Not Aspie enough!

Post Reply New Topic

No. Because, first of all, in order to say anything again, I would have had first to have said any such thing previously. Secondly, I'm not saying it, you are, as I am here merely pointing out.

Yes, indeed, for I am just such an individual myself. Mild dyslexia and poor short term memory are calamitous stumbling blocks for me in math required for physics.

Literally speaking, yes. It's all relative, after all.

The Hell it's not! Get real. We all pay, daily and dearly, for exactly that shortcoming.

Why, what a massive crock, decrying the patronizing condescension of CAN for the insensitive temerity of seeking a cure, while at the same time calling for special disadvantaged minority status from the UN!

Given that beyond mere disability, Asperger's is at least any sort of trade-off, ever with talents to offset the disadvantageous weaknesses, yes, the disabilities, I seem to be among the very few even at all speculating as how we might play to our strengths, and particularly as regards crucial social function, relationships and networking.

And given also the claims of different needs and values, I also seem to be at all one of the few pursuing any question how to live thereby.

So you consider.

Nothing of the sort. I never denied that disability is a matter of degree. But in even making the qualification, you admit that disability is disability. And, tautologically, to have a disability is to be disabled, and no less a matter of degree. The only differnce is in congugation.

Of course one can. How else does anything ever become clearer? Indeed, what urgent need of further analysis of anything, indeed, already quite crystal clear?

What I actually requested of you is to point out to me whatever is ambiguous, how and why, in my previous post. Which is certainly possible. And otherwise, I will not know what, why or how to clarify. Again, Miscommunication competence is indispensable to conversational adequacy. http://www.activelogic.org/doc/conversa ... ode13.html

Nor do I single you out in my above request for specifics. Indeed, thankfully, some ever do prove willing and able to pose questions or offer any other explanations, point by point, of whatever might ever remain be unclear on my part, how so and why, to guide me in attempting ongoing clarification.


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.[/quote

Last edited by AaronAgassi on 15 Jul 2006, 7:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ah, well, then you can have it!

Oops, I meant to say "limitation and disability spectrum". You run the two together thereby eliminating the distinction. So, yes, you do deny that there are degrees to limitation and disabilities, which is the problem, because you use your definition to define me. I do not define myself as disabled, YOU do, continuously, which is what I have been saying this whole time.



You are pointing out that I´m disabled!! !! ! I am NOT. I have limitations, not disabilities!! !



You define being "disabled" as having limitations. By your definitions all humans are "disabled", and when all humans are considered disabled, then no one is. Your definition turns on itself by overgeneralizing what "disabled" is to make your point. This is the second time you have overgeneralized something to make a point.

Do you recognize that we have a different way of communicating because of our limitations? If so, your answer is to use those differences to pursue equality? That makes no sense. How will we ever use our style of communication to "network" with those who don´t? Isn´t that the problem in the first place? I cannot communicate with someone from China because he doesn´t speak english, so, my solution is to learn english better? That makes no sense. Shouldn´t the solution be to get the Chinaman to learn my language?



Yes, I do.

This is the problem. I have repeatedly said that your overuse of semantics is the problem. I have pointed that out many times, you just ignore it. To go through an explanation point by point is time consuming. Why not just state your premise in simpler language to avoid that step? Do you not advocate direct talk and candor? Why not get straight to the point instead of going through unneccessary clarifications?

Nice try for plain English, Johnathan79. I don't think it's going to work.

AA: consider that perhaps using words like "perspicuous" isn't very.

I thought my impossible dream - involved ditching courtesy. Are you suggesting we simply redefine it? I can only "freely proffer" courtesy as it does not come naturally at all. It can't be forced out of me or painfully extracted because then it isn't courtesy any more. It's toadyism or grovelling.

I'm really not sure about your idea that "empathy" must come before a child? can act with "restraint". I thought that this was part of what the rules of courtesy were about. You follow the rules, you act with restraint, but you don't need to understand why this is important. Initially you might do it because you fear your mother's anger if you don't.

I don't understand how you connect compassion with bullying. Maybe you confuse compassion with manipulation? I can act out of compassion, and freely help someone I pity, or at least tolerate them in some way I might otherwise not if I felt they had more control over their situation - without expecting anything of them in return. Where as a manipulative person would always expect something in return, even if it was only a more socially acceptable behaviour from the object of their pity. The manipulator's pity and help is conditional on some form of exchange of control. If someone wants the manipluator's help, they must submit to the manipulator in some way. To me this is bullying, whether the manipulator has the best interests of the manipulated at heart or not. This is not compassion as far as I understand it.

I think somewhere in there you suggest that some tolerance for diversity might be better than expecting rigid conformance to (some not clearly defined) social rules. I'd have to agree. And I feel this applies across many cultures and religious divisions not just between Aspies and Neurotypicals. If only we'd all be more tolerant of each other. Bizarrely even as I call for more tolerance, I am having a hard time tolerating the noise of my neighbour's new reverse cycle air conditioner. If I can hear it through the rain on a tin roof and a brick wall, surely it must be more than 45DB loud?

You lost me a bit in the sentence starting "That it is the individual in need of protection..." what happened to the individual? - I lost him (or her) in the social order. Were you saying that it is more civilized to be laisse faire than polite and etiquette obsessed? And that we can't make social progress without being more tolerant of diversity? This sits strangely with aspie desires to have routine without change. I guess the diversity would be we get to choose our own routines (or not) instead of having them forced upon us. We might have to compromise over things like bus time tables.

I'm having a real hard time figuring out the meaning of "profound reversal alien to stunted heteronomy and taboo". It's like reading 19th century philosophy or Charles Dickens, I need a translator and a fluff filter. I figure from the context that it might be redundant to what I've already figured out (as my best guesses).

And I don't think my dictionary has the quite same definition as yours for "picayune" though essentially I understood that you dislike social self monitoring as much as I do.

I'm going to have another shot at why the background and the text don't work together well. If you are familiar with physics and wave interference patterns you might figure it out. Hint: it wouldn't matter what colour each is, it's the size of the patterns that stuff me up.

http://www.FoolQuest.com/cliquebusters.htm

main problem with the background.

The size of the squiggles in the background is similar to the size of the squiggles of the text. In patches at least. So it looks like two patterns of squiggles supermimposed and they blend in a way that renders it all difficult to read. The contrast between the light and dark bits of the background pattern are similar to the contrast between the light bits of the text and the dark bits of the background. So it blends.

I can't help with the diagram, it just isn't clear enough. Various bits of text get purple pixels in with the aqua ones and this blends very nicely with the background.

The pink on aqua flares in the same way as complementary colours like red and green or purple and orange flare. It causes a major interference pattern which makes the whole text jump around like fly sized wallpaper patterns.

I think I already explained about long lines. I have a hard time finding the beginninng of the next line and so reading in a sequential fashion. The page is "stretchy" so this isn't so bad.

Essentially when the background is fairly dark, and has texture in it much the same size as the text itself and it all blends in one blurry fog. I have to look at really little bits of it to read it by figuring out what each character is and then each word, when I am used to looking at whole lines or paragraphs to read.

If my eye had the ability to read things far away just as easily as things close up, like the transmitted light didn't get corrupted or changed between me and the image, then all would be well but my eye isn't that good. And neither is anyone else's. Consider that street signs use nice fat sans serif well spaced font because it is clear and easy to read from a distance. They put the characters on a plain background to minimise interference patterns and blurring of the image.

Having the links a significantly different colour to the rest of the text, also draws the eye to these words at the expense of the rest of the text and any kind of meaningful sequencing of words.

Jonathan79:
I admit that I do not see any clear distinction between limitation and disability. Because the words are synonyms!! Aren't they? And you are wasting our time and energy with knee-jerk face-saving instead of either coping with or overcoming the challenges before us.

And I am not so much pointing out that you are disabled, as pointing out that you yourself are actually saying so in a round about manner, beating about the bush, indeed, discussing how you deal with it. And all of the fuss, pother, temper, drama and exclamation points won't change that salient truth one jot.

Because yes, I do recognize that we have different communications styles because of our limitations, that is to say, consequent to coping with our disabilities, among other reasons, such as our strengths and values as well and any range of myriad factors.

And yes, tautologically, all human beings would be, at least technically, disabled, relatively speaking, as, after all, no one is perfect.

And yes, very much indeed, we should definitely use our differences, especially our assets, our strong points, to best advantage in order to pursue equality. And history bears me out.

And I was suggesting the possibility of applying our communication style to networking amongst ourselves. Networking with average folks is another question entirely.


Wobbegong:
I spoke of candor. I also spoke of civility. Indeed, these are different values.

My aim here is to distinguish between social and emotional intelligence, and the ramifications there from. To distinguish between the nurturing qualities of civility and the destructiveness of bullying heteronomy. Each are far more artful and skilled than blunt Aspie candor, yet as different democracy from totalitarianism. Civility makes allowance for candor and even awkwardness outright, where bullying heteronomy is most guarded and opportunistically predatory. Is that any clearer?

What is the more laudable application of much the same social dexterity, to demean and exploit others, or to help put others at their ease? What is healthier, to torment every awkward slip, to punish ever minute infraction and raise the stakes, or to embrace any sense of proportion, lower the stakes and actually nurture and encourage social risk?

That is one view, and I take another, much as that may surprise you. Indeed, it turns out that the reasons, empathy, are actually key, exactly as I have endeavored to expound. And if the question interests you, then you might enjoy researching the matter. Suffice for the nonce that arbitrariness is no virtue, even in Pedagogy. -Especially not from any value standpoint of civility.

I do hope that the comparison and contrast may now be made any clearer.

Perhaps the incomprehensible strangeness of civility, from the standpoint of heteronomy, the reversal of all such one dimensional common sense, is any clearer now.

I like the dazzling effect. But I give up. Maybe I'll hunt down some free JavaScript that offers the page visitor varied choices of color scheme or at least background. Any suggestions?

AaronAgassi

I still don't know what you mean by heteronomy, or specifically "bullying heteronomy". And it isn't in my dictionary so though I did try, I am finding trying to translate your stuff a little frustrating right now.

I suspect that if you / we could get to a point where we could all just be ourselves and not have to make compromises (is this really bullying?) in order to fit in, that we'd have instead, anarchy. While I do prefer some laisse faire to over-regulation, I don't think I'd enjoy total anarchy either.

For instance I could demand my neighour insulate his air conditioner to contain its noise. And when he doesn't, I could pour water or caustic into its innards and then he could come around and shoot me dead. Anarchy isn't an ideal solution either.

As for the javascript it is possible, ie to get a little bit of css for the background properties to be dynamic. I think it's done at http://glish.com/ , there's a bit in the corner that fiddles the text, so maybe you could use that to fiddle the background.

I don't mind dazzling but I prefer it in moderation - like a border perhaps? That's why I handed over the zen garden link so you could see ways to be dazzling and easy to read. I think it is possible for you to have your cake and eat it. Ie have a website that is uniquely yours, and still communicate with the rest of us, your important message.

heteronomy is the opposite of autonomy, ie conformity to the rule of another, as opposed to self-government. i assume by this he means fitting into the stereotypical modes of interaction and general living imposed by the majority. i find the ideas that aaronagassi puts forth interesting and worthy of thought, but i am unsure as to any proposed strategy to actualise the stated aims, the purpose of his enquiry apparently being the formulation of a strategy as such.

on the subject of anarchy, in general it simply means an absence of authoritarian, centralised government and strictly imposed rule of law, a social structure free of coersion and "heteronomy" . the common misconception that anarchy entails doing exactly whatever one likes with no consequences is at best a gross misinterpretation and oversimplification. to quote from the wikipedia entry on anarchism:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

as such, it would seem the concerns of anarchy in general would be quite relevant in terms of the topic being discussed here, i would think.

I think that might be a problem with wiki, that they let the anarchists define the word.

My dictionary says it is an absense of government, chaos and disorder.

We've got problems with this in our region (near Australia) at the moment, for example in the Solomon Islands anyone who disagrees with the elected government, walks in with a couple of football teams worth of friends (fiends?) and takes over. And this causes chaos all round.

I like the wiki definition of anarchy better, but I think it needs a new word. The word used to be "freedom" I think. The USA fought a war against the Pommes for Freedom. The right to determine their own rules and not have them imposed from without. But this word too has been corrupted in the manner described by George Orwell in 1984.

I think the way to achieve "freedom" in the old fashioned sense, is a strong bill of rights, and a strong law of fair trade. And this would probably need to be tied to a bill of rights for the land and sea, to be used sustainably and biodiversity preserved as much as possible.

Unfortunately right now, we live in an era where human rights are being eroded in favour of a few nasty world exploiters. So it isn't just aspies that are in trouble. But why should this stop us.

How about an "aspie bill of rights". Which is really an overhaul of the human bill of rights. We could start with the USA one or the UN one or the New Matilda Australian one. http://www.humanrightsact.com.au/

And I'm sorry Aaronaggasi, but I think it would be best if it was in plain english, otherwise you will be the only one who can understand it and nobody will use it.

There are a few gaps/loopholes in the new matilda one. For example, they haven't clearly defined "treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way." I argue that conditions at Guantanamo bay are cruel, inhuman and degrading, and George Bush thinks the conditons are fine and humane. There are a few places where bits of the bill as proposed could be corrupted to suit the authorities at the time.

Gawd there are so many of those rights that have already been removed. Who needs privacy anymore right?

Wobbegong: heteronomy: http://www.foolquest.com/atheism.htm#autonomy

And, peebo, have I really strategized so little?

Yes, they are closely related, but they are not synonyms. You are using them as synonyms, I am not. I am referring to the use of disabled from the common language use in society, and, the common language use of limited in society. One uses the word disabled in order to qualifiy for special treatment by attaching the word "disabled" to his self-idea, people who seek to attain the label of disabled are seeking speacial treatment, I am not. When one recognizes his limitations, he is not seeking special treatment because of them, when one recognizes that he cannot play in the NBA because of his limitations he does not sue them to get equal treatment as one who claims disability who sues for equality (the golfer who sued to ride his cart around the course because he couldn´t walk, we do not see people suing the PGA because they don´t have enough skill). One who is limited in his skill in physics does not sue in order to participate in physics!! ! What nonsense, imagine trying to sue a university to let you enroll in a physics program when your limitations in mathematics prevent you from doing physics!! ! People do not claim entitlement from limitations, but do from disabilities.

It makes sense to say that "I am disabled", but not, " I am limited". In these uses we can see the differences between a possesive indication and an identity statement. Disability is a very strong defining word, and I do not define myself that way, I do not seek special treatment. These limitations are parts of me, not the whole me. I do not seek to use these limitations in order to recieve special treatment, which is the purpose of seeking a label of disability. One can say, "I have disabilities" and "I have limitations", and in this use of disability, we find the synonyms of limitation and disability. Disability to me has a negative connotation, much as someone who is limited in a certain manner is insulted at being called disabled, as he is not seeking special treatment. Not disabled, different! I do not seek special treatment, just the recognition of my differences!! ! This is a very important difference, it is not safe-facing in any way. YOU resort to saying it is face saving in order to back up your argument, YOU are resorting to "saving face".

I have very much learned to cope and overcome the challenges before me. So much so that I do not seek special treatment because I have learned to cope and overcome effectively enough to get on with my life. For you to say that I am avoiding such actions is insulting. This is why I say do not call me disabled, so stop saying that!! !! I DO NOT SEEK SPECIAL TREATMENT!! !! !!



I am not!! ! YOU are defining me that way, I am not. It is not "beating around the bush" it is an important distinction (read above). It is not a salient truth. It changes everything (see above).



No, all humans have limitations, not disabilities, and, in this we see why not everyone is entitled to everything. If everyone was disabled, everyone would be entitled to everything. Having a label of disability means you are entitled to something. One cannot sue on the basis of limitations, only disabilities.




I don´t quite understand. You say that they are two different questions, yet always refer back to contrasting aspie "candor" with NT "ambiguitiy". Why make the distinction if we are only focusing on making aspie candor more efficient? We are all quite clear of the differences, and are usually in agreement as to disliking NT communication, so this contrast of communication styles is unneccesary for making aspie communication more effective.

I do appreciate the toning down of semantics, see how much faster things go!

Last edited by jonathan79 on 16 Jul 2006, 5:17 am, edited 4 times in total.

wobbegong:
yes, a lot of dictionaries tend to define anarchy like that, in the sense of anomie and disorder. perhaps you were using the word in that sense. but really anarchy refers to the state of a society based upon the political philosophy of anarchism.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA1.html#seca11


aaronagassi:
i have not noticed anything so far that clearly suggests movement towards a strategy as such. although i may have missed or misunderstood parts of the discourse. can you provide a brief summary of your strategy as concieved thus far?

It seems that the qualifications for disability where upon you expound remain entirely bureaucratic distinctions, even perhaps somewhat arbetrary, depending as they do, entirely how and where the bar is set. Nor am I really clear that you do reject special treatment or status. Because you seemingly demand of others lessened expectations of you. Well, that doesn't seem so far and worlds apart from special needs to me!

I deem it far more interesting and fruitful to raise skeptical scientific testable questions as to what we can or cannot do under different conditions, for the purpose of application, strategically.

And if you do, indeed, network effectively, then share your secrets, please, jonathan79.

That simply does not follow.

In attaining or exceeding the success of conventional social interaction, as well as in reducing or eliminating the drawbacks thereto as well, understanding thereof is certainly key.

And this applies especially as to interpersonal networking. If you have no clue the treasures and power yielded by effective networking and the vital concern, if you cannot even relate, then any new and better approach to the challenge must lie far and away indeed! And consequently, we will always remain dominated, marginalized and exploited by those with superior organizational abilities.

No less, in the common defense, it will always be crucial to understand the destructive applications of networking that are at the crux of relational bullying. -What Dawkins calls the adversative meme..

And the hunger for stimulation and differences therein is are no less crucial.

Indeed, whatever advantages and efficiency in Aspie candor, as well as how best to exploit them, is also understood the better by contrast.

In summation, know thyself and know thy competition, always!

Peebo

I used to say I was an anarchist because I felt that for every piece of legislation our governments passed, that another bit should be repealed. So our laws don't become an ever increasing pile of impossible compliance requirements. Quite often the old obsolete laws don't get repealed, they just stop enforcing them unless it suddenly suits them to enforce it against someone they want to persecute for some reason.

However everyone I told that I was an anarchist, reacted according to the traditional dictionary definition, like I wanted to blow up the nearest houses of parliament, ie that I had just declared myself a terrorist.

So I stopped using the word "anarchist".

I can't seem to find any suitable replacement words. Freedom fighter has been nicely equated with terrorist these days. Freedom seems to be an adjective applied to processed deep fried potato when the French annoy your government by refusing brownnose them. It's hardly worth living or dying for anymore.

Every time we come up with the right word, government and corporate spin doctors redefine it according to the "if you're not with us, you're against us and therefor evil" principles. I wonder why that might be.

I wish I could remember what happened to the pigs.

i know what you mean, wobbegong, in certain company saying you believe anarchism to be a valid political system can lead to the wrong conclusions. it is difficult to find a non-emotive, neutral term to define such a belief.

yes well, the rulers probably feel quite threatened by the possibility of a widespread and popular movement towards individual and collective freedom. they don't want anyone to be free. its funny how they use the rhetoric of freedom to promote their war on terror. remember, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.

Now you are the one who is "saving face". Imagine someone who lost their leg in an accident, he works for years to learn how to use a prosthetic limb. He is able to function normally in society, one day at lunch I sit down with him and say, "oh, but you´re still disabled!". What an insult!

You claim that I use this distinctions as a way of avoiding the hard issues and avoiding coping. I say exactly the opposite. I use these distinctions to show that I have coped well enough to discard the "disability" label.

And, ALL definitions are arbitrary, you have said nothing whatsoever with this statement. I honestly think that you should go back and check all these big words you´ve been throwing out because if you can´t grasp how to use the words "disability" and "limitation" properly, I have high doubts that even you truly understand all these semantic fireworks you´ve been throwing out.




Show me where I have once demanded special treatment or status?!? My demand that others recognize my differences is not based on lessened expectations, but different ones. There is a difference. Lessened expectations implies disability, different expectations implies difference, not disability. You keep twisting my statements around to make your points!! !! Stop that!! !



Name me one scientific testable question you have proposed, and in what manner you propose to test it. And, name one application that you have proposed so far.



I have never once said that I have learned to "network effectively". Please show me where I have said that. I said I have managed to cope effectively, nothing else. I also said that I have little desire to participate socially, so I don´t really have a need for networking. Stop twisting my words around!! !!



Where have I said that I do not understand the benefits of networking? Please show me that post. My position was that we cannot use our networks to "combat" theirs. Which is what you advocate, as you say we are in "competition" with them.

You keep twisting my words around!! ! I see a clear tactic emerging. My langauge is very easy to understand, you should not problems with interpretations, yet you keep twisting my words around, stop that!! !!