Not Aspie enough!

Post Reply New Topic

To DREAM! The imPOSSible DREAM!

yes that does help a bit. having thought about this for a few days i've come to the conclusion that i do probably exhibit some degree of mindblindness. i was tending to look at the extremes and not consider it as existing as a spectrum.
as you say, i also find myself calculating the mind state of others, rather than it being intuitive. because my mind has always operated the way that it does, i still find myself realising that aspects of its operation are not common to everyone else.

Effective in what manner? -you ask...
In my other topic, 'Aspie culture and Aspie candor: Hope or hokum?' at: http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... ic&t=14935 , I first venture to list criteria of effective networking and later add thereto, the parameter of stimulation.

Stimulating in what manner? -you ask...
Stimulating as opposed to crushing boredom! And what manner of stimulation? Well, what constitutes the human need, fist of all, let alone anything distinctively Aspie?

But browse the topic: 'What people do for fun.. how the hell is it fun?! !' at: http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... ic&t=15056

And no, jonathan79, shared values have often had impact even without being universal and even without uniform consensus.

So, is any such sociological speculation whereof I have proffered even feasible and advantageous or desirable? I am, after all, preceding from repeated observations of a certain mode of discourse that are commonly expressed, even if not actually uniform over the entire spectrum, so called. And if Aspies are to assert difference rather than disability, then the potential for effectiveness and congeniality of whatever characteristic virtues to be extolled become a begged question.


One might only wish that mere mortals might be more candid about the ambiguity and socially constructed nature of most any etiquette, instead of chronically inventing and ever further encumbering on the fly and then veritably claiming received understanding from on high! Most ungracious and uncool, ludicrous, overbearing and even somewhat pathetic.

Indeed, I share your "imPOSSible DREAM," wobbegong, for candid free expression without constant anxious picayune stringent social self monitoring. I find tact the more compelling a value and even worthy of thought and effort, as a matter of emotional intelligence than however blithe social aptitude and ever somewhat arbitrary gymnastics. Compassion may demand care for the person, but it is only bullying in one guise or another, that closely guards the social order, with arbitrary and knee-jerk obsequious reverence. For it is well understood that, developmentally, empathy should precede restraint. Or else restraint will emerge bitter, jealous, destructive, arbitrary and repressive in the individual and become repressive as enacted socially.

Indeed, courtesy is something to be freely proffered, not painstakingly extracted. Alas, for too many, it seems inconceivable as a core value, that such as is howsoever right and good might ever actually depend upon latitude rather than ever vigilant guarded and anal rigid stricture. That it is the individual in need of protection, and that rather it must be the social order which must be rendered flexible and permeable in order ever to justify itself. Alas, such utter basics of civility and maturity come as a profound reversal alien to stunted heteronomy and taboo. A daunting obstacle to all social progress, personal or collective.

Ahhh, okay, I have not gone through that post thoroughly yet, I have only read this one. And, yes we have the need for stimulation, but as I have said, our need is a different need from others. Others do not find it boring because they "understand" the game that is being played.




I did not say this. You implied it in your question with the "if only" at the beginning of it.




This is the "banging my head" against the wall I referred to earlier. I do not see how it would be possible to initiate our form of communcation on others. Others do not usually find the need for this as they are able to pick up how others are feeling intuitively, making this form of communication unnecessary for them. I believe we percieve this form of communication as "pathetic" because we are not able to participate in it.

I´m glad that cleared things up a bit. Yes, a spectrum does exist here (aren´t we superb at dichotomous thinking!:)), as may other disorders that may possible muddy the waters a bit more. Humans may have many different tendancies interacting in such a way as to make it difficult to pinpoint a place on the spectrum (or what spectrum) where each of us lies. Not all of us are totally "mindblind", we may be able to pick up on some things and not others. But for the things I cannot, I always thought of it as trying to figure out something illogical using logic (i.e. love, friendship) which is the improper approach to begin with, but, thats the only "tool" (i.e. logic) I have to decipher such behavior. Hence, the faulty assumptions that follow with such an analysis because the "proper" conclusions to such behavior are grasped intuitively by others without using logic.






YES!! !! This is the destination I would like to build my bridge to using science as a persuasive argument that our behavior is "correct" for us, even though it may not be accepted by others. I do think this may be possible one day if we can keep hammering away at the myth that its "all in our heads" and that we "choose" to be this way.

I want others to not be shocked when I say I would rather stay home than go to a party. I want others to not be shocked when I say I do not really need friends (although I want them). I want others to not be shocked when I would rather watch a movie than go to the bar. I want others not to be shocked when I say I do not care for chit-chat. I want people to stop feeling pity for me because I do not socialize and have a large social circle. And the list goes on.....

No, whereof we speak is all merely conformist desperate co-validation, most pathetic indeed when compared to the true grace of civility, of merit and peer admiration accrued in actually covering for those who misstep trivially, even self effacingly helping them to face, making light instead of making mountains of every molehill in order to buttress and advance in idiotic and destructively uncivil power relations.

Although, indeed, heteronomy is often contingent upon a certain dexterity and fascination with extended and facile social interconnections, also so crucial, conventionally, in profitable extended networking.

Which brings us back to my question...

English please.....thnx

Why bother. Like the quote "neuro-typicals" aspies are human which means we are all cruel. That's why I don't try socializing beyond spreading these cheerful thoughts.

Science is not merely rational persuasion, but investigation of tough questions. What is a "correct" behavior? Indeed, in exactly what sense may behaviors be deemed correct? -especially given no clear moral obligation...

The best answers ever occurring to me are:
1) That the behavioral adaptation may be redeemed in effectiveness.
2) As a choice from values.

But it is a decision in our own minds. That is the meaning of autonomy. Whatever is anything more than compromise with one's own shortcomings, is pursuit of effectiveness and value. Therein lies the distinction of disability and mere difference.


I want something way better to do!

Do you have a question? Miscommunication competence remains crucial to conversational adequacy!
http://www.activelogic.org/doc/conversa ... ode13.html

Decidedly, I never much appreciate being pressed simply to guess what another might fail to grasp and why so. I'm more often the likelier to surmise incorrectly and only dig us in even deeper into the mire of cross purpose and confusion!

I mean as in an individuals subjective interpretation (see below). Hence the quotation marks.



I am not disabled!! !! Stop saying that!! !! I do not "choose" to be this way (stop saying that!! !!), but I cope in a manner which is based on my nature.




I don´t. (see above)

By english, I mean please take the shiny wrapping paper off of your ideas, I want to see whats inside without going through all of the wrapping paper. You are a gifted writer and you do indeed have a gift for semantics, however, this only makes me suspicious of whats inside the package, as if someone needs to wrap up their gift so "loudly", it makes me wonder if I am being distracted from whats inside. As I said, a good idea can be delivered in a brown paper bag and still retain its worth.

But I didn't.

Then you are explaining how you find yourself dealing with your own limmitations, restrictions, yes, disabilities.


Explaining yourself as above and speculating upon my motive to boot, in no way analyzes whatever in particular is however unclear to you, how and why so, in anything written by me.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... ghlight=bs

And where is just that magic to be found? In fabled Aspie candor? Or is all such hope no more than wishful myth? Moreover, would that magic extend at all beyond communication per se, the range of fuller stimulation, to render more graceful any more extensive expanse of human interaction, indeed, even conceivably, more effective networking?

You did it again!! !!, right here:

"Then you are explaining how you find yourself dealing with your own limmitations, restrictions, yes, disabilities."

Stop saying that!! !! I am NOT disabled!! ! Is a person who cannot do physics disabled?!? Is a person who cannot do polynomic calculus disabled?!? Is a person who cannot play basketball in the NBA disabled?!? Is a person who cannot compete in the olympics disabled?!? I am NOT disabled!! ! Stop saying that!! !! Not being able to play a "game" (the game of socializing) does not make one disabled. I do not consider these types of limitations to qualify one as being disabled. You are painting the different degrees of the disability spectrum with a broad stroke of your brush and running all the colors together.



Of course it is not an analyzation!! ! I cannot analyze something that is unclear to me, hence the request for simpler language. It appears I am not the only one who is unable to sift through your semantics as you repeatedy have to repeat your questions and request us to get back "on topic". I am saying to talk to me like I´m in elementary school. A worthy idea does not lose its worth when explained in a simpler way. This saves time. Otherwise I have to request repeated clarifications about your statements. I very much wish for the "candor" you speak about when discussing these things.



Just as you wish for "mere mortals" to be more candid about their ambiguity in their social presentations. I wish for you to be less vague in your semantic presentations. It just makes the discussion go faster.

No, I believe that his quote is saying that communication is not needed to "communicate". There is nothing extra that is needed to connect with our fellow humans. The magic does not extend beyond communication as much as replaces it. I believe the quote is saying that the communication you speak of might just be getting in the way of things. If we would only brush it aside, then we could be able to "communicate" and connect with each other.