Theorem

Post Reply New Topic

For £2.50 I can have any document in any library in the world - the wonders of the document delivery service. Though as most things I could ever need are accessible through JSTOR and through opening a book. Do I need to link the pages on my university library website to prove it, or can I stop here? Or are you going to don a tin foil hat and tell me about all the studies the military are doing on it (not that I could not access most of them if they existed - lots of the best lecturers are actually advisers to the forces. )

As for PhD - you could get one in Psychology just by stating your opinion.

Beautifully I can get away with not caring.

Shall I write my PhD? Now? Because to take on everything without giving approximations would be several of them.

Also you are expecting me to write everything in such a fashion that even the layman can understand them. The most advanced ideas in some fields have about 10 people worldwide who understand them. Plus - language is hardly our natural medium is it, or this language.

The point here is that no-one has come up with something obvious which even touches on shooting it down provable. The most I have gotten is a load of what if statements (which on having asked for further information on, you have not bothered to provide)

In a sentence: "In psychology, memory is an organism's mental ability to store, retain and recall information."

Does that apply to all or the absolute vast majority of people actually on the spectrum though? You can learn to parry with people surprisingly - if you met me on the street you would never believe that I am an aspie (despite being diagnosed very young and not being expected achieve much).

You do not care what we think of you or your "theorem"

You are unable or unwilling to argue your theorem factually or logically by describing it and its evidence to us in any meaningful way.

Apparently you yourself question whether you have the means of conveying the supposed subject of this thread to us, in addition to not caring what we think anyway.

I am mystified as to what your purpose was in starting this thread. It's not to convince, or inform, and you do not seem here to learn anything, and do not care what we think anyway, what is the point of this thread?

No, the point is you have been offered objections that you could easily address if you had the kind of knowledge you would need to formulate a useful theory about what AS is.

I cannot say I expected anything better than a rote answer that fails to demonstrate even the most basic understanding of the question.

i say this with great sincerity, kangoogle...
sometimes we can learn a lot by being open to what others say.
i think the posters here who are challenging you may well have a point.

why not read and reflect and maybe consider the possibility that it does not all come down to memory?

many a time i have argued a point on WP and then gone away and had a think and learned that maybe, just maybe, my black and white thinking tendencies are not as spot on as i originally thought. Maybe it is ok to make a mistake, or not know, or put forward a "theorem" that has a few flaws in it?

it does not make anyone any less of a human being.

we can all struggle with openness to other ideas - hence rigidity and routined approaches to things. WP is actually a great place to test this and to learn a bit of openness to other ideas that may be maore plausible.

good luck on your journey.

You DID it! You ACTUALLY EMBARASSED ***YOURSELF***! Nope, Jstor doesn't have everything! HECK, *I* have written things you can't access on Jstor! I even have stuff on the INTERNET, IN THE OPEN, that you can't access on jstor. SORRY, you FAILED! HECK, they speak of stuff from the 19th century being first added like 26 DAYS ago! One has to wonder what you will say next. OH YEAH, you will probably say that my work isn't in scope, etc... Well, that may be, or may not be, but I am just one of perhaps 7 billion people. How many of THEM wrote stuff that is not EVEN on the internet. What about the billions before that? And WASN'T this all based on an argument about aspergers? His document took about 37 YEARS to even be RECOGNIZED in the US. One more thing, does Jstor support hindi, tamil, greek, russian, tagalog? If not, then you would have to wait for a document written in it to be TRANSLATED, if it were even on the internet, that is. HECK, do you even know russian, tamil, hindi, tagalog, dutch, danish, german, ad nauseum.... Oh well, I guess I made MY case.

Yeah, I know what you mean about PhDs, STILL, it is a shame that it is so senseless.

As for what the military is doing, it is AMAZING how much of that is really public. The stealth bomber was seen flying, a model maker had a fairly accurate model, etc... It combined an old German design with composites similar to ones used publically, with a VERY OLD russian theory. OOOPS! This covers several languages! As I recall, that russian document was discovered in the original russian. There have been a few cases where theories came up, rumors came up, and then it was revealed, as was the case with the stealth bomber. SOMETIMES, that third stage takes a LONG time to happen, like the SR71 blackbird.

HEY, I knew about the original attack on Iraq BEFORE it happened, and I wasn't in the military.

Not quite true - what I am looking for is someone to bring up a non-obvious counterexample - and then back it up.

God - no one serious uses the lowest common denominator when deciding what is or is not true.

The purpose was to seek out clever counterexamples. Asides I have asked you for more information on the one thing you raised that might be vaguely on these lines - you have not bothered.

Given no one has come up with anything - looks like my appointment with a professor is going to be fun...

Which objections? Most of them have been the absolute obvious (hence they get sketches rather than me wasting my fingers)- which I have already dealt with to my satisfaction. I actually want to be wrong - but no one is actually helping me out here.

I cannot say I expected anything better than a rote answer that fails to demonstrate even the most basic understanding of the question.[/quote]
I should write an essay, why exactly? I see no need to prove myself to you nor fuel your own narcissism.

They are challenging me only because they cannot stand me being right - for varied reasons. They have not come up with an idea between them which I have not thought of and checked out.

I would be delighted to be proved wrong - any counterexample is going to have to be pretty clever and thus we all learn something. We also learn a lot if I end up being right.

Sorry - I meant useful stuff. Not a grumpy old mans ramblings.

Of which the vast majority would not be able to accurately tell you what an article even is - let alone write a good one. Nor a useful study.

Nope - whole spectrum.

It does - nor do I need to know them. The wonder of academia is that all useful papers get published in English. So basically you know f**k all as ever.

Oh true to an extent - most of it is public. But some of the stuff is harder to source. Though why they would want to research ASD...?

Of course it does not, not unless everything is published in the limited number of journals that choose to publish through Jstor and which do not have "moving" or "fixed walls" on jstor availability, and of course, everything is not published in the limited number of journals that choose to publish through Jstor and which do not have "moving" or "fixed walls" on jstor availability.

It would be very silly for universities to have shelves of books and subscriptions to numerous other academic data sources similar to jstor if it were true that jstor has everything.

Yeah - thats why my first sentence mentioned the document delivery service. It does help to be able to read, of course.

Hey, I see you as a troll. You are funny though, and I want to see what you'll say next. I'm not really trying to convince you since I know you either won't admit it, or just really believe this stuff, and won't listen.

This confuses me. How do you define useful? Useful in your opinion? Then you are of course correct if so far all articles you deemed useful were originally published in English or translated to English. However, several studies that other people and the huge public deem useful have no been yet published in English or will not. Sometimes just because the language that paper was published in originally is disregarded a lot in international discussions, though the article or the study itself is correct and would be found to be important if translated into English.

I'm not grumpy, OR that old. As for ramblings, they aren't my ramblings either. HECK, just last friday somone spoke to me of a ploy many are using to delay foreclosure. I laughed, and said that it was FUNNY! At my last job, about 17 YEARS ago , one thing I WROTE was a program to PREVENT that from happening. To bad more people didn't buy it, huh? If they had, those people wouldn't be able to do that. HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of people could take YEARS longer simply because THEY couldn't access a program(some systems might call them documents ) I wrote.




AW GEE! Why don't you further say "NOR would such a document ever be put into jstor". You might as will add THAT requirement TOO! They may not even know English, so being able to define it is not really a factor. Also, how many DO write good ones? The question is FIRST, for the purposes of THIS application, does it have the insight, a worthwhile idea, and/or useful data.



Whatever, the point is still valid. Most here know, and many even readily admit, that AS IS part of the spectrum, even if just defined as such.[/quote]



YIKES Don't let the French, or Germans hear you say that. HECK, a lot of stuff is STILL defined using LATIN. A lot of english words used in such papers are latinate words! Oh well, if you say that the lingua FRANCA of knowledge is English, I guess I will defer. Has anyone got a time machine, so we can go back in time and tell asperger, or even FREUD to write their papers in English!?




Who knows? You said you have access to ALL of the studies. Absense of proof is never proof of absense. Heck asperger noticed something in his kids, studied it, wrote about it, summarized it, and THEN oublished it. Who would say that he would have found such a thing? A tube used in RADAR became the catlyst for the biggest revolution in cooking since perhaps fire itself. And all because some guy realized his chocolate bar melted! Who would have thought? Some cows(as I recall) are responsible for saving much of england, winning WWII, and making commercial flight as safe as it is today. That discovery was also based on some insight from a few annoyed people. Who would have thought? Some OTHER cows are responsible for allowing me to live today as a productive person. OH YEAH, that discovery ALSO had some help from a farmer, a guy that tried to kill himself, and a little college.(BTW They probably didn't publish that paper, and originally it was used to KILL. The colleges involvement is little more than a footnote.)

So who is to say WHERE the next bit of info will come from. What today seems like WORTHLESS dreck may one day be valuable. As a little kid I, too, realized what those annoyed people did. Little did I know that my annoyance was the basis for RADAR!

Kangoogle -
Thanks for taking time out from the flame war to reply. As an arbitrary central organizing principle, memory serves as well as anything else. I'm not in a position to challenge your theorem yet because I don't know what it is or why it is. It seems others are just challenging to be confrontational...because no one knows why you are using memory as a central organizing principle, what the benefits are, and what the specific points of the theorem are.


1. Are you implying that our long term memories only engage for in-depth thinking and when doing so, it is slow-thorough-type thinking...as opposed to..speedy intuition?

2. Re: Sensory data. It seems you are saying we memorize every little thing our senses pick up and this all goes into short term memory [if only briefly]?? And if so, when do we delete this stuff and on what basis is it deleted?

3. "Their society is not intuitive to us". Here's what I don't get: Why do we have to use the word intuitive? By saying something is not intuitive to us, it steals our power and makes us look like fools. The mental health professionals probably started this myth [goes hand in hand with the MR myth] ... AFAIAC, more than half of spectrumites know enough about [if not precisely] what is going on socially ... but we aren't sufficiently motivated to go social dumpster diving.......Why should we bother ourselves to decipher exactly what NTs are doing socially [step by step, excruciating detail by excruciating detail], when there is absolutely nothing in it for us. The big social ranking prize for them is a big zero for us.

Our intuition is nearly always working to our advantage, and frequently spot on, like a technologically sophisticated, high-speed data processor. We haven't yet mastered on-demand intuition but many of us are very close to it. The problem seems to be--from my pov--that much of our confusion stems from unconscious reactions and painful past experiences... The part of our experience that is conscious and intentional often doesn't square with this unconscious part i.e., we're in denial. So we're conflicted. We don't know what we want. Being conflicted is unhelpful. And it would be very helpful to have it sorted out once and for all. With the end result--being extremely clear about what we want. This would be win-win for everyone.

Indeed, why should we measure ourselves against NT society? Why should mental health professionals measure us against it? It's not that we necessarily consider ourselves superior...but can we at least get the facts straight? And discard the myths when they cover up functioning we need to be cognizant of?

We aren't incapable of intuiting what is going on socially....rather, the social scene is 1)disinteresting and/or 2)internally inconsistent and frustratingly ambiguous and/or 3)disgusting to us. In my case it's usually all three. And it isn't confusing because we miss cues. It is confusing because NTs enjoy playing games for rank in the pecking order and such games necessitate duplicity, by their rules. Autistics aren't usually duplicitous, we don't catch onto how to play at it because we don't like it. We know full well NTs are being deceitful and it is primarily for this reason that the things they spend their time with--don't interest us in the slightest and if we are being honest, it is an unsavory experience for the majority of us. The only reason we call NT society counter-intuitive for us, is because we refuse to play. Refusing to play is not the same as missing cues.

This sounds like a lot of whining to me, but maybe I'm missing something. We whine and say we don't get the cues...but the real truth IMO is that the cues are portraying lies and a game that we feel is beneath us. Yes, we feel it is beneath us because there is no integrity in it. Why can't we just shout that from the roof-tops instead of whining about missed social cues! sorry for the rant.



4."The opportunity is here - assuming I am right."
Would you care to clarify what this means?

^^^

....opportunity meaning--our memory is genetically hardwired to function in a way that is nearly opposite to NT society, thereby making it impossible for us to adapt??

If this is what you intend to prove, good luck. Make sure you mention how useful we can be to society with our unconventional memory system. There doesn't seem to be much else on the drawing board in our favor except some of us are technically competent if anyone can get along with us.. Then again they've got on their side various and sundry genocide propositions, stem cells and genetic engineering, etc. We don't have forever to figure this out.

If you really want a solid logical challenge to your theorem, someone should go looking for awesomelyglorious. He's pretty good at spotting the weak points in any argument.