this shows that everything can be learned:
Larry
there are still limits. As far as reserch shows, autists use different parts
of the brain to solve social puzzles than NT's do, maybe autistic brains are
more efficient at some things and NT's could do to lern some of that.
Me I muse that like Odin I gave up one eye for wisdom, in that my brain in
overwriting the visual cortex for my right eye lernt something far more
interesting than 3D vision instead.
--
Larry
"We are all of one mind, one equal mind, and if each of us persists in being
the centre of our own existence we are all doomed to suffer at each others
hands. I cannot exist on my own without you, neither can you be without me,
what is the world wide web about after all?. We are interdependent whether
we are aware of the fact or not"
"Benjamin Schulz" <Benjami...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:bo3kkm$puh$06$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Here's a nice example which shows that everything can be learne.
>
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/05/23/wbrain23.xml
>
> As a result, it might be stated, that even many symptoms of autism could
> be cured, if someone would learn the patients properly socialising when
> they are at young age.
>
Stephen Horne
<Benjami...@gmx.de> wrote:
>Here's a nice example which shows that everything can be learne.
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/05/23/wbrain23.xml
>
>As a result, it might be stated, that even many symptoms of autism could
>be cured, if someone would learn the patients properly socialising when
>they are at young age.
Not at all.
The cerebral cortex is highly plastic, and losing half the cortex - as
long as that means either the right half or the left half - is not so
damaging as it might seem. However, that is largely because it still
preserves a half of each cortical brain region.
That is, the old left-brain right-brain asymmetry isn't so important
as other divisions in the brain, and is massively exaggerated in the
common perception anyway.
All 'higher' intelligence and perception, however, is in the
prefrontal cortex - the very front of the cortex. She still has half
of that.
And crucially the social intelligence region is just _above_ the
general intelligence region, so she has _not_ selectively lost one or
the other.
Basically, she hasn't lost any functional type of brain.
As for the loss of the loss of the speach centres (normally in the
left cerebral cortex - mainly Broca's area, Wernicke's area, and the
angular gyrus) - well, they simply aren't always on the left side
anyway. Even without any apparant brain damage, a few people have
'reflected' brains with the language centres on the right, and these
regions aren't defined with surgical precision anyway - DNA doesn't
contain a blueprint of the completed brain but rather of developmental
processes (including ways of adapting to problems) which form the
brain. Even identical twins have significantly different neurology
because the developmental processes aren't perfectly precise but
rather self correcting based on feedback of how the brain is working
so far.
And at three years old (the age when her left side of her brain was
amputated) the *development* of the brain is very far from complete.
The plasticity in brain development - the ability of the brain to
adapt in some degree to damage - is *not* an example of learning.
Unfortunately, taking away a single side of the brain is not
representative of all types of neurological disorder. Far less damage,
differently distributed, can have far more obvious consequences. There
are limits to how the brain can adapt.
Take away the front of the brain, for instance - far less than half of
it - and you have a vegetable, incapable of any higher thought or
perception, no matter what age you do it at.
--
Steve Horne
steve at ninereeds dot fsnet dot co dot uk
Stephen Horne
<Benjami...@gmx.de> wrote:
>Larry wrote:
>> It shows no such thing, it shows adaptability in the brain but within that
>> there are still limits. As far as reserch shows, autists use different parts
>> of the brain to solve social puzzles than NT's do, maybe autistic brains are
>> more efficient at some things and NT's could do to lern some of that.
>
>Yes indeed. But when it would be true that autists have soma
>malfunctioning parts, their brain could flexible learn.
>
>Indeed (to repeat) the picture shows that many can be learned. But what,
>when brain istn't organized in different "regions"?
>
>What when autism is a deficit of functioning in neurons spread out
>completely over the brain?
You might as well say 'what about if the broken leg involves fractures
in all the bones of the body?'.
It is true that the deficits in autism are not all in one brain
region. That is one reason why the symptoms of autism vary - because
the range and extent of the neurological disorder varies.
But not all types of neurological disorder relate to autism. There are
other kinds of neurological disorders. Damage a different piece of the
brain and you get different symptoms, just as if you break a bone in
your arm that results in a non-functional arm rather than a
non-functional leg.
>the research of the mirror neurons (and knowledge we have from MRI scans
>while doing tests) suggests this.
Actually, this doesn't follow. To explain why, I'll first explain what
mirror neurons are...
Basically, when an NT observes someone else doing something, the same
neurons that would drive that activity light up as if the observer was
doing it him/herself.
Note - these are the *exact* same neurons that the person would
activate when the person does the same thing. Those neurons still form
a part of the same brain region, whether they are working to make the
person act or whether they are mirroring some observed action. It is
important to realise that (1) they are not a separate set of neurons,
and (2) they are still linked to the job of the brain region they are
a part of, and cannot arbitrarily handle any task through learning.
Also, mirror neurons are not widely distributed throughout the brain -
they are limited to a few key regions. Most notably - as the previous
paragraph suggests - those related to action potentials.
Why should mirror neurons be involved in autism? - Well basically,
read my post "an important link..." ;-)
The brains internal 'vocabulary' - the way it identifies concepts -
always relates, directly or indirectly, to the body. That is, to
senses and action potentials. Those action potentials occur even if
you think about a concept or hear the word - not just if you observe
someone else doing it.
Why the link to autism? Well, many such concepts may be linked to body
language action potentials. A well known feature of autism is the
'lack of empathy' - the inability to understand or generate non-verbal
communication such as body language.
If you are unable to express the appropriate body language, for
whatever reason, those action potentials will not happen even in the
mirroring case. Most likely the appropriate neural structures will
never develope, as brain development relies heavily of sensosomatic
feedback - if you cannot create the body language, the appropriate
neural links will never be made.
But, as I said, the mirror neurons are the same neurons that generate
the action potential when you do the action yourself. If you don't
have those neurons, then the mirroring cannot happen either and you
cannot generate that internal concept. The best you can do is generate
a new internal representation that lacks the innate intuitive links -
a complete abstract 'word', much as happens when anyone learns about
abstract things in the real world. You can learn the idea, in other
words, but you cannot get the same intuitive sense that others have.
This may explain why the comprehension and generation of body language
are both commonly affected in autism - quite simply, when you lose the
ability to generate the action potentials for the body language, you
lose the whole concept that the body language represents.
Even if you can generate the action yourself, when the mirroring
doesn't happen that doesn't mean the mirror neurons are broken. They
can't be - they are the same neurons that drive your own actions and
which therefore are working. But they aren't psychic - to do the
mirroring, they need to be fed information from the senses. And
because we never learn to mirror - the activation of mirror neurons is
an innate characteristic - that information must be provided through
an innate circuit of sensory interpretation systems. Disrupt one or
more of those systems so that the information cannot get through and
there is no more mirroring.
So it might be possible to display body language but not to empathise
with others simply because the mirroring doesn't occur - the body
language is therefore visible in the obvious sense that the observer
can see the face, but no meaning attaches to it.
This might also be a reason why autistic people tend to be clumsy -
lacking the mirror neuron activation when observing others (or when
imagining the actions) means that a major part of the normal learning
process for complex physical activities may be broken - you can't just
model a mentor or teacher because you don't have the neural machinery.
Of course everyone needs to learn physical activities for themselves
to some degree, but that may be as little as 'calibration' for body
shape and size in NTs. In autism, however, the whole activity must be
learn from scratch by trial and error. Any mentor or teacher (unless
aware of autism) is bound to be no help at all and merely a source of
extra pressure and stress.
Anyway, the key point is that there are no universal learn-anything
neurons in the brain anywhere - mirror neurons included. There cannot
be. Innate circuits in the brain are essential at all levels.
Even learning itself depends on innate abilities - how can you learn
if you cannot recognise patterns and work out how to exploit them, for
instance? It is no shocker that useful general-purpose learning has
still not been programmed into computers - it is an extremely
difficult thing to achieve. Current neural networks, for instance, can
only learn within extremely limited bounds.
Plasticity and self-correction in the development of the brain is not
the same as learning.
Stephen Horne
<Benjami...@gmx.de> wrote:
>Stephen Horne wrote:
>> Also, mirror neurons are not widely distributed throughout the brain -
>> they are limited to a few key regions. Most notably - as the previous
>> paragraph suggests - those related to action potentials.
>
>
>No! They are distributhed throughout the brain.
>
>http://www.anticipation.info/texte/motluk/Read%20my%20mind_mirror_neurons.htm
The quote, I suppose, being...
"""
The exciting news is that mirror neurons may not be limited to these
motor regions. Gallese, for one, suspects that they are found in other
areas. "My belief is that this may apply also to other modalities, for
instance sensory modalities,"
"""
That sounds like a "few key [motor and sensory] areas" to me - very
different to being "distributed throughout the brain".
>Many (but not all) of these neurons are indeed in the broca area, where
>language is located.
Yes, I know - where language and gesture is situated.
>it may be, that in AS where language is better developed, only other or
>lesser parts of the mirroring system are damaged.
And maybe the overliteralness that is common in people with AS who
have strong language is in some way correlated with using a lot of
'verbal' mental symbols instead of normal non-verbal mental symbols.
By losing the standard 'spelling' of the concept, perhaps we lose
access to the innate, intuitive sense of that concept and have to rely
on verbal rules instead.
>Indeed it seems, that not the neurons are defect. But the mechanism that
>analyzes their response. That might explain why some autists cry when
>they are touched and some feel simply nothing when they are asked by
>signals for emotional support
My guess would be that the fault may be anywhere in the chain, and may
be in different places for different people (thus the variability in
symptoms).
For example, if one type of sensory processing needed to trigger the
mirroring was disrupted but others remained intact, you might get a
bizarre pattern of mirror neuron activation - mostly accurate, but
with subtle but important distortions.
James Medhurst
> The exciting news is that mirror neurons may not be limited to these
> motor regions. Gallese, for one, suspects that they are found in other
> areas. "My belief is that this may apply also to other modalities, for
> instance sensory modalities,"
> """
>
> That sounds like a "few key [motor and sensory] areas" to me - very
> different to being "distributed throughout the brain".
Indeed. And the ideas about language are regarded as very speculative.
In fact, the only role for mirror neurons for which there is
convincing evidence in humans (most experiments are with monkeys)
seems to be in the understanding of facial expressions. There is no
evidence of mirror neuron activation in "theory of mind" tasks and
this suggests that they play only a minor role in autism, at best.
> For example, if one type of sensory processing needed to trigger the
> mirroring was disrupted but others remained intact, you might get a
> bizarre pattern of mirror neuron activation - mostly accurate, but
> with subtle but important distortions.
The other possibility is that mirror neurons are not affected at all
but that the context is different in the case of autistic people. For
instance, autistic people are less emotionally expressive facially but
also find it difficult to read facial expressions. It may be that, in
autism, the mirror neurons are good at "understanding" less expressive
faces but not more expressive ones. This is consistent with the idea
that Amanda has suggested that autistic people can understand one
another's body language better than non-autistic people.
Nick Argall
> Stephen Horne wrote:
> > For example, if one type of sensory processing needed to trigger the
> > mirroring was disrupted but others remained intact, you might get a
> > bizarre pattern of mirror neuron activation - mostly accurate, but
> > with subtle but important distortions.
>
> And as a consequence, brain reacts, and does orientate itself not after
> emotion based but after rule and fact based systems.
The fact that ACs look and act like robots doesn't make them robots
underneath. To suggest that emotions are not involved in AC behaviour
and/or decision making makes no sense. However, when the only emotion you
ever get to experience is fear (a situation that really happens, IMO), it
may well be that changes in emotion don't produce changes in behaviour. But
only because the underlying emotion never changes.
Nick
Larry
still have a defecit in real time conversations.
The thing is to use analogy you don't expect a ferrari to be much good on
the farm, or a landrover to be good on race track.
Different horses for differenct courses I say :)
--
Larry
"We are all of one mind, one equal mind, and if each of us persists in being
the centre of our own existence we are all doomed to suffer at each others
hands. I cannot exist on my own without you, neither can you be without me,
what is the world wide web about after all?. We are interdependent whether
we are aware of the fact or not"
"Benjamin Schulz" <Benjami...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:bo8k84$rt0$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
> James Medhurst wrote:
>
>>
> It may be that:
> - autists can learn what expressions mean and analytically reconstruct
> the effects of the mirrior neurons.
> - autists can build a general systematic theory of one's behaviour that
> is very complete (however, when soing smalltalk in a restaurant,
> systemizing does not work)
>
> Yes autists may find it more difficult to empathize emotions that they
> can't express theirself. For example, when you would live a livelong
> paradise you could not imagine the situation of one in hell.
>
> I think extreme expressions like fear or laughing can be read by
> autists. It are the nuances. The things we don't have on our own that
> are difficult to interpret. And that also gives a clue to these mirror
> neurons.
>
sggaB the Slug
wrote:
> autism, the mirror neurons are good at "understanding" less expressive
> faces but not more expressive ones. This is consistent with the idea
> that Amanda has suggested that autistic people can understand one
> another's body language better than non-autistic people.
Pedantic note: *Many* of us can understand *many* of one another's body
language better than either non-autistic people can or we can toward
non-autistic people. (Was what I said, or meant at any rate.)
--
sggaB
Nick Argall
> Nick Argall wrote:
> > "Benjamin Schulz" <Benjami...@gmx.de> wrote in message
> > news:bo7jqs$u6r$05$1...@news.t-online.com...
> >
> >>Stephen Horne wrote:
> >>
> >>>For example, if one type of sensory processing needed to trigger the
> >>>mirroring was disrupted but others remained intact, you might get a
> >>>bizarre pattern of mirror neuron activation - mostly accurate, but
> >>>with subtle but important distortions.
> >>
> >>Indeed.
> >>And as a consequence, brain reacts, and does orientate itself not after
> >>emotion based but after rule and fact based systems.
>
> systemizing, I mean what Baron Cohen defines as systemizing
I hate it when people tell me what my experience is. I used to believe them
as well, but at least I've learned that they don't know what they're talking
about most of the time.
Nick
growi...@hotmail.com
> Pedantic note: *Many* of us can understand *many* of one another's body
> language better than either non-autistic people can or we can toward
> non-autistic people. (Was what I said, or meant at any rate.)
Agreed - it seems there is a subtype of autistics I can understand and
other subtypes I have a hard time understanding, but there are very
few NTs I understand as far as body language.
There are ACs that I definitely don't get along with, mainly because my
style of communication is very different from theirs. But I'm sure
there are ACs that get along with these ACs, just as there are ACs who
get along with me.
When you find someone who shares your communication style, it is really
a neat thing! I've tried to explain to NT friends what it is like to
be able to read someone's non-verbals and understand how they are
feeling just by looking at someone. They take this for granted, since
they can do this with a lot more people a lot more often then I can.
But it is really neat, and I seem to be able to almost immediately spot
people who have "my" non-verbals, even when I haven't spoken to them at
all - and a lot of time, when I do talk to them, we get along very well
since we don't have the misunderstandings that normally surround my
relationships.
But I have met NTs that can read my body language, too. :) That's an
encouraging sign. I'm thinking of one *VERY* social (in a good sense)
NT who seems to just have a very natural intuition for how to make
people feel comfortable around her. The first time I met her it was in
a situation where I would normally have been hugged by her, but she
looked at me, decided I was willing to show my agreement with her, but
not wanting to hug because it was simply uncomfortable for me, and did
not even try to hug - she just said, "do you mind if we shake hands
instead?" :) :) NTs who act like that make my day. :) Most of the
time "really social people" just know the things that make NTs happy
most of the time, but don't really know how to read people. But there
are some out there who really do know how to read people, including
how to read some of us. It's really nice to not have to feel awkward
to be accepted. It almost makes me want to cry (in a good way), since
she reacted to that part of me without any judgment that I was wrong
and in a way which showed respect for my differences and hence myself.
But it is rare for an NT (or AC for that matter) to be able to
understand someone who has very different communication styles then
the person's natural communication styles. This NT I mentioned above
has a very NT communication style normally, but can somehow adapt to
people around her, which is a rare but wonderful gift. There are a
lot of people who THINK they have this gift, but few that actually
have it.
--
Joel
Lawrence Foard
<growi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>sggaB the Slug <ama...@autistics.org> wrote:
>> Pedantic note: *Many* of us can understand *many* of one another's body
>> language better than either non-autistic people can or we can toward
>> non-autistic people. (Was what I said, or meant at any rate.)
>
>Agreed - it seems there is a subtype of autistics I can understand and
>other subtypes I have a hard time understanding, but there are very
>few NTs I understand as far as body language.
The more I think about it the more I think I'm seeing the olde fashioned
animal body language. If with someone who isn't speaking I can read them
much the same way I would a cat or dog. But NTs I think obscure the animal
body language with another layer. Interestingly when it comes to tactile
contact instead of verbal/visual the body language of NTs and ACs seems
to be the same, if anything we are better at reading and transmitting
it. I get some really amazing reactions when I cuddle with people, ones
which are diametric opposite of peoples reactions to my verbal interaction.
--
Halloweens dark trance,
the shadow, the dark between the stars, the dark of night, if all was white
we would see no light, but in the darkest night the universe shines bright.
Be a counter terrorist perpetrate random senseless acts of kindness
Stephen Horne
wrote:
>On 4 Nov 2003 02:58:58 -0800, James Medhurst <jrm1...@hotmail.com>
Maybe many of us have the same or similar disruptions to the mirror
neurons, such that we are still - in effect - processing body language
the same as each other, though differently to NTs?
Actually, a lot can be explained by having similar mindsets and
similar experiences - we have, to abuse a common phrase, walked a mile
in each others shoes. Body language in itself may have little to do
with our understanding each other.
That said, I certainly know autistic people IRL who seem unable to
understand other autistic peoples body language any more than they do
NTs.
Nick Argall
"Stephen Horne" <st...@ninereeds.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e56lqvgdp8lgr3n2k...@4ax.com...
> Actually, a lot can be explained by having similar mindsets and
> similar experiences - we have, to abuse a common phrase, walked a mile
> in each others shoes. Body language in itself may have little to do
> with our understanding each other.
Doesn't quite explain the 'pinging' phenomenon though.
I used to think that the thing about me that was different was that I had
this sort of magical talent as a programmer. And there would be people, and
I'd talk to them for five or ten minutes, and I'd confirm what I noticed
when they walked into the room. This person does (or does not) have _it_.
Of course, now I know that what I identified as programming talent is a
tendency towards perseveration and an addiction to learning. Joel's
comments about 'his subtype' correlate strongly here. If someone shares
your cognitive pattern, it's a thing that pervades their communication, be
it words, speech or body movements. The ability to read that person
intuitively is greatly enhanced by the fact that you don't need an
artificial Theory of Mind, you can use an actual Experience of Mind.
Nick
Janna Hoskin
> Nick Argall wrote:
>
>
>>>You may have emotions, when you consider a logical system. When I mean
>>>systemizing, I mean what Baron Cohen defines as systemizing
>>
>>
>>I hate it when people tell me what my experience is. I used to believe them
>>as well, but at least I've learned that they don't know what they're talking
>>about most of the time.
>>
>
>
> Watch women, doing smalltalk. What do they talk about?
>
> They talk about feelings. Feelings they had in many situations. Feelings
> about the weather, cloths, persons they met, feelings they had at work,
> at the morning and in the evenning.
I don't talk about feelings. Almost never, in fact. I'm very open
about what's happened to me in my life, but rarely (if ever) do I get
into the whole emotion thing. And my female friends (two of them
definitely NT, one has depression, one is likely an AC) respond in kind.
> A Person with AS has indeed almost no feelings when putting on a green
> sweater. For persons with autism, these things doesn't matter at all
>
>
I care about what I wear. If I'm wearing green, I'm very happy. Green
is my favourite colour. It helps me feel better if I'm upset about
something. I work with an 8yo autistic boy who wears red all the time.
His Dad will tell him to go change his shirt, and he goes into his
room, takes off the red t-shirt he's wearing, opens the closet, and
pulls out another red t-shirt. I would say he cares very much about
what he's wearing.
Perhaps *you* don't care about what you wear.
Please stop generalizing your personal experience to everyone else.
-Janna
--
Autistic Spectrum Code v.1.0
AC> d- s+: a- c+ p+ t f S+ !p e++>+++ h>+ r->* n++ i P>++ m->++ M+>++
Tech Tots Program Facilitator (special needs 1:1 preschool)
Calgary, AB, Canada
BMus, BAPsych
***************************************************************************
"Home is not a place. It is wherever your passion takes you." -
President John Sheridan, Babylon 5 (Objects At Rest, Production #522)
"Nobody else is stronger than I am, today I moved a mountain! I'd like
to be your hero, I am a mighty little man!" - Steve Burns, "Mighty
Little Man" (Songs For Dustmites, 2003)
http://crosswinds.net/~jlhasd/index.htm
***************************************************************************
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
(Lawrence Foard) wrote:
snip
>The more I think about it the more I think I'm seeing the olde fashioned
>animal body language. If with someone who isn't speaking I can read them
>much the same way I would a cat or dog. But NTs I think obscure the animal
>body language with another layer. Interestingly when it comes to tactile
>contact instead of verbal/visual the body language of NTs and ACs seems
>to be the same, if anything we are better at reading and transmitting
>it. I get some really amazing reactions when I cuddle with people, ones
>which are diametric opposite of peoples reactions to my verbal interaction.
Yep. I think some NT people deliberately try to restrain their body
language, especially among adults. But....OTOH, I have noticed a
*lot* of my classmates who don't realize the degree to which their
body language communicates their thoughts and feelings--not just their
faces but their entire bodies. Most are NT.
A lot of people don't understand how their vocal tones can affect
other people, either.
jrw
HGJ
> Watch women, doing smalltalk. What do they talk about?
>
> They talk about feelings. Feelings they had in many situations. Feelings
> about the weather, cloths, persons they met, feelings they had at work,
> at the morning and in the evenning.
What do men talk about when they do small talk?
> A Person with AS has indeed almost no feelings when putting on a green
> sweater. For persons with autism, these things doesn't matter at all
What feelings does a person without AS have when putting on a green sweater?
Janna Hoskin
>
No, I don't. Like I said, I talk about all kinds of things that other
people might feel uncomfortable talking about, like bodily functions
etc., but I don't talk about my feelings.
>>is my favourite colour. It helps me feel better if I'm upset about
>>something. I work with an 8yo autistic boy who wears red all the time.
>> His Dad will tell him to go change his shirt, and he goes into his
>>room, takes off the red t-shirt he's wearing, opens the closet, and
>>pulls out another red t-shirt. I would say he cares very much about
>>what he's wearing.
>
> What is this text about?
> Is it about systemizing?
It's about an 8yo boy who will only wear red shirts because it is his
favourite colour. He will not wear white or black, and he doesn't like
really bright colours.
Since I don't understand a lot of what you write, I latched onto
something I understood and commented on it.
I don't know what you're trying to get at in this thread, and I don't
understand the point you are trying to make in your discussion of
emotions. I also don't know what you mean by systemizing.
>> I care about what I wear. If I'm wearing green, I'm very happy.
>> Green is my favourite colour. It helps me feel better if I'm upset about
>> something.
>
> tell more about you and your feelings and you will see that this proves
> what I stated.
How and why?
> Indeed, a person with AS will try to wear the same cloths he waered
> yesterday. You can consider that as a rule. While your choices (you told
> above) are emotional (what makes you happy), the choice of a people with
> works in the following way:
LOL I just latched onto green because it was the colour you mentioned,
and it happens to be my favourite colour. This morning to work, I wore
black pants and a bright red shirt. No green to be found. Here's my
answers to the questions you posed (and trust me, basically the thought
process I go through every evening when I decide on my wardrobe for the
next day).
> What is good to wear?
Let's see, it's for church, so I want to be somewhat dressy - jeans are
not in my vocabulary for church. But not too out there, so my flashy
red pants are out. Also, it's winter, so pants are more practical than
a skirt or dress - keep the legs warmer.
> Is there anything absolutely necessary?
Um, clothing. My three rings - one on my right thumb, one on my right
ring finger, and one on my left pointer finger. Also a necklace of some
kind (chose my silver locket, as it goes well with the shirt I chose),
and of course my earrings, which I almost never change - the birthstone
studs my ears were pierced with and the pewter cross I wear in the
second hole in my left earlobe. Also, black socks and shoes to go with
my black pants.
> No? (that's a problem)
> What else can we find?
> a) the same color we had yesterday
> b) another color. But this has the problem that we don't know what
> happens then, when we try it. And in any try an undefined result would
> happen
>
> Result: We want to wear the same as yesterday
>
> that is not the way an NT makes choices. The decision of an autist is
> mostly rule based.
Rules for me: I don't wear jeans to church. I try to wear skirts or
dresses, unless it's really cold or I'm teaching Sunday School. I only
wear pants or jeans to work, because I work with children and have to be
on the floor and whatnot. I base my clothing decisions on what will
keep me warm in cold weather/cool in warm weather, what is actually
clean at the moment, and what looks good on me (pretty well most of
what's in my closet and dresser).
Perhaps a better example, because I don't think most people base their
wardrobe decisions on emotions (regardless of dx or lack thereof), might
be choosing between TV shows or books or where to spend the evening (out
or in).
> You may ask your child if a color makes it happy and why. I'm sure it
> will give a detailed analyse of rational points or just saying that it
> doesn't understand. You may ask further other related questions
> concerning with very simple emotions...
You are here assuming that the 8yo I work with (he is not my own child)
is capable of articulating things like that. He currently is unable to
speak in more than three-four word sentences, and these are generally
more concerned with things he wants than reasons why he does things.
Which I'm not surprised about, because why/because relationships are
notoriously difficult for autistic children to learn.
Meanwhile, I'm sure that his older brother (who has been dx'd AS) would
be very good at explaining emotions and his reasons for things, should I
ask him. He's also less likely than the 8yo to wear the same clothes,
or even the same colour, every day.
Jeremy Reece
> A Person with AS has indeed almost no feelings when putting on a green
> sweater. For persons with autism, these things doesn't matter at all
I care about what I wear. Throughout my early to mid teenage years, my mum
tried *very* hard to get me to wear clothes that weren't black.
She succeeded - I'll now wear navy-blue too ;) <g>
--
Jeremy Reece
Autistic Spectrum Code v1.0:
AS! d(---) s:-->: a-- c+++ p+ t+(-)@ f(-) S+
p+ e+>++ h+ r--(*) n+() i@ P->+ m(-) M---
http://www32.brinkster.com/ascdecode
Stephen Horne
<Benjami...@gmx.de> wrote:
>Janna Hoskin wrote:
>
>> I don't know what you're trying to get at in this thread, and I don't
>> understand the point you are trying to make in your discussion of
>> emotions. I also don't know what you mean by systemizing.
>
>then you should read this:
>
>> http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2003_BCetal_sysquoAS.pdf
>
>This descripes most of the style how autists are thinking.
>
Benjamin, I have four points to make...
1. You are taking tendencies and generalisations, and trying to make
them into absolute rules and invariable stereotypes.
Unfortunately, autism is very variable. Different people have
different symptoms to different degrees.
There is no single "style how autists are thinking" therefore,
though of course in a paper studying the patterns and tendencies,
economy of wording tends to mean that isn't very explicit.
2. Sometimes, even experts have prejudices which can affect their
judgements. For example, Kanner simply assumed that refridgerator
mothers were responsible for autism due to a common pattern of
prejudice which is still affects common perceptions of mental
conditions to this day. He never even considered that heredity
of autism might lead to the same observations about parents.
3. 'Empathising' is not the same as 'feeling' or 'emotion' by any
stretch. Empathising primarily refers to the ability to percieve
other peoples feelings, with the ability to display feelings for
others to percieve often being considered a part of the same
package. It's basically about nonverbal communication - facial
expressions, tone of voice etc.
Autistic people may not effectively percieve other peoples
feelings, and may not effectively display their own feelings,
but that doesn't mean there aren't any feelings at all.
This is actually quite relevant to point 2 - many neurotypicals
will assume, because of the lack of displayed emotion, that none
is present. This is quite a strong tendency as the perception of
emotions is mostly unconscious and instinctive.
This leads to the common false prejudice where autistic people are
seen as lacking feelings and as not caring about others.
4. The 'systemising' term basically comes from Simon Baron-Cohens
theory of autism being the result of an "extreme male mind". IMO
this is a rather dubious theory.
There is a real tendency that men tend towards systemising while
women tend towards empathising. But this generalisation ignores a
lot of more detailed stuff patterns. The reason why men tend
towards systemising is that their role, in prehistoric societies,
was somewhat different to womens and made different demands on
them. But it was not a simple systemising vs. empathising choice.
As I see it, male empathising is not merely less sophisticated
than female empathising - it is probably tailored to slightly
different tasks and therefore probably has subtle qualitative
differences.
A similar thing no doubt applies to systemising - women may have
needed less systemising ability overall (or perhaps have merely
prioritised empathising, leaving fewer neurons available to handle
empathising ability), but they still needed some systemising
ability which they applied to different tasks. Those systemising
skills would therefore be slightly different in more ways than
just being 'less'. As an analogy, a slightly different colour as
well as a different brightness.
People with autism lack empathising ability, true, but that is not
the same as a shift more towards the male empathising style. The
distinction would be more subtle than empathising vs. systemising,
but the degree of empathising skills they still have would still
be the same 'colour' as non-autistic people with the same gender,
at least in general.
In addition, systemising skills may well be affected in some cases
of autism.
So the cause of autism is not, IMO, a leaning toward the male
rather than female cognitive style. Rather autism causes an
apparant shift in style, but only if you look 'from a distance'
and ignore more subtle patterns of difference between the genders.
Basically, autism affects primarily empathising ability, and to
some degree also systemising ability, as a result of neurological
damage - this can mimic a shift to a more male style of thinking
to some degree, but this appearance is superficial.
Can I provide evidence for this?
Actually, I can point to some evidence in the exact paper you
provided a link to. Take a look at the graph relating SQ scores to
frequencies (figure 2).
The peak SQ score for people with AS is actually LOWER than for
neurotypical males - between the peaks for NT males and NT
females. The graph shape for AS people cannot be derived by
looking at the difference between male and female and just
exaggerating it.
In short, if you look beyond the simple averages, the results
listed in this paper may support my theory better than they supply
SBCs.
Why should people with AS have a higher average systemising
ability than other people? Well, people with autism seem to have
an above average burst of brain growth in early childhood (around
age 2 or 3 IIRC). This excessive growth spurt could potentially
disrupt neurological development in a way that damages empathising
ability while often leaving systemising ability relatively intact
(and able to exploit the larger brain size).
This is only one possible cause of autism, I should point out - it
seems quite likely to me that autism will eventually turn out to
have several different causes, with different people having
slightly different patterns of symptoms depending on the
particular set of causes that applies in their case.
Stephen Horne
<jreece...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>I care about what I wear. Throughout my early to mid teenage years, my mum
>tried *very* hard to get me to wear clothes that weren't black.
>
>She succeeded - I'll now wear navy-blue too ;) <g>
I'm also a fan of black clothes. It takes away the worry of what
colours go together, for one thing. My usual formula is either
all-clothes-black or a mix of black plus one colour. That second
colour often being grey ;-)
Terry Jones
> neurotypical males - between the peaks for NT males and NT
> females. The graph shape for AS people cannot be derived by
> looking at the difference between male and female and just
> exaggerating it.
Yes, my own SQ (on the online test which someone posted recently) was
in the low average end of the general population. I was only in the
"extreme" area of the graph due to a very low EQ (11 as against the
general male population average of 42 and a Aspie average of 20)
*But* <g> one reason why think that my SQ score was relatively low was
that a lot of what I took to be "systematising" questions were subject
specific "Do want to know all the details about X" - But if I wasn't
*specifically* interested in X, then my honest response had to be
"Disagree"
So it seems possible that an apparently lower SQ score for AS males
may have been an artifact of experimental design? How were these
selected topics chosen (eg. based on interests derived from to the
*general* male population)? Do NT males generalise these sort of
question more than AC males?
Terry
sggaB the Slug
<Benjami...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 1. You are taking tendencies and generalisations, and trying to make
>> them into absolute rules and invariable stereotypes.
>> Unfortunately, autism is very variable. Different people have
>> different symptoms to different degrees.
> Yes. the symptoms are a comtinuum.
No. They're not just a continuum. They're several different potential
complex patterns, *each one* on several continua.
>> There is no single "style how autists are thinking" therefore,
>> though of course in a paper studying the patterns and tendencies,
>> economy of wording tends to mean that isn't very explicit.
> No? that would mean you could't characterise it at all!
Not without including complex patterns. Autism isn't simple. It's never
*going* to be simple. Attempting to simplify it may be satisfying, but it
won't be *accurate*.
>> 3. 'Empathising' is not the same as 'feeling' or 'emotion' by any
>> stretch. Empathising primarily refers to the ability to percieve
>> other peoples feelings, with the ability to display feelings for
>> others to percieve often being considered a part of the same
>> package. It's basically about nonverbal communication - facial
>> expressions, tone of voice etc.
> No! to quote:
> "During Empathizing there's an emotional response in the observer to the
> other persons mental state."
One, that's one person's interpretation of the word, and the meaning of
the word is changed from person to person who uses it -- it's an imprecise
term that IMO shouldn't be used because of its imprecision and multiple
meanings.
Two, that's not absent in all autistics.
>> This is actually quite relevant to point 2 - many neurotypicals
>> will assume, because of the lack of displayed emotion, that none
>> is present. This is quite a strong tendency as the perception of
>> emotions is mostly unconscious and instinctive.
>> This leads to the common false prejudice where autistic people are
>> seen as lacking feelings and as not caring about others.
> Yes people with autism have not this automatic feelings concerning with
> others mental state. When an autist feels toward others, he has to look
> first what's going on there. He has to find out rules of the social
> system, To quote from that paper:
> "One could have a very detailed description of the person's emotion, but
> a psychopathic lack of concern about otthers mental state".
> Often an autist, when he is high functioning builds up a sociological
> system. And that is, what he feels about. So he can restore the effect
> of his dissabillity. However, there may be situations where he can't
Er.
Well, for one thing, many autistic people *do* have concern about other
people's mental state, but:
1. May not be able to perceive it fully in order to be concerned about
it.
2. May not know what to do about their concern despite it being there.
3. May not be able to show the facial and linguistic cues to *show* they
have concern.
That is completely different from lacking concern, and can occur whether
a person is "high functioning" or not. In fact, in a book I once read, a
therapist described how one thing all her autistic clients had was *definite*
concern for others' feelings, often intense concern, but inability to apply
that concern practically.
> no! males can do smalltalk!
> Why? What do they talk about? Why can't autists get their "emotional"
> focus automatically on the inner mental state of another? Why must an
> autist think about these things to find out what's going on?
Not all autists *do* have that difficulty.
> BTW: Are there many AS or HFA persons who study languages, or work as
> social worker or in managment
I have known of several autistic people who were interested in linguistics
or taught languages.
>> This is only one possible cause of autism, I should point out - it
>> seems quite likely to me that autism will eventually turn out to
>> have several different causes, with different people having
>> slightly different patterns of symptoms depending on the
>> particular set of causes that applies in their case.
>>
> Then you couldn't characterize autism at all. But you can see a symptom
> continuum.
No, you can't. You *have to* see a complex set of systems, *or* focus
only on one type and be quite aware that you're doing so, but you can't
just simplifiy it to "a symptom continuum".
> What I mean is:
> To live independent, a person needs the following capabillities:
> rule finding (general intelligence)
> rule following (systemizing)
> instinctive emotional response for others (empathizing)
> emotional response to rules
> memorizing
Define "live independent".
--
sggaB
Terry Jones
>analyze why she prefers green. An autist must think first about all
>colors, then about the differences of colors, then why a color is good.
Not accurate - people here who have been (officially) diagnosed as
autistic have preferences for food, clothing, music - a whole range of
things - only some of which are preferred for any identifiable reasons
(eg. physical comfort in clothing is an identifiable functional /
rational reason). But also many of their preferences *don't* occur for
identifiable reasons, they simply "like what they like because they
like it". - Just ask them.
Terry
Terry Jones
>sort your collection every time.
>
>Maybe that an AS who doesn't want to hear music, disagrees then, because
> the test wants him first to imagine himself as a music fan. What an AS
>maybe doesn't want to do.
>
Exactly - such questions are a poor test, since they actually involve
two factors: (1) Are you interested in X (2) Do you like to know all
about / organise things that you are interested in.
Only if these are *both* true can you answer "yes" - But you can
answer "no" if both are wrong or if either of them is wrong - And only
one of those "no"s relates to systematising which the question is
supposed to be about. The other "no" relates to your interest in the
topic, which has nothing to do with systematising.
Terry
sggaB the Slug
wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately, autism is very variable. Different people have
>>>> different symptoms to different degrees.
>>>Yes. the symptoms are a comtinuum.
>> No. They're not just a continuum. They're several different potential
>> complex patterns, *each one* on several continua.
> can you report papers describing these different patterns with continua?
Well, let's see. There are papers, for example, that focus on autistic
people having problems with movement (which in the technical sense of the
papers is defined as more than physical movement), which could (within the
scope of the paper) account for some autistic people being autistic, but
having no trouble necessarily with empathizing (some would, some wouldn't).
Anne Donnellan wrote an entire book on it, and while I think it's an
incomplete theory, I think it has as much significance or more so as the
incomplete theory you're talking about (it is more complete, even than
a purely cognitive theory of autism, although it is not totally complete,
and it does include cognition as one form of movement).
Temple Grandin has written, while I disagree with even *her* degree of
oversimplification, of "Kanner-Asperger types" and "Regressive-Epileptic
types" as being two distinct subtypes of autism. I happen to think there
are even more, and that it's not just a continuum between those two.
>>>> There is no single "style how autists are thinking" therefore,
>>>> though of course in a paper studying the patterns and tendencies,
>>>> economy of wording tends to mean that isn't very explicit.
>>>No? that would mean you could't characterise it at all!
>> Not without including complex patterns. Autism isn't simple. It's never
>> *going* to be simple. Attempting to simplify it may be satisfying, but it
>> won't be *accurate*.
> No!
> Persons are not simple. Diseases are not persons. What one has learnt
> may be absent in another. the disease is the same.
No. Persons are not simple. Autism is also not simple.
Autism is also not a disease. It is not the same in all people.
Autism is not just even a matter of learning or knowing.
For instance, picture an autistic person who has trouble with empathizing,
which leads to a lack of social awareness or lack even of the awareness of
how language is used. This is hypothetical because they would probably have
other problems going on as well. But basically their face looks blank
because they don't know what emotions to put on it, they don't socialize
because they don't see the point, and they don't develop language because
they don't know what it's for because they can't even empathize *that*
much.
Another autistic person may be perfectly capable of feeling the emotional
reaction automatically (and possibly even intrusively, as some have reported
that they feel others' emotions automatically and intrusively and wish
they didn't), but may have trouble with auditory processing that leads to
the same language delay, and trouble with *creating* body language that
leads to a blank expression despite possibly knowing what the 'right'
expression would be, and an aversion to the *amount* of emotional stimulation
they get around other people, leading them to prefer things.
These aren't just one of them "learning" more than the other; they're two
completely different (or only partially related, more likely) reasons for
the same outward difficulties.
I talked to a relative the other day, who is (or, he claims, "was") autistic
and a different subtype from me. He could not understand my form of autism
at all, until I explained repeatedly that it was more than either not
knowing things or being afraid of things, but also things like being
extremely monochannel and having significant problems with sequencing and
sensory issues and so forth (sensory issues that differ from his in
significant ways, and motor issues that make me much more coordinated in
general but also much less capable in general than he is). He and
I are living proof that there is more than one kind of autism -- this isn't
just variation between personalities or how much either of us have learned,
but complete variation in expression in several domains.
>>>>3. 'Empathising' is not the same as 'feeling' or 'emotion' by any
>>>> stretch. Empathising primarily refers to the ability to percieve
>>>> other peoples feelings, with the ability to display feelings for
>>>> others to percieve often being considered a part of the same
>>>> package. It's basically about nonverbal communication - facial
>>>> expressions, tone of voice etc.
>>>No! to quote:
>>>"During Empathizing there's an emotional response in the observer to the
>>>other persons mental state."
>> One, that's one person's interpretation of the word, and the meaning of
>> the word is changed from person to person who uses it -- it's an imprecise
>> term that IMO shouldn't be used because of its imprecision and multiple
>> meanings.
> we can define emotional response wery accurate. An innert feeling comes
> with no thinking on the situation as a response.
>> Two, that's not absent in all autistics.
> have you a paper that supports this?
I have the reports of several diagnosed autistics who feel emotions so
automatically around other people -- have such *uncontrolled* empathy --
that they have trouble separating it from their own emotions.
>>>"One could have a very detailed description of the person's emotion, but
>>>a psychopathic lack of concern about otthers mental state".
>>>Often an autist, when he is high functioning builds up a sociological
>>>system. And that is, what he feels about. So he can restore the effect
>>>of his dissabillity. However, there may be situations where he can't
>> Er.
>> Well, for one thing, many autistic people *do* have concern about other
>> people's mental state, but:
>> 1. May not be able to perceive it fully in order to be concerned about
>> it.
>> 2. May not know what to do about their concern despite it being there.
>> 3. May not be able to show the facial and linguistic cues to *show* they
>> have concern.
>> That is completely different from lacking concern, and can occur whether
>> a person is "high functioning" or not. In fact, in a book I once read, a
>> therapist described how one thing all her autistic clients had was *definite*
>> concern for others' feelings, often intense concern, but inability to apply
>> that concern practically.
> this is the same. Remember:
> we can define emotional response wery accurate. An innert feeling comes
> with no thinking on the situation as a response.
I have no clue what "An innert feeling comes with no thinking on the
situation as a response" means.
> the concern of others that an autist has is, that he buids up a system
> of their inner state and feels for it. But he must think about!
> empathizing is not thinking. the response comes automatically,
> associative. Not analytically.
Not all autistic people have to think about it. (Yes, from self-reports,
but they *were* diagnosed.)
> A woman sees green. And says that this makes her happy. She does not
> analyze why she prefers green. An autist must think first about all
> colors, then about the differences of colors, then why a color is good.
> That's another way. In many situations the autist will be right. but not
> in all.
No we don't. Not all of us.
I like purple. I like looking at it, it has always been my favorite stim
color, and it takes absolutely *no* thought for me to enjoy it. I become
absorbed in it and happy as soon as I see it (provided it is the right
shade of purple). I don't have to think about other colors to have a
positive emotional reaction to purple.
I hate yellow. It hurts my eyes and makes me feel icky. I don't have to
compare it to other colors to get this reaction.
There are plenty of autistic people (men, women, and intersexed alike) who
have immediate and positive reactions to certain colors and/or immediate
and negative reactions to others.
>>>BTW: Are there many AS or HFA persons who study languages, or work as
>>>social worker or in managment
>> I have known of several autistic people who were interested in linguistics
>> or taught languages.
> yes. you can see language as a system. But social work?
Donna Williams was a social worker.
>>>What I mean is:
>>>To live independent, a person needs the following capabillities:
>>>rule finding (general intelligence)
>>>rule following (systemizing)
>>>instinctive emotional response for others (empathizing)
>>>emotional response to rules
>>>memorizing
>> Define "live independent".
> that's defined as a liveform that can react on almost everything alone.
> In intellectual and social and own problems.
I still don't understand. NTs, by that definition, are incredibly
dependent, for the most part. But all people have needed other people
at some point in their life, and most still do.
--
sggaB
sggaB the Slug
wrote:
> and before.
How do you know this, in general?
> They may have heard something is good ore were introduced to
> it and they won't change it, because they had no problems with it.
How do you know this, in general?
> This is how the rutine behaviour can be explained.
If you don't *ask* us why we have our particular preferences, you won't
*know* if it can be explained this way.
> autists don't want
> changes because they don't want unexpected and unpredictable
> consequences. As I am one of them, I must not ask.
Actually, you are falling into a *very* common trap here: You are
overgeneralizing from your own experience.
I could just as well say "Because I am autistic and I have a loud voice
because I am unable to physically modulate my voice volume, then I don't
need to ask this other autistic person why *he* has a loud voice." If I
*did* ask, I might be surprised to note that he is perfectly capable of
modulating his voice volume, but has auditory hyposensitivity that causes
him to prefer loud noise in general.
Just because you are autistic and do something a certain way doesn't mean
everyone else autistic does things the *same* way, or for the same reasons.
Some autistic people wear the same color every day because they have a
genuine spontaneous like for that color. Others, as is obvious from what
you are saying, do it because it is routine and they're used to it, whether
they like it or not. Another one might have some compulsive draw to a
particular color without liking it very much, for all I know.
Not all forms of autism are the same, and not all autistic people do things
for the same reason, *even when we're doing them because of autistic traits*.
--
sggaB
Stephen Horne
<Benjami...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> There is no single "style how autists are thinking" therefore,
>> though of course in a paper studying the patterns and tendencies,
>> economy of wording tends to mean that isn't very explicit.
>
>No? that would mean you could't characterise it at all!
No - it means that you can't insist that everyone with a particular
label must be exactly the same. Especially when someone has just told
you that their experience doesn't fit that rule.
>> 2. Sometimes, even experts have prejudices which can affect their
>> judgements. For example, Kanner simply assumed that refridgerator
>> mothers were responsible for autism due to a common pattern of
>> prejudice which is still affects common perceptions of mental
>> conditions to this day. He never even considered that heredity
>> of autism might lead to the same observations about parents.
>
>Yes. It is a prejudice that autism is likely connetcted with engeneering
>and mathematical abbillities
To quite a degree. Most of the people I know IRL who have autism have
no special connection with maths or engineering - though more of them
do than the people I know (outside of work) who do not have autism.
A tendency is not a rule, however - especially when that tendency
could be expressed as 'about 30% of autistics have X, as opposed to
10% of neurotypicals' - which is not intended as a real estimate, but
just to illustrate the point.
>> 3. 'Empathising' is not the same as 'feeling' or 'emotion' by any
>> stretch. Empathising primarily refers to the ability to percieve
>> other peoples feelings, with the ability to display feelings for
>> others to percieve often being considered a part of the same
>> package. It's basically about nonverbal communication - facial
>> expressions, tone of voice etc.
>
>No! to quote:
>"During Empathizing there's an emotional response in the observer to the
>other persons mental state."
Of course it does - how can a person understand how another person
feels and not care about it? I dare say this detachment can occur in
autism, but my experience is that it is far from being the normal
case.
But having an emotional response to empathy does not mean that emotion
and empathy are the same time. There are many emotional responses that
have nothing to do with empathy.
And equally, there are cases where non-autistics empathise but do not
feel an emotional response.
As an analogy, stubbing your toe is not the same as pain. It will
normally cause pain, of course, but it is not the same thing.
>> Autistic people may not effectively percieve other peoples
>> feelings, and may not effectively display their own feelings,
>> but that doesn't mean there aren't any feelings at all.
>
>That is true:
>As I wrote before:
>You may have emotions when you look at a system. Many emotions a person
>have are indeed not related to other emotional states but to rules and
>systems. Look only at when men discuss about computers.
Yes, but you insist on limiting emotion in autism to *only* that,
which is unrealistic. I know full well that I have emotional responses
to many things, and it isn't always through an analysis of 'rules'.
To a substantial degree I may be unaware of other peoples feelings,
but once I do become aware I do tend to have an emotional reaction.
Though that reaction is unlikely to be visible to others, of course.
>> This is actually quite relevant to point 2 - many neurotypicals
>> will assume, because of the lack of displayed emotion, that none
>> is present. This is quite a strong tendency as the perception of
>> emotions is mostly unconscious and instinctive.
>>
>> This leads to the common false prejudice where autistic people are
>> seen as lacking feelings and as not caring about others.
>
>Yes people with autism have not this automatic feelings concerning with
>others mental state. When an autist feels toward others, he has to look
>first what's going on there. He has to find out rules of the social
>system, To quote from that paper:
You say, however "... have not this ..." - making your statement an
absolute, which simply isn't appropriate. Though as a generalisation
there is a lot of truth in it.
>"One could have a very detailed description of the person's emotion, but
>a psychopathic lack of concern about otthers mental state".
>Often an autist, when he is high functioning builds up a sociological
>system. And that is, what he feels about. So he can restore the effect
>of his dissabillity. However, there may be situations where he can't
Yes. This is a good example of a generalisation. Note the 'could'
(rather than 'would') and the 'often' (rather than 'always'). And it
is IMO also a good example of an inaccurate generalisation brought
about by neurotypical misunderstanding of autistic people.
Autistics often have several difficulties in emotional situations.
These can include...
1. Not being aware of the emotions.
2. Not _displaying_ and appropriate emotional response.
3. Not knowing how to handle the situation.
4. Stress and anxiety leading to a strong avoid response.
5. His/her own problems which the neurotypicals are unaware of.
Put these together and you create a very strong appearance of a
'psychopathic lack of concern' - but that appearance is frequently
wrong. I know that very well. I have been in situations where I felt
physically sick with worry about another person, yet was told I was an
"self-absorbed uncaring bastard".
No-one ever asks themselves why I'm still around (instead of hiding
away on my own as usual).
No-one ever understands why I'm "getting in the way" (ie trying to
find ways to help but getting it wrong).
If you can't display appropriate body language, neurotypicals are
generally unaware of your concern. And autism experts are mostly
neurotypical.
>> 4. The 'systemising' term basically comes from Simon Baron-Cohens
>> theory of autism being the result of an "extreme male mind". IMO
>> this is a rather dubious theory.
>
>No. It is simply based on the finding of the autistic continuum and the
>empirical situations you have in males and females
You didn't ask yourself why he is drawing that parallel?
Believe me, it is because SBC believes that autism literally results
from an 'extreme male mind'. I've read his book - not just that one
paper - and it is made very clear in that book.
Besides, if he believed that the similarity was purely coincidental,
he wouldn't be writing books and papers about it. It would be like
writing books and papers about oranges and planets (which both happen
to be spherical).
>> There is a real tendency that men tend towards systemising while
>> women tend towards empathising. But this generalisation ignores a
>> lot of more detailed stuff patterns. The reason why men tend
>> towards systemising is that their role, in prehistoric societies,
>> was somewhat different to womens and made different demands on
>> them. But it was not a simple systemising vs. empathising choice.
>> As I see it, male empathising is not merely less sophisticated
>> than female empathising - it is probably tailored to slightly
>> different tasks and therefore probably has subtle qualitative
>> differences.
>
>the differences are as I described above.
>One can work, and very precisely work, when he first find's out the
>rules of the problem. The woman's reasoining about that would be more
>instictive where the male approach would be cognitive.
You seem to have this idea that systemising is inherently cognitive.
This is wrong.
Women probably do have a slightly larger instinctive empathising
ability than men. But equally, men probably have a slightly larger
instinctive systemising ability.
Yes - a significant part of systemising is innate and instinctive, as
opposed to being learned and reasoned out. And a great deal of
empathising involves learning and conscious reasoning, even in
neurotypicals and, yes, even in NT women.
>Haven't you found that you have problems when others communicate and
>doing smalltalk?
>A normal person can easily understand what an autist feels in that
>situation when he imagines that he would be under a couple of woman
>doing smalltalk. A man gets as helpless as an autist in that moment.
Wrong.
As you say later, men do smalltalk. Their preferred style of smalltalk
is rather different to womens, but even so NT men can generally adapt
very well to (and apparently enjoy) female style smalltalk and visa
versa.
Autistics generally cannot do (and have little interest in doing)
smalltalk of either type. For example, I can't get interested in
feelings and relationships, but neither can I get interested in cars
and sports.
What both men and women do (and what autistics generally don't do) is
adapt their interest to suit the interests of the other person,
finding a middle ground that interests them both and moving on to new
topics when they recognise that the other person is bored. Interacting
with the other person is the primary benefit - _not_ shared
information.
>> People with autism lack empathising ability, true, but that is not
>> the same as a shift more towards the male empathising style. The
>> distinction would be more subtle than empathising vs. systemising,
>> but the degree of empathising skills they still have would still
>> be the same 'colour' as non-autistic people with the same gender,
>> at least in general.
>
>no! males can do smalltalk!
Yes - males can do smalltalk. I never said otherwise.
NT males : Preferred smalltalk = sports, cars, ...
Able to adapt to and enjoy other styles, however.
NT females : Preferred smalltalk = feelings, relationships, ...
Able to adapt to and enjoy other styles, however.
Autistics : Nearest thing to smalltalk is monologue about personal
obsessions.
Generally finds it hard to do smalltalk at all, and
often lacks the motivation to try.
Three different cases, with autistics being almost as different from
NT women as they are from NT men.
>> The peak SQ score for people with AS is actually LOWER than for
>> neurotypical males - between the peaks for NT males and NT
>> females. The graph shape for AS people cannot be derived by
>> looking at the difference between male and female and just
>> exaggerating it.
>>
>> In short, if you look beyond the simple averages, the results
>> listed in this paper may support my theory better than they supply
>> SBCs.
>
>Well I also don't find the term systemizing very good. The test only
>measures how a person wants to follow rules.
Understanding deterministic systems (in which hard rules generally
apply) is a part of it, but a long way from all of it. Systemising is
in part based on intuitions and instinct.
As I mentioned before, instinct vs. reasoning is not the same as
empathising vs. systemising.
> It should be labelled "rule
>following quotient". The graph is a distribution! When you consider that
>your conclusion is not correct. The graph where AS people have lower
>systemizing than normal males is at these points of the x axis where
>only a small distributions of persons is. Indeed some Students in
>Cambridge may be undiagnosed with AS (especially when doing such a
>study). And indeed the precent scale of those who have this high rate is
>such small, that it is not relevant. An error depending on how a
>minority does understand the questions.
>
>What is interesting of a distribution is always it's maximum.
Specifically, the maximum rates. The peaks. The places where most
people are represented.
That occurs in the SQ range 20-ish to 30-ish - the range where most
people are, whether women (peak SQ 20-ish), or people with AS (peak
20-ish, though slightly higher than for women), or me (peak 30-ish).
It is only when you look at high SQ scores that people with AS
dominate. That is the ranges 51-60, 61-70 and 71-80. Sum the rates for
those three and you get about 30% of people with AS in that range - in
other words, seventy percent of people with AS have an SQ in the
normal or lower range.
If you focus on the maximum SQ then you are focussing on the minority
and ignoring about 70% of people with AS. Only by focussing on the
peaks and the overall shape of the distribution do you get a
generalisation of the people in each class.
The AS peak is at a lower score than the male peak, between the male
and female peak SQ scores. Autistics are not simply people with
'extreme male minds'. Something else is going on.
>> Why should people with AS have a higher average systemising
>> ability than other people? Well, people with autism seem to have
>> an above average burst of brain growth in early childhood (around
>> age 2 or 3 IIRC). This excessive growth spurt could potentially
>> disrupt neurological development in a way that damages empathising
>> ability while often leaving systemising ability relatively intact
>> (and able to exploit the larger brain size).
>
>It maybe, that empathizing is a feature that (because it is emotional
>based) does not need much intelligence. It works automatically. A Person
>who doesn't have this, needs a larger computer to cope. And so, much
>more neurons in his brain.
Once again you assume that systemising = intelligence whereas
empathising = emotion/instinct. It's simply not true.
Thought and emotion both apply in both systemising and empathising.
Reasoning and intuition both apply in both systemising and
empathising.
Instinct and learning both apply in both systemising and empathising.
Systemising and empathising do seem to be located in slightly
different parts of the prefrontal cortex, but they are adjacent. The
reason, IMO, is that in information processing terms they both do much
the same thing. As humans became a more social species, however, a
part of the region became specialised for empathy and other socially
related information processing.
That information processing in both cases appears to me to involve a
'thinking algorithm' and 'heuristics'. The heuristics (which you can
think of as hints or clues) are part learned and part innate. Not two
separate sets of heuristics - a heuristic will frequently be
part-formed innately and finished off through learning.
>> This is only one possible cause of autism, I should point out - it
>> seems quite likely to me that autism will eventually turn out to
>> have several different causes, with different people having
>> slightly different patterns of symptoms depending on the
>> particular set of causes that applies in their case.
>>
>
>Then you couldn't characterize autism at all.
It is perfectly possible to characterise autism in that situation. Of
course, with better knowledge of specific causes and their effects,
even more precise characterisation of subtypes would be possible. And
with greater understanding of the shared causes which create the links
between autism, dyslexia, dyspraxia etc there may even be a useful
characterisation of neurological disorders which is less specific to
any particular disorder (and thus even less precise to any particular
person) but which allow people with neurological disorders that don't
fit any of these specific labelled patterns to be recognised and
helped.
It's just different levels of precision and detail.
To put it another way, "sky blue" is a useful concept, but so is
"blue". The existence of one does not invalidate the other.
>As all NMR studies suggest for example, general intelligence (we don't
>know how it workd) is also distributet overall over the brain. It seems,
>that the whole brain works and in intelligent persons those parts where
>unneeded information is stored come faster to an end.
That is a strange way at looking at things when so much is known about
the specialist processing done by so many different parts of the
brain.
Explicit memory (things you can consciously remember) is stored either
in the working memory in the prefrontal cortex, or in long term memory
in the hippocampus for instance. All the brain can learn, but it is
mostly implicit knowledge (procedural memory, for instance) relevant
to the task being done by the brain region doing the learning.
Your visual cortex, for instance, cannot learn calculus. It cannot
learn how to play the trombone. For most people, it can only learn how
to better recognise objects things in the visual field. In blind
people it can be retasked by plasticity, but only really to other
sensory interpretation jobs.
Stephen Horne
wrote:
>> The peak SQ score for people with AS is actually LOWER than for
>> neurotypical males - between the peaks for NT males and NT
>> females. The graph shape for AS people cannot be derived by
>> looking at the difference between male and female and just
>> exaggerating it.
>
>Yes, my own SQ (on the online test which someone posted recently) was
>in the low average end of the general population. I was only in the
>"extreme" area of the graph due to a very low EQ (11 as against the
>general male population average of 42 and a Aspie average of 20)
>
>*But* <g> one reason why think that my SQ score was relatively low was
>that a lot of what I took to be "systematising" questions were subject
>specific "Do want to know all the details about X" - But if I wasn't
>*specifically* interested in X, then my honest response had to be
>"Disagree"
I didn't do the SQ for the screening for my diagnosis - only the AQ
and EQ. I did do it once, though - I don't remember the score but I do
remember having some similar issues. Questions where I thought "I know
what you mean and the answer you are looking for would be yes, but as
it is written there the only possible answer would be no".
Maybe this is a case of overliteralness - or maybe one of NTs being
underliteral <g>.
I don't think I had the problem to the same degree as you, though - I
mostly fit the techie/collecter stereotype of AS.
>So it seems possible that an apparently lower SQ score for AS males
>may have been an artifact of experimental design? How were these
>selected topics chosen (eg. based on interests derived from to the
>*general* male population)? Do NT males generalise these sort of
>question more than AC males?
These are good questions. They may be answered in that paper that
Benjamin linked - I don't know as I haven't read it all (I mostly
tired of this idea of SBCs when I read the book).
One thing I did spot in the paper though which is worth a mention.
There is a table of EQ scores. In descending order, the mean EQ scores
are...
female : 23.4
AS/HFA : 20.3
male : 18.9
In other words, people with AS/HFA have an average EQ score between
those of men and women?!?!?
Actually, if we do a weighted average of the male and female EQ scores
(about four times as many men are recognised AS/HFA as opposed to
women) we get a score of 19.8, which means that EQ scores are higher
for the AS/HFA than for NTs in general.
My immediate reaction to this is that something very odd is going on.
I am either reading something wrong or else the paper has a typo or
something similar. I have the full paper somewhere from when SBC
defined and evaluated the EQ, so I'll have to do some checking up.
Stephen Horne
wrote:
>>A woman sees green. And says that this makes her happy. She does not
Absolutely.
As an example, many autistic people have a strong preference for
'strong tasting' foods. That includes many who are big fans of curries
and other 'hot' foods.
What functional role could that possibly serve?
Actually, the ingredients that make foods 'hot' are often technically
mild poisons. The reason they are hot is deter animals from eating
them. Chillis are a particular example of that. It is therefore
slightly ironic that so many people actually like eating mildly
poisonous foods ;-)
You could claim that people 'like' currys through a kind of peer
pressure - much like a bunch of drunks in a curry house each trying to
eat the hottest curry possible to impress his mates. But that kind of
motivation is more NT than autistic in general. Certainly autistics
may get caught up in doing stupid things just to fit in, but I don't
really think this fits.
I - like many autistics - simply like currys. I don't care if it
impresses people. I don't have to have the hottest curry available.
Normally I eat alone, and I add chilli sauce (or hot pepper sauce or
whatever) to almost anything, at times. I particularly recommend
chilli-sauce-ripple iced cream!
I'll even eat chillis straight out of the jar, sometimes.
It's not routine. My diet may be less varied than a typical NTs, but
the thing about curry is that I never order it for delivery. That *is*
a habit that I'd have a hard time explaining, as I do order a lot of
food for delivery - mainly because in general I'm too lazy to cook.
There is no reason why. I just like hot, spicy food.
growi...@hotmail.com
> As an example, many autistic people have a strong preference for
> 'strong tasting' foods. That includes many who are big fans of curries
> and other 'hot' foods.
> What functional role could that possibly serve?
I believe this serves the role of satisfying an under-sensitive sense,
at least for me. I literally can't eat bland food. I got kidded by
my few friends in high school for putting pepper on EVERYTHING I ate.
--
Joel
Robin May
news:boqe12$1ls$07$1...@news.t-online.com
> nost wear the colors they wore yesterday and the day before and
> before and before. They may have heard something is good ore were
> introduced to it and they won't change it, because they had no
> problems with it. This is how the rutine behaviour can be
> explained. autists don't want changes because they don't want
> unexpected and unpredictable consequences. As I am one of them, I
> must not ask.
No, you still do have to ask. All you've done is assume that all
autistic people are like you. I don't wear the same colours I wore
yesterday all the time, I like to look different from day to day.
--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".
Then and than are different words!
Robin May
> Daily routines are a symptom of autism. That autists don't want
> changes is well known. That they feel safer when having daily
> routine is also well known. But that feeling is a result of a
> rational decision. An autist isn't able to understand, why normal
> people want changes. They seem irrational from this kind of view.
> The emotional drive to want these daily changes and this
> flexibillity does not exist. Yes, that is a general symptom which
> can be seen at most autists.
A lot of autistic people do like changes though. For example I don't
like to eat the same thing every day because it's boring. I don't even
like to eat from the same places every day. When I'm at university I
often get a sandwich from Marks & Spencer. I usually try to get a
different one every day, or at least a different one to what I had
yesterday. Sometimes I get a sandwich from Pret. It's true that I
usually have a sandwich but that's more a decision based on money and
convenience than anything else.
Lawrence Foard
Stephen Horne <st...@ninereeds.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Absolutely.
>
>As an example, many autistic people have a strong preference for
>'strong tasting' foods. That includes many who are big fans of curries
>and other 'hot' foods.
>
>What functional role could that possibly serve?
Endorphins! A good hot dish is better than a glass of wine when it
comes to relaxation.
>Actually, the ingredients that make foods 'hot' are often technically
>mild poisons. The reason they are hot is deter animals from eating
>them. Chillis are a particular example of that. It is therefore
>slightly ironic that so many people actually like eating mildly
>poisonous foods ;-)
Not too poisonous really, just a drug that causes pain. I suspect
humans are better at being able to turn off non harmful pain
perception than other animals are. Other mammals like cats interpret
hot peppers as some sort of assault on there mouths and never go
back for seconds. I guess at extreme concentrations it is actually
a poison capable of doing some actual damage, but thats a thousand
times stronger than food sources of it.
>You could claim that people 'like' currys through a kind of peer
>pressure - much like a bunch of drunks in a curry house each trying to
>eat the hottest curry possible to impress his mates. But that kind of
>motivation is more NT than autistic in general. Certainly autistics
>may get caught up in doing stupid things just to fit in, but I don't
>really think this fits.
Masochistic pleasure ]:) Actually once you eat them often enough you
really don't register pain at all from them. It does three good things
for me:
1) Some how the taste is much enhanced.
2) Endorphins (nice relaxed feeling).
3) Clears my sinuses, great when you have a cold, nothing clears
them out like dumping as much hot sauce as you can stand on a
meal. Other choice is pseudoephredrine doesn't work nearly
as well and leaves me jittery.
Also supposed to be a good source of vitamin A.
>I - like many autistics - simply like currys. I don't care if it
>impresses people. I don't have to have the hottest curry available.
>Normally I eat alone, and I add chilli sauce (or hot pepper sauce or
>whatever) to almost anything, at times. I particularly recommend
>chilli-sauce-ripple iced cream!
I once went out to eat with a guy who was a serious masochist when
it came to things like paddling and caning. I ordered it as hot as
they would make it. Tasted it, it seemed bland, he said he could tell
from over at the otherside of the table it was hot. I heaped a few
table spoons of extra hot thai sauce on, still too mild, added a few
spoon fulls of pepper flakes. Just about right, challenged my friend
to eat just one noodle no he would rather just be caned.
>I'll even eat chillis straight out of the jar, sometimes.
Yummm. Love the chillies they cook with thai food. Crunch crunch,
some poor fool follows my example and acts like they've just swallowed
molten lead.
--
Halloweens dark trance,
the shadow, the dark between the stars, the dark of night, if all was white
we would see no light, but in the darkest night the universe shines bright.
Be a counter terrorist perpetrate random senseless acts of kindness
Stephen Horne
Quite possibly, and I also agree with Lawrences mention of Endorphins.
But the words I used - 'functional' in particular - probably didn't
express very well what I meant.
The point is that rational rule-based people wouldn't care about
taste. They would presumably eat exactly the healthiest foods
available in exactly the amounts that supported healthy living most
effectively.
Caring about taste is inherently a subjective, emotion-based issue.
Not an objective, rule-based one.
Endorphins are basically the way a particular emotion is implemented
in the brain.
Terry Jones
>> identifiable reasons, they simply "like what they like because they
>> like it". - Just ask them.
>
>and before.
I mostly wear (and buy) cloths in a limited range of colours myself.
But that does not explain *why* I like those particular colours and
not others. (Nor why those preferred colours, although often lasting
for a long time, do change from time to time).
> They may have heard something is good ore were introduced to
>it
Certainly not in my own case - I chose / choose particular colours on
my own initiative and based on my own preferences. I often do not like
other people's ideas about what I should wear.
>and they won't change it, because they had no problems with it.
>This is how the rutine behaviour can be explained. autists don't want
>changes because they don't want unexpected and unpredictable
>consequences.
Routine / sameness may be why autistics don't (often) *change* their
preferences, but that's not the point you were talking about
originally. - What you said was:
>>>A woman sees green. And says that this makes her happy. She does not
>>>analyze why she prefers green. An autist must think first about all
>>>colors, then about the differences of colors, then why a color is good.
That is, you were proposing an idea about how people make their
choices in the first place. - And I'm saying that this is an invalid
generalisation. That it appears from what autistic posters have said
here, that while some preferences are based on logic (eg. physically
comfortable cloths), other preferences are just as *non* analytic as
those of any NT. (In fact fashion aware NTs quite probably put more
*conscious* thought into selecting their cloths than do most
autistics).
>As I am one of them, I must not ask.
I assume that you mean that you think that you don't *need* to ask
(being autistic yourself). Certainly there is nothing which says you
*must* not ask other autistics about such questions (at least in the
context of a support group such as this).
However autistics are not identical. Autism manifests in a range of
different ways in different individuals. Therefor it is bad science to
assume that any autistic's person experience (your or mine) applies to
autistics in general. - That is why I suggested that you should ask
other autistics.
Terry
sggaB the Slug
<ent...@farviolet.com> wrote:
> Not too poisonous really, just a drug that causes pain. I suspect
> humans are better at being able to turn off non harmful pain
> perception than other animals are. Other mammals like cats interpret
> hot peppers as some sort of assault on there mouths and never go
> back for seconds. I guess at extreme concentrations it is actually
> a poison capable of doing some actual damage, but thats a thousand
> times stronger than food sources of it.
I don't know.
I had a dog who seemed to really like habanero peppers.
--
sggaB
sggaB the Slug
<Benjami...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>nost wear the colors they wore yesterday and the day before and before
>>>and before.
>> How do you know this, in general?
> is well known. That they feel safer when having daily routine is also
> well known. But that feeling is a result of a rational decision. An
> autist isn't able to understand, why normal people want changes. They
> seem irrational from this kind of view. The emotional drive to want
> these daily changes and this flexibillity does not exist.
> Yes, that is a general symptom which can be seen at most autists.
colors every day because of this. Not all autistic people have the *same*
daily routines they're attached to, for one, and contrary to everything
you seem to believe, some autistic people *do* want changes in *some* things.
They may also have *emotionally* decided they like certain colors, and you're
essentially ignoring that by claiming that *all* autistic people react
the *exact same* way to colors and to wearing the same clothing.
Not all autistic people even *care* enough about colors to wear the same
every day.
Of those who do, there are several reasons.
You can't just say "Autistic people don't like change so therefore I don't
need to ask them why they do a certain thing over and over." At least not
accurately. There can be many reasons for the same behavior. Are you
interested in the truth, or are you just interested in all autistic people
being exactly like you (which will never happen)?
>> Actually, you are falling into a *very* common trap here: You are
>> overgeneralizing from your own experience.
>> I could just as well say "Because I am autistic and I have a loud voice
>> because I am unable to physically modulate my voice volume,
> Yes. That is also a symptom of many autists. They don't feel what others
> think about the loud voice. The focus is on the content (systemizing).
> They don't response automatically at others mental state. They must
> force themselves to think about that, to do so.
You've missed my point entirely.
I was pointing out that there can be *MORE THAN ONE* reason for autistic
people to have trouble with that. One is a physical difficulty with a motor
skill, another is a sensory preference (NEITHER have anything to do with
theory of mind).
Do you understand this?
>> Some autistic people wear the same color every day because they have a
>> genuine spontaneous like for that color.
> Why everyday? Why are the not open for changes? When they would feel
> something when they look at a color, the would orientate themselves with
> their feelings about the color.
I don't know. For the same reason some NTs wear the same colors every
day. Some people just have a favorite color they like wearing. I've seen
plenty of non-autistic people who wear the same color every day, either
because of personal preference or because of their religion.
--
sggaB
sggaB the Slug
<st...@ninereeds.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> That is a strange way at looking at things when so much is known about
> the specialist processing done by so many different parts of the
> brain.
Actually, what is known about it is that while there are places where many
things generally happen, many of those places can be shifted around by
various things, and many things are cooperative efforts between several
parts.
> Your visual cortex, for instance, cannot learn calculus.
Interesting that you picked that one as an example. I heard of someone who
had either eye damage or brain damage (I can't remember which) and who
*did* end up using the region normally used for vision, in order to do
mathematics.
--
sggaB
Stephen Horne
wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:45:19 +0000, Stephen Horne
><st...@ninereeds.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> That is a strange way at looking at things when so much is known about
>> the specialist processing done by so many different parts of the
>> brain.
>
>Actually, what is known about it is that while there are places where many
>things generally happen, many of those places can be shifted around by
>various things, and many things are cooperative efforts between several
>parts.
I certainly have no problems with the co-operative efforts - of course
the brain breaks down complex tasks into simpler subtasks.
I also have no problems with the existence of plasticity, but...
>> Your visual cortex, for instance, cannot learn calculus.
>
>Interesting that you picked that one as an example. I heard of someone who
>had either eye damage or brain damage (I can't remember which) and who
>*did* end up using the region normally used for vision, in order to do
>mathematics.
This caught me by surprise. I'm pretty sure that I've read about
limits to plasticity, and I didn't just invent this out of thin air -
but equally I know better than to doubt what you say without
triple-checking my facts. Which is, I guess, what I should do.
It is possible that I'm confused about the detail of the claim, or
that the source isn't very reliable, so I guess I should go hunting
for wherever I read it.
growi...@hotmail.com
> every day.
I didn't used to care at all. I only care when I'm paying for the
clothes.
In fact, some of my friends once switched my clothes with someone
else's. I didn't notice, even after putting on the other clothes
(they were the same size as I was). I'm not particularly proud of
this, but it does demonstrate my point. Obviously I didn't care
enough about the color to notice.
> Of those who do, there are several reasons.
When I buy clothing, I always buy blue or gray clothes. I like those
colors. If I have to dress up ("business casual"), I'll wear some
tans, maybe a yellow tie, etc. But my preference is for blue and
gray. They are my favorite colors. In fact, my computers are all
set up with very blue color schemes, my web pages use blue headers,
etc. I'm not doing this because I'm used to it. I'm doing it because
I like blue, but not enough for it to dominate my life completely.
I really dislike being told why I have certain preferences or why I
do certain things, especially when I already do know why I am doing
them. Part of "respect" is listening to other people when they say,
"No, that isn't my reason."
--
Joel
sggaB the Slug
<growi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> When I buy clothing, I always buy blue or gray clothes. I like those
> colors. If I have to dress up ("business casual"), I'll wear some
> tans, maybe a yellow tie, etc. But my preference is for blue and
> gray. They are my favorite colors. In fact, my computers are all
> set up with very blue color schemes, my web pages use blue headers,
> etc. I'm not doing this because I'm used to it. I'm doing it because
> I like blue, but not enough for it to dominate my life completely.
> I really dislike being told why I have certain preferences or why I
> do certain things, especially when I already do know why I am doing
> them. Part of "respect" is listening to other people when they say,
> "No, that isn't my reason."
Yes.
By the way, oddly, blue and grey are my favorite colors for clothing too,
although I have plenty of clothing in other colors. I like purple as a stim
color but not as a background color. For background colors I like blue,
grey, and sometimes brown and black. My screen colors on my computers are
set for grey background with blue letters.
--
sggaB
sggaB the Slug
<st...@ninereeds.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Your visual cortex, for instance, cannot learn calculus.
>>Interesting that you picked that one as an example. I heard of someone who
>>had either eye damage or brain damage (I can't remember which) and who
>>*did* end up using the region normally used for vision, in order to do
>>mathematics.
> This caught me by surprise. I'm pretty sure that I've read about
> limits to plasticity, and I didn't just invent this out of thin air -
> but equally I know better than to doubt what you say without
> triple-checking my facts. Which is, I guess, what I should do.
> It is possible that I'm confused about the detail of the claim, or
> that the source isn't very reliable, so I guess I should go hunting
> for wherever I read it.
I don't doubt that there are limits to plasticity, but I think the limits
can sometimes be characterized as stricter than they are because of trends.
I can't remember, though, if this person had damage to his eyes, or if he
had damage to whatever part of his brain normally handled mathematical tasks.
I just remember hearing about it, and hearing that they eventually found
out that he was handling mathematical skills in his visual cortex.
I don't doubt that *most* people wouldn't have this happen, but it appears
that someone (or maybe it was two people?) did.
--
sggaB
Andreia Wilson
Color *does* dominate my life, in my case; I am in love with cobalt
blue and collect anything cobalt blue, as well as things that have my
favorite colors in them.
I'm really hung up on what colors I wear... for some reason I'm
attached to the strange idea that certain colors are more stressful
and certain are more pleasing/comforting to me. I can't *stand* yellow
or red but I find teal, purple, blue, plum to be very comforting. Grey
and black and neutral are OK. I'm also hung up on textures, especially
velvety ones.
I feel attached enough to colors that I don't want to leave the house
wearing the "wrong colors"... strange?? When I was a little girl I
only wanted violet or pink clothes, and would *only* wear skirts (even
in absolutely godawful weather).
growi...@hotmail.com wrote in message news:<top.poster.2....@bigsky.antelope.net>...
NatureloverChris
<< By the way, oddly, blue and grey are my favorite colors for clothing too, >>
I like blue and gray too. Also darker greens and black. My mom always said I
like boring colors.
Chris
Nick Argall
"Benjamin Schulz" <Benjami...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:boimrd$5sl$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Nick Argall wrote:
>
> >>You may have emotions, when you consider a logical system. When I mean
> >>systemizing, I mean what Baron Cohen defines as systemizing
> >
> >
> > I hate it when people tell me what my experience is. I used to believe
them
> > as well, but at least I've learned that they don't know what they're
talking
> > about most of the time.
> >
>
> Watch women, doing smalltalk. What do they talk about?
>
> They talk about feelings. Feelings they had in many situations. Feelings
> about the weather, cloths, persons they met, feelings they had at work,
> at the morning and in the evenning.
>
> A Person with AS has indeed almost no feelings when putting on a green
> sweater. For persons with autism, these things doesn't matter at all
The fact that I have difficulty talking about these things doesn't mean they
don't happen.
Feel free to talk about your experience, or to theorize. But I am the final
authority on what my experience is.
Nick
Catriona R
>sggaB the Slug <ama...@autistics.org> wrote:
>> Not all autistic people even *care* enough about colors to wear the same
>> every day.
>
>I didn't used to care at all. I only care when I'm paying for the
>clothes.
Shows that there is *definitely* a difference between different
autistic people, then, because I do care about the clothes I wear.
Usually I wear much the same colours, but that's more because I have
trouble finding any clothes in styles that I like which are also in
decent colours, so I've ended up with everything being red, black or
dark blue... it seems I care *too much* about my clothes, actually, as
I won't wear most the things that are currently in fashion, and at the
moment it isn't possible to buy normal clothes (ie, not the weird
styles which are in fashion, and not having stupid logos on them) :-(
>When I buy clothing, I always buy blue or gray clothes. I like those
>colors. If I have to dress up ("business casual"), I'll wear some
>tans, maybe a yellow tie, etc. But my preference is for blue and
>gray. They are my favorite colors. In fact, my computers are all
>set up with very blue color schemes, my web pages use blue headers,
>etc. I'm not doing this because I'm used to it. I'm doing it because
>I like blue, but not enough for it to dominate my life completely.
I'm kind of like that, but with yellows, oranges and reds... although
I use most colours, just depending on what I think is suitable. For
example I'm partway through designing a website for my online racing
team, and that's all in varying shades of blue, because it's a
Scottish team... same goes for a website I've made about real-life
racing in scotland, too. Yet my homepage is yellow and orange, and I'm
going to be painting the whole of my new flat in different shades of
yellow (that's a practical thing, though - learned from experience
that yellow is the only colour that makes a room look warm and
welcoming), but with varying colours of carpets.
The only colours I won't use are pink and purple, probably because
they're colours that I'm expected to like, just because I'm female ;-)
Although I've got some purple highlights on one of my online racing
cars now... was a bit reluctant to us that at first, but I decided it
looked pretty good, so stuck with it, even though it's not normally my
choice of colour ;-)
>I really dislike being told why I have certain preferences or why I
>do certain things, especially when I already do know why I am doing
>them. Part of "respect" is listening to other people when they say,
>"No, that isn't my reason."
Agreed.
--
Catriona (20, AS)
AS! d- s-:-- a-- c+>++ p+ t-@ f(--) S+(-) p? e- h r+ n+ i+(-) P- m M--
neral
I like blue and grey too. Sometimes it's just a matter what they have in the
store. If I need a sweeter and they have only red ones, I buy that red one.
--
neral
-----------------------------------------
The alt.support.autism linkpage is at :
http://users.telenet.be/neral/asalinks.html
-----------------------------------------
Hylander
<stupid aol'er mode>me2!</stupid aol'er mode>
John
--
creativity impaired ftm.
HGJ
> tans, maybe a yellow tie, etc.
I would have very little idea what to put on if I were instructed to
dress like that ("business casual"). Why do people invent such fuzzy
dress codes?
HGJ
> color but not as a background color.
What is a stim color?
Gatto Fritto
> A woman sees green. And says that this makes her happy. She does not
> analyze why she prefers green. An autist must think first about all
> colors, then about the differences of colors, then why a color is good.
> in all.
The cones in the retina contain three types of pigments, called
rhodopsin. They are basically transducers which send a signal to the
brain when activated by certain frequencies of light. Now suppose you
were to take the three different types of rhodopsin and switch them
around. Say red wavelengths activated neurons which were previously used
to percieve green. That would be quite a shock. But suppose you were
born with your cones all connected to the wrong neurons. What everyone
else perceived as green, you would perceive as red, but you would call
it green, because you would have learned that Christmas trees and grass
and a particular cat's eyes are all called green. You might do perfectly
on a color blindness test, understand traffic lights... but you would
never know that your perceptions were very different from others'. Who's
to say that any of us don't perceive color in remarkably different ways
from others? It may be the case; there's just no way of knowing.
> > Define "live independent".
>
> that's defined as a liveform that can react on almost everything alone.
> In intellectual and social and own problems.
That would not define most humans, as they are very dependent on social
institutions. Maybe someone who works easily within these institutions
seems independent in such an environment, but would falter when outside
of it. On the other hand, a tiger might be quite independent in it's
natural environment, but if it must live among humans, say, in a zoo, it
is very dependent on humans.
Gatto Fritto
>
> Shows that there is *definitely* a difference between different
> autistic people, then, because I do care about the clothes I wear.
> Usually I wear much the same colours, but that's more because I have
> trouble finding any clothes in styles that I like which are also in
> decent colours, so I've ended up with everything being red, black or
> dark blue... it seems I care *too much* about my clothes, actually, as
> I won't wear most the things that are currently in fashion, and at the
> moment it isn't possible to buy normal clothes (ie, not the weird
> styles which are in fashion, and not having stupid logos on them) :-(
Ughh, I hate logos. I always seem to wind up getting lots of stupid
t-shirts at work. But that's okay, as I can wear something else over
them. One thing that annoys me is that there are lots of women's clothes
with cats on them, but hardly anything for men. But I've been wearing my
Best Friends Animal Society t-shirt for over a week now, under something
else so the people at work won't notice that I've been wearing the same
thing for so long. It has these five cute kitties; they're so cute. The
calico reminds me of a cat I used to have (I miss her so much).
Arak Thaylann
> > Not all autistic people even *care* enough about colors to wear the same
> > every day.
I care a lot about what I wear, although there was a time when I
didn't. I have always cared about the colour, though.
I wear primarily black with hints of colours like red, green or
purple. I have one green suit, one red suit and one purple suit on
top of lots of black suits and skirts.
I really hate getting asked "Why do you wear black all the time?" I
just say "Because I don't have to worry about what colour goes with
it!" or "I'm conservative, leave me alone." or "It's slimming"
Sheesh! You'd think I was committing one of the seven deadly sins
wearing black the way some people carry on! I don't let people come
up with reasons for me.
My boss only wears blues and greys. No one gets on his case.
Clothes....
Arak /|\
goblin
I am supposed to dress 'biz caz' but I pretty exclusively wear fatigue
pants with the cargo pockets on the legs so I can carry around
whatever book I happen to be reading (this week: An Anthropologist on
Mars, by Oliver Sacks). I have always liked button down shirts, so I
wear those over a POCKET t-shirt (I won't buy t-shirts without the
pocket, I keep pens and stuff in there) but I absolutely cannot stand
to wear my shirt tucked in as I am overweight and I find the shirt
either pulls at the neck when I sit down, or it bunches up around the
front and gets wrinkly. I wear mostly blacks, greens, blues, and the
occasional tan shirt because I am a dirt magnet for some reason. If I
eat anything with mustard, tomato sauce, broth or gravy, ketchup, or
hot sauce, or any salad dressing, it usually ends up on my clothing
somewhere. I doubt I could get away with such liberties with company
policy if I didn't work so hard. I certainly don't win many points
with my personality, although I get along well with my boss. Somehow
she gets my sense of humor (most of the time) but I have to watch that
because I have actually lost jobs, or come damn near over some stupid
ironic comment I made.
Then there is my long hair...
Andreia Wilson
At any place such as Staples or Fry's (I know, I hate those big stores
too, but you can buy the stuff online as well) you can buy iron-on
transfers which you print pictures on from your computer or on any
other color printer for that matter.
Then, you can make your own cat stuff.
I love cats too in that I find them kind of totemic, kind of like a
protector in a strange way... I feel safe where they are around. I'm
able to sleep peacefully with a cat on my bed.
Cats are the first obsession I remember having; the only interest I
had at four, plus they were the only friends I had. A teacher figured
out that I was obsessed with cats when I was 5 or 6, and taught me to
read using a book about cats. I learned quickly and a year later moved
on to a very charming novel called "The Fur Person" by May Sarton
which I read over and over again.
As a small child, I had a made-up world that was a magical fantasy
land populated entirely by anthropomorphic cats.
Dreia
Gatto Fritto <gatto_...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<3FB8DB04...@comcast.net>...
Andreia Wilson
More confusing is that in most places, there are unwritten, separate
dress codes for men and women... the women almost always tend to
"dress up" more. So if it's "casual" for men, it's "business casual"
for women. Jeans for men, slacks for women. If it's slacks for men,
it's dress slacks or skirts for women - my experience.
The frustrating part was that I worked in a tech dept. where I was
*the only woman* once... the women there all worked in
sales/marketing, and dressed to the nines in their Chanel and Gucci...
the men all wore jeans/polo shirts.
I didn't know whether to dress like a tech, or dress like the other
women.
Another frustrating thing at this job was that I was the only female
tech and couldn't "fit in" with the women at the company. I didn't
have anything in common with them, only with the men.
Dreia
svch...@yahoo.se (HGJ) wrote in message news:<5ba9b417.03111...@posting.google.com>...
Andreia Wilson
>
> That would not define most humans, as they are very dependent on social
> institutions. Maybe someone who works easily within these institutions
> seems independent in such an environment, but would falter when outside
> of it. On the other hand, a tiger might be quite independent in it's
> natural environment, but if it must live among humans, say, in a zoo, it
> is very dependent on humans.
YEP YEP YEP
There is the matter of everything being relative...
When I notice my suspected-Aspie boyfriend in his place of work (he is
a system administrator in an academic department, for a major
university; this department specializes in one of his major subjects
of obsession, linguistics), he seems totally normal. He seems like
every other of the more brilliant (and hence slightly more
eccentric/rumpled) academics, staff or graduate students in his
department.
In the "real world" he is extremely out of place.
I experience much of the same thing. In my own "group" I feel *mostly*
functional. The rocks in my head fit the holes in theirs, and
vice-versa. The rules are known. These people do not require the
amount of care and feeding that neurotypical friends require, and can
function with the occasional contact once or twice a year; they can
follow my obsessive interests and vice versa (my obsessions revolve
around self-created imaginary worlds, and I meet most of my friends
through interests in science fiction, and fantasy-gaming).
In the "real world" and most occupational/academic settings, I'm
*horribly* out of the loop. People who see me among my friends though
think I am incredibly socially successful; my boyfriend, when he first
met me, thought I was some kind of social butterfly (I can't think of
anything further from the truth!).
sggaB the Slug
wrote:
> I experience much of the same thing. In my own "group" I feel *mostly*
> functional. The rocks in my head fit the holes in theirs, and
> vice-versa. The rules are known. These people do not require the
> amount of care and feeding that neurotypical friends require, and can
> function with the occasional contact once or twice a year; they can
> follow my obsessive interests and vice versa (my obsessions revolve
> around self-created imaginary worlds, and I meet most of my friends
> through interests in science fiction, and fantasy-gaming).
> In the "real world" and most occupational/academic settings, I'm
> *horribly* out of the loop. People who see me among my friends though
> think I am incredibly socially successful; my boyfriend, when he first
> met me, thought I was some kind of social butterfly (I can't think of
> anything further from the truth!).
I have found that, when I am in my house, within a carefully constructed
routine (more spatial than temporal, although temporal helps), and with
someone coming out to do certain things, I feel pretty much at ease. I
don't know how I look to others, though.
I think I am becoming more respected by people at the church I'm
attending, and the very standard routine there combined with the strict
value that God is in everyone means that I am both surprisingly functional
and surprisingly accepted, although there is occasional friction (but less
than I would expect in a group of people that large). There, I frequently
listen to people's conversations rather than join in, and this takes less
work. But I have also been able to do things there that I can't do in any
other offline context, because of something about the structure (such as
start conversations from time to time, which I don't recall being able to
do before). It's also only a couple hours a week, and that helps.
But it's not draining me to the point of lying flat on my back the whole
rest of the week like the last place I tried to attend (that one mandated
more interaction, expected me to act more normal, patronized me and
treated me like Our Cute Disabled Person Whom We Can Learn About Diversity
From, and the youth program was run by someone who several times tried to
impose her views on me in PTSD-provoking ways). Strange that a place that
does not mandate me to be super-functional is actually making me more
functional than the place that simply expected that out of me.
Then there's the entire rest of the world.
It appears that beyond the four walls of my apartment and the slightly
over four walls of the meetinghouse (both of which, probably
non-coincidentally, are places that don't mandate interaction), I don't do
very well at all.
I have a map of just about anywhere I could want to go stored in my head,
so getting lost isn't the issue. But I seem to have become less and less
able to adapt rapidly to the world out there with time, possibly aided by
fourish years of essential institutionalization (even when I was not
*formally* locked up, I was *informally* trapped in one spot and treated
similarly to being locked up, so I got very little chance to see the
outside world beyond a strict supervised routine -- to any parents who
keep your autistic teenagers in the house constantly "to keep them safe"
except for excursions to school or day programs, watch out for their
future because that autistic lack of adaptability combined with no
training to deal with the world combined with inability to learn
things by osmosis will take its toll).
For instance, I know how to take exactly two bus lines. I know how to
take the 26 in the Santa Clara County transit system, to the 53, to where
I always went from there, and back again. (Sort of. I once rode the 53
all the way back to the bus storage facility and scared them when I spoke
up after ascertaining that the fact that they were emptying the money box
meant that they probably weren't going anywhere from there.) Even after
years, I can't get the hang of the local buses now that I've moved.
And if I were, for instance, to go to the bus stop, I would not be able to
register my surroundings very fast. By the time the bus got to its
destination (which, if I was lucky, it would do) I might register what was
happening at the bus stop. By the time I had done everything, gotten
home, and crashed for awhile, I would probably be able to have some clue
what had gone on the rest of the day. The outside world moves too fast
for me to keep up with it, particularly in cities.
I know I don't look very competent out there because I am constantly
approached by people trying to get me to join cults (one of whom told me
they would have all kinds of technology for me that I *know* doesn't
exist, like cars that drive themselves so that even a blind person could
drive them), people trying to kidnap me (I also look like a youngish
teenager, I'm told) or solicit sex from me (I didn't know that one until
someone else told me that's what those people were doing), and so forth,
and I hear (usually teens and young adults) remarking on the 'nutcase' or
the 'retard' at a volume they don't think I can hear them at and then
yelling insults at me. This has gotten much less prevalent when I have
someone with me at all times, but it's clear that I am neither very
competent out there, nor very competent-*appearing* out there.
And everything out there is essentially overload city, so I end up usually
shutting down at some point and then being useless as far as getting what
I need done or getting home on my own (my biggest goal when I do that is
not to attract dangerous attention with a meltdown, which I sometimes
succeed at).
Although, interestingly, I can walk around at night and be generally okay.
I think because there are fewer people and less light. But that's not
particularly safe where I live (I think I'm saved mainly by looking fairly
androgynous -- I've wandered straight through sections of town at night
that are considered horribly dangerous for women and never gotten touched
and, in fact, was barely noticed except by at one point some feral dogs
who surrounded me and barked until they got bored).
--
sggaB
Autistic Spectrum Code, v1.0
AA! dpu s-:+ a-- c+(++) p(+) t--- f--- S--(++)@ p?@ e-(+)@ h- r--@ n--
i++ P m--(++)@ M
Gatto Fritto
>
> Cat-guy, ;)
>
> At any place such as Staples or Fry's (I know, I hate those big stores
> too, but you can buy the stuff online as well) you can buy iron-on
> transfers which you print pictures on from your computer or on any
> other color printer for that matter.
>
> Then, you can make your own cat stuff.
Well, I only have a laser printer, but maybe I'll look into getting a
color printer soon. That could be nice. I could make shirts with
pictures of my own precious kitties. Maybe a print shop could do that
for me, too.
> I love cats too in that I find them kind of totemic, kind of like a
> protector in a strange way... I feel safe where they are around. I'm
> able to sleep peacefully with a cat on my bed.
Yeah, cats are my totem. I often dream about them. Specifically, I often
dream of jaguars, which got me really interested in Aztec art. There's
this neat thing at the Field Museum, a stone container with an engraving
at the bottom of a jaguar with a heart in its mouth. I'd like a tattoo
of that sometime. The jaguars in my dreams seem fierce, but they're
friendly toward me, and have even made friends with my cats (in my
dreams). Sometimes I think that cat spirits protect me. When I used to
use hallucinogens, I would often feel telepathically connected to my
cats, and onece when I was on mushrooms I saw cat eyes where there was
no physical cat.
> Cats are the first obsession I remember having; the only interest I
> had at four, plus they were the only friends I had. A teacher figured
> out that I was obsessed with cats when I was 5 or 6, and taught me to
> read using a book about cats. I learned quickly and a year later moved
> on to a very charming novel called "The Fur Person" by May Sarton
> which I read over and over again.
> As a small child, I had a made-up world that was a magical fantasy
> land populated entirely by anthropomorphic cats.
I have a friend who calls cats "fur persons". She often asks me how the
fur persons are doing. I've heard of that book but never read it. Maybe
that will be one of my next Amazon purchases.
Gatto =^..^=
goblin
That's interesting. I often dream about my cats. I wonder if they
dream about me?
Tangentially, one of my made-up fantasy worlds is populated by talking
animals that survived a human-devised cataclysm that had occured
centuries before. A lab experiment gone awry gave the animals all a
sort of 'human-like' technical intelligence, though each race retains
the characteristics of that race. There are mice, rabbits, cats,
dogs, various twisted remnants of the human race, giant cockroaches,
bears and wolves, a dragon, and a rat (which is the main character of
the stories I make up. He's me, more or less.) Someday I maybe
should write a novel about this place, because I enjoy visiting a lot,
and I imagine that other people would probably like it as well.
Geez, I love cats. We're getting a third one in a week or so.
Hylander
>
> I love cats too in that I find them kind of totemic, kind of like a
> protector in a strange way... I feel safe where they are around. I'm
> able to sleep peacefully with a cat on my bed.
>
Dogs and cats fit this role for me too. Dogs ward off physical
intruders with their good ears and smell senses. Cats to me ward off
the psychic intruders. They tend to always be around when there is
stress, temptation, evil etc. I appreciate my cats. One female cat is
neurotic...we got her from some kids.
Graham
> The frustrating part was that I worked in a tech dept. where I was
> *the only woman* once... the women there all worked in
> sales/marketing, and dressed to the nines in their Chanel and Gucci...
> the men all wore jeans/polo shirts.
> I didn't know whether to dress like a tech, or dress like the other
> women.
I worked in the test lab of a large automotive design office at one
stage.
The young engineers wore shirt and tie.
The slightly engineers had worked out that it wasn't that important and
wore business style trousers and shirt but no tie. If they were working
on an actual car that day, or going down to the proving ground, they
wore jeans and a tee shirt.
The engineers who had moved on to management wore ties again.
The tradesmen of course wore scruffy jeans or overalls.
I can remember my first day, being shown around and introduced to
people. When we got to a late 30ish guy out in the lab who was wearing
jeans and a business shirt with a tie, I said "you must be the
foreman?".
And I was right.
He had a foot in each camp.
Graham
> I really hate getting asked "Why do you wear black all the time?"
"I'm incurably fashionable"
"I'm colourblind"
"I used to wear all white until one day I wore a read tee shirt. After I
mixed up the wash, it was dye everything black or wear mottled pink."
"Ninja"
"I'm incurably unfashionable"
Any more suggestions?
Nick Argall
> sggaB the Slug wrote:
> > No. They're not just a continuum. They're several different potential
> > complex patterns, *each one* on several continua.
>
>
> can you report papers describing these different patterns with continua?
I can point you to a textbook: "Asperger's Syndrome: A Guide for Parents
and Professionals" by Tony Attwood. Pls consult the bibilography of that
for yourself :)
Nick
sggaB the Slug
<nick....@aplaceof.removedotcom.info.com> wrote:
>> > No. They're not just a continuum. They're several different potential
>> > complex patterns, *each one* on several continua.
>> can you report papers describing these different patterns with continua?
> I can point you to a textbook: "Asperger's Syndrome: A Guide for Parents
> and Professionals" by Tony Attwood. Pls consult the bibilography of that
> for yourself :)
I think there are several books, in fact, that get into this fact.
--
sggaB
Andreia Wilson
all-black, like it identifies you as an occultist or member of a
counterculture. I know some "old world" or more traditionalist people
have issues with it.
My grandmother had issues about young people wearing black, and the
mother of a guy I dated, had issues, too, about *me* wearing black.
Interestingly both were Jewish so I wonder if it's a cultural thing.
Strangely, I used to wear all black, all the time.
In the last couple of years, though, I feel *weird* leaving the house
wearing all black... I always have to throw a bright-colored scarf or
something on if I'm wearing all black.
Terry Jones
>
>Any more suggestions?
"I'm in mourning" ?
Terry
Nick Argall
"sggaB the Slug" <ama...@autistics.org> wrote in message
news:bpqqnb$1pq80v$2...@ID-197375.news.uni-berlin.de...
I'm sure you're right. That's the best, of the limited number that I've
read. I just didn't want HGJ to make a stupid claim about "I asked for
references, and you people didn't give any."
Although, his attitude is so patently offensive that I'm starting to think
he's a clever troll. Notice that he didn't reply at all to my post in which
I said "I am the final authority on what my experience is."
Nick
sggaB the Slug
<nick....@aplaceof.removedotcom.info.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 00:13:59 +1100, Nick Argall
>> <nick....@aplaceof.removedotcom.info.com> wrote:
>> >> > No. They're not just a continuum. They're several different
> potential
>> >> > complex patterns, *each one* on several continua.
>>
>> >> can you report papers describing these different patterns with
> continua?
>>
>> > I can point you to a textbook: "Asperger's Syndrome: A Guide for
> Parents
>> > and Professionals" by Tony Attwood. Pls consult the bibilography of
> that
>> > for yourself :)
>> I think there are several books, in fact, that get into this fact.
> I'm sure you're right. That's the best, of the limited number that I've
> read. I just didn't want HGJ to make a stupid claim about "I asked for
> references, and you people didn't give any."
I don't think that was HGJ. I don't remember *who* it was, but I don't
remember they being 3 initials like that. Could be wrong.
> Although, his attitude is so patently offensive that I'm starting to think
> he's a clever troll. Notice that he didn't reply at all to my post in which
> I said "I am the final authority on what my experience is."
Could be a troll, could be a very rigid autistic, sometimes hard to tell
the difference.
--
sggaB
NatureloverChris
"I'm part of a cult, would you like some cool-aid"
chris
Graham
> > I really hate getting asked "Why do you wear black all the time?"
Graham wrote:
> "I'm incurably fashionable"
> Any more suggestions?
Only the Australians will get this one:
"I'm from Melbourne"
8-)
Arak Thaylann
> I think people have weird cultural associations with wearing
> all-black, like it identifies you as an occultist or member of a
> counterculture. I know some "old world" or more traditionalist people
> have issues with it.
I get confused with being a goth all the time. I'm not, I just like
black because it's easy to coordinate, looks decent and is less
annoying to my eyes that some colours.
My parents wear a lot of dark colours because they're sort of
conservative and mum says it's slimming and always in fashion.
> Strangely, I used to wear all black, all the time.
>
> In the last couple of years, though, I feel *weird* leaving the house
> wearing all black... I always have to throw a bright-colored scarf or
> something on if I'm wearing all black.
I got bugged about it so much that I too try to put a bit of colour
into each outfit (a coloured shirt or something). I still like my
black blazers though.
Arak /|\
Robin May
news:bprsh8$1r4gsa$2...@ID-197375.news.uni-berlin.de
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:33:06 +1100, Nick Argall
> <nick....@aplaceof.removedotcom.info.com> wrote:
>> I'm sure you're right. That's the best, of the limited number
>> that I've read. I just didn't want HGJ to make a stupid claim
>> about "I asked for references, and you people didn't give any."
>
> I don't think that was HGJ. I don't remember *who* it was, but I
> don't remember they being 3 initials like that. Could be wrong.
Benjamin Schulz is the person you're thinking of.
--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".
Then and than are different words!
Andreia Wilson
I could *not* dress appropriately for my peer group; it was one of the
ways I "stood out".
At 12, I swung wildly between trying to be a punker (pink hair) and
look like I was from a music video, and trying to be "taken seriously"
in which case I would wear *suits* and pumps and severe hairstyles.
No matter how often it was explained to me, I could *not* understand
what constituted appropriate clothing.
Later, I started just dressing in matching outfits all the time
(adding a different pin or scarf each day) because I could not figure
out how to dress "normally".
thay...@yahoo.com (Arak Thaylann) wrote in message news:<7e12aef4.0311...@posting.google.com>...
Goblin
"Arak Thaylann" <thay...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7e12aef4.0311...@posting.google.com...
I was a goth for a long while. It seemed appropriate. And, it allowed me
to wear sunglasses all the time and be aloof. :-)
Andreia Wilson
> to wear sunglasses all the time and be aloof. :-)
I found a lot of acceptance among goths and counterculture people.
A. / almost 30 / self-described "neuroqueer" / undiagnosed
sggaB the Slug
>> I was a goth for a long while. It seemed appropriate. And, it allowed me
>> to wear sunglasses all the time and be aloof. :-)
> I found a lot of acceptance among goths and counterculture people.
I found a lot of predators among same.
--
sggaB
Andreia Wilson
> > I found a lot of acceptance among goths and counterculture people.
>
> I found a lot of predators among same.
I'm not sure I could tell the difference most of the time between
predators and acceptors. In retrospect, many of these people who so
immediately seemed to accept me, were the same ones who turned on me
later.
Goblin
"sggaB the Slug" <ama...@autistics.org> wrote in message
news:bq3adh$1ua7rh$1...@ID-197375.news.uni-berlin.de...
I concur. Every subculture I've been a part of, or tangentially related to
(punks, skins, goths, fetish, gay, neo-hippie) attracts a certain amount of
sociopaths, some scenes more than others, but they circle like vultures
looking for the most damaged and fragile and trusting people they can latch
on to. I'm originally from Ohio, where it wasn't so bad and there were good
people who accepted others as they were, but now I live in Chicago, and the
amount of predators here is a lot higher. I've pretty much withdrawn from
any scene and am more or less 'mainstream' now, which is difficult because
there really isn't a lot of acceptance there, but it's better than being
victimized by pathological people. Especially when, despite my natural
learned paranoiac response toward strangers, I really can't tell if I'm
dealing with a 'good person' or a 'user'. My girlfriend was astounded by
the scumminess of the people I thought were my friends when she met them.
She brought me into the light, so to speak, and I pretty much trust her
because she looks out for my interests.
Lawrence Foard
Thats odd, I really haven't run into this with the hippy, rave or
burning man scenes. There are certainly people with problems in the
scene, but most of those seem to be of the depression, schizo, autism,
etc. sort not predatory people. Goth scene I'm not familiar with, so
I can't speak to it, atleast image wise I'd expect to find predators,
if you have a horror fetish it seems a likely place to end up.
--
Evil creeps on normal human feet, normal, cute, harmless, charming
death whispers in your ear "surrender to me", sinking sinking lulled to
sleep by his siren song. 'no' the spell is broken. The vampire walks away.
Be a counter terrorist perpetrate random senseless acts of kindness
sggaB the Slug
> dealing with a 'good person' or a 'user'. My girlfriend was astounded by
> the scumminess of the people I thought were my friends when she met them.
> She brought me into the light, so to speak, and I pretty much trust her
> because she looks out for my interests.
Yes, a lot of people have been amazed in the same way at some of the people
I've known. It seems like a disproportionately high number.
--
sggaB
Andreia Wilson
> Thats odd, I really haven't run into this with the hippy, rave or
> burning man scenes. There are certainly people with problems in the
> scene, but most of those seem to be of the depression, schizo, autism,
> etc. sort not predatory people. Goth scene I'm not familiar with, so
> I can't speak to it, atleast image wise I'd expect to find predators,
> if you have a horror fetish it seems a likely place to end up.
I wouldn't be able to deal with those scenes just because of the
overload.
I found that "goth clubs" were neat environments, dark and cavernous,
and not overloading like other nightlife environments are. And that
*some* of the goths I knew respected/accepted my introversion even a
great deal more than the general public.
However, I found this acceptance to be rather superficial. These same
people would cease being friendly with me after they knew me or after
I got "weird" on them.
My best friend was, for a time, a goth girl... I went through a "dumb"
period after I was working full time and commuting two hours each way
by bus. I was barely functional as a human being. She came over so we
could celebrate her birthday. I gave her the wrong address by mistake.
And furthermore, I was incredibly wrung out and "spacy" that whole
weekend.
She never spoke to me again.
I dislike dealing with any group of people that's cliqueish or
considers itself 'cool' or better than anyone else. I've come to the
conclusion that the only obligation a person has, is to be a good
human being.
I guess I am back to hanging out with outcasts. One of my best friends
(I consider him such, anyway) is someone with bipolar, ADHD and mild
cerebral palsy who says about himself, "I got no room to call anyone
else weird".
Lawrence Foard
I've only really had problems with two predatory people. In both cases they
where partial predators, needy people who got themselves into positions where
they would manipulate others in order to extricate themselves. One person
was one everyone warned me about "he is trouble" I ignored them to my regret.
The problem was that I was looking for 'bad people' as sources of trouble,
this was a sincere but messed up person.
The other one no one including myself saw the problems for quite some time,
this person wasn't low class, 'scum' or any of the usual labels people use
to look for trouble. Again this was not a 'bad person', not just a shady
con artist, but a person with troubles, troubles which tended to spill
very heavily over to me.
But I see no reason to use this to descriminate on the basis of social
class. If anything it should be an inverse discrimination, how many psycho
killers do you think these NTs would see as scum? I doubt they'd even blink
an eye as a true psycho manipulated the crap out of them. I've got friends
who are homeless, I date people who eat out of garbage cans, I'd trust
my life to them. I wouldn't trust a businessman even 1/10th this much,
when I feel someone manipulating me, alarm bells go off, and its not
usually the 'scum' who are doing it, its business people who got that way
by being manipulative. If a 'scum' is manipulating you, they at most want
the money in your pocket right then, and its because they are desperately
in need. A businessman wants to take you for everything, your money,
your time, your life, your creativity, etc. at the end if your unlucky they
sic a lawyer on you to finish you off after they've drained you dry.
Lets see these NTs pick a real psycho out of a line up. It won't be
the shifty eyed low caste perverts. It will be the guy they don't even see
because he is so normal.
sggaB the Slug
<ent...@farviolet.com> wrote:
> But I see no reason to use this to descriminate on the basis of social
> class. If anything it should be an inverse discrimination, how many psycho
> killers do you think these NTs would see as scum? I doubt they'd even blink
> an eye as a true psycho manipulated the crap out of them. I've got friends
> who are homeless, I date people who eat out of garbage cans, I'd trust
> my life to them. I wouldn't trust a businessman even 1/10th this much,
> when I feel someone manipulating me, alarm bells go off, and its not
> usually the 'scum' who are doing it, its business people who got that way
> by being manipulative. If a 'scum' is manipulating you, they at most want
> the money in your pocket right then, and its because they are desperately
> in need. A businessman wants to take you for everything, your money,
> your time, your life, your creativity, etc. at the end if your unlucky they
> sic a lawyer on you to finish you off after they've drained you dry.
> Lets see these NTs pick a real psycho out of a line up. It won't be
> the shifty eyed low caste perverts. It will be the guy they don't even see
> because he is so normal.
I don't understand that either.
Class hasn't really been a factor in the scary people I've met, except
inasfar as it determined their *methods* of being scary at times (ones with
more money and certain social skills learned in the upper classes at their
disposal are going to use different tactics than other people). Most of
the scary/sleazy people I've met don't look scary whatsoever unless you
know what you're looking for.
Heck, even being bullied in school taught me that -- adults always thought
I was the one causing everything, and I *knew* it was something about the
way others looked, but I couldn't figure out what.
--
sggaB
Goblin
"Lawrence Foard" <ent...@farviolet.com> wrote in message
news:bq5td0$ii2$1...@farviolet.com...
I didn't actually specify that these people in my past were 'scummy' in
appearance. I am pretty 'scummy' in my appearance, so that isn't what I was
talking about. I don't generally look down at goths, crusties, hippies, or
kinks because of how they dress. The central idea here is thus: regarding
myself, I can't easily tell if someone is using me, or being a good friend.
I am not sure what constitutes friendship or even how to be a friend, even
though I've had a few close acquaintances in my life. Specific example, I
was defending a co-worker who I was friends with (did stuff together outside
of work, chatted with, confided in) when another coworker was badmouthing
her. He says to me, "I don't know why you're defending her, she talks shit
about you all the time when you're not around." What kind of stuff does she
say? I ask. "She says you're weird, incompetent, lazy, stupid, stuff like
that." I find this hard to believe, so I corner another co-worker shortly
after. This person is unaware of my conversation with the other guy, and
they tell me pretty much the same thing. Well, I can believe that there is
a conspiracy between my other co-workers to wreck my friendship with this
person, or they are telling the truth. I'm not sure what to do or who to
believe, but since I have not much tact or social grace, I actually confront
her, and she admits that she said those things but that they were taken out
of context. Since I am unable to create a context in which you would call
someone "weird, incompetent, lazy, and stupid" but mean it in a good way, I
pretty much stopped talking to her right then. I ended up quitting the job
two weeks later because I am so uncomfortable around these people. This is
just one story in a myriad of similar evens. Blah.
And while I appreciate the hippie, burning man stuff, I am unable to hang
out with said people, because the second some food-nazi tells me to 'Go
Vegan,' I usually tell them to 'Go To Hell.' I despise fascism and
collectivism where ever they might be, even if it seems to be coming from a
higher moral ground. I was genetically programmed, I assume, to be an
individualist at all cost. When the hippies in my life discover that I am
an intractable omnivore, and perseverate over weapons, they tend to not like
me much. Odd, because I still see the countercultural ethos as being 'Do
What Thou Wilt', but I guess it's really just uniform fascism and
group-think.
Okay, but I gotta get back on track here. I am in total agreement about
needy, damaged people who stick to you like a parasite. It may not be
intentional, but they are still using you, sucking the life out of you. I
pick up people like that by the carload, because I can't defend myself from
them until someone else tells me what is happening.
Also, what do you mean by a 'businessman'? Do you mean guys who work for
big companies in tall office buildings? I guess that makes me a
'businessman'. What you describe sort of seems to be a stereotype that is
very popular in the counterculture. I work amongst people that I suppose
would fit your description there, but they just seem like regular people
with the same concerns of all regular people: raising families, making ends
meet, finding satisfaction in life. I don't particularly understand some of
the values they possess, especially people fraught with conspicuous
consumerism, but they are more or less like me, without the 'disabilities'.
Besides, the guy selling Phish T-Shirts or organic bean burritoes in the
parking lot at the dead show are 'bussinessmen' as well. They may possess a
similar aesthetic sense and share a lot of apparent values that you respect,
but they are still engaged in the business of trade or commerce to the end
of staying alive and keeping on. But, if you are referring to the monied
sociopath that lays off thousands of hard-working folks so that he can get a
bigger bonus, then I am in agreement with you, those people suck. Outside
of killing them off, good luck getting rid of them. Good thing there aren't
too many of them. No one in my company is like that, as far as anyone can
tell.
>
> Lets see these NTs pick a real psycho out of a line up. It won't be
> the shifty eyed low caste perverts. It will be the guy they don't even see
> because he is so normal.
> --
Surely you realize that they won't pick the real psycho out of the line-up,
they'll pick you or I out of the line-up. Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne
Gacy get to walk out the door while we get jail time. Quite a lot of the
time, when I walk into a big, stupid retail store, I notice that a clerk
will be watching me or following me. I haven't stolen anything since I was
8 and grabbed a Hot-Wheels car at a department store. I guess I look
guilty?