Aspies For Freedom

I hate this. It says two things:

1. We have to identify with so-and-so well-known person, otherwise, we're not worth ***.
2. We're so desperate to attain 1) that we'll let evidence be second priority--or no priority at all.

About the first point: if the whole point of neurodiversity is that we're all different and that's OK, why the hell should we have to prove how much we give society to be judged worth something?

About the second: a lot, in fact most of these celebrity diagnoses are unofficial, either self-diagnoses, fan-diagnoses or diagnoses that cross the chasm of time and space, done from far away or from the present looking into the past. Most of these "autistic celebrities" aren't confirmed autistic at all.

If it was all done for sport, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But when it's used as advocacy, or when speculation is claimed to be confirmed, that kind of pisses me off.

Zachrates, it's both a fundamental part of human nature, and a necessity. Not only are we humans wired in such a way that we can't help but think about what other people think about us, but what other people think about us can have profound influence on how our lives turn out. How the interviewer feels about you determines whether you get the job, what your neighbors or class mates or the random dude you met at the supermarket or the old woman on a bench in the park feels about you determines who you'll end up being friends with. How politicians and others with influence on public policy feel about people like you determines how society will treat you to a high degree.

I understand very well that we shouldn't be afraid to be someone for fear that others will find out we're not someone else; I guess that's what you mean, but the simplistic "why do you care what others think of you?" glosses over the influence these people's opinions will have on your life.

I have lived through enough *** to take this mantra as anything but empty words. I'm not willing to let me life turn to crap just because it's more of my "true" self. The true me is not a self-destructive, depressed good-for-nothing. If it were, I wouldn't want to be me.

This is bullshit. If you're lucky, it may be that it works out for you, but I can tell you, being oblivious to what other people think of you has done nothing but bring me trouble. The reason I care what other people think about me is because of very real, pragmatic knowledge, accumulated through experience: I don't want a crappy life and I don't want to die lonely and friendless.

Which is to say, it's just rude to suggest that everyone who cares what other thinks of them does it because they want to. That ignores the very real issue that many people aren't aligned with society and get very real troubles for it. Think of gay people, especially some decades ago. Think of black people, also still only decades ago. And think of everyone else who doesn't fit right into the conformist stereotype. Crap comes the way of the oblivious.

Learn to read, and learn to think.

I don't want anyone's opinion to matter for my life. I have no wish to go to extra lengths to satisfy anyone else's opinions.

However, if I don't, a whole load of crap is coming my way. Therefore, I have to.

It's like if you haven't eaten anything for a long time, have gone hungry for days, you'll eat almost anything that resembles food. And you'll do it regardless of how nasty it tastes. Now, this isn't because you want to eat things that taste like crap, it's because you want to survive. Similarly, if you want to survive as a sane person, and you're not extraordinarily lucky, lots of things in your life will depend on others' opinions of you; thus, these opinions will matter. Not because you want them to, but because you have to to survive, and for your own sanity to survive.

Every time people treat you badly because you don't fit it, you have two choices: either you can conform to their expectations, or you can try to change their mind. In either alternative, what they feel and think about you is important.

Every time people treat you well, it's also to a large degree because of their positive opinion of you.

Humans are social animals, and it's almost impossible to live a life today without depending on other humans; even if you could, you'd go insane in the process. Opinions matter. If you don't want a miserable life, you'll have to take that into consideration.

You've gone further, stating that people who acknowledge that it does matter, regardless of whether it should or shouldn't matter, only say that because they want it to matter.

You're saying everyone either wants to be dependent on other people's opinions of them, or they're paranoid and making up excuses. Do you not see why someone might call that rude?

See, I've tried that. Does not work.

The point is, if you're oblivious to how people feel about you and your actions or if you simply choose to not act on this knowledge, in either event, you get the same outcome. It helps to care because other people have the power to make your life miserable or wonderful. Despite what you may tell yourself, every single person's happiness is largely dependent on the whims and fortunes of that indefinite mass that is other people. I repeat: unless you want to lose jobs, friends, be picked on, be the eternal outsider without friends, unless you don't want to be happy doing whatever it is you like doing, then what other people think matters.

I'm not saying you should believe anyone who calls you a loser, or anything along those lines. I'm simply repeatedly stating the fact you ignore, that you have to uphold a delicate balance of conforming to expectations and influencing others to change their expectations if you want to get where you want in life.

Don't talk about things you have no knowledge about. You don't know how much or how little I or anyone else here have gone through. You don't know whether my life has been all rosy or living hell. You don't know who I am, you don't know me and I don't know you, so neither of us can know how the other's life has turned out so far. I refrain from baseless speculation for this reason, but that doesn't seem to stop you.

Taking this off the personal plane and putting it back on the more general plane, autistics, given that they want to lead happy lives, and given that this depends on not being rejected by society, have every interest in caring what others think of them. It's in everyone's best interest that the general opinion of them is positive, rather than negative.

You must have heard horror stories about neglect, abuse, and rejection. You must also have heard positive stories, full of hope, acception and support. The relative frequency of these two kinds of stories is determined in large part by the general opinion about and knowledge of autistics.

So it's in our best interests to care. And I'm pretty sure it's in your best interest to do so too, but what the heck, I'm not gonna tell you that you're living your life wrong. I'm just gonna establish that for most people, it is in their best interest to care.

Say you're trying to consider whether you, as chief of the US armed forced, should drop the a-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or risk prolonging the war indefinitely and maybe suffer even harder losses--or your bet might turn out well, the war will quickly be over, and the civilian losses will be much smaller than if you drop the bomb. Now, whatever you do, lots of people will die. Would you say that this choice of death is because you want people to die? I would say that you don't want people to die, you were forced to make that choice. It would be incorrect to state that the people responsible for making that decision did so because they wanted lots of people to die.

And that is the difference between wanting and being forced to do something.

No, but more often than not they do. Whether you will have friends, a job, a good relationship with your parents, the house you want, whether you're able to pursue your interests, whether you'll find a mate or die lonely and childless, whether you'll live rich or live poor, what education you'll get--all these things depend on other people's opinions of you. Some clearly more than others, and in some situations, extraordinary situations, what you do will matter more than what people think. But more often than not, it will.

You're making assumptions again, and again your assumptions are wrong.

I was assuming you'd want an end to the bad treatment. If you're a masochist, go ahead. If not, then choosing 1) will only prolong the bad treatment. Choosing 2) would either be a different wording of 1), or it would be trying to change their opinion of you, which entails caring about what other people think--depending on what you mean.

You're once again making assumptions wildly off the mark. I have said no such thing as "[I'll] do anything to fit in". This isn't binary. There's a difference between never doing anything to fit in, always doing everything to fit in, and sometimes doing something to fit in.

You effect your life, but your boss clearly affects your life.

You're not actively choosing to "let people have control over you". People do have control over you. It's inevitable. We live in society--in society, people exert power over people. No man is an island, and no man is unaffected by the power other people exert on them.

I'm guessing you don't say you're actively choosing to let people have control over you simply because you choose to live in society, as opposed to, say, becoming a hermit on a faraway mountain top.

Since you don't care what I say, I don't feel bad for calling you an idiot. This is idiotic.

Once again, you seem completely unable to see the conceptual distinction between doing something because you want to, and doing something out of necessity. I need fluid and food and shelter, and I'm willing to do very much to get it. Now, I live quite comfortably and don't have to go out of my way to get these essentials, but if I were extremely poor, I might well be stealing, threatening, fighting, maybe even killing for water, food and shelter. Many people do live like that, because if not they die. They don't choose to live a life wherein they'll have to steal, they do it because they have to.

And if you don't want life to become a string of disappointments, you'll either have a mentality that is inborn (I say this because you apparently are fine with the way your life turns out, despite not caring what other people think--well, if that's the case, you're endowed with a mind of a kind that I don't have and can't will myself to have, and neither can most people), or be exceptionally lucky.

Neither is something a person can choose to do. You can't choose to be lucky, nor can you will yourself to be happy with the consequences of not giving a *** what other people think about you. For most people, this is contrary to their goals of living good lives.

Do you think people can choose not to want happiness?

If not, then you might see that for many people, this happiness is entirely dependent on the opinions of others, whether they like it or not (I for one, don't particularly like this realization). So, they don't choose it, it happens out of necessity. Anything else would be contrary to their nature.

You wrote, "understand that it's nothing especially worse for you". How the hell could you know? You don't. Of course there are always worse things that could happen, but that doesn't mean something isn't "especially worse". Say, if you're talking about a victim of a brutal rape (note: this is an example, and only an example), you'd be wrong to say, "Hey, there are people who get abused to death! This is nothing especially worse for you!" And so it is with everything else.

I acknowledge that there are always people who have gone through worse, but setting aside extremes, you don't know *** about me and therefore cannot tell how good or bad my life has been up to this point. Quit making faulty assumptions.

Wow. It's all binary to you, is it? There is a large continuum between doing nothing without getting acceptance from peers, and doing nothing   to ever get acceptance from peers. There is a large difference between someone who's unable to think or act for themselves unless they're certain they'll conform to society's norms, and someone who realizes that sometimes one needs to either conform or change the norms, for living on the side of the norms will often not be beneficial.

This isn't black and white.

I very much agree with this, and I've explicitly said, several times, that Zachrates should live his life as he sees fit. I'm not qualified to judge that. I'm only reacting to the perceived judgement he makes about other people's lives.

The important thing I disagree with, is Zachrates's claim that people I, and other people like me (because let's face it, for once I'm in the majority here ) care about what other people think because we have a wish to care, because this is how we want things to be, and saying anything else is cowardly.

That is my point. I wish to be happy, so does most everyone else. I don't wish to be a conformist, I'm a little weird and I like that and think it ought to be respected. But when I do care about the opinions of others, it's not because I want the world to work that way. I don't want the world to work the way it does, where breaking an irrational norm can have serious and even fatal consequences. I don't. Not a wish, at all. It's just how the world works, sadly.

Zachrates also takes me for an überconformist who will do anything to fit in. This is not who I am, and I think it's both silly and dumb that some people act this way. I'm pretty opposed to the idea that authority should not be questioned and norms should be blindly obeyed. I just realize that living a happy life sometimes involves compromise. I'm also convinced that very few people can live the kind of compromise-less life Zachrates claims to live. If he can, more power to him. I salute him. But I don't agree with his assumptions about why other people don't, or his claim that if they didn't want to, they could just stop caring, and that thinking otherwise is cowardly.

Phew, these two last posts were long-winded, as usual. You know, you say a lot of wise things, EvilZakkie, and you're a fine debater. I admire that. But comments such as "it looks like you'd both probably actually agree if you both stopped butting heads" are a bit simplistic. Yes, there's some headbutting, and it's probably not strictly necessary. But there's also some substantial disagreement here. You need to see that behind the quarelling, there is sometimes substantial disagreement. It's not merely personal dislike.

I pride myself in being on-topic and not rely on personal attack or emotional appeal.

Oh, and one more thing (damn no editing!): it's pretty funny that someone would accuse me of being a conformist who will do anything to fit in on this board. If you look through my posting history, I've gotten quite a lot of trouble for sticking with honest, controversial opinions. On AFF, many of my views are in the extreme minority, but that certainly hasn't kept me from defending them. Not that I want to open up that particular can of worms again, but so long as we're talking about personal character, at least get it right.

I've really answered most of this already, see my previous posts and the post I made between the posts I made between  the post you responded to, and now.

Therefore, I don't see the point of fisking. Rather, I'll address this one section, and the rest I'll simply refer to what I've said before, so as to not repeat myself in vain:

Let's look at those quotes. "I have no wish to go to extra lengths to satisfy anyone else's opinions.

However, if I don't, a whole load of crap is coming my way. Therefore, I have to."

This simply means that unless I stretch myself somewhat, it'll probably have dire consequences. It doesn't mean I have to conform to everyone at all times. "Extra lengths" does not mean "extreme lengths", it means, in context, "more than I would if I didn't give a *** about other people's opinions."

And the second one: "Every time people treat you badly because you don't fit it, you have two choices: either you can conform to their expectations, or you can try to change their mind. In either alternative, what they feel and think about you is important."

This is based on experience. In my experience, simply ignoring the problem only prolongs its duration. Or, it might be that ignoring it for very long will eventually mean it'll stop, but at this point, you're going to be so broken down that it doesn't matter. I'm not willing to lose years to depression or worse simply to avoid conforming. So, there are two alternatives that won't prolong the bad treatment: either you can do what they want, or you can change what they want you to do.

This is far from "stating in your own words how you have to conform to everyone in order to have friends and a comfortable life" or "doing anything to fit in for fear of consequences".

You've systematically misinterpreted my statements. It's getting annoying.

I'll refer to what I've written before, and repeat that you can look a bit at my posting history before going further with your claims about conformism.

It's simplistic, because I really think it's that simple.

I understand that there's a real debate, but I think the reason it's blown into a full-scale war is because both of you are attacking and polarising the others position, rather than discussing the issues. I believe that some statements made without thought have been drawn out to places they were never meant to go to. By "resetting the game", so to speak, I believe you can find a position you both agree on - you've both expressed similar sentiments on several things, after all.

My earlier statement was directed at both of you - I sought to present an opinion I believe you will both be able to agree on, and I'm hoping you can take things from there.

Absolutely not. I explain exactly why I find it idiotic. It's a justified opinion.

Also, I do believe I've only called him an idiot once

Oh, it's a personal attack alright. But it's not ad hominem. I do not simply declare him to be stupid, I explain exactly what's wrong with his position, in my view. My argument doesn't rely on personal attacks. You can strip away any personal attacks and there's still a valid argument there.

This was in response to some faulty assumptions about my person. I tend to be more liberal with the personal attacks when someone makes it about person. It hardly seems fair to guide the discussion on to me, and my personal attributes, yet guard oneself from any comments about  one's person.

Anyway, the important thing here is that it's a justified attack. I called him an idiot for having an idiotic position, and I explained why it was an idiotic position to have. I agree that it's not very hospitable to call your fellow debaters idiots, but this does nothing to undermine my actual arguments.

In other words, there's a difference between ad hominem (you're an idiot, therefore you are wrong) and personal attack (you're wrong, therefore you are an idiot). It's not a technique of mine to engage in the former, and if you think so, you're mistaken.

Comes like a shock, does it? I just demonstrated how.

Um, yes, I did state that. I did not state that I "conform to everyone in order to have friends and a comfortable life". I did not state that I'll "do anything to fit in for fear of consequences". Far, far from it.

You keep taking my words and making them extreme when they aren't. I don't know anyone who never compromises to conform. No one. I don't know anyone who always does so, either.

I'm not sure what "it" refers to, here.

This hardly helps the discussion. You know I disagree strongly with that. You also know that I have addressed your points in previous posts. This part is purely inflammatory.

Definition:

Well, if you say so. I admitted that I sometimes conform because the consequences would suck big time. I don't do this any more than anyone else. In fact, I do it far less often than most people.

You took that and ran with it, and you took it to mean that I can't do anything that doesn't conform to the norm for fear of the consequences, and you took it to mean that I always conform to everyone, and a bunch of other crap.

Wow.

This is taken out of context. When looking at the context, there's nothing to indicate that you don't mean that. But let's say you did read my posts in this thread. Why do you then continue to misinterpret them, especially after I've repeatedly clarified what I mean in unambiguous language?

Anyway, the point was that on this forum I've gotten a bunch of trouble for not conforming, so it's pretty paradoxical that someone on here would accuse me of being an überconformist.

I don't know what the rhetorical technique you're employing is called, but boy is it annoying.

You quote what I wrote, and then you proceed as if the quote agrees with everything you say, when in fact, the quote either disagrees, or says nothing about the statements you proceed to present. I don't agree with what you say, and you've once again pretended that I do. And then you pretend like I'm trying to cover up for what I said before, when I still stand for everything I've written in this thread, but not the misinterpretations that you write under what you quote me as writing.

This whole discussion started because you wrote, in response to people talking about how one might affect other people's opinions on autism:

I took this to mean you advocate that autists should ignore other people's opinions on autists and autism in general. We can see the consequences: autists are misunderstood, they don't get the help they need, they get medicated or put in treatment programs that are based on faulty assumptions, focus on the wrong things and are frequently unbacked by science. They're often bullied and isolated from the rest of the world, because of misunderstandings in other people's heads. People on AFF like to point to extreme cases (I don't, generally), but there are many minor cases, too. Being isolated, lonely, bullied, misunderstood and not getting the help you need is common, and while there are always people who have it worse, that's no reason why it should continue to be like that.

So your advice is untenable for the vast majority. It'll hurt them. I think it's important that as many as possible understand how much a correct understanding can improve lives, and how much a faulty understanding can degrade them.

Yes and no.

On a forum, for instance, I can just log off if everyone turns against me, or if no one seems to like me. So in this case, there is an option.

But I can't log off real life, and neither can anyone else. The underlying axiom here is that a real option should be bearable for the person. In many situations, continuing to go through harassment isn't bearable.

I see Zachrates has given up. Whether it is because he has nothing to offer or because it's "getting silly", he's failed to refute my last post. And it contains this important realization: in many, many situations, others' opinion of you or "people like you" determines how the situation turns out for you. And so long as you ignore their opinions on it, you're giving them the sole responsibility to chose. Zachrates would have it that caring what other people think is tantamount to giving them all power over you, but that's not so. So long as you don't get crippled by overthinking and oversacrificing in the name of conformity, you're empowering yourself. If gays hadn't cared what other people thought about homosexuality, the gay rights movement would have gone nowhere, and bigoted people would still set the norms and decide the official opinions about gay people. Same with women--if women's rights movements hadn't given a *** what preconceptions men had about women, women would still be unable to vote or work or be seen as full humans.

By being apathetic, you're also making a choice that has consequences, and often these consequences are the opposite of what Zachrates claims: instead of giving yourself over to other people's opinions, you're deciding you've had it with other people deciding over you.

And that's some advice anyone working to raise awareness of autism ought to take, instead of Zachrates's route, which will only perpetuate myths and misunderstandings.

Oh, I absolutely agree, Lucie.

I love it when you say you're done arguing because it's become silly, and then procede to prolong the silliness.

Tolerance is so misunderstood. It's not tolerance to be dishonest when critiquing bullshit. And you repeatedly made your point -- you don't care what other people think of you. So what does it matter?

I've responded to everything you say in one form or another in my previous posts, so I won't repeat myself further.

Well, from my point of view - and no one has to care-
I think both Simen and Zachrates have made some good points. Lucie too.
Maybe we can get  back on track now, though it was an interesting debate in some ways and a couple of things jumped out at me:

Zachrates: feeling like saying "f**k it"  Simen: "No man is an island".
I like to keep things simple so this sums it up for me really.