Not Aspie enough!

Post Reply New Topic

No, I do not seek merely to learn and try out different styles of communication.

To put into practice is not the same thing as merely to practice as in order to gain or improve proficiency incrementally over time simply by experience or repetition. Rather, to put into practice means application, especially as meaninfully, in the sense of deploying any inherent capacity of being usable and relevant rather than just arbitrarily.

Returning to the analogy of Judaism, would a Jew seeking a more Jewish interaction be looking merely to learn and try out different styles of communication? Arguably, there is a distinctly Jewish communication style. Indeed, there may even be more than one variant to be tested. But communication per se, whatever exchange of information and expression, is but one parameter of influence and interaction, is it not? Indeed, without going into it, there may thought to be a point and core values to Judaism, to define interaction broadly.

But does likewise apply to Asperger's? Some indeed do advance the claim, by extolling manifest Aspie values such as candor, even tendencies to implicit universaism, and contempt for conventionally heteronymous small talk, endless manipulation, headgames and social climbing, etc..

Indeed, in so far as Asperger's is allegedly characterized by any failure to embrace common sense perceptual interpretation without self conscious effort and question, I wonder precisely what distinguishes Asperger's from the similar and ancient malady of Philosophy? And thank heavens for CAP, Cure Aberrant Philosophy, dedicated to helping all of us poor wretched impractical unemployable and seedy old Philosophy graduates!

Seriously, though, is philosophy, instead, the cure? Yes, as the Socratic saying goes, to the unexamined life, not worth the living. With particular application to Asperger's, if Asperger's, like psychosis, does feature any failure to integrate values. Which from the posts I am answering lately, I do begin to wonder.

The fact is, only some Aspies and Some NT's are capable of communicating what is occuring in social interaction, many people simply can't verbalize how they "socially interact" it's just a 100% natural automatic thing they do WITHOUT THINKING... personally, I think social interaction for most NT's is like thinking out loud, as an aspie I tend to 'think inside', and more audio visually then simply audio, or words... I tend to think in full motion video all the time... this is a bad though since my minds eye is on all the time and that concentration distracts me from taking in the world around me outside.

You will try, damn you sir, try!

I´m not sure that you understand what aspergers is. It is a lack of emotional and social intelligence, which leads to alienation and dissendant values. Brain scans on people with aspergers have shown that their brains do not process social information as normal people do, there is no activation in the areas which process emotional and social stimuli. Hence the lack of desire to participate socially. There is nothing that you can do to make your brain fix itself in that manner. Someone who is color blind cannot "learn" to see color, as someone who is "socially" blind cannot "learn" to see social interactions. That is why we cope in other ways, because we all got tired of trying to "see" the social interactions, trying to blend in, trying to find joy in things that are appealing to others but absolutely a drag to us here. The thing is we never will see them, so theres no point in hitting your head against the wall. I suspect this was the conclusion many of us came to without realizing it in this wording. Thus, the emotional blindness leads to alienation and dissendant values. Your claim that we are not truly aspies is rather insulting.

If you are trying to say that we can just "snap out if", you really are heading in the wrong direction, and have yet to understand the condition. It is not a "failure to embrace common sense perceptual interpretation", but an inability to recognize and grasp such social interactions, and an inability to get the same rewards out of social interaction as others do. It honestly seems like you are yelling at the blind man because he doesn´t see, and blaming him for it, and thats never right, even if you are blind yourself.

i am not totally sure that this is the case. from what i have read, it seems that the specialists are not quite sure whether the difference in brain function is the cause of the lack of desire to participate, or the result of lack of participation.
this may not have any bearing on your argument, but then again it might. from what aaronagassi is saying, i get the impression that he does not wish to participate socially in the generally accepted manner, which he seems to outright reject as banality, but that he sees the potential for a more direct and candid form of communication.
i am sure many here would agree that their problem is not with communication per se, but with the subleties of the prevelant and generally accepted modes and conventions of communication. although i could be wrong.

Jonathan79, no I think that you may be putting words in my mouth. Moreover, your argument seemingly weighs in on ome side of the central controversy of my other topic:
'Aspie culture and Aspie candor: Hope or hokum?' at: http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... ic&t=14935

Likewise, peebo, your response may also have bearing thereto as well. And you do understand the line of reasoning I wish to examine and follow through, although the claims which constitute the premise cannot be credited as my own invention. Indeed, they are a sentiments with which we all must be passing familiar.

If I am putting words in your mouth, then I apologize. However, its hard to get through all of your jargon. Not even Nietzche or Wittgenstein were so vague! My belief is that serious issues need to be discussed in the simplest language possible, otherwise you just dance around the issue and spend your time clearing up what you mean. Its philosophy, not shakespeare my friend!

Anyhow, could you clear up what you are saying then, in a simple and efficient manner. I believe your title is implying that we here at the boards are not "aspie enough". And you follow up with this statement:

Your last sentence seams to clearly accuse us of not being aspies and only pretending to be.




"how aspie is that?" ?!? Does this not imply that you think that these people at the group were not aspies either? That if people are not "candor and direct" as "advertised" (whos advertising this anyway?) 100 percent of the time, then they are not aspies?!?



What else can we do? People with ADHD had to wait for society to recognize their situation before they became more "accepted". People will not attempt to understand what hasn´t proven and shown to exist. Just as with Aids, and homoexuality, and mental illnesses. You canot put a plan of action into practice where a situation is not recognized, otherwise that plan will be rejected. People with mental illnesses could put no plan into action until mental illnesses were recognized. Until then it was all rejected as "something in the head". Recognition is the first step to initiating any type of plan, until then, all plans will be rejected by the mainstream.



The response here seems to say that she is not able to communicate effectively. Then you say:



Which seems to me like you are saying that all she has to do is try and she will be able to "get it", that it is something thats all in the head. If I have misunderstood, please clarify without all the jargon. A good sign of intelligence is to be able to communicate complex ideas in very simple terms, otherwise you will never get a complex thought across if you use obtuse and vague vocabulary. Otherwise the complex thought comes more across as an act. Please clarify in the simplest terms possible.

Edit:double post

Last edited by jonathan79 on 11 Jul 2006, 3:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

I totally agree with this, I don´t see where I implied that we cannot communicate. Just that we communicate differently and don´t get the emotional reward from chit chat like others do. I can communicate effectively and naturally, its just that I don´t get anything out of it and find it a bore.



Your first statement goes against this one as you say that you participate in communication, but are not able to pick up the things that other people do. Thus, it is not a lack of participation that is the cause. Also, some of the studies do with the recognition of emotional stimuli. The brain does not light up as it should when seeing an emotional expression. This could only be due to lack of practice if the person does not see other people at all, and never has. Also, the thread here somewhere about "having fun" shows that we have tried to go to bars and such, but never get any of the emotional stimulation that others do.



http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/71 ... bility.htm

This is a quote from Baron-cohen, a leading researching in autism. It still implies that lack of participation is due to something out of our control, rather than something that we choose. "lack of early social interest" is not the same as "being kept out of socializing". Also he is arguing that aspergers is a "different cognitive style", which means a different schematic of brain wiring. He also says that:




I am not trying to make excuses for myself, but i don´t like it when people say that I could change if I wanted to, because I´ve tried, and it made me miserable. This is how my brain is wired, and I´ve learned to cope with that.

Last edited by jonathan79 on 11 Jul 2006, 3:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

You are now reading judgement on my part into a strictly semantic question. I only sought to destinguish the pertinent usage to my own inquiry.


Are you utterly surprised at a sentiment unfamiliar to you? Are you requesting citation?

Where would you like to start?

Recohnized by whom? We can sit tight and wait for others to recognize us, or instead, we may recgnize our own responsibilities and act howsoever accordingly.

But serious mental illness implies helpless irresponsibility. Is that also our situation, then?

No, what I am saying that hope only begins from the struggle for expression. Or otherwise, not at all.

What does this mean?!? You sought to label us not aspie enough in order to advance your inquiry?? Also, I am not surprised at your definition of an aspie, I just disagree with it. Aspies do not engage in boring serious discussion ALL the time.



With neuroscience. The faster we can scientifically prove that this condition exists, the faster it will become accepted. What about you?




Where did I ever say "serious". You are making that up. most people with aspergers would not be labeled seriously mentally ill. Most of us go to school, have jobs, take care of families. Just like people with depression, social anxiety disorder, etc. They get no slack either, but their situation is recognized. I don´t see how a mental illness implies helpless irresponsibility, you overexagerrate the situation to make your point.




But, thats exactly what we´ve done!! !! We´ve recognized our own situation and changed our views, hopes, and dreams accordingly, these views and this community which you criticize as "not being aspie eonugh".





Yes, and what I am saying that some of us have struggled for that type of hope for most of our lives. Then when we realized that an aspie has a different kind of hope, different kinds of dreams, different types of happiness, things got better. Your mistake is to think that there is only "one" kind of hope, dream, and happiness, the type that people who socialize easy have.

I observed more than one usage, and attempted to distinguish between them, because one was more pertinent to my central question. No more, no less.

And no, research to bolster our disadvantaged status is entirely aside from my current inquiry.

Indeed, if we agree that we are fairly capable, then there might be more that we can actually undertake. -And actively, beyond just passive insight.

As to your closing remark, once again, gee, you sure read a great deal between the lines for an Aspie! But you are only putting more words in my mouth.

AaronAgassi

I don't think any of us are trying to "put words in your mouth", and by the way congratulations on the last post, I think I understood most of it the first time. What I think some of us are trying to do is translate what you are writing into language we can understand. And we write it out "are you saying blah? I think you are saying blah" to check. Where blah is our best guess at what you were trying to say.

But I am interested in some of the points that Jonathan79 and a few of the others make along the lines of were we born with communication difficulties or did we get them through lack of practice.

I think that perhaps we were born with the lack, and we can learn to compensate for it. As the oldest child in my family, I got more practice than any of the others in my family, but perhaps less teaching, because as my siblings and I grew, I became their teacher in many ways, including language and communication skills where as I did not have an older sibling to spend extra time with me.

But I was then and am now, still much more crap at reading other people than my siblings. I think some of them also have aspie traits but not as much as me.

I think as you learn new skills you can forge new pathways in your brain and be able to do things more naturally that you may not have been able to do at all as a child. You may always be slower than someone born with the connections, but you can now do what you need to do to communicate well. A bit like comparing a person who practices at tennis a lot, and someone naturally talented. The practicing person may eventually be able to give the natural someone a fair game, provided the naturally talented person doesn't resort to practice, which some of them don't because of their talent. (cf Mark Phillapoussis - loads of talent, not enough practice).

I'm not sure I entirely agree with Cohen's work. He's quite good at observation but he's not so good at figuring out which problem came first or which causes the other etc. You think he could ask us. Though I have been known to come up with really plausible explanations for the way I am, that are also completely wrong.

For instance I would have thought that the aspergers child's tendancy to focus on details instead of the big picture, would lead directly to the mind blindness. And this would lead to incompetent social interaction. Some of us want to be social, but we do it so badly and we are punished so harshly when we get it wrong, that the pain sometimes isn't worth the effort. Because we focus on a nose or a mouth or an eye, we are crap at mind reading, we offend people, they punish us for no reason that we can figure, so we avoid those people. Seems plausible to me.

But there is also the social side of people that seems utterly pointless. I find I don't get this so much because I avoid certain "social" parties, and focus my social activities on groups of people with similar interests to me. If I am at a "social event" with no specific theme, I work as hard as I can to find out any common interest that I might have with the people I am talking to. If they are entirely interested in celebrity gossip, I'm stuffed and I have to find new people, usually after I tell them off for being so interested in something that has no possible relevance to them, and promotes invasion of privacy by papparatzi and nosey journalists. Goes down like a lead balloon I suppose. They're usually to polite to say.

Having thought about this, I think aspies as a group might become more accepted when people start finding out who the famous aspies are and gossiping about aspergers in a positive way. I'm sure the current "Australian of the Year", Ian Frazer is one. He's in the kind of job that suits aspies - Research science. He looks so awkward and uncomfortable in interviews, he sits crooked, he stims/fidgets (remember when it used to be called "fidgetting"?) and he keeps giving all the credit to his team. He needed an "Australian Research Team of the Year" Award. And his wife is very similar. She sat bolt upright and completely stiff every time the camera was pointed at her.

Yes, I see, indeed, you are always quite right to double check for comprehension.

And I think that I would endorse the "positive acceptance" gossip campaign, indeed a strategy of positive engagement that I must jot down for inclusion into my next revisions of http://www.FoolQuest.com/cliquebusters.htm Although, I might actually emphasize gossip about ordinary people over the draw of celebrity.

However, I still despair of ever getting back on point to my own central concern, here. Indeed, how do you propose to organize?

apologies, i should really have said "social participation" where i said "communication"


i do participate in communication and social interaction, but not to the extent that others do. although this is perhaps due to my difficulty in maintaining social relationships. i feel that approriate reciprocation is as much a factor than recognition of stimuli.

where i mentioned the opinion of specialists, i was not speaking of my own behaviour or opinion on the subject. just that this is what the words of specialists seem to suggest. i personally enjoy going to certain bars and the like, bus as i said elsewhere, the specifics of the surroundings and company are important. clubs and excessively loud, busy pubs i don't like.

to me, these statements are generally in concurance. am i missing simething here?