Regarding us as Labrats ! !

Post Reply New Topic

I have been a member of WP for about two years . I Like the low pressure non judgmental environment. I found out last night ,without any consent from members whatsoever NT's had been conducting research into us on a large scale. Reading the survey made me feel uncomfortable because of the way it makes what I believe insidious assumptions about differences.

I have been looking for ways to challenge what I think is the dangerous interpretation of SBC's Zero Empathy concept of AS by researchers and journalists and of course those who are influenced by their views and have the power to make decisions.

I have also unexpectedly found a high degree of acceptance in The Guardian and I am holding conversations with them and I think many of them would agree that to present one section in society in this way is
detrimental to those being studied in this way using these methods, and descriptive terms.

There is a strong chance if I propose an article for the Guardian on this subject it would be commissioned. If anyone here would like to support this request I will be raising this issue tonight on the Guardian CiF "what do you ant to talk about ?" thread. If anyone here would like to propose writing the commissioned article or contribute to tonight's brief pre-debate, please join in.

The CiF thread will be utterly confusing at first. There are about five topics discussed simultaneously and a lot of chatter, but please don't be put off, there are people on CiF seriously interested and I think an editor will pick up on this.

I will link to the study tonight and write a brief statement of my thoughts towards the researchers approach and attitude to us.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...ou-tell-us

The thread for last night will close, click at the bottom for today's thread.

I will post sometime around 6.30 GMT.

Meme

More info please.
I would expect that the standard of informed consent would apply to the net as well.

The link returns a 400 error. Can you put it behind some text so the board doesn't shorten it? Thank you.

I will publish the link to the research tonight on CiF . I want to do it there to push for a response and develop awareness in the UK. But first we have to decide how we, all of us who are interested, react to this research and reason our way to a strategic response.

To keep a completely neutral stance, hence be most effective in task, the link to pre-debate has been posted on the AFF site as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ou-tell-us

Works on mine, please try again -if not i'll try something else.

How did you discover this? Is the survey on the Web? If so, can you provide a link ot it? If not, can you upload it and provide a link to the upload? Who conducted the survey? Who paid for it? What were its conclusions?

Please wait. I will post the link to the research in the 'neutral' environment of CiF later tonight and explain why I am doing this. The nature of the research appears harmless in itself , but I assess the broader implications for treating one group of people as as study /sample in the broader social context may have harmful connotations, and it is this possibility I wish to address and explore.

All views are welcome.

What the heck is "CIF?"

As to SBC's book on evil, First, I thought it was just flat out weird that it started with the claim that Nazis made lampshades and soap out of human beings. Both claims MIGHT be true, but the supporting evidence is shaky at best...why not use points that have been proven beyond doubt if you're going to highlight the Nazis as evil? Heaven knows there's enough of them.

Second, he cites a story his father told him about a woman who was tortured by Nazi "doctors" and had her hands reversed in an operation where the right hand was cut off and attached to the left arm, and vice versa. This woman (per SBC) managed to survive the operation, through the end of the war, and then beyond. There's a footnote, but if you turn to it, all it says is that the name he's used for the woman is a pseudonym, since he hasn't been able to find her or anything about her. Huh?

Given the tens of thousands of pages of documentary evidence of Nazi vileness he could have used, he instead opts for a dubious claim and one based on hearsay. I'm mystified, frankly.

And perhaps somebody can parse this sentence for me:

I'm reading the above as SBC saying Peek was autistic, when he was not(FG Syndrome seems to be the consensus opinion.). Does this interpretation make sense? Possibly he meant to say that Hoffman's character was autistic, but that's not how I'm reading this. If my take on this is right, that's sloppiness of a sort I doubt SBC would tolerate from any of his students. What is especially curious from where I'm sitting is that the "Daniel" in question is Daniel Tammet, author of
Born On A Blue Day: Inside the Extraordinary Mind of an Autistic Savant. In the book Tammet actually makes a trip to Salt Lake City to meet Peek. And I'm fairly sure Tammet himself notes that Peek was not autistic in the book (though I don't have a copy at hand, unfortunately.) Oh, and how anyone would compare Rain Man to Tammet I have no idea. Tammet has traveled all over the world by himself, has started a few businesses, etc. Socially there's no comparison at all that I can see.

[

Sorry, this got me the first time. Cif = Comment Is Free . The online Uk newspaper The Guardian has a seriously good forum for debate .
It is one of few newspapers in our country (UK) that will challenge
some social and environmental issues. I have been trying to raise debate about this whole TOM empathy and empathy measurement issue and how we are regarded in the mainstream media , and importantly how this reflects how others respond to us at a personal and professional level.

Some NT's in this forum are interested in this debate because they realize it has relevance to themselves and if I dare be as bold to suggest, they are concerned also for us. There are some AS there as well.

If an editor picks up enough interest they may run an article.

That is why this post has also been made on AFF , and I think also it will lead to a balance of opinion.

I will post at 19.00 GMT in CIF.

Hope you will join in.

I'm finding this thread seriously confusing.

Are you talking about specific research that is being conducted without informed consent?

What does this have to do with CIF?

The thing is, analysing attitudes on forums is old hat these days. What you post here is in the public sphere and so is fair play, it's not like the researchers tracked you down because you post here, hired people to spy on you for 6 months and then published intimate personal details that identified you.

They did a very limited and somewhat dubious study that isn't robust enough to stand up to scrutiny. What is the problem?

.............

Last edited by 4Five9 on 31 Aug 2011, 8:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.

It can be pretty damn horrible, I agree but I will outline my case there
as well as here.

There is a chance to engage an otherwise static NT crowd and a strong chance that the editor will go with this. I am not pleading our case, I am demanding our right to be heard . Some will listen.


Hopefully you will accept my logic and strategy when it becomes apparent.


Meme.

Good luck with them and I'll definitely be following!

Last edited by 4Five9 on 01 Sep 2011, 12:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Thank you . I will do what I can.

Take care .

It's there now.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... f-comments