Board index › Coping in life › School and College Life

Do aspies have a learning disability?

Page 4 of 6 [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kalister1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,443

05 Jun 2008, 10:25 pm

The work place equates social skills as having a much higher value than anything a pedagogical institution can bestow upon you (to an extent).



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

05 Jun 2008, 10:36 pm

twoshots wrote:
In which case at first blush it seems to me that the distinction between a learning disability and just being specifically incompetent is just a matter of severity.

And I dislike this classification method because you draw an arbitrary line around which the socially acceptable feelings towards someone switch from contempt and letting them fail to pity and giving them extra help. Where do you draw that line, and why?

Kalister1 wrote:
:Zombifies you and steals your brain:

MINE!

You can have it, I don't put it to very good use anyways.

curiouslittleboy wrote:
And, while I do dispise folks (looks directly into your eyes) who are smarter/more mature/more independent/and/or that I just precieve as better than me

Don't be so down on yourself, especially not in such comparisons to me. I'm 18 and still have never had a girlfriend, don't have my driver's license yet, managed to embarrass myself in front of my high school class when I was presented the valedictorian medal because I was too oblivious to know what I was supposed to be doing, etc. Intelligence, maturity, and independence don't always come as a package, adn I certainly would never claim to be better than you or anyone else.

curiouslittleboy wrote:
@Orwell: And while I'm at it, I disagreed with your ideas, at least in the way they were presented, because at least how I interpretted them, it seems to mean that the only smart people are people with aspergers...

Not at all. The majority of smart people are NT, as are the majority of people in general. I didn't mean to imply that only Aspies are intelligent, simply that everyone eventually runs into something they find difficult, and that doesn't automatically make them disabled.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Kalister1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,443

05 Jun 2008, 10:39 pm

Orwell wrote:
Not at all. The majority of smart people are NT, as are the majority of people in general. I didn't mean to imply that only Aspies are intelligent, simply that everyone eventually runs into something they find difficult, and that doesn't automatically make them disabled.


ARE YOU READING MY MIND?! !! !

:get out of there!!:



curiouslittleboy
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 215

05 Jun 2008, 10:45 pm

@Orwell: oooooooooh, ok...so it was just a communication issue. XD
Ok, that I can agree with. :)

Kinda reminds me of how people try to discredit Einstein just because he struggled trying to find a Grand unification theory (or whatever reason they have).



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

05 Jun 2008, 10:51 pm

curiouslittleboy wrote:
@Orwell: oooooooooh, ok...so it was just a communication issue. XD

Woot for Aspie communication skills. Took about three or four tries before we managed to understand each other. :|

curiouslittleboy wrote:
Kinda reminds me of how people try to discredit Einstein just because he struggled trying to find a Grand unification theory (or whatever reason they have).

A friend of mine seems to take great pleasure, any time Newton's name is mentioned, in pointing out "Newton was wrong." Unless prompted, he leaves it at that. If questioned, he will refer to the fact that, contrary to Newton's claims, gravity is NOT an instantaneous force. :roll: The guy pretty much invented calculus and a good chunk of physics, I think we can forgive him a mistake or two.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Kalister1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,443

05 Jun 2008, 10:53 pm

Orwell wrote:
curiouslittleboy wrote:
@Orwell: oooooooooh, ok...so it was just a communication issue. XD

Woot for Aspie communication skills. Took about three or four tries before we managed to understand each other. :|

curiouslittleboy wrote:
Kinda reminds me of how people try to discredit Einstein just because he struggled trying to find a Grand unification theory (or whatever reason they have).

A friend of mine seems to take great pleasure, any time Newton's name is mentioned, in pointing out "Newton was wrong." Unless prompted, he leaves it at that. If questioned, he will refer to the fact that, contrary to Newton's claims, gravity is NOT an instantaneous force. :roll: The guy pretty much invented calculus and a good chunk of physics, I think we can forgive him a mistake or two.


:points at Leibniz:
:lol:
Actually, Leibniz was proved wrong too, such as Schopenhauer and Voltaire totally making him look like a fool.

Still invented Calculus (independently of Newton)



curiouslittleboy
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 215

05 Jun 2008, 10:57 pm

Orwell wrote:
curiouslittleboy wrote:
@Orwell: oooooooooh, ok...so it was just a communication issue. XD

Woot for Aspie communication skills. Took about three or four tries before we managed to understand each other. :|

curiouslittleboy wrote:
Kinda reminds me of how people try to discredit Einstein just because he struggled trying to find a Grand unification theory (or whatever reason they have).

A friend of mine seems to take great pleasure, any time Newton's name is mentioned, in pointing out "Newton was wrong." Unless prompted, he leaves it at that. If questioned, he will refer to the fact that, contrary to Newton's claims, gravity is NOT an instantaneous force. :roll: The guy pretty much invented calculus and a good chunk of physics, I think we can forgive him a mistake or two.
Re: Communication skills, don't worry dude, I'm used to it, trying to communicate to NT's....like pulling teeth. ><
At least we finally reached a consensus.

Re: This friend, hm...yah, I have a few like that. XD and yes, as my physics teachers have ALWAYS told me, it's the main point/understanding not a few piddly mistakes that's important.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

05 Jun 2008, 11:03 pm

Kalister1 wrote:
:points at Leibniz:
:lol:
Actually, Leibniz was proved wrong too, such as Schopenhauer and Voltaire totally making him look like a fool.

Still invented Calculus (independently of Newton)

Lies. Everyone knows that Leibniz plagiarized all his work from Newton and then tried to make it look like Newton was the one who copied. :lol: We all know Newton was a BAMF, he is the true inventor of all that is good in math. :lol: 8)

Just kidding in that whole post, in case it wasn't clear. They both came up with calc, but Leibniz probably did a better job of it. Newton's still cooler though, because his either field was physics instead of philosophy.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


curiouslittleboy
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 215

05 Jun 2008, 11:05 pm

Orwell wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
:points at Leibniz:
:lol:
Actually, Leibniz was proved wrong too, such as Schopenhauer and Voltaire totally making him look like a fool.

Still invented Calculus (independently of Newton)

Lies. Everyone knows that Leibniz plagiarized all his work from Newton and then tried to make it look like Newton was the one who copied. :lol: We all know Newton was a BAMF, he is the true inventor of all that is good in math. :lol: 8)

Just kidding in that whole post, in case it wasn't clear. They both came up with calc, but Leibniz probably did a better job of it. Newton's still cooler though, because his either field was physics instead of philosophy.
Even more fun is that the version of calculus we use today is Leibniz's. :lol:



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

05 Jun 2008, 11:07 pm

Quote:
And I dislike this classification method because you draw an arbitrary line around which the socially acceptable feelings towards someone switch from contempt and letting them fail to pity and giving them extra help. Where do you draw that line, and why?

Well, you would approach the problem in a few ways.
1) Is it continuously varying? People may vary in ability from one subject to another, but non-autistics are pretty even in general. Furthermore, as per the definition, we would on the one hand ignore incompetence which seemed to be due to environmental factors or general stupidity. The definition also states:
Quote:
These disorders are intrinsic to the individual and presumed to be due to Central Nervous System Dysfunction.

Now, I am uncertain whether or not the line between pathology and normality is well defined, but I don't think it's prima facie obvious one way or the other (although I gravitate towards the idea that it varies continuously)
2) Simply because it is fuzzy doesn't mean it's nonexistent. It may be inexpedient over all to try to cater to everyone's problems and specific difficulties. The cutoff may be arbitrary inasmuch as it is not a reflection of the actual difficulties between the pathological and the merely inept, but if you're going to try to help people of a given style, you're going to have to make distinctions somewhere or you're never going to get anything done.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

05 Jun 2008, 11:18 pm

twoshots wrote:
Now, I am uncertain whether or not the line between pathology and normality is well defined, but I don't think it's prima facie obvious one way or the other (although I gravitate towards the idea that it varies continuously)
2) Simply because it is fuzzy doesn't mean it's nonexistent. It may be inexpedient over all to try to cater to everyone's problems and specific difficulties. The cutoff may be arbitrary inasmuch as it is not a reflection of the actual difficulties between the pathological and the merely inept, but if you're going to try to help people of a given style, you're going to have to make distinctions somewhere or you're never going to get anything done.

Well, when you go by that method someone gets screwed. I may be a little bitter, because I was that "someone" when I was younger. Judged to be incapable of performing up to par, but not "severely affected" enough to receive any help. Either you help out people who struggle, or you go social darwinist. There's no reason for a double standard where you are permitted to hate the people who are performing slightly below average but must cater to those who are well below average. It's hypocritical.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


curiouslittleboy
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 215

05 Jun 2008, 11:21 pm

Orwell wrote:
twoshots wrote:
Now, I am uncertain whether or not the line between pathology and normality is well defined, but I don't think it's prima facie obvious one way or the other (although I gravitate towards the idea that it varies continuously)
2) Simply because it is fuzzy doesn't mean it's nonexistent. It may be inexpedient over all to try to cater to everyone's problems and specific difficulties. The cutoff may be arbitrary inasmuch as it is not a reflection of the actual difficulties between the pathological and the merely inept, but if you're going to try to help people of a given style, you're going to have to make distinctions somewhere or you're never going to get anything done.
Well, when you go by that method someone gets screwed. I may be a little bitter, because I was that "someone" when I was younger.
Same. still am in certain ways..



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

05 Jun 2008, 11:26 pm

curiouslittleboy wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Well, when you go by that method someone gets screwed. I may be a little bitter, because I was that "someone" when I was younger.
Same. still am in certain ways..

I'm currently starting the process of securing accommodations for college next year, and the university is not being even remotely helpful. It's rather frustrating.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


curiouslittleboy
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 215

05 Jun 2008, 11:38 pm

Orwell wrote:
curiouslittleboy wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Well, when you go by that method someone gets screwed. I may be a little bitter, because I was that "someone" when I was younger.
Same. still am in certain ways..

I'm currently starting the process of securing accommodations for college next year, and the university is not being even remotely helpful. It's rather frustrating.
...that's...not good.

back on topic: ..at least I think back on topic:
Eh, I find actually studying for and taking practice exams helps tremendiously.
By doing so, you'll know the format, style of questions, go over material in a (proven) way that's better than studying/reviewing. etc



DragonKazooie89
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 391
Location: Northern Utah

06 Jun 2008, 9:41 pm

I had no troubles with classes. I graduated high school with high honors. The only problems I had were the speaking assignments in Spanish, getting into groups that weren't assigned and I had a hard time concentrating on my work unless it was a timed assignment or taking a test.



Villette
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 415

31 May 2010, 4:01 am

Horrible at math (for a good student), but after 10 months I managed to scrape an A, compared to others who started off as bad as me. Cannot understand physics, but I read enough articles to impress my friend who is very good at physics ironically. Chemistry better than most, my best science. Biology - I only like biochem, genetics and biotech. I have a lousy memory too, but usually get an A.