It's next to impossible to offend me. If certain people think that people with Asperger's Syndrome are "social assholes," that's their business. If the person making this comment actually included logical insight to support his argument, I could arguably use the information to improve myself.
That said, I think comparing a mentally *** person to a dog is far different than simply calling a person an ****. The word "****" has a strongly negative connotation and could only be construed as an insult. On the other hand, comparing a mentally *** person with one of humanity's most beloved animals doesn't necessarily involve such overtly negative overtones.
Quite frankly, one of the closest relationships I've ever had in my life was with my (now deceased) dog. The only time I seriously cried in my adult life was when she died. Was she somehow unimportant because she lacked the intelligence of a human? I didn't think so. She was a sweet, loving creature who never harmed anyone in her life.
I don't understand why comparing a mentally *** person to such a creature is considered an insult. There are many parallels, as far as I'm concerned. Bill Maher stated in his comments that he owned two dogs. Is it not possible that he had a close relationship with his animals as well?
While it is probably of limited value to me now, the information you are now providing would have beneficial to me at one point in my life. I have a tendency to exhibit a few of the behaviors that your are describing, and I have made conscious efforts to behave in a more socially acceptable manner.
If nobody originally made me aware of my social indiscretions, I would have much more difficulty identifying them. For example, I did not know that it was considered inappropriate to avoid eye contact until my junior year in high school, when a teacher explained this to me. Ironically, I had long thought that staring directly at a person who I was not close to would be considered rude.
A simple admonition beginning with, "Jay, your behavior in that situation was inappropriate because.." can go a long way toward helping me become self-aware. However, very few people are honest enough to point out a person's social indiscretions when they occur. I am grateful to those who have done this for me.
I find it very unfortunate that we live in a world where people are so overly concerned about sparing others' feelings that they can't be honest enough to provide people with information that is vital for self-improvement. If I see a person behave in a way that is overtly inappropriate, I make every effort to politely explain this to him. Even if the person is offended at first, there is a reasonable chance that he will consider monitoring or altering the behavior that I pointed out. The possibility of fostering positive, long-term improvement in the person's behavior is worth risking the possibility of temporarily hurting the person's feelings, in my opinion.
This is a matter of opinion. If you believe that all other species are inherently "lower" than humans, I can understand why you would interpret the comparison as an insult. If you don't believe that humans are somehow "special" and deserving of greater respect than other species, though, I don't see why the comment is a problem.
As I said earlier, my relationship with my dog was closer than my relationships with the vast majority of humans I have known, with the possible exceptions of my mother and sister. Her love was unconditional, and she trusted me completely. Does the fact that she wasn't human make her an inherently lesser creature? Am I some sort of freak for caring about a creature that isn't human?
Regardless of my personal regard for animals, I seriously doubt that Bill Maher's comments were meant as a serious attempt to reclassify mentally *** people as a form of canine. I believe that the main point that he was arguing is that both dogs and mentally *** people require a far greater amount of personal attention throughout their lives than typical humans do, in large part due to their inferior intelligence.
"Dogs are like *** children" is a vague statement. Based upon the context of the discussion, I believe that my interpretation of this statement is correct. Trying to morph the statement into, "*** children should not be considered human," is a bit of a stretch, as far as I'm concerned.
I can't think of many public behaviors that are considered overtly rude or inappropriate that I also view as being absolutely necessary for my own well being. However, I can relate to your tendency to talk to yourself aloud. My mother does this often, and when I was a small child, I copied her behavior. This odd behavior directly resulted in my being ridiculed and socially ostracized by the other children in elementary school.
I did not understand why other children hated me. I asked another person in my 5th grade class at one point, "What can I do to be popular?" He replied, "Well, uh, for one thing, don't talk to yourself." I adjusted my behavior accordingly. While I may have developed a habit of talking to myself aloud in public, it certainly wasn't necessary for my well being.
While making this change did little to improve my popularity at the time, as I had already developed a reputation at my school for being weird, I hate to imagine how I would be regarded at work today if I had not adjusted my behavior. I can say the same thing for various other abnormal behaviors that I used to exhibit.
As members of society, we must make efforts to adhere to certain societal norms that are not necessarily logical. This compliance on the part of people with Asperger's Syndrome is not an act of charity that is done out of a desire to give neurotypical members of society what they want or to spare their feelings. It is an act of self-interest.
People who observe a person who repeatedly engages in conspicuous, inappropriate behavior will generally not be personally offended or hurt by this behavior. However, they will almost universally regard the person with critical scrutiny, if not with contempt or ridicule. I believe that people with Asperger's Syndrome are no less apt toward making these sort of judgments than anyone else, although they are arguably more likely to be tolerant due to their own personal experiences.
If the person in the cubicle next to mine was constantly engaged in a vocal dialogue with himself, it would appear odd. If he stood up and started pacing back and forth along our row of cubicles, it would seem abnormal. People (including myself), would start asking themselves mental questions to the effect of, "How did this person make it to this stage of adulthood without realizing which behaviors are considered completely inappropriate in public?"
How would you view a person who started to pick his nose while engaged in a discussion with you? What if the person often loudly belched or farted while standing within close proximity of you? If he dropped trousers and urinated into a sewer grating located at a busy street corner? What if he decided to start masturbating on that street corner, as well? These are all relatively natural behaviors. There is nothing logically wrong with them, but they are considered inappropriate to engage in while in public.
Chances are that most people (even those with Asperger's Syndrome) would not regard a person engaging in these behaviors indifferently. The same reaction can be expected for people observing other conspicuous, inappropriate behaviors. It is unrealistic to expect society to suddenly accept all behaviors that are considered rude.
As a result, if you wish to avoid being viewed in a negative light, the onus is on you to alter your most conspicuous behaviors. Since there are a host of benefits associated with not being viewed by society at large in a negative light, altering key behaviors is an act of self-interest rather than an act to spare the feelings of random observers.
It would appear that you have much more difficulty adjusting your behavior than I do. I do not know whether this is common among people with Asperger's Syndrome or not. Did you only keep up the facade while at work or did you attempt to maintain it at all times? I would imagine that the latter would be far more stressful. As it is now, I concentrate on behaving appropriately while at work, but I allow myself to relax during almost all other times.
Most of the behavioral adjustments I have made have not taken a significant physical toll on me. After conditioning myself over a relatively short period of time to adopt a new form of behavior, it almost becomes second nature to me. While consciously regulating my behavior at work may be somewhat more stressful than relaxing at home, it is not stressful to the extent that it would cause any risk of an emotional breakdown.
I honestly don't believe that the minor behavioral adjustments I have made alter who I am as a person. My core personality has not changed because I now look people in the eye while speaking to them; nor has it changed because I now refrain from talking to myself in public.
Honestly, I couldn't care less about social status. I do care about money, however. You may have accumulated enough money to provide for the rest of your life, but I have not accumulated enough to provide for the rest of mine (let alone for the lives of any children I might produce).
I am far from achieving my goals of complete financial security and independence, and I must do what I can to remedy this. Behaving in an inconspicuous manner makes keeping my job and attaining promotions much more likely. This will directly affect my ability to achieve my financial goals. Since you are already financially secure, it may not be necessary for you to take the same actions that I am.
I am not loved or financially secure, but I am doing what I can to improve on at least one of these fronts. Unfortunately, improving on the other is somewhat out of my hands, as I do not have the power to directly influence the way that others feel about me. If I had both love and financial security, I am fairly certain that I would be as happy as you are.
Ironically, this was a major focus of my original argument. I recognize that people with Asperger's Syndrome are not inherently aware of all behaviors they exhibit that might be considered abnormal. This is why I stated that it is morally imperative to politely notify others when you observe them exhibiting especially abnormal behaviors. It is extraordinarily difficult for a person to become self-aware without such notification.
Furthermore, this should only be done if the person's behavior is abnormal to the extent that it is likely to negatively influence the way that others view him. After all, most people have at least some minor quirks. The key is to identify behaviors that the vast majority of people will have difficulty accepting.
You are stating that you wish for humans to change their fundamental nature for the benefit of society as a whole. While this may seem noble in theory, it is virtually impossible in practice. Individual humans are notorious for engaging in behaviors that are ultimately to their detriment (drug abuse, overeating, overspending, inactivity, etc.).
If humans are not generally wise enough to cognitively differentiate which intuitive behaviors are to their own personal detriment and to actively avoid these behaviors, how can you expect them to avoid behaviors that are harmful to other members of society? Simply "teaching" acceptance will be even less effective than anti-drug and anti-obesity campaigns have been.
The only method likely to be successful is to literally force humans to alter their behavior through a combination of legislation and harsh punishment. Legislation without harsh punishment would be largely ineffective (look at marijuana laws, traffic laws, and underage drinking/smoking laws as examples).
I do not believe that this level of control over people's behavior would ultimately be positive for society. If anything, I'd say that Big Brother already has his nose where it doesn't belong.
We already live in a society where people fear making honest statements due to the possibility that they may offend some portion of the population. Look at the fallout that occurred after Harvard's president made a relatively innocuous and essentially reasonable statement about most women's general aversion to careers in math and sciences. Look at how Bill Maher was told by a guest that he should refrain from using the word "***" and instead refer to a mentally *** child as a regular person, despite the fact that the term "***" or a similar one would be necessary to engage in any meaningful dialogue relating to *** children. We've taken this culture of politically correct dogma to an extreme.
It's time for a reality check. The base fact of the matter is that nobody has an inherent right not to be offended. Furthermore, attempting to grant this right is ultimately an exercise in futility, as offensiveness is purely a matter of perception. Even the most innocuous comments can bother a person who is unreasonably sensitive or paranoid.
Thus, the burden of avoiding misunderstanding and hurt feelings will ultimately always rest squarely on the shoulders of a message's receiver rather than its sender. If you truly want to advance society, advocate teaching people at an early age not to take others' comments too personally. If unreasonable sensitivity to potentially offensive comments can be averted, communication will improve throughout society as people slowly shed their inhibitions and general fear of being honest. An increase in meaningful dialogue is certain to improve society, as conflict is often the result of poor communication.
Consider the Harvard President's comment that there are possibly inherent differences between men and women that preclude women from pursuing careers in math and sciences. Is it more productive to openly rebuke him and shout, "I'm offended, you sexist pig! How dare you suggest such a thing?" or would it accomplish more to attempt a real dialogue by stating something such as, "I'm not sure I really agree. Do you have any tests that confirm your assumption?" As I stated earlier, it is the receiver's perception of offense rather than the sender's message that inhibits communication.
I originally stated in an earlier reply that it is next to impossible to offend me. I also encourage those around me to take things less personally. As a result, I have done my part to improve communication in our society. This has improved my life considerably, as it enables me to accept people's comments constructively and use them to improve myself.
If I angrily rejected any comment that could be construed as criticism, this would inhibit my growth as a person twofold-- Not only would I avoid benefiting from the constructive criticism, but my behavior would discourage people from being honest with me in the future. You can't do much to change society as a whole, but you can certainly do quite a bit to alter your role in it.
Kind of neat how I managed to reel this tangent all the way back in to the original topic, eh?
Do you have a link to a transcript of his comments? I am surprised that he would make a statement as sweeping as, "Women are not cut out for careers in engineering."
http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeche.../nber.html
At any rate, he never implies that women are not cut out to be scientists or engineers. He simply implies that they are less likely to be at the very extreme levels of aptitude (apparently 3.5 to 4 standard deviations or 1 out of 5000 to 10000 students) necessary to secure a position as a physicist at a top 25 university. He also qualifies several times that his statements are merely hypotheses and that other factors, such as socialization, should be taken into account.
It's possible that I missed a comment indicating that women are incapable of becoming scientists or engineers (it's a long transcript). If any of you look through it and find one, feel free to post it.
I do not agree with implementing this legislation and do not wish to be considered a member of a formal minority group. I do believe that people with Asperger's Syndrome should have the same rights that other members of society do. However, I do not condone special treatment for people with Asperger's Syndrome, as this is merely a covert form of discrimination. Frankly, I don't feel as if I'm presently being discriminated against based upon my neurological condition.
I post on these forums for the same reason that I participate in the online Asperger's Syndrome community in general. I feel that I am more likely to have things in common with others who have Asperger's Syndrome than I am to have them with the general population, so I dedicate a certain amount of time attempting to make connections with them. As my social life outside of these online communities is essentially nonexistent, this is probably a good thing.
I also believe that my opinions may be of some intellectual value to members of this forum. If the administrators of the forum wish for me to discontinue posting based upon my beliefs, I will.
I only work out of a want for money. I have no special regard for the Department of Defense. This was simply the only good career opportunity that was available to me after I finished graduate school. My career choice was based purely on financial self-interest. I am not in a financial position where I can afford to make career decisions based on idealistic criteria.
I believe that they have special status in the United States because there are discriminatory quotas in place that favor them over other ethnic groups for attaining employment and college admission. Honestly, I have no problem with being identified as a member of a minority group as long as special treatment isn't involved. I just don't want to be condescended to.
Are you sure? I must be behind the times if this is true. The last I read, point systems were still being used by universities.
In the most important affirmative action decision since the 1978 Bakke case, the Supreme Court (5-4) upholds the University of Michigan Law School's policy, ruling that race can be one of many factors considered by colleges when selecting their students because it furthers "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." The Supreme Court, however, ruled (6-3) that the more formulaic approach of the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions program, which uses a point system that rates students and awards additional points to minorities, had to be modified. The undergraduate program, unlike the law school's, does not provide the "individualized consideration" of applicants deemed necessary in previous Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action.
I suppose you're right. Still, even without point systems, if race can be used as a factor, the law is still advocating discrimination, as far as I'm concerned.
The more intelligent the subject, the more preferable cognitive methods are. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people do not have a great deal of logical ability. As a result, cognitive methods of influencing behavior will only be successful when applied to the small portion of the population that tends to rely on logical thought over emotional impulses.
As a side note, obesity is currently the second greatest cause of preventable death in the United States, and it is likely that it will soon eclipse tobacco usage to claim first place. Obesity is associated with a host of medical problems, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and stroke. Many of these problems are alleviated significantly after a patient undergoes obesity surgery (which I do not advocate), so there's little doubt that obesity is a major contributing factor to these conditions.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?obj...dsection=3
Here's the pertinent excerpt:
Less than 2 percent of all cases of obesity can be traced to a medical cause, such as low thyroid function, excess production of hormones by the adrenal glands (Cushing's syndrome) or other hormonal imbalances. A low metabolic rate is rarely a cause of obesity. A medical problem can also lead to decreased activity, which can result in weight gain.
When you describe diet and exercise as "confounding factors," you're eliminating 98% of all cases of obesity. While the health issues relating to the 2% of the obese population you are focusing on may be somewhat different, I seriously doubt that many medical studies will focus on this small subset of the obese population. For the vast majority of people, it simply isn't relevant.
Tasks like reading and arithmetic do not directly pit human intellect against human instinct. As a result, I would not expect for the general population to have a great deal of difficulty mastering these tasks.
Unfortunately, humans are "wired" to rely on heuristics and stereotypes rather than to fully evaluate situations on a case-by-case basis. It requires a great deal of patience for a person evaluate others in this manner, and most people are simply not willing to put forth the necessary effort to do this. Can you teach a person to be patient? Can you teach a person to favor logic over instinct?
Most people are highly emotional creatures who will cling to their beliefs and prejudices even in the face of overwhelming logical evidence of their invalidity. You can provide a person with the knowledge necessary to accept other humans. However, you cannot provide the motivation. Unfortunately, acceptance is more a matter of motivation than it is a matter of base knowledge.