.
>They're privileged because they're perceived as *better* than normal.
That's one aspect, the other is that highly privileged persons suffer
relatively less blowback when they behave in ways that are not conforming.
It's pretty central to the concept of privilege -- a privileged person
can (generally) do whatever it is they're inclined to do.
Steve
Steve Pope
I agree except for the very last statement, which uses "any genuine"
too broadly in my opinion. Incremental and focussed efforts at civil
rights -- even single-issue efforts -- can still be genuine.
Steve
Steve Pope
>On 06/18/2011 08:33 AM, Kai Jones wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 20:19:03 +1200, Miche<mich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I have to say, though, that I'm a bit tired of unconventional behaviour
>>> being attributed to/written off as autism. For fuck's sake, there's
>>> more to weirdoes than that.
>>
>> Sure...but I think it helps me to attribute my co-workers' annoying
>> behaviors to "being on the spectrum" or the like, because I'm more
>> forgiving and tolerant when I think of it that way.
>
>That seems to me to be a flaw in your decisionmaking (or other
>inclination) toward kindliness, not a reason for categorizing them the
>way that makes you more kindly toward them.
>
>> Although I am
>> conflicted about it: it doesn't seem fair to them or to people who
>> have medical diagnoses.
>
>Yeah. Plus, if your volitional behavior depends on a diagnosis you don't
>or can't know, you could probably instead base your volitional behavior
>on wanting to treat everyone (barring a reason not to) more kindly.
I'm not sure Kai stated that she treated anyone un-kindly; just
that she felt less forgiving/tolerant prior to considering the
possibility of AS. So I don't see a flaw in decisionmaking.
There's a big distinction between how one perceives/react to someone,
and how one behaves towards them.
Tangentially: sometime around a year ago a friend stated she found
a certain newsgroup participant (not from this newsgroup) annoying.
I offered the observation that said participant might have some sort
of AS thing going on, providing as examples the participant engaging
in making ultra-literal statements and very stepwise thinking --
coincidentally things I sometimes recognize in myself. My friend felt
this was a useful observation and may have helped her in her thinking
regarding the participant.
I think it's a useful thing to surface. I don't think it means that
anyone was flawed to have been annoyed in the first place.
Steve
866013149e
>Tangentially: sometime around a year ago a friend stated she found
>a certain newsgroup participant (not from this newsgroup) annoying.
>I offered the observation that said participant might have some sort
>of AS thing going on, providing as examples the participant engaging
>in making ultra-literal statements and very stepwise thinking --
>coincidentally things I sometimes recognize in myself. My friend felt
>this was a useful observation and may have helped her in her thinking
>regarding the participant.
Does AS actually exist? Or is merely the current fashion in interpreting
behavior patterns that might have been attributed a few centuries ago to
witchcraft or some such?
umar
Todd Michel McComb
Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>That's one aspect, the other is that highly privileged persons
>suffer relatively less blowback when they behave in ways that are
>not conforming.
As my partner noted over the weekend, a rich person can goof off
all the time with no criticism whatsoever. (Contrast with, say,
mothers on welfare.)
Todd Michel McComb
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>their focus has been on gaining "access to normality" for specific
>previously-excluded groups
A lot of the effort seems to go toward letting specific people do
specific things that they otherwise weren't able to do. You can
call that access to normality, which in a way it is, but it also
requires specific consideration and action to let someone with a
disability easily enter a restaurant, etc. Sometimes it wouldn't
be at all helpful to just declare everything to be "normal" -- quite
the opposite.
>Acceptance - not "tolerance", which is the suspension of opposition:
>if I "tolerate" something, that implies an expected antagonism which
>I am merely choosing not to embody - but genuine acceptance of
>diversity remains an elusive goal.
When I teach diversity, we generally use a five step sequence of
possible reactions: repulsion, avoidance, tolerance, acceptance,
appreciation.
Don't leave out appreciation.
Todd Michel McComb
866013149e <86601...@hippogryph.com> wrote:
>Does AS actually exist? Or is merely the current fashion in
>interpreting behavior patterns that might have been attributed a
>few centuries ago to witchcraft or some such?
There have actually been research studies done to attempt to determine
if the greatly increased incidence of ASD is due to any other known
factor, such as an increase in diagnoses. Although the study was
able to attribute some part of the increase to that factor, there
is still a large component of increase in ASD that is not attributable
to any known factor.
866013149e
>Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Neurotypical is the privileged position.
>Yeah - this sort of touches on something I think about the whole
>civil rights struggle, the whole dynamic of "privilege", "oppression",
>etc. - which is that all specific forms of privilege are instances of
>the general class of "normal privilege": in the end, "privilege" means
>that (in some particular way) you are entitled to claim membership in
>the Set of Normal-People.
On reflection, it occurs to me that the notion of "normal" being
privileged is wrong; the word "privilege" derives from Latin roots that
mean "private law", and implies membership in an elite -- not the
commons, if you will, but the lords.
Which is the truly privileged in our society? The truck driver or
construction worker who happens to be white, Protestant, and male? Or
the billionaire whose whims determine whether that truck driver or
construction worker has a job tomorrow morning?
Somehow during the course of the last half century or so I think we have
allowed the language of privilege and oppression to be twisted in ways
that pit black against white, straight against gay, male against female,
etc. when we ought all of us to stand together against those who are
truly privileged.
>The civil rights struggle, in its specific recent histories, has
>been focused on gaining this "membership in the Normal" for specific,
>identifiable oppressed populations: racial integration, gay rights,
>women's liberation: the movements have certainly been doing necessary
>work in addressing extant wrongs, but their focus has been on gaining
>"access to normality" for specific previously-excluded groups, and,
>thus pieced off into individual movements, and focused on pragmatic
>ends (such as legislation and litigation), they have done little to
>challenge the underlying "normalism".
There is, I think, a strategy of "divide et impera" at work here; as
long as people remain preoccupied by things like school busing,
abortion, gay marriage, or immigration, they have little time to think
about economic policies that will largely determine their standards of
living and those of their children.
>Acceptance - not "tolerance", which is the suspension of opposition:
>if I "tolerate" something, that implies an expected antagonism which
>I am merely choosing not to embody - but genuine acceptance of diversity
>remains an elusive goal. (For example, the question of "gay rights" often
>gets hung on the question of "gender expression": maybe it's OK to let
>someone in a same-sex relationship keep their job, but <gasp> Men-In-Dresses?
>Can't allow that! It would be just weird! You have to leave us some weirdos
>to discriminate against!)
Both sides, I think, have to wake up and realize that while they are
fighting over gender roles, men who play with with money are taking them
for everything they own.
There really is privilege and oppression in America, but it isn't black
versus white, man versus woman, Christian versus Muslim, mono versus
poly, cis versus trans, or "normal" versus "weird". It's people with
real power against all the rest of us.
umar
Todd Michel McComb
866013149e <86601...@hippogryph.com> wrote:
>There is, I think, a strategy of "divide et impera" at work here;
Definitely.
>There really is privilege and oppression in America, but it isn't black
>versus white, man versus woman, Christian versus Muslim, mono versus
>poly, cis versus trans, or "normal" versus "weird". It's people with
>real power against all the rest of us.
Well, it's all an issue.
Todd Michel McComb
For some reason, I'm going to add this quote from Sun Ra's wikipedia
article:
>I couldn't approach black people with the truth because they like
>lies. They live lies.... At one time I felt that white people were
>to blame for everything, but then I found out that they were just
>puppets and pawns of some greater force, which has been using
>them.... Some force is having a good time [manipulating black and
>white people] and looking, enjoying itself up in a reserved seat,
>wondering, "I wonder when they're going to wake up."
He likes to make things sound kind of supernatural, though.
866013149e
>David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Hm. My first reaction was to agree strongly with that, but then I ran
>into the question of class privilege, which seems to go directly against
>that picture of privilege. I don't think there's a perception that rich
>people, or high-class people in societies where class and wealth aren't
>quite the same thing, are "normal" and that's why they're privileged.
>They're privileged because they're perceived as *better* than normal.
It's nothing to do with perception; they're privileged because they hold
positions of power and thereby exalt themselves over the rest.
>There's some of that going on with gender, too, I think. Women weren't
>(largely) seen as abnormal; they were seen as normal *for women*, as
>opposed to normal *for humans* (and particularly not normal *for men*).
In other words, it is a matter of culture. But privilege is more about
power than culture; if you control enough dollars, you can be as butch
or as femme as you like, culture be damned.
>And there is generally at least some lip service paid to the idea that men
>and women were both better at different things. It just so happens that
>the things that men are said to be better at are mostly the public things
>that convey privilege, and women were supposedly better at things like
>obeying and supporting.
Do they truly convey privilege, though, or just the illusion of
privilege?
There is a difference between social status and economic status. The
former is largely a matter of culture and is quite arbitrary. One's
language or accent, for instance, or the church one goes to, or the
school one attends, or ethnicity of one's supposed ancestors, all of
them affect one's perceived social status. But privilege is something
else entirely. Sarah Palin is far more privileged than I, whatever our
relative social statuses may be.
>Acceptance versus tolerance does, I think, run into some pretty deep
>tendencies in human behavior to divide the world into in and out groups.
>I can see the appeal of pushing for tolerance as a possibly more practical
>goal, since it acknowledges the fact that we're not really sure how to
>break down the us/them distinctions in human thinking, but we have had a
>fair amount of success in improving people's behavior towards "them."
I agree, and add that the absence of tolerance allows "them" and "us" to
be played off against each other by third parties looking to gain power
over both groups.
umar
866013149e
>Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> writes:
Exactly so.
umar
Steve Pope
In my opinion? FWIW: yes, and probably.
I suspect there are scientists who make it their life's work to
retroactively apply modern medical or psychiatric thinking and
diagnoses to historical figures...
Steve
Pat Kight
> On 06/18/2011 08:33 AM, Kai Jones wrote:
>> On 18 Jun 2011 05:10:07 -0700, aa...@pobox.com (Aahz Maruch) wrote:
>>
>>> Two-thirds serious: is there anyone, anywhere, who is neurotypical?
>>
>> Yes. Me.
>
> Me, too.
And me.
My partner is not; after being together for something like 10 years, I'm
still learning a *lot* from him about what life on the other side of the
"norm" is like, and how lucky - and, yes, privileged - I am. It can be
pretty humbling.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Miche
> spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:
>
> >Tangentially: sometime around a year ago a friend stated she found
> >a certain newsgroup participant (not from this newsgroup) annoying.
> >I offered the observation that said participant might have some sort
> >of AS thing going on, providing as examples the participant engaging
> >in making ultra-literal statements and very stepwise thinking --
> >coincidentally things I sometimes recognize in myself. My friend felt
> >this was a useful observation and may have helped her in her thinking
> >regarding the participant.
>
> Does AS actually exist?
Yes.
> Or is merely the current fashion in interpreting
> behavior patterns that might have been attributed a few centuries ago to
> witchcraft or some such?
No.
Miche
--
Electricians do it in three phases
Miche
> Which is the truly privileged in our society? The truck driver or
> construction worker who happens to be white, Protestant, and male? Or
> the billionaire whose whims determine whether that truck driver or
> construction worker has a job tomorrow morning?
Privilege is not a tick-list you can tally up and say "Well, you have
four ticks and I only have three, so you're more privileged than me."
It's situational. A bit of awareness about how a person might be
speaking or acting from a position of privilege goes a long way.
> Somehow during the course of the last half century or so I think we have
> allowed the language of privilege and oppression to be twisted in ways
> that pit black against white, straight against gay, male against female,
> etc. when we ought all of us to stand together against those who are
> truly privileged.
You gotta pick your battles.
Phoenix
> There really is privilege and oppression in America, but it isn't black
> versus white, man versus woman, Christian versus Muslim, mono versus
> poly, cis versus trans, or "normal" versus "weird". It's people with
> real power against all the rest of us.
And once again, I <3 umar.
Deborah
still waitin' for the revolution, dammit
--
If you ask HP to guide your footsteps, you'd best be prepared to
move your feet. (unattributed)
Todd Michel McComb
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>I know families where they constantly talk over each other, where
>people jump in to conversations, and all is conducted in an amiable
>uproar - and I know others where they practically observe Roberts'
>Rules.
Yes, we were accustomed to having everyone talk at once. (I'm
accustomed to listening to multiple people at the same time, like
polyphony.) Adjusting to social settings where people are particularly
sensitive to being interrupted was quite a challenge to me as a
young person, and I still find it rather tedious.
Steve Pope
>In alt.polyamory, (866013149e) wrote in
><IpydneyOypBBJGPQ...@speakeasy.net>::
>
>>Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> writes:
>>
>>>David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>>>Hm. My first reaction was to agree strongly with that, but then I ran
>>>into the question of class privilege, which seems to go directly against
>>>that picture of privilege. I don't think there's a perception that rich
>>>people, or high-class people in societies where class and wealth aren't
>>>quite the same thing, are "normal" and that's why they're privileged.
>>>They're privileged because they're perceived as *better* than normal.
>>
>>It's nothing to do with perception; they're privileged because they hold
>>positions of power and thereby exalt themselves over the rest.
>
>I disagree; both their own and others' perception of their entitlement
>helps to keep them there.
Yes, that is an important aspect. I think it is the essence also
of the Sun Ra quote posted by Todd.
(Todd, and this is a nit-pick, but I think your quotation syntax for
Sun Ra, using an indented ">" character, is one that is by convention
reserved for quoting other posters in a thread, as opposed to external
quotes.)
Steve
Miche
How do you cope with those who, like me, can only listen to one person
at a time?
Todd Michel McComb
Miche <mich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>How do you cope with those who, like me, can only listen to one
>person at a time?
Can you ignore the other people and just listen to the one person
while the rest goes on? Otherwise, I don't recall anyone in the
family expressing the concern.
Steve Pope
>Miche <mich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>How do you cope with those who, like me, can only listen to one
>>person at a time?
>Can you ignore the other people and just listen to the one person
>while the rest goes on?
I think Miche just specifically wrote that they can't do this.
Steve
Aahz Maruch
>Miche <mich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>How do you cope with those who, like me, can only listen to one
>>person at a time?
>
>Can you ignore the other people and just listen to the one person
>while the rest goes on?
Not really, no. It sounds like nobody in your family has a significant
hearing impairment.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
"It is commonly believed by the shallow and the ignorant that human
attitude, character, and opinion is immutable." --SKZB
Todd Michel McComb
>It sounds like nobody in your family has a significant hearing
>impairment.
My father is pretty bad in that area at this point (decades of
industrial tools with no real hearing protection), but then the way
people interact gets to be kind of a way of life.
But I'm still curious. Occupying different pitch areas, talking
at different speeds or with a different modulation... none of that
helps you?
Steve Pope
At age 55, I can no longer isolate a single speaker from a
cacophony of speakers, and my hearing is considered medically
normal although it has declined. (Fortunately, I have been
using ear protection for many years in high decibel situations.)
I suspect your father might be adapting behaviorally, as opposed to
actually being able to hear within the multiple conversations, but
that is just a guess.
Steve
Miche
mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:
> In article
> <micheinnz-E1DD2...@dynamic-24-42-201-193.knology.net>,
> Miche <mich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >How do you cope with those who, like me, can only listen to one
> >person at a time?
>
> Can you ignore the other people and just listen to the one person
> while the rest goes on?
Usually, unless they're also trying to get my attention. Sometimes, on
a bad ADHD day, I just can't and need them to wait their turn.
> Otherwise, I don't recall anyone in the
> family expressing the concern.
Hey, whatever works. :)
Miche
spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
I can only focus on what one person is saying at a time. Sometimes I
can relegate the rest to background noise, but sometimes I can't.
Phoenix
> But I'm still curious. Occupying different pitch areas, talking
> at different speeds or with a different modulation... none of that
> helps you?
Not really, no. I can only follow one stream that involves words,
at one time. For instance, I can't simultaneously be involved in
a conversation while music that has lyrics being sung is playing.
I can't type on the computer while trying to talk on the phone. I
can't read while someone is trying to talk, even if they aren't
specifically talking to me. I apparently have only one channel
available labeled "verbal".
Deborah
Steve Pope
>Not really, no. I can only follow one stream that involves words,
>at one time. For instance, I can't simultaneously be involved in
>a conversation while music that has lyrics being sung is playing.
What if they are non-English lyrics? Say, Latin.
Steve
Teal
Speaking as a cognitive psychologist, that's actually pretty normal. What
folk generally do to deal with multiple inputs on a single channel (verbal,
say) is attention switching - attending to one input, then another, then back
again. Some folk are better at this than others, and can do it faster, or
more reliably; and it can give the illusion that they're attending to two or
more things at once. But they're really not. They're just attention-switching
quickly.
Teal
Russ Allbery
I could be the one who's misunderstanding, but it feels like there are two
different things being discussed by different people.
I think Todd was meaning to ask whether you can tune out all the other
conversations and listen to only one speaker, or if multiple simultaneous
speakers means that you can't understand *any* of them. The above sounds
a bit more like you were answering the question of whether you could
absorb the content of more than one stream of words at the same time
(which, as Teal says, I thought was a rare or nonexistent skill; people
who appear to be doing that are, as I understand it, faking it with
attention switching and mentally backfilling missing context).
I do know people who have a huge amount of difficulty with crosstalk. If
there is more than one person speaking at the same time, they usually
can't get the content of any of those conversation streams. The whole
thing turns into essentially white noise. (Interestingly, none of the
people I know with that problem have any sort of traditional hearing
impairment that I know of, and I think they probably would have mentioned
to me if they did. I can only imagine that it would be much harder when
coupled with hearing impairment.)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Steve Pope
>I do know people who have a huge amount of difficulty with crosstalk. If
>there is more than one person speaking at the same time, they usually
>can't get the content of any of those conversation streams. The whole
>thing turns into essentially white noise. (Interestingly, none of the
>people I know with that problem have any sort of traditional hearing
>impairment that I know of, and I think they probably would have mentioned
>to me if they did. I can only imagine that it would be much harder when
>coupled with hearing impairment.)
Unless they've been measured by an audiologist, they may not know
if a hearing deficit is accounting for this.
Steve
Russ Allbery
True. That is indeed not something most people are routinely tested for.
Steve Pope
>Phoenix wrote...
>> Not really, no. I can only follow one stream that involves words,
>> at one time. For instance, I can't simultaneously be involved in
>> a conversation while music that has lyrics being sung is playing.
>> I can't type on the computer while trying to talk on the phone. I
>> can't read while someone is trying to talk, even if they aren't
>> specifically talking to me. I apparently have only one channel
>> available labeled "verbal".
>Speaking as a cognitive psychologist, that's actually pretty normal. What
>folk generally do to deal with multiple inputs on a single channel (verbal,
>say) is attention switching - attending to one input, then another, then back
>again. Some folk are better at this than others, and can do it faster, or
>more reliably; and it can give the illusion that they're attending to two or
>more things at once. But they're really not. They're just attention-switching
>quickly.
Given this, I have a vaguely related question.
I have read that a person who has not yet learned a given language
(such as an infant) can nonetheless memorize a conversation they
are hearing, and then later in life might have the ability to go back
and interpret it.
If this is true, is it possible a person might similarly be able
to memorize the sounds from multiple conversations garbled together,
and later sort them out into words -- even if they were not
understanding them in real-time?
Steve
Teal
>
> Teal <use...@chromatic-dragonfly.com> wrote:
>
> >Phoenix wrote...
>
> >> Not really, no. I can only follow one stream that involves words,
> >> at one time. For instance, I can't simultaneously be involved in
> >> a conversation while music that has lyrics being sung is playing.
> >> I can't type on the computer while trying to talk on the phone. I
> >> can't read while someone is trying to talk, even if they aren't
> >> specifically talking to me. I apparently have only one channel
> >> available labeled "verbal".
>
> >Speaking as a cognitive psychologist, that's actually pretty normal. What
> >folk generally do to deal with multiple inputs on a single channel (verbal,
> >say) is attention switching - attending to one input, then another, then back
> >again. Some folk are better at this than others, and can do it faster, or
> >more reliably; and it can give the illusion that they're attending to two or
> >more things at once. But they're really not. They're just attention-switching
> >quickly.
>
> Given this, I have a vaguely related question.
>
> I have read that a person who has not yet learned a given language
> (such as an infant) can nonetheless memorize a conversation they
> are hearing, and then later in life might have the ability to go back
> and interpret it.
I dunno, that sounds pretty unlikely to me. Without seeing the source of this
or knowing the context, I'd guess that they're more likely to be
confabulating - inventing the memory later, without realising that they're
doing so. That's actually more common than most people realise, and a big
reason why "eyewitness testimony" can be so dodgy and unreliable, even with
the best will in the world.
> If this is true, is it possible a person might similarly be able
> to memorize the sounds from multiple conversations garbled together,
> and later sort them out into words -- even if they were not
> understanding them in real-time?
Interesting question, and one that there's actual research investigating (or
at least, questioins similar to that). I don't recall the exact details right
now, but I have a vague recollection of some lectures back in my undergrad
days covering something like this, suggesting that where subjects listen to
different soundtracks in each ear (through headphones), that there was
better-than-chance likelihood that they'd "guess" words related to what was
coming in through the ear that they weren't told to attend to, in later
tasks. But my memory's pretty fuzzy here; you may want to look it up yourself
if you want to know more. The key phrase to google is "dichotic listening
task".
Teal
Phoenix
Nope. My brain tries to make sense of it. Besides, I know enough
smatterings of enough languages that it likely would take *more*
of my verbal processing to parse out what I could...
Deborah
Phoenix
> Phoenix<drup...@munged.clearspringlabs.com> writes:
>> Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>
>>> But I'm still curious. Occupying different pitch areas, talking at
>>> different speeds or with a different modulation... none of that helps
>>> you?
>
>> Not really, no. I can only follow one stream that involves words, at one
>> time. For instance, I can't simultaneously be involved in a conversation
>> while music that has lyrics being sung is playing. I can't type on the
>> computer while trying to talk on the phone. I can't read while someone
>> is trying to talk, even if they aren't specifically talking to me. I
>> apparently have only one channel available labeled "verbal".
>
> I could be the one who's misunderstanding, but it feels like there are two
> different things being discussed by different people.
>
> I think Todd was meaning to ask whether you can tune out all the other
> conversations and listen to only one speaker, or if multiple simultaneous
> speakers means that you can't understand *any* of them. The above sounds
> a bit more like you were answering the question of whether you could
> absorb the content of more than one stream of words at the same time
> (which, as Teal says, I thought was a rare or nonexistent skill; people
> who appear to be doing that are, as I understand it, faking it with
> attention switching and mentally backfilling missing context).
My intent was to answer what you think Todd was asking, about
being able to tune out other verbal inputs and attend to only one
speaker. It is very difficult, I lose track of both/all of the
inputs. And I *really* can't absorb the content of more than one
stream of words at one time...
Deborah
Todd Michel McComb
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>I think Todd was meaning to ask whether you can tune out all the
>other conversations and listen to only one speaker, or if multiple
>simultaneous speakers means that you can't understand *any* of them.
Yes, that was my followup question to Miche's remark. As you say,
there are basically two different issues. Perhaps I'm the only one
here who is accustomed to listening to more than one person at once.
By way of tangent, the motet genre developed in 13th century Europe
from the clausalae (drawn out endings) to the extended multi-voice
settings of church hymns around Notre Dame (organum). This was the
most rhythmically animated part of that music, and eventually broke
off to be its own genre, in this case rather short (as opposed to
the lengthy organum). Part of the motet style was using different
texts in the different voice parts, generally 4 voices but only 2
or 3 texts, and in both Latin & French. It was a style that served
to blend sacred & secular composition, and some motets of the period
became purely secular. (More than one text had been used in e.g.
troping previously, but in that case, troped lyrics are sung much
faster than the slow chants, basically fitting into the intervening
spaces, as opposed to a motet where the main parts will be moving
at about the same speed.) Of course, the term "motet" is related
to "word" and alludes to this process. It used to be a commonplace,
when medieval music was first being revived, for people to say it
was simply "impossible" to hear the parts simultaneously. Subsequently,
performers work at sharing acoustic space in such a way that the
simultaneous lyrics are individually audible. Similarly in familes,
or close-knit social groups, it can be a matter of individuals
fitting into particular "musical" spaces so that everyone remains
audible (hence my question to Aahz).
David Weinshenker
> performers work at sharing acoustic space in such a way that the
> simultaneous lyrics are individually audible. Similarly in familes,
> or close-knit social groups, it can be a matter of individuals
> fitting into particular "musical" spaces so that everyone remains
> audible (hence my question to Aahz).
When you've experienced/observed this process, to what extent did it
appear to be a conscious thing?
It seems to me that the possibility that this can be done (let alone
the shared expectation) may simply not occur to a lot of people (other
than those who have, e.g., either been exposed to the musical styles
you describe, or grown up in families where there was the habit of
simultaneous talk).
-dave w
Todd Michel McComb
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>When you've experienced/observed this process, to what extent did it
>appear to be a conscious thing?
It's seemed fairly conscious to me at times, as in e.g. a child
being rebuked not for interrupting per se, but rather for occupying
a particular tonal space, and being told to modulate his voice or
change rhythms. This was, however, typically done via gesture
rather than verbally.
>It seems to me that the possibility that this can be done (let alone
>the shared expectation) may simply not occur to a lot of people (other
>than those who have, e.g., either been exposed to the musical styles
>you describe, or grown up in families where there was the habit of
>simultaneous talk).
Could be. Simultaneous creation is such an important musical theme
for me that I tend to think about these things in all areas (and I
should probably add that those thoughts have been reflected back
by needs arising in e.g. group facilitation, where I consciously
consider musical solutions), but it did start for me in both nuclear
and extended family.
Doug Wickström
<r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>My personal reaction is a lot like Kai's here. I consider myself
>neurotypical.
>
>I think I see what Aahz is getting at, but maybe I'm coming at it from
>another direction. I have friends who are not neurotypical. They have to
>deal with a whole bunch of crap that I just don't have to deal with.
>Neurotypical is the privileged position.
I am not NT, but I don't regard it as a problem, now that I know
about my AS. In fact, most of the time, it's an advantage. It
was usually an advantage before, too, as long as I didn't come
into a social situation in which I didn't understand why I wasn't
being understood.
--
Doug Wickstr�
Doug Wickström
McComb) wrote:
>In article <Au2dnbYcyN0aOmPQ...@speakeasy.net>,
>866013149e <86601...@hippogryph.com> wrote:
>>Does AS actually exist? Or is merely the current fashion in
>>interpreting behavior patterns that might have been attributed a
>>few centuries ago to witchcraft or some such?
>
>There have actually been research studies done to attempt to determine
>if the greatly increased incidence of ASD is due to any other known
>factor, such as an increase in diagnoses. Although the study was
>able to attribute some part of the increase to that factor, there
>is still a large component of increase in ASD that is not attributable
>to any known factor.
I think it may be related to regarding Asperger's Syndrome, and
some other behavioral trait sets, as ASDs. I don't believe
Asperger's is an ASD, myself. I'm an Aspie, and something of an
extreme case, in some ways, but I am damned sure not autistic.
Asperger's Syndrome is relatively common. Autism is a lot rarer,
and a lot of those diagnosed as autistic don't seem to fit autism
as I have come to understand it. So is it all due to broadening
of definitions? I don't know. There is certainly some increase
in recognizing autism when it occurs, but I suspect there is a
lot of lumping of other personality sets into autism that
shouldn't be. Staring out the window and fidgeting might be an
indicator of autism. It might also be an indication of boredom
that someone is too quick to label as autism because then they
don't have to bear any personal responsibility.
--
Doug Wickstr�
Aahz Maruch
>>
>>It sounds like nobody in your family has a significant hearing
>>impairment.
>
>My father is pretty bad in that area at this point (decades of
>industrial tools with no real hearing protection), but then the way
>people interact gets to be kind of a way of life.
As you know, Bob, that can also be said of e.g. sexism, racism, etc
>But I'm still curious. Occupying different pitch areas, talking
>at different speeds or with a different modulation... none of that
>helps you?
You are obviously using English words, but without any discernible
meaning. It's possible that your habit of over-eliding is at fault.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
"In the fields of observation chance favors only the prepared mind."
--Louis Pasteur
Steve Pope
>In alt.polyamory, (Steve Pope) wrote in
>I'm not convinced that it helps. There seems to be a part of our brain
>that directs attention to noises that are speech-like.
>
>I work in an office where there is a significant group of non-English
>speakers. There is a constant background of conversations loud enough
>for me to hear, but which I can't understand - and I've found that it's
>quite fatigue-inducing. I suspect my brain is constantly being
>stimulated but without resolution. I don't experience the same effect
>when those around me are speaking English.
Right.
As a datapoint, my roomate does work as a proofreader (proofing items
written in English). She states that music with English lyrics
distracts her from this work -- unless she is very familiar with a
particular recording (in which case, I guess, her brain does not need
to process it). Instrumental music, or music with lyrics in other
languages (typically Latin, Spanish, or maybe Italian or German)
is not a problem.
In your scenario however, you're presented with live conversations
in other languages -- maybe that has more distraction potential
than a recording.
Steve
Russ Allbery
> Yes, that was my followup question to Miche's remark. As you say,
> there are basically two different issues. Perhaps I'm the only one
> here who is accustomed to listening to more than one person at once.
You're not the only one (my family talks over top of each other all the
time), but I know a lot of other people who have problems with it.
Even those who *can* follow multiple conversations often have been
socially trained the opposite direction that I was trained and don't
interrupt. Which means that, unless I'm careful, I can talk them right
out of the conversation, since I keep waiting for the social cue that I'm
used to (someone else just starts talking), they keep waiting for the
social cue that they're used to (everyone stays quiet for a couple of
seconds), and they never end up feeling like they're allowed to talk.
It's probably the biggest casual, day-to-day cultural conflict that I
notice, in terms of the negative effects of the mismatch and the
surprising amount of effort it takes me to adjust to the other set of
cultural expectations.
(I have also gotten the impression that this is somewhat socially
gender-linked, namely that -- speaking in statistical generalities about
people embedded in US culture -- men feel a lot more comfortable just
starting to talk over top of someone else than women do. I haven't done
any personal research in this, but it does seem anecdotally correct. It's
not particularly gender-linked in my family; the practice comes more from
my mother's side and my aunts. But it's another part of the dynamic when
interacting with people outside my family.)
Todd Michel McComb
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Doug_Wickstr=F6m?= <nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I don't believe Asperger's is an ASD, myself.
It is, by definition.
>So is it all due to broadening of definitions?
No. That is exactly what such studies were designed to address.
>It might also be an indication of boredom that someone is too quick
>to label as autism because then they don't have to bear any personal
>responsibility.
On the contrary, at least in the US, someone with a diagnosed
condition such as this is immediately eligible for a wide range of
individual services. No identification, no services, no responsibility
for the agency.
Steve Pope
>=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Doug_Wickstr=F6m?= <nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>I don't believe Asperger's is an ASD, myself.
>It is, by definition.
Not so fast
>>So is it all due to broadening of definitions?
>No. That is exactly what such studies were designed to address.
For most of the five decades or so that Asperger's has been
recognized, it has not been considered as related to autism,
or in an autism spectrum; and it is still not universally
accepted that this relationship exists. I believe this is accepted
by most practitioners but not by most professional societies at
this stage.
So, as far as I can tell, this one is still being hashed out.
Doug is correct that a "broadening of definitions" of an autism spectrum
has occured over time, to potentially include Asperger's. That is exactly
what has happened if you're looking at a time-frame of the last
five decades.
>On the contrary, at least in the US, someone with a diagnosed
>condition such as this is immediately eligible for a wide range of
>individual services.
Depends what one means by "eligible". If said person is able to work
and fails means-testing (e.g. has assets) they are typically not
eligible for anything in particular. It is not sufficient to be
diagnosed with a disorder.
Steve
Todd Michel McComb
Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>Doug is correct that a "broadening of definitions" of an autism
>spectrum has occured over time, to potentially include Asperger's.
My point was that does not account for the increased rate of
diagnosis. That can be and has been studied independent of what
anything is called.
(I also have no idea what you think the point of having an "autism
spectrum" is if it's going to exclude things like Asperger's, but
I also have no interest in discussing it further.)
>Depends what one means by "eligible".
The comment about being bored and staring out the window made me
think it was referring to school. I was talking about school.
Steve Pope
>(I also have no idea what you think the point of having an "autism
>spectrum" is if it's going to exclude things like Asperger's, but
>I also have no interest in discussing it further.)
You are attributing to me something I did not say. I have not said
anything one way or the other on what the "point of having an autism
spectrum is".
Steve