Can someone please disprove my theory?

Post Reply New Topic

You think things make sense to me?? It's more like I don't expect anything to "make sense" and never have, and don't think in a way where "making sense" matters. I just figure that the world doesn't need me to use thought to understand it, it gets on fine without me. So instead of thinking about the world to figure out whether it makes sense, I just observe it and (if necessary) report back on what I see. So it's not that things always make sense to me, it's that they rarely make sense and I don't care and don't try to make sense out of them. Trying to make sense out of them would pit the world against my weakest cognitive skills, so the world would win every time and things still wouldn't make sense.

Not sure what the part about temporal lobes means but mine aren't anything most people would generally want. They're the main focus of my epilepsy and generate weird brain scan readings even outside of seizures.

there is so much that unnerves me about this.

Mitochondrial dysfunction? What???

less energy? huh?

What if what translates to...?

Brutality is never okay and anyone who thinks it is AND thinks of others "beneath you" as less than human and is okay to prey upon seriously needs their head examined! Serial killer, anyone?

I'm a parent and I know very little about my daughter. Being a parent doesn't automatically make someone a mind reader or a psychic.

I see no theories here. Just asinine ramblings.

Get help man. Someone had to say it.

Seriously, no one who's psychotic ever think they are.They just see conspiracies around every corner and chemtrails in every sky.

I get the impression the OP isnt repeating their own theories but rather one's they've heard their own parents or other parents use. These are commonplace views in parts of the autism community. Seriously dangerous views but common.

anbuend is mostly right. It comes from a combination of my mother, a recent study which included fewer autistics than Wakefield's but is being taken seriously, the most annoying parent "advocates" (who aren't my mother) and some things that are implied by the above.

MasterJedi, I am disturbed by how you get from "you sound like a serial killer" to "you're psychotic." Please abandon your prejudices against the mentally ill. Even if I were psychotic, it wouldn't be a moral issue. Thinking how you do only makes it harder for the mentally ill to find jobs and homes and to live their lives. /soapbox

Anyway, anbuend, it's a joke. Like, I want to live inside your mind because your thoughts aren't self-contradictory and aren't self-evidently stupid like mine. So then I was treating it like a party (I'll provide refreshments... in your head), and then made another joke that clearly confuses your mind with the inside of your skull, suggesting that we should drape toilet paper over part of your brain (on Halloween, people drape toilet paper over houses). I just picked something that kind of sticks out and looks like you could drape something over it. It's not really funny; it's kind of silly.

ediself, I know how close I am to it, and I wouldn't call myself depressed right now, or at the time I wrote this. Maybe soon, but I hope not.

Okay, DF, I think I may understand what you're driving at.

The thing is, what you posit in your first post isn't a theorem; it's a thesis, the idea being that if you were indeed "broken", it would make sense to seek "repair", if you will. However, the thesis is predicated upon a false premise - being autistic does not mean you're broken. You seem to be perfectly functional, you're just built to a different set of specifications.

Unfortunately, your mother is looking at your Porsche and complaining because it doesn't have fold-down third-row seats, to extend the metaphor slightly. She is incorrect in her belief. Sadly, all I can do at this point is tell you that one day, one way or another, you will be living away from her; one hopes that she will correct herself before then, and you can part on good terms, but so far as I know there's no way to force her to accept what is.

Oh but my thoughts are self-contradictory. They exist as long as they're useful (or until I hit shutdown) then I put them away. So any thought at one time may contradict any thought at another time, at least according to the way thoughts function. That's why I can use words like "subtype of autism" and yet also say I don't believe in subtypes of autism at all. Because thoughts are like that, and words are like that too. It's why I try to spend as much time as possible away from thoughts.

Then I will abandon my faith in humanity now. (Joking. You haven't actually caused me to abandon my faith in humanity. I have none to abandon. )

Mostly I try not to discuss autism with her and as long as we talk about other things she's not particularly curebie. It is annoying what a big deal she's making over the fact that the "miracle" treatment for my auditory processing issues only lasted a couple of years. What did you expect? This is how my brain works. I'm not interested in spending time and money on something that won't even last me through college. I'm NOT going to travel back home for it if I manage to get into med school, either. Anyway, I just want to reassure you that my relationship with my mother isn't a pressing issue.

...In what way don't you believe in subtypes of autism?

okay, when you say that you think people with low-functioning autism could be brutalized, that's a characteristic thought pattern of a deranged individual. People who are lesser than you should be victimized is.

Prejudices? You're the one asking is it's okay to prey upon a whole group of people.

I'm asking with the hope of being told no. Because everything in the OP is something that strikes me as unlikely, but important if true because it means everything I believe is false, including implying that it's okay to do things I currently believe are awful.

^One would think that there could be homeostatic failure here, a global catastrophe and that it would 'grenade' itself.

Instead, you can have people that are high up at "INTEL", and have PHD er's in here-(it's all in the posters here, baby).

Last edited by Mdyar on 25 Dec 2010, 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't technically believe in subtypes of autism because I don't think of autism as either a concrete thing that can then be divided into types, nor a single thing that can be seen in terms of a bunch of smaller variants on similar themes. 

Autism is an idea someone had about a group of people he partly understood and partly seriously misunderstood.  (As well as an idea someone else had about a similar group of people he partly understood and partly seriously misunderstood in different ways, but his work didn't get added in until after several cycles I'm about to describe unfolded.)

So then professionals read Kanner's work. And they began to study "autistic" people. Which included people who were really like the original people. As well as people like Kanner's description of the original people. As well as people who were neither like Kanner's description nor like the original people, but who were in a position where the researchers could assume (without the people being able to contradict them) that they were like Kanner's description. And of course all combinations of similar things. Then these researchers wrote their conclusions about their subjects, which were some part right and some part wrong, and some part like 's words and some part unlike Kanner's words. 

Then soon there was a third "generation" of researchers that had the same situation as above only in relation to the second generation of researchers instead of to Kanner. 

And of course there was during this time a lot of crossover from studies of other so called "childhood psychoses" that all got blended in with this. Not to mention that each researcher interpreted the previous one in ways the previous one might not have meant, causing much more confusion than I'm able to convey. (Keep in mind this is the first time I've been able to type all this in detailed and grammatical language.)  And many researchers had pet theories that would affect how they viewed autistic people. (Bettelheim, for example, who even went so far as to falsify data.)  

And this continued until 1980, where then we finally had researchers who were the "second generation" from Asperger added in to the whole mishmash of however many generations of researchers had followed Kanner by then. This was considered necessary in part because people had nearly forgotten what Kanner's original subjects were often capable of (speech, interaction, college, etc.) as autism had been shifted in so many other directions in just forty years. 

So now in addition to the whole mishmash of what happened from Kanner until 1980, there was also an additional line starting with Asperger and going forward. 

And also keep in mind that at some point autistic people began putting in our own input to the process of diagnosis and research. This ended up including even further complications to the mix. 

Some autistic people simply restated what nonautistic researchers believed about them, whether true or not. 

Some autistic people said things about themselves that totally defied the researcher's theories. (These were more often people who were already diagnosed as children on the basis of appearance. Few people saying these non-researcher-approved things about themselves would get diagnosed if they admitted capabilities the researchers didn't think possible.)

Some autistic people did a combination of both. 

(And by now there were so many ideas about autism out there that people could pick and choose which they identified with or responded to.)

This led to researchers (some of them) keeping these things in mind, while others found many ways to disregard them. 

And these days, now that autistic people can ask to be diagnosed, there are:

Those who seek diagnosis because they outwardly resemble researchers views. 

Those who seek diagnosis because they inwardly resemble researchers views. 

Those who seek diagnosis because they outwardly resemble other autistic peoples views. 

Those who seek diagnosis because they outwardly resemble other autistic peoples views. 

And all different combinations. Including people who only think they resemble someone's views (because they are force-fitting themselves) and people who try to fit researchers views because they fear not being taken seriously otherwise, or fear being bullied by "you're not autistic unless you're a stereotype" sorts of people. (The autistic community is full of both of these force-fitting impulses.)

So all of this means that autism isn't really as much an observation of a real thing, as generations of ideas bouncing off each other in ways that frequently have little to do with reality. 

But so many people think it is an objective reality that (especially since I have trouble coming up with new words) it's easier for me to say "subtypes of autism" than "different sorts of people whose traits or appearance get them called autistic in a society that has had several generations of combinations of good and bad research combining into a nebulous idea that currently gets called autism". 

FWIW this is true for many different psychiatric concepts. "Schizophrenia" is way worse of a concept to the point where I refuse to use it.  The field is less about understanding the human mind than it is about perpetuating old, potentially iffy ideas long past the point of making any sense. 

But I still see autism as a potentially useful concept, despite its flaws. Many common ideas have as little to do with reality or less. And all words and ideas fall massively short compared to the real thing. So I figure I might as well use ideas I don't fully believe in rather than not use words at all (though it's tempting at times). So that's how I come to use many terms I don't believe in. Sort of. 

For more information, please read The Fireworks Are Interesting. No, really, please read it. It contains important information I wasn't able to get into this post. (As well as the last version of that long confusing thing I wrote for the first time in regular English today.)

To question one Everything has Energy see Einstein theory of relativity E=mc^2.

to Q2...It does NOT.
to Q3 you are like them you have FREE WILL thats your right.
to Q4 parents know very little compared to everything
to Q5 un-likely
to Q6 Thermasol is highly neuro-toxic.
to Q7 also Unlikely
to Q8 you are whole to be alive you must be whole. not broken

What if NT is caused by mitochondrial dysfunction?

What if there's a linear scale of more energy to less energy?

What if that directly translates to high or low functioning?

What if everything I believe is false? What if brutality is okay if it happens to low-functioning autistics? What if I'm really not like "them" and don't have the right to say that they're human?

what if everything you believe is neither true nor false?

What if parents all know everything about their children?

Well, they would have to know 'everything' about themselves first.

What if weak central coherence is caused by not having the brainpower to have strong central coherence?

What if a weak central coherence is caused by not having the brainpower to become attached to things (aka insane)

What if we only notice details because we're too tired to see the whole picture?

what if the big picture is the details and what they call the big picture is meaningless.

What if it's mercury poisoning from vaccines?

heavy mettles should be easy to detect, there would be some evidence. (Ok I had no vaccinations)

What if my mother is right?

I wouldn't even believe myself. That would be insane.

What if I'm broken?

What if society is broken?

What if brutality is okay if it happens to low-functioning autistics? What if I'm really not like "them" and don't have the right to say that they're human?

If it runs in family's then is a racial characteristic.

If it's the result of someone else poisoning you, then that's their culpability.

What if I'm really not like "them". Maybe your an uberman? What if your difference is down to greater awareness. What if there so busy trying to look at the 'big' picture, they don't notice what's going on around them.

What if they never question things, or themselves. What if?

Science is all based on theories and probability, so I'm afraid I can't give you the proof you are asking for. And if someone else 'claims' such a proof, I would ask them. What if?

I can tell you that in comparison to more NT people I can separate out sensory perception and the relations (so the actors and the effects), I can also think in isolated senses and relate between them (synaesthetic).

For instance I sense emotions in other people and also on occasion have my own emotions that usually blow me away (when things are directed at me).
NT people seem to sense others emotions as their own, or on the more psyco end do things like get pleasure (possibly pain relief) our of other peoples pain, so sensory inversion of sorts, but attached.

so (though it's changed a bit through the years). If I have 'pain' in my leg, it's just like touch until it reaches a certain level (a lot of it if it ever gets that far) and then I feel pain, it's no longer in my leg.

so when I feel it, I feel it bad, but when I sense it it's like it's detached from myself.
I can also think it. or if I'm up to it turn the feeling into one of warmth not pain.

Schizophrenia.

Well the schizophrenia people I know [the once who actually seem scitzophrenic] all seem to the modal thought and learning pattern of 'seeing is believing'.

some don't believe themselves and don't have 'classic' attachment psychosis but still believe something is an absolute truth because the origin of the truth said so, and anyone that discredits it is part of a conspiracy or what have you.

when the origin is yourself, then that's when you get classics schizophrenia psychosis not just simple schizophrenia.

Suggesting this text is/are your theory/theories, then you believe/agree in/with the opposit of the questioning.

Or did you mean something else by it?

Cheerfully,
Wallourdes