Parenting Aspergers and Forced Pacifism

[Rami Rustom]

Someone wrote:

Start quote.

So I'ma just tell a story.

My brother is an Aspie, was diagnosed young as a kid.
When he got mad he would hit me, ALOT.
He would throw things, yank my hair, kick me, punch me... ect.

My mother would say "it's just how he is don't let it bother you!" and
pretty much let him beat me up.
My father would stop him and then yell a whole lot.

So after years of this, eventually he got me so mad I hit him back,
harder than he hit me. I got in major trouble for this, I think I was
like an early teenager. BUT after I did hit him back he finally got
"hey you know being violent hurts people and this is what it feels
like to get hit."
And he stopped it.

So the point is, I don't think it's unacceptable or immoral to try to
teach Aspie kids the behavioral standards used for most kids and just
one example is:"it's wrong to beat up people when you're mad that
you're not getting the candy you want."
It's something they have to learn to function in their lives later,
and it's a basic thing for most people. It's not doing them a favor by
accepting and enabling something like that.
However, it is unreasonable to expect Aspies to do everything the same
way as other kids. The same with any condition, they just need to be
taught the things they need to learn in a different manner.
Just like it's unreasonable to expect deaf people to hear it's
unreasonable to expect them to do certain things the way everyone else
does but that doesn't mean they should be exempt from being a member
of society and having consequences for their actions like everyone
else.

My friend has an autistic son and she gets ticked off when he hits
someone, or does some kind of majorly disruptive act in school. She
still expects him to behave himself like any other kid.

End quote.

-- Ananomous

[Rami Rustom]

On Wed, Jan 23, someone whose parents believe in forced pacifism wrote:
>
> So I'ma just tell a story.
>
> My brother is an Aspie, was diagnosed young as a kid.
> When he got mad he would hit me, ALOT.
> He would throw things, yank my hair, kick me, punch me... ect.

And your parents didn't stop it, maybe because they didn't know how.
Better knowledge would have fixed this problem. See below.

> My mother would say "it's just how he is don't let it bother you!" and pretty much let him beat me up.

This is evil. Pacifism is immoral. Forced pacifism is worse.

> My father would stop him

Good!

> and then yell a whole lot.

Bad. Better knowledge would have fixed this problem. See below.

> So after years of this, eventually he got me so mad I hit him back, harder than he hit me.

Its not immoral to use more force against a victim's abuser in
situations of self-defense.

> I got in major trouble for this,

Ridiculous! They are responsible for your protection. If they act
irresponsibly, at the expense of your safety, then you have the right,
and responsibility to act on your own behalf.

> I think I was like an early teenager. BUT after I did hit him back he finally got "hey you know being violent hurts people and this is what it feels like to get hit." And he stopped it.

You've just illustrated that tradition (hitting a kid to teach him) is
better than arbitrary new ideas like forced pacifism (letting your
brother hit you).

Traditional knowledge should be replaced with better knowledge, and
that is not easy to come by. If you don't think much, you'll fuck it
up worse than if you had just stuck to traditional knowledge.

Don't get me wrong. I do not advocate corporate punishment. I don't
even advocate punishment (like time out or other social things like
frowning to indicate that one should feel shame). Its evil. Its not
conducive to learning. The punishment tradition evolved to solve a
problem. The problem is that people deviate from social rules, and
parents don't like that. But this solution is riddled with flaws.
Actually even the problem is riddled with flaws. We already have
better knowledge that doesn't have these flaws. All it takes is to
learn it.

> So the point is, I don't think it's unacceptable or immoral to try to teach Aspie kids the behavioral standards used for most kids and just one example is:"it's wrong to beat up people when you're mad that you're not getting the candy you want." It's something they have to learn to function in their lives later, and it's a basic thing for most people. It's not doing them a favor by accepting and enabling something like that.
>
> However, it is unreasonable to expect Aspies to do everything the same way as other kids. The same with any condition, they just need to be taught the things they need to learn in a different manner.

I disagree with your premise. Its the same reasoning as the following...

Take your idea and replace "Aspies" with *people who don't like
physics* and you get:

However, it is unreasonable to expect *people who don't like physics*
to do everything the same way as other kids *who like physics*.
The same with any "condition", they just need to be taught physics in
a different manner.

Though, I do agree that people learn in different ways, but that is
because no two people have the same background knowledge.

> Just like it's unreasonable to expect deaf people to hear it's unreasonable to expect them to do certain things the way everyone else does but that doesn't mean they should be exempt from being a member of society and having consequences for their actions like everyone else.

That analogy is flawed. Not everybody can hear, but everybody can
learn social cues and rules. Deaf people can't hear, but "Aspies" can
learn social cues and rules.

> My friend has an autistic son and she gets ticked off when he hits someone, or does some kind of majorly disruptive act in school. She still expects him to behave himself like any other kid.

Getting angry (aka "ticked off") is unwise. It is counter-productive.

Here's one way to handle conflicts:

Boy hits girl. Girl calls out in pain or warning or whatever (to get
parent's attention that there is danger).

Parent arrives and says to girl: I'm here to help.

Girl: He hit me.

Parent asks boy: What problem were you trying to solve?"

Boy: What?

Parent: When you hit her, you were trying to solve a problem. You were
trying to get something you wanted. What were you trying to get?

Boy: She has my toy. (and points at something in girl's pocket.)

Parent ask girl: Is that his?

Girl: Yes, but he doesn't want to share.

Parent: Ok but thats his decision to share. Did you ask him for it?

Girl: No, because he never says yes.

Parent: So you took his toy against what he wants. That means you're
hurting him. Please give it back to him. (the exchange happens.)

Parent asks boy: She wants to play with it, so could she use it for
now while you're not using it?

Boy: Ok. (and he gives the toy to her)

Parent: Now about what you did, you hit her. Did hitting her solve
your problem? ... No, it created a new problem and it didn't even
solve your original problem, which is that you wanted your toy back.
The new problem you created is that you hurt her. So what should you
have done instead? ... You should have asked her for your toy back.
... And if she said no, you should remind her that 'doing something to
you against what you want means hurting you'. ... And if that doesn't
work then ask me for help, thats what I'm here for. I'm here to help
you be happy.

No where in any of this should the parent make a frown or use a
disapproving tone or otherwise use social cues to convey that the boy
(or girl) should be ashamed. There is nothing shameful here,
especially not on the children's part.


To be clear, at the end of my hypothetical discussion, I used "..." to
mean that there was back and forth discussion. It might be misleading
as I've had other parents ask me: "Do I allow answers?"

In truth-seeking there is no place for coercion/force/involuntary
action. Not allowing answers is coercion, which is immoral. Its
immoral because its a barrier to truth-seeking. No one can know for
sure who is right (or which are ideas are correct) at the start of a
truth-seeking discussion. The purpose of the discussion is to find the
truth. So if a person assumes the truth at the start, he's setting
himself up for disaster.

If a person says something I find a flaw in, I explain the flaw,
sometimes by asking a leading question whose answer reveals the flaw.
And when they see flaws in my ideas, they explain them too (or at
least they *should*).

And we go back and forth until we agree. This is assuming there is
enough time -- if there isn't enough time now, then the discussion
continues later when there is time. Its also assuming that all parties
*want* to discuss at the moment -- if someone doesn't want to discuss,
then the discussion is postponed to a later time. But...

Sometimes the situation is tricky and the child doesn't want to
discuss ever. Maybe he did something bad, and he knows it, but he
doesn't want to discuss it for reasons that the parent doesn't
understand (or even if he does understand, that doesn't matter). That
is the child's right. But this is ok, because there will be plenty of
similar situations (with a little bit different context) in the future
that the child would be willing to discuss. Or...

Its possible also that the child never makes that specific type of
mistake again, so there is no need to ever discuss it again in the
future.

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com

[Rami Rustom]

Someone asked me: "I see how your working towards building in your
children a foundation of truth shared with your own but for them to
learn that they do have a say and a voice in the face of your truth
regardless." So I replied...

If we are discussing a conflict of ideas (my idea conflicts with their
idea), and if after multiple backs and forths we still have not
agreed, that means I'm wrong. It means I failed to give them a
persuasive explanation (persuasive as judged by their standards, not
mine). In these situations, its immoral to resort to coercion/force.

Parents who, when they fail to persuade their children, resort to
coercion, are harming their children. This is how people get
irrationalities and anti-rational memes.

For clarity, by "coercion" I mean acting against the will of another.

[Laurie Clark]

Background: I was very active with the TCS list and in person with a variety of people from around 1995-2000 and am still in touch with a few people from back then and I still try to avoid all sorts of coercion.

I think it is interesting that we all (the people I knew fairly well) came to TCS through different routes but almost all of the families had either an adult or child (or both) that have been or probably could be diagnosed with Aspergers!

Aspergers wasn't even officially recognized until 1994 and these are just my personal observations - nothing that was actively talked about at the time. 

But I think it is an interesting idea. Parents of "quirky" children seemed more likely to be attracted to and stick with TCS ideas - largely, I believe, because conventional parenting techniques are even less likely to "work" with children who have the traits of individuals that are likely to be diagnosed as having Aspergers or Autism (should they choose to pursue a diagnosis).

Having a child or friend with Aspergers can (and probably should) make a person challenge many conventional ideas!

Laurie

--

[Rami Rustom]

Someone asked: "Are you saying that there are situations where
coercion is moral?" I replied...

Yes. Its moral to coerce against coercion. For example:

- If a person is being physically attacked, he should protect himself,
and if his only resort is to use physical force, then that is the
moral option.

- One child is beating up another child, parent (or teacher or any
adult) should stop abuser to prevent further harm to the victim.
Stopping the abuser is coercion because the abuser *wants* to beat up
the victim and the parent is acting against the abuser's will.

- If a person is being manipulated (a form of coercion), he should
defend himself, and if his only resort is to do it by manipulation,
then that is the moral option.

In the cases above, I talked about force not just coercion because
force is a special case of coercion.


Note that this does not condone punishment. Punishment, as a means to
help someone learn (aka change his behavior), is ineffective and thus
immoral. Its also causes problems rather than solves problems. It
causes the punishes to learn anti-rational memes.


To be clear, our society uses the term punishment for legal
repercussions of a crime. I disagree with its use in these cases.
Here's why:

A fine for a crime shouldn't be called punishment, since its purpose
is to pay for damages, not to cause the criminal to learn.

Jail time shouldn't be called punishment, since its purpose is to
protect non-criminals from criminals, not to cause the criminal to
learn.


People do not learn by punishment. Only persuasion works.

[Elliot Temple]

On Jan 23, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Someone wrote:
>
> Start quote.
>
> So I'ma just tell a story.
>
> My brother is an Aspie, was diagnosed young as a kid.
> When he got mad he would hit me, ALOT.
> He would throw things, yank my hair, kick me, punch me... ect.
>
> My mother would say "it's just how he is don't let it bother you!" and
> pretty much let him beat me up.
> My father would stop him and then yell a whole lot.
>
> So after years of this, eventually he got me so mad I hit him back,
> harder than he hit me.

Note the "he got me so mad" instead of "I got mad" or "I got myself so mad".

Responsibility denial is especially common with anger.

> I got in major trouble for this, I think I was
> like an early teenager. BUT after I did hit him back he finally got
> "hey you know being violent hurts people and this is what it feels
> like to get hit."
> And he stopped it.

I doubt that's what happened inside his mind.

This author is now relating his philosophical-psychological interpretations as part of a factual-historical story. He doesn't know the difference between remembered facts and interpretive guesses. This makes everything presented as a simple fact suspect too (e.g. that the father would stop him, or would yell a whole lot, or that the guy writing hit back harder. none of those can be accepted as fact IMO).

>
> So the point is, I don't think it's unacceptable or immoral to try to
> teach Aspie kids the behavioral standards used for most kids and just
> one example is:"it's wrong to beat up people when you're mad that
> you're not getting the candy you want."

And by "teach" he means hit them hard? fuck this.

-- Elliot Temple
http://beginningofinfinity.com/

[Elliot Temple]

On Jan 23, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 23, someone whose parents believe in forced pacifism wrote:
>>
>> So I'ma just tell a story.
>>
>> My brother is an Aspie, was diagnosed young as a kid.
>> When he got mad he would hit me, ALOT.
>> He would throw things, yank my hair, kick me, punch me... ect.
>
> And your parents didn't stop it, maybe because they didn't know how.
> Better knowledge would have fixed this problem. See below.
>
>> My mother would say "it's just how he is don't let it bother you!" and pretty much let him beat me up.
>
> This is evil. Pacifism is immoral. Forced pacifism is worse.
>
>
>> My father would stop him
>
> Good!
>
>
>> and then yell a whole lot.
>
> Bad. Better knowledge would have fixed this problem. See below.
>
>
>> So after years of this, eventually he got me so mad I hit him back, harder than he hit me.
>
> Its not immoral to use more force against a victim's abuser in
> situations of self-defense.
>
>
>> I got in major trouble for this,
>
> Ridiculous! They are responsible for your protection. If they act
> irresponsibly, at the expense of your safety, then you have the right,
> and responsibility to act on your own behalf.

In general, it is immoral to not defend yourself repeatedly then strike extra hard.

>
>
>> I think I was like an early teenager. BUT after I did hit him back he finally got "hey you know being violent hurts people and this is what it feels like to get hit." And he stopped it.
>
> You've just illustrated that tradition (hitting a kid to teach him) is
> better than arbitrary new ideas like forced pacifism (letting your
> brother hit you).

Uhh, he has not illustrated any merit to hitting people as education. He hit someone and claims the person learned, but that doesn't mean the hitting actually helped any learning just because he asserted that immoral and nonsensical claim.



-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/

[Elliot Temple]

On Jan 23, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For clarity, by "coercion" I mean acting against the will of another.

So if you (Rami) will me (Elliot) to give you a million dollars, and I don't, I'm a coercer?

I think this definition -- that deviates substantially from the TCS definition -- obscures more than it clarifies.

[Elliot Temple]

On Jan 23, 2013, at 9:24 AM, Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:

> To be clear, our society uses the term punishment for legal
> repercussions of a crime. I disagree with its use in these cases.
> Here's why:
>
> A fine for a crime shouldn't be called punishment, since its purpose
> is to pay for damages, not to cause the criminal to learn.
>
> Jail time shouldn't be called punishment, since its purpose is to
> protect non-criminals from criminals, not to cause the criminal to
> learn.

It's absolutely not true that our criminal justice system is based on defense and reparations with no punishment. It says it punishes people and it does. and everyone knows this.

Just because it should be one way doesn't mean it is. This is reality denial.

People are not put in jail for the optimal amount of time for purposes of defense.

Nor are all fines calculated for reparations.

Nor do "punitive damages" monetary payments not exist.

And more. Cursory knowledge of the criminal justice system is more than adequate to refute the claims Rami makes.


This is repeating some of the mistakes that I criticized in the past and that weren't followed up on. Criticisms should be pursued to a conclusion instead of just going on to repeat mistakes again later. That is very very important -- it's the path to a beginning of infinity instead of chronic failure.

[Rami Rustom]

On Jan 24, 2013 12:56 PM, "Elliot Temple" <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2013, at 9:24 AM, Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To be clear, our society uses the term punishment for legal
> > repercussions of a crime. I disagree with its use in these cases.
> > Here's why:
> >
> > A fine for a crime shouldn't be called punishment, since its purpose
> > is to pay for damages, not to cause the criminal to learn.
> >
> > Jail time shouldn't be called punishment, since its purpose is to
> > protect non-criminals from criminals, not to cause the criminal to
> > learn.
>
> It's absolutely not true that our criminal justice system is based on defense and reparations with no punishment. It says it punishes people and it does. and everyone knows this.
>
> Just because it should be one way doesn't mean it is. This is reality denial.
>
> People are not put in jail for the optimal amount of time for purposes of defense.
>
> Nor are all fines calculated for reparations.
>
> Nor do "punitive damages" monetary payments not exist.
>
> And more. Cursory knowledge of the criminal justice system is more than adequate to refute the claims Rami makes.
>
>
> This is repeating some of the mistakes that I criticized in the past and that weren't followed up on.

Are you referring to the discussion about thinking for
counter-examples for 2 minutes? Or one about changing definitions?

-- Rami

[Elliot Temple]

Does it matter? If you see both mistakes, then correct them both.

I meant counter-examples (I made no mention of any definitions in anything you've quoted here), but I don't see the point of this question. If you see one or more mistakes, great, you take it from there. If you don't see any, you could ask a question but your question doesn't convey that problem.

[Rami Rustom]

I think the (or one) reason I didn't look for counter-examples is that
I created this no-punishment-in-American-legal-system idea months ago.
And today I used the idea again, without criticizing it by looking for
counter-examples.

Currently, my not-looking-for-counter-examples problem (in my open
problems list) is applied to *new* ideas (or new ideas to these
lists). And this punishment one wasn't new.

And, the problem is only applied to universal statements, and this
punishment idea isn't a universal statement.

Should I reframe the problem? How?

[Alan Forrester]

If you have not previously looked for a counterexample to an idea, then look for one if you're going to use that idea. It doesn't matter whether the idea is new or universal. Any idea you have that's wrong is a problem.

Alan

[Elliot Temple]

Why are you telling me this? I wasn't asking for excuses. Giving me an excuse doesn't solve the problem.

Do you want to know if I think that is your mistake? No I don't. I think it's something deeper, not specific to this particular issue. But I've told you that before.

[Rami Rustom]

I was explaining my thinking. Its something you suggested to me a few
times before.

> Do you want to know if I think that is your mistake? No I don't. I think it's something deeper, not specific to this particular issue. But I've told you that before.

My problem is that I have active criticisms of my ideas, and I haven't
addressed these criticisms to conclusion. This has caused me to not
solve these problems (i.e. to not fix the flaws you've explained).

-- Rami