Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Are you aware of your lacking Theory of Mind?

Page 7 of 8 [ 126 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Rocket123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,188
Location: Lost in Space

02 Jun 2013, 3:22 pm

By the way, I am convinced that researchers who study Aspergers have great difficulty understanding how we aspies process information. I would guess that the way our minds work is so foreign to them, that they cannot fathom it. It’s like they lack “reverse empathy” (which is the neurotypical being able to put themselves in the place of an aspie). I have no proof of this. Merely a guess.



daydreamer84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,001
Location: My own little world

02 Jun 2013, 4:17 pm

Rocket123 wrote:
seaturtleisland wrote:
Quote:
Isn't working memory one of the executive functions? There are tests that can measure working memory without being influenced by processing speed.

Maybe what happens in real life is that most tasks require all three skills. Could a deficit in one function place a burden on the others to compensate making them appear to be impaired as well?


I could be wrong, but I presumed that there was a causal relationship between poor Working Memory and Executive Functioning. That is, poor Working Memory causes issues with Executive Functioning. For me, I am suggesting the same is true for Central Coherence and Theory of Mind.

Note: I presume other things could cause issues with Executive Functioning. But for me, the main contributor (according to the psychologist who diagnosed me) was issues with complex Working Memory.

I believe I have Theory of Mind deficiencies due to an inability to Multi-Task. According to Tony Attwood, Theory of Mind is defined as, “the ability to recognize and understand thoughts, beliefs, desires and intentions of other people in order to make sense of their behavior and predict what they are going to do next”. That requires a lot of Multi-Tasking. And, poor Working Memory also causes issues with Multi-Tasking (at least for me, according to the psychologist who diagnosed me).

As part of my diagnosis, the psychologist used the Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-IV), the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV) and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST-R).


No it's not a casual relationship, seaturtleisland is right, short term working memory is an executive function -it's a part of executive functioning. I think a big part of the problem in real life situations is the multi-tasking and maybe processing too much sensory stimulation at once too but that's a kind of multi-tasking too , isn't it?



daydreamer84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,001
Location: My own little world

02 Jun 2013, 4:20 pm

Rocket123 wrote:
By the way, I am convinced that researchers who study Aspergers have great difficulty understanding how we aspies process information. I would guess that the way our minds work is so foreign to them, that they cannot fathom it. It’s like they lack “reverse empathy” (which is the neurotypical being able to put themselves in the place of an aspie). I have no proof of this. Merely a guess.


I think it's definitely harder for them to imagine how our brains (minds ) work if they're so different from their own, for sure. They have good theory of minds like theirs (in a broad sense-of course every mind is different).



Anomiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,023

02 Jun 2013, 4:27 pm

marshall wrote:
Anomiel wrote:
marshall wrote:
Anomiel wrote:
marshall wrote:
Anomiel wrote:
marshall wrote:
Anomiel wrote:
marshall, I guess my first assumption is that most people experience the same sort of emotions I do, which means my innate ToM/empathy is poor, but I know that they don't. Maybe many NTs ToM is poor too, but they are often right in their assumptions as they are so "normal"?

I agree it's easier to have empathy if you're in the middle of the distribution than if you're at one of the far ends. That's part of it. The other part is being able to use your imagination to put yourself in someone else's shoes based on certain vague building blocks you already have in yourself. If you're so far towards the end of the normal distribution you might be missing some building blocks. But even if you're towards the middle you might still have trouble empathizing if your ability to imagine yourself in different situations you haven't ever directly experienced is limited.

In summary there are two aspects, 1.) being towards the center of the spectrum and having the same building blocks as the majority of others 2.) having a good emotional imagination. If either one is missing you're going to have trouble with ToM / cognitive-empathy.


You really clarified it, thank you.
This is a bit off-topic, but I've read that if NTs saw/read descriptions of life-experiences of people they were prejudiced against they got less prejudiced, showing that at least prejudiced NTs must be lacking (or unwilling to deploy) emotional imagination.
But from what I've experienced autistics are much less likely to be prejudiced than NTs, so there must be some other factor there.


I find the people with the best empathy tend to be people I would consider "mild" or sub-clinical BAP. Since they are somewhere between AS and NT they can relate to both sides. Some of it is a personality trait though. There is a willingness component to empathy as well as an ability component.


So they act like translators?
I think the people that are best at empathy are those educated in how people work, but of course that is different than innate ability.


But what if they're educated in how people say people think rather than in how people really think? If people who study psychology have such great theory of mind why did a lot of them in the past accept Freudian theories that are half truth and half crap?


TLDR-version: Use critical thinking. Everyone no matter their empathy-level must learn. I love sociology a lot and want to make it mandatory for everyone :)

I wonder why people let Freud run around and say sex (and cocks) was the most important thing for humans. But psychology have moved a bit past that (I hope neuroscience will enable it to catch up) and there are lots of other branches that study humans. I am a bit shocked by the suggestion that they are all wrong. Obviously, autistics do not think like NTs. Most fields discuss NTs, so from our perspective they are somewhat wrong. But wrong for the general population? I don't know.
Sociologists are doing a pretty good job using statistics and surveys, so then they know what people say they think at least. There are lots of important thinking and speculation too, so its not just data.
I think solid cross-disciplinary learning about human nature will result in a better theory of mind, due to the time spent thinking about how humans work. :shrug:
Of course you'll have to use critical thinking when learning too.
You could be born with "strong empathy", but even then you would have to hone it somehow. It is the same thing as "inborn talent" in anything - people dismiss how much work talented people have put into their area of expertise, which both elevates and discredits them at the same time.

I never said people can't learn and I never said psychology is all wrong. I just think people have this tendency to follow established thinking and don't bother to use their own intuition enough. I'm not saying I'm always right or anything, but I do find that using my own intuition to look for explanations is more fun than reading what studies have to say. This is how I like to think about science in general. If I'm wrong at first, so be it. I'm usually more open to persuasion and changing my beliefs than others too. I don't discredit book learning completely as it's good to have a starting point. I just think people tend to spend too much time reading what others have to say and this diminishes their ability to learn objectively. I don't think this is arrogant.

I don't think innate theory-of-mind is necessarily 100% accurate either. If you really think about it, it isn't necessarily an evolutionary advantage to know exactly how others think all the time. Prejudice and delusion can be a survival advantage. Knowing too much about what others are thinking can be sometimes be a disadvantage in real life. Some things you are probably better off not knowing. Even self-delusion can be a valuable psychological survival tool. NTs seem to be better than aspies at positive self-delusion.


Did I say you'd have to slavishly follow it?
So reading what others know about a topic suddenly makes you incapable of extrapolating from that? Do you discard the idea that the earth is round because you didn't do the research yourself? I learn by reading and by thinking. It is counterproductive to never listen to what the experts say, as otherwise - if you are that intuitive - you might invent the same theories that already exist over and over and never learn from older mistakes.
As far as I know ToM is something NTs develop very young, and if it's automatic for them and they are unable to not apply it then you could call it innate, no matter if it is an instinct or if it is something learned from culture. I would guess learned, they just use automatic processing instead of controlled processing.
Also concerning self-deluding, that is dangerously close to the idea that it's autistic to hate yourself. Self-hatred is also a form of delusion (which is why depression can be a psychotic condition).

ETA: I do agree with you somewhat, btw.



Last edited by Anomiel on 02 Jun 2013, 5:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Anomiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,023

02 Jun 2013, 4:36 pm

It's not automatic for us when managing social situations, it's controlled, controlled processing takes up a lot of brainpower. Hence fatigue. It's not actually a working memory issue, it's just too taxing. NTs would not be able to manage non-verbal communication and ToM with controlled processing.

http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/ctrlauto.htm wrote:
Controlled And Automatic Processing

Processing that requires attention uses up limited cognitive (~mental) resources, because short term memory and its input from attention have limited capacity. Short term memory can hold about 7 chunks, so anything that requires conscious processing uses up some of this limited resource. Therefore, if you do two things at the same time that both require conscious, controlled processing, you will do them less well than when you did only one at a time.

For example, when you were learning to drive,(especially if you learned on a stick shift), you had to pay careful attention to everything you did. Steering and operating the pedals (and shifting gears in a manual transmission) all required conscious processing. So did attention to other cars, traffic lights, etc. So sometimes you pressed the wrong pedal or turned the wheel too far, when you were paying attention to a street sign or another car. And having a conversation with someone was both difficult and dangerous, because talking also requires controlled processing.

A task that is very well practiced becomes automatic: Such tasks require little or no mental resources, so that they can be done at the same time as other tasks. They are done quickly and seem automatic, requiring little or no conscious guidance.

For example, now, as an experienced driver, you do many routine driving tasks (like coordinating pedals and steering or, on a stick shift coordinating the clutch and shift lever, as well) quite automatically and unconsciously. You can react to the traffic conditions, and steer and brake because practice has made these reactions more or less automatic. You can carry on a conversation while driving. But when traffic becomes difficult and driving requires more conscious attention, you have less working memory available for conversation (or any other activity).


This is about NTs:
http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/12329_Chapter4.pdf wrote:
There are several general pieces of evidence to suggest that at least some nonverbal communication is automatic. First, and as noted, there are numerous demands on relatively limited conscious cognitive resources; the sheer amount of these resources needed to process all nonverbal communication in a controlled manner makes this possibility exceedingly unlikely. Second, because the basis of verbal communication is largely conscious, humans have a tendency to direct their focus to what is said and not to focus consciously on the nonverbal cues that are, by definition, unsaid (DePaulo & Friedman, 1998). Yet it is clear that this information is still being processed cognitively because it regulates interactions effectively (see Cappella & Schreiber, this volume). Third, some nonverbal cues cannot be controlled easily, and when efforts to control those behaviors are exerted, they are not usually successful (see later sections in this chapter). Finally, although some researchers have argued that nonverbal communication is deliberate and strategic, there is recent evidence that even strategic behaviors can occur automatically (Lakin & Chartrand, 2003; Lakin, Chartrand, & Arkin, 2005)


Quote:
Although impression management and self-presentation can certainly be conscious (see Keating, this volume), these communicative functions can also occur relatively effortlessly and without conscious guidance, particularly in cases where people are not particularly motivated to convey a desired identity. Moreover, it is also clear that people may infer traits and make attributions from the nonverbal behaviors of others automatically and that these judgments can be quite accurate. Together, this literature suggests that people often express their personality and decode personality information about others automatically through nonverbal behaviors. People tend to use different self-presentational strategies in different situations and with different types of people. For example, when people are instructed to make an interaction partner like them, they nod, smile, and make more eye contact than do people who did not receive these instructions (Godfrey, Jones, & Lord, 1986). People copy the postures of interaction partners more when they are told those partners might be helpful than when opportunities to get help from the partners are not available (La France, 1985). Nonverbal behaviors are also dependent on the people for whom the display occurs (see DePaulo & Friedman, 1998, for a review). Finally, the ecological theory of perception suggests that people are able to gain, relatively automatically, information about other people from their appearances and movements, information that Gibson (1979) calls affordances. This information is able to be gathered easily because appearance and behavior express some personality characteristics accurately (Zebrowitz & Collins, 1997). Nonverbal communication is therefore sensitive to conscious goals and situational constraints. Although this strategic use of nonverbal behaviors suggests that their cognitive basis is conscious, being strategic does not demand consciousness. There are several lines of research that suggest that people alter their nonverbal behaviors automatically. Tice, Butler, Muraven, and Stillwell (1995) hypothesized that people’s default self-presentational strategy with strangers is to present a positive image, whereas people’s default self-presentational strategy with friends is to present a modest image. Consistent with this proposition, when participants behaved consistently with their default tendencies, their self-presentations used few cognitive resources, which led to increased memory of the details of the interaction. Participants who used nondefault self-presentational strategies (e.g., modesty with strangers) were not able to pursue these strategies automatically and used conscious cognitive resources to accomplish their goals (see also Patterson, Churchill, Farag, & Borden, 1991/1992). Other research has also demonstrated that self-presenting in a way that is inconsistent with personality is cognitively taxing and requires attentional resources (Pontari & Schlenker, 2000).



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

02 Jun 2013, 6:52 pm

Anomiel wrote:
Did I say you'd have to slavishly follow it?

I didn't say you did. You're acting kind of pissed off at me. :shrug:

Quote:
So reading what others know about a topic suddenly makes you incapable of extrapolating from that?

No.

Quote:
Do you discard the idea that the earth is round because you didn't do the research yourself?

No. But after I read that the earth is round, I might find it even more fun to think of an experiment I could perform to measure the curvature of the earth myself. I could pretend I lived in more ancient times and didn't already know the answer. Sometimes pretending you don't already know something and re-evaluating your foundations can lead to new insights. Einstein did this with the pre-concieved Newtonian notion of space and time.

Quote:
I learn by reading and by thinking. It is counterproductive to never listen to what the experts say, as otherwise - if you are that intuitive - you might invent the same theories that already exist over and over and never learn from older mistakes.

And I didn't say you shouldn't read what the experts say. I just prefer to understand why the experts come to the conclusions they do and be able to fully follow their reasoning. If I can't follow every step it could mean that I'm simply not understanding correctly, or it could mean that even the experts overlooked something. It's the same reason I like to see the logical derivation of a mathematical formula. The most deeply satisfying part of learning isn't collecting information, it's being able to see why things are the way they are for myself. I'm just stubborn that way. I always got in trouble for it in school. I'd annoy the teacher by asking questions they couldn't answer.

Quote:
As far as I know ToM is something NTs develop very young, and if it's automatic for them and they are unable to not apply it then you could call it innate, no matter if it is an instinct or if it is something learned from culture. I would guess learned, they just use automatic processing instead of controlled processing.

I don't think ToM is a binary thing. If I'm only mildly on the autism spectrum that means I'm probably 90% "NT" and have 90% of the "NT" ToM. The 10% difference between me and the norm might still make my experience socialization very differently but it doesn't mean that I'm just outright "missing" the ToM function. It might just be slower than the norm.
Quote:
Also concerning self-deluding, that is dangerously close to the idea that it's autistic to hate yourself. Self-hatred is also a form of delusion (which is why depression can be a psychotic condition).

I don't think either self-hatred or self-love can be delusional. Self valuation is subjective. Psychosis is paranoid misinterpreting of factual information and motives.

However, thinking people have a more positive view of yourself than they actually do can be beneficial to self-esteem. Delusion isn't necessarily harmful. That was my real point.



Last edited by marshall on 02 Jun 2013, 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

02 Jun 2013, 6:58 pm

Automatic processing of social information is normal social cognition. When researchers talk about normal social cognition, they mean the automatic neurotypical kind, not the lemme analyze the situation for hours 12 hours after the social interaction kind often done by autistic people, if done at all.


_________________
Drain and plane and grain and blain your brain, and then again,
Propane and butane out of the gas main, your blain shall sustain!


Anomiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,023

02 Jun 2013, 7:13 pm

marshall wrote:
Anomiel wrote:
Did I say you'd have to slavishly follow it?

I didn't say you did. You're acting kind of pissed off at me. :shrug:

Quote:
So reading what others know about a topic suddenly makes you incapable of extrapolating from that?

No.

Quote:
Do you discard the idea that the earth is round because you didn't do the research yourself?

No. But after I read that the earth is round, I might find it even more fun to think of an experiment I could perform to measure the curvature of the earth myself. I could pretend I lived in more ancient times and didn't already know the answer. Sometimes pretending you don't already know something and re-evaluating your foundations can lead to new insights. Einstein did this with the pre-concieved Newtonian notion of space and time.

Quote:
I learn by reading and by thinking. It is counterproductive to never listen to what the experts say, as otherwise - if you are that intuitive - you might invent the same theories that already exist over and over and never learn from older mistakes.

And I didn't say you shouldn't read what the experts say. I just prefer to understand why the experts come to the conclusions they do and be able to fully follow their reasoning. If I can't follow every step it could mean that I'm simply not understanding correctly, or it could mean that even the experts overlooked something. It's the same reason I like to see the logical derivation of a mathematical formula. The most deeply satisfying part of learning isn't collecting information, it's being able to see why things are the way they are for myself. I'm just stubborn that way. I always got in trouble for it in school. I'd annoy the teacher by asking questions they couldn't answer.

Quote:
As far as I know ToM is something NTs develop very young, and if it's automatic for them and they are unable to not apply it then you could call it innate, no matter if it is an instinct or if it is something learned from culture. I would guess learned, they just use automatic processing instead of controlled processing.
Also concerning self-deluding, that is dangerously close to the idea that it's autistic to hate yourself. Self-hatred is also a form of delusion (which is why depression can be a psychotic condition).

ETA: I do agree with you somewhat, btw.

I don't think ToM is a binary thing. If I'm only mildly on the autism spectrum that means I'm probably 90% "NT" and have 90% of the "NT" ToM. The 10% difference between me and the norm might still make my experience socialization very differently but it doesn't mean that I'm just outright "missing" the ToM function. It might just be slower than the norm.


If I talk about - for example - NT communication I do not mean whatever percent we have in common, but what is specific to either group. Likewise with ToM. If NTs do it by automatic processing, and you do it by controlled processing you still have it. But it is not automatic and reflexive and easy, and it may not be as sophisticated if you can't read non-verbal communication (though I think far too much importance is placed on that).

Yes, I am a bit irritated at the notion that what you do is somehow different than what my definition of learning is. To paraphrase, I say that "you'll have to learn about whatever to get really good", and you say "no I have to figure it out myself!" and I say "yes, you do that too when learning?" and then you talk about teachers and things. Did I ever mention institutionalized learning? I'm an autodictat but I still require previous experts research.
It is a bit ironic that you bring up Einstein and Newton, this quote is fitting
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.
- Isaac Newton



Anomiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,023

02 Jun 2013, 7:22 pm

btbnnyr wrote:
Automatic processing of social information is normal social cognition. When researchers talk about normal social cognition, they mean the automatic neurotypical kind, not the lemme analyze the situation for hours 12 hours after the social interaction kind often done by autistic people, if done at all.


As stated. The implications that we lack automatic processing in those areas is fascinating, as it means that many autistics exceed the limit of their working memory by trying to analyze non-verbal communication and verbal communication with controlled processing and thus do not actually have bad working memory as NTs or anyone else could not do that either, if they had to. The subsequent fatigue and failure is not due to being autistic, it is due to being human.



btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

02 Jun 2013, 7:35 pm

Anomiel wrote:
btbnnyr wrote:
Automatic processing of social information is normal social cognition. When researchers talk about normal social cognition, they mean the automatic neurotypical kind, not the lemme analyze the situation for hours 12 hours after the social interaction kind often done by autistic people, if done at all.


As stated. The implications that we lack automatic processing in those areas is fascinating, as it means that many autistics exceed the limit of their working memory by trying to analyze non-verbal communication and verbal communication with controlled processing and thus do not actually have bad working memory as NTs or anyone else could not do that either, if they had to. The subsequent fatigue and failure is not due to being autistic, it is due to being human.


Some autistic people do the analysis consciously, and other autistic people don't it. I'm one of the not doing it people, cuz I can't remember to do it, it's that alien to me. In the lab, there is reduced activation of large brain networks responding to social stimuli much more activated in NTs. Consciously done social cognition is too slow to be useful for group interactions in real world from cave people times to now.


_________________
Drain and plane and grain and blain your brain, and then again,
Propane and butane out of the gas main, your blain shall sustain!


Magnus_Rex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,704
Location: Home

02 Jun 2013, 7:43 pm

Ony during a conversation. Part of the reason why I am so bad at conversations is that they do not give me enough time to think. I never know what the interlocutor is thinking/feeling (actually, knowing somebody's thoughts and feelings makes no sense at all, unless you are just deducing) during a conversation, because I am too busy thinking of appropriate replies. However, once the conversation is over (it may take hours or even days after it is over) I begin the process of understanding what was really said.


_________________
DISCLAIMER: It should be noted that, while I strongly suspect I have Asperger's syndrome, I am not diagnosed. Nevertheless, my score on RAADS-R is 186, which makes me a pretty RAAD guy.

Sorry for this terrible joke, by the way.


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

02 Jun 2013, 7:54 pm

Anomiel wrote:
marshall wrote:
Anomiel wrote:
Did I say you'd have to slavishly follow it?

I didn't say you did. You're acting kind of pissed off at me. :shrug:

Quote:
So reading what others know about a topic suddenly makes you incapable of extrapolating from that?

No.

Quote:
Do you discard the idea that the earth is round because you didn't do the research yourself?

No. But after I read that the earth is round, I might find it even more fun to think of an experiment I could perform to measure the curvature of the earth myself. I could pretend I lived in more ancient times and didn't already know the answer. Sometimes pretending you don't already know something and re-evaluating your foundations can lead to new insights. Einstein did this with the pre-concieved Newtonian notion of space and time.

Quote:
I learn by reading and by thinking. It is counterproductive to never listen to what the experts say, as otherwise - if you are that intuitive - you might invent the same theories that already exist over and over and never learn from older mistakes.

And I didn't say you shouldn't read what the experts say. I just prefer to understand why the experts come to the conclusions they do and be able to fully follow their reasoning. If I can't follow every step it could mean that I'm simply not understanding correctly, or it could mean that even the experts overlooked something. It's the same reason I like to see the logical derivation of a mathematical formula. The most deeply satisfying part of learning isn't collecting information, it's being able to see why things are the way they are for myself. I'm just stubborn that way. I always got in trouble for it in school. I'd annoy the teacher by asking questions they couldn't answer.

Quote:
As far as I know ToM is something NTs develop very young, and if it's automatic for them and they are unable to not apply it then you could call it innate, no matter if it is an instinct or if it is something learned from culture. I would guess learned, they just use automatic processing instead of controlled processing.
Also concerning self-deluding, that is dangerously close to the idea that it's autistic to hate yourself. Self-hatred is also a form of delusion (which is why depression can be a psychotic condition).

ETA: I do agree with you somewhat, btw.

I don't think ToM is a binary thing. If I'm only mildly on the autism spectrum that means I'm probably 90% "NT" and have 90% of the "NT" ToM. The 10% difference between me and the norm might still make my experience socialization very differently but it doesn't mean that I'm just outright "missing" the ToM function. It might just be slower than the norm.


If I talk about - for example - NT communication I do not mean whatever percent we have in common, but what is specific to either group. Likewise with ToM. If NTs do it by automatic processing, and you do it by controlled processing you still have it. But it is not automatic and reflexive and easy, and it may not be as sophisticated if you can't read non-verbal communication (though I think far too much importance is placed on that).

Yes, I am a bit irritated at the notion that what you do is somehow different than what my definition of learning is. To paraphrase, I say that "you'll have to learn about whatever to get really good", and you say "no I have to figure it out myself!" and I say "yes, you do that too when learning?" and then you talk about teachers and things. Did I ever mention institutionalized learning? I'm an autodictat but I still require previous experts research.
It is a bit ironic that you bring up Einstein and Newton, this quote is fitting
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.
- Isaac Newton


I don't see the point in continuing if you're getting angry at me. I'm not angry at you. Whatever. :shrug:



Anomiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,023

02 Jun 2013, 7:59 pm

marshall wrote:
I don't see the point in continuing if you're getting angry at me. I'm not angry at you. Whatever. :shrug:


Irritated, not angry :shrug:
If you had said "YES! Learning is fun! But I hate institutions!" I would have shared a fun Ted-talk with you that talk about the evils of institutionalized learning (which I agree with). If you fail to see the part you played there maybe your cognitive empathy is not as good as you claim. I would have picked up on it earlier if I weren't so irritated that you didn't even ask me what my definition of learning is, as you presented yours like it was somehow in opposition to what I said.
Anyway, yes, I agree. There's no point. Here's the ted-talk anyway:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY[/youtube]



Last edited by Anomiel on 02 Jun 2013, 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anomiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,023

02 Jun 2013, 8:09 pm

btbnnyr wrote:
Anomiel wrote:
btbnnyr wrote:
Automatic processing of social information is normal social cognition. When researchers talk about normal social cognition, they mean the automatic neurotypical kind, not the lemme analyze the situation for hours 12 hours after the social interaction kind often done by autistic people, if done at all.


As stated. The implications that we lack automatic processing in those areas is fascinating, as it means that many autistics exceed the limit of their working memory by trying to analyze non-verbal communication and verbal communication with controlled processing and thus do not actually have bad working memory as NTs or anyone else could not do that either, if they had to. The subsequent fatigue and failure is not due to being autistic, it is due to being human.


Some autistic people do the analysis consciously, and other autistic people don't it. I'm one of the not doing it people, cuz I can't remember to do it, it's that alien to me. In the lab, there is reduced activation of large brain networks responding to social stimuli much more activated in NTs. Consciously done social cognition is too slow to be useful for group interactions in real world from cave people times to now.


Yeah, I remember that you mentioned that. Then you might have more working memory over for other things. I guess controlled processing is only one part, but it is still true as many do try to consciously do it. Do they have any hypothesis as to why what you describe happens yet?



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

02 Jun 2013, 8:27 pm

Anomiel wrote:
marshall wrote:
I don't see the point in continuing if you're getting angry at me. I'm not angry at you. Whatever. :shrug:


Irritated, not angry :shrug:
If you had said "YES! Learning is fun! But I hate institutions!" I would have shared a fun Ted-talk with you that talk about the evils of institutionalized learning (which I agree with). If you fail to see the part you played there maybe your cognitive empathy is not as good as you claim.
Anyway, yes, I agree. There's no point.

I think you're getting angry because you think I don't understand your point. You just want me to say you're right. I don't think our disagreement is as big as you think it is. I kept responding because you kept twisting what I said into something much more black-and-white than what I actually said. I feel the need to keep defending my point when my words get twisted and exaggerated into something I never actually said.



Last edited by marshall on 02 Jun 2013, 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anomiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,023

02 Jun 2013, 8:29 pm

marshall wrote:
Anomiel wrote:
marshall wrote:
I don't see the point in continuing if you're getting angry at me. I'm not angry at you. Whatever. :shrug:


Irritated, not angry :shrug:
If you had said "YES! Learning is fun! But I hate institutions!" I would have shared a fun Ted-talk with you that talk about the evils of institutionalized learning (which I agree with). If you fail to see the part you played there maybe your cognitive empathy is not as good as you claim.
Anyway, yes, I agree. There's no point.

I think you're getting angry because you think I don't understand your point. You just want me to say you're right. I don't think our disagreement is as big as you think it is. I kept responding because you kept twisting what I said into something much more black-and-white than what I actually said.


Yeah, something like that, as you made no response whatsoever that you had understood my point. I made it black and white to easier point out where the difference was. :shrug: