My Intent

Post Reply New Topic

Exactly correct. You are now on the road to success!

Logic by Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says I will have to do as you suggest. This is because for every given system s every tautology t has to have a theorem o. Every theorem and tautology in a given system has to have an axiom. If one does not have an axiom then one would be trying to prove every previous tautology before it. In the end, we will reach a point in which we derive a tautology that will contradict an axiom in a given system.

Therefore, what you are telling me is to accept the axioms, the theorems and tautologies within the given restraints am I correct?

Our social pragmatic culture is what our constraints are that I must accept am I correct?

If I understand what you are saying, yes, you are correct. Sometimes you just have to accept something as true, whether or not you have proof of it. There has to be a starting point.

More importantly, I think you need to understand that language and meaning are not static and the same in every situation. Even if you interpret something literally, there are often two or more literal interpretations of the same thing. Plus, the meanings of words are fluid and change over time (look up the meaning of the word "nice" for example.) This is why we use dead languages in science.

Basically, the reason why people react that way is experience: they likely have zero experience with an Aspie's style of thinking, and most of their experience tells them that when somebody says "I can't do it" they are being deliberately obstructionist (I am having this very experience right now in our homeowner's association when it comes to assessments. The people who owe CAN pay, they just WON'T - but the word they use is "can't")

Social language may not make sense to you, but neither does Chinese. (at least I assume, possibly incorrectly, so insert another language you don't know if I assumed badly) However, you would make allowances for the difficulty communicating with someone speaking a foreign language, right? It's the same thing: you need to assume the problem is that you aren't speaking the same language.

How does my style of thinking come across to you? Am I really that bad?

I wouldn't say bad, but in my conversations with you, you are very literal and tend to use words as your source of information, rather than looking at context (the bigger picture of the conversation, for instance,) looking for clues of the other person's intent, or (I assume) body language. This is pretty typical Aspie.

If it seems like I am talking down to you, I apologize - it's hard to tell over the internet what is a joke and what is real. I'm just trying to break things down (and I am by no means perfect at social language) in a more social way.

You're not talking down to me at all. I understand you perfectly and to me you communicate to me fine.

I don't understand how one can know another person's intent. How is this logically possible? Wouldn't one have to have telepathy to do that?

Is this why Mr. Miller, of solitaryroad.com, said that he did not understand 95% of what I was saying and why I came across as speaking Chinese to him? Some of what he was telling me was Chinese as well. He eventually told me to quit emailing him and I did.

I was trying to construct a logical model of my interpretation of what they were saying God's properties are. From my perspective of what they told me, their message seemed contradictory. I couldn't make heads or tails of it. We were told in a sermon to meditate on all things God and I did. I came up with a model that said that in order for God to be able to do anything or anything to be possible for him to do then he would have to be able to have things which are impossible for him to do. He would have to have possibility of impossibility.

How I thought of it was this. We have two milk jugs in which the mass and volume is infinite. Both milk jugs are infinitely greater then the infinite amount of milk that can be poured into them. Imagine pouring one container full of infinite milk into another. This is how I imagined what they were trying to tell me of what God's properties were.

You were saying though all of that is just social language and meta-speak which means "we accept he is very powerful than all of us, we respect and revere him, and we believe what is said about him without proof." Really, they're just using a lot of figurative language am I correct?

hhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-wzr74d7TI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANvlLcOTy6M

I love this episode of Star Trek

Also my favorite episode of Star Trek. There are an awful lot of themes in Star Trek about the difference between social language and literal language - that is one, but the characters of Spock and Data explore these themes all the time (as well as, to some degree, Worf and Troi)

So, NTs generally determine someone's intent in a conversation by unconsciously monitoring their body language, tone of voice, and sometimes word choice. Those of us who aren't skilled in reading those things need to look to things we can research: context clues in the content of what they are saying, a knowledge of what their goals must be based on experience (for instance, we all know an employer asks questions of a potential employee to make sure they will be a good one.) and asking questions when we don't understand.

Another difference between you and most people: most people just don't want to know. I am not sure if this is NT/AS (I've seen it in autistic people, too, though) or if it is something else - but most people don't want to be bothered thinking about things if they don't have to. Not everybody has huge intellectual resources or energy to expend thinking about things that will work if they just do them the way they already know works. I think this is the issue with faith: it's kind of a mental exercise anyway, so most people just follow where they are led (you can see where many people do this to their detriment - as in cults - although of course many more people gain benefits from their faith.)

Your job is to figure out how you can apply the skills you have to figure out the intent of the person communicating with you - without them having to tell you explicitly. Think of yourself as a detective.

I may have to watch some of these episodes again.



I can determine your intent as to why you came to wrongplanet. You wanted help for your DS. You will go through hell and high water for him. I also know one thing that does upset you and that is the helicopter parent thing. Those who accuse you of that think of themselves as wise but yet they are not. I do not know nor understand what struggles you all have had to go though and like Socrates I can't even run my own life so how can I run yours? This is a hot button for you.



For me, it is an adaptation. Formal and Boolean logic is the only way I can convey my issues to the world. It has given me the bandwidth to present what I do not understand and why something does not make sense to me. I do understand the logic behind faith and faith does have a logical use. Every belief system, even science and math, has a set of presuppositions or axioms they have to go by.

If they did not we would have an infinite beginning and infinite end. Consider a line and line segment. A line stretches infinitely in both directions. A line segment has a beginning point and an ending point. If one did not have faith on something one would be proving forever which is an exercise in futility and waste.





In order to know how to communicate effectively with NTs I have to determine and start off with their presuppositions, am I correct? This is where I have to start.

So this is an excellent use of context to determine someone's intent in the big picture (yes, that's why I am here in general) and also in the specific (yes, that's definitely a hot button issue for me) You could also conclude that I am here because I am interested in people with autism and their parents in general, and that I believe in supporting a community that is supporting me. You got all of this information without me telling you.

This is basically what you need to when communicating with NTs, figure out why they are communicating with you while noticing how they react to things, and respond to that, even if the words and language confuse you. So, yes to this:

You can't, really, but you can make logical guesses. It's kind of like being a detective and searching for clues. Using those cues, you create a hypothesis which you can test against.

But you can't really know their intent. Actually, I am fairly certain that a good many people are not even aware of their own intentions.

My understanding is that for a fully NT person, much of this is processed automatically. It is not that way for me, but I do think I can recognize the "clues" and piece them together much more rapidly than many who are fully on the spectrum. But I do not do it automatically the way they say NTs do. I don't even really understand what that means. But I do think my slight deficit in this area is what has led to my lifelong fascination with people. Understanding what makes people tick and why they act the way they do is probably the closest thing to a special interest I have ever had,.

My reply is probably going to "dumb things down" a little. I need to do that for me: not you. While your description of the issue is detailed. I think its really a common issue not only for you but for many people on the planet.

When I was a manager one of the management training exercises involved giving instructions to an employee or a family member or anyone really. I would be very deliberate and specific in my instructions. The second part of the exercise was to ask them to repeat back the instructions given. While many people could successfully repeat the instructions enough to accomplish the task. Almost all failed at completely repeating the instructions. It was a very enlightening exercise.

The issue IMHO is that people share information in a infinite number of ways. And our way of taking in information is also without limits.

Another good example of this is that grade school exercise where a secret was whispered to a student in the first column of desk's only to be something completely different when repeated at the last desk in the room.

This miscommunication is even more critical in my current employment as a Rail Road conductor. It is so important (because mistakes can kill us) that we are trained to "Job brief". Or share all of the specific information for a given task.

There are more ways to "job brief" incorrectly than there are to do it correctly. It has been my experience the simplest and least time consuming. Is a simple line drawing. It takes seconds to do. It breaks down the task in a chronological order. And maybe the most important part is it simply will highlight's any area of confusion. You can mark an area of interest with a check or x: And discuss. It take's misleading body cue's and inferences out of the formula.

It could be a line drawing or a picture that you can mark up. It removes assumptions of location or position. You could in fact not even look at the person sharing the instructions. And you could likely not even hear or understand what they are saying. The task is chronologically before you. And really to do this right. It takes a few seconds.

Just a suggestion.

this is completely off topic and I apologize, but could you please provide me any references possible for the concept of "job briefing"? I think I might be able to find a way to use this at work,

Yes, I would like to see them as well.

Which poster are you replying to?

I am trying to find a definition I can share. Its a rule and as such is password protected at our employee site. I am sure I can find a copy that is outside of my employer's control.

My definition is: A simple digestible description of a task to be done. It sometimes involves check lists but always involves active listening and agreement by all participants. This agreement is not just "yes I agree" by both parties. But repeating the broken down components of the task for confirmation and agreement. If the task changes mid task. we are required to stop the task and conduct another "job brief". This is also done of someone enters or leaves the task.

The "job brief" sounds elementary. Initially it was met with jokes and skepticism. I will search for references I can share.

You all seemed to be talking above my head. the OP appeared to me as being overly complex and infinitely variable. So like you all: in order for me to participate I have to express myself in ways I understand. Or talk like I think. I absolutely understand that we all process information differently. And really there is no right or wrong way to do that. I just felt the need to put a little disclaimer there. To keep me from looking like a moron as I wrote what I perceived was under the level of the current conversation. It was probably unnecessary.

I guess the point of my OP is a simple prop like a line drawing or pic likely can bridge the gap between people who like a lot of input and people who prefer general outlines. And specifically in this case it can reduce the reliance on visual cues or gestured inferences.

"A picture is worth a thousand words" kinda thing.