No, We are Not Normal

Post Reply New Topic

The definition of normal is an identity statement. Now, that doesn't mean that it cannot be used as a qualitative judgement, but that is not the definition. The word "hippie" could be defined as a, "free roaming spirit who lives off the land, blah, blah, blah". Now, one can use "hippie" as an insult, but the insult is not the definition. The insult is the opinion of the user on the life of the hippie, not the definition of the word.

"Normal" is not defined as good nor bad, whether it is good or not is the opinion of the user on the value of the item in question, it is not the definition.

NT's are normal, they are the type of humans which occur most often in the propagation of the species. This doesn't make them better, it only labels them as what we would expect the typical outcome of a human to be, hence, the term neuro-typical (an identity statement), not neuro-superior (a value judgement).

"Normal" can mean messed up too. After a hurricane it is "normal" to go outside and see chaos. It would be abnormal to go outside after a hurricane and see everything perfectly in place. The definition is not a judgement of quality. The definition is the typically occuring event which occurs most often, in other words, an identity statement. It is not a judgement of quality.

In a created race of bugs with a genetic mutation that makes them disfigured, A bug that wasn't disfigured would not be "normal".

In a amazonion tribe where everyone talks to trees, the person who doesn't talk to tree's would be abnormal.

Yes, words are more than identity statements, but therein lies the problem, people think that the definition and value judgement of the word normal is the same, but they are not. The definition of normal is an identity statement, the value judgement of normal is an opinion. And, opinions are not facts, but when we mix them up as being the defintion, people take them as facts, but they are not.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php? ... ht=#208808

I disagree with nothing that you said jonathan79. Well put.

I believe that the conflict over this word likely portends to far larger issues then just words. Indeed it think it very well may speak as to how we identify ourselves as people. We may never come to an agreement over issues like this, but it is good to come to see from where and why each other us may differ.

EDIT: Silly me thinking I could pull myself away that easily.

Last edited by jimservo on 22 Dec 2006, 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm just going to jump in here:

The truth of the matter is this, yes, we are not normal. We shouldn't expect to have everyone bend over backwards to cater to our way of understanding. However...


Don't let anyone tell you that you are lesser of a person becuase we have Aspergers. I foolishly lived my life thinking that I am a less person due to my disablitity and that is simply not the truth. I will never let someone tell me that I must "grow a thicker skin" or "understand others" when they act intolerably. We have a right to be respected and safe, despite any condition we may have.


Sorry for the militant tone. I am currently attending a vo-tech school filled with ghetto animals and I am sick of the BS.

i feel the same damn way we all have to fin d our own way in this world of nt's and some of thier stupid arrogent ignorant bigotry and even though im quite drunk and hammered we still have value in the world no matter what the NT's and AS'ers have to say so in closing we need them but they also still need us and THAT is what will still keep us in the world.

[/quote]

There are parts of the world where the range of "normal" is different than usual, or where most people are outright what would be considered "abnormal" in the one you're doubtless talking about.

These places exist. The world is not all the same. Thus the line of reasoning is far from moot.



Society isn't something separate from people within it. Disability, in whatever form, is always an interaction of a person with the society they are in (and which people that society has planned for -- who are not always in the numerical majority) and the environment they are in.

I have seen environments in which people currently considered non-disabled became, if only temporarily, disabled. I have known people who grew up in times and places where their (by current terms) moderate or severe disability was planned for as much as anyone else's configuration was planned for, and thus was not ever labeled or considered disabling.

Societies, regardless of where they draw various lines, and regardless of whether they "intended to", inevitably end up enabling some people and throwing disabling barriers in front of others, but it seems like a good idea to actually try to change the society one lives in to attempt to drop as many of those barriers as possible.

Perhaps I come to this opinion more readily by both the fact of having seen different societies do things differently (and thus not having the illusion that all societies are identical, or the illusion that innate differences and limitations cause the same problems in all societies), and in the fact that I have a lot of background in the disability rights movement.

And, possibly also, the fact that unlike some people, I'd die if expected to function the way a non-disabled person does, and still sometimes have to fight people wanting to put me into institutional situations (whether physical or developmental sorts) "for my own good". This means I have quite a vested interest in not seeing a society that shuts people like me out as inevitable and unchangeable. And that makes it easier to see the way others are shut out, and ways in which things can be done differently.

I think that both the views "I'm normal so treat me like everyone else" and "Give us X because we can't do what everyone else can" are caricatures of various views, they're not realities. Some people may embrace caricatures, I don't know, but I think more often we're trying to talk about various facets of the world and they're getting misinterpreted.

Non-disabled people (and who that is varies by culture) are given a lot of assistance to function in areas where they have real trouble functioning. (And, yes, they do have trouble functioning in some areas. This doesn't make them inferior to anyone, it's part of the human condition.) This assistance is part of what happens in a society.

To ask that disabled people be given that same assistance in our weak areas is not to ask for special treatment, but to ask for the same treatment non-disabled people get (the assistance that leads to non-disabled people being non-disabled in a particular society). And no, it's not (as one person described) some kind of "Harrison Bergeron" scenario, it's people using their strong areas to fill in for each other's weak areas, not eliminating the notion of strong or weak areas altogether by forcing everyone to act like they're the same.

To be part of a civil rights movement (and that is what disability rights is, whether anyone wants to acknowledge that or not) has nothing to do with declaring someone an enemy. What the point is that we're all in this together and we shouldn't be enabling some people but shutting other people out, we should be finding ways to shut as few people out as possible, and we should be changing aspects of a society that are just plain destructive.

People think that those who discriminate are automatically cruel, and that if people are not cruel, then they can't possibly discriminate. However, while hate is one aspect of these things (and a very real one), it is only one aspect, and only one form these problems can take. But the fact that some things are done with neutral to good intentions does not make them non-discriminatory in outcome.

There is hatred and dehumanization out there of disabled people in general and autistic people in particular. This is why people get away with killing us so often: We're either hated, or so dehumanized that many people don't realize that a crime against us is as bad as when it happens to someone else.

There is also discrimination on many levels, both wide-scale sorts of things and everyday sorts of things. People don't have to know it's happening to take part, that's almost the definition of certain kinds of prejudice after all. Most people doing bad things or benefiting from bad things or contributing to bad things don't feel like they're doing anything wrong. (And it's not only non-disabled people that do these things, this isn't some us-and-them thing.)

These things exist, and trying to change them is not revealing of some kind of internal psychodrama about refusing to admit we're disabled, it's an attempt to make things better. Acknowledging that a huge portion of disability comes from outside of any particular individual disabled person (and not solely or usually even mostly from inside their body), doesn't equate to "blaming society" and giving up on personal growth, it's just an observation of how things are weighted.

This whole thing is not generally some sort of expression of two diametrically opposed caricatures, it's an analysis of a complicated problem, far more complicated than "all your problems are caused by innate limitations, period" or "all your problems are caused by society and Bad Other Kinds of People, period".

Normal? Not me!

There are some areas in which I am considerably above average, and others in which I have embarrassing deficiencies.

It isn't normal for a 43 year old American woman to have a fascination with Roger Bannister, since he is English and his major athletic triumph occurred 54 years ago.

It probably isn't normal that I'm such an over the top cat lover, but I don't care.

I have more than the normal level of anxiety, which hampers me from performing my best at job interviews, although my interviewing skills are improving.

On the other hand, I'm fortunate to have a job I love and one ideally fitted to my interests and talents. I have been able to use my major strengths to great advantage as an Interlibrary Loan Page.

That's pretty cool. I love ILL, and I use it all the time. Who knows, maybe you even located an article I requested! What a neat job.

I disagree with you there bro, autistic traits are usually found more in men, men are generally stronger leaders than women. Most of the great leaders had strong autistic features (i.e. Napoleon Bonaparte) as it's what gave them an edge. Most people in society aren't gonna be the next Napoleons, Einsteins, Spielbergs or Beethovens. Most members of society aren't autistic.

I myself am a very good leader; I'm charismatic, witty, charming, friendly, and generally a nice guy. I've also been diagnosed with AS.

I disagree that social awkwardness is not a part of autism. I am socially awkward, but I dont get on better with other socially awkward people - quite the converse. I dont have many friends, but those I have are normally socially at ease, with lots of empathy. It takes me ages to make a friend, but with someone who can take control of the conversation and knows how to keep it flowing, I get to know them a lot more quickly. If someone doesnt approach me then I never get to know them, hence it is ten times harder to make a friend with an equally sociably awkward person than with a friendly person. I think that even if I was in a crowd of people with AS I would still be awkward, wouldnt know what to say. I wouldnt respond well to someone coming up to me and giving me a monologue about their special interest (if it didnt interest me). If all the world was AS I would probably have even less friends than I do now, although perhaps I would be happier about it.

Normal Is boring though. Who in their right mind would wana be normal?
Certanly not me.

And i dont really think of myself as disabled. I suppose in society i am lol . But i think of myself as more of having a Gift

So well said.

Depression, anger, anxiety - the common biggies - are all co-morbid to Autism in relation to NT society. I know - for a fact - that a change in soceity can change all of these other side effects. I have experienced this living in an artists' community for 9 years. I was happy.

Except, as I have mentioned elsewhere, what is understand as "social skills" are actually 'human social skills' - and those social skills are strictly for human personalities.

Autistics do not have personalities, and higher-functioning Autistics only adopt personalities. I never identified myself with the personality I "acted" before I discovered I was AS.

Did anyone ever lose themself and actually become the personality they were 'acting'? Not too often I would imagine, if at all.

On an Aspie planet, personalities would be for fun. Similar to artists. Artists have great fun and delight with personalities. They make fun of their own personalities, and adopt different personalities and play with them. Real artists have flexibility with their personalities and can even withstand a fair amount of 'de-personalization', even though they're NT. I don't know what really makes an artist an artist, though. Like Autistics, artists don't tend to be aggressive or invasive or initiate hurting.

And, no; In an Autistic world there would be nothing to cause the types of problems which Autistics develop from living in an NT world.
"Co-morbid".
We would just be as we are, and that would be completely normal. There would be nothing 'wrong' with us. Our society would be a Civilization, and would be very different from any human society that has ever existed. Humans are capable of having an actual human civilization, but they have much to learn about themselves before they can do that.

Because....


Human law here in the USA itself states; "All men are created equal..."
The problem for humans is that they made a mistake about equality; the actual equality that compassionate humans feel is that "All things suffer equally."

It is obvious that every human is completely unique and different from one another. You just look and see that. No men are created 'equal' ... not at all. This is evident at a glance, yet humans base their society on a morality instead of the truth. Of course their society is dysfunctional.

This is a morality that humans have to eliminate before they can have actual law and an actual human civilization. It is a nice humanitarian sentiment to want 'all men created equal', but, unfortunately, Nature simply doesn't care about what humans want, and makes everyone different anyway. ;P


Autism traits: honesty, truth. THAT is very, very most best suited to lead society. It is, in fact, necessary if we and this planet are going to survive.
Humans have proven relentlessly that they cannot govern themselves. Humans require a benign dictator ... and Autism is that benign dictator.

Now, this is what humans have to deal with and solve if they're ever going to not destroy themselves ... and this planet ... and us along with them.

The very humans that seek positions of power, influence, and authority are, in fact, those with the least human traits. These people DO NOT serve society .... they serve themselves. That is not well-suited for survival any longer. Those traits are completely obsolete - and need to be.

Example: where-ever you find a place where children are forced to attend, you will always find a man who is the principal, or the director - the man who sets the policies - and he does not even like children and none of the children like him. The staff who work with the children do not like this man, and this man cares nothing about the people who are the staff. Every policy this man sets is designed to do one thing and only one thing; to make him look as good as possible in his position of authority over others - regardless of whether the children or staff benefit from this or not. If a policy makes him look good and it just so happens to benefit the children, he will make that policy. If the policy make him look good as the director - or policy-maker - and it is detrimental to the children, then he will make that policy. I have yet to see an exception to this case (not that there might not be).
He will never make a policy than is controversial and may lead to him losing his position of authority over others.

Everywhere, in child clinics - like Yale University's Autistic Children's Clinic - there is a man who does not like children and who no children like (but are afraid of), and who wraps his tentacles deep into that place where both children must go (because they are forced to go and have no choice) and where the staff must go (because they need their jobs and careers). You cannot get this man out of that position of authority over others, or unravel his tentacles from every aspect of that place.

Human is a spectrum, too, and the intangible traits which define "human" are not equally distributed among individuals, at all.

A sociopath is not human. A sociopath lacks the exact intangible traits by which humans identify themselves as humans. A sociopath is essentially just an intelligent mammal ... a homo-sapiens.


I see the question as:
Can humans share the planet with a different form of sentience?
Judging by human behavior, and that they can't even share the planet with each other, and that they have to own and take apart and rule over and conquer everything and anything, and that they have a nasty habit of causing others species' extinctions, it doesn't appear that humans would be able to share this planet with a different sentience.
Rather, they will deny the possibility of a different sentience, because ... well ... we look human, and they will always seek to cure us - even if it kills us.
And they will convince you that you are a broken human who should not be an undue burden to human society, and that you are abnormal and therefore require fixing, and poor, poor you. It's so sad.

Appropriate accomodation?
eeek.

How about we 'ask' for our own rights?
How about we say that we're naturally different and we've been here all along and we can make our own laws and we don't require being governed by humans???
I'm sure humans won't mind is we have our own place on this planet, where we would naturally do no harm because we're Autistic, and I have no doubt that humans can share like that.

They will insist that we are 'broken' humans. They will always try and 'fix' Autistic children because Autistic children cannot defend themselve and have no rights and are considered 'broken'.


Humans have compassion. Not the policy-makers, however. They only pretend to have compssion when either they must, or it makes them look good, or when they benefit by an increase in popularity from acting compassionate.

Disability?
Autistics have only created math (Descartes) and science (Newton).

If it weren't for us "small percentage of the populace" that requires "appopriate accomodation" so that we are not an "undue burden", there would be no human society. We only created every science, every mental tool, all the arts, chess, design ...etc., etc., on and on and on.
THEIR SOCIETY???? No, no, no.... this is OUR society. We contributed everything humans have ... and we still are. I have created a new science for humans called Anthroponomy, so they can understand their own differences. This is a real science which requires a tremendous amount of work to become the necessary applied science it needs to be. I have done much more than that, and can revolutionize nearly every field. I have had the key to the cure for cancer since I was a teenager. When I talk about such things, people roll their eyes and my doctor calls me "delusional".

I, being Autistic, with a IQ that blasts though the test ceiling such that my official numerical IQ score is "... way up here somewhere", and that Autistics have contributed nearly everything on this planet, nah ... I couldn't possibly have anything to contribute, nothing newor revolutionary, nothing needed. That's ridiculous. Impossible.

Without Autistics, us small percentage, humans would still be clubbing each other over the head with animal bones and rocks.
Look, and see.

Plus they worship Jesus Christ (who had a temper tantrum and threw the capitalist's table and their money and wares all around a church and smashing against the walls and yelling at them at not to be so completely selfish and desanctifying to absolutely everything they possibly can be; yup, sounds familar to me).
We even gave them their religion and belief system about love ... which they kill each other over.


Defining 'normal' means nothing.
Obviously, Autistics are not 'normal' humans.
Any definition proves nothing except that there is a concept 'normal'.

Why not provide the link to Webster's definition: superior ???

I have to most strongly disagree with you Merry Mad.

I may be repeating myself, but, at 30yo (or so), I moved into a huge old factory turned into an artists' community.
I suceeded most well, there.

In general society, I am very much like you. since 39yo, when the artists' community was purchased and gentrified, and all us artists kicked out, I have moved every single year for the past six years, I have made not one single friend or even acquaintance, I have not seen anyone except store clerks and a few people a few times in the last 2 years.

This general human society is not conducive to my well-being in any way.

Living in an artists' community - which was a single, large building, and what I called an "Urban village" - was most conducive to my being able to socialize, have friends, and be happy. In that setting, I flourished tremendously, that I cannot bear the thought of not living in a community again, and either I find one or make one, or I will be singularly alone for the rest of my life.

Artists are mostly introverted, and most have difficulty making friends, too. But this environment of a community, where there was an excellent balance between privacy and commons (where you simply met people, even if leaving the building), provided an ideal lifestyle in every way I could list or imagine.

I understand exactly what you are saying; I always needed to have someone else make friends with me. But in the community I lived in, I grew more confident, being with people more like me, and I became interested in these people and wanted to know them.
I learned how to approach people and make friends inside that community, and was very successful, and became less and less awkward.

I was always more uncomfortable with awkward people, too; but I developed the ability to be more 'friendly', a better host (which is simply all about caring, and then you don't make mistakes, and I enjoyed offering my kind and attentive hospitality very much) where I was never able to have people over my home OMG!! ! and ... OMG ... entertain them OMG!! !, and I became less and less awkward because of each social success, and that I really did enjoy myself, and I really did care about these people. Caring is sometimes or somehow a mind-set.

So, what I know is that I became able to socialize with people who were as I used to be, and I was very comfortable and I guess that comfort and real care and real enjoyment made other people feel similar. So, yes; you and I could enjoy socializing, as I have seen this and lived this.

Also, I'm very honest, and I learned to be very honest and open with people. I became much more comfortable with myself, and the success brought confidence, so I didn't go into a social situation fearing the worst - which was exactly what I could realistically expect to happen. Now, instead, I learned that I could expect socializing to be successful.

I don't 'entertain' like other people might, and most NT's wouldn't respond as well to my hospitality and socializing as people who are more 'abnormal'.
I enjoy and greatly prefer 'abnormal' people, anyway. I can't relate with NT's, and I have seen that I have no need to.

In the NT world, in general society, I'm a dismal failure.
In the right setting, with non-NT people, I have seen just how happy I can be, and how much I really can care and love, and how much I can really enjoy people - and how much I really need people.

So that's why I understand exactly what you experience, and why I disagree with your conclusion. I want to make a community for artists/Autistics. I love living in a community where you can just mosey on over to someone's door and knock on it.
I used to leave my doors open all the time, so people could feel comfortable coming in.

But Archetype, Im not sure I would like people just coming and knocking on my door. That would really throw me off balance if I had other things planned (as 98% of the time). I am too rigid to lead an unplanned life. I would forget to acknowledge people when I walked past them. I would never go and knock on someone else's door for fear of disturbing them. I need a space around me with noone, but at the same time I get lonely and want socialisation - but strictly on my terms. Im not sure that my rigid terms would conform to another Aspie's rigid terms.

I have been in communal situations - when I was in the psychiatric hospital here I had (effectively) my own room (the other occupant had severe dementia and also didnt use the room during the day), but most of the time was in the communal room with the other people. I have to say that I did find this situation much easier than with normal people - the very ill people didnt judge, I cared about some of them a lot. But after a couple of weeks I found that I had already started to have the weight of expectation on my shoulders - they started to expect that I would be nice to them (as I had been without thinking), I couldnt retreat back into my own world again because I felt I had pressure on me. In a communal system where people are more functional than these in the hospital, I would have more of this expectation. Would people really accept me not speaking when I feel depressed - I know I have my own double standards - if someone doesnt speak to me I assume I have done something wrong, but if I dont speak to someone it is never for that reason. Misreading of signals (and mis giving out of signals) on both sides cant make for a good social situation.

I always wonder what I would make of myself if I could meet myself and I am pretty sure that I would end up thinking that she didnt like me, that she was too difficult to make friends with, that she was weird, too in her own world. Maybe Im better at reading signals than giving out the right ones. In any case, I dont think I would end up friends with myself.

Hi Merry Mad,

I understand all of your concerns.

One of my best friends in the Colt Building (my artists' community .. and I can say "my" because I really belonged there) was a musical artist who refused to date or be involved with women because he was very dedicated to his artistic work, and didn't wnat a woman over who expected his time and thought when he wanted or needed to do his music thing.

We got along great. Everything was just matter-of-fact. I understood completely his needs, as they were so similar to mine. He understood my needs, as they were so similar to his.
"Ok, I gotta get back to work"
... and I'd say "Alright, I'll see you."

It was all that simple. That easy. Nothing more to it.

He led a more structured life, where-as I had no time schedule (I don't have any regular hours, never know when I'll wake up or fall asleep, can't make appointments because I probably won't show up for them, hardly ever know what day it is, what month it is, etc..)

Also, we all lived in large, open spaces, and everyone designed their space differently, to accomodate thier lifestyle. My studio (or 'space' as artists called them) was refered to as "Skenderian's Natural Habitat" (my last name being 'Skenderian') because it was so very unique. People described it differently, but it certainly was much like a natural habitat ... and the amazing thing was that people would come in and call out my name, looking for me, and would walk just a couple feet in front of me, sitting on one of my sofas, and never even know I was there, until I said "Hi!"

I designed my space using different "invitational zones", which worked incredibly well. I had 7 sofas, and about 5 different 'living rooms' per se. I made a living room right at my door, which was meant to be very inviting and comfortable for people. By simply making it a semi-circle open toward the door, and by placing a couple taller items at each end of the semi-circle, and by givin it a backdrop, no-one could pass beond that seating arrangement without my invitation. Different people required different types of invitations. Some people needed a very definitive and express invitation, along with re-assure (which was easy, because I just spoke the facts and the truth, being that the reason I left my doors open in the first place was because I really enjoyed having people come visit me in my home) to come further into my home/studio, while other people would simply follow me if I was talking and got up and walked to a different part of my studio.

Generally, closed doors meant that the person didn't want company, but if you were friends with that person already, then it was fine to knock on their door. Artists have similar social/private needs to Autistics. Sometimes they want to be completely alone, and other times they desperately want to be with people.

Because everyone was essentially the same, but just with varying ratios of needs and requirement (and most artists are very sensitive to their peron and space and people and time, etc.), it was easy to understand the needs of other people in the community, and it was easy to express your particular requirements at any particular time.

"I'd prefer to be alone right now."
or
"I need my space right now."

Was impossible to take personally, because everyone said that, including yourself - whoever you were.
"I need my space," was literally needing your time alone in your space - or studio, which was universally understood.

Artists are very rigid, in the sense that, when they need to be alone, they really need to be alone. Artists also lead very unstructured lives, because they need to be available when their creativity starts to boil, and they don't like to have time commitments.

I understand the hesitation about knocking on someone's door completely. I almost never knocked on someone's door who I hadn't made friends with and who hadn't invited me to knock on thier door. I often required that explicit invitation to be able to knock on someone's door. Because artists typically aren't socialites or business-people, they tend to say what they mean and mean what they say. So an invitation to stop over someone's studio is really an invitation to stop over whenever. Nobody made 'dinner dates' or scheduled social events. Well, some did; there wouuld be a party every weekend somewhere, and you could check it out or not. I never, ever made any time commitments. Never. I socialized on my terms ... as did everyone.

Every artist had their own very unique rigid terms, their own very unique value-system, their own very unique space, their own very unique 'house rules' which wee important to them, and their own very priovate space inside their studio. Some people had smaller areas near the door of their studios and no-one eer went beyond that area, and others, like me, had my whole lower floor available for people, and only my loft was private very most personal to me where only my lovers were allowed.

I always and only socialized on my terms.

I slept all over my studio, on my sofas, in my chaise, in my big, comfy chairs.

My studio was 1,800sf, with 18ft-high ceiling and a wall of windows (industrial glass panes with louver windows) 40ft long to the ceiling. The space around me was my studio. It was palatial in there, and I never felt trapped in or isolated.

I spent a year in a psychitric hospital when I was 17yo; this was not like that. There were no staff or people running your life; just artists living thier real lives, and relating as they each wanted to with each other.

The last thing anyone want was obligations. Artists don't socialize like normal NT's. I tell NT's not to extend their hand to an artisst to shake hands; let the artist extend thier hand to shake. Many artists don't like to shake hands, and most artist do not shake hands when meeting or being introduced to another artist for the first time. Most artists just look at each other and don't know what to say, and are sort of like children, and then one of them says something goofy or utterly awkward or somethng acknowledging the awkwardness in a funny way, or whatever, and then everything is ok.
I don't like to shake hands at all.
That's how I can tell a lot about an artist; whether they extend their hand to shake. Most 'real' artists just don't shake hands; it's completely different than NT-world. They just look at each other like innocent children, trying to see if the other person is ok or going to hurt them or whatever.

Also, there's people of different social skills and demeanors. Some artists are more outgoing, some are very reclusive and shy and uncertain, and they feel liek very special and magical creatures of nature, unharmful but timid, like chipmunks or birds peeking out from between the branches, curiously. But if it seems too loud or threatening, they disappear back again.

The artists community was very, very magical.

There was no pressure. I feel pressure and I don't like it at all. I leave if there's pressure.

I never socialized before I moved there. I had a couple friends here and there, but that was it. I never enjoyed socializing before I lived there. I would just take on a personality and hang on for life and survive it.

This was a completely different thing. And there were all different kinds of very unique people that you could spend time with at different times, as you felt like it. So sometimes you might really want to see someone who was softer and quieter and maybe have coffee together, and other times you might want someone who would bring you out of your shell a bit more and inspire you. Different people had their different tendencies, but those would always change and be dynamic because everyone was always in a little different state every time you might see them. One woman I knew played cello for the symphony, and most of the time, if I knocke on her door, she wouldn't even open it, but say that she wanted to be alone through the door. Everyone liked her. She was veyry childish, and she slept in a tent in the corner of her studio. She was pretty cool. Very comfortable with who she was, even though she was very unique and different. She might well have been AS .. I don't know; I never knew anything about it at that time.

Many artist weren't so functional, and many were very rarely seen, even though people enjoyed them and wanted to see more of them. I was like that, at first. People would see me and say "I haven't seen you in a while; I though maybe you moved out." or something else that was nice to let me know that they were interested in getting to know me.
Artists tended to be very curious about each other, in a child-like way.

It was really very beautiful and magical. It was my only home I ever had. I miss it terribly, as I'm all alone now without my community and my studio and the artists. After that, there's no point in living in a house or apartment in the NT world. I never meet or see anyone. Plus, I don't really want to, because they're all NT and it's not really enjoyable, and there's nothing to relate to, we're so different from each other.

I'm the kind of person that doesn't leave my home. There's nothing to leave it for, really, and I discovered that to be very true. But I was completely happy in my artists' community. So I think that AS could have community very easily. AS have projects, just like artists, and their project are important, just like artists. It's really so similar as to be almost identical. I don't know any AS in person, so I can't know what differences there might be between an artist and AS community.