very young looking - asperger trait?
456
I wondered if looking extremely young was a trait of aspergers syndrome.
I am 35 and people think my age is from 18 to 24.
I have always had lots of coments on how young I look and lots of people
often do not beleive me, when I say my age.
It is quite nice to look so young, but I assume it must be to do with
aspergers syndrome.
I am very curious to find out if others with aspergers or the more classic
autism look younger, their age or older than they are?
Thanks
sggaB
> I am very curious to find out if others with aspergers or the more classic
> autism look younger, their age or older than they are?
I'm 23 and today someone knocked at my door and said, "Is your mommy
home?" (I said she wasn't. It's true and it's a fast way of not having
to deal with salespeople. I neglected to mention she lives hundreds of
miles from me.)
--
This post may be more literal, unemotional, or impersonal than
it looks. This FAQ has details: http://www.mugsy.org/asa_faq/
Hans Kamp
news:40f5be67$0$13093$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
I am 37 years old. I remember that my singing teacher estimated that I was
28 years old. That is not so extreme as in your case, though. I have an
non-autistic uncle; he is about 50 years old, but he looks about 35 or 40.
--
Bezoek het Diablo II Forum Nederlands: http://www.diablo2forum.nl/index.php
English: Visit http://www.diablo2forum.nl/viewforum.php?f=16
Jeremy Reece
> I wondered if looking extremely young was a trait of aspergers syndrome.
> I am 35 and people think my age is from 18 to 24.
> I have always had lots of coments on how young I look and lots of people
> often do not beleive me, when I say my age.
Not long ago I was asked how old I was when I tried to buy a 15-rated
DVD (I'm 21). I tried to give a mildly annoyed response about how old I
was and the woman behind the counter seemed to realise that she'd made a
mistake. This has actually happened several times over the last year or
two.
Also, like Amanda's story, I told some double glazing sales guy that I
hadn't lived with my mother for nearly 4 years and he went away all
embarrassed <grin>.
> It is quite nice to look so young, but I assume it must be to do with
> aspergers syndrome.
> I am very curious to find out if others with aspergers or the more classic
> autism look younger, their age or older than they are?
I dunno... I have the 'low muscle tone' trait and I guess that makes me
look younger than I really am. None of the other (many) auties I know
look younger than their chronological age though.
--
Jeremy Reece
AS d-(---) s:-->: a-- c+++ p+ t+(-)@ f(-)
S+ p+ e+>++ h+ r+ n+() i@ P->+ m(-) M---
http://www32.brinkster.com/ascdecode/
Terry Jones
<40f5be67$0$13093$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>
>It is quite nice to look so young, but I assume it must be to do with
>aspergers syndrome.
>I am very curious to find out if others with aspergers or the more classic
>autism look younger, their age or older than they are?
Yes, I think someone suggested that this was to do with low muscle
tone (reasonably common in autistics), so that the facial muscles
tends to be more "relaxed". Also possibly the body language thing,
that maybe we're not (naturally) using facial expression as much.
Terry
J Atkinson (Mr)
<coult...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
I've always been told that I look much younger than my real age,
and some people have been quite surprised. I hope that bodes
well for longevity.
My game plan is to outlive 'em all since I can't mix with 'em.
I hope everyone reading this is eating their fruit and veg. every
day?
>Thanks
>
>
--
J Atkinson (Mr)
Gareeth
"J Atkinson (Mr)" <j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Uxr86mEa...@manx2.demon.co.uk...
> day?
>
Gareeth
Robin May
news:40f5be67$0$13093$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com
I'm 19 and I've never been asked for ID when buying alcohol, even
before I was 18. Two of my friends say I look like I'm in my 30s,
although I think only one of them actually thinks that and the other
just started saying it after the idea was put into his head. I think I
probably do look like I'm at least the age I am. It's partly that I'm
quite tall and it's fairly clear that I have to shave. At the age of 19
that puts your appearance in an age range at least as high as the
reality. I think it'll be more interesting to see how old I look in ten
years time.
--
message by Robin May-Silk and his close friend, Robert Kilroy-Kotton
"GIVE IN! IT'S TIME TO GO!" - The NHS offers a high standard of care.
Would you take the office of relief?:
http://robinmay.fotopic.net/p4600200.html
Jeremy Reece
>>I hope everyone reading this is eating their fruit and veg. every
>>day?
>
> Not a chance.
Seconded <grin>
Francesco S.
It is also possible that NTs grow old faster.
F.
Pierre Abbat
> I'm 19 and I've never been asked for ID when buying alcohol, even
> before I was 18. Two of my friends say I look like I'm in my 30s,
> although I think only one of them actually thinks that and the other
> just started saying it after the idea was put into his head. I think I
> probably do look like I'm at least the age I am. It's partly that I'm
> quite tall and it's fairly clear that I have to shave. At the age of 19
> that puts your appearance in an age range at least as high as the
> reality. I think it'll be more interesting to see how old I look in ten
> years time.
Does anyone have to shave? Beauty is in the eye of the beard holder ;)
I'm 40 and have been mistaken for 32. I am also often mistaken for a woman
on the phone.
phma
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
diamonddavej
Yes, this is a well-known autistic thing. Others I have met in person
have said it too. I've met a many AS people and most look younger then
they are, perhaps 10 years or more. And it seems, the more autistic
the younger they look and sound.
For me, I think it's both behaviour and looks. But another possibility
is sex, lack thereof!
I'm sure many AS people like myself are virgins. I was effectively
asexual until about 26. Autism is natures most powerful prophylactic!
:-( Scientists say the body ages slower without sex, it would be no
good if a human started to age and look unattractive before spreading
DNA around. The ancient Chinese swear that abstinence increases
longevity. I very much do not want to test this theory!
Not long ago, I was barred from a club because the doorman thought I
was under 21, I was 27 at the time. The undergrads I helped teach last
term thought I was 24-25 (an average of their responses) I'm 31. They
were genuinely amazed. I also dated a 19-20 year old recently. I knew
people would not think I was allot older then her because I look
young.
Diamond Dave
Robin May
news:08u5dc...@ixazon.dynip.com
> Robin May wrote:
>
>> I'm 19 and I've never been asked for ID when buying alcohol, even
>> before I was 18. Two of my friends say I look like I'm in my 30s,
>> although I think only one of them actually thinks that and the
>> other just started saying it after the idea was put into his
>> head. I think I probably do look like I'm at least the age I am.
>> It's partly that I'm quite tall and it's fairly clear that I have
>> to shave. At the age of 19 that puts your appearance in an age
>> range at least as high as the reality. I think it'll be more
>> interesting to see how old I look in ten years time.
>
> Does anyone have to shave? Beauty is in the eye of the beard
> holder ;)
I mean "have to" as in to look the way I currently do (beardless) I
have visibly had to shave.
J Atkinson (Mr)
<sf...@yahoo.com> writes
The reason must be that if we are out of the mainstream of life,
we miss all the stresses and strains, living easy, laid-back lives,
eat an apple a day, and get to bed early. Does that sound likely?
>F.
>
--
J Atkinson (Mr)
sggaB
> The reason must be that if we are out of the mainstream of life,
> we miss all the stresses and strains, living easy, laid-back lives,
> eat an apple a day, and get to bed early. Does that sound likely?
Certainly not in my case. While my life is nowhere as hard as it was when
I was forced *very* far out of the mainstream (which was well above the
level of NT workplace stress, certainly), it's still pretty stressful.
I've never heard many autistics, even those who say they have *good*
lives, say that they don't have *stressful* lives.
Grey
<snip>
> I hope everyone reading this is eating their fruit and veg. every
> day?
Err...that's those green things next to the steak, right?
Always wondered what those were for.
-Grey
------------------------------------------------------------
For any language L that's regular, there's a magic number p
and every word in L that's long enough must have this property:
Amongst its first p symbols is a segment you can find
Whose repetition or omission leaves another of its kind.
So if you find a language L which should fail this acid test,
And some long word you pump becomes distinct from all the rest,
By contradiction you have shown that the language L is not
a set for which a regular expression can be wrought.
But if, upon the other hand, x stays within its L,
Then either L is regular, or you've not chosen well.
For w is xyz, and y cannot be null,
And y must come before p symbols have been read in full.
Also, as a postscript, an addendum to the wise:
The basic proof we give you here, but you can generalize.
So there is a pumping lemma for all languages context-free,
Although we do not have the same for those that are r.e.
------------------------------------------------------------
Grey
news:40f5be67$0$13093$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com:
Dunno. I'm usually mistaken for about 22 (I'm 30), but when I was 15, I
would also get mistaken for about 22.
I'm hardly the typical autistic, though, so I wouldn't draw any
conclusions from this.
Francesco S.
In a way yes. Being part of the mob is always fear the mob's violence.
Autists are busy with other matters.
F.
J Atkinson (Mr)
<n...@home.net> writes
>"J Atkinson (Mr)" <j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>news:Uxr86mEa...@manx2.demon.co.uk:
>
><snip>
>
>> I hope everyone reading this is eating their fruit and veg. every
>> day?
>
>Err...that's those green things next to the steak, right?
>
>Always wondered what those were for.
>
I believe, if I'm not mistaken, they are sometimes known in the USA
as
"hash". This side of the pond we say "bubble and squeak". That is,
left-over vegetables mashed up together and fried until there a
crispy
skin forms. Nice covered with a nice gravy.
Just warning you in case you ever decide to try some.
>-Grey
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>For any language L that's regular, there's a magic number p
>and every word in L that's long enough must have this property:
>Amongst its first p symbols is a segment you can find
>Whose repetition or omission leaves another of its kind.
>
>So if you find a language L which should fail this acid test,
>And some long word you pump becomes distinct from all the rest,
>By contradiction you have shown that the language L is not
>a set for which a regular expression can be wrought.
>
>But if, upon the other hand, x stays within its L,
>Then either L is regular, or you've not chosen well.
>For w is xyz, and y cannot be null,
>And y must come before p symbols have been read in full.
>
>Also, as a postscript, an addendum to the wise:
>The basic proof we give you here, but you can generalize.
>So there is a pumping lemma for all languages context-free,
>Although we do not have the same for those that are r.e.
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
--
J Atkinson (Mr)
J Atkinson (Mr)
<ama...@autistics.org> writes
>In article <P0UqLhAm...@manx2.demon.co.uk>, J Atkinson (Mr) wrote:
>
>> The reason must be that if we are out of the mainstream of life,
>> we miss all the stresses and strains, living easy, laid-back lives,
>> eat an apple a day, and get to bed early. Does that sound likely?
>
>Certainly not in my case. While my life is nowhere as hard as it was when
>I was forced *very* far out of the mainstream (which was well above the
>level of NT workplace stress, certainly), it's still pretty stressful.
>I've never heard many autistics, even those who say they have *good*
>lives, say that they don't have *stressful* lives.
>
Well, mine isn't, and hasn't been for years and years. I think I've
been very lucky in avoiding what most NTs have to go through to
buy their beans. At times, my life has been quite idyllic.
--
J Atkinson (Mr)
Kalen
> In article <40f5be67$0$13093$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>, 456 wrote:
>
>
>>I am very curious to find out if others with aspergers or the more classic
>>autism look younger, their age or older than they are?
>
>
> I'm 23 and today someone knocked at my door and said, "Is your mommy
> home?" (I said she wasn't. It's true and it's a fast way of not having
> to deal with salespeople. I neglected to mention she lives hundreds of
> miles from me.)
How did you know if she was home or not?
--
Kalen
A World Apart (updated June 26)
http://www.worldapart.org/
Kalen
>
> In a way yes. Being part of the mob is always fear the mob's violence.
> Autists are busy with other matters.
You don't have to be part of it to fear it. "The mob" (in this context)
often targets those most different for its violence.
Stephen Wilson
in a bar and got asked for ID to proove I was old enough to be drinking.
This was the norm before I was 25. Ten years later, I don't know whether to
laugh or cry...
Francesco S.
ne...@paradox.freeserve.co.uk wrote on 15-07-2004 18:21:
> Francesco S. wrote:
>>
>> In a way yes. Being part of the mob is always fear the mob's violence.
>> Autists are busy with other matters.
>
> You don't have to be part of it to fear it. "The mob" (in this context)
> often targets those most different for its violence.
Yes, but if you are part of the mob exercing violence (it's a role of the
jokes, for example) you are always in contact with violence and have to be
careful not to become the target, and this is a result of plain imitation.
It can be stressing.
Autists become target of violence because they are busy in understanding how
the hell things works. They don't are aware that violence is what all groups
are about. When they become object of violence they are surprised in the
first moment. Then they become aware of it and, of course, afraid of it, as
a result of experience and reasoning.
It's my experience and a possible explantion of the reasons of the NTs
growing old faster.
Fran.
Polyrhythmia
making facial expressions as much. I would bet that smile lines are also
less evident on autistics.
sggaB
>> I'm 23 and today someone knocked at my door and said, "Is your mommy
>> home?" (I said she wasn't. It's true and it's a fast way of not having
>> to deal with salespeople. I neglected to mention she lives hundreds of
>> miles from me.)
> How did you know if she was home or not?
She was not home with me.
Gareeth
"Robin May" <northc...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95276A5429E2BN...@130.133.1.4...
> I'm 19 and I've never been asked for ID when buying alcohol, even
> before I was 18. Two of my friends say I look like I'm in my 30s,
> although I think only one of them actually thinks that and the other
> just started saying it after the idea was put into his head. I think I
> probably do look like I'm at least the age I am. It's partly that I'm
> quite tall and it's fairly clear that I have to shave.
You don't look older than you are to me but I think you are young enough
that it is pretty hard to look much younger than you are. I would have put
you in the 17-20 age range if I was guessing I think.
Gareeth
Gareeth
"J Atkinson (Mr)" <j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:P0UqLhAm...@manx2.demon.co.uk...
> The reason must be that if we are out of the mainstream of life,
> we miss all the stresses and strains, living easy, laid-back lives,
> eat an apple a day, and get to bed early. Does that sound likely?
>
I might be out of the mainstream but I wouldn't say I miss out on stress and
strain. I sure as heck don't eat a balanced diet or get to bed early. If I
look younger than I am I would say it is genetic.
Gareeth
Kalen
>
> It's my experience and a possible explantion of the reasons of the NTs
> growing old faster.
I think low muscle tone is rather more plausible.
Kalen
>
> I might be out of the mainstream but I wouldn't say I miss out on stress and
> strain. I sure as heck don't eat a balanced diet or get to bed early. If I
> look younger than I am I would say it is genetic.
I don't think you do. I don't suppose I do either.
--
Kalen (officially no longer young in 6 days)
Kalen
> In article <2lnoq0F...@uni-berlin.de>, Kalen wrote:
>
>
>>>I'm 23 and today someone knocked at my door and said, "Is your mommy
>>>home?" (I said she wasn't. It's true and it's a fast way of not having
>>>to deal with salespeople. I neglected to mention she lives hundreds of
>>>miles from me.)
>
>
>>How did you know if she was home or not?
>
>
> She was not home with me.
I think I would have been likely to answer "I don't know" or, if I were
in a sarcastic mood, "How should I know?"
nachtigal
<snip>
> I am very curious to find out if others with aspergers or the more classic
> autism look younger, their age or older than they are?
>
The ones I know, all look younger. The more heavily impacted look the
youngest.
My bet愀 on the low muscle tone thingie.
--
Sioban
AS? d- s--:-- a- c+ p+ t f S+(++) p e h+ r++ n i(++) P- m-- M
& Frederik
A! d- s+ a---- c+ p+ t++ f(---) S+(-) e-- h-- n-(--) i(++) P+++ m-- M---
http://www32.brinkster.com/ascdecode/
Stephen Wilson
"Polyrhythmia" <dave...@netins.net> wrote in message
news:cd6h24$pcd$1...@news.netins.net...
That may be part of the reason. But many men my age are bald, or at least
greying. I'm not yet, so is there possibly more to it than facial
expression?
Catriona R
wrote:
>Hello
>
>I wondered if looking extremely young was a trait of aspergers syndrome.
>I am 35 and people think my age is from 18 to 24.
>I have always had lots of coments on how young I look and lots of people
>often do not beleive me, when I say my age.
Not so extreme, but I always get charged half price when I go to
football matches (I'm 20, and half price is for under-16s... not that
I complain about it!), and when I wanted to buy some glue the other
day I got told only over-18s could buy it, which annoyed me a little,
as I didn't think I still looked that young :-/
--
Catriona (20, AS)
"I'm not nuts; I'm condiments - I got promoted!"
AS! d- s-:- a-- c+>+++ p+ t+(-)>++ f(-) S+() p? e- h r+ n(+) i(+) P- m M--
Gareeth
"Kalen" <ne...@paradox.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2lo565F...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> I don't think you do. I don't suppose I do either.
>
think I look quite bit younger and when I run into people I went to
univeristy with they look positively ancient and even I can tell that we
don't look the same age.
Gareeth
sggaB
>>>How did you know if she was home or not?
>> She was not home with me.
> I think I would have been likely to answer "I don't know" or, if I were
> in a sarcastic mood, "How should I know?"
<grin>
I'd probably have done that if I'd brought something to the door that was
more complicated than head-shaking or nodding. (I never seem to
remember.)
Kalen
Maybe I just think you look your age because you are your age and you
look like you.
--
Kalen
Francesco S.
ne...@paradox.freeserve.co.uk wrote on 15-07-2004 21:44:
> I think low muscle tone is rather more plausible.
Yes, in the place of the place you can plause what you please.
Why the muscle tone is low remains a mystery we are happy with.
F.
Hylander
> > autism look younger, their age or older than they are?
>
> home?" (I said she wasn't. It's true and it's a fast way of not having
> to deal with salespeople. I neglected to mention she lives hundreds of
> miles from me.)
I might say, "no, is your mommy home?". (they may scratch head, look
at you weird and then slowly step back and away and then leave). <g>
John
Hylander
> Hello
>
> I wondered if looking extremely young was a trait of aspergers syndrome.
> I am 35 and people think my age is from 18 to 24.
> I have always had lots of coments on how young I look and lots of people
> often do not beleive me, when I say my age.
>
> aspergers syndrome.
> autism look younger, their age or older than they are?
>
Well, we just had a discussion about autistic "head sizes" and
"interpupillary distances" and this characteristic is a facial pattern
that characterizes young people and babies. (they have heads that are
proportionately larger than body at that age). Would that make sense?
John
Polyrhythmia
worked enough to wrinkle the skin.
Francesco S.
wrote on 16-07-2004 7:13:
> How about low muscle tone involving the facial muscles? Muscles don't get
> worked enough to wrinkle the skin.
>
>
An effect not a cause.
F.
HGJ
> Pierre Abbat <fes...@ixazon.dynip.com> wrote the following in:
> news:08u5dc...@ixazon.dynip.com
> > Robin May wrote:
> >
> >> I'm 19 and I've never been asked for ID when buying alcohol, even
> >> before I was 18. Two of my friends say I look like I'm in my 30s,
> >> although I think only one of them actually thinks that and the
> >> other just started saying it after the idea was put into his
> >> It's partly that I'm quite tall and it's fairly clear that I have
> >> range at least as high as the reality. I think it'll be more
> >> interesting to see how old I look in ten years time.
I don't think I look much older now than I did ten years ago.
> > Does anyone have to shave? Beauty is in the eye of the beard
> > holder ;)
>
> I mean "have to" as in to look the way I currently do (beardless) I
> have visibly had to shave.
How is it visible that you have had to shave? Does your razor leave
wounds in your face?
HGJ
Kalen
No, I'd be quite happy to know why muscle tone tends to be low in
autistic people. I'm sure there are people researching the issue.
Francesco S.
ne...@paradox.freeserve.co.uk wrote on 16-07-2004 11:04:
> Francesco S. wrote:
>
>> in article 2lo548F...@uni-berlin.de, Kalen at
>> ne...@paradox.freeserve.co.uk wrote on 15-07-2004 21:44:
>>
>>> I think low muscle tone is rather more plausible.
>>
>> Yes, in the place of the place you can plause what you please.
>> Why the muscle tone is low remains a mystery we are happy with.
>
> No, I'd be quite happy to know why muscle tone tends to be low in
> autistic people. I'm sure there are people researching the issue.
Oh yes, perhaps some scientist will find that amigdala of those not
concerned by plain imitation and scapegoating is shaped in the form of the
nose of Cleopatras and propose that all the problem lies with this. He will
get a price for it by the raper.
The soon you all get off the neurologic web the better. It's only what a
freudian could call a "formation of resistence".
Fran.
Kalen
>
> The soon you all get off the neurologic web the better. It's only what a
> freudian could call a "formation of resistence".
Right... so you think autism is *psychological*? That would explain some
of the weirder things you've said.
Polyrhythmia
great deal on the inside..
Gareeth
"> Francesco S. wrote:
> >
> > The soon you all get off the neurologic web the better. It's only what a
> > freudian could call a "formation of resistence".
>
these days. His ideas are only useful as a stage in the development of our
understanding of the minds and of no practical use now other than some of
the things about the subconscious.
We won't be getting off the neurological web anytime soon because unlike
Freud's ideas there is actually emprical evidence for neurological
differences.
Gareeth
Francesco S.
ne...@paradox.freeserve.co.uk wrote on 16-07-2004 19:01:
> Francesco S. wrote:
>>
>> The soon you all get off the neurologic web the better. It's only what a
>> freudian could call a "formation of resistence".
>
> Right... so you think autism is *psychological*? That would explain some
> of the weirder things you've said.
I say that "neurological causes" are a mistake. The word "cause" is plainly
wrong. And that autism definition is statistic, not scientific (D stands for
diagnosis, S for statistic in DSM, it's stuff for sale products and cures).
I also say that in general children humans are much better than grow ups.
And that being parent is the most difficult thing one can try in life.
Nevertheless anybody feel proud to be parent. And yes, that it is very
difficult not to abuse a child in some way.
Just two cents.
Fran.
Francesco S.
Differences do not mean causes. But only think this: Down syndrome has a
scientific definition and you can find it out even before birth. Autism has
not. DSM is a statistic protocol, useful for marketing purposes but not
scientific at all. Given that, what you are talking about are rumors.
Statistic and scientific causes are unmatchable.
I agree that in the first moment it is like a good pill. One thinks: oh
well, I am differently brained. That'all my problem. For some time you can
live well with some peace of mind. This happened to me when I first read an
article about autism and brain differences. But then I continued to study
and found out that all this people are doing their business and actually
indifferent to autists destiny. They are lying in group, so that it is
difficult to find out how and some can lie without being aware of it,
nevertheless it is now clear to me how they are busy and why.
To be sincere, I am frightened by what I see when I meet your group
behavior. It is new to me to discover that autists can act as a group, at
least on the internet and, as any group, stop thinking and mimic one
another.
To understand Freud it is necessary to read his first writings about
hysteria. He plainly found that it was the consequence of sexual abuse by
parents and relatives. The reaction of the society (quite a high level) was
so strong and unanime that he disguised his findings. In the 60s, when
middle-low class asked for mental healt and got in contact with the freudian
thinking, their reaction was even harder. The lapidation of Bruno Bettelheim
is an example of it.
The moral subject of this acting is good described by Dostoevskij in
"Memories of the undergroung". It is quite short. Difficult to swallow,
however. But it is how we are, what you find when you meet bureaucrats or
employees.
There are other neurologic findings and generative theories about autism
ignored by the so-called "austim specialists". Their neurologic arguments
about autism have only one target public: the parents of autistic children.
The proof is the interest these "scientists" have for adults autists. Non
existent.
Fran.
Francesco S.
wrote on 16-07-2004 20:15:
> Consider that someone may appear young on the outside, but may have aged a
> great deal on the inside..
>
>
Or never had childhood. Adult at birth.
The autist formerly known as
and I am a mere 48.
I have been digging my grave since I was in my twenties, and never reckoned
to reach 30, and now I have a distinct possibility asteroids and trains
notwithstanding as I might make the big 50 some day.
I do not see myself as old though.
--
şT
L'autisme c'est moi
"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"
Bridgwatarian
"Catriona R" <catrion...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h11ef099m1eq8bu6q...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:14:45 +0100, "456" <coult...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Hello
> >
> >I wondered if looking extremely young was a trait of aspergers syndrome.
> >I am 35 and people think my age is from 18 to 24.
> >I have always had lots of coments on how young I look and lots of people
> >often do not beleive me, when I say my age.
>
> Not so extreme, but I always get charged half price when I go to
> football matches (I'm 20, and half price is for under-16s... not that
> I complain about it!), and when I wanted to buy some glue the other
> day I got told only over-18s could buy it, which annoyed me a little,
> as I didn't think I still looked that young :-/
>
say something about my apparent age. However people, at least those I know
a bit, seem reasonably accurate even though at 51 I've still got a full head
of hair that has yet to go grey.
--
Steve
AS s+ i c+ p+ n+ s+++ m P++ p+ M-- a++ t++ f h+ dpu S- e+ r++
sggaB
> To be sincere, I am frightened by what I see when I meet your group
> behavior. It is new to me to discover that autists can act as a group, at
> least on the internet and, as any group, stop thinking and mimic one
> another.
What bothers me is the idea that just because people *agree* with one
another, you assume that they are *mimicking* one another. And if they
disagree with you, apparently you think they're not thinking, just
mimicking. (Or just negative, like you called me.) I've seen autistics
engage in groupthink, but disagreeing with psychodynamic theories of
autism is not an example. This is more an example of various people
looking at reality and coming to the same conclusions more or less
independently of each other. Give people some credit.
Dolphinius
> To be sincere, I am frightened by what I see when I meet your group
> behavior. It is new to me to discover that autists can act as a group, at
> least on the internet and, as any group, stop thinking and mimic one
> another.
You probably aren't referring to me specifically as I don't post much.
But ...
If I agree with someone it is because I agree with them.
If I disagree with someone it is because I disagree with them.
I always think, and I am confident so does everyone else here. If I
were to be perceived as mimicing someone it would be because I were
thinking the same way. This behaviour is probably quite common from
time to time when people have similarly-wired brains.
My propensity to agree or disagree on a specific point is completely
independent of whether I have previously agreed to disagreed with the
person and of what I think of them.
The reality is that autistics can sometimes be quite stubborn. If A is
being unreasonable and pursues an argument with B then it is quite
likely that others will join in to support B's argument. However, A
will often not change their mind quickly and it may look as though the
group is ganging up on A. However, it is almost always not personal.
In my view, if one finds oneself disagreeing with lots of other people
on the group the best thing to do is to take a step back and start
challenging yourself - try to keep an open mind, look at it from their
side and decide whether they might be right after all. You might
conclude they're not, but at least by thinking as rationally as
possible you've probably have strengthened your arguments will be in a
better position to continue the dialogue to persuade them otherwise.
On the other hand, if you decide they may be right after all and
perform a humble U-turn, then most autistics will see that as a sign
of strength, not weakness. It's a win-win behaviour.
Dolphinius
(Male, early thirties, UK, self-diagnosed AS)
Francesco S.
> In article <BD1E0BBE.7094%sf...@yahoo.com>, Francesco S. wrote:
>
>
>>To be sincere, I am frightened by what I see when I meet your group
>>behavior. It is new to me to discover that autists can act as a group, at
>>least on the internet and, as any group, stop thinking and mimic one
>>another.
>
>
> What bothers me is the idea that just because people *agree* with one
> another, you assume that they are *mimicking* one another.
Good point. Agreeing is not mimicking. I agree with you on this. To
show to somebody the object of his/her mimic is a very good way to
argue, isn't it? To mimic someone else is the very way to errors. It is
a key point about autism itself in my opinion.
> And if they
> disagree with you, apparently you think they're not thinking, just
> mimicking. (Or just negative, like you called me.)
Here I disagree. When I see the same sentence I already have read in a
lot of papers is forwarded to me, as an answer, what I think first is if
the author is or not mimicking others without thinking. Its happens so
often. You responded to my writing you used short sentences which
sounded as slaps and looked as cut-and-paste, until the one here above.
> I've seen autistics
> engage in groupthink, but disagreeing with psychodynamic theories of
> autism is not an example. This is more an example of various people
> looking at reality and coming to the same conclusions more or less
> independently of each other.
This is not at all a guarantee to be right. On the contrary, group
thinking is the best way to keep thinking wrong, because the group act
as a uncatchable falsifier (here I am almost certain that I am misusing
English, nevertheless the message should pass). The group is based on
mystification.
> Give people some credit.
Only to individuals. Here is a very important poing. Parents are able to
build up groups because they have some kind of scapegoat: the children
(not their ones, but in general) or Bruno Bettelheim as a substitute or
the evil ones who doubt their worthiness to be parents, as me and some
others.
Autists don't act in group and have a huge sensibility about victimaries
dynamics, of which they are so often the object. Will they even be able
to act as a collective subject, but not mimicking one another and
leaving in their path a growing number of victims, as usual it happens
to groups? This is the crucial question.
Fran.
Terry Jones
<cdan4n$j1g$1...@news.brutele.be>
>> And if they
>> disagree with you, apparently you think they're not thinking, just
>> mimicking. (Or just negative, like you called me.)
>
>Here I disagree. When I see the same sentence I already have read in a
>lot of papers is forwarded to me, as an answer, what I think first is if
>the author is or not mimicking others without thinking. Its happens so
>often.
The language processing difficulties which occur in autism reasonably
often include problems in "translating" / expressing, internal
cogntion as external language. - There is also the time problem, not
only in producing responses in real-time, as in direct conversation,
but that it can sometimes take *years* before you can find a suitable
verbal expression of some expereince or concept.
A common response to this is the use of "scripts" - preprocessed
segments which can (hopefully) be strung together to appoximate to
what you actualy want to say. - These may be based on your own words,
or on
Terry Jones
Sorry about the previous incomplete post - I hit "send" instead of
"save"
>> And if they
>> disagree with you, apparently you think they're not thinking, just
>> mimicking. (Or just negative, like you called me.)
>
>Here I disagree. When I see the same sentence I already have read in a
>lot of papers is forwarded to me, as an answer, what I think first is if
>the author is or not mimicking others without thinking. Its happens so
>often.
The language processing difficulties which occur in autism reasonably
often include problems in "translating" / expressing, internal
cognition as external language. - There is also the time problem, not
only in producing responses in real-time, as in direct conversation,
but that it can sometimes take *years* before you can find a suitable
verbal expression of some experience or concept.
A common response to this is the use of "scripts" - preprocessed
segments which can (hopefully) be strung together to approximate to
what you actually want to say. - These may be based on your own words,
or on phrases "borrowed" from others, when you think that they have
already found a good way of saying something.
So yes, this can *sound* like mere "parroting", but in reality
represents economy of effort in what can be a very arduous task.
And your assumption can't even said to be *generally* true (for the
population as a whole) - For example a term like "socialism" may be
applied accurately, *or* as a "knee jerk" response. - You can't tell
until you have examined the reasons why someone believes this to be
the case.
Indeed this is where your own posts often come across as ill thought
out - since you often seem to just present opinions, without much of
the evidence and reasoning which lead you to them.
Novel / original opinions are not necessarily true, nor "conventional"
views necessarily false - they all need to be evaluated based on the
evidence.
Terry
nachtigal
Ok. Silliness aside, I agree with Terry completely.
In my Utopia, I would have a notepad file full of other people愀 words*,
that that explain my train of throught far better than I could or would.
Then all I悲 have to do would be copy and paste. This has purely practical
reasons. I need about 4 hours for 4 paragraphs of original thought.
S.
*I惴 working on it. I already have many such files. Even the communication
between me and my customers is 90% automated.
Kalen
As a mother, all I can say to that is, "OUCH!"
Joel Smith
> Good point. Agreeing is not mimicking. I agree with you on this. To
> show to somebody the object of his/her mimic is a very good way to
> argue, isn't it? To mimic someone else is the very way to errors. It
> is a key point about autism itself in my opinion.
No one here is mimicing anyone as far as I can tell.
>> And if they
>> disagree with you, apparently you think they're not thinking, just
>> mimicking. (Or just negative, like you called me.)
>
> Here I disagree. When I see the same sentence I already have read in a
> lot of papers is forwarded to me, as an answer, what I think first is
> if the author is or not mimicking others without thinking. Its
> happens so often. You responded to my writing you used short
> sentences which sounded as slaps and looked as cut-and-paste, until
> the one here above.
If you asked, "What shape is the Earth?", you'd probably get a bunch of
responses saying "The Earth is round." (Well, here you'd probably get "The
Earth is almost round." <grin>) That doesn't mean they cut and paste or
that they took the words from somewhere else, although I suspect most of us
were told in those words by someone else when we were young...
I would be very careful about accusing people of not thinking. If you are
right, fine. But I wouldn't be so sure of you being right... On autism -
including the "looking young" issue, most of us have heard these things *A
LOT*, discussed them *A LOT*, and, most importantly, *THOUGHT* about them *A
LOT*. If you look through the Google archives, you'll see "looking young"
is not a new topic for us. Some opinions - mainly the low muscle tone - are
well supported by evidence, so chances are we'll mention those when asked.
It isn't parroting, it is simply saying what we think is most likely, even
if the theory was orriginally developped by someone else.
>> I've seen autistics
>> engage in groupthink, but disagreeing with psychodynamic theories of
>> autism is not an example. This is more an example of various people
>> looking at reality and coming to the same conclusions more or less
>> independently of each other.
>
> This is not at all a guarantee to be right. On the contrary, group
> thinking is the best way to keep thinking wrong, because the group act
> as a uncatchable falsifier (here I am almost certain that I am
> misusing English, nevertheless the message should pass). The group is
> based on mystification.
No doubt that we might come to the same conclusion and be wrong. But argue
on that, not the fact that we came to the same conclusion! Tell us *WHY* it
is wrong, not that we are wrong simply because we agree or that we are wrong
because we use the same words or that we might not be wrong, but we aren't
thinking instead because of those things.
I do not think this group is based on mystification, at least based on the
definition of that word. I tend to think most things said here are pretty
plain, and shy away from confusing terms and such. But if you don't
understand something, reply and say that.
> Autists don't act in group and have a huge sensibility about
> victimaries dynamics, of which they are so often the object.
Object to what? And we do act in group sometimes - probably not exactly
like NTs qualitatively or quantitatively, but it is there nonetheless. I've
seen it, and I've done it. That simply isn't what is going on here though.
> Will
> they even be able to act as a collective subject, but not mimicking
> one another and leaving in their path a growing number of victims, as
> usual it happens to groups? This is the crucial question.
I have no idea what you are talking about, probably too abstract for me.
I will say that I get very sick of hearing about how autistics are mimicing,
groupthinking, or controlling one another. I've heard this about myself -
I've had people tell me that my thoughts were not *REALLY* my thoughts, but
I was simply just mimicing someone else's. I assure you that at all of
those instances, I was *NOT* mimicing the person they thought I was.
--
Joel
Francesco S.
> Francesco S. wrote:
>
>>Good point. Agreeing is not mimicking. I agree with you on this. To
>>show to somebody the object of his/her mimic is a very good way to
>>argue, isn't it? To mimic someone else is the very way to errors. It
>>is a key point about autism itself in my opinion.
>
>
> No one here is mimicing anyone as far as I can tell.
>
>
>>>And if they
>>>disagree with you, apparently you think they're not thinking, just
>>>mimicking. (Or just negative, like you called me.)
>>
>>Here I disagree. When I see the same sentence I already have read in a
>>lot of papers is forwarded to me, as an answer, what I think first is
>>if the author is or not mimicking others without thinking. Its
>>happens so often. You responded to my writing you used short
>>sentences which sounded as slaps and looked as cut-and-paste, until
>>the one here above.
>
> If you asked, "What shape is the Earth?", you'd probably get a bunch of
> responses saying "The Earth is round." (Well, here you'd probably get "The
> Earth is almost round." <grin>) That doesn't mean they cut and paste or
> that they took the words from somewhere else, although I suspect most of us
> were told in those words by someone else when we were young...
Hi Joel. The same happened when people was believing that the earth is flat.
> I would be very careful about accusing people of not thinking. If you are
> right, fine. But I wouldn't be so sure of you being right... On autism -
> including the "looking young" issue, most of us have heard these things *A
> LOT*, discussed them *A LOT*, and, most importantly, *THOUGHT* about them *A
> LOT*. If you look through the Google archives, you'll see "looking young"
> is not a new topic for us. Some opinions - mainly the low muscle tone - are
> well supported by evidence, so chances are we'll mention those when asked.
> It isn't parroting, it is simply saying what we think is most likely, even
> if the theory was orriginally developped by someone else.
I see your point and I think I have poorly expressed myself. More below.
>>>I've seen autistics
>>>engage in groupthink, but disagreeing with psychodynamic theories of
>>>autism is not an example. This is more an example of various people
>>>looking at reality and coming to the same conclusions more or less
>>>independently of each other.
>>
>>This is not at all a guarantee to be right. On the contrary, group
>>thinking is the best way to keep thinking wrong, because the group act
>>as a uncatchable falsifier (here I am almost certain that I am
>>misusing English, nevertheless the message should pass). The group is
>>based on mystification.
>
> No doubt that we might come to the same conclusion and be wrong. But argue
> on that, not the fact that we came to the same conclusion! Tell us *WHY* it
> is wrong, not that we are wrong simply because we agree or that we are wrong
> because we use the same words or that we might not be wrong, but we aren't
> thinking instead because of those things.
I will try to do so. Group thinking is something interesting when
talking about autism wich is, in my veiw of course, a group product of
the sixties, based on Kanner and Asperger's writings in principle, but
grown up later in something different. Researchers have begun to study
group thinking after 1848, when groups become political subjects. There
are some pillars about group thinking and the one I am always referring
is a French scholar who worked in Canada and then at Stanford
university, René Girard, now 81. In his last book there is a couple of
paragraphs about autism and latest neurologic research, among an ark of
other interesting things. If we were writing in Italian it could be easy
for me to explain how I find this author so important on many subject
related with autism. But it is quite better and faster, even if perhaps
not the fairest thing to do, to declare plainly my sources. I think that
his books are easily available in any bookshop.
> I do not think this group is based on mystification, at least based on the
> definition of that word. I tend to think most things said here are pretty
> plain, and shy away from confusing terms and such. But if you don't
> understand something, reply and say that.
>
>
>>Autists don't act in group and have a huge sensibility about
>>victimaries dynamics, of which they are so often the object.
>
>
> Object to what? And we do act in group sometimes - probably not exactly
> like NTs qualitatively or quantitatively, but it is there nonetheless. I've
> seen it, and I've done it. That simply isn't what is going on here though.
>
>
>>Will
>>they even be able to act as a collective subject, but not mimicking
>>one another and leaving in their path a growing number of victims, as
>>usual it happens to groups? This is the crucial question.
>
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about, probably too abstract for me.
Let us assume that group thinking is the opposite of scientific work and
disovery. Galileo faced group thinking about the earth being the center
of the universe and immobile, for example. To be membr of a group is
very easy: just mimic the others, nobody wil ask you if you have
understood. The behavior of the group towards the researcher who come
out with a finding that changes the truth supposed by the group is
usually to aggress him in a number of ways and sometime kill him. Later
on, the same group will build a temple in honour of that person. I try
here to offer a synthesis of Girard's thought.
> I will say that I get very sick of hearing about how autistics are mimicing,
> groupthinking, or controlling one another. I've heard this about myself -
About controlling one another, mine was simply the idea to adapt Gaamen
Bank's technics to groups of autists.
> I've had people tell me that my thoughts were not *REALLY* my thoughts, but
> I was simply just mimicing someone else's. I assure you that at all of
> those instances, I was *NOT* mimicing the person they thought I was.
I don't know about who told you this nor the situation and I believe you
très volontier.
Fran.
Francesco S.
> "Francesco S." <sf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<BD1E0BBE.7094%sf...@yahoo.com>...
>
>
>>To be sincere, I am frightened by what I see when I meet your group
>>behavior. It is new to me to discover that autists can act as a group, at
>>least on the internet and, as any group, stop thinking and mimic one
>>another.
>
> You probably aren't referring to me specifically as I don't post much.
No. I find myself out of AutAdvo, because I expressed some thought
against the current group thinking about brain wiring. As usual for me,
I expressed myself in quite a provocative way (it is a ugly way to
selection the people with whom it is worth dialogating). Someone called
it "captatio malevolentiae". And the listowner trown me out, after some
others posters have reacted as if the Salvation Army had seen a mouse.
What if I find that they are wrong in group? Your dialectic suggestions
are fine, but try it on a group believing and you will find out that
"trying to peruade" is often the synonim of " to loose time", when you
deal with a collective belief.
> Dolphinius
> (Male, early thirties, UK, self-diagnosed AS)
Francesco
(Male, end of 40ties, Europe, self-diagnosed AS as well)
sggaB
> No. I find myself out of AutAdvo, because I expressed some thought
> against the current group thinking about brain wiring. As usual for me,
> I expressed myself in quite a provocative way (it is a ugly way to
> selection the people with whom it is worth dialogating). Someone called
> it "captatio malevolentiae". And the listowner trown me out, after some
> others posters have reacted as if the Salvation Army had seen a mouse.
For the record (I don't usually take this sort of thing off of lists, but
since you're saying things without providing all the information), it's
usually a bad move to ask a listowner whether they wanted to get away with
raping their daughter without taking responsibility for it. I don't
usually drag list conflicts off of lists themselves, but that statement
was *way* over the top and I can understand why someone would just click
"delete" and say goodbye.
If you only want to talk to people who would put up with being
deliberately provoked like that for very long, you're going to miss out on
a lot of people who are worth talking to. Incest is *way* too serious to
run around using it to push people's buttons on purpose to see whether you
want to have a conversation with them. What if he *had* been raped by a
family member? You'd have just stirred up all kinds of crap in his head,
some of it possibly dangerous for him to think about too closely, for the
purpose of *deliberately* provoking him to see if he was "worth talking
to". Even if you had to provoke people (which I see as a bad move in
general), there are better ways.
Faye
"Joel Smith" <jo...@autistics.us> wrote:
> If you asked, "What shape is the Earth?", you'd probably get a bunch of
> responses saying "The Earth is round."
I would ask whereabout.
cheerIO,
Faye.
----------------------
And at what scale.
--
I know great excuses to transform motion in inertia.
Joel Smith
> Let us assume that group thinking is the opposite of scientific work
> and disovery.
There are non-scientific ways of thinking that are *NOT* group thinking as I
understand it.
That may be "non-scientific" thinking, but it is possible to be operating as
completely issolated individuals yet collectively (but not based on
"mimicing") come to the same non-scientific conclusion.
--
Joel
Gareeth
"Joel Smith" <jo...@autistics.us> wrote in message
news:2ltft8F...@uni-berlin.de...
> Francesco S. wrote:
> > Let us assume that group thinking is the opposite of scientific work
> > and disovery.
Group thinking is not necessarily the opposite of scientific work and
discovery. It is interesting you think that when with regards to the whole
Freud versus neurological explantion for autism it is the neurological ones
that have strong scientific backing. If something has good emprical support
it is hardly surprising to find that a logical, for the most part rational
group of people would support those theories. It would be more surprising to
find each person trying to construct a totalloy new and unsupportable
hypothesis which would seem to be necessary for you not to accuse them of
group think since you did so after just two posts that agreed.
Gareeth
Gareeth
Dolphinius
> Dolphinius wrote:
>
> > "Francesco S." <sf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<BD1E0BBE.7094%sf...@yahoo.com>...
> >
> >
> >>To be sincere, I am frightened by what I see when I meet your group
> >>behavior. It is new to me to discover that autists can act as a group, at
> >>least on the internet and, as any group, stop thinking and mimic one
> >>another.
> >
> > You probably aren't referring to me specifically as I don't post much.
>
> No. I find myself out of AutAdvo, because I expressed some thought
> against the current group thinking about brain wiring.
I thought you were referring to ASA ("... your group behavior ...").
> What if I find that they are wrong in group? Your dialectic suggestions
> are fine, but try it on a group believing and you will find out that
> "trying to peruade" is often the synonim of " to loose time", when you
> deal with a collective belief.
Often you won't be able to persuade them. The other skill worth
developing is being able to let go when other people are wrong and
cannot be persuaded. I find it very hard to do but when I do usually
it doesn't matter nearly as much later as it seemed to at the time.
Dolphinius
Lancelot appearing sideways
> Gareeth wrote:
> >>I hope everyone reading this is eating their fruit and veg. every
> >>day?
> > Not a chance.
>
> Seconded <grin>
Whoa, wait a second. Is dislike of vegetables an Aspie trait?
*makes another mark on his scorecard*
I am notorious among my family and friends for not liking
vegetables. Actually, there are some vegetables I like: lettuce,
cucumber (iffy), tomato (in a sauce only; dislike them raw), spinach
(raw only!), carrot (raw), celery, corn, potatoes (do they count?),
ketchup (in honor of our departed ex-President :)....
I don't like peppers, onions, mushrooms, beans, peas, broccoli and
related vegetables.... Most of these vegetables are either too spicy,
too bitter, too mushy (beans), or just off-putting.
Or was I reading too much into your brief responses? :)
/
:@-) Scott
\
Lancelot appearing sideways
> It is quite nice to look so young, but I assume it must be to do
> with aspergers syndrome. I am very curious to find out if others
> with aspergers or the more classic autism look younger, their age or
> older than they are?
I read a webpage once where the author (some sort of therapist I'm
thinking) offered his unscientific impression that Aspies tended to
look younger than their age. I don't remember the details, though.
/
:@-) Scott
\
Terry Jones
<cdbo9r$4qt$1...@news.brutele.be>
>What if I find that they are wrong in group?
Then try explaining *why* you think they are wrong and provide the
supporting evidence - *Not* unsubstantiated assertions and mere
rhetoric.
Terry
Francesco S.
> In article <cdbo9r$4qt$1...@news.brutele.be>, Francesco S. wrote:
>
>
>>No. I find myself out of AutAdvo, because I expressed some thought
>>against the current group thinking about brain wiring. As usual for me,
>>I expressed myself in quite a provocative way (it is a ugly way to
>>selection the people with whom it is worth dialogating). Someone called
>>it "captatio malevolentiae". And the listowner trown me out, after some
>>others posters have reacted as if the Salvation Army had seen a mouse.
>
>
> For the record (I don't usually take this sort of thing off of lists, but
> since you're saying things without providing all the information), it's
> usually a bad move to ask a listowner whether they wanted to get away with
> raping their daughter without taking responsibility for it. I don't
> usually drag list conflicts off of lists themselves, but that statement
> was *way* over the top and I can understand why someone would just click
> "delete" and say goodbye.
Thank you for acting unusually. I also understand. You have seen that
the issue was a scientific one as well. If I remember well, since I
cannot contro anymore, he was saying that in order to raise objections
to the "brain diversity" theory I should drive against a"a lot" of
"scientific research". This is exactly what I mean with group thinking.
The mob reinforces itself.
> If you only want to talk to people who would put up with being
> deliberately provoked like that for very long, you're going to miss out on
> a lot of people who are worth talking to.
Not at all, if talking is not reinforce his own errors in others and
expect that others make the same with you.
> Incest is *way* too serious to
> run around using it to push people's buttons on purpose to see whether you
> want to have a conversation with them.
I agree about incest being serious. It is so serious because there is a
scelerate pact among adults rapers about it. This scelerate pact is what
you call to "have conversation", sometime.
> What if he *had* been raped by a
> family member? You'd have just stirred up all kinds of crap in his head,
This is possibile. But what if I have been raped and very conscious that
my very problems are coming not at all from my brain diversity, but from
the scelerate pact among my parents and relatives to amuse them with me,
considered a living body without language, and getaway with it? Yes in
principle it is possible that I was a singular child, silent and playing
alone, for my own private reasons, including perhaps a mythical
condition of brain diversity. Not enough to rape me at the age of 2 and
continuing in group enjoying the nice game for years. Adults rapers are
perhaps neurologically not impaired, but they have a serious problem.
They have to be helped to avoid to rape children. If this happens, are
children guilty? You see where you get with all this insisting on
neurodiversity. The silent living body is the ideal of the raper.
> some of it possibly dangerous for him to think about too closely
How humanitarian! Poor Klein opened a public list on yahoo and people
have to care not to say about what can be dangerous for him! He declares
that he want to "advocate for autists". But he shut people down if he is
incomfortable with what they say, thus confirming that he is "the
authority" deciding what is autism and what is not, according to a group
thinking that he considers the only possible. All religions but the
christianism act like this. It is the behavior of the victim unaware of
its victimisation. It can be useful analyzed, but not with people who
don't want to analyze. I am glad you want, if even you.
> for the
> purpose of *deliberately* provoking him to see if he was "worth talking
> to". Even if you had to provoke people (which I see as a bad move in
> general), there are better ways.
There is no such thing of raise the question of real violence and expect
that others behave as if you have been talking about ice cream flavours.
I choose deliberately the way of provocation. If you know another one, I
will be glad to learn.
Fran.
Francesco S.
Mimicking it the main road to errors.
F.
Francesco S.
Do you never heard about lynchages?
F.
nachtigal
>
> Whoa, wait a second. Is dislike of vegetables an Aspie trait?
>
I don´t know. My brother, the ueberaspie, won´t eat them as well as my
HFA-son. The rest will eat them from anywhere "because it´s good for us" to
"oh, that doesn´t taste so bad." Just a coincidence perhaps.
S
Dolphinius
> Jeremy Reece <jreece...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
> > Gareeth wrote:
> > >>I hope everyone reading this is eating their fruit and veg. every
> > >>day?
> > > Not a chance.
> >
> > Seconded <grin>
>
> Whoa, wait a second. Is dislike of vegetables an Aspie trait?
Maybe, but I happily eat a fair range of vegetables. There are many I
won't eat (e.g. broad beans, asparagus) and some I'll eat but I've
never been keen on (e.g. mushrooms, spinach) but I eat quite a wide
range and always include some with a meal that I cook myself.
I used not to eat much fruit about ten years ago but have recently
become a "five-a-day" person.
Faye
"nachtigal" <nach...@mail2hell.com> wrote:
I don't like fruit that much. Instead I eat more vegetables. I really
like meat with pork as an exception.
I just like to eat period
cheerIO,
Faye.
-------------------------------------
could do it all day long, just for the sensation of it.
Sojourner
>>
>>Whoa, wait a second. Is dislike of vegetables an Aspie trait?
>
>
> Maybe, but I happily eat a fair range of vegetables. There are many I
> won't eat (e.g. broad beans, asparagus) and some I'll eat but I've
> never been keen on (e.g. mushrooms, spinach) but I eat quite a wide
> range and always include some with a meal that I cook myself.
Except for raw spinach instead of lettuce in a salad, most of the
'veges' I like are either grains like corn (maize type) or legumes like
green beans, pinto beans, navy beans, then their's blackeyed peas, and
regular peas.
I don't eat much of it any more because it's more of a 'family sized'
cooked meal, but I love to break up hot buttered cornbread on a plate,
smother it with pinto beans (slow-cooked in a pot with a ham hock in it
for flavor), dab some chow-chow all over the pile, grab a fork or spoon
and a stalk of green onion for primer, and I'm ready for a simple feast.
>
> I used not to eat much fruit about ten years ago but have recently
> become a "five-a-day" person.
Too much 'energy' for me to burn in that many.
Sojo
Joel Smith
> Mimicking it the main road to errors.
Do you have proof for that or are you repeating something you heard
somewhere? Is your proof more then opinion?
--
Joel
Francesco S.
I already gave you my sources. Please do not be upset if I do not
rewrite here Shakespeare, Cervantes and Dostoevski (just three names, is
it enough? if it is not, I will add the Gospels).
Fran.
Joel Smith
As far as I can tell, you are just requoting someone else, thus mimicing
them. Or at least that's what you'd say about me if I quoted another
autistic person about autism, or used similar words to them.
--
Joel
Francesco S.
> "> Francesco S. wrote:
>
>>>The soon you all get off the neurologic web the better. It's only what a
>>>freudian could call a "formation of resistence".
>>
> It would almost impossible to find people practicing who still follow Freud
> these days. His ideas are only useful as a stage in the development of our
> understanding of the minds and of no practical use now other than some of
> the things about the subconscious.
Oh well. I will not try to sew doubts in your certitudes.
> We won't be getting off the neurological web anytime soon because unlike
> Freud's ideas there is actually emprical evidence for neurological
> differences.
As causes of something which has only a diagnostic/statistic and not
scientific definition? Hahaha. You'd better looking for the shape of the
nose of Cleopatras.
F.
Francesco S.
> Francesco S. wrote:
>
>>
>> The soon you all get off the neurologic web the better. It's only what a
>> freudian could call a "formation of resistence".
>
>
> Right... so you think autism is *psychological*? That would explain some
> of the weirder things you've said.
>
It is possible that in the beginning there is something different. But
after the birth, of even before, what matters is human behavior, ethics,
culture.
F.
Francesco S.
This is perhaps a good point of start. I am glad to admit it. Only
consider that when one mimic another in the gesture of catching an
apple, and ther is only one apple (or woman, or money, or whatever real
object), mimetism leads directly to violence. You don't want the other
mimicking you catches the apple before you, so your arm trying to take
up the apple turns towards the imitator and beat him. Remember 2001
odyssey in the space? The first scene.
Fran.
sggaB
> There is no such thing of raise the question of real violence and expect
> that others behave as if you have been talking about ice cream flavours.
> I choose deliberately the way of provocation. If you know another one, I
> will be glad to learn.
Deliberately provoking other people in that way doesn't *need* to be done.
It's not a good thing to do to people. Toying with people's emotions for
your own ends is just cruel, no matter what excuses you dream up.
Joel Smith
> This is perhaps a good point of start. I am glad to admit it. Only
> consider that when one mimic another in the gesture of catching an
> apple, and ther is only one apple (or woman, or money, or whatever
> real object), mimetism leads directly to violence. You don't want the
> other mimicking you catches the apple before you, so your arm trying
> to take up the apple turns towards the imitator and beat him.
> Remember 2001 odyssey in the space? The first scene.
I suspect most of the people here know themselves better then Shakespere
knows them or 2001 Odessey knows them (although I am still trying to figure
out where you get mimicing is the source of all evil from the Gospels - my
readings seem to indicate they say the source of greatest evil is within
each of us acting for our selfish desires, not the blindly following other
people). I don't know of the scene you describe, that movie puts me to
sleep rather quickly.
I still see no evidence of mimicing. Most of the people you've accused of
it have said they were not doing that. I suspect they know themselves
better.
And I fail to see its' relevance - if they are wrong, tell us why they are
wrong, not that they are "mimicing". If you think they are mimicing, and
don't have a scientific reason for their beliefs, explain your science and
give them an option to do the same (without accusation that if they don't,
then they must be mimicing, which is neither logical nor true). You are
trying to attack the way an argument is presented (which I feel you are
seeing it wrong anyhow, but that isn't really relevant). You should be
trying to attack *WHAT* is said, not how it is said. Especially on a group
of autistics who may do the "how" in unusual ways.
--
Joel
Francesco S.
> Francesco S. wrote:
>
>>This is perhaps a good point of start. I am glad to admit it. Only
>>consider that when one mimic another in the gesture of catching an
>>apple, and ther is only one apple (or woman, or money, or whatever
>>real object), mimetism leads directly to violence. You don't want the
>>other mimicking you catches the apple before you, so your arm trying
>>to take up the apple turns towards the imitator and beat him.
>>Remember 2001 odyssey in the space? The first scene.
>
>
> I suspect most of the people here know themselves better then Shakespere
> knows them or 2001 Odessey knows them (although I am still trying to figure
> out where you get mimicing is the source of all evil from the Gospels - my
> readings seem to indicate they say the source of greatest evil is within
> each of us acting for our selfish desires, not the blindly following other
> people).
Just think about jokes: a group of observers grin (i.e. discover the
theets) in front of a discovery of an act of imitation. Whatever joke
works like this.
> I don't know of the scene you describe, that movie puts me to
> sleep rather quickly.
Its only the first scene. If you get it on the TV perhaps you can see it
before napping.
>
> I still see no evidence of mimicing. Most of the people you've accused of
> it have said they were not doing that. I suspect they know themselves
> better.
Good to use the verb "to suspect". You cannot tell it for sure. Not good
to use the verb "to accuse". I only observe without ethic evaluation. I
observe, for example, that the ideal of the raper is the silent living
body. How many sexual abuses on handicapped are recorded by the police?
How many it is reasonable to estime are the reality, given that what is
reported to police is only a percentage of them? This is a field in
which statistics is somehow useful. Surely less compromiwed than in a
manual for diagnosing mental diseases and send patients buy
pharmaceutical products of therapies.
> And I fail to see its' relevance - if they are wrong, tell us why they are
> wrong, not that they are "mimicing". If you think they are mimicing, and
> don't have a scientific reason for their beliefs, explain your science and
> give them an option to do the same (without accusation that if they don't,
> then they must be mimicing, which is neither logical nor true). You are
> trying to attack the way an argument is presented (which I feel you are
> seeing it wrong anyhow, but that isn't really relevant). You should be
> trying to attack *WHAT* is said, not how it is said. Especially on a group
> of autistics who may do the "how" in unusual ways.
It is what I am trying to do. BTW group thinking is "the" usual way. It
signifies something in itself. Certainly I think that the usual
discourse about autism is 90% wrong and that a problem is that it is
repeated without discussing all the points which are to me plainly
fakes. Sorry for not being able to criticize every point needing it in a
single message. But I see that people here is not anwering my points but
preferes to attack me on "feeling" which is an typical way of "group
thinking". As you are doing by using the verb "to accuse".
Fran.
Francesco S.
> In article <cdd8ut$a03$1...@news.brutele.be>, Francesco S. wrote:
>
>
>>There is no such thing of raise the question of real violence and expect
>>that others behave as if you have been talking about ice cream flavours.
>>I choose deliberately the way of provocation. If you know another one, I
>>will be glad to learn.
>
>
> Deliberately provoking other people in that way doesn't *need* to be done.
> It's not a good thing to do to people. Toying with people's emotions for
> your own ends is just cruel, no matter what excuses you dream up.
>
Ok, there is not another way. You don't answer to arguments but are only
pleased to aggress. Do not be always aggressive with me, sggaB.
F.
Francesco S.
> The language processing difficulties which occur in autism reasonably
> often include problems in "translating" / expressing, internal
> cognition as external language. - There is also the time problem, not
> only in producing responses in real-time, as in direct conversation,
> but that it can sometimes take *years* before you can find a suitable
> verbal expression of some experience or concept.
>
> A common response to this is the use of "scripts" - preprocessed
> segments which can (hopefully) be strung together to approximate to
> what you actually want to say. - These may be based on your own words,
> or on phrases "borrowed" from others, when you think that they have
> already found a good way of saying something.
>
> So yes, this can *sound* like mere "parroting", but in reality
> represents economy of effort in what can be a very arduous task.
>
> And your assumption can't even said to be *generally* true (for the
> population as a whole) - For example a term like "socialism" may be
> applied accurately, *or* as a "knee jerk" response. - You can't tell
> until you have examined the reasons why someone believes this to be
> the case.
>
> Indeed this is where your own posts often come across as ill thought
> out - since you often seem to just present opinions, without much of
> the evidence and reasoning which lead you to them.
>
> Novel / original opinions are not necessarily true, nor "conventional"
> views necessarily false - they all need to be evaluated based on the
> evidence.
Very reasonable Terry and I agree with everything. It is possible that I
am facing two problems: 1. I am trying to communicate the results of
many years of personal research. It is possible that my arguments sound
as opinions, but 2. my poor command of English makes it almost
impossible for me to syntesize in a message, or in some messages, how I
got to my conclusions. Even in my mothertongue it would be a serious
enterprise. These days I am thinking about a book, of which I have in
mind only the title: Autism, an unkept promise.
On the other hand I have to say that most of the answers I got here are
not rational at all. I always have the feeling that the subject I
propose, and the reasoning that I am able to put in words and offer, are
avoided and a plain aggression takes places instead. Let see what will
happen about DSM IV, "the definition". I have made my point. The group
here is keeping its silence.
It is clear that if the definition of something is fogged, the causes of
it are quite difficult to find out. We are in front of a typical case of
mystification: instead of true scientific demonstration, the
auto-proclamed "scientific community" is producing a high number of
papers always repeating the same thing: "autism is caused by a
neurologic impairment". Take one of these papers randomly: no one will
indentify the cause of autism scientifically. All bring their ant"s
burden to the pyramid of what is "widely agreed". One will explain that
probably amygdala has a role in... Another that certain cell are not
found among... Now, find the time to veryfy their scientific basis. What
population, what examples, what? Rumors, only rumors, and yes, a lot of it.
How many times have you read the argument that "the scientific community
is widely agreeing...". Here, the word "widely" should ring the alarm
bell of every mind with a minimal exercise in scientific matters. It is
substitution of admission of "not knowing". But if you admit that you
"don't know" you are no more in position to sell pharmaceutics, propose
therapies and participate to conferences organized by high-funcioning
parents of autistic people.
Fran.
sggaB
>> Deliberately provoking other people in that way doesn't *need* to be done.
>> It's not a good thing to do to people. Toying with people's emotions for
>> your own ends is just cruel, no matter what excuses you dream up.
> Ok, there is not another way. You don't answer to arguments but are only
> pleased to aggress. Do not be always aggressive with me, sggaB.
There are other ways to provoke people. I don't intend to sit here and
give you more tools to be aggressive (far more than I am with you, if I am
at all) when you appear to have ample ways of being mean to people on your
own.
plane...@bigpond.com
<sa-h...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>Jeremy Reece <jreece...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Gareeth wrote:
>> >>I hope everyone reading this is eating their fruit and veg. every
>> >>day?
>> > Not a chance.
>>
>> Seconded <grin>
>
>Whoa, wait a second. Is dislike of vegetables an Aspie trait?
>
>*makes another mark on his scorecard*
>
If it is, then I'm atypical.
I love my veggies, all of them. Except for broccoli, that is. I can't
bring myself to even consider it edible.
And as for salad... Give me a fresh salad and I'm in heaven.
If you ever come to visit (The invitation is always open to anyone on
the group), I might just try to change your mind, with my caesar
salad- I haven't failed to impress with it yet.
>I am notorious among my family and friends for not liking
>vegetables. Actually, there are some vegetables I like: lettuce,
>cucumber (iffy), tomato (in a sauce only; dislike them raw), spinach
>(raw only!), carrot (raw), celery, corn, potatoes (do they count?),
>ketchup (in honor of our departed ex-President :)....
>
Oops, I started to reply without reading the entire post. You like
lettuce and tolerate cucumber, what about capsicum?
>I don't like peppers, onions, mushrooms, beans, peas, broccoli and
Definitely with you on the broccoli. I don't know how you can live
without onions, though.
>related vegetables.... Most of these vegetables are either too spicy,
>too bitter, too mushy (beans), or just off-putting.
>
It seems to be an individual thing.
This has been a deep-space message from Planet John.
Joel Smith
> As you are doing by using the verb "to accuse".
I'm sorry you see it that way, but as far as I am concerned you are making a
value judgement on people who you see participating in "group thinking".
But I suppose I'm a group thinker (after all, you just told me that I was),
so I suppose I'll never understand. I don't see much point in continuing
this discussion.
--
Joel
surv...@bigpond.com
> If you asked, "What shape is the Earth?", you'd probably get a bunch of
> responses saying "The Earth is round." (Well, here you'd probably get "The
> Earth is almost round." <grin>)
The earth is almost a slightly deformed ellipsoid. It is basically round
because it's own gravity tends to pull it into a sphere. However,
rotation on it's axis applies centrifugal forces that make it bulge around
the equator, in a slight spinning pizza effect (thus an ellipsoid). It
bulges slightly more in the southern hemisphere than it does in the
Northern hemiphere (probably due to more landmass and thus a greater
average crust thickness in the Northern Hemisphere?). Then variations in
the crust thickness produces local variations in gravity and the (nominal)
sea levels as well. Sea levels around the world are not a constant
distance from any particular defined centre of the earth.
------
Leon.
Francesco S.
So how a lot of people keep believing that the earth is round? Do they
imitate one another?
F.
Joel Smith
> So how a lot of people keep believing that the earth is round? Do they
> imitate one another?
I suppose everyone but those who have took actual measurements have by your
definition, regardless of whether they say it is round or not. So I guess
no one should say anything except those few who have taken measurements.
--
Joel
Francesco S.
Dear Joel, imitation is a key issue among humans. As violence is. They are
strictly related. A way to become autist is to perceive more clearly than
others the violence threat when imitating adults. Not all adults are grown
up enough to avoid violence towards their own children. When a child is one
year old, he will fear the thought of violence in the mind of his father
without the need of any physical violence or conscious expression of it. the
role of the fater is not as simple as it is usually conceived. A father have
a difficulto work to do, but usually he thinks that being able to "have" a
woman is enough. This is enough to explain all autist behavior. Not any need
to look for neurological impairment. Or yes, adults who want to believer in
butterflies need this. In better times, we used to call "donna" the woman,
thus signifying that the realization of the male is to serve her. Better
times, indeed.
E donna venne a me beata e bella
tal che di comandare io la richiesi
Fran.
Ut veniant omnes
Hans Kamp
news:2lqftcF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Francesco S. wrote:
> >
> > The soon you all get off the neurologic web the better. It's only what a
> > freudian could call a "formation of resistence".
>
> Right... so you think autism is *psychological*? That would explain some
> of the weirder things you've said.
Indeed. I would question also this.
--
Bezoek het Diablo II Forum Nederlands: http://www.diablo2forum.nl/index.php
English: Visit http://www.diablo2forum.nl/viewforum.php?f=16
Francesco S.
> "Kalen" <ne...@paradox.freeserve.co.uk> schreef in bericht
> news:2lqftcF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
>>Francesco S. wrote:
>>
>>>The soon you all get off the neurologic web the better. It's only what a
>>>freudian could call a "formation of resistence".
>>
>>Right... so you think autism is *psychological*? That would explain some
>>of the weirder things you've said.
>
>
> Indeed. I would question also this.
Wonderful. If it isn't neurological it should be psychological,
shouldn't it?
If you are not British, then you are Irish, aren't you? That would
explain some of the weirder things you've said.
To tell you the truth, sir, I am Turk.
Oh Turkey? Is not my business anymore. Out of fashion. Now we are all
neurological, onni soit qui mal y pense. Oh, lets swing in London.
A good idea should be a rock group repeating "Oh neurodifferents, we are
on the cutting edge! Autists and parents, sharing the privilege!
Psychiatrists and publishers, all together now! To get subsides, to get
state's help! Utopia is nowhere to live in, let us lambs silently suffer
for mankind" with heavy drums as only music and a choir singing
"Hannibal the Cannibal! Hannibal the Cannibal!" as in one of those
popular blues.
Fran.
nachtigal
<snip>
> Good to use the verb "to suspect". You cannot tell it for sure. Not good
> to use the verb "to accuse". I only observe without ethic evaluation. I
> observe, for example, that the ideal of the raper is the silent living
> body. How many sexual abuses on handicapped are recorded by the police?
> How many it is reasonable to estime are the reality, given that what is
> reported to police is only a percentage of them?
Dear Fran,
I would appreciate it, if you would put the word "trigger" on the top of
your post or subject line, everytime you feel compeled to post about rape.
Thank you.