Insensitivity to social reputation in autism. So how is it?

Post Reply New Topic

I had to shift the stressed syllable to get that.

As I age I feel how I climb these ladders down.
When I was a child/teen for some cosmic reason I always wanted to please everyone. That of course didn't work out very well but it's difficult to shift my feelings even today. Even though my mentality is now that I don't bloody care and it's such irrational thing to engage yourself in but sometimes I can't help it. So yeah my evolution is towards being a proud reputationless a***hole. For me it apparently doesn't do much.

I'm a people pleaser really, but not because I care what others think of me. I generally don't like to upset the apple cart, because I'm too emotional for confrontation. So, I'm a bit of a doormat (although I can hold my own at home and my husband would say that I'm the boss). I wish I was more assertive outside my home too. I'm not as bad as I was as a child. My mum says I was taken advantange of (financially) as a kid, but I think I was aware of what was happening. I wasn't niave; I just didn't want to do what was needed to stop this happening to me.

I will also do good deeds, not expecting (or wanting) anything in return or thanks or to impress anyone. It's just because it's the right thing to do and I would feel guilty otherwise. In fact, any attention I get for doing something for someone can be quite uncomfortable.

http://www.eurekalert.org/jrnls/pnas_pd ... 107038.pdf

Why do people assume charities specifically dedicated to raising money for children will tug at the heart strings of everyone ?

So, UNICEF was the charity used to illicit donations from both controls and people with ASD's?

IF i were to do a search with regards to the number one charity dedicated to the plight of Autistic children, i might find a lack of support for this charity from a large number of Autistic Adults.

It's quite possible that a different TYPE of charity might have prompt a different response. I can argue that a significant amount of bias could have unintentionally been built into the study.

Why would the presence of another person interfere with the mechanisms of a social mind/social brain that relies on insistence on sameness to navigate social situations, in particularly new ones?

TheSunAlsoRises

Well, obviously the results of the study suggest that NTs in the research community are threatened by our evolutionary superiority and feel a need to demonize us.

I have a problem with any Autism research team that doesn't include an autistic. It's like a blind person writing a paper on the visual qualities of a sunset and telling everyone how they should perceive it. They may be geniuses and they may have done considerable research, but if they lack context, their assumptions are inherently flawed. Worse yet, spreading those assumptions as fact can be very damaging to those that don't know better.

Of course, maybe I just lack the ability to understanding the emotional and social context of this whole discussion and everyone is praising the research

Nope, everyone is agreeing with you here.

I once wrote that studies of autism were "attempting to describe the sound, smell and feel of a lack of blindness". It's weird how otherwise smart scientists (well, social scientists) will uniformly make the assumption that their own view is the correct one without realising it's an assumption.

Yes, I've seen autistic logic described as incorrect because it came from an autistic person - basically, a tautology*. It seems to happen often with the smoothie cup question.

* Paraphasia: First you say it, and then you do it.

Last edited by Verdandi on 14 Dec 2011, 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nt logic is incorrect as it comes from NTs. It's all a matter of perspective, and NTs dominate the public eye.

I chose "Here I am. If you don't like me, the worse for you". Though I guess that's not entirely true, because I do try to watch my behavior in social situations. I'm not going to give the finger to everyone who doesn't like me, but I'm also not going to change myself for others.

I picked other as the ones listed didn't seem to quite fit me. I try to consider how others may see me sometimes but in generally I'm pretty blind to other people when in public. I do care about how others see me kind of since I often get nervous if I think others will think negatively of me for doing whatever it is I happen to be doing at the time, but only if I think it's something people would notice and judge me in some way for or I've been told people will judge me for it. I'm not that aware of my surrounding most of the time to the degree I've been told I should be(whatever that means) and I don't usually pay much attention to other people as far as what they think when going places.

Like if I was out walking to the store a few blocks away:

I'd either walk and admire the trees and houses on my way to the store while being annoyed with the cold(not out loud just in my head). If I was upset or something when I left I'd walk faster(I tend to walk 'fast' anyway according to most people) and repeat 'ignore all human life' to myself in my head for a while before going silent to focus more on where I'm going. I'd walk around people that may be out walking as well and if any were smoking I've speed up to pass them and get to a spot far enough away that has non-smoke filled air so I could breath (I have asthma and smoke in the air makes me not able to breath good. I don't hate smokers per say just their smoking because I like breathing). I'd go to the store, try to find the stuff I want/need to buy and eventually find it, pay, leave and head back home the same way I went to get to the store(almost always in as good a mood or better mood as when I left unless something had happened or I was running late to get back).

I'm not that good at explaining things(in my opinion).

Having read this paper quickly things I've noted:

1. They make no mention of socio-economic background or whether the individuals are employed. They matched age, sex, and IQ.

2. They made the standard incredibly frustrating mistake of misusing the word empathy from SBC's writing. They were using SBC's research and empathy quotient, which is based off of cognative empathy, then wrote (supporting it with EQ test results) "Might people with ASD be immune to observer effects simply because they have less empathy for others (less intrinsic motivation to help others)?"

3. The people with ASDs did overall give less. That's the reason they're able to paint this as negative at all.


I still don't see why "I make decisions based on the same criteria whether or not someone is watching me" is a negative thing. I'm quite confused by this.

Tuttle-

I think it's absurd. I can't figure out if I am just not understanding or if they could really be saying this. I did not read the study just comments on this thread.

It seems weasely to me to think of giving more because someone is watching. I don't have much respect for that.

Well, all of the language is about impairment; none of it is positive. And then they started questioning whether people with ASDs care as much about helping others (and saying that can't account for the differences), but as a whole its very autism is negative necessarily language.

(Note: I missed writing down in the last one - how they tried to not take economic status into account was giving everyone $45 at the beginning of it that they could give away and such. I'm thinking that's not enough control though.)

It is indeed a matter of perspective. It's illogical to think that one's perspective is the only "right" one, and the only one that counts.