Aspies For Freedom

When considering how Aspies are treated in society, I'm confronted with the concept of logical consistency.

Let's say someone was afraid of balloons.  If you wanted to tell someone that something is wrong with them, you'd have to say 'Balloons will not harm you, therefore your fear of them is not rational, and not logical.  Therefore, something is wrong with you.'

Yet, if I used the same argument on someone who's neurotypcial, "My lack of eye contact, body language, and vocal inflection will not harm you, and you are rationally aware that I am not upset with you.  Therefore, your discomfort around me is not rational, and not logical.  Therefore, something is wrong with you.' ... then they won't buy it.  Even though it's an identical argument.

Why is someone considered irrational if they scream at you "Get those balloons away, you're a monster and you're disgusting for having balloons!  You must hate me!"

Yet they're considered perfectly rational if they say "Stop it with your 'attitude' you obviously are being rude to me!  Look at me when I'm talking to you!"

That's a logical inconsistency.  Either we must accept that people with phobias have a right to demand that society changes to adapt to their irrational desires, or we don't have a right to demand that aspies adapt to the irrational desires of society.  You can't logically have it both ways.

Of course, none of this stops people from saying, "I know it's irrational, but it's just my personal thing, and I'd appreciate it very much if you'd look at me when you talk to me/keep those balloons away" and most reasonable people will comply.  However, complying to that is an act of kindness! not some sort of responsibility.

I didn't mean to say we should discard civility!  Not at all!

I'm just saying that if you look at it logically, (as in, defining mental illness as an inability to accept reality, or having emotions which ignore reality), then the NTs are the ones who have a mental disorder which compels them to act violently toward Aspies, and eachother.

That means the opposite of discarding civility.  We have to be extra patient and helpful with them, so they can learn the error of their ways.  But we must NEVER morally equivocate.  We can't pretend that we have some kind of duty to them.  They're the ones who are imposing upon us, not the other way around.

Whenever one of us says "Yeah I know, something's wrong with me I'm sorry, I know it's my responsibility to try harder." we're sending exactly 180 degrees the wrong message.  Every time we do that we're discarding logic and rationality.  The one thing that aspies do have in common with everyone else.  Isn't that like ostracizing ourselves?

Why not?

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying we're better. I just like to play devils advocate, it helps to getting the arguments straight.

That's just it; we're not the ones with a phobia here. It's the NT's refusal to look beyond their small-minded frame of reference that poses the biggest obstruction on many forms of AS-NT interaction. This illogical behavior gives birth to our resentment of that interaction; they ridicule us while it is they who are at fault. 'At fault' is of course an inappropriate term, but bear with me here.

If humanity would just bother to look beyond prejudice, the world would be a better place. And it's the NT's who walk around with prejudice. Even those Aspies that DO cast prejudice are fare more inclined to see the other side of the story through discussion and rational argumentation. Logic is a far more universal concept than emotions. So it's justified to ask ourselves: are we crazy, or just everybody else?

Yes, but I do believe Aspies are less subjected to things like arrogance and selfishness. I myself have problems disregarding the feelings of others, even though I know those feelings are mostly irrational and selfcentered. Yet rarely do I see NT's return the favor, and even if they do, it's mostly because they need something from me.

Then again, this could just be me being bitter.

Why do we need both ways? We've seen the NT way; waging wars, letting poor people starve, destroying the ecosystem, racism, and so on. In a world ruled by logic these problems would've been solved long ago.

Ruling by absolute logic would make the world a better place. Logic is superior to emotions. And we are after all a people mostly ruled by logic. With this in mind, would it be wrong to state our way is the best way?

You're most certainly right about that. I suppose Hitler started out the same way, and I certainly hope none of us will end up repeating history like that. All the more important you prove me wrong :lol:

I'd like to add to this that I am as appalled by the implications of what I'm saying as most of you are. But if we don't keep ourselves in line, nobody will.

Here in Holland (I'm Dutch)  we have a saying; the exception confirms the standard. Not sure if it translates correctly like that, but I think it gets the message across. Though of course without thorough research we cannot predict which is the standard and which is the exception.

True, but I'm currently doubting most of my own core assumptions. I'm refining most of the things in my head, and I'm trying to take along as much outside info as possible. This helps.

We really can't say unless we tried, which is probably not going to happen. We too have our dark sides.

There's a huge gray area, and the lines between NT's, Aspergers, Autistics and others on any point of the spectrum are blurry at best. During dusk one cannot say if it is either truly night or truly day, but in the middle of the day or night the distinction is clear enough.

You're certainly doing a better job than most, if you don't mind me saying.

Yeah that's exactly the point I'm trying to make.

The reaction we get from NTs would be entirely tolerable if their social norms were rooted in logic.  For example, if someone who's breatheing hevily and drooling and stareing follows an attractive woman into a dark alleyway, then tries to spark up a conversation, it would be entirely approprate for that woman to cast the stranger away, and become frightened or infuriated.  That's an example of "Rational" social anxiety, where there is a purpose grounded in reality, and it's a firm example of when understanding body language is important.

However, the vast majority of NT social anxiety focuses around conformity, and posture, and tone of voice, which are examples of "Irrational" social anxiety, and are no different than fearing or ostracizing someone because they have black hair or because they speak with an accent.

Now, I'm not advocating that just because they're irrational that we should go around pushing their buttons.  Heavens no!  We should do everything in our power to a) Find out what their irrational feelings are b) Avoid offending or disturbing those feelings, and c) Try to help them overcome them.  And d) Never let them believe that they are rational or justified.

The same set of four steps that you'd use for ANY mental illness.

You can be a presuppositionalist and still agree that NT behaviour is irrational.  All you have to do is ask them, "Is it a good thing, or a bad thing to experience feelings of anger or discomfort about things that don't pose any threat to you?", either they'll say yes, or they'll say no.

If they say bad, then they already agree that they are mistreating aspies, they just don't realize how yet, and it's up to you to help them by taking that presupposition, and using logic to derive conclusions.  (And it doesn't take long to derive the conclusion that enforced conformity is bad!)

If they say good, well then there's no reason having a discussion with them, because they've chosen to divorce themselves from the basic precepts of biology.  That is to say, our emotions are intended to reward or discourage our behaviours for our biological self-interest.  If they don't believe in that, then they might as well believe that ANY behaviour is okay.  Which is fine, but you'd be wasting your breath by continuing with a rational conversation.

My basic point is that most NTs already have all the information and core assumptions required to realize that they are mentally ill, so logic is the only thing that's missing.

Quite a lot, from my direct observation of the species' habits.  Is it really desirable to retreat from bigotry into bigotry?

Funny, but such an extreme, hate-filled statement, given its emphasis upon "illogical" and "superstitious", strikes me as verging on ironic.

The majority of people are logical enough for the majority of their situations.  Since primates have evolved very strong social interactive traits, it makes biological sense that a member of H. sapiens would make a great deal of logiccal sense for it have a great deal of difficulty, as a trend, if not a universal rule, abandoning a trait into which there was so much "evolutionary capital" invested, would it not?

Conformity, posture, and tone of voice are quite "rational" criteria when evaluated from a dispassionate evolutionary standpoint.  These traits are behavioral traits that very often can be used to identify whether or not a given Australopithecus or H. habilis is from ones own kin-group or not, thus, whether or not it is likely to be hostile.  Emphasis upon these traits has a strong evolutionary pressure behind it, and a great deal of human behavior still adheres to the roughly two million years of genus Homo evolution vs. the mere handful of millenia in which we lived in larger social groupings where these responses would be less optimal.

Was H. erectus mentally ill vs. H. sapiens?  No, it was the best H. erectus it could be.

I'm not saying that these irrational feelings sprung up out of nowhere, they're clearly emerged from evolution, but by the criterion I detailed earlier, they are a symptom of mental illness.  That criterion being, if you experience feelings of discomfort or anger over something that is not threatening, then it is an irrational feeling.  (Which is not dependant upon evolution.  If your race is killed by another race so often that you develop a biological adaptation to fear the color of their skin, it is still called irrational when you come across a non-violent person of that skin colour, and fear him anyway.)

You can argue with me, and choose not to accept that criterion, and I have no problem with that at all, however, how then will we be able to determine that people with severe phobias or anxieties are in fact mentally ill if we don't have some sort of standard to determine wether it is a good fear, on a bad fear?

I'm open to using some other form of criteria, if you can propose one that will serve useful, however I think my definition is the one that is most widely accepted and most approprate for human life.  I'm by no means a closed minded man on this issue, and I'm not trying to toot my own autistic horn, but that's things as I see it!

No matter how maddening it might be, the majority is always sane, by dint of their simple definitive power.  It's not right, it just is, like much of society.  Society does not have to be "right" or "logical".  It just has to be.  In that way, society is far more amenable to understanding via biological analytical methods than through imposition of the social construct called "logic". "Mental illness" is ultimately a social construction, not fully amenable to "rational" categorization, no matter how much mental health "professionals" often like to pretend to the contrary.

Now, one may be able to use a claim of "mental illness" to salve ones injured pride, but that's ultimately all it is.  It's a defense mechanism, not a diagnosis.

*sigh* I think we've kinda risen above the idea of trying to figure out what to do about AS-NT interaction, and into the land of 'Too bad, majority rules!'.  Which is fine if you want to believe that, but you can see how I would find it completly counterproductive, and to be honest, I believe that most every NT would find it unproductive as well.  There is some debate here about which methodology is more effective.

Also, I mentioned that I am NOT trying to toot my own horn, I'm only interested in the truth here!

Okay let me ask you a question.  If social constructs are meaningless, how can you say 'the majority is always sane'?  Those seem like two contradictory ideas.  Do you believe that there is an objective way to determine if someone is flawed, or do you believe that there is no possible way to determine if someone is flawed, and therefore, no way to determine if someone is sane?

It seems you started out by proposing "Sanity is the majority" then you ended off by proposing "Sanity does not exist."

Is it "productive" to relegate the majority of humanity to being "mentally ill" and then tell them all about how you have deemed them all to be wrong in the head?  How does this help "AS-NT" interaction?  How do you think an "NT" (who, most likely, has part of his identity as "I'm just fine, not at all mentally ill.") would react to being told that he was mentally ill?  You, yourself, have stated that the "NT" persist in being "irrational".  Would they likely respond "rationally" to your conclusion?

There is no "objective" way to do it.  It is a matter of continua and comfort.  

Essentially, I do--"Sanity" as an "objective" state does not exist.  Sanity is a matter of social convention.  Are the left-handed mentally ill?  Is it "neurotypical" to be left-handed?  In an earlier day, some might have said "yes" to the former, and there are professionals in this day who still say "no" to the latter.  "Sane" and "neurotypical" are matters of convention, not "objective" definition.  Should it be that way?  Probably not, but it is how things work in the real world.

Can it be changed?  Unknown.  Ought there be a try to get changes?  probably a good idea.

I really don't like the poll attached to this forum. The choices are very negative. I'd have put a fourth option: "your choice."

I confess I get tired of seeing arguments about seeing what an acceptable response to difference is in the Aspie community...because difference just happens and people deal with it depending more on their self-confidence than any sort of mechanized attempts to create acceptance. We're high-functioning people for the most part who can engage with society in most ways -- I don't think that's so different from NTs. It may be that some of our quirks are diagnosable...but that's a disadvantage that piegonholes us.

I'm forced to wonder why a different way of thinking had to be labelled as a syndrome and put out to the community at large as an factor behind finding certain societal rules untenable. Maybe those rules needed to be considered untenable, and that's what a different perspective on their importance brings. Instead of being self-confident and embracing that...we talk about how to force a niche for us.

Just my $.02.

I've been treated less than nicely by other Aspies and Auties just as much percentage-wise. I don't see why being treated poorly deserves this kind of consideration -- people in general can be quite unnice and have prejudices of every kind.

Maybe if you find people have not walked a mile in the shoes you are wearing...you should find a new pair. That's not meant to be insulting; it's meant to be encouraging. Aspies, I think, fall victim to their own perception of the world more readily than many NTs. It's a consequence of having a mind that seeks "truth" or "logic." I fell victim to that attitude for a long time, and it hurt my understanding of the world. I work harder to choose a more positive outlook.