Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Empathy, yeah, but only if you have fur, feathers or fins...

Page 2 of 3 [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

swbluto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: In the Andes, counting the stars and wondering if one of them is home to another civilization

14 Dec 2011, 11:25 pm

The closer in size/stature that two animals are to each other, the higher the likelihood they are going to compete. If one animal is smaller and is FORCED to live with the larger animal, they'll ingratiate themselves. If they happen to be a prey to the larger animal, they'll run away or defend themselves somehow.

A pet is a smaller animal to most humans. They don't compete and need to befriend their master to survive.

A given human is usually comparably sized to most other humans, so they're more likely to compete. In the case of aspies, most really aren't that competitive socially-speaking so they are more likely to 'lose', so it's no surprise that many aspies would prefer something that's smaller that can't compete with them to a human that would compete with them and win.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

14 Dec 2011, 11:31 pm

The fact is, the animal is not a human. That's why some Aspies love them. It's a totally different experience. Animals will put up with you no matter what you look or smell like. They ignore things about you humans do not. It doesn't matter if they only do it for food. Humans would use you for food and not give you anything in return. At least pets give something back.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

14 Dec 2011, 11:35 pm

Phonic wrote:
I think this whole subject smells of crypto misantropy, but in this case weeping dogs upset me more then weeping children.


What do you mean?

It's much easier for me to relate to animals than to humans, and I tolerate more from my pets than I do from people. But I doubt anyone could credibly accuse me of misanthropy of any variety.

It's probably just what it says on the tin: Animals are easier for some of us.



Sparx
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,186

14 Dec 2011, 11:36 pm

@swbluto: I don't really agree with that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but in my experiences, I'd say it's definitely not true for domesticated animals. Whoever has the more dominant personality is in charge, despite their size.



swbluto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: In the Andes, counting the stars and wondering if one of them is home to another civilization

14 Dec 2011, 11:38 pm

Sparx wrote:
@swbluto: I don't really agree with that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but in my experiences, I'd say it's definitely not true for domesticated animals. Whoever has the more dominant personality is in charge, despite their size.


I guess you're right. My personality has been too dominant over every pet I've owned to have ever noticed that phenomenon.



TheygoMew
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,102

14 Dec 2011, 11:43 pm

horse
fish
dog
cats
bunny
my little pony
fish
woody woodpecker
kitten
cat
woody woodpecker
kitten



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

15 Dec 2011, 12:14 am

swbluto wrote:
The closer in size/stature that two animals are to each other, the higher the likelihood they are going to compete. If one animal is smaller and is FORCED to live with the larger animal, they'll ingratiate themselves. If they happen to be a prey to the larger animal, they'll run away or defend themselves somehow.

A pet is a smaller animal to most humans. They don't compete and need to befriend their master to survive.

A given human is usually comparably sized to most other humans, so they're more likely to compete. In the case of aspies, most really aren't that competitive socially-speaking so they are more likely to 'lose', so it's no surprise that many aspies would prefer something that's smaller that can't compete with them to a human that would compete with them and win.


I love horses.

Just saying.

Anyway, I don't think this really has much explanatory value, as it simply elides every bit of consciousness from the relationship and turns it into a sterile matter of "who's the strongest." I also think it fails to explain a significant number of human-animal and animal-animal relationships that can and do exist.

I know it's tempting to turn to evolutionary psychology-esque explanations for all behavior, but, I think that tends to be extremely reductive.

For example: Animals take to me quickly, most of the time. This includes pets who are pretty bonded with their owners, who tend to distrust or avoid people they don't know, they still take to me right away. Does your explanation cover this?



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

15 Dec 2011, 12:22 am

Horses are definitely much bigger.



swbluto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: In the Andes, counting the stars and wondering if one of them is home to another civilization

15 Dec 2011, 1:15 am

Verdandi wrote:
swbluto wrote:
The closer in size/stature that two animals are to each other, the higher the likelihood they are going to compete. If one animal is smaller and is FORCED to live with the larger animal, they'll ingratiate themselves. If they happen to be a prey to the larger animal, they'll run away or defend themselves somehow.

A pet is a smaller animal to most humans. They don't compete and need to befriend their master to survive.

A given human is usually comparably sized to most other humans, so they're more likely to compete. In the case of aspies, most really aren't that competitive socially-speaking so they are more likely to 'lose', so it's no surprise that many aspies would prefer something that's smaller that can't compete with them to a human that would compete with them and win.


I love horses.

Just saying.

Anyway, I don't think this really has much explanatory value, as it simply elides every bit of consciousness from the relationship and turns it into a sterile matter of "who's the strongest." I also think it fails to explain a significant number of human-animal and animal-animal relationships that can and do exist.

I know it's tempting to turn to evolutionary psychology-esque explanations for all behavior, but, I think that tends to be extremely reductive.

For example: Animals take to me quickly, most of the time. This includes pets who are pretty bonded with their owners, who tend to distrust or avoid people they don't know, they still take to me right away. Does your explanation cover this?


Where did I say it was "The theory of everything to do with animals and people"? I was only explaining why most autistics might like animals more than most humans, whereas the opposite tends to be true of most NTs.



Last edited by swbluto on 15 Dec 2011, 1:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

15 Dec 2011, 1:21 am

swbluto wrote:
Where did I say it was "The theory of everything to do with animals and people"? I was only explaining why most autistics might like animals more than most humans, whereas the opposite tends to be true of most NTs.


Why do you need to explain why "most autistics" might like animals more than most humans?

As for where I got the idea that you were describing an encompassing concept of animals and people, it would likely be all the generalizations you made in your post.



swbluto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: In the Andes, counting the stars and wondering if one of them is home to another civilization

15 Dec 2011, 1:38 am

Verdandi wrote:
swbluto wrote:
Where did I say it was "The theory of everything to do with animals and people"? I was only explaining why most autistics might like animals more than most humans, whereas the opposite tends to be true of most NTs.


Why do you need to explain why "most autistics" might like animals more than most humans?


Because it seemed like an INTERESTING insight to me and it MIGHT have been INTERESTING to someone else.

This is part of the DSM-IV criteria, btw:

Quote:
a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest)


It seems like you don't understand the "pointing out something interesting" motivation. It's the extension of "protodeclarative pointing"(Autistic terminology) to the world of ideas.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

15 Dec 2011, 3:24 am

No, I get that and I do it often. I don't understand in this particular case. Your explanation seems to focus entirely on pragmatism as a possible reason, and doesn't seem to account for anything beyond that.



swbluto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: In the Andes, counting the stars and wondering if one of them is home to another civilization

15 Dec 2011, 3:49 am

Verdandi wrote:
Your explanation seems to focus entirely on pragmatism as a possible reason, and doesn't seem to account for anything beyond that.


I'm allowed to do that, right? I never claimed my insight "explained everything" and it's just merely one possible angle among undoubtedly many others for understanding the difference between Aspie and NT trends in animal-or-human preferences.

Einstein developed the theory of relativity, but yet there was still more to understanding physics which is when Quantum mechanists added to the picture and then Quantum chromodynamists and yet more people are adding to the picture with String theory. A given theory describes one particular aspect of the subject and other theories complement it to give a fuller explanation.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

15 Dec 2011, 4:21 am

swbluto wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
Your explanation seems to focus entirely on pragmatism as a possible reason, and doesn't seem to account for anything beyond that.


I'm allowed to do that, right? I never claimed my insight "explained everything" and it's just merely one possible angle among undoubtedly many others for understanding the difference between Aspie and NT trends in animal-or-human preferences.

Einstein developed the theory of relativity, but yet there was still more to understanding physics which is when Quantum mechanists added to the picture and then Quantum chromodynamists and yet more people are adding to the picture with String theory. A given theory describes one particular aspect of the subject and other theories complement it to give a fuller explanation.


I never said you weren't allowed to do that, I simply disagreed with you, and said I didn't see the point of that particular kind of theorizing - that is, a mechanistic description.



swbluto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: In the Andes, counting the stars and wondering if one of them is home to another civilization

15 Dec 2011, 4:47 am

Verdandi wrote:
swbluto wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
Your explanation seems to focus entirely on pragmatism as a possible reason, and doesn't seem to account for anything beyond that.


I'm allowed to do that, right? I never claimed my insight "explained everything" and it's just merely one possible angle among undoubtedly many others for understanding the difference between Aspie and NT trends in animal-or-human preferences.

Einstein developed the theory of relativity, but yet there was still more to understanding physics which is when Quantum mechanists added to the picture and then Quantum chromodynamists and yet more people are adding to the picture with String theory. A given theory describes one particular aspect of the subject and other theories complement it to give a fuller explanation.


I never said you weren't allowed to do that, I simply disagreed with you, and said I didn't see the point of that particular kind of theorizing - that is, a mechanistic description.


The point of it is to highlight an underlying dynamic. Why might aspergerians prefer animals to people more than NTs tend to? Because they're easier to befriend because they are "lower than them" and have no choice in the matter, and aspies being human still desire "relationships" AT SOME LEVEL. NTs, on the other hand, have a choice in the matter and they're "higher" than aspies and those "higher", evolutionarily speaking, tend to out-compete those who are "lower" and those "lower" tend to resent those who out-compete them and feel less attached to them and/or sympathetic to them.

Maybe the attribute I originally theorized about, size, wasn't the best one. But the abstract attribute, "higher" or "lower"(or "more" and "less"), still applies and I'm guessing it's more a matter of 'evolutionary competitiveness'.

NTs are more evolutionarily competitive than aspies, while aspies are more evolutionarily competitive than animals.


So, here's the SIMPLIFIED scheme:

Everyone needs someone/something to befriend.

NTs befriend NTs. They're everywhere.

NTs tend to dislike aspies because aspies, ultimately, don't have advantageous evolutionary traits. Aspies generally don't befriend NTs or "not on the same level/depth".

Aspies, in desperation, find companionship in pets that have no choice in the matter. So, aspies prefer animals.

In sum, NTs become friends with each other, whereas aspies, because they're so lonely, prefer friendships with animals.



Last edited by swbluto on 15 Dec 2011, 5:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

15 Dec 2011, 4:58 am

In my experience, animals very much do have a choice in the matter. I've seen animals simply refuse to take to certain people, even their own owners, and I've seen animals take to people immediately, owners or not. And everything in between. I have also seen people coerce their pets, and that is not the same dynamic I have ever experienced with my own pets.

This is why I find your theory difficult to accept: It clashes with what I've seen and experienced. I am also fairly dubious about a theory that hinges upon an assumed self-perception of inferiority as compared to NTs.