ASAN - Questions of Ethics and Legitimacy
Socrates - The New Republic
regarding the behaviour of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, in
light of the recent criticisms levelled at it from amongst others Bob
Badour, Michelle Dawson, Alan Griswold, myself and Larry Arnold.
I would appreciate your thoughts and comments, however I will be
unable to use/quotes any such remarks unless they are signed with your
real name. (The degree of Sockpuppetry witnessed of late makes the use
of Pseudonyms untenable, while maintaining any pretence of
journalistic standards).
Harry Williams.
Arak
I don't have much to say except "Good luck with that". I've written my
piece on this here: http://djdialogue143.blogspot.com/2010/04/autism-its-time-for-civility.html
"United we stand, divided we fall."
This next statement is likely to make me very unpopular, but I've
given up caring at this point:
I've been watching Michelle Dawson's rants on her email list for
months now and I'm tired of all of it (not just her, but thew whole
damned thing). How can people on the autism spectrum expect the
general public to take them seriously and perhaps lend them some
credence if they can't even get along with each other? Destructive
politics is not just for the NT's it seems. The damage done has the
same effect as any other thing like this: after a while, no one wants
to hear about it and no one will support the cause because of the
infighting.
Just my opinion, of course.
Arak /|\
Aquarian Monkey
> On May 15, 3:39 am, Socrates - The New Republic
>
> <harry.x.willi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm working on an article targeted at an American mainstream audience,
> > regarding the behaviour of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, in
> > light of the recent criticisms levelled at it from amongst others Bob
> > Badour, Michelle Dawson, Alan Griswold, myself and Larry Arnold.
>
> > I would appreciate your thoughts and comments, however I will be
> > unable to use/quotes any such remarks unless they are signed with your
> > real name. (The degree of Sockpuppetry witnessed of late makes the use
> > of Pseudonyms untenable, while maintaining any pretence of
> > journalistic standards).
>
> > Harry Williams.
>
> I don't have much to say except "Good luck with that". I've written my
>
> "United we stand, divided we fall."
>
> This next statement is likely to make me very unpopular, but I've
> given up caring at this point:
>
> I've been watching Michelle Dawson's rants on her email list for
> months now and I'm tired of all of it (not just her, but thew whole
> damned thing). How can people on the autism spectrum expect the
> general public to take them seriously and perhaps lend them some
> credence if they can't even get along with each other? Destructive
> politics is not just for the NT's it seems. The damage done has the
> same effect as any other thing like this: after a while, no one wants
> to hear about it and no one will support the cause because of the
> infighting.
>
> Just my opinion, of course.
>
> Arak /|\
Doesn't make you unpopular with me. Seems to be an astute observation,
IMHO (if anyone cares about that, seeing as how I am an observer and
not on the spectrum).
However, autistics *are* human beings, so I think it is unrealistic to
think that groups of autistics will not have the same problems as
groups of any other type of human.
But it *does* give "others" a "valid" reason to discredit the whole
group.
What makes me sad is that not all "others" will understand why this
issue is being held open for so long and dissected to such fine
degrees. From the "outside" it looks much worse than it really is when
you understand it from the "inside," though I don't know if that makes
any sense to anyone but me.
Bob Badour
I would say I understand it from the inside, and it looks pretty bad to me.
Aquarian Monkey
That isn't what I mean, Bob. I don't mean the behaviors originally in
question. I agree with you that the original behaviors in question (if
I am on the right page as to what those were) were "bad" (according to
my own personal views of situations like this)
I mean the rest of it. And I am not saying the rest of it is not bad.
I'm just saying that if you don't understand the context of the rest
of it, it looks worse. I think--for example--perhaps some people are
"stuck" on this because being stuck on it is consistent with their
wiring. I think some of the resulting upheaval is at least partially
related to neurologically mediated tendencies. VIewing it from that
perspective means I don't see the "division" within the "community" in
the same terms as I would see it if I didn't recognize that some of
what is happening is a result of being autistic.
This, by the way, is a horrible explanation of what I mean.
But it is a super example of how sometimes I cannot put my thoughts
into words that make sense to other people.
Bob Badour
I agree. You seem to say autistics have no business holding their
representatives to account and that's horrible.
> But it is a super example of how sometimes I cannot put my thoughts
> into words that make sense to other people.
Have you considered that's an indication they might just not make sense?
Janna
Bob, I don't think that's what AM is saying at all. I think the point
here is that part of the reason why it's being held onto for so much
longer than it would be in another group is that this particular
situation involves autistic people. And that is neither "good" nor
"bad," it just "is."
IOW, AM is not placing a value judgment on the situation; she(? I
forget, but you read like a she) is actually going far out of her way
to *avoid* placing a value judgment on it.
Yes, autistic people should certainly hold their own representatives
accountable for their actions. At the same time, people use different
words to talk about the same things, and the inability to make the
connections between these similar-but-differently-expressed-ideas is a
fairly common problem in the world of communication - and one that can
easily be exacerbated by one or more of the individuals involved
having autism.
> > But it is a super example of how sometimes I cannot put my thoughts
> > into words that make sense to other people.
>
> Have you considered that's an indication they might just not make sense?
That's just not nice. :(
-Janna
Bob Badour
I don't think that's what she intended to say, but it does give that
impression, which is probably what was making her uncomfortable with it
in the first place.
> I think the point
> here is that part of the reason why it's being held onto for so much
> longer than it would be in another group is that this particular
> situation involves autistic people. And that is neither "good" nor
> "bad," it just "is."
I disagree. Any other group would hold onto it until it gets resolved.
The situation has not yet been resolved in any way shape or form.
The colonists, for example, held onto their grievances from 1762 until
1783 (and beyond.)
> IOW, AM is not placing a value judgment on the situation; she(? I
> forget, but you read like a she) is actually going far out of her way
> to *avoid* placing a value judgment on it.
>
> Yes, autistic people should certainly hold their own representatives
> accountable for their actions. At the same time, people use different
> words to talk about the same things, and the inability to make the
> connections between these similar-but-differently-expressed-ideas is a
> fairly common problem in the world of communication - and one that can
> easily be exacerbated by one or more of the individuals involved
> having autism.
I fail to see any relevance to the specifics of the current situation.
>>>But it is a super example of how sometimes I cannot put my thoughts
>>>into words that make sense to other people.
>>
>>Have you considered that's an indication they might just not make sense?
>
> That's just not nice. :(
Cognitive dissonance is not comfortable. Whether encouraging that
discomfort is nice or not nice is a subjective value judgment.
Janna
My theory is that it hasn't been resolved yet because we have a bunch
of autistic people holding tenaciously onto the idea that they are
right and a bunch of other autistic people holding tenaciously onto
the idea that *they* are right, and some others who are blinking and
looking around wondering what the hell is going on. It's being held
onto and not being resolved *because everyone involved is autistic*.
Another group would have found a solution long ago, because they
wouldn't be as likely to get stuck on the "I'm right and you're wrong"
train.
> > IOW, AM is not placing a value judgment on the situation; she(? I
> > forget, but you read like a she) is actually going far out of her way
> > to *avoid* placing a value judgment on it.
>
> > Yes, autistic people should certainly hold their own representatives
> > accountable for their actions. At the same time, people use different
> > words to talk about the same things, and the inability to make the
> > connections between these similar-but-differently-expressed-ideas is a
> > fairly common problem in the world of communication - and one that can
> > easily be exacerbated by one or more of the individuals involved
> > having autism.
>
> I fail to see any relevance to the specifics of the current situation.
I was thinking specifically of Michelle Dawson's role in her own
situation(s).
> >>>But it is a super example of how sometimes I cannot put my thoughts
> >>>into words that make sense to other people.
>
> >>Have you considered that's an indication they might just not make sense?
>
> > That's just not nice. :(
>
> Cognitive dissonance is not comfortable. Whether encouraging that
> discomfort is nice or not nice is a subjective value judgment.
Yup, but I never said I wasn't making a value judgment. ;)
-Janna
Eva
"Janna" <janna....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12ec26f9-4349-4bcc...@z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
My theory is that it hasn't been resolved yet because we have a bunch
of autistic people holding tenaciously onto the idea that they are
right and a bunch of other autistic people holding tenaciously onto
the idea that *they* are right, and some others who are blinking and
looking around wondering what the hell is going on.
-----------------
I'm in that latter group. What *is* going on? Is this about that guy
Neeman again?
Eva
Bob Badour
Except your position is entirely counterfactual. History is replete with
NT institutions undergoing such conflicts for decades and even centuries.
>>>IOW, AM is not placing a value judgment on the situation; she(? I
>>>forget, but you read like a she) is actually going far out of her way
>>>to *avoid* placing a value judgment on it.
>>
>>>Yes, autistic people should certainly hold their own representatives
>>>accountable for their actions. At the same time, people use different
>>>words to talk about the same things, and the inability to make the
>>>connections between these similar-but-differently-expressed-ideas is a
>>>fairly common problem in the world of communication - and one that can
>>>easily be exacerbated by one or more of the individuals involved
>>>having autism.
>>
>>I fail to see any relevance to the specifics of the current situation.
>
> I was thinking specifically of Michelle Dawson's role in her own
> situation(s).
Her situation(s) and in particular your little tiff with her have no
relevance whatsoever to whether ASAN is an ethical organization or
whether Ari is a suitable representative for autistic people.
And frankly, I fail to see the relevance of the above to Michelle or to
your little tiff either.
Bob Badour
Insofar as Ari Ne'eman is the founding and current president of ASAN, I
suppose anything that is about ASAN is about him.
Arthur Golden
[snip]
> My theory is that it hasn't been resolved yet because we have a bunch
> of autistic people holding tenaciously onto the idea that they are
> right and a bunch of other autistic people holding tenaciously onto
> the idea that *they* are right, and some others who are blinking and
> looking around wondering what the hell is going on. It's being held
> onto and not being resolved *because everyone involved is autistic*.
> Another group would have found a solution long ago, because they
> wouldn't be as likely to get stuck on the "I'm right and you're wrong"
> train.
There is a group that would not have found a solution long ago and
that group is delusional people (as in schizophrenics). Differential
diagnosis between adult autistics and schizophrenics needs properly
experienced psychiatrists but is a matter that is not given adequate
attention in internet discussions. I have extensive personal
experience with both adult autistics and schizophrenics and based on
outward symptoms I cannot tell the difference. I understand the
differential diagnosis made by properly experienced psychiatrists is
largely based on age of onset, with autism having an early childhood
age of onset, as is clear in my own situation of language delay (which
I know is not a symptom of Asperger's Syndrome under DSM-IV, soon to
be replaced by DSM-V), social interaction etc.
Arthur Golden
Janna
Arthur,
I said *another* group, not *any other* group.
Trust me, I'm an Anglican. We know how to draw stuff out.
-Janna
Janna
I said *another* group, not *any other* group. As I just said to
Arthur, I'm Anglican; we are really good at drawing things out overly
long. My position isn't *entirely* counterfactual, because, in point
of fact, autistic people do often have incredible difficulty
understanding opposing points of view or accepting the possibility
that someone else's ideas might be valid. *Pointing this out does not
negate the fact that non-autistic people have the exact same problem.*
I'm not arguing in favour of Theory of Mind; I know that's a load of
BS. But at some point, in any conflict, a person with a clear head
steps in and says, essentially, "Hey, guys, this is ridiculous. Here
are the actual issues. Let's just deal with them and get on with
things. We aren't getting anything productive done the way things
are." But nobody is listening to the people who are saying that,
whether the people saying it are autistic or non-autistic. Not yet, at
least.
> >>>IOW, AM is not placing a value judgment on the situation; she(? I
> >>>forget, but you read like a she) is actually going far out of her way
> >>>to *avoid* placing a value judgment on it.
>
> >>>Yes, autistic people should certainly hold their own representatives
> >>>accountable for their actions. At the same time, people use different
> >>>words to talk about the same things, and the inability to make the
> >>>connections between these similar-but-differently-expressed-ideas is a
> >>>fairly common problem in the world of communication - and one that can
> >>>easily be exacerbated by one or more of the individuals involved
> >>>having autism.
>
> >>I fail to see any relevance to the specifics of the current situation.
>
> > I was thinking specifically of Michelle Dawson's role in her own
> > situation(s).
>
> Her situation(s) and in particular your little tiff with her have no
> relevance whatsoever to whether ASAN is an ethical organization or
> whether Ari is a suitable representative for autistic people.
>
> And frankly, I fail to see the relevance of the above to Michelle or to
> your little tiff either.
I was pulling it out to be a bit more general, Bob, and I wasn't even
*thinking* about my flounce when I said that. I have seen *many*
instances of precisely what I described happen with Michelle, and even
when people (not just me, *people* as in many other people) explain
what they mean, she refuses to accept the possibility that language is
not precise and sometimes two different phrases really can mean the
same (or nearly the same) thing.
Looking back at the paragraph in question, I can see how the two got
misaligned. That is totally my fault. Sometimes I link two completely
separate ideas in one paragraph because that's how my brain is working
at the moment. The first sentence of the paragraph should have been
separate from the rest, and the first part of the second sentence
shouldn't have even *been* there.
-Janna
Rich Ulrich
<bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Janna wrote:
>
>> On May 16, 2:51 pm, Bob Badour <bbad...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Janna wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 16, 10:26 am, Bob Badour <bbad...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
[snip, a bunch]
>>
>>
>> My theory is that it hasn't been resolved yet because we have a bunch
>> of autistic people holding tenaciously onto the idea that they are
>> right and a bunch of other autistic people holding tenaciously onto
>> the idea that *they* are right, and some others who are blinking and
>> looking around wondering what the hell is going on. It's being held
>> onto and not being resolved *because everyone involved is autistic*.
>> Another group would have found a solution long ago, because they
>> wouldn't be as likely to get stuck on the "I'm right and you're wrong"
>> train.
>
>Except your position is entirely counterfactual. History is replete with
>NT institutions undergoing such conflicts for decades and even centuries.
"Counterfactual" is not a good word for it.
Is Bob saying that "I'm right and you're wrong" is *not*
stronger among high-functioning autistics? - Recognizing this
problem for autistics seems common-sensical. That is one of
the central behaviors in an internet group that led me to become
interested in Aspergers and autism. Bob's noting that NTs have
the same problem, in some other circumstances, is hardly
"counterfactual."
I would accept that *some* autistics are aware of the tendency,
and therefore could have educated themselves to show even
more openness than you find in most NTs. Even for them, though,
it could be a constant challenge to keep from assuming "special
knowledge" when it comes to discussing "autism" in particular.
The Aspie-type that I ran into was both highly intelligent and very
logical, so that he very often *was* right. That did not keep
him from being arrogantly and weirdly wrong, on the multiple
occasions where he actually was wrong. (Bob does not like
to hear negative commentary of this sort. He might still have
me kill-filed from the last time that I discussed anything.)
[snip, rest]
--
Rich Ulrich
astri
> My theory is that it hasn't been resolved yet because we have a bunch
> of autistic people holding tenaciously onto the idea that they are
> right and a bunch of other autistic people holding tenaciously onto
> the idea that *they* are right, and some others who are blinking and
> looking around wondering what the hell is going on. It's being held
> onto and not being resolved *because everyone involved is autistic*.
> Another group would have found a solution long ago, because they
> wouldn't be as likely to get stuck on the "I'm right and you're
> wrong" train.
are you suggesting here that the folks from alt.health.misc are all
autistic and that's why they are holding tenaciously onto the idea that
they are right soo the argument never gets resolved?
-- astri
======================
to email send to astri
======================
at volcano dot org
======================
astri
> There is a group that would not have found a solution long ago and
> that group is delusional people (as in schizophrenics). Differential
> diagnosis between adult autistics and schizophrenics needs properly
> experienced psychiatrists but is a matter that is not given adequate
> attention in internet discussions. I have extensive personal
> experience with both adult autistics and schizophrenics and based on
> outward symptoms I cannot tell the difference. I understand the
> differential diagnosis made by properly experienced psychiatrists is
> largely based on age of onset, with autism having an early childhood
> age of onset, as is clear in my own situation of language delay
> (which I know is not a symptom of Asperger's Syndrome under DSM-IV,
> soon to be replaced by DSM-V), social interaction etc.
there are multiple diagnostic symptoms experienced by schizophrenics
that are not experienced by autistics. you are entirely incorrect in
everything here except the facts that properly trained professional
need to make an official diagnosis, and the fact that you personally
have been unable to tell the difference.
astri
> On May 16, 10:31 pm, Arthur Golden <golden.art...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 17, 5:04 am, Janna <janna.hos...@gmail.com> wrote: [snip]
>>> My theory is that it hasn't been resolved yet because we have a
>>> bunch of autistic people holding tenaciously onto the idea that
>>> they are right and a bunch of other autistic people holding
>>> tenaciously onto the idea that *they* are right, and some others
>>> who are blinking and looking around wondering what the hell is
>>> going on. It's being held onto and not being resolved *because
>>> everyone involved is autistic*. Another group would have found a
>>> solution long ago, because they wouldn't be as likely to get stuck
>>> on the "I'm right and you're wrong" train.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> There is a group that would not have found a solution long ago and
>
> I said *another* group, not *any other* group.
your meaning would have been clearer if you had said "another group
may" rather than "another group would"
Bob Badour
Um, so, you are saying that plenty of other groups experience the same
sort of phenomena and it has nothing to do with autism, but because we
are autistic, it must be because of that.
Without specific evidence to support your conclusion, I find the
conclusion dismissive and prejudicial.
<irrelevancies about someone not even involved with ASAN snipped>
Arak
> > Another group would have found a solution long ago, because they
> > wouldn't be as likely to get stuck on the "I'm right and you're
> > wrong" train.
>
> are you suggesting here that the folks from alt.health.misc are all
> autistic and that's why they are holding tenaciously onto the idea that
> they are right soo the argument never gets resolved?
>
> -- astri
I think this is one of the problems with humanity in general: when a
person gets it in his or her head that he or she is "right", then
naturally, everyone else must be "wrong".
It doesn't matter if that person is autistic, or devoutly religious,
or a scientist or any other type of person. All people seem to do
this... at least this is what I have noticed in my own experience with
all sorts of people throughout my life (and even me!). I'm sure I've
seen it mentioned in some of the psych courses I'm taking right now.
People don't like to be wrong. They make assumptions. They want to be
right. They argue... a lot.
Arguments can be resolved when people stop and think logically for a
moment about what someone else is saying (I mean really stop and think
without prejudice when something is said). It might also help if
people were more direct in their speech.
Anyway, in my opinion, this is a "human nature" thing and we'd
probably have world peace or something if people got over this way of
thinking and opened their minds to other possibilities.
Until then, we've got the political messes, the people trying to
convert others, those who negate everything others say and on and on
and on...
Just my thoughts and none of this is meant to be fact. Just another
angle of looking at things. (I'm an INTJ - the more viewpoints the
better!)
Arak /|\
Janna
*sigh*
I don't know if I want to bother trying to explain what I meant at
this point. Hell, I wasn't even trying to explain *myself*, I was
trying to explain *Aquarian Monkey*!
I am saying that plenty of other groups experience the same sort of
phenomena, but I am positing the *theory* that perhaps it hasn't been
resolved yet because the people involved are autistic. Which isn't
that much of a stretch, especially since the conflict really should
have been over and done with *long ago*.
And now I am done. I have explained and tried to clarify and if you
still don't get it and if you are still going to accuse me of things I
don't think and didn't say, well. Have fun with that.
-Janna
Janna
Probably.
-Janna
Bob Badour
Oh, I get it. I just disagree entirely and find your position both
dismissive and prejudicial. Either you care about my perspective on that
or you don't. ::shrug::
Janna
> > My theory is that it hasn't been resolved yet because we have a bunch
> > of autistic people holding tenaciously onto the idea that they are
> > right and a bunch of other autistic people holding tenaciously onto
> > the idea that *they* are right, and some others who are blinking and
> > looking around wondering what the hell is going on. It's being held
> > onto and not being resolved *because everyone involved is autistic*.
> > Another group would have found a solution long ago, because they
> > wouldn't be as likely to get stuck on the "I'm right and you're
> > wrong" train.
>
> are you suggesting here that the folks from alt.health.misc are all
> autistic and that's why they are holding tenaciously onto the idea that
> they are right soo the argument never gets resolved?
What Arak said.
I do think that there is an element of hyper-stubbornness that can be
exacerbated with autistic people, though. Maybe that's just been my
bad luck in terms of who I've encountered, I don't know.
The whole issue with ASAN really should have been dealt with
immediately, and it wasn't. Now, maybe I'm wrong and the reasons have
nothing to do with opposing viewpoints. But I would not be surprised
if at least part of the problem can be attributed to the fact that the
people involved are autistic. Maybe they didn't think they needed a
policy about it; maybe they don't think they did anything wrong; maybe
they think the criticism is unwarranted. Whatever the case, the
silence of ASAN leadership (as in, board members) ends up making it
seem like they don't care. I would prefer an open debate to what's
going on right now, which is rather one-sided. There hasn't been a
public official statement from ASAN at all so far as I know, and that
"just ain't right."
-Janna
Bob Badour
> On May 17, 11:28 am, astri <as...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 16 May 2010, Janna wrote:
>>
>>>My theory is that it hasn't been resolved yet because we have a bunch
>>>of autistic people holding tenaciously onto the idea that they are
>>>right and a bunch of other autistic people holding tenaciously onto
>>>the idea that *they* are right, and some others who are blinking and
>>>looking around wondering what the hell is going on. It's being held
>>>onto and not being resolved *because everyone involved is autistic*.
>>>Another group would have found a solution long ago, because they
>>>wouldn't be as likely to get stuck on the "I'm right and you're
>>>wrong" train.
>>
>>are you suggesting here that the folks from alt.health.misc are all
>>autistic and that's why they are holding tenaciously onto the idea that
>>they are right soo the argument never gets resolved?
>
> What Arak said.
>
> I do think that there is an element of hyper-stubbornness that can be
> exacerbated with autistic people, though.
But that's not dismissive of autistics or prejudicial. Right? ::rolls eyes::
Janna
Considering the fact that I think ASAN needs to step up and make a
statement and clarify their policy, I think your attacks on me are a
bit ridiculous.
Also, considering the fact that the sentence you quoted was followed
immediately by the statement that I may well have had the bad luck to
encounter a lot of autistic people who prove that theory, your comment
makes no sense because *I said I might not be right*.
Stop distracting yourself from what your original purpose was supposed
to be with this thread. I'm not the enemy. I'm not totally clear on
who the enemy actually is at the moment, but I know it's not me.
Also, what exactly about my statement that "there is an element of
hyper-stubbornness that can be exacerbated with autistic people" is
dismissive of anyone? I didn't say that stubborn people should be
ignored, I didn't say that their opinions don't matter, none of that.
*None of it.* I also specifically said that it *can be* exacerbated,
not that it *is* exacerbated. Which implies that it isn't always, and
in fact may not actually be all that common - particularly when taken
*in context* with the following sentence, which notes that I may
simply have run into a lot of especially stubborn autistic people over
the years. I never said I wasn't willing to proven wrong, either. I'm
always open to alternative points of view, but I prefer those
alternatives be presented in a friendly, respectful, non-
confrontational manner, *especially* when I haven't done anything to
warrant such treatment. If I've misspoken, tell me so. But don't do it
by calling me names or implying that I had malicious intent with
whatever it was I said that offended you.
I try to respect everyone, and it would be nice if people (in general)
would respond in kind. Sometimes I make mistakes. I am human, and I
have ADHD. I'm going to say stuff without thinking it through first.
That's just how it is. So if I mess up, give me the benefit of the
doubt, show me *how* what I said is wrong, and let me figure out how
to say it better.
-Janna
Aquarian Monkey
That is *exactly* what I was trying to say.
...and don't worry about Bob's last statement. I get where he is
coming from and I don't take offense.
Aquarian Monkey
Boy...a lot happened since Janna clarified what I was trying to say
(and I am a "she" :) ).
Bob, I feel you are judging me as a result of offering my opinion, and
I really don't understand why.
In particular, I'm not sure how you feel I am being prejudicial,
dismissive, or judgmental when it comes to autistics. Especially since
we have known each other for years now, and I think you know me to be
none of the above. I don't think it's fair that you took one statement
and interpreted it without the context of who you know me to be. I
could take many single statements you make and judge you to be an ass,
but I know you are not an ass, so I interpret the things you say in
the context of who I know you to be.
My difficulty explaining my view came from many places, but cognitive
dissonance is not one of them. There is no disparity between my values
and my statements. Part of the problem is I don't initially
conceptualize things verbally (at least not in a coherent way), so
sometimes it is hard for me to put what I am thinking into words that
1) represent the totality of what I am thinking and 2) will make sense
to other people. Another level of discomfort came because I realized
that some people may not like to hear what I had to say, and I was
trying to find the "most palatable" way of saying it. The truth is, to
outsiders who don't understand, I am sure a lot of what is being
written in public forums on the internet makes some people/groups
appear to be arrogant and unwilling to hear someone else's point of
view. Not attractive characteristics. I don't see it that way. I
don't think it is due to arrogance, nor simple unwillingness to
listen. I think it is due to wiring. It just *is*. So, I am avoiding
the "judgment" of arrogance or whatever negative conclusions others
might come to and instead see it from a neutral place.
If you look back at what I originally said, I said I found it to be
sad because if you don't understand about autism, it just looks like
there is a lot of reason to discredit autistics. I am not dismissing
anyone or judging anyone. Simply lamenting the fact that others will.
And will do so only because of ignorance.
Afterall, I have two kids who's futures are being shaped right now,
not just by the things I do, but also by how the autistic community
shifts and changes. It's not like I am a disinterested bystander in
this, even though I myself am AC and not autistic.
Arthur Golden
[snip]
> there are multiple diagnostic symptoms experienced by schizophrenics
> that are not experienced by autistics.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would detail for me the "multiple
diagnostic symptoms experienced by schizophrenics that are not
experienced by autistics" so I could be corrected. Thank you for
helping me to improve myself.
Arthur Golden
Bob Badour
While I am sure astri can and will speak for herself, I would offer
psychotic hallucination as a start for the list of symptoms experienced
Aquarian Monkey
delusions of persecution
thought insertion
thought withdrawal
impaired reality testing
catatonia
disorganized speech
ideas of reference
delusions related to self (believing you are Satan, or Christ, or a
professional football player of another race--yes I encountered that
once. The kid almost fell out of his chair when we handed him a mirror
and a white man was looking back at him)
These are just the ones that come to mind in the first few seconds of
thought.
Arthur Golden
initially raises three issues in my mind:
1. Some of these symptoms are experienced by some autistics, such as
catatonia.
2. Not all schizophenics experience all or even any of these symptoms
not experienced by autistics and it is these schizophrenics I meant
that I could not distinguish from adult autistics, with the only
difference being age of onset as I specifically mentioned in my
original message. Alternatively, especially over the internet, it may
not be so easy for others to pick up these additional symptoms or the
people stating they are autistics are able to hide these additional
symptoms, whether intentionally or subconsciously.
3. Some people who state they are autistics are experiencing some of
these symptoms, such as "delusions of persecution," which may explain
the reason why this disagreement is ongoing. That is my main point
about differential diagnosis. These people are often very convincing
that their delusions of persecution are real and therefore are
accepted as autistics when they more properly should have a diagnosis
of schizophrenia (which of course can only be determined by a properly
experienced psychiatrist). In this ASAN matter, I have yet to see
enough verifiable information to convince me that there is adequate
evidence to prove that the matter is real and not a delusion of
persecution. As corroborating evidence, I do have enough information
about another matter involving Ms. Michelle Dawson to convince me that
the other matter is not real and instead is a delusion of
persecution. Ms. Michelle Dawson is a highly influential person and I
am concerned that her strongly stated position about ASAN may be based
on delusions of persecution and have influenced the opinion of many
other people including autistics whose diagnosis is likely correct.
Although I think ASAN is overall a very good organization, I am not
stating it is perfect (no human organization is perfect). So others
do have legitimate concerns about ASAN that should be addressed, but
there are reasons, which I will try to explain in another message, why
Ari Ne'eman has been restrained in dealing with this matter.
Arthur Golden
> thought.-
Aquarian Monkey
Arthur, please explain your statement that some autistics experience
catatonia. When I googled "autism and catatonia" I got the message
"Your search for autism and catatonia did not match with any Web
results" I think this is the first time I ever got this message
without having misspelled something. I would certainly think that if
an autistic had catatonia, it would be the result of another issue,
not autism. And I can certainly understand how someone might mistake
the negative signs of schizophrenia for autism, but I think it would
be a huge stretch to associate the positive signs of schizophrenia
with autism.
I have not been following the issues surrounding Ms. Dawson, so I am
in no position to comment on your comments regarding her. But I do
stand by my statement that experiencing delusions of persecution is a
sign/symptom of mental illness, not autism. However, just because
someone wrongfully believes that others are persecuting them, that--in
and of itself--is certainly not grounds for a diagnosis of
schizophrenia. Many people believe things that are not true. It
doesn't mean they have a mental illness. You have to look at the whole
picture.
Bob Badour
Art,
I saw the same things you did, and I came to entirely different
conclusions. I find your attempt at character assassination unbecoming,
uncalled for, and inappropriate.
Arthur Golden
Astri - Also you only partially quote me that I "personally have been
unable to tell the difference" instead of my full quote that "based on
outward symptoms I cannot tell the difference." Although you have not
detailed the symptoms you meant, the symptoms listed by others all
seem to be inward symptoms and not outward. I realize my language may
not have been too clear, but I hope that I have clarified my statement
of nearly a day ago. Even in that short time, I forgot my inclusion
of the keyword "outward" to explain the type of symptoms.
Arthur Golden
Bob Badour
I am not judging you. I am judging what you wrote, and what you wrote is
dismissive, judgmental, and prejudicial. To your favour, when you wrote
it, you expressed some unease about it--and rightly so.
What you wrote explicitly stated that the issue of ASAN's ethical
behaviour and whether ASAN truly represents autistics is not that big a
deal when you understand we are all autistic. That's like saying women's
issues are not that big a deal when you understand women just get
hysterical sometimes, and gay rights issues are not that big a deal when
you understand how flighty gays really are.
The issues I have with ASAN are substantive--as substantive as the
issues the people of the USA had with Richard Nixon, as substantive as
the issues Malcolm X had with Elijah Muhammad when he left the Nation of
Islam, as substantive as the issues many people once had with Tammany Hall.
Autistics need a Boss Tweed pretending to represent our interests like
we each need a second anus.
I know you mean well. I know you meant well when you wrote what you
wrote. It's clear to me that some nagging little voice was telling you
what you wrote was wrong and that's why you felt some unease over it.
I have faith in you. I trust that, when you really look at this from the
autistic perspective, the nagging little voice will come out into the
fore and you will eventually say: "Yeah, you know what... That was kinda
dismissive, wasn't it?"
> In particular, I'm not sure how you feel I am being prejudicial,
> dismissive, or judgmental when it comes to autistics.
It's got nothing to do with feelings. It is a plain and simple
observation about what you wrote.
> Another level of discomfort came because I realized
> that some people may not like to hear what I had to say, and I was
> trying to find the "most palatable" way of saying it.
I can think of no palatable way to dismiss people. When you know some
people will dislike what you have to say, that's a clue to get very
clear on what you want to say and why--before you say it. Many times
people dislike what someone says because it is both wrong and harmful.
> The truth is, to
> outsiders who don't understand, I am sure a lot of what is being
> written in public forums on the internet makes some people/groups
> appear to be arrogant and unwilling to hear someone else's point of
> view. Not attractive characteristics. I don't see it that way. I
> don't think it is due to arrogance, nor simple unwillingness to
> listen. I think it is due to wiring. It just *is*. So, I am avoiding
> the "judgment" of arrogance or whatever negative conclusions others
> might come to and instead see it from a neutral place.
So, what you are saying is the stereotype is true but because you know
why it's true that makes it alright?!? Bullshit.
The stereotype that autistics are closeminded is false. Autistics are
the most open-minded group of people I have ever met. And the autistics
who get accused of "stubbornness" and "closed-mindedness" are exactly
the most open-minded among us.
They are precisely the most empirical among us and the ones who put the
most effort into seeking out the facts before forming opinions. Because
those opinions are based on sound reasoning and hard facts, they are the
least swayed by emotional appeals, sophist rhetoric and social pressure.
That doesn't make them stubborn and closed-minded, that makes them
intelligent and informed.
To change their minds doesn't even require persuasion. Present a missing
fact, correct a misinterpretation or a logical flaw, and they will
persuade themselves.
> If you look back at what I originally said, I said I found it to be
> sad because if you don't understand about autism, it just looks like
> there is a lot of reason to discredit autistics. I am not dismissing
> anyone or judging anyone. Simply lamenting the fact that others will.
> And will do so only because of ignorance.
And if you look back, you will see I simply disagreed with what you
said. There is nothing sad about us holding our would-be representatives
to account.
> Afterall, I have two kids who's futures are being shaped right now,
> not just by the things I do, but also by how the autistic community
> shifts and changes. It's not like I am a disinterested bystander in
> this, even though I myself am AC and not autistic.
I ask that you make a real effort to see what I wrote above from an
autistic perspective. You will make a much more effective advocate for
your children if you refuse to dismiss or to diminish their interests
because of their autism and if you refuse to allow anyone else to.
Bob Badour
> On May 17, 3:49 pm, Bob Badour <bbad...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Janna wrote:
>>
>>>On May 17, 11:28 am, astri <as...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Sun, 16 May 2010, Janna wrote:
>>
>>>>>My theory is that it hasn't been resolved yet because we have a bunch
>>>>>of autistic people holding tenaciously onto the idea that they are
>>>>>right and a bunch of other autistic people holding tenaciously onto
>>>>>the idea that *they* are right, and some others who are blinking and
>>>>>looking around wondering what the hell is going on. It's being held
>>>>>onto and not being resolved *because everyone involved is autistic*.
>>>>>Another group would have found a solution long ago, because they
>>>>>wouldn't be as likely to get stuck on the "I'm right and you're
>>>>>wrong" train. are you suggesting here that the folks from alt.health.misc are all
>>>>autistic and that's why they are holding tenaciously onto the idea that
>>>>they are right soo the argument never gets resolved?
>>
>>>What Arak said.
>>
>>>I do think that there is an element of hyper-stubbornness that can be
>>>exacerbated with autistic people, though.
>>
>>But that's not dismissive of autistics or prejudicial. Right? ::rolls eyes::
>
> Considering the fact that I think ASAN needs to step up and make a
> statement and clarify their policy, I think your attacks on me are a
> bit ridiculous.
I am attacking you by pointing out your dismissals are dismissive.
R-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght.
> Also, considering the fact that the sentence you quoted was followed
> immediately by the statement that I may well have had the bad luck to
> encounter a lot of autistic people who prove that theory, your comment
> makes no sense because *I said I might not be right*.
"Women are money-grubbing harpies. I might not be right. I may well have
just had the bad luck to encounter a lot of uber-bitches." Am I expected
to believe that quote is anything but misogynist?
> Stop distracting yourself from what your original purpose was supposed
> to be with this thread. I'm not the enemy. I'm not totally clear on
> who the enemy actually is at the moment, but I know it's not me.
Prejudice is the enemy, and it is an insidious enemy. I will fight it
whereever and whenever I find it: in myself, in my friends, whereever.
> Also, what exactly about my statement that "there is an element of
> hyper-stubbornness that can be exacerbated with autistic people" is
> dismissive of anyone? I didn't say that stubborn people should be
> ignored, I didn't say that their opinions don't matter, none of that.
> *None of it.*
First, the stereotype is false. Your statement is false. Second, the
stereotype is harmful. Third, the stereotype carries along with it a lot
of baggage one never needs to state explicitly. That is the nature of
stereotypes and of prejudice.
> If I've misspoken, tell me so.
I did. You responded by denying it, by saying I'm not nice, and by
writing increasingly dismissive and prejudicial statements.
> But don't do it
> by calling me names or implying that I had malicious intent with
> whatever it was I said that offended you.
I never called you any name, and I said nothing whatsoever about your
intent--malicious or otherwise. In point of fact, I'm not the one who is
offended: you are.
> I try to respect everyone, and it would be nice if people (in general)
> would respond in kind.
Then show me the respect of not dismissing me or the issues I find
import, of not repeating false and harmful stereotypes about me, and of
not projecting your emotional foibles onto me.
> Sometimes I make mistakes. I am human, and I
> have ADHD. I'm going to say stuff without thinking it through first.
> That's just how it is. So if I mess up, give me the benefit of the
> doubt, show me *how* what I said is wrong, and let me figure out how
> to say it better.
I did that already. Thus far, you have not reacted very well to it.
Janna
> Janna wrote:
*snippage of lots of arguing that is beginning to feel rather
pointless*
> > Sometimes I make mistakes. I am human, and I
> > have ADHD. I'm going to say stuff without thinking it through first.
> > That's just how it is. So if I mess up, give me the benefit of the
> > doubt, show me *how* what I said is wrong, and let me figure out how
> > to say it better.
>
> I did that already. Thus far, you have not reacted very well to it.
I have gone back and re-read our initial exchange. I should have
stepped aside after my first post, because most of what I said wasn't
even about what I actually think, it was trying to explain someone
else's statements in a manner that might make more sense than they did
initially. Things devolved fairly quickly after that as I began to
defend the position; I guess I felt some kind of ownership of it after
making that first post.
I disagree that your posts were respectful, but that is not important;
what matters is the point you were trying to make.
I have known autistic people who believe what they read and cannot be
dissuaded from those beliefs, no matter how far-fetched and non-
empirical they are. They get rather loud and obnoxious about it, too,
usually because whatever the subject is, it's their perseveration. So
even if they are factually *incorrect*, they know they are the
experts, and they will tell you so in no uncertain terms, even after
you tell them you don't want to talk about it anymore.
I have also known autistic people who are very open-minded and willing
to explore the possibility that what they thought they knew may
actually be false. These people tend to take the time to listen to
others, and they seem very interested in understanding how people
think and why people behave as they do.
And yes, I have known non-autistic people who fit into both of these
categories, as well. Unfortunately, my experience has been that non-
autistic people in the former category are often better able to let
things go, agree to disagree, and either resolve or at least respect
the difference of opinion (or whatever) than autistic people in that
same category.
These experiences are what inform my stance that *part* of the reason
the ASAN issue has not yet been resolved is that those involved are
autistic. I am sure that is not the *only* reason, but since ASAN
hasn't bothered to speak up about it in any official manner, I have
absolutely no idea what other reasons there might be for this lack of
resolution.
In addition, believing that part of the reason for the lack of
resolution has to do with the involvement of autistic individuals *in
no way* dismisses the problem as being insignificant. In fact, I think
that it is incredibly important that ASAN do something about it, and
that it is abysmal that things have not yet been resolved. I think
that the *possibility* that this issue has been exacerbated by
autistic traits displayed by some (probably not all) of those involved
is a very strong reason for everyone involved to make more of an
effort to find an agreeable solution and figure out how to get
everyone on the same page. It's fairly obvious (to me, at least) that
at the moment there is not a lot of understanding going on, there is a
lot of confusion, there are feelings of betrayal, and there is
definitely a stronger need for ASAN to do something than there is for
anyone else to do something.
If I have said something objectionable, please offer *concrete*
reasons as to why it is objectionable. I would very much appreciate
sources, as well.
-Janna
Arthur Golden
[snip]
> Arthur, please explain your statement that some autistics experience
> catatonia. When I googled "autism and catatonia" I got the message
> "Your search for autism and catatonia did not match with any Web
> results" I think this is the first time I ever got this message
> without having misspelled something. I would certainly think that if
> an autistic had catatonia, it would be the result of another issue,
> not autism. And I can certainly understand how someone might mistake
> the negative signs of schizophrenia for autism, but I think it would
> be a huge stretch to associate the positive signs of schizophrenia
> with autism.
When I googled "autism and catatonia" in quotes I got 92 hits and
without quotes I got 562 hits. I do not understand what happened
during your google search. In August 2008 I spent many hours of
internet researching "autism and catatonia" on the internet in
response to TMoB message #8167 in which Michelle Dawson had written
"there's recently been a lot of published research about catatonia and
autism" and indeed I found there was. I know from my actual internet
research which I just quickly checked that some of this scientific
research clearly tied the catatonia into autism itself and not as the
result of another issue. Now I have to pay attention to a number of
critical urgent matters and I will not have time to respond to any
other comments on this thread for the next couple of days or so.
Arthur Golden
astri
here you go, although i'm sure you are quite capable of conducting a
google search for yourself.
http://www.schizophrenia.com/diag.php#common
Symptoms of Schizophrenia
Schizophrenia is characterized by profound disruption in cognition and
emotion, affecting the most fundamental human attributes: language,
thought, perception, affect, and sense of self. The array of symptoms,
while wide ranging, frequently includes psychotic manifestations, such
as hearing internal voices or experiencing other sensations not
connected to an obvious source (hallucinations) and assigning unusual
significance or meaning to normal events or holding fixed false
personal beliefs (delusions). No single symptom is definitive for
diagnosis; rather, the diagnosis encompasses a pattern of signs and
symptoms, in conjunction with impaired occupational or social
functioning (Source: DSM-IV -available for purchase on Amazon.com
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR).
Symptoms are typically divided into positive and negative symptoms
because of their impact on diagnosis and treatment. Positive symptoms
are those that appear to reflect an excess or distortion of normal
functions. The diagnosis of schizophrenia, according to DSM-IV,
requires at least 1-month duration of two or more positive symptoms,
unless hallucinations or delusions are especially bizarre, in which
case one alone suffices for diagnosis. Negative symptoms are those that
appear to reflect a diminution or loss of normal functions. These often
persist in the lives of people with schizophrenia during periods of low
(or absent) positive symptoms. Negative symptoms are difficult to
evaluate because they are not as grossly abnormal as positives ones and
may be caused by a variety of other factors as well (e.g., as an
adaptation to a persecutory delusion). However, advancements in
diagnostic assessment tools are being made.
Diagnosis is complicated by early treatment of schizophrenia?s positive
symptoms. Antipsychotic medications, particularly the traditional ones,
often produce side effects that closely resemble the negative symptoms
of affective flattening and avolition. In addition, other negative
symptoms are sometimes present in schizophrenia but not often enough to
satisfy diagnostic criteria (DSM-IV): loss of usual interests or
pleasures (anhedonia); disturbances of sleep and eating; dysphoric mood
(depressed, anxious, irritable, or angry mood); and difficulty
concentrating or focusing attention.
Currently, discussion is ongoing within the field regarding the need
for a third category of symptoms for diagnosis: disorganized symptoms.
Disorganized symptoms include thought disorder, confusion,
disorientation, and memory problems. While they are listed by DSM-IV as
common in schizophrenia?especially during exacerbations of positive or
negative symptoms (DSM-IV)?they do not yet constitute a formal new
category of symptoms. Some researchers think that a new category is not
warranted because disorganized symptoms may instead reflect an
underlying dysfunction common to several psychotic disorders, rather
than being unique to schizophrenia.
Diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia (USA criteria)
1. Characteristic Schizophrenia symptoms:
Two (or more) of the following, each present for a significant
portion of time during a 1-month period (or less if successfully
treated):
1. Delusions - false beliefs strongly held in spite of
invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: for
example,
1. Paranoid delusions, or delusions of persecution, for
example believing that people are "out to get" you, or the thought that
people are doing things when there is no external evidence that such
things are taking place.
2. Delusions of reference - when things in the
environment seem to be directly related to you even though they are
not. For example it may seem as if people are talking about you or
special personal messages are being communicated to you through the TV,
radio, or other media.
3. Somatic Delusions are false beliefs about your body -
for example that a terrible physical illness exists or that something
foreign is inside or passing through your body.
4. Delusions of grandeur - for example when you believe
that you are very special or have special powers or abilities. An
example of a grandiouse delusion is thinking you are a famous rock
star.
2. Hallucinations - Hallucinations can take a number of
different forms - they can be:
1. Visual (seeing things that are not there or that
other people cannot see),
2. Auditory (hearing voices that other people can't
hear,
3. Tactile (feeling things that other people don't feel
or something touching your skin that isn't there.)
4. Olfactory (smelling things that other people cannot
smell, or not smelling the same thing that other people do smell)
5. Gustatory experiences (tasting things that isn't
there)
3. Disorganized speech (e.g., frequent derailment or
incoherence) - these are also called "word salads". Ongoing disjointed
or rambling monologues - in which a person seems to talking to
himself/herself or imagined people or voices.
4. Grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior (An abnormal
condition variously characterized by stupor/innactivity, mania, and
either rigidity or extreme flexibility of the limbs).
5. "Negative" symptoms of Schizophrenia , these symptoms are
the lack of important abilities. Some of these include:
Alogia, or poverty of speech, is the lessening of speech
fluency and productivity, thought to reflect slowing or blocked
thoughts, and often manifested as short, empty replies to questions.
Affective flattening is the reduction in the range and
intensity of emotional expression, including facial expression, voice
tone, eye contact (person seems to stare, doesn't maintain eye contact
in a normal process), and is not able to interpret body language nor
use appropriate body language.
Avolition is the reduction, difficulty, or inability to
initiate and persist in goal-directed behavior; it is often mistaken
for apparent disinterest. (examples of avolition include: no longer
interested in going out and meeting with friends, no longer interested
in activities that the person used to show enthusiasm for, no longer
interested in much of anything, sitting in the house for many hours a
day doing nothing.)
A short summary of a list of negative symptoms are:
1. lack of emotion - the inability to enjoy regular
activities (visiting with friends, etc.) as much as before
2. Low energy - the person tends to sit around and sleep
much more than normal
3. lack of interest in life, low motivation
4. Affective flattening - a blank, blunted facial
expression or less lively facial movements, flat voice (lack of normal
intonations and variance) or physical movements.
5. Alogia (difficulty or inability to speak)
6. Inappropriate social skills or lack of interest or
ability to socialize with other people
7. Inability to make friends or keep friends, or not
caring to have friends
8. Social isolation - person spends most of the day
alone or only with close family
Note: Only one Criterion A symptom is required if
delusions are bizarre or hallucinations consist of a voice keeping up a
running commentary on the person?s behavior or thoughts, or two or more
voices conversing with each other.
Cognitive Symptoms of Schizophrenia
Cognitive symptoms refer to the difficulties with concentration
and memory. These can include:
1. disorganized thinking
2. slow thinking
3. difficulty understanding
4. poor concentration
5. poor memory
6. difficulty expressing thoughts
7. difficulty integrating thoughts, feelings and behavior
2. Social/occupational dysfunction: For a significant portion of the
time since the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of
functioning such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care are
markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset (or when the onset
is in childhood or adolescence, failure to achieve expected level of
interpersonal, academic, or occupational achievement).
3. Duration: Continuous signs of the disturbance persist for at
least 6 months. This 6-month period must include at least 1 month of
symptoms (or less if successfully treated) that meet Criterion A (i.e.,
active-phase symptoms) and may include periods of prodromal or residual
symptoms. During these prodromal or residual periods, the signs of the
disturbance may be manifested by only negative symptoms or two or more
symptoms listed in Criterion A present in an attenuated form (e.g., odd
beliefs, unusual perceptual experiences).
4. Schizoaffective and mood disorder exclusion: Schizoaffective
disorder and mood disorder with psychotic features have been ruled out
because either (1) no major depressive, manic, or mixed episodes have
occurred concurrently with the active-phase symptoms; or (2) if mood
episodes have occurred during active-phase symptoms, their total
duration has been brief relative to the duration of the active and
residual periods.
5. Substance/general medical condition exclusion: The disturbance is
not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a
drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition.
6. Relationship to a pervasive developmental disorder: If there is a
history of autistic disorder or another pervasive developmental
disorder, the additional diagnosis of schizophrenia is made only if
prominent delusions or hallucinations are also present for at least a
month (or less if successfully treated).
Source: US Surgeon General
Positive Symptoms of Schizophrenia
Delusions are firmly held erroneous beliefs due to distortions or
exaggerations of reasoning and/or misinterpretations of perceptions or
experiences. Delusions of being followed or watched are common, as are
beliefs that comments, radio or TV programs, etc., are directing
special messages directly to him/her.
Hallucinations are distortions or exaggerations of perception in any of
the senses, although auditory hallucinations (?hearing voices? within,
distinct from one?s own thoughts) are the most common, followed by
visual hallucinations.
Disorganized speech/thinking, also described as ?thought disorder? or
?loosening of associations,? is a key aspect of schizophrenia.
Disorganized thinking is usually assessed primarily based on the
person?s speech. Therefore, tangential, loosely associated, or
incoherent speech severe enough to substantially impair effective
communication is used as an indicator of thought disorder by the
DSM-IV.
Grossly disorganized behavior includes difficulty in goal-directed
behavior (leading to difficulties in activities in daily living),
unpredictable agitation or silliness, social disinhibition, or
behaviors that are bizarre to onlookers. Their purposelessness
distinguishes them from unusual behavior prompted by delusional
beliefs.
Catatonic behaviors are characterized by a marked decrease in reaction
to the immediate surrounding environment, sometimes taking the form of
motionless and apparent unawareness, rigid or bizarre postures, or
aimless excess motor activity.
Other symptoms sometimes present in schizophrenia but not often enough
to be definitional alone include affect inappropriate to the situation
or stimuli, unusual motor behavior (pacing, rocking),
depersonalization, derealization, and somatic preoccupations.
Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia
Affective flattening is the reduction in the range and intensity of
emotional expression, including facial expression, voice tone, eye
contact, and body language.
Alogia, or poverty of speech, is the lessening of speech fluency and
productivity, thought to reflect slowing or blocked thoughts, and often
manifested as short, empty replies to questions.
Avolition is the reduction, difficulty, or inability to initiate and
persist in goal-directed behavior; it is often mistaken for apparent
disinterest. (examples of avolition include: no longer interested in
going out and meeting with friends, no longer interested in activities
that the person used to show enthusiasm for, no longer interested in
much of anything, sitting in the house for many hours a day doing
nothing.)
Arthur Golden
> On Mon, 17 May 2010, Arthur Golden wrote:
> > On May 17, 8:36 pm, astri <as...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> there are multiple diagnostic symptoms experienced by schizophrenics
> >> that are not experienced by autistics.
> > [snip]
>
> > I would greatly appreciate it if you would detail for me the "multiple
> > diagnostic symptoms experienced by schizophrenics that are not
> > experienced by autistics" so I could be corrected. Thank you for
> > helping me to improve myself.
>
> here you go, although i'm sure you are quite capable of conducting a
> google search for yourself.
>
> http://www.schizophrenia.com/diag.php#common
>
> Symptoms of Schizophrenia
>
Uh, thanks for the google search of the " Symptoms of Schizophrenia"
that you are correct that I could have conducted for myself. But that
wasn't the question at all. The questions was, I repeat:
> > I would greatly appreciate it if you would detail for me the "multiple
> > diagnostic symptoms experienced by schizophrenics that are not
> > experienced by autistics"...
So what in the above is not experienced by autistics? And, my
original statement to which you responded was actually "based on
outward symptoms I cannot tell the difference." I should have
specified "outward" symptoms as I wrote in my original message.
Aren't most if not all of the above symptoms "inward" symptoms?
My original message from over a day ago included the sentence:
"Differential diagnosis between adult autistics and schizophrenics
needs properly
experienced psychiatrists but is a matter that is not given adequate
attention in internet discussions."
My point was meant to be about "differential diagnosis" between
schizophrenics and autistics. In this discussion, my main concern is
about "delusions of persecution" which are an outward symptom in that
such delusions are manifested by communication, although I realize it
is shown by obtaining evidence about what is actually happening.
Again, I really need to focus on other critical urgent matters for the
Alice
> Just my thoughts and none of this is meant to be fact. Just another
> angle of looking at things. (I'm an INTJ - the more viewpoints the
> better!)
>
> Arak /|\
>
>
>
ooo myers-briggs :)
i'm infp - which basically means i'm out of my mind *grin*
-alice
Aquarian Monkey
>
>
> i'm infp - which basically means i'm out of my mind *grin*
>
> -alice
Alice! My sister!
I have to admit I don't cross paths with another infp often!
Alice
Bob Badour
You've said nothing more objectionable than if someone concluded that
having met a woman who was a shrew, the shrew-like behaviour of women
was the cause of something. The source are your own words above.
If you have any direct evidence that an autistic trait of any specific
autistic has any relevance whatsoever to the problems with ASAN, I would
very much appreciate seeing your sources. Otherwise, you are making a
broad and unfounded generalization on the basis of bigotry and prejudice.
astri
> Uh, thanks for the google search of the " Symptoms of Schizophrenia"
> that you are correct that I could have conducted for myself. But
> that wasn't the question at all. The questions was, I repeat:
>
>>> I would greatly appreciate it if you would detail for me the
>>> "multiple diagnostic symptoms experienced by schizophrenics that
>>> are not experienced by autistics"...
okay, i'll play. deleting all shared symptoms and symptome dependent on
having a knowledge of life history, but not symptoms related to having
been acquainted with someone for a while in adulthood:
[if i have comments, they're in brackets. otherwise, this is all
quoted]
Symptoms of Schizophrenia
Schizophrenia is characterized by profound disruption in cognition and
emotion, affecting the most fundamental human attributes: thought,
perception, affect, and sense of self. The array of symptoms, while
wide ranging, frequently includes psychotic manifestations, such as
hearing internal voices or experiencing other sensations not connected
to an obvious source (hallucinations) and assigning unusual
significance or meaning to normal events or holding fixed false
personal beliefs (delusions).
loss of usual interests or pleasures (anhedonia)
[anhedonia in autistics is not a direct result of autism; when it
happens it is because of co-existing depression]
thought disorder, confusion, disorientation, and memory problems.
Delusions - false beliefs strongly held in spite of invalidating
evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: for example,
1. Paranoid delusions, or delusions of persecution, for
example believing that people are "out to get" you, or the thought that
people are doing things when there is no external evidence that such
things are taking place.
[autistics usually have external evidence to point to, although they
may be interpreting the evidence incorrectly due to social
misunderstandings]
2. Delusions of reference - when things in the
environment seem to be directly related to you even though they are
not. For example it may seem as if people are talking about you or
special personal messages are being communicated to you through the TV,
radio, or other media.
3. Somatic Delusions are false beliefs about your body -
for example that a terrible physical illness exists or that something
foreign is inside or passing through your body.
4. Delusions of grandeur - for example when you believe
that you are very special or have special powers or abilities. An
example of a grandiouse delusion is thinking you are a famous rock
star.
[autistics do not experience these unless they are also psychotic]
2. Hallucinations - Hallucinations can take a number of
different forms - they can be:
1. Visual (seeing things that are not there or that
other people cannot see),
2. Auditory (hearing voices that other people can't
hear,
3. Tactile (feeling things that other people don't feel
or something touching your skin that isn't there.)
4. Olfactory (smelling things that other people cannot
smell, or not smelling the same thing that other people do smell)
5. Gustatory experiences (tasting things that isn't
there)
[these are not the same as sensory sensitivities]
3. Disorganized speech (e.g., frequent derailment or
incoherence) - these are also called "word salads". Ongoing disjointed
or rambling monologues - in which a person seems to talking to
himself/herself or imagined people or voices.
[not the same as inability to get your thoughts out because you become
unable to speak due to stress; this is truly bizarre speech]
A short summary of a list of negative symptoms are:
1. lack of emotion - the inability to enjoy regular
activities (visiting with friends, etc.) as much as before
[not typical in autistics unless they are also depressed]
3. lack of interest in life, low motivation
[autistics are not disinterested on unmotivated, but motivation may be
towards different goals than nts]
Cognitive symptoms refer to the difficulties with concentration
and memory. These can include:
1. disorganized thinking
3. difficulty understanding
[in schizophrenia, this is unrelated to langauge development and not
dependent on social situation]
4. poor concentration
[autistics typically have excellent concentration if interested]
5. poor memory
6. Relationship to a pervasive developmental disorder: If there is a
history of autistic disorder or another pervasive developmental
disorder, the additional diagnosis of schizophrenia is made only if
prominent delusions or hallucinations are also present for at least a
month (or less if successfully treated).
[this last does recognize that, on the surface, the negative symptoms
may appear very similar to autism. notice i've deleted most of those.]
Source: US Surgeon General
[leaving in all the defiinitions]
Positive Symptoms of Schizophrenia
Delusions are firmly held erroneous beliefs due to distortions or
exaggerations of reasoning and/or misinterpretations of perceptions or
experiences. Delusions of being followed or watched are common, as are
beliefs that comments, radio or TV programs, etc., are directing
special messages directly to him/her.
Hallucinations are distortions or exaggerations of perception in any of
the senses, although auditory hallucinations (?hearing voices? within,
distinct from one?s own thoughts) are the most common, followed by
visual hallucinations.
Disorganized speech/thinking, also described as ?thought disorder? or
?loosening of associations,? is a key aspect of schizophrenia.
Disorganized thinking is usually assessed primarily based on the
person?s speech. Therefore, tangential, loosely associated, or
incoherent speech severe enough to substantially impair effective
communication is used as an indicator of thought disorder by the
DSM-IV.
Grossly disorganized behavior includes difficulty in goal-directed
behavior (leading to difficulties in activities in daily living),
unpredictable agitation or silliness, social disinhibition, or
behaviors that are bizarre to onlookers. Their purposelessness
distinguishes them from unusual behavior prompted by delusional
beliefs.
[these behaviors are much more disorganized than stimming]
Catatonic behaviors are characterized by a marked decrease in reaction
to the immediate surrounding environment, sometimes taking the form of
motionless and apparent unawareness, rigid or bizarre postures, or
aimless excess motor activity.
Other symptoms sometimes present in schizophrenia but not often enough
to be definitional alone include affect inappropriate to the situation
or stimuli, unusual motor behavior (pacing, rocking),
depersonalization, derealization, and somatic preoccupations.
Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia
Affective flattening is the reduction in the range and intensity of
emotional expression, including facial expression, voice tone, eye
contact, and body language.
Alogia, or poverty of speech, is the lessening of speech fluency and
productivity, thought to reflect slowing or blocked thoughts, and often
manifested as short, empty replies to questions.
Avolition is the reduction, difficulty, or inability to initiate and
persist in goal-directed behavior; it is often mistaken for apparent
disinterest. (examples of avolition include: no longer interested in
going out and meeting with friends, no longer interested in activities
that the person used to show enthusiasm for, no longer interested in
much of anything, sitting in the house for many hours a day doing
nothing.)
-- astri
Janna
Since I do not personally know the people involved in ASAN, I can't
provide the evidence you request. If you have evidence that the people
involved do not fit the theory I have proposed, please do share.
I do not think that your comparison is accurate, either, but I also
don't find it offensive. We make generalizations based on our
experiences. As I shared above, my experiences indicate that there are
at least two possible ways in which people approach differences of
opinion. Stating that one of those approaches might (not is, but
*might*) be a factor (not the only cause, but a contributing factor)
in an extended conflict is neither prejudiced nor bigoted.
My theory (and it has yet to be disproven on the basis of concrete
evidence) is that the people involved with ASAN - the ones who could
actually do something to fix the situation, by changing policy or
writing policy or making a press release, may well not be doing so
because they are fixed on the idea that they are right in their
decisions and actions, and either they have not been presented with
adequate empirical evidence to the contrary, or they are not able to
open themselves to the possibility that there might be a different way
of doing things.
As I said above, my *personal experience* indicates that autistic
individauls who have difficulty listening to others' points of view
tend to be the type of person who will not let go of their ideas, even
in the face of evidence that they are completely factually incorrect.
In other words, my personal experience indicates that, while autism is
not necessarily an indicator that an individual will be stubborn in
holding onto their ideas no matter what, it does seem to be an
indicator that an autistic individual who is stubborn about holding
onto their ideas no matter what may also be obnoxious and belligerent
about it.
In short:
People (in general) are sometimes really stubborn about things.
Some people (in general) have an easier time than others with seeing
other people's points of view and changing their opinions.
Continuing from there and applying it to autistic people:
Autistic people are sometimes really stubborn about things.
Some autistic people have an easier time than others with seeing other
people's points of view and changing their opinions.
And, my personal experience indicates:
Autistic people who are really stubborn about things and who have a
difficult time seeing other people's points of view and changing their
opinions tend to be obnoxious and/or belligerent about it.
Meanwhile, autistic people who are open to others' ideas and
experiences tend to be more willing to engage in discussion/proper
debate of an issue and more interested in finding common ground.
There are more combinations of attitudes and behaviour than just the
two I've listed here; my experience indicates that these are the two
most common.
If this has been studied and there is a published paper out there that
I should read, please do point me in that direction.
-Janna
Bob Badour
Women are shrews. Prove you are not a shrew.
Janna
That I don't think I can do, given the fact that I got mad at my
fiance this morning for suggesting we attempt to get our home a bit
tidier before the priest visits us tomorrow evening. So I could
conceivably be considered a shrew.
-Janna
Bob Badour
Women are money grubbing harpies. Prove you are not a money grubbing harpy.
Janna
Well, I'm a money-*spending* person. But when I got together with my
fiance, he didn't have a very good job, and for a long time I was the
one who had the better income. I don't know about a harpy. What do you
mean by the word?
-Janna
Bob Badour
The word harpy is defined in the dictionary. You haven't proved anything.
Janna
Aha. Harpy is another word for shrew (unless you're asking me to prove
that I'm not a mythological being, in which case I will have to bow
out of the discussion entirely because... well... I just will). Since
I've already said that I am a shrew, it stands to reason that I'm a
harpy, as well.
As for the money-grubbing part, I would say that the answer is no. I
am much more concerned with my fiance, my writing, my guinea pig, and
my cat than I am with money and its presence in my bank account.
So here you are only half-right.
I don't totally see the point of this exercise, though. I said
numerous times previously that my theory may be incorrect, and that I
am happy to be proven so through empirical evidence. I also pointed
out that my experience shows a couple of trends, and noted that those
trends could, in fact, be possible contributors to the situation with
ASAN. So far, I have seen no concrete evidence that my theory is
incorrect. I don't think this automatically means that I am right,
just that my theory hasn't been disproven yet. There's always the
possibility that it will.
-Janna
Bob Badour
Claiming it doesn't prove it.
> So here you are only half-right.
>
> I don't totally see the point of this exercise, though.
The key feature and the greatest danger of prejudice is it only applies
in the absence of evidence. The onus lies on the person making the broad
and potentially unfounded generalization to prove that it applies in a
specific case and not the other way around.
When I wrote: "Women are shrews. Prove you are not a shrew." My demand
was unfair.
First, I begged the question with the assertion "Women are shrews."
Specific instances of shrew-like women do not generalize to "Women are
shrews." To prove the assertion, I would have to prove there are no
women who are not shrews, which makes the assertion very questionable at
best (and, in fact, easily refuted.)
Second, by accepting a generalization without any specific evidence, I
have no basis for demanding evidence from anyone else. Thus, the demand
"Prove you are not a shrew" is not a fair demand assuming I accept
"Women are shrews" applies specifically to you in the absence of any
evidence.
Above, you tell us that some autistics are loud, obnoxious, unwilling to
let things go, unwilling to agree to disagree, unwilling to resolve
anything, and unwilling to respect differences of opinion. While you
refute your own generalization, you choose to conclude we autistics
haven't resolved this situation because we are confused,
uncomprehending, and feeling betrayed. For which, you offer no evidence
whatsoever because, in fact, no evidence of any of that exists in the
first place.
Previously, you claimed that autistics are hyper-stubborn (or at least
we exacerbate it in others), are less able or less willing to comprehend
opposing viewpoints, are less able or less willing to accept that other
people's ideas might be valid. You have claimed autistics tenaciously
hold to the idea that we are right apparently even in the face of
countering evidence.
All of the above are broad generalizations that are, in fact, unfounded.
Ironically, you have succeeded at demonstrating almosst all of those
behaviours yourself, which opens the very real possibility that you may
have even projected those traits onto the autistic people in whom you
perceived the traits in the first place.
When you demanded that I prove your bigoted and prejudicial statements
do not apply in the ASAN situation, your demand was unfair for exactly
the same reasons. You begged the question with a broad and unfounded
generalization, and then you demanded evidence when you are quite
willing to accept your unfounded generalizations in the absence of any
evidence.
You asserted a willingness to be proven wrong and openness to
alternative points of view. However, you proceeded to demonstrate
exactly the opposite. Actions speak louder than words.
Janna
I don't think I have, since I have not yet been given any information
to indicate that I am incorrect in my theory. I have, however, taken
great care in assuring that my recent posts do *not* make sweeping
generalizations. This is because I realized my error in my initial
posts.
I am not defending my theory. I'm not saying I'm right. I'm saying I
could be wrong. I'm saying I haven't yet been given any information
that would cause me to think that I am wrong. Every time I have tried
to clarify what I previously said, modified what I have said, given
evidence for my theory, or even stated outright that I could be wrong,
I have been told flat-out that I am wrong, with absolutely no reasons
offered for why I am wrong. This is *incredibly* frustrating, because
I really do want to understand what is wrong with pointing out that
SOMETIMES, SOME autistic people are really stubborn and get obnoxious
about it, and that when this happens it is MORE OF A PROBLEM than when
it happens in the general population.
As for the ASAN situation, given that we do not have all of the facts,
we are left to speculate. ASAN needs to step up and do the right
thing, as I have said *many* times. When I said that people were
confused and so on, I was indeed talking specifically about the ASAN
situation, but I was not meaning to imply that this state of confusion
was because the people involved are autistic; plenty of non-autistic
people are confused, too. I *meant* that people are confused because
of the communication breakdown, and I may have said something about
communication difficulties being a part of autism. That is all. I
would have to go back to re-read that post to know precisely what I
said, but it seems obvious to me at this point that you don't actually
care what I *meant*, just what you *think* I meant. Which are *not*
the same thing.
I am tired of the discussion at this point, and since we are going
nowhere (and not because I am being purposely obtuse) I suggest we
just give it up.
-Janna
Stephen Horne
<janna....@gmail.com> wrote:
>I don't think I have, since I have not yet been given any information
>to indicate that I am incorrect in my theory. I have, however, taken
>great care in assuring that my recent posts do *not* make sweeping
>generalizations. This is because I realized my error in my initial
>posts.
>
>I am not defending my theory. I'm not saying I'm right. I'm saying I
>could be wrong. I'm saying I haven't yet been given any information
>that would cause me to think that I am wrong. Every time I have tried
>to clarify what I previously said, modified what I have said, given
>evidence for my theory, or even stated outright that I could be wrong,
>I have been told flat-out that I am wrong, with absolutely no reasons
>offered for why I am wrong. This is *incredibly* frustrating, because
>I really do want to understand what is wrong with pointing out that
>SOMETIMES, SOME autistic people are really stubborn and get obnoxious
>about it, and that when this happens it is MORE OF A PROBLEM than when
>it happens in the general population.
I have no problem with that, so long as your not accusing me ;-)
I won't offer evidence, as I only have weak evidence to offer - things
like what I know I was once like, long enough ago that I can
acknowledge it and not feel, as my current self, threatened by it.
What I will offer is some explanation/rationalisation for why I was
like it.
First off, I think a major issue was me desperately hanging on to that
last shred of self esteem, which was predicated on intelligence and
rationality.
Partly it was probably a pattern, where people repeatedly dismissing
me as wrong and stupid when I could *prove* otherwise led to
frustration and anger - and a frequent loud overcommitment to some
claim that actually, well, really wasn't so accurate as I thought.
And when you know that you are the lowest of the low and people are
looking for any excuse to push you down lower, well, it can be very
hard to admit to the mistake.
Internal result - stress at being unable to find a way out,
self-loathing, but also avoidance, denial, rationalising away the
mistakes with thoughts like "they always assume I'm wrong anyway".
External result - everyone sees an stubborn, obnoxious idiot.
And yes - the awareness of that external result is there. But one of
the learned patterns is of course learned helplessness. The feeling
that its a trap, that there's nothing that can be done about it. As I
said, "they always assume I'm wrong anyway".
And that's kind of the thing - from the autistic perspective, it's the
NTs who are obnoxious in this way. Toward each other, generally, no -
but there's a lot more NTs than autistics, and the obnoxiousness is
directed and focussed in on autistics (and other low status people).
It reminds me of that Harper Lee novel. The evidence is there. The
jury clearly understands. But they refuse to acknowledge. The black
guy gets convicted anyway. An extreme and fictional example, of
course.
When your status is social pariah, you will pretty much always be
considered in the wrong. Fact and logic has nothing to do with it. And
there is the many-to-few focussing effect. And with repeated exposure
to that example, it's unsurprising that it rubs off - the same basic
pattern gets adopted as a defence.
As for the extreme obnoxiousness of it - well, that's more superficial
than anything. A big part of the underlying goal is a desperate
attempt to defend that last remaining shred of self esteem, so it's as
much about self-deception as about decieving others.
But of course, that's all just self-analysis of my own past behaviour.
I've seen some hints of it elsewhere, but I have no way to know if my
explanations apply in those cases.
And of course that absolute assurance that I have that I'm seeing my
own past absolutely objectively, and have at last become the first and
only human ever to achieve a state of complete freedom from
self-deception - well, obviously I'm just right about that. But I can
see how others might doubt it to some small degree ;-)
Stephen Horne
<sh006...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>When your status is social pariah, you will pretty much always be
>considered in the wrong. Fact and logic has nothing to do with it. And
>there is the many-to-few focussing effect. And with repeated exposure
>to that example, it's unsurprising that it rubs off - the same basic
>pattern gets adopted as a defence.
There's a related effect at the other extreme end of the social status
scale too, at least as a stereotype - the people who are rich,
attractive, athletic and top-few-percentiles popular. They can't
tolerate being wrong because being right is their social right.
Everyone's always telling them how right they are - to do otherwise
would be social suicide. There's characters like that in Buffy, so it
must be real ;-)
Alice
i just hate when the guys are tidier than us (i have one of those, too).
if the priest has a problem, he'll just have to do his own laundry. :)
-alice
Bob Badour
Bullshit. You have been given ample evidence. You are just being
stubborn, close-minded, bigoted and prejudiced.
<snip>
Alice
This is *incredibly* frustrating, because
> I really do want to understand what is wrong with pointing out that
> SOMETIMES, SOME autistic people are really stubborn and get obnoxious
> about it, and that when this happens it is MORE OF A PROBLEM than when
> it happens in the general population.
i can't deny it. i get stubborn, and it takes MUCH time for me to stop ranting
enough to listen. i recognize it (after much self-reflection) and try to keep it
in check. trying would be the key word here. i don't always succeed.
you've already stated that nts are just as prone, so i won't bother arguing the
reciprocity on those incidents. just commenting that i know i'm not perfect,
either. and yes, it is frustrating.
Bob Badour
> Janna wrote:
> This is *incredibly* frustrating, because
>
>> I really do want to understand what is wrong with pointing out that
>> SOMETIMES, SOME autistic people are really stubborn and get obnoxious
>> about it, and that when this happens it is MORE OF A PROBLEM than when
>> it happens in the general population.
>
> i can't deny it. i get stubborn, and it takes MUCH time for me to stop
> ranting enough to listen. i recognize it (after much self-reflection)
> and try to keep it in check. trying would be the key word here. i don't
> always succeed.
If you want to call yourself stubborn, knock yourself out. Please, do
not dismiss all autistics by pretending all autistics are stubborn. And,
unless you have specific evidence that the problems with ASAN are caused
by autism, please don't dismiss autistics and our controversies with
sweeping and unfounded prejudicial generalizations.
I'm not accusing you of having done so, but you didn't deny the
generalization either.
Stephen Horne
<bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Please, do
>not dismiss all autistics by pretending all autistics are stubborn.
Where did Janna do this?
> And,
>unless you have specific evidence that the problems with ASAN are caused
>by autism, please don't dismiss autistics and our controversies with
>sweeping and unfounded prejudicial generalizations.
I can see the point, but IMO its way out of proportion.
Autistics aren't perfect, any more than anyone else. It is reasonable
that the disorder might lead to significant differences in frequency
and degree of any number of character defects - both for the better
and for the worst.
Janna says she's noticed a possible pattern. Maybe that's prejudicial.
But if she was saying that NTs are stubborn and obnoxious, or stupid
and irrational, or ... - well, that's at least as prejudicial. But
you've said similar things, I've said similar things, and so on.
Janna says she may be wrong. But she won't say that she *is* wrong
without evidence. Seems fair to me.
I think I get your point about proof. When people fabricate false
claims, it may be difficult or impossible to prove them wrong, even
though they are indeed wrong. That's why in science, in maths and in
criminal law (at least in principle) the burden of proof is on those
who make the claim.
NTs get to make the exact same point about things you, me and other
autistics have said here.
Personally, I think it's unreasonable to demand that everyone provide
proof for every observation they make or theory they hold. It *is*
reasonable that, when a point is not proved, people should acknowledge
that they may be wrong. Which Janna did.
Ultimately, we have two conflicting opinions here, with neither
proven. Should we select a default hypothesis based on political
correctness and self-serving bias?
Well, that's probably a distortion. It is reasonable to expect that
autistics are treated the same as everyone else unless there are
specific objective reason to do otherwise. It's even written into
human rights law. But... does that mean that it's required to torture
autistics up until the point that it's proven that what you're doing
is torture, when for NTs it is nothing of the sort?
Are some ideas even taboo? And if no-ones allowed to notice the
pattern and state the hypothesis, who exactly is ever going to collect
that proof that says that the torture can end?
Arak
>
> > Women are shrews. Prove you are not a shrew.
>
> That I don't think I can do, given the fact that I got mad at my
> fiance this morning for suggesting we attempt to get our home a bit
> tidier before the priest visits us tomorrow evening. So I could
> conceivably be considered a shrew.
>
> -Janna
Well... shrews are cute little critters (http://
sevenbreaths.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/shrew1.jpg), but last time I
saw you, you looked more human than like the little rodent in my link.
That should be proof enough that you are not a shrew. Also, I don't
know too many other human women who look like the little shrew in the
link I provided.
Sorry, I know the context of "shew" in this case was the oft
derogatory term used to describe a woman who nags or complains too
much... but I just couldn't resist! The picture of the shrew was just
too cute!
Arak /|\
(Being silly and perhaps somewhat contrary)
Stephen Horne
<janna....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 17, 3:49�pm, Bob Badour <bbad...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Janna wrote:
>> > I do think that there is an element of hyper-stubbornness that can be
>> > exacerbated with autistic people, though.
>>
>> But that's not dismissive of autistics or prejudicial. Right? ::rolls eyes::
>
>Considering the fact that I think ASAN needs to step up and make a
>statement and clarify their policy, I think your attacks on me are a
>bit ridiculous.
At this point, I think Bob does have a point. What you said can
reasonably be interpreted as dismissive and prejudicial.
Which doesn't mean that I think it's unspeakably taboo. Or wrong. Or
that you should have spend hours carefully assessing every possible
interpretation and eliminating every possible cause of offense.
>Also, what exactly about my statement that "there is an element of
>hyper-stubbornness that can be exacerbated with autistic people" is
>dismissive of anyone? I didn't say that stubborn people should be
>ignored, I didn't say that their opinions don't matter, none of that.
>*None of it.*
And here particularly the whole thing gets very difficult. I can see
what was said as explaining away the problem, so the issue becomes
less relevant. And I can see it as trying to understand a pattern,
which may or may not be real.
IOW it's all about intent.
I can't help referring back to Araks first post of this thread...
"""
I've been watching Michelle Dawson's rants on her email list for
months now and I'm tired of all of it (not just her, but thew whole
damned thing). How can people on the autism spectrum expect the
general public to take them seriously and perhaps lend them some
credence if they can't even get along with each other? Destructive
politics is not just for the NT's it seems. The damage done has the
same effect as any other thing like this: after a while, no one wants
to hear about it and no one will support the cause because of the
infighting.
"""
I absolutely agree that we should hold our representatives to account.
At the same time - well, what Arak says makes sense. Destructive
politics and infighting isn't the same as resolving the issue. A
failure to be bring the issue to some kind of resolution and move
on... well that is certainly, in effect, dismissive and prejudicial.
No-one wants to hear about it. The issue is lost. All that's left is
that superficial impression of obnoxiousness. And unless I'm badly
mistaken, there are no NTs to blame for that.
True, to infight is human. But if there *is* an autism issue here, it
is worthwhile understanding it. To corrupt an old mantra, those who
deny fallibility are doomed to repeat it.
>I try to respect everyone, and it would be nice if people (in general)
>would respond in kind. Sometimes I make mistakes. I am human, and I
>have ADHD. I'm going to say stuff without thinking it through first.
>That's just how it is. So if I mess up, give me the benefit of the
>doubt, show me *how* what I said is wrong, and let me figure out how
>to say it better.
What Bob said isn't necessarily an attack. My initial reaction was
that he was teasing a bit, making a somewhat valid point, but not
offensively. It all depends of tone, which... well, autism yada yada
yada.
And of course that statement too is dismissive and prejudicial towards
autistics. So I shall ::rolls eyes:: at myself ;-)
Reflecting on a bunch of recent stuff...
I've been persuing points quite some distance in another thread. Harsh
words have been exchanged. Hmmm...
Bob Badour
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 21:13:29 -0300, Bob Badour
> <bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Please, do
>>not dismiss all autistics by pretending all autistics are stubborn.
>
> Where did Janna do this?
In this thread, 2010/05/16 11:04 PM
>>And,
>>unless you have specific evidence that the problems with ASAN are caused
>>by autism, please don't dismiss autistics and our controversies with
>>sweeping and unfounded prejudicial generalizations.
>
> I can see the point, but IMO its way out of proportion.
>
> Autistics aren't perfect, any more than anyone else. It is reasonable
> that the disorder might lead to significant differences in frequency
> and degree of any number of character defects - both for the better
> and for the worst.
>
> Janna says she's noticed a possible pattern. Maybe that's prejudicial.
> But if she was saying that NTs are stubborn and obnoxious, or stupid
> and irrational, or ... - well, that's at least as prejudicial. But
> you've said similar things, I've said similar things, and so on.
>
> Janna says she may be wrong. But she won't say that she *is* wrong
> without evidence. Seems fair to me.
No, it's not fair. The onus of proof lies on the person making the
unfounded generalization in the absence of evidence. I need only point
out the unfounded generalization and the absence of evidence to prove
her wrong. Which I have done many times now.
Drawing specific conclusions in the absence of evidence is dismissive
and prejudicial.
Bob Badour
Cute critters are generally welcome around here. Your URL was broken so
for convenience of everyone, I present:
Stephen Horne
<bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Stephen Horne wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 21:13:29 -0300, Bob Badour
>> <bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Please, do
>>>not dismiss all autistics by pretending all autistics are stubborn.
>>
>> Where did Janna do this?
>
>In this thread, 2010/05/16 11:04 PM
OK. At least assuming the time difference is four hours ATM, I've read
that.
"""
It's being held
onto and not being resolved *because everyone involved is autistic*.
Another group would have found a solution long ago, because they
wouldn't be as likely to get stuck on the "I'm right and you're wrong"
train.
"""
Yes. Acknowledged. Spoken in frustration/anger of course. And note
that the "blinking and looking around wondering what the hell is going
on" subgroup are *not* being portrayed as stubborn, but there is that
general tone there.
Some NTs can get *very* stuck on "I'm right and you're wrong", etc
etc.
But in comparison with founding fathers etc, we are talking about a
storm in a teacup. I think Janna suggested something about awareness
of other peoples perspectives. Mix in issues of relative significance
and explicable sensitivities - as I said elsewhere, I don't think the
idea should be taboo.
>No, it's not fair. The onus of proof lies on the person making the
>unfounded generalization in the absence of evidence. I need only point
>out the unfounded generalization and the absence of evidence to prove
>her wrong. Which I have done many times now.
In science and mathematics, you haven't proved anything more than the
absense of the opposite proof. The hypothesis "not a" can typically be
turned into the hypothesis "b" by rewording. That doesn't magically
change it from true-by-default to false-by-default. There is no
standard default hypothesis that applies. That's why the words
"default hypothesis" are typically used to indicate a fallacy.
In criminal law, there is a strong motivating case for a default
hypothesis - innocent until proven guilty. It doesn't really mean that
the person *is* innocent until proven guilty, though - it's a
statement of principle, not of fact - you don't know whether the
accused did what s/he was accused of.
Something similar applies in issues of stereotyping and prejudice, of
course, but again with reservations. There *are* objective differences
between different groups of people. Autistics do often have problems
interacting with others, and that can include other autistics. That
isn't irrelevant. And if the ideas based on that are taboo...
>Drawing specific conclusions in the absence of evidence is dismissive
>and prejudicial.
Speculation isn't the same as a conclusion. Every evidence-based
theory begins life as an unsupported speculation or a potentially
flawed observation. The more you make particular kinds of ideas taboo,
the more you undermine science and logic.
We now know that African American IQs, on average, are a few points
behind other races in the US. There have been a lot of prejudiced
attitudes about that in the past and of course there still are. But if
the whole idea had simply been made taboo, as many wanted, well...
IIRC the evidence points to environmental and social causes of that IQ
lag, and without the evidence, there'd be one less reason to try to
remove those inequities.
And yes, I agree that the real reason to remove inequity is because
it's there. But this is the world as it is.
Make the idea itself taboo and you don't necessarily protect the
people you think you're protecting. You can easily be doing harm.
astri
> I really do want to understand what is wrong with pointing out that
> SOMETIMES, SOME autistic people are really stubborn and get obnoxious
> about it, and that when this happens it is MORE OF A PROBLEM than
> when it happens in the general population.
the "more of a problem" part is what is wrong. one broad, sweeping
example that this is incorrect: think of the radical anti-abortion
protesters. they've been at it for decades and the problems this has
caused has included a variety of illegal behaviors ranging from
tresspassing to property damage or destruction to murder. i'm sure this
example trumps.
-- astri
======================
to email send to astri
======================
at volcano dot org
======================
Stephen Horne
wrote:
>On Tue, 18 May 2010, Janna wrote:
>
>> I really do want to understand what is wrong with pointing out that
>> SOMETIMES, SOME autistic people are really stubborn and get obnoxious
>> about it, and that when this happens it is MORE OF A PROBLEM than
>> when it happens in the general population.
>
>the "more of a problem" part is what is wrong. one broad, sweeping
>example that this is incorrect: think of the radical anti-abortion
>protesters. they've been at it for decades and the problems this has
>caused has included a variety of illegal behaviors ranging from
>tresspassing to property damage or destruction to murder. i'm sure this
>example trumps.
I don't understand the point here. I can't make the connection.
Bob Badour
Are you familiar with the phrase "Not even wrong" ? I misspoke above.
Drawing conclusions in the absence of evidence is not even wrong.
astri
the anti-abortion folks are (presumably) a bunch of nts. janna said
"when this happens [this = autistics getting stubborn and obnoxious] it
is more of a problem that when it happens [the getting stubborn and
obnoxious] in the general population. "when a then b" is a construction
suggesting that b is always there when a happens. my example was an
example of a group of nts who have been stubborn and obnoxious for a
long time and have caused more of a problem than the problems autistics
have caused being stubborn and obnoxious.
imo, tresspassing, vandalism, property destriction (bombing) and murder
are significantly greater problems than arguing and sock-puppetry.
Alice
> Alice wrote:
>
>> Janna wrote:
>> This is *incredibly* frustrating, because
>>
>>> I really do want to understand what is wrong with pointing out that
>>> SOMETIMES, SOME autistic people are really stubborn and get obnoxious
>>> about it, and that when this happens it is MORE OF A PROBLEM than when
>>> it happens in the general population.
>>
>> i can't deny it. i get stubborn, and it takes MUCH time for me to stop
>> ranting enough to listen. i recognize it (after much self-reflection)
>> and try to keep it in check. trying would be the key word here. i
>> don't always succeed.
>
> If you want to call yourself stubborn, knock yourself out. Please, do
> not dismiss all autistics by pretending all autistics are stubborn. And,
> unless you have specific evidence that the problems with ASAN are caused
> by autism, please don't dismiss autistics and our controversies with
> sweeping and unfounded prejudicial generalizations.
which part of that sentence said all autistics? which part of any of the above
said *all* autistics?
>
> I'm not accusing you of having done so, but you didn't deny the
> generalization either.
you expect your words to be interpreted for what they are, literally. yet you
read between lines above when there was *literally* nothing to read. i was being
quite literal. there was no generalization. *you* put it there.
Catriona R
>Bullshit. You have been given ample evidence. You are just being
>stubborn, close-minded, bigoted and prejudiced.
Your behaviour in this thread is pretty good evidence to support her
theory tbh. Some autistics (including myself, so don't pull the
victimisation crap on me; I'm well aware it applies to me too,
therefore I am not being dismissive or anything else of autistic
people in stating this) are very stubborn and unwilling to compromise,
and you're demonstrating that extremely well, completely dismissing
her opinions (in a rather offensive and even aggressive at times
manner) without supplying any evidence to the contrary.
Quite interesting observing these threads at the moment - I've had
some issue with my own being rather stubborn whendisagreeing with my
bf, and since he tends to forget I have autism (apparently it's not
too obvious mostthe time), he doesn't always understand why - showing
him the discussions on this group this past few days has shown him
that actually it is a pretty autistic thing to get stuck on your own
viewpoint and not always be able to instantly understand that other
views may also be valid (I usually reach compromise after a while,
it's just my snap reaction is black and white, usually takes me a
little discussion and preferably some solid evidence to change my
mind).
Alice
> Alice wrote:
>
>> Janna wrote:
>> This is *incredibly* frustrating, because
>>
>>> I really do want to understand what is wrong with pointing out that
>>> SOMETIMES, SOME autistic people are really stubborn and get obnoxious
>>> about it, and that when this happens it is MORE OF A PROBLEM than when
>>> it happens in the general population.
>>
>> i can't deny it. i get stubborn, and it takes MUCH time for me to stop
>> ranting enough to listen. i recognize it (after much self-reflection)
>> and try to keep it in check. trying would be the key word here. i
>> don't always succeed.
>
> If you want to call yourself stubborn, knock yourself out. Please, do
> not dismiss all autistics by pretending all autistics are stubborn. And,
> unless you have specific evidence that the problems with ASAN are caused
> by autism, please don't dismiss autistics and our controversies with
> sweeping and unfounded prejudicial generalizations.
>
oh ya. i also haven't addressed anything about ASAN. i haven't got a clue what
that bit is about, so i have nothing to address.
Alice
> Well... shrews are cute little critters (http://
> sevenbreaths.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/shrew1.jpg), but last time I
> saw you, you looked more human than like the little rodent in my link.
>
> That should be proof enough that you are not a shrew. Also, I don't
> know too many other human women who look like the little shrew in the
> link I provided.
>
> Sorry, I know the context of "shew" in this case was the oft
> derogatory term used to describe a woman who nags or complains too
> much... but I just couldn't resist! The picture of the shrew was just
> too cute!
>
> Arak /|\
> (Being silly and perhaps somewhat contrary)
being silly helps lighten up situations, and i think we can all use a breather.
these threads have been getting very intense. i've been trying to lighten up,
too. thank you :)
Alice
i believe astri's making the point that the statement "it is MORE OF A PROBLEM
than when it happens in the general population" is incorrect, and using the
anti-abortion groups as an example of how much bigger a problem some "nt" (i use
quotes because they haven't been tested) groups can be in terms of their own
stubbornness and obnoxiousness.
(astri, correct me if i'm wrong, please)
Alice
> Quite interesting observing these threads at the moment - I've had
> some issue with my own being rather stubborn when disagreeing with my
> bf, and since he tends to forget I have autism (apparently it's not
> too obvious most the time), he doesn't always understand why - showing
> him the discussions on this group this past few days has shown him
> that actually it is a pretty autistic thing to get stuck on your own
> viewpoint and not always be able to instantly understand that other
> views may also be valid (I usually reach compromise after a while,
> it's just my snap reaction is black and white, usually takes me a
> little discussion and preferably some solid evidence to change my
> mind).
it has been interesting, hasn't it?
also interesting is the perception people have of themselves. i love to think
i'm great at seeing all sides, but my bf said yesterday that my initial
reactions are entirely black and white. thinking about it, i realized they are
until i get evidence to the contrary. funny (interesting) thing, that.
-alice
Catriona R
Hehe yeah, I'm only just realising myself that that's exactly how I am
- I like to think I've improved a lot on when I was younger (and I
think I have) but initially I only really see one side of anything,
takes more thought and input before I'll see the whole picture. Seeing
the present threads (both this one and the one about the kid and the
stick figure drawing) has certainly shown me it's not only me who can
be on the stubborn side at times - and it certainly seems to me a more
common thing amongst autistics. Evidently others disagree, though (I
find it a touch ironic that they disagree in an extremely stubborn
mannner!)
Bob Badour
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>> Alice wrote:
>>
>>> Janna wrote:
>>> This is *incredibly* frustrating, because
>>>
>>>> I really do want to understand what is wrong with pointing out that
>>>> SOMETIMES, SOME autistic people are really stubborn and get obnoxious
>>>> about it, and that when this happens it is MORE OF A PROBLEM than when
>>>> it happens in the general population.
>>>
>>> i can't deny it. i get stubborn, and it takes MUCH time for me to
>>> stop ranting enough to listen. i recognize it (after much
>>> self-reflection) and try to keep it in check. trying would be the key
>>> word here. i don't always succeed.
>>
>> If you want to call yourself stubborn, knock yourself out. Please, do
>> not dismiss all autistics by pretending all autistics are stubborn.
>> And, unless you have specific evidence that the problems with ASAN are
>> caused by autism, please don't dismiss autistics and our controversies
>> with sweeping and unfounded prejudicial generalizations.
>
> which part of that sentence said all autistics? which part of any of the
> above said *all* autistics?
No part of it. I never said it did, and I went out of my way to say it
didn't.
>> I'm not accusing you of having done so, but you didn't deny the
>> generalization either.
See?
> you expect your words to be interpreted for what they are, literally.
> yet you read between lines above when there was *literally* nothing to
> read. i was being quite literal. there was no generalization. *you* put
> it there.
No, Janna put the generalization there. You responded to someone who was
dismissing all autistics with a broad generalization by offering a
pointless "Yeah, I'm like that."
But, you are not ASAN, and there is no evidence that your self-confessed
stubbornness has anything to do with autism or that stubbornness has
anything at all to do with ASAN's abhorrent behaviour.
If you want to be an apologist for someone knocking you down, fill yer
boots. I insist that when you do so, however, you not give anyone any
impression of an apology for anyone knocking me down or anyone else
down. You don't have the right to apologize for that, and you need to be
very clear about that.
Bob Badour
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 21:08:55 -0300, Bob Badour
> <bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Bullshit. You have been given ample evidence. You are just being
>>stubborn, close-minded, bigoted and prejudiced.
>
> Your behaviour in this thread is pretty good evidence to support her
> theory tbh.
I disagree. She demonstrated the behaviours she projects onto us. I have
not.
> Some autistics (including myself, so don't pull the
> victimisation crap on me; I'm well aware it applies to me too,
> therefore I am not being dismissive or anything else of autistic
> people in stating this) are very stubborn and unwilling to compromise
If you want to apologize for someone knocking you down, leave me out of it.
Call me stubborn all you want. That won't change assertiveness into
stubbornness. I will not accept dismissals, bigotry or prejudice, and I
have no reason to.
The only person who demonstrated stubbornness in this thread is Janna.
In the face of obvious proof her position is wrong, she chooses to
pretend the evidence just isn't there. Sticking her head in the sand,
however, doesn't make that evidence go away.
> and you're demonstrating that extremely well, completely dismissing
> her opinions (in a rather offensive and even aggressive at times
> manner) without supplying any evidence to the contrary.
I disagree regarding the evidence. Claiming a lack of evidence does not
make the evidence disappear.
If you find a direct 1:1 analogy to what Janna wrote "offensive and even
aggressive", then what does that say about Janna's writing?
The appropriate response to prejudice and bigotry is dismissal.
Prejudice has no legitimacy in the first place, and no right-thinking
person would ever pretend it does.
<snip pointless and wrong-minded apologia>
Bob Badour
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>> Alice wrote:
>>
>>> Janna wrote:
>>> This is *incredibly* frustrating, because
>>>
>>>> I really do want to understand what is wrong with pointing out that
>>>> SOMETIMES, SOME autistic people are really stubborn and get obnoxious
>>>> about it, and that when this happens it is MORE OF A PROBLEM than when
>>>> it happens in the general population.
>>>
>>> i can't deny it. i get stubborn, and it takes MUCH time for me to
>>> stop ranting enough to listen. i recognize it (after much
>>> self-reflection) and try to keep it in check. trying would be the key
>>> word here. i don't always succeed.
>>
>> If you want to call yourself stubborn, knock yourself out. Please, do
>> not dismiss all autistics by pretending all autistics are stubborn.
>> And, unless you have specific evidence that the problems with ASAN are
>> caused by autism, please don't dismiss autistics and our controversies
>> with sweeping and unfounded prejudicial generalizations.
>
> oh ya. i also haven't addressed anything about ASAN. i haven't got a
> clue what that bit is about, so i have nothing to address.
You are pretty clueless, then, if you don't know what you are replying
to in the first place. I suggest you read what you are replying to
before replying.
Bob Badour
You Uncle Tom n****** you!
Catriona R
On Wed, 19 May 2010 11:02:13 -0300, Bob Badour
<bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Catriona R wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 21:08:55 -0300, Bob Badour
>> <bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Bullshit. You have been given ample evidence. You are just being
>>>stubborn, close-minded, bigoted and prejudiced.
>>
>> Your behaviour in this thread is pretty good evidence to support her
>> theory tbh.
>
>I disagree. She demonstrated the behaviours she projects onto us. I have
>not.
You most definitely have, while she has not. But of course you are too
stubborn to actually see that...
>> Some autistics (including myself, so don't pull the
>> victimisation crap on me; I'm well aware it applies to me too,
>> therefore I am not being dismissive or anything else of autistic
>> people in stating this) are very stubborn and unwilling to compromise
>
>If you want to apologize for someone knocking you down, leave me out of it.
>
>Call me stubborn all you want. That won't change assertiveness into
>stubbornness. I will not accept dismissals, bigotry or prejudice, and I
>have no reason to.
But none of those were ever present, except in your own imagination.
But you're too stubborn to see that.
>The only person who demonstrated stubbornness in this thread is Janna.
>In the face of obvious proof her position is wrong, she chooses to
>pretend the evidence just isn't there. Sticking her head in the sand,
>however, doesn't make that evidence go away.
Well I've seen none of this "proof" you're talking about, care to show
any of it? Seems to me you're the unreasonably stubborn one around
here, but you're too stubborn to even see that. The irony is highly
amusing.
>> and you're demonstrating that extremely well, completely dismissing
>> her opinions (in a rather offensive and even aggressive at times
>> manner) without supplying any evidence to the contrary.
>
>I disagree regarding the evidence. Claiming a lack of evidence does not
>make the evidence disappear.
There's been none shown thus far (unless it's been buried in among the
various insults; I do tend to skim posts that are clearly just veiled
attacks on others, so might have missed something that was too deeply
buried).
>If you find a direct 1:1 analogy to what Janna wrote "offensive and even
>aggressive", then what does that say about Janna's writing?
You're reading between the lines here, since I never said any such
thing. The anologies were no direct, in any case, and I merely found
those amusing. The direct attacks were what I was referring to.
>The appropriate response to prejudice and bigotry is dismissal.
>Prejudice has no legitimacy in the first place, and no right-thinking
>person would ever pretend it does.
>
><snip pointless and wrong-minded apologia>
Well I am autistic, ergo it is reasonable to assume I am not
prejudiced against autistic people. Yet I agree with Janna's point.
There is no bigotry in this thread except what you have produced out
of your own imagination. Stop reading between the lines and read the
actual words being written, you might get the meanings more accurately
then.
Alice
> Alice wrote:
>
>> Bob Badour wrote:
>>
>>> Alice wrote:
>>>
>>>> Janna wrote:
>>>> This is *incredibly* frustrating, because
>>>>
>>>>> I really do want to understand what is wrong with pointing out that
>>>>> SOMETIMES, SOME autistic people are really stubborn and get obnoxious
>>>>> about it, and that when this happens it is MORE OF A PROBLEM than when
>>>>> it happens in the general population.
>>>>
>>>> i can't deny it. i get stubborn, and it takes MUCH time for me to
>>>> stop ranting enough to listen. i recognize it (after much
>>>> self-reflection) and try to keep it in check. trying would be the
>>>> key word here. i don't always succeed.
>>>
>>> If you want to call yourself stubborn, knock yourself out. Please, do
>>> not dismiss all autistics by pretending all autistics are stubborn.
>>> And, unless you have specific evidence that the problems with ASAN
>>> are caused by autism, please don't dismiss autistics and our
>>> controversies with sweeping and unfounded prejudicial generalizations.
>>
>> which part of that sentence said all autistics? which part of any of
>> the above said *all* autistics?
>
> No part of it. I never said it did, and I went out of my way to say it
> didn't.
"Please, do not dismiss all autistics by pretending all autistics are stubborn."
i never did.
>
>
>>> I'm not accusing you of having done so, but you didn't deny the
>>> generalization either.
>
> See?
i could not deny it, because i have no opinion of it.
>
>> you expect your words to be interpreted for what they are, literally.
>> yet you read between lines above when there was *literally* nothing to
>> read. i was being quite literal. there was no generalization. *you*
>> put it there.
>
> No, Janna put the generalization there. You responded to someone who was
> dismissing all autistics with a broad generalization by offering a
> pointless "Yeah, I'm like that."
you were responding to my post, not janna's. my response to her was not
pointless. it was confirmation that it is true in individual cases, using myself
as an example. it was never implied as universal, just as janna did not imply
it. she said, specifically, "SOME".
>
> But, you are not ASAN, and there is no evidence that your self-confessed
> stubbornness has anything to do with autism or that stubbornness has
> anything at all to do with ASAN's abhorrent behaviour.
i truthfully don't give a fat frog's flying fuck about the ASAN thing. and i
never commented on it beyond one complete *guess* about it in the *very*
beginning. my response was about the way things are being discussed *here*.
>
> If you want to be an apologist for someone knocking you down, fill yer
> boots. I insist that when you do so, however, you not give anyone any
> impression of an apology for anyone knocking me down or anyone else
> down. You don't have the right to apologize for that, and you need to be
> very clear about that.
bob, please save your defensive projections for a therapist. i have made no
apologies. no one has knocked me down and i never implied it. self-awareness and
recognition of one's own limitations is not a deficit. admitting it isn't, either.
if you're looking for an apology, here's one: i'm sorry for enabling your
vehemence by responding to your comments.
Bob Badour
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 11:02:13 -0300, Bob Badour
> <bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Catriona R wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 May 2010 21:08:55 -0300, Bob Badour
>>><bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bullshit. You have been given ample evidence. You are just being
>>>>stubborn, close-minded, bigoted and prejudiced.
>>>
>>>Your behaviour in this thread is pretty good evidence to support her
>>>theory tbh.
>>
>>I disagree. She demonstrated the behaviours she projects onto us. I have
>>not.
>
> You most definitely have, while she has not. But of course you are too
> stubborn to actually see that...
Fuck off.
Bob Badour
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 11:02:13 -0300, Bob Badour
> <bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Catriona R wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 May 2010 21:08:55 -0300, Bob Badour
>>><bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
<stupid, mindless contradictions snipped>
>>The appropriate response to prejudice and bigotry is dismissal.
>>Prejudice has no legitimacy in the first place, and no right-thinking
>>person would ever pretend it does.
>>
>><snip pointless and wrong-minded apologia>
>
> Well I am autistic, ergo it is reasonable to assume I am not
> prejudiced against autistic people.
No, that's not a reasonable assumption at all, Uncle Tom.
Bob Badour
And don't do it, either.
>>>> I'm not accusing you of having done so, but you didn't deny the
>>>> generalization either.
>>
>> See?
>
> i could not deny it, because i have no opinion of it.
If you have no opinion regarding a long discussion of her
generalization, what is your point in replying to it? If you want to
express no opinion, express that you have no opinion. If you want to
accept that the generalization applies to you personally, make clear you
are not accepting for anyone else.
>>> you expect your words to be interpreted for what they are, literally.
>>> yet you read between lines above when there was *literally* nothing
>>> to read. i was being quite literal. there was no generalization.
>>> *you* put it there.
>>
>> No, Janna put the generalization there. You responded to someone who
>> was dismissing all autistics with a broad generalization by offering a
>> pointless "Yeah, I'm like that."
>
> you were responding to my post, not janna's.
Yes. I responded to your contribution to the discussion Janna and I were
having. Apparently, a pointless and utterly worthless contribution.
> my response to her was not
> pointless. it was confirmation that it is true in individual cases,
Which is pointless, because specific cases do not prove a sweeping and
unfounded generalization. The generalization remains sweeping, unfounded
and prejudicial. As they say, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Had you offered any actual evidence of anything relevant to the problems
with ASAN, your response would have had a point. Sadly, you did not, and
it did not.
>> But, you are not ASAN, and there is no evidence that your
>> self-confessed stubbornness has anything to do with autism or that
>> stubbornness has anything at all to do with ASAN's abhorrent behaviour.
>
> i truthfully don't give a fat frog's flying fuck about the ASAN thing.
And I truthfully don't give a fat frog's flying fuck if you are
stubborn. Your personal stubbornness is utterly irrelevant and
unimportant. If you don't have anything to say, it's pointless to say
anything.
I apologize for thinking you might have had a point.
<pointless personal attack snipped>
Bob Badour
I am curious. Do you honestly think the problems with ASAN are limited
to "arguing and sock-puppetry" ?
Catriona R
On Wed, 19 May 2010 11:53:02 -0300, Bob Badour
<bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Catriona R wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 11:02:13 -0300, Bob Badour
>> <bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Catriona R wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 18 May 2010 21:08:55 -0300, Bob Badour
>>>><bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
><stupid, mindless contradictions snipped>
Yep, thanks for proving my point. Insulting people is really not
stubborn or unwilling to see the other side at all </sarcasm>
>>>The appropriate response to prejudice and bigotry is dismissal.
>>>Prejudice has no legitimacy in the first place, and no right-thinking
>>>person would ever pretend it does.
>>>
>>><snip pointless and wrong-minded apologia>
>>
>> Well I am autistic, ergo it is reasonable to assume I am not
>> prejudiced against autistic people.
>
>No, that's not a reasonable assumption at all, Uncle Tom.
Why not? Evidence? Or is it perfectly fine for you to make sweeping
statements without evidence but then demand it from everyone else?
astri
> i believe astri's making the point that the statement "it is MORE OF
> A PROBLEM than when it happens in the general population" is
> incorrect, and using the anti-abortion groups as an example of how
> much bigger a problem some "nt" (i use quotes because they haven't
> been tested) groups can be in terms of their own stubbornness and
> obnoxiousness.
>
> (astri, correct me if i'm wrong, please)
you are absolutely correct
astri
> astri wrote:
>
>> the anti-abortion folks are (presumably) a bunch of nts. janna said
>> "when this happens [this = autistics getting stubborn and obnoxious]
>> it is more of a problem that when it happens [the getting stubborn
>> and obnoxious] in the general population. "when a then b" is a
>> construction suggesting that b is always there when a happens. my
>> example was an example of a group of nts who have been stubborn and
>> obnoxious for a long time and have caused more of a problem than the
>> problems autistics have caused being stubborn and obnoxious.
>>
>> imo, tresspassing, vandalism, property destriction (bombing) and
>> murder are significantly greater problems than arguing and
>> sock-puppetry.
>
> I am curious. Do you honestly think the problems with ASAN are
> limited to "arguing and sock-puppetry" ?
no, i am not stating that as an assertion. nor am i suggesting that the
only problems with the anti-abortion folks are what i listed. that was
a summary example. however, i do honestly think that tresspassing,
vandalism, property destruction and murder are significantly more of a
problem than anything folks from asan (or any other autism group) have
been engaging in. this is my opinion.
Bob Badour
Oh, okay. Yes, absolutely, active violence against persons and property
are much bigger problems than refusing to represent a constituency or
trying to silence any viewpoints not in strict adherence to some narrow
doctrine.
Janna
> On Tue, 18 May 2010, Janna wrote:
> > I really do want to understand what is wrong with pointing out that
> > SOMETIMES, SOME autistic people are really stubborn and get obnoxious
> > about it, and that when this happens it is MORE OF A PROBLEM than
> > when it happens in the general population.
>
> the "more of a problem" part is what is wrong. one broad, sweeping
> example that this is incorrect: think of the radical anti-abortion
> protesters. they've been at it for decades and the problems this has
> caused has included a variety of illegal behaviors ranging from
> tresspassing to property damage or destruction to murder. i'm sure this
> example trumps.
I am still trying not to be involved in this thread anymore, given how
pointless most of it has been. However, I thought I would pop in to
say thank you to astri for making this part clear. I think I misspoke,
and probably should have just ended the sentence after "...and get
obnoxious about it."
-Janna
Bob Badour
So, the indefensible and prejudicial stereotype is still perfectly valid
in your mind even after repeated crushing counters, and your only
mistake was comparing it to the general population... r-i-i-i-i-ght.
astri
ok
Stephen Horne
wrote:
>On Wed, 19 May 2010, Stephen Horne wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 19:08:26 -1000, astri <as...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010, Janna wrote:
>>>
>>>> I really do want to understand what is wrong with pointing out that
>>>> SOMETIMES, SOME autistic people are really stubborn and get
>>>> obnoxious about it, and that when this happens it is MORE OF A
>>>> PROBLEM than when it happens in the general population.
>>>
>>> the "more of a problem" part is what is wrong. one broad, sweeping
>>> example that this is incorrect: think of the radical anti-abortion
>>> protesters. they've been at it for decades and the problems this has
>>> caused has included a variety of illegal behaviors ranging from
>>> tresspassing to property damage or destruction to murder. i'm sure
>>> this example trumps.
>>
>> I don't understand the point here. I can't make the connection.
>
>the anti-abortion folks are (presumably) a bunch of nts. janna said
>"when this happens [this = autistics getting stubborn and obnoxious] it
>is more of a problem that when it happens [the getting stubborn and
>obnoxious] in the general population. "when a then b" is a construction
>suggesting that b is always there when a happens. my example was an
>example of a group of nts who have been stubborn and obnoxious for a
>long time and have caused more of a problem than the problems autistics
>have caused being stubborn and obnoxious.
OK - I get that. It's kind of why I didn't get it, in a way.
Anti-abortion is an extreme moral issue - on both sides. As a rule,
those on one side *are* aware of the arguments on the other, but
dismiss them because their overriding moral absolute makes it all
irrelevant.
Now I'm past looking for an analogy in that, and get your real point
(NTs can be obnoxious) suddenly my mental block seems kind of
relevant.
At least the abortion issue is very significant. Life-or-death
important, on both sides, depending on what precisely you mean by
"life".
But then, for some autistics who are down to their last remnants of
fragile self-esteem - well, maybe it is a life-or-death issue. People
often *have* chosen to die rather than sacrifice their self-respect,
or because they have lost their self-respect.
Around 20 years ago, when I could most definitely be as obnoxious as
we are talking about - well, I was also very *very* close to suicide.
Stephen Horne
<bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>So, the indefensible and prejudicial stereotype is still perfectly valid
>in your mind even after repeated crushing counters, and your only
>mistake was comparing it to the general population... r-i-i-i-i-ght.
Bob - if you think you're whiter than white in this thread, you should
think again.
If anything, your obnoxious persuit of your absolute "I am right" is a
proof of what Janna said from the start - and yes, I think I have been
just as obnoxious over the whole kids drawing "pictograms" thing. As
have you. And even having seen that, I've still carried on being
obnoxious.
I think we should be glad that statistics doesn't consider us two to
be a representative sample of autism - don't you?
Stephen Horne
<catrion...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>Quite interesting observing these threads at the moment - I've had
>some issue with my own being rather stubborn whendisagreeing with my
>bf, and since he tends to forget I have autism (apparently it's not
>too obvious mostthe time), he doesn't always understand why - showing
>him the discussions on this group this past few days has shown him
>that actually it is a pretty autistic thing to get stuck on your own
>viewpoint and not always be able to instantly understand that other
>views may also be valid (I usually reach compromise after a while,
>it's just my snap reaction is black and white, usually takes me a
>little discussion and preferably some solid evidence to change my
>mind).
That's not the only silver lining. It's been a good thing to remind
myself that my "I'm all over that" ancient past is something that,
well, I'm not all over at all.
And yes, between me and Bob (and once Terry) and whichever unwise
others happened to wander in, it has often been kind of play-fight.
But there's significant problems with autistic play-fighting, aren't
there - being a poor judge of how hard its safe to punch, for a start.
And failing to recognise when play time is over.
Bob Badour
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 13:58:01 -0300, Bob Badour
> <bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>So, the indefensible and prejudicial stereotype is still perfectly valid
>>in your mind even after repeated crushing counters, and your only
>>mistake was comparing it to the general population... r-i-i-i-i-ght.
>
> Bob - if you think you're whiter than white in this thread, you should
> think again.
Like I said before, you do better when you avoid the sophistry and stick
to what people actually write.