Aspies For Freedom

Rant for 27/10/07 - Atomic ideology

I've often found it an interesting exercise to pick something I like, or a viewpoint I have, and work out the reasons for it. For example, I've always liked Joss Whedon's work because the characters in his shows change over time, and because he points out, mocks, and breaks the internal rules of his own shows in various different ways.

I'll then pick one of the reasons, and see if I can find reasons for that. For example, I like characters in TV shows to change over time because it gives the impression that the person is revealing a complex personality to you. I like having this impression because it helps with suspension of disbelief, letting you immerse yourself more fully into the world the show has created. I like... eh, you get the idea.

The reason I do this is to search for idealogical "atoms" - that is, ideas I have that can't be broken down into component ideas. I've found it very valuable to know which are the "foundation" ideas I use to build new ideas out of.

For example, when I started using this method to work out how I developed my ethical ideas, I worked out fairly quickly that most of my ethical beliefs boiled down to "allowing the maximum amount of interpersonal choice". For example, social pressure is unethical, because it lessens the ability of others to make choices. Excessive self-sacrifice is also unethical, because you are greatly lessening your own options to slightly increase someone else's.

Some entirely random things are atomic as well. For example, I love rhubarb pie, and as far as I can tell, I love rhubarb pie because I love rhubarb pie. I don't have a special fondness for rhubarb, pastry, pies, hot dessert food, or anything else rhubarb pie related. I do like unusual foods, but on reflection I can't really base my love of rhubarb pie on that. Some things just are.

One I often have trouble explaining to people is the vegetarian one - I'm vegetarian, and I don't have a reason. I can think of many good reasons to be vegetarian, but none of them are my reasons. I quite often get asked why I'm vegetarian. If I tell them I don't have a reason, they'll usually imply that I should eat meat. I've always been tempted to ask if they have a good reason not to dress up in a bunny costume, but thus far I've managed to hold my tongue.

Another interesting thing I've found is that what's atomic for one person isn't necessarily atomic for everyone. For instance, one person might think that avoiding bad grammar is important because others will be more likely to think they're intelligence. Another person might think bad grammar is just bad, in and of itself. As you can see, whether an idea is an atomic idea or not says a lot about the sort of person you are.

I've also found that some people are much more atomically-minded than others - meaning that some people have a much larger number of things that "just are" than others.

I'll be interested to see what results others have with this. Tell me, what are your atomic ideas?

*grins sheepishly* So much for a rant a day - I completely lost track of time yesterday, so one life down. I'd love to say I had a good reason, but in truth I was playing a tower defense game that I absolutely had to win before I went to bed...

Todays rant to follow.

Rant for 29/10/07 - The evolution of television

I have a theory about what happens to all the creative and inspired television stations.

Stage 1)

When they start developing programs for their station, they're filled with ideas, and develop intelligent, interesting and insightful dramas, comedies and documentaries.

Stage 2)

After test results come back for this first round of shows, they realise they have left out an important demographic - the demographic of uninteresting people. As these people are in the majority, they must be catered for, or the station risks bankruptcy. To this end, they create dumbed down versions of the dramas, comedies and documentaries. To fill the drama quotient, they create formula soapies, police dramas & "slice of life" shows. To fill the comedy niche, they create repetitive sit-coms. Instead of interesting documentaries, they commission talk shows.

Stage 3)

In the next round of tests, they discover that some people are so bland that following a storyline of any sort is beyond their understanding. For these people, they created televised sports.

Stage 4)

Of course, some people are so unimaginative that even the rules of a sports event are beyond them. This is why we have reality TV.




It's always been difficult for me to understand why sports and reality TV have such a following, and, sad to say, this is the only reason I can find - that people are so unimaginative that interesting fiction is beyond their understanding. After all, it's not that hard to create interesting story ideas, and the budget is far less than for a sporting event or a "big prize" reality TV show.

If we take this to the next level, here's the direction I think TV shows will head:

Stage 5 - Social Television)

In this stage, even the usual rules of a reality TV show go out the window, and the entirety of the show focuses on social speeches of ordinary people. For instance, one show could involve taking two random people, putting them in a room together, and broadcasting the resulting conversation. Another show could feature a cameraman picking people off the street, telling them to talk for two minutes, and then having viewers call in and vote on whether or not they like the person being filmed. At the end of the show, the most popular person wins a prize, and the least popular gets slapped.

In summary, bad TV, like most of the worlds problems, can be blamed entirely on boring people.

Rant for 05/11/07 - Communication processing dualities

I was ruminating today about differences in NT and Autistic communication, and why each has trouble understanding the other, even after we've worked out different body language & voice tone meanings. Here's the closest thing to a good working theory that I've found. And just to forewarn, I'll be using gross generalisations here - the real dividing lines between NT & Autistic behaviors are always much more blurry than I make them out to be.

Basically, all communication contains two components - the information content, and the social undertone. The information content is all things directly stated or indirectly referred to in the communication. The social undertone contains all the social status information and emotional data - usually gained via body language and voice tone.

When an Autistic person tries to interpret a message, they'll listen to the actual content of the message, then look for the social undertone, then try to combine the two things into one message. For example, if someone says "I'm fine" in an obviously upset tone, the mixture of the two might be interpreted as "I'm a bit upset, but generally fine", or "I'm upset, but don't wish to talk about it, so I am telling you I'm fine". The usual reply to this sort of message will be to either say "OK" and walk away, or to change the topic.

When an NT interprets the message, they'll still look for the content & social undertone, but will keep the two messages separate, reply to the message with the most "weight", and either not reply to the other, or address it in their own social undertone component. In the above example, the two messages would be "I'm fine" & "I'm upset". As "I'm upset" is a stronger statement than "I'm fine", the content message will be discarded, and the social message, "I'm upset", will be replied to. The usual response will be "Aww, what's wrong?", or words to that effect.

As another example, in a political debate, someone might passionately argue a point from a particular parties point of view. In this case, the content message is the actual debating points, and the social undertone is "I identify with political party x".

In the Autistic case, the two things might combine to say "I believe in the policies of political party x, for the following reasons...". As a result, their response will probably be to debate the points addressed.

In the NT case, the social message "I identify with political party x" is the message with the most weight, and the actual content is a side issue. As a result, the response will often be an attack on the party represented, with the debated points only given a minor mention - for example, they might say "All you tree huggers/right wing nutters say that, but any idiot could see it's not true".

The theory's still a work in progress, as there's still all sorts of exceptions to the rules, and situations where the rules don't apply, but so far it's the best theory I've come up with as to why NT's and Autistics often misunderstand one another.

Does anyone have their own theories on cross-neurotype misunderstandings?

I can imagine - I've had many similarly joyous conversations. It took me ages to work out why they turn to insult matches so quickly...

Many bonus points for use of the word "Crudders", btw... *grins*

Rant for 06/11/07 - On work, great and small

This one's something of a follow-on from the "What actually is depression?" thread (http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthre...883&page=1) - I figured that it was enough of a tangent to justify its own rant.

One of the inescapable facts of human existence is that the way a person feels about themselves is very much linked to the things they achieve in life. In modern times, this is generally related to the social status you have, the type of job you do, how much money you make, and how many positive distractions (holidays, having nice furniture & big screen TV's, etc) you've managed to participate in. Unfortunately, this method of judging achievement leaves everybody wanting.

Firstly, not everyone can have a high social rank, or a highly paid job. This leaves the people who have neither feeling disproportionately miserable about themselves.

Secondly, many of these things are mutually exclusive, and thanks to the joys of the "grass is always greener" mentality, people who have achieved success in one area will still think badly of themselves for not achieving the others. For instance, someone at the top of the social game may be miserable because they're always broke. Someone with a highly paid, high profile job may be unhappy that they've never had a holiday.

And thirdly, if by some miracle someone does achieve all these things, they'll be left with a hollow victory - because at some level, they'll realise that none of these things represent any real achievement at all.

The reason for this is that thanks to the way society and employment is set up, the methods used to gain these things do not have anything much to do with the things themselves.

A person doesn't reach the top of the social hierarchy by becoming a person worthy enough to act as a leader - they become top by being good at small talk, putting down "outsiders", and mimicking others.

A person doesn't achieve a good or well-paid job by becoming the master of their profession - they achieve it by knowing how to write selection criteria, knowing how to put a positive spin on a resume, and by "fitting in" enough at work to be given good references for promotions.

And a person doesn't actually achieve anything at all when they give themselves a happy distraction - they just choose to do something fun instead of spending the money on something practical.

To truly have a feeling of personal achievement, only one thing will do - to task yourself with a "Great Work".

A Great Work - and yes, the capital letters are mandatory - is a task, creation, or social achievement that gives you joy entirely in and of itself. It can be anything at all, as long as it's fairly impressive in scope.

The best part about a Great Work is that because it can be anything at all, anyone can achieve one. A creative person might task themselves to write an epic novel, paint a picture with an impressive concept, direct a new play, or any other creative endeavor. A humanitarian might dedicate themselves to raising the profile of a charity, or to defending against human rights abuses. A scientifically inclined person might invent or research something impressive. A fun-loving person might attempt an entirely random feat (the mentos & diet coke routine comes to mind... *grins*).

The only thing to remember is to make sure that your Great Work is entirely separated from the things above. Make sure that it is something that will bring you joy even if it makes no money, offers no social status, and everyone else in the world dislikes it.

The best part about a Great Work is that you don't even need to have finished it for it to improve your life - simply setting out on the journey will be enough to make you feel happy. Each little step towards achieving it will make your day, and each setback will help you unlock hidden reserves of inner strength.

At the end, you'll know for a fact that you've achieved something, because it will have taken a lot of hard work. This absolute knowledge of personal achievement will be something you will have with you for the rest of your life.

Erk, I can imagine - especially after seeing what it does outside the body...

No rant tonight - I'm dead tired from box packing. Expect normal programming to resume tomorrow!

Aww, thankee Mahl! Glad to hear that this little project of mine is enjoyed... *grins*

Sounds intriguing - you'll have to keep us updated...

Rant for 08/11/07 - Narrativium

I'm currently reading a fictional account of a Jewish family, and what their life would have been like two thousand years ago. The main thing that strikes me is how much of the Jewish culture revolves around the stories they tell each other - Of great kings, noble adventurers, brave prophets, and the mythologised history of the Jewish people.

One of the things we're trying to achieve in sites like this is the creation of an Autistic culture. We've made great advances, but we've still got a long way to go. It's made me curious as to whether storytelling could play a part in this process. And what stories do we have to tell?

The oldest accounts I know (excluding the Neanderthal theory), are that of Changelings, from the 16th century. The myth goes that faeries would steal young children from their beds, replacing them with creatures called Changelings. These creatures had odd behavior, were often unresponsive, or had an inability to move.

When a changeling was identified, there were several ways to win back your stolen child. One way was to treat the Changeling cruelly, which would cause the faeries to feel pity for their creature and return the stolen child. Another was to place the creature in the fire, at which point it would leap up through the fireplace and return with the human child. If these methods failed, the other alternative was to return the creature to the faeries by leading it into the woods and leaving it there. The faeries would then return the human child to its bed.

Given that Autism is only noticeable after a few years, it's not much of a jump to realise where these stories came from, or the real fate of these children.

Fast forward a few centuries, and we have the institutional age. The significance of this age is that Autistics are categorised into two extremes - the ones that aren't able to cope in society and need to be institutionalised for life, and the ones that aren't really Autistic, and just need to try harder to be normal.

Here, autism diverged into many different stereotyped groups, not to be re-emerge as united until decades later. We had the "classic" autistics, the "problem children", the "absent-minded professors", the "shy, quiet types", and the just plain "weirdos".

Things began to turn around when a new stereotype, the "nerds", began to gain notoriety, then popularity. I joked in another thread that "Revenge of the Nerds" was the closest thing we had to a political movie - but in a way, it is a very true statement. Suddenly a group that derives its traits from Autism was seen in a positive light.

Things only got better with the creation of the Aspergers category - in that it introduced the idea that people with Autistic minds could cover a very wide range of behaviors. As soon as someone made the link between Aspergers and the "nerd" culture, not to mention associated abilities, Autism had its first positive public image. At least among the people that had heard of it.

Then, backlash. Parents and psychologists, upset that people might see positives in what they considered an entirely negative condition, felt the need to make sure Autism was properly demonised in the public eye. Thus, curebies were born. This movement culminated in the creation of genocide advocacy groups, such as Autism Speaks & Cure Autism Now.

What they had not counted on, however, is that oppression hardens the resolve of the oppressed. With this new oppression, the Autistic Rights movement was created. At first it was only in small ways, such as particularly celebrated scientists and businessmen being seen as having Autistic traits. Eventually, autistic activists began to appear - such as Jim Sinclair, Amanda Baggs, Donna Williams, and eventually, Gareth and Amy. The most significant step was the creation of Autistic internet cultures, allowing a particularly isolated people to rejoin and interact.

This is merely a first attempt at creating our story. While it's mostly the truth as I see it, I've tried to emphasise a good tale over strict historical accuracy.

Hopefully, these stories will evolve, becoming tales to unite us as a culture.

And then, you may tell them to your children, and your children's children, and your children's children's children.

Probably by email.

Rant for 09/11/07 - On Effortlessness

I've just been watching the latest episode (episode 8) of "Americas Next Top Model", cycle 9. For those of you that haven't been introduced to this round, one of the models, Heather Kuzmich, is an Aspie - and she's looking like she has a pretty good chance of winning. You can see all the episodes at http://www.youtube.com/user/dodash8

The thing that has struck me throughout the contest is that she routinely puts huge amounts of effort into her work - developing internal characters for each photo shoot, responding immediately to advice offered, developing physical skills - and yet, the judges and other contestants consistently refer to how she "naturally" looks good in every shot, saying that they wish they "didn't have to do much" to produce good photos, like her.

I've noticed others on this site talk of how the effort they put into the things they do also goes unnoticed. An Aspie that knows how to programs is "Good with computers", rather than "Someone who's put a lot of effort into learning how to write programs". Talented writers and musicians are seen as "naturally talented", rather than given credit for hours of practice. Perhaps this is where the idea of the Autistic "genius" comes from - that NT's simply do not notice the effort Autistics put into things, which makes it look like any talents just appear out of nowhere.

On thinking about this, I realised that the reason is probably to do with NT's learning via social osmosis. When they seek to gain a skill, part of the process is to ask everyone they know for advice, to talk about things they have problems with, and ask if others have noticed, and to seek critique or approval with every small step they make. As this is not the case to the same extent with Autistics, it must seem to them that abilities just appear by magic.

It probably also explains why many NT's don't seem to notice that activities like small talk take a lot of effort for us - because they are unable to recognise what Autistic effort looks like. After all, if we were really having problems, we'd be constantly asking everyone for advice, like they do.

In summary, I'm glad that Heather's being rewarded for all the effort she's putting in - whether it's recognised or not.

Rant for 10/11/07 - Motivation, and why to avoid it

When planning how to spend any particular chunk of your day, there's three options you can choose.

The first option is to do something productive. This could include creative projects, housework, doing something nice for a friend, or doing anything else to further your own goals. Time spent doing productive things is never wasted.

The second option is to do something fun - playing video games, watching TV, spending time with friends, or anything else you happen to enjoy. Time spent doing fun things is also never wasted, as enjoyment is always a thing to be treasured.

The third option, and the only option that is a waste of time, is motivation.

Motivation is any task designed to get you to do something productive in the future.

The most common type of motivation is self-talk. This involves doing nothing, while trying to convince yourself that you should be doing something. Time spent on this task is obviously wasted, as you are not doing anything productive during this time, and you are also not enjoying yourself. If you catch yourself doing this, it's best to stop it immediately. You can do this by starting on the productive task immediately, or officially deciding that you're not going to do it for a while, and do something fun instead.

Another similar type of motivation is self-denial. This involves giving yourself a list of enjoyable things that you wont do for a certain period of time, in order to give yourself incentive to do more important things. The main flaw with this approach is that it doesn't work - you'll end up doing little non-productive things that aren't as much fun as the things you're denying yourself, or you'll end up doing small tasks to put off doing the big tasks. To get yourself to do something, always remember to actually plan to do that thing. Just planning not to do something else isn't enough.

This brings us to the next common method - procrastination. This involves picking something small to do, to "psych yourself up" to doing a bigger task - either by doing small, mildly fun things, or by doing unimportant tasks to put off doing the important one. The problem with this is that the mildly fun things are ruined by the fact that you'll keep trying to convince yourself that you'll be productive "in a little while", and the unimportant tasks are always going to be a less effective use of your time than the one you're putting off. Again, with this, the solution is to pick whether or not you're going to be productive, and commit to it - start being productive straight away, or drop everything and spend the time doing something you truly enjoy.

Another method is to have friends motivate you. Again, this is the worst of both worlds approach, as talking about things you should be doing isn't enjoyable, and at the same time, you're not being at all productive. Also, it doesn't work very well - friends do not have any form of mind control over you, so will not be able to make you want to do something you don't currently feel like doing.

The final common method of motivation is motivation via experts. This includes things like self-help books & motivational speakers. I should note that it doesn't include books and talks on goal-setting and other practical things, as these may actually be helpful - just the ones designed to make you "feel enthusiastic" about doing productive things, possibly, some time in the future. It has all the negatives of the "advice from friends" approach, with the added negative that you actually pay money for these things. In other words, just say no.

The only useful form of motivation that I know of is self dealing - mostly because it takes almost no time to do. This is where you decide to do something productive, and then reward yourself for it afterwards by doing something fun.

The idea behind this rant is to remind everyone that time spent doing things you enjoy is never wasted time. Putting off doing enjoyable things while also being non-productive, on the other hand, is.

At any moment of the day, you will either be in a state of mind conducive to productivity, or you will not. If you decide to be productive, you will either be able to get up and be productive straight away, or you will not. If not, the best way to raise your mood to a productive level is to do something enjoyable.

To finish, I'll leave you with a quote from someone who said it better than I ever could - Terry Pratchett, from "The Wee Free Men".

Miss Tick sniffed. "You could say this advice is priceless," she said. "Are you listening?"
"Yes," said Tiffany.
"Good. Now...if you trust in yourself..."
"Yes?"
"...and believe in your dreams..."
"Yes?"
"...and follow your star..." Miss Tick went on.
"Yes?"
"...you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy. Good-bye."

Rant for 11/11/07 - How the curbies are preventing a cure

A thought occurred to me today. With all the recent advances in genetic technology, and the mountains of money being thrown at genetic researchers involved in Autism research, there is absolutely no scientific reason that a pre-natal test for Autism could not have been discovered. After all, genetic tests for other genetic conditions have been found, and I can't believe that Autism is somehow "more hidden" than these.

That's when I realised. A test will never be found, because the curbies are preventing it from being found.

Of all the theories of genetic inheritability, the one that makes the most sense to me (through the highly unscientific method of personal experience) is that it's inherited via a dominant pattern. What this means is that for every Aspie or Autistic child, one of the parents must also have "the Autism gene".

Most of the people behind the push for a cure are parents of Autistic children. By the logic above, 50% of this group are unaware Autistic people that happen to hate Autism.

Here's what I think happens. Given that this research is curbie supported, it is likely that many curbies get jobs in this area. Many of these will be, as per above, unaware Autistic people that happen to hate Autism.

What this means is that when a scientist comes up with a set of genetic markers, these people will say "This doesn't work. I have these genetic markers, and I'm as far from Autistic as you can get. There must be something else.".

And so the scientist goes off with a set of genetic markers that he now believes is not valid, and what was possibly the first stages of a genetic test for Autism is thrown away.

To further hinder the finding of a cure, after genetic markers "fail" to come up with a test, other nonexistent things are looked for - such as "autistic suppression genes", "environmental triggers" and other similar things.

So there you have it - as long as the curebies want to destroy Autism, there will never be a cure for Autism.

It's so elegant, it's almost beautiful.

Rant for 12/11/07 - Bont, Bonts, Bonting, Bonted

The word "want" is almost entirely useless in conversation. The reason for this is that, in most cases, what a person wants is fairly obvious. If you ask someone if they want a hundred thousand dollars, they'll say yes. If you up the amount - a million, two million, ten million, the answer will still be yes, yes, and yes. Similarly with any desirable material object, any enjoyable experience, or any positive emotional state. Of course there's very simple scenarios where the word has some use (e.g. would you want to go camping - where the person may or may not like camping), but few of these will be the basis for any interesting, in depth, or meaningful conversation.

If you introduce the element of effort into the discussion, however, by asking if they would be prepared to choose to possess or experience the thing they want using the resources they currently have - then the results get a little more interesting.

Would you choose to attempt to possess a hundred thousand dollars? (Well, a bit of security would be nice).
A million? (Hmmm.... a million would take quite a bit. I can see how having that much would improve my life... Perhaps, though there's plenty of other priorities for me, and I'd try them first).
How about two million? (Nah - I'd stop after the first. You can only have so many creature comforts.).
Ten? (That's just ridiculous - I know people have done it, but why waste your life for a number?).

The point is that if you include the consequences of what it takes to obtain a wanted thing, people really have to think hard about things before they can answer.

For this reason, I'm proposing a new word - Bont. To bont something is to want it, and also be prepared to do what it takes to get it.

Often the answers would be very different. For instance, if you asked someone if they wanted an extra hundred dollars this week, they would usually say yes. But if you asked someone if they bonted an extra hundred dollars this week, they may not be prepared to do the three or four hours overtime that it would take to earn it.

Introducing the word even helps make requests and other statements easier. For instance, "Do you bont to go out for dinner and a movie tonight?" sounds much less clumsy than "Tonight we can pay for dinner and a movie, and put up with a car trip in the bargain, or just stay at home". Of course, you could just say "Do you want to go out for dinner and a movie tonight?" - but the question is technically incorrect, as dinner and a movie would usually be good if you didn't have to pay, and there was no travel time.

It can also be used to cover emotional effort - for instance, you can talk about whether or not a friend bonts to ask out someone they're attracted to - meaning would they be prepared to overcome nervousness, awkward situations and possible aftereffects to do so.

So there you have it - take the word, free of charge, and use it at your leisure. Spread the word, if you bont to.

Here's something I've wanted to ask many people quite often, but never before have I had the words. So now that I do, I'll ask it of all of you.

People of AFF - What do you bont out of life?