I'm reading the latest issue of Scientific American Mind (vol 14, no 5) and I like the article that explains "how group-think makes killers", because I always suspected that some elements of neurotypical pschology are sinister and dangerous. I also like the article in the magazine about "the limits of multitasking" because I always suspected that trying to do more than one thing at a time is a dumb idea. But I do not like the editorially-written bit on page 4 in which autism is referred to as a disease "and even the effects of diseases such as autism and anxiety disorders." Shame, Scientific American, shame! :evil:
My personality is not a disease!
Back in April 2004, the regular Sci Am printed an article about new discoveries on the importance of "white matter" (glial cells) in cognition, starting with the observation that the only notable abnormality discovered in an autopsy of Einstein's brain ( a noted Aspie) was the increased density in (you've guessed it) regions of his white matter!
Then, in February tenth's issue, International Herald Tribunal reported "Clues to autism's mysteries" about a CAN sponsored autism summit in Malibu where it was discussed, among other things, that autism is associated with "chronic inflammation(?) in the same areas which show excessive growth" and "an anomally(?) in the white matter of autistic brains- it is assymetricam" and also "In autism, white matter grows normally(?) until 9 months, Herbert said. Then it goes haywire(?!!!)".
It's all there isn't it? The biased assumption that anything not "normal" must be inferior, the emotive language, the willful disregard for the existance of autistic brains which are demonstrably high functioning?
So what's going on here? Is it just that these various "experts" don't talk to each other? Or is there a deliberate agenda by factions in the various establishments to prevent any acknowledgment of the potential value and proven contribution of autism, especially in the area of science and technology?
That the first is surely happening doesn't explain the near total absence, even in serious science journals, of any mention of the link between history's autistic brains, and established and acknowledged instances of genius.
Think about this for a moment, and you may conclude, as I have, that it's up to us to right this situation (no one else seems so inclined) and you may begin to understand my increasing impatience with these who collect "morbidities", quote standard texts uncritically, and give creedence to increasingly broad and vague definitions of what constitutes "being an Aspie". If we are to get the message across we must first develop our own understanding of what this phenomenon is about, and that means seeking precision and eliminating dross. At the moment though, those few who aim for this are greatly outnumbered by people, even on the better sites like AFF, who are determinedly pushing us in the other direction, by introducing spurious concepts, derailing any debates which show signs of being progressive and productive, and discouraging us from taking positive action (which is surely what AFF is about, so why are these people here?).
Don't imagine for a moment this is accidental; we get bullied, abused and manipulated in real life, and any notion that the web actually imparts immunity from such deliberate falsehoods, is pure fantasy.
Thank you monastic; it gets a bit wearying being a lone voice in the wilderness, so perhaps you'll help me spread the message?
Gwynfryn, I share your bafflement when I read other aspies (one can only presume they are such, as on the internet you can never be sure who you are dealing with) who seem to read the "scientific" literature on AS uncritically, when people such as you, I and the adult aspies and even one child aspie who I know in real life pick apart and critique things that we read or are told on TV or radio ALL THE TIME. We are good at spotting errors of detail and logic, we tend to see through emotive language, we don't automatically respect an opinion just because it is expressed by an authority figure, and dare I say it, we are smart.
I've got to say, though, I'm not the same person now that I was twenty or thirty years ago. I didn't have the wisdom that comes with experience (a lot of it bad experiences), and I hadn't developed much respect for my own abilities and rights and opinions till my thirties.
Gwynfryn, I share your bafflement when I read other aspies (one can only presume they are such, as on the internet you can never be sure who you are dealing with)
Yes, that's a very good point Lili. We really can't be sure, can we? So, the logical thing to do is to look at what a person posts, over a period of time, and draw conclusions from that.
However, is it really necessary to call into question someones status as an aspie, without good reason? You're not really in a position to do that, are you? You have, in that statement, made a sweeping judgement about those who disagree with you; you claim you are smart, so I assume that you have a reason for doing so and realise the consequences of making a statement of that nature.
I thought I wouldn't have to put up with that straw man crap at AFF. I thought I could escape from all of the trumped-up accusations and snide remarks here.
Pray dear Alan, could you show me where exactly I wrote any "sweeping judgement" in my last post?
I would have thought the assertion that on the internet no one really knows who they are dealing with is a completely uncontroversial and patently true thing to say.
I'm confused. I can't see where the strawman thing fits in here. I know it's oft quoted, perhaps I'm just not so smart as you :-( .
I would have thought the assertion that on the internet no one really knows who they are dealing with is a completely uncontroversial and patently true thing to say.
Why say it then?
I've got to assume that you can't point out where I made a "sweeping judgement" because I in fact did not make any "sweeping judgement", even though you say I did. That makes you a ....
Hmmm... lets see...
We are good at spotting errors of detail and logic...
Really?
I've got to assume that you can't point out where I made a "sweeping judgement" because I in fact did not make any "sweeping judgement", even though you say I did. That makes you a ....
That assumption wouldn't be very logical, would it Lili? Lets see... I could have missed the question, really couldn't be bothered, or perhaps, I do not wish to become embroiled in a long and ultimately pointless discussion when the facts speak for themselves.
Oh, and what am I Lili? Come on now, don't be shy 
Don't you have something better to do with your time?
Monastic, forget the sweeping judgement bit for a minute, but please extend me the courtesy of reading my first post carefully:
Yes, that's a very good point Lili. We really can't be sure, can we? So, the logical thing to do is to look at what a person posts, over a period of time, and draw conclusions from that.
However, is it really necessary to call into question someones status as an aspie, without good reason? You're not really in a position to do that, are you? You have, in that statement, made a sweeping judgement about those who disagree with you; you claim you are smart, so I assume that you have a reason for doing so and realise the consequences of making a statement of that nature.
Consider this:
Gwynfryn, I share your bafflement when I read other aspies (one can only presume they are such, as on the internet you can never be sure who you are dealing with) who seem to read the "scientific" literature on AS uncritically, when people such as you...
She's baffled, why would that be? Why the need to include the remark in brackets? What can one infer she believes about those who don't interpret things as she does.
Look Monastic, it's the sort of indirect dig she's consistently used on Aspergian Island to insult people. She knows some of the people she's accused of not having AS, post in this place. On it's own it might not appear much, and I've ignored her in this place upto now, but if she insists on bringing her games over to here, don't expect me to sit by without making the odd comment.
. . . and give creedence to increasingly broad and vague definitions of what constitutes "being an Aspie".
It seems the only people trying to do that, Gwnfryn, are people like you and Lili. Both of you have here, and at Aspergian Island, attempted to rebrand Aspergers Syndrome to suit yourselves.
.At the moment though, those few who aim for this are greatly outnumbered by people, even on the better sites like AFF, who are determinedly pushing us in the other direction, by introducing spurious concepts, derailing any debates which show signs of being progressive and productive, and discouraging us from taking positive action (which is surely what AFF is about, so why are these people here?).
Spurious concepts, eh? I suppose that means actually having an AS diagnosis, does it? Of course, that inference I've made from reading what you've written at Aspergian Island.
Neither you, nor Lili, speak for people with Aspergers Syndrome. You speak for yourselves. Although I may actually agree with some of what you say, I do not believe you are doing this cause any good.
alan8539, this is AFF and is a long way from the tropical Aspergian Island, it sometimes has tropical storms, but they dont reach us here.
alan8539, this is AFF and is a long way from the tropical Aspergian Island, it sometimes has tropical storms, but they dont reach us here.
Amy, it's not that far away :smile:
I'm not trying to cause trouble, but I think your membership who don't post at AI should be aware of Lili and Gwynfryns agenda. Of course, you'll find out in time, but it might spare some people an unpleasant surprise at a later date to have it sorted out now.
Perhaps you should find out exactly what they think of people with depression, people who've seen a psychologist or psychiatrist? Perhaps you should find out what they think of people with a diagnosis? Perhaps you should find out about how they insult and ridicule vulnerable people?
You cannot separate what's happened at AI with what happens here, particularly as they have both effectively lost that place as a platform for their views. Of course, I know Gwynfryns a friend of yours, and this is your forum; BUT, many of us don't wish to be associated with the redefining of Aspergers Syndrome to fit the two people in question.
alan, I can tell you that if your post was on AI and was about AFF they would not like it one bit! AI dont allow arguments from other sites to be dragged there.
I think its sensible to do the same here.
No-one wants to go to AI and read through every little argument between people. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. People can decide facts for themselves.
No personal attacks/comments please.