pascalflower wrote:
I think you guys have taken the "rock" part a bit too literal. Secondly it was meant from an NT perspective, so it should seem totally different from your normal perspectives. The point wasn't name calling however. It was an analogy. People use analogy to see things "differently", in order to more clearly illustrate a portion of the matter that they would normally overlook if they just interpret things the way they are used to doing.
This wasn't an analogy, and is the part people are responding to:
pascalflower wrote:
In talking to people with Autism, it doesn't feel natural. There is a lack of human(-ness) to conversations. It's like talking to a rock, that can say anything like a human, but isn't quite human. From this NT perspective, Autistics are too logical, and inflexible in their opinions. They seem like rocks, solid and un-moving; incapable of the cognitive flexibility that most humans have.
It struck me like your blanket statement regarding something that autistic people are all supposedly incapable of comprehending in another thread yesterday.