About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Monday, March 10, 2008 - 6:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael E. Marotta : Thanks for the historical background.  However, there are apparently fairly clear genetic markers for both autism and Aspergers.  I became aware of it when I listened to an hour long interview on NPR with a specialist on the subject.  I wrote down the list of about 30 attributes that Aspies share, and then went down the list and checked off all 30.  I did not have a severely disabling case of it, fortunately.  With an IQ of about 145, I think I was simply able to think my way around many of the problems that Aspies typically have.  I still had them - I just learned how to cope. 

After I came to my own diagnosis, I asked a long-term psychotherapist/psychiatrist who herself is very intelligent, a regular at Mensa, if she thought, based on our years of acquaintance, if I might be an Aspy, and she replied that she had been fairly certain of it for some time. 

I do know Erwin S. "Filthy Pierre" Strauss, as I was an early subscriber to the Libertarian Connection, and have met him at various science fiction cons as well.

Most of the identified Aspies who I know, who I run into chiefly at sf cons, find that they can concentrate like most people wouldn't believe, but not when they are in a situation with meaningful "noise," as in a single person talking or music playing.  On the other hand, all the ones I've asked share my ability to focus totally in a crowded room where a host of people are talking all at once.  I can pull out Rand's Intro to Objectivist Epistemology in the middle of 20 people at a party and settle down to some rigorous analysis.  In fact, I will carry a novel or other literature to a party, as that is some of my best reading time.  But if it's just one person talking, forget it.  Either silence or loud random noise works for me, but not someone breaking into my chain of thought with isolated conversation.

Michael Dickey wrote: "Well, that is pretty pathetic. Empathy requires only the acknolwedgement and recognition of values, and the recognition that other people exist and have values as well. Unless you are a solipsist, empathy is a pretty rudimentary step. expressing it however is entirely different and falls back into the realm of 'abnormal social behavior' Are you saying that you would have to 'learn' to be sad when your lover's parents died? Or even that you 'faked' it? for some reason, as much as I disagree with you, I have a hard time believing that "

There is a lot of evidence that the normal human brain has what are called "mirror" neurons, which are involved directly in empathy.  We literally feel what other people feel due to these specialized neurons.  And, it turns out that Autistic people typically have one or more of a variety of physical disorders of the brain involving those very mirror neurons.  This has been covered fairly recently in Scientific American among many sources.  As I've state, however, Aspergers is probably not properly "on the Autistic spectrum."  It is a separate syndrome - or so the evidence so far suggests.  Aspies typically do not really lack empathy so much as they are simply out of sync with non-Aspies.  Or so my experience suggests, and there are plenty of accounts on line from various Asperger's support groups that support that conclusion.

The difficulty is that because we ARE out of sync, we get things wrong.  I might misinterpret a woman's friendship for sexual desire - or the reverse.  If she is a non-Aspy, then she will probably conclude that I have just one thing on our mind or that I'm dense or simply not interested or not available, all of which are very frustrating to me, assuming that she is wrong, anyway.   ;-) 

When we are with other Aspies, as at an sf con, I've noticed that instead of relying upon subtle culturally based signals - which go right past us - we tend to state what we are feeling directly, which works remarkably well, at least with other Aspies.  I've also had the experience of being totally caught up in something - music, a movie, a work of art, or some person who I was totally taken with - and then have people tell me that I must be completely repressed, that I obviously had no feelings or emotions, which always comes as a shock, as I was being completely overwhelmed by feeling at the very time that they saw absolutely nothing.

(Edited by Phil Osborn on 3/10, 6:27pm)


Post 21

Monday, March 10, 2008 - 6:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Getting back on topic - homeschooling ...

After the initial Keys to Learning conference, I attended a number of follow-ups, and in 1985 I was contacted by a Ms. Nancy Oh about organizing a conference in South Orange County.  Because so much had happened at the Keys to Learning that was not preserved, including a lot of good contacts and social networking, I introduced a conference database at Nancy's 1986 conference, and we also taped most of the various sessions.

One interesting thing that came out of the database, on which each attendee was urged to put a variety of information about how they homeschooled, with guaranteed personal privacy, of course, was that over 40% of the homeschoolers had one or more personal computers in their home.  This was FAR higher than the general population and higher still than all but the most advanced schools were providing. 

I convinced Nancy, BTW, to buy an Amiga 1000, and even her three-year-old was doing sophisticated graphics on it within weeks of the purchase, having learned by observing his or her older siblings, as Nancy herself turned out to have a severe case of computer phobia, and could never bring herself to actually touch the keyboard.


Post 22

Monday, March 10, 2008 - 7:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Type A Phil writes:

Thanks for the historical background. However, there are apparently fairly clear genetic markers for both autism and Aspergers. I became aware of it when I listened to an hour long interview on NPR with a specialist on the subject. I wrote down the list of about 30 attributes that Aspies share, and then went down the list and checked off all 30. I did not have a severely disabling case of it, fortunately. With an IQ of about 145, I think I was simply able to think my way around many of the problems that Aspies typically have. I still had them - I just learned how to cope.

I reply:

Many thanks for that. You have essentially recited the story of my life. We have similar IQ's and we have developed apparently similar coping strategies. I call my approach algorithmic. There are many things I don't really feel, but I ask myself, how would I behave if I felt these things. That way I can work out appropriate external behaviors which enable me to get along with the normals. After a while I am so used to behaving this way that I develop an internal analog to feelings that the normals come by naturally. I think of it as learning a role (as an actor might) and growing a persona to fit the role I learn. I think that is like Method Acting. That is how I produce a good analog to normal behavior.

The problem with Normals is that they think everyone is like them. Not so.

But wait! There is a bright side. I can handle emergency situations without getting emotionally f***ed up. I have done Heimlich and CPR on victims without getting rattled. That is because I -do not- feel their pain. Instead I realize their situation, regard it as a problem to be solved and then I solve it. By the numbers, by the book. I would have made a good EMT if I had decided on that line of work as a younger man. Compassion is not what solves the problem. It is know-how. The way I see it, compassion and $1.67 will buy a medium size coffee at the local Dunkin' Donuts(tm). You might ask, why bother to help the victims? Good question. Because it is a shame to let a non-hostile life go to waste. I could not create a life in a trillion years, but I could save one in under an hour. Seems like a good use for the time.

You can find an example of that kind of cool in -Atlas Shrugged-. Recall how Franscisco handled himself when the furnace a Reardon Steel broke out. He sized up the situation and did what had to be done. Act first, feel later. Why did Francisco bother? Because the furnace was broken and needed fixing, that is why. The sane response to a problem is to solve it.

I think the Normals believe they must have an emotional stake in what they do. What can I say? Emotions wont apply pressure correctly to the sziphoid process while doing CPR. The Normals apparently also believe there is something magic about thinking. Not so (at least in my case). It is just normal tissue functioning normally. Who needs magic? Correct procedure will do just fine. Brains work just fine. You see a problem, you solve it.

May I ask you question? Were you socially clueless when you were younger?

Bob Kolker


Post 23

Monday, March 10, 2008 - 7:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Miichael Dickey in #9: Of course, if people choose to behave differently their brain, in fact, will indeed have different structures and functionalities. This is yet another testament to the absurd notion that humans are merely robots and any differences in one brain from another must necessarily have come from genetics. E.g. Einstien was so smart because he brain was different, not, Einstein's brain was different because he was so smart (i.e. perpetually studying and challenging himself)
So, that's two firsts.  He agreed with me -- and I sanction his post for the above.

It's so obvious... and I have been thinking about this for so long...  it never occurred to me that you change the structure of your brain by the actions (and ideas, etc.), you choose.  That is going to explain a lot in my next term paper.  For my senior seminar in criminology, I am applying Ayn Rand's theory of the choice to think to the problem of rational choice theory in criminology.



 


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Monday, March 10, 2008 - 10:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


MFD says:
So, do you 'fake' empathy, or do you actually feel empathy? Can you expand on the difference a bit?


I respond:

There is no way we can compare feelings. We can only compare external behaviors. Feelings are totally private. I learned from my overt behavior and the way people reacted to it that I processed things differently from "normals". Sometimes the experience was painful. Pain is a good teacher. We are totally alone in our heads. There is no point of contact with others except through externalities.


You are evading the question, are you capable of feeling empathy or not? Are you sad, when someone you care about, loses something they value? Yes or no? Obviously you understand what sad ness is, and I'd wager you have actually felt it, if your life is typical to most peoples, many many times. Do you feel THAT thing when someone you CARE about loses something they value, yes or no? It's an easy question, you need not delve into imaginary metaphysical boundaries between human experiences, we are capable of communication, understanding, and emulation.

If you do not, in fact, feel what is considered 'empathy' than I think this gives everyone reading this a much better insight into understanding at least partly why you are so adamant about the use of nuclear weapons against middle eastern populations.

Post 25

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 1:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MFD asks:

You are evading the question, are you capable of feeling empathy or not?

I reply:

Probably not. I produce a similitude of empathy (I think). It is like Method Acting. I work from the externals inward. However I cannot verify this since I do not know what goes on inside of Normals. In fact I do not know what goes on inside of anyone else. Mind reading is not an item on my resume. I have a pretty good idea of what might cause pain in others, but that is based on induction and observation of externals.

I produce a mode of behavioral regulation that makes me safe to have around in company. I observe the Negative Golden Rule scrupulously in connection with non-hostile folks.

It would be unfair to call what I do fake, since I am unable to do the real thing. I do what I can. I am not trying to deceive anyone. I regulate myself the best way I know how. Perhaps Phil's hypothesis about lacking "mirror neurons" might be correct. Think of it this way: you ought not to blame blind people because they cannot see. A blind person substitutes sound and touch for sight, because that is all he can do.

Have you ever watched the series on Showtime called -Dexter-? I am like Dexter except I don't do serial killing. In fact, I go out of my way not to be dangerous to people who mean me no harm. To do so would complicate my life.

Bob Kolker


Post 26

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 7:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr Kolker writes, on feeling empathy -


Probably not. I produce a similitude of empathy (I think). It is like Method Acting. I work from the externals inward. However I cannot verify this since I do not know what goes on inside of Normals


So you are essentially saying that you go through all the motions of empathy, but are not really sure if you are feeling what 'normals' are feeling? How exactly is this any different than any other emotion? Do you feel sadness? Happiness? ever? Or do you say 'well I go through the motions of what appears to be these emotions but I am not telepathic so I don't really know what other people consider these to be' Well, little bit of a news flash 'Normals' are not telepathic either.

So really none of us knows exactly what others are feeling, and until we can directly plug into each other we won't ever be able to, but clearly there is an idea of 'empathy' out there and through a little introspection one can determine if they feel it or not.

Perhaps you are over intellectualizing this unnecessarily, empathy by it's nature is an emulation of the pain others are feeling (as related in a previous post by Phil)

So if you realize other people exist, and you yourself are capable of feeling sadness and do so when you lose something you value, can you not extrapolate that out to someone who you care for? Or are you literally saying you are indifferent to the pain that people who you care for go through, and must force yourself to have a twisted expression of angst, but are completely devoid of the actual emotion behind it?

I would still be hesitant to look at the lack of mirror neurons - or more precisely evidence of their activation, where lack of might be perceived as evidence of non-existence - and think that points to a physiological cause for the lack of empathy, mirror neurons derive their name not because they are of some particularly special type or structure that is necessary for empathy, but because they are literally the neurons that activate when we subjectively experience something we project others to be experiencing, we 'mirror' their subjective experience, because we recognize they exist as independent entities and so do we and we understand what they are currently experiencing. They should more appropriately be called 'neurons that act as mirrors' From wiki -


A mirror neuron is a premotor[1] neuron which fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another (especially conspecific) animal. Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the behavior of another animal, as though the observer were itself acting. These neurons have been directly observed in primates, and are believed to exist in humans and in some birds. In humans, brain activity consistent with mirror neurons has been found in the premotor cortex and the inferior parietal cortex.


Again, we love to attribute the results of re-enforced, and chosen behavior through our life to some genetic predeterminism, but the evidence for this is sparse and is usually interpreted from mere structural correlations with a major confusion of cause and effect.

Of note:


A critical question concerns how mirror neurons acquire mirror properties. One model postulates that mirror neurons are trained through Hebbian learning.[24].


And (emphasis added)


Hebbian theory describes a basic mechanism for synaptic plasticity wherein an increase in synaptic efficacy arises from the presynaptic cell's repeated and persistent stimulation of the postsynaptic cell


So, I think the question to ask yourself is - do you lack empathy because you have no mirror neurons, or do you have no mirror neurons because you don't feel empathy, and if you don't, what part of the equation is the failing point for you?

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 8:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Kolker,
I stopped paying much attention to your posts when I realized that your main reason for posting here is self-aggrandizement.  However, this caught my eye.  You said:
I go out of my way not to be dangerous to people who mean me no harm. To do so would complicate my life.
Am I correct when I interpret this to mean that you don't harm others who mean no harm to you because to do so would complicate your life?  Is it fair to conclude from this that if it didn't complicate your life, you would have no problem being "dangerous to people" who mean you no harm?


Post 28

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 9:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob,

Do you think that your fancied or personally-endeared affliction with Asperger syndrome in any way gives you a moral pass (a moral blank check)?

Ed


Post 29

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 9:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Glenn,

Bob’s formulation is in agreement with the conception of rights of some here, including the site owner.

While discussing the rights status of children, Joe argued that children have rights (like the simple negative right to life, to not be killed) only if it can be shown that respecting those (hypothetical) rights would benefit the adult individuals contemplating the dilemma. He stated explicitly that anything other than a direct appeal to self-interest constitutes emotionality.

Bob’s refraining from violating other’s rights because this would complicate his life while respecting them would make his life smoother is a statement of the same position on this issue.

Therefore, I think it is safe to say, yes, “if it didn't complicate [their] li[ves], [they] would have no problem being "dangerous to people" who mean [them] no harm.”



Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 10:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In post #27 Glen wrote:

> I stopped paying much attention to your posts when I realized that your
> main reason for posting here is self-aggrandizement.

Bob has just about taken over this forum. He posts continuously on most topic that comes up. He rarely has anything to contribute to the given discussion, substituting his flamethrower style of provocative statements in place of any thoughtful and potentially useful content. I don't for a minute think that any of his statements from "Kill all the Muslims" to the one quoted above by Glen represent his true belief about anything. These are all statements designed to stir the pot and provoke the maximum emotional response in others. I'm not sure that he has any true beliefs at all. If he has Asperger Syndrome (which, as with the boy who cried wolf, I'm not willing to accept simply based upon his statements), then by his own assessment regarding his highly developed simulation of empathy, he would certainly know what the statement "I go out of my way not to be dangerous to people who mean me no harm. To do so would complicate my life." implies.

Come on folks, just stop responding to this guy and let's hope he goes away. He has been infesting Objectivist groups for years, annoying the crap out of people, and I'm sure that this is his only intent here. He doesn't engage you in serious discussion; he just looks for a way to push buttons, and he has all the time in the world to do so. Go to Google Groups and do a search on "Bob Kolker" and you will get 138,000 hits. Read some of his posts on a wide variety of other groups to see what he is all about.

Regards,
--
Jeff

[edited to change "lets" to "let's"]
(Edited by C. Jeffery Small on 3/11, 12:06pm)


Post 31

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 11:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon L.

Bob’s formulation is in agreement with the conception of rights of some here, including the site owner.

While discussing the rights status of children, Joe argued that children have rights (like the simple negative right to life, to not be killed) only if it can be shown that respecting those (hypothetical) rights would benefit the adult individuals contemplating the dilemma. He stated explicitly that anything other than a direct appeal to self-interest constitutes emotionality.

Bob’s refraining from violating other’s rights because this would complicate his life while respecting them would make his life smoother is a statement of the same position on this issue.

Therefore, I think it is safe to say, yes, “if it didn't complicate [their] li[ves], [they] would have no problem being "dangerous to people" who mean [them] no harm.”
This seems to imply that as long as someone won't fight back, one should have no problem with being dangerous to them? This of course negates the whole notion that there is a harmony of interests amongst men, that it's really all about whether you can get away with something by escaping retaliation, that the person sitting in a wheelchair can be beaten to a pulp because he can't fight back? Or if no one will come forward to protect a child it is morally acceptable to abuse that child? So another words the existence of others around me can serve no positive benefit to my life by there existing an exchange of values between men, so really rights are all about avoiding retaliation?

What a peculiar view.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 12:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MEM wrote:
It's so obvious... and I have been thinking about this for so long...  it never occurred to me that you change the structure of your brain by the actions (and ideas, etc.), you choose.
It's called neuroplasticity. Last night my local PBS channel had a show about it, called "The Brain Fitness Program".  Check your local PBS channel and/or do a search for "The Brain Fitness Program".  The highest plasticity is in the first few years of life, but it continues even in old age.

You can check for local airing here:
http://www.positscience.com/newsroom/news/news/120207.php


(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 3/11, 1:50pm)


Post 33

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 1:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
to post 28.

Absolutely no. I am bound by the same rules of behavior as anyone else. My peculiarity does not confer and privilege or immunity upon me.

I am as bound by law as you are anyone else. I am also bound by custom and convention as well. One of the reasons I went to a lot trouble to pass for human is because of common custom and courtesy.

Bob Kolker


Post 34

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 4:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob,

Thanks for that revealing answer.

Ed


Post 35

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 5:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

John,

It is indeed a peculiar view. It’s not my view.

Glenn found it repugnant and I simply wished to point out that Bob is not the only one here who holds it. I’ll bet Bob would not take advantage of a person in a wheelchair— risk of retaliation or no, and I know Joe would not.

Point is, Glenn highlighted and objected to Bob’s statement:
“I go out of my way not to be dangerous to people who mean me no harm. To do so would complicate my life.”

This statement means that it is in his self-interest to respect other’s rights—so he does respect other’s rights. Glenn appears to be appalled by this implication: That if violating others did not pose any cost or lost opportunity for trade, there would be no reason to refrain.

All I am saying is that this conclusion is the straightforward consequence of basing a theory of rights on the self-interest of the respecter.

Those who hold to this conception of rights (again, I am not one of them) can deal with the man-in-a-wheelchair question by responding that rights are a principle, which, once established as valid in an adult context, can be applied to men in wheelchairs.

However, Joe maintains that children are a different context and that therefore they cannot be “pulled-in” like a man in a wheelchair can be.

So now we are back to trying to establish rights for children exclusively by appeal to the self-interest of we adults. And if it can be shown that violating children’s (hypothetical) right to life would benefit us more than respecting the same, then we have to conclude that they don’t have rights. So this position leaves us savoring for some unwanted and donated babies with which to conduct medical testing. Waiting for them to (maybe) grow up and trade with us sounds nice, but using them now to advance medical science and save lives is the greater appeal to the self-interest of we adults. Do you see the problem?



Post 36

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 7:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob asked:  May I ask you question? Were you socially clueless when you were younger?

Sometimes I still am.  I try to do what is logical and rational in whatever circumstances.  This is not necessarily consistent with social norms and mores.  ;-)

I recall during my freshman or sophomore year in high-school being invited to a birthday party given for the prettiest girl in the class.  So, I got my best clothes ironed, spent my very meager savings on a present, and showed up only to discover, of course, that it was all a hoax.  This is almost a paradigm example of what every Aspy kid goes through.  Non-Aspies take a special relish in bullying, insulting and playing practical jokes on us, because we act the part of the fool, who falls for every trick, and the look of abject puzzlement on our faces is a real riot, I know.

You mentioned having to physically defend yourself violently until you were finally let alone.  I had the good fortune to have the same experience, but in a context that made it understandable.  My family moved from small town Vermont, where I was having a more-or-less normal childhood to Rome, Georgia, when I was almost 6 years old.  The first grade teacher was the first person to attack me, accusing me of lying "We don't like little liers down here..." on my first day in class because I couldn't read her longhand, having never seen longhand.  She had asked me if I could read and write and I truthfully said "yes," not even realizing that longhand existed.

Then a whole raft of the native kids in my class and others made it their job to make a political statement on my body, to wit, that they were going to "defend the honor of the South," against a "damn yankee."  So, for a couple of years, I literally fought on just about every recess period.  After a while, I got quite good at it, and then they started leaving me alone. 

Since I had a concrete reason for being attacked - my geopolitical background - it simply never occurred to me to think that there might be something additional in my personal makeup that brought on the endless attacks.  Living in a universe that makes sense is critically important to the development of rationality in a child, so, in a back-handed way, I suppose that I should be grateful for being from the wrong class historically.  Otherwise I would have found the attacks incomprehensible and thus more likely concluded that life itself is incomprehensible and struggle is futile.

One problem that both autistic and Aspergers kids typically have is the inability or unwillingness to look other people in the eyes.  I suspect that this has to do with the inability to block out meaningful stimuli.  In my early college years, I started analyzing every aspect of my own behavior, to try to get behind habit and convention and get at what was real in my person.  So, when I realized that I had a problem meeting other people's stares, I deliberately focused on that and forced myself to stare everyone I met in the eyes, until I was comfortable with doing so.  Of course, out here in California, with the Hispanic population anyway, meeting someone's stare is considered to be a challenge to a fight, almost as bad as putting ones hands on ones hips.  One has to be reasonable about these things... 

Similarly, having been brought up in an extremely religious, sexually and sensually repressed family, I actually fainted for a couple seconds once when a group of girls my age suddenly lifted their skirts in unison outside our Sunday school class.  (It turned out that they were planning some kind of athletic thing and were showing each other their shorts.)  So, as part of my self-awareness and liberation program, I forced myself to become a crotch watcher.  It took quite an effort to get past my natural embarrasment - but it was worth it....  ;-)




 



Post 37

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 7:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael E. Marotta:  I totally agree that the brain is largely self-made.  I had magazine articles published on that topic in the late '80's in connection with early childhood computer-enhanced education, when I was consulting with private schools.  The evidence suggests strongly that training and practice, especially during infancy or early childhood, can radically impact intelligence and various skills and both perceptual and intellectual capabilities.

There are limits, however.  The brain is damaged by too much cortisol, for example, and so, when a boy is physically assaulted repeatedly and seriously or a girl is sexually assaulted, there is definite and clear damage to certain parts of the brain that is long-lasting or permanent, due to the overdose of cortisol hitting the brain in the active areas and killing off brain cells and tissues, such as those having to do with empathy, thus leading to the common syndrome of abusers raising more abusers.

I think that Bob may be a case of this, as well.   I have met a fair number of identified Aspies over the recent years as people began to become aware of this syndrome, as well as some adults who suffered through autism.  Unlike Bob, the Aspies never told me that they didn't feel and the literature and accounts of parents that I've read indicate that the typical Aspergers kid feels things as strongly if not more than non-Aspies.  This tells me that possibly Bob either has a different varient, or dealt with his situation in a different manner than usual, leading to a different style of brain development in which feelings are not as accessible, or may have suffered trauma early on that has resulted in this emotional blindness.

The problem with the typical Aspy is that their feelings, while perfectly strong, are invisable or significantly less-understandable to the non-Aspy and vice-versa.  Mothers of Aspies generally relate that they are able to empathize with their Aspy kid, but that they often have great difficulty in dealing with teachers, for example, who typically think that the kid is lying to them all the time.

I recall being accused of stealing another kid's wallet in elementary school, just because I, along with several other kids, had been exploring a crawl space that stretched under the bleachers in the gym, where this other kid had apparently lost his wallet.  The principal, without any evidence at all, seemed convinced that I was the culprit, even though I had no record of ever doing any such thing.  That's just one example - of hundreds, I'm sure, in my own personal experience, but the overall problem is that non-Aspies find our failure to respond correctly on an emotional level to be suspicious, and without any rational basis, they tend to assume that we are guilty of whatever went down. 

It's similar to the issue with Hispanic girls that we used to have out here in Southern California.  If a good Hispanic girl is brought before an authority, such as a principal, then she is supposed to lower her gaze and never, ever look the authority in the eyes, which is equivalent to a challenge to fight in that culture.  This was being consistently misinterpreted by school authorities as evidence of guilt in whatever situation was happening, and so the most innocent of the girls would be blamed and punished over and over, while the bolder guilty parties would get off scott free, until someone brought the issue to public attention and the school authorities were taught about cultural differences.

Like the Hispanic girls, we Aspies don't give off the right vibes.  We may appear to be smiling when in fact we are quite unhappy - or that's one common glitch that I've noticed on my own part - and in general this kind of thing causes other people to consciously or subconsciously conclude that we are hiding our true feelings and thus must be a culprit or enemy or con-man, etc. 

Another difficulty is that when we have good ideas - which is more often than the general populace, as Aspies tend to have high IQs - we have trouble selling them, as, once again, people instinctively mistrust us.  I, for example, came up with a complete design for a browser with full hypermedia linking capabilities in the mid-80's and tried to convince programmers in my local Amiga computer club to take on the project.  It was a little beyond my resources to complete on own, although I did have something of a prototype, done in compiled BASIC. 

However, they all treated the idea, which was remarkably similar - text-based hyperlinks, etc. - to Mosaic, as a joke.  Then the Mac came out with HyperCard and suddenly the Amiga programmers were scrambling to catch up - althought they still didn't see it in the context of my idea which was essentially a web page.  The Amiga - as later events proved - was fully capable in 1985 to have supported a modern internet web, but it didn't happen simply because nobody tried to do it.

(Edited by Phil Osborn on 3/11, 7:54pm)

(Edited by Phil Osborn on 3/11, 8:05pm)


Post 38

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 8:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's called neuroplasticity. Last night my local PBS channel had a show about it, called "The Brain Fitness Program".  Check your local PBS channel and/or do a search for "The Brain Fitness Program".  The highest plasticity is in the first few years of life, but it continues even in old age.
You can check for local airing here:


Thanks, Merlin, but we do not have television here. 

What affect do you suppose TV has on your brain??


Post 39

Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 4:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MEM wrote:
Thanks, Merlin, but we do not have television here. 
Duh!  :-)


What affect do you suppose TV has on your brain??
Duh! :-)  I don't know. It would seem to depend on how much you watch and what sort of programs. A similar question: What effect do you suppose your computer has on your brain??


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.