Asperger's Syndrome

[Futilitist]

No one gives a crap about what happened on other sites, Futilist.

OK. But the name is Futilitist.

Now, consider this your last warning that I will issue you in public about this. Cease and desist in dragging your issues from other sites to this site. No one here cares. We don't want to know. If you do it again, I will issue you with another infraction.

I will cease and desist as you say.

Your repeated attempts to say that this site is somehow bigoted towards people with Asperger's is ridiculous in the extreme. No one cares if you do or do not suffer from it. You keep falling back on it as though it is a crutch. No one here cares of you have it or not. What we do care about is the content of your posts. Now, in discussing Asperger's in general. You seem to get offended and take it personally if someone points out known facts about Asperger's.

I would like to discuss this part with you. It is very relevant to the thread topic. It has nothing to do with any other site. May I address your quote above without being subject to a warning?

I will wait for your answer before proceeding. Thank you.

---Futilitist

 

[Syne]

It's more an example of living out the diagnosis.

There is a pressure for people with (esp.) psychiatric diagnoses to live according to those diagnoses. It is a kind of stereotype, prejudice, projective identification:

...
People who have been diagnosed sometimes make an effort to fit into the diagnosis, because they are directly or indirectly pressured to do so by others, and also in the hope of protecting themselves ("If I fit in with the ideas others have of me, I will be safe").
It is a paradoxical and painful predicament, as the diagnosed person, in order to feel good and safe, has to believe they are defective. It's no wonder they act out and aren't particularly sociable.

Completely wrong and misguided. People are diagnosed because they show certain symptoms. They do not show certain symptoms because they are diagnosed. This the fallacy of wrong direction. Now perhaps in the case of a hypochondriac the symptoms could follow the diagnosis, but only because the individual has diagnosed themselves and already committed to using it as a justifying crutch.

People only seem to "make an effort to fit into the diagnosis" because they are actively employing it as an excuse for some action or inaction of their own. They only tell others of their diagnosis seeking others to reinforce the excuse and justification they are attempting to convince themselves of.

And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Syne has been trolling every thread I have been on. And that he has been openly rude and insulting to all people with Asperger's on I thread I created to be positive and affirming. That was what I asked Bells to moderate. She issued me a warning, instead! After that, I asked her and you if the official position of this science site was open, bigoted hostility toward people with Asperger's syndrome. Is it?

I then immediately abandoned the thread to avoid further conflict. But conflict is following me anyway.

You mean leaving you alone only to have you reply to my responses to others? That seems an apt example of what I just told wynn. Seems you cannot go long without having something to feel martyred over. Even you have admitted that what I have said about AS is factual. There can be no slight in stating facts, unless you are simply unwilling to face reality. It is truly laughable that you want facts moderated. Facts cannot be bigoted, as they are completely neutral.

And really? You "abandoned" this thread for a whopping four whole days. [sarcasm]Wow, what self-restraint you have shown. [/sarcasm] In the meanwhile going off to other parts of the forum to complain about the thread you supposedly "abandoned".

I then came to this forum only to find Ophiolite, marnixR, iNow, SkinWalker, Ascended, and the whole crew. MarnixR and SkinWalker have both returned to this site after long (5 year) absences, to be involved in threads that I am posting in.

Maybe you should have had the foresight to simply sign up here with a different user name than the one they would recognize. It is naive to think that no one could possibly read more than one science forum. After all, here you are. But then, you really enjoy all of the attention, negative or otherwise.

Projective identification is what is happening to me here on this site. When I get jumpy and respond in anger to the way I am being treated, it just gets rolled into the case already made against me. I can do no right.

PI can only occur as a result of your own projection, which you have done since your first post to this forum.

(emphasis added) Your repeated attempts to say that this site is somehow bigoted towards people with Asperger's is ridiculous in the extreme. No one cares if you do or do not suffer from it. You keep falling back on it as though it is a crutch. No one here cares of you have it or not. What we do care about is the content of your posts. Now, in discussing Asperger's in general. You seem to get offended and take it personally if someone points out known facts about Asperger's.

Hear, hear.

OK. But the name is Futilitist.

You should have thought of that when you chose a difficult name to say, much less remember how to spell.

 

[Bells]

I would like to discuss this part with you. It is very relevant to the thread topic. It has nothing to do with any other site. May I address your quote above without being subject to a warning?

I will wait for your answer before proceeding. Thank you.

---Futilitist

What is it you wish to discuss?

 

[Futilitist]

What is it you wish to discuss?

I meant this thread to present a modern, positive, and affirming view of Asperger's syndrome for general discussion. Asperger's syndrome is very misunderstood. I want Aspies and Neurotypicals to understand and appreciate each other better. I included negatives as well as positives. But from the very beginning, Syne has been the most negative and combative person I have ever seen. He only reinforces negative stereotypes about Asperger's and belittles everything else. IMO the following comments by Syne are overly negative and even bigoted by modern standards:

This thread is mostly Asperger apologetics. Do not expect any rational discussion.

I am commenting on the self-serving and apologetic belief in a "value" of AS. Have pride in what adversities you have overcome, but do not delude yourself into thinking it is anything more noble than a disorder.

The mastery of highly technical skills is not unique to Aspies, so this is unsupportable speculation.

Whatever makes you feel better.

Show me. It is clear that AS has some definite disadvantages, and no significant advantages over neurotypicals.

There is nothing new about organizations finding useful employment of the disabled/disadvantaged.They all require special accommodation.

When I finally, at the advice of another member, flagged Syne's comment, you chose to give me a public warning instead. I believe this might create a bad impression for the readers of the thread. You are, in effect ratifying Syne's position, that there is nothing good about Asperger's, and that it is a disability only. That is not a very modern or informed view.

No matter what you may think of me personally, I don't think this reflects well on this forum.

Your repeated attempts to say that this site is somehow bigoted towards people with Asperger's is ridiculous in the extreme. No one cares if you do or do not suffer from it. You keep falling back on it as though it is a crutch. No one here cares of you have it or not. What we do care about is the content of your posts. Now, in discussing Asperger's in general. You seem to get offended and take it personally if someone points out known facts about Asperger's.

I have not made any repeated efforts to say that this site is bigoted towards Aspies. I am trying to make sure that that is not the impression created for the readers. I have only made one attempt to have Syne's comments moderated. I have never used my Asperger's as a crutch or a defense, ever. It may seem to you that I "get offended" and "take it personally", but that is simply not the case. And I don't think that Syne's views represent the "known facts about Asperger's".

I hope it is OK for me to express myself on this issue. Thank you.

---Futilitist

 

[Bells]

I meant this thread to present a modern, positive, and affirming view of Asperger's syndrome for general discussion. Asperger's syndrome is very misunderstood. I want Aspies and Neurotypicals to understand and appreciate each other better. I included negatives as well as positives. But from the very beginning, Syne has been the most negative and combative person I have ever seen. He only reinforces negative stereotypes about Asperger's and belittles everything else.

And you have not been negative and combative?

You see Futilitist, when you post here, it is the content that matters and how it is used by you. From the moment you joined here, you have insulted, abused, demeaned others. You have also led a flurry of false accusations against staff and members alike. So when you post here, people will judge you by how and what your post (ie your content). Syne has not said anything that was bigoted. He stated known facts, things that even you commented on in your OP.

IMO the following comments by Syne are overly negative and even bigoted by modern standards:



When I finally, at the advice of another member, flagged Syne's comment, you chose to give me a public warning instead. I believe this might create a bad impression for the readers of the thread. You are, in effect ratifying Syne's position, that there is nothing good about Asperger's, and that it is a disability only. That is not a very modern or informed view.

No matter what you may think of me personally, I don't think this reflects well on this forum.

And you are free to think what you like about this forum. The only public warnings I have given you, from memory, has been your constant and repeated attempts to drag issues you have had on other sites onto this one and the manner in which you have insulted people on this site.

Syne's comment is not bigoted or negative. He is simply saying that you are no more special or distinct from others because you have Asperger's. Like every single other human being on this planet, Asperger's not no Asperger's, you will be good at some things and bad at others. You are trying to say that being an "Aspie" somehow makes you better than everyone else, especially those without Aspies. Whether this is your intent or not, that is how you are coming across. We have many members who are "Aspies". No one actually cares. Spider has been posting here for a ridiculously long time and I cannot recall one incident where someone has set him aside or pushed him aside or disregarded his argument because he is an "Aspie". He has been quite open about it on other threads and no one cares. That is not how he is defined on here. He is defined by his posts and arguments.

You are the only person treating it as a disability, Futilitist. No one else has. Because no one cares if you have Asperger's or not. But you want us to care. As I said, the only thing that matters is the content of your posts. If someone disagrees with your argument or post, it isn't bigotry or portraying it in a negative light.

I have not made any repeated efforts to say that this site is bigoted towards Aspies. I am trying to make sure that that is not the impression created for the readers. I have only made one attempt to have Syne's comments moderated. I have never used my Asperger's as a crutch or a defense, ever. It may seem to you that I "get offended" and "take it personally", but that is simply not the case. And I don't think that Syne's views represent the "known facts about Asperger's".

Why do you need to "create" an atmosphere of greatness or goodness about Asperger's? There are an insane amount of people who fall within that spectrum. Everyone knows they are not all bad. It does not make you any better or worse than every other person. You may not realise that you use it as a defense, but you do. And you do get offended. You became offended and angry when someone pointed out that some within the spectrum do lack empathy. You got offended because Syne would not tell you that you are somehow better and because he told you that there is nothing special about you and that you are just like everyone else and that some people with the disorder suffer from more disadvantages, and they do. Some are completely reclusive and are unable to communicate with others. He isn't creating a false impression about Asperger's. He isn't treating you differently because you have Asperger's. See, that would be bigotry. And that is the distinction you are ignoring here.

I hope it is OK for me to express myself on this issue. Thank you.

Why wouldn't it be okay?

 

[Syne]

I meant this thread to present a modern, positive, and affirming view of Asperger's syndrome for general discussion. Asperger's syndrome is very misunderstood. I want Aspies and Neurotypicals to understand and appreciate each other better. I included negatives as well as positives. But from the very beginning, Syne has been the most negative and combative person I have ever seen. He only reinforces negative stereotypes about Asperger's and belittles everything else. IMO the following comments by Syne are overly negative and even bigoted by modern standards:

This thread is mostly Asperger apologetics. Do not expect any rational discussion.

I am commenting on the self-serving and apologetic belief in a "value" of AS. Have pride in what adversities you have overcome, but do not delude yourself into thinking it is anything more noble than a disorder.

The mastery of highly technical skills is not unique to Aspies, so this is unsupportable speculation.

Whatever makes you feel better.

Show me. It is clear that AS has some definite disadvantages, and no significant advantages over neurotypicals.

There is nothing new about organizations finding useful employment of the disabled/disadvantaged.They all require special accommodation.

When I finally, at the advice of another member, flagged Syne's comment, you chose to give me a public warning instead. I believe this might create a bad impression for the readers of the thread. You are, in effect ratifying Syne's position, that there is nothing good about Asperger's, and that it is a disability only. That is not a very modern or informed view.

No matter what you may think of me personally, I don't think this reflects well on this forum.


I have not made any repeated efforts to say that this site is bigoted towards Aspies. I am trying to make sure that that is not the impression created for the readers. I have only made one attempt to have Syne's comments moderated. I have never used my Asperger's as a crutch or a defense, ever. It may seem to you that I "get offended" and "take it personally", but that is simply not the case. And I don't think that Syne's views represent the "known facts about Asperger's".

If you wish to refute anything I have said, why have you failed to provide any refuting evidence? If you did not intend to have a scientific discussion then you probably should not have posted this in a science forum (there are so many other places here you could have posted it to avoid this kind of scrutiny, i.e. Life, On the Fringe, etc.). Nothing about the negative aspects of AS (diagnostic criteria, mind you) necessarily makes them stereotypes. And whatever you meant this thread to be, you neither made that clear in the OP nor just admitted it overly-optimistic apologetics. You presented your view as fact, and just like those I have presented, all facts are open to factual refute.

I suppose by "modern standards" you mean coddling the feelings of others, even to the extent of blunting reason. Again, you posted this in a science forum. If you genuinely do not wish to address facts then ask the mods to move your topic to a more appropriate forum.

It is an intellectually dishonest straw man to claim that I have ever said anything to the effect that "there is nothing good about Asperger's". On the contrary, I have pointed out that the brain is well-known to compensate for the loss of one faculty with the improvement of another. Actually, it is only your biased misrepresentation of my posts and appeals to emotion that "might create a bad impression for the readers of the thread." You constantly seek to cast what I say in the worst possible light.


Still waiting for you to refute any of the facts I have presented. Until you do, this thread is no more than a propaganda piece.

 

[Futilitist]

And you have not been negative and combative?

You see Futilitist, when you post here, it is the content that matters and how it is used by you. From the moment you joined here, you have insulted, abused, demeaned others. You have also led a flurry of false accusations against staff and members alike. So when you post here, people will judge you by how and what your post (ie your content). Syne has not said anything that was bigoted. He stated known facts, things that even you commented on in your OP.

And you are free to think what you like about this forum. The only public warnings I have given you, from memory, has been your constant and repeated attempts to drag issues you have had on other sites onto this one and the manner in which you have insulted people on this site.

This has been brought up before by you. I have been told by you that if I mention it, I will be moderated. So I have nothing to say on this.

Syne's comment is not bigoted or negative. He is simply saying that you are no more special or distinct from others because you have Asperger's. Like every single other human being on this planet, Asperger's not no Asperger's, you will be good at some things and bad at others. You are trying to say that being an "Aspie" somehow makes you better than everyone else, especially those without Aspies. Whether this is your intent or not, that is how you are coming across. We have many members who are "Aspies". No one actually cares. Spider has been posting here for a ridiculously long time and I cannot recall one incident where someone has set him aside or pushed him aside or disregarded his argument because he is an "Aspie". He has been quite open about it on other threads and no one cares. That is not how he is defined on here. He is defined by his posts and arguments.

You are the only person treating it as a disability, Futilitist. No one else has. Because no one cares if you have Asperger's or not. But you want us to care. As I said, the only thing that matters is the content of your posts. If someone disagrees with your argument or post, it isn't bigotry or portraying it in a negative light.

Why do you need to "create" an atmosphere of greatness or goodness about Asperger's? There are an insane amount of people who fall within that spectrum. Everyone knows they are not all bad. It does not make you any better or worse than every other person. You may not realise that you use it as a defense, but you do. And you do get offended. You became offended and angry when someone pointed out that some within the spectrum do lack empathy. You got offended because Syne would not tell you that you are somehow better and because he told you that there is nothing special about you and that you are just like everyone else and that some people with the disorder suffer from more disadvantages, and they do. Some are completely reclusive and are unable to communicate with others. He isn't creating a false impression about Asperger's. He isn't treating you differently because you have Asperger's. See, that would be bigotry. And that is the distinction you are ignoring here.

Why wouldn't it be okay?

You keep on characterizing me this way, but I said before that I am not using my Asperger's as a crutch. I am not personally insulted by anyone's comments. I am simply saying that IMHO, outside readers who are Aspies will likely find the attitude expressed by Syne as offensive to Aspies generally. Parents of Aspie children will probably be shocked as well. I say that as a person with Asperger's who is concerned about others with Asperger's. But since you don't see anything wrong with it, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Thank you.

---Futilitist

 

[wynn]

Completely wrong and misguided. People are diagnosed because they show certain symptoms. They do not show certain symptoms because they are diagnosed. This the fallacy of wrong direction. Now perhaps in the case of a hypochondriac the symptoms could follow the diagnosis, but only because the individual has diagnosed themselves and already committed to using it as a justifying crutch.

People only seem to "make an effort to fit into the diagnosis" because they are actively employing it as an excuse for some action or inaction of their own. They only tell others of their diagnosis seeking others to reinforce the excuse and justification they are attempting to convince themselves off.

Strawman.

Communicating with someone merely as a matter of communicating to a diagnosis, as opposed to a person, deteriorates the interaction.


Not all psychiatrists agree that a categorical approach to diagnosing mental issues is valid or helpful:

There is some ongoing scientific doubt concerning the construct validity and reliability of psychiatric diagnostic categories and criteria[41][42][43] even though they have been increasingly standardized to improve inter-rater agreement in controlled research. In the United States, there have been calls and endorsements for a congressional hearing to explore the nature and extent of harm potentially caused by this "minimally investigated enterprise".[44][45]

Other specific criticisms of the current schemes include: attempts to demonstrate natural boundaries between related syndromes, or between a common syndrome and normality, have failed; the disorders of current classification are probably surface phenomena that can have many different interacting causes, yet "the mere fact that a diagnostic concept is listed in an official nomenclature and provided with a precise operational definition tends to encourage us to assume that it is a "quasi-disease entity" that can be invoked to explain the patient's symptoms"; and that the diagnostic manuals have led to an unintended decline in careful evaluation of each individual person's experiences and social context.[30]

Psychodynamic schemes have traditionally given the latter phenomenological aspect more consideration, but in psychoanalytic terms that have been long criticized on numerous grounds.
Some have argued that reliance on operational definition demands that intuitive concepts, such as depression, need to be operationally defined before they become amenable to scientific investigation. However, John Stuart Mill pointed out the dangers of believing that anything that could be given a name must refer to a thing and Stephen Jay Gould and others have criticized psychologists for doing just that. One critic states that "Instead of replacing 'metaphysical' terms such as 'desire' and 'purpose', they used it to legitimize them by giving them operational definitions. Thus in psychology, as in economics, the initial, quite radical operationalist ideas eventually came to serve as little more than a 'reassurance fetish' (Koch 1992, 275) for mainstream methodological practice."[46] According to Tadafumi Kato, since the era of Kraepelin, psychiatrists have been trying to differentiate mental disorders by using clinical interviews. Kato argues there has been little progress over the last century and that only modest improvements are possible in this way; he suggests that only neurobiological studies using modern technology could form the basis for a new classification.[47]

According to Heinz Katsching, expert committees have combined phenomenological criteria in variable ways into categories of mental disorders, repeatedly defined and redefined over the last half century. The diagnostic categories are termed "disorders" and yet, despite not being validated by biological criteria as most medical diseases are, are framed as medical diseases identified by medical diagnoses. He describes them as top-down classification systems similar to the botanic classifications of plants in the 17th and 18th centuries, when experts decided a priori which visible aspects of plants were relevant. Katsching notes that while psychopathological phenomena are certainly observed and experienced, the conceptual basis of psychiatric diagnostic categories is questioned from various ideological perspectives.[39]

Psychiatrist Joel Paris argues that psychiatry is sometimes susceptible to diagnostic fads. Some have been based on theory (overdiagnosis of schizophrenia), some based on etiological (causation) concepts (overdiagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder), and some based on the development of treatments. Paris points out that psychiatrists like to diagnose conditions they can treat, and gives examples of what he sees as prescribing patterns paralleling diagnostic trends, for example an increase in bipolar diagnosis once lithium came into use, and similar scenarios with the use of electroconvulsive therapy, neuroleptics, tricyclic antidepressants, and SSRIs. He notes that there was a time when every patient seemed to have "latent schizophrenia" and another time when everything in psychiatry seemed to be "masked depression", and he fears that the boundaries of the bipolar spectrum concept, including in application to children, are similarly expanding.[48] Allen Frances has suggested fad diagnostic trends regarding autism and Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.[49]

Since the 1980s, psychologist Paula Caplan has had concerns about psychiatric diagnosis, and people being arbitrarily "slapped with a psychiatric label". Caplan says psychiatric diagnosis is unregulated, so doctors aren’t required to spend much time understanding patients situations or to seek another doctor’s opinion. The criteria for allocating psychiatric labels are contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which can "lead a therapist to focus on narrow checklists of symptoms, with little consideration for what is causing the patient’s suffering". So, according to Caplan, getting a psychiatric diagnosis and label often hinders recovery.

PI can only occur as a result of your own projection, which you have done since your first post to this forum.

Indeed, unfortunately. He has been pressured by others earlier in his life to comply with the diagnosis. He probably never had a chance to develop a less conflict-laden way to interact with others.

How would you think, feel and act, if people around you would expect you to believe that you are defective?!

It's alarming how little empathy people tend to have for those with psychiatric diagnoses.

 

[Futilitist]

Strawman.

Communicating with someone merely as a matter of communicating to a diagnosis, as opposed to a person, deteriorates the interaction.


Not all psychiatrists agree that a categorical approach to diagnosing mental issues is valid or helpful:

There is some ongoing scientific doubt concerning the construct validity and reliability of psychiatric diagnostic categories and criteria[41][42][43] even though they have been increasingly standardized to improve inter-rater agreement in controlled research. In the United States, there have been calls and endorsements for a congressional hearing to explore the nature and extent of harm potentially caused by this "minimally investigated enterprise".[44][45]

Other specific criticisms of the current schemes include: attempts to demonstrate natural boundaries between related syndromes, or between a common syndrome and normality, have failed; the disorders of current classification are probably surface phenomena that can have many different interacting causes, yet "the mere fact that a diagnostic concept is listed in an official nomenclature and provided with a precise operational definition tends to encourage us to assume that it is a "quasi-disease entity" that can be invoked to explain the patient's symptoms"; and that the diagnostic manuals have led to an unintended decline in careful evaluation of each individual person's experiences and social context.[30]

Psychodynamic schemes have traditionally given the latter phenomenological aspect more consideration, but in psychoanalytic terms that have been long criticized on numerous grounds.
Some have argued that reliance on operational definition demands that intuitive concepts, such as depression, need to be operationally defined before they become amenable to scientific investigation. However, John Stuart Mill pointed out the dangers of believing that anything that could be given a name must refer to a thing and Stephen Jay Gould and others have criticized psychologists for doing just that. One critic states that "Instead of replacing 'metaphysical' terms such as 'desire' and 'purpose', they used it to legitimize them by giving them operational definitions. Thus in psychology, as in economics, the initial, quite radical operationalist ideas eventually came to serve as little more than a 'reassurance fetish' (Koch 1992, 275) for mainstream methodological practice."[46] According to Tadafumi Kato, since the era of Kraepelin, psychiatrists have been trying to differentiate mental disorders by using clinical interviews. Kato argues there has been little progress over the last century and that only modest improvements are possible in this way; he suggests that only neurobiological studies using modern technology could form the basis for a new classification.[47]

According to Heinz Katsching, expert committees have combined phenomenological criteria in variable ways into categories of mental disorders, repeatedly defined and redefined over the last half century. The diagnostic categories are termed "disorders" and yet, despite not being validated by biological criteria as most medical diseases are, are framed as medical diseases identified by medical diagnoses. He describes them as top-down classification systems similar to the botanic classifications of plants in the 17th and 18th centuries, when experts decided a priori which visible aspects of plants were relevant. Katsching notes that while psychopathological phenomena are certainly observed and experienced, the conceptual basis of psychiatric diagnostic categories is questioned from various ideological perspectives.[39]

Psychiatrist Joel Paris argues that psychiatry is sometimes susceptible to diagnostic fads. Some have been based on theory (overdiagnosis of schizophrenia), some based on etiological (causation) concepts (overdiagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder), and some based on the development of treatments. Paris points out that psychiatrists like to diagnose conditions they can treat, and gives examples of what he sees as prescribing patterns paralleling diagnostic trends, for example an increase in bipolar diagnosis once lithium came into use, and similar scenarios with the use of electroconvulsive therapy, neuroleptics, tricyclic antidepressants, and SSRIs. He notes that there was a time when every patient seemed to have "latent schizophrenia" and another time when everything in psychiatry seemed to be "masked depression", and he fears that the boundaries of the bipolar spectrum concept, including in application to children, are similarly expanding.[48] Allen Frances has suggested fad diagnostic trends regarding autism and Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.[49]

Since the 1980s, psychologist Paula Caplan has had concerns about psychiatric diagnosis, and people being arbitrarily "slapped with a psychiatric label". Caplan says psychiatric diagnosis is unregulated, so doctors aren’t required to spend much time understanding patients situations or to seek another doctor’s opinion. The criteria for allocating psychiatric labels are contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which can "lead a therapist to focus on narrow checklists of symptoms, with little consideration for what is causing the patient’s suffering". So, according to Caplan, getting a psychiatric diagnosis and label often hinders recovery.





Indeed, unfortunately. He has been pressured by others earlier in his life to comply with the diagnosis. He probably never had a chance to develop a less conflict-laden way to interact with others.

How would you think, feel and act, if people around you would expect you to believe that you are defective?!

It's alarming how little empathy people tend to have for those with psychiatric diagnoses.

Wynn,

Whilst I agree with and applaud the general idea contained within your post, I must add an objection to applying this to me personally based on my interactions on this site. My first friction on this site was not, in fact, due to any projective identification. It was due to a vendetta that has caused me to be banned unfairly from two other forums. Some of the members and staff here were involved. My suspicions may seem overly paranoid to some, but I believe they are well justified. It is hard to know who to trust here. Thus any "diagnosis" here based on first impressions, is very likely wrong. I was not known by anyone here to have Aspreger's syndrome until I admitted it myself, after a bad impression had already been created, due to other circumstances. Now the "diagnosis" is being retroactively applied, and the real circumstances forgotten or ignored.

I have never been pressured by others early in life to comply with any diagnosis. I was diagnosed when I was 44. When I am not attacked or suspecting a trick is being played on me, my interactions here have been very polite. My Asperger's is, of course, an important factor in the course of my life, but my social abilities in the non virtual world are certainly not reflected by what you have seen here. My life is not "conflict-laden".

I fear that the bolded section above may ironically be used to justify treating me in an unfair, dismissive way.

And, as I explained to Bells above, I am not using my Asperger's as a crutch. Once again, this is a thread about Aspreger's syndrome. It is not a thread about me. I do not think I should be subject to further "diagnosis" on this thread.

---Futilitist

 

[Syne]

Strawman.

Communicating with someone merely as a matter of communicating to a diagnosis, as opposed to a person, deteriorates the interaction.

Yes, this is your straw man, as no one here is especially "communicating to a diagnosis". His behavior warranted the reactions he got long before anyone here knew his diagnosis.

Not all psychiatrists agree that a categorical approach to diagnosing mental issues is valid or helpful:

I do not particular think that psychiatric classification is very helpful either, but that is neither here nor there. Most people who latch onto a diagnosis, and especially those who advertise it, would find some other excuse for their behavior. It is much like someone who goes out of their way to tell everyone they are ill. It serves no purpose other than to evoke sympathy or in this case affirm a projection.

PI can only occur as a result of your own projection, which you have done since your first post to this forum.

Indeed, unfortunately. He has been pressured by others earlier in his life to comply with the diagnosis. He probably never had a chance to develop a less conflict-laden way to interact with others.

Blame for one's personal behavior is never devoid of one's personal responsibility. But I am sure he appreciates you providing him with all the excuse he can get.

How would you think, feel and act, if people around you would expect you to believe that you are defective?!

Easy. I would not tell them, and would disassociate myself from any who happened to know. You will notice that he used the same user name and even went so far as to repeatedly mention his past interactions, including who and where. This is not the behavior of someone who feels bad about how they are treated, but the behavior of someone who desperately needs the justification for his projections.

It's alarming how little empathy people tend to have for those with psychiatric diagnoses.

As Bells has repeatedly said, we do not care about any diagnosis, only content. His content leaves little to empathize with.

 

[Futilitist]

Forgiveness?

Yes, this is your straw man, as no one here is especially "communicating to a diagnosis". His behavior warranted the reactions he got long before anyone here knew his diagnosis.

Thank you, Syne. For once we agree about something. I have behaved badly at times. Some of the reactions have been deserved.


As for my past bad acts here:

"For any and all bad behavior,

That many have witnessed right here,

I really must humbly apologize,

And say it without any fear.

There exists here a great opportunity,

For our universes to somehow align;

Remember, to err is quite human,

But to forgive is completely divine."

---Loren Soman

(I like quoting myself sometimes. Get used to it.)



We are all human beings. We all have strengths. We all have flaws. We should all treat each other with the utmost respect from here on out.


---Futilitist

 

[kwhilborn]

Not following thread, but watched a recent Gospel Movie "Queen Latifah, Dolly Parton" called "Joyous Noise", and it featured someone with Asperger's Syndrome in the family of Queen Latifa.

I am not sure if this was an accurate portrayal of someone with Aspergers, but it did bring the disorder into some perspective. The character seemed to function normally, but could not always decide if people were serious or joking, or if someone was hitting on him. The character had some aversion to being touched as well.

I do not know much about this disease but thought I would comment on the movie, as that is the first time I saw anyone with Aspergers portrayed.

@ OP,
personality software and educational software is where I think the most potential for growth lies. I imagine in 30 years we will be able to purchase different personalities for our phones that will talk to us or even answer our calls using our own voice.

If you see a pretty girl across the street you can aim your phone at her and she will be instantly analysed based on body language, her pet choice (robotic obviously), and other characteristics such as rings, jewels, and clothing, and if she is aiming her phone back at you. Your phone friend will then describe to you good opening lines should you attempt to meet this girl, and what your odds are of rejection. The phone may also recognize her from the local bakery, Tennis club, and prayer circle, and suggest possible known acquaintances.

I'd like to know who is most advanced with artificial conversations. imitating humans is probably easy (joking here), just talk about yourself all the time.

 

[Futilitist]

Not following thread, but watched a recent Gospel Movie "Queen Latifah, Dolly Parton" called "Joyous Noise", and it featured someone with Asperger's Syndrome in the family of Queen Latifa.

I am not sure if this was an accurate portrayal of someone with Aspergers, but it did bring the disorder into some perspective. The character seemed to function normally, but could not always decide if people were serious or joking, or if someone was hitting on him. The character had some aversion to being touched as well.

I do not know much about this disease but thought I would comment on the movie, as that is the first time I saw anyone with Aspergers portrayed.

@ OP,
personality software and educational software is where I think the most potential for growth lies. I imagine in 30 years we will be able to purchase different personalities for our phones that will talk to us or even answer our calls using our own voice.

If you see a pretty girl across the street you can aim your phone at her and she will be instantly analysed based on body language, her pet choice (robotic obviously), and other characteristics such as rings, jewels, and clothing, and if she is aiming her phone back at you. Your phone friend will then describe to you good opening lines should you attempt to meet this girl, and what your odds are of rejection. The phone may also recognize her from the local bakery, Tennis club, and prayer circle, and suggest possible known acquaintances.

I'd like to know who is most advanced with artificial conversations. imitating humans is probably easy (joking here), just talk about yourself all the time.

The most convincing social robots are sassy. They don't try to please. They don't always cooperate. Sometimes they frustrate. This makes them seem as if they have a mind of their own.

---Futilitist

 

[R1D2]

You keep on characterizing me this way, but I said before that I am not using my Asperger's as a crutch. I am not personally insulted by anyone's comments. I am simply saying that IMHO, outside readers who are Aspies will likely find the attitude expressed by Syne as offensive to Aspies generally. Parents of Aspie children will probably be shocked as well. I say that as a person with Asperger's who is concerned about others with Asperger's. But since you don't see anything wrong with it, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Thank you.

---Futilitist

. Syne and I have had hardly any issues. In some ways I like Syne, But I have seen some comments that could be "construed" as offensive towards some "readers".

And bells being combative is a individuals opinion. And it varies on the reader, and from person to person.
Just like Offensive comments.

 

[elte]

...personality software and educational software is where I think the most potential for growth lies. I imagine in 30 years we will be able to purchase different personalities for our phones that will talk to us or even answer our calls using our own voice.

That reminds me of how stem cell treatments to reverse aging would likely also alter personality as the new cells became part of the body and tended to remodel the brain. I was wondering what would be a better option, to get treated with stem cells having DNA with autism genes or without them.

 

[wynn]

His behavior warranted the reactions he got long before anyone here knew his diagnosis.

No, it doesn't.
Other than perhaps in the minds of those hellbent on a dog-eat-dog mentality.

As Bells has repeatedly said, we do not care about any diagnosis, only content. His content leaves little to empathize with.

Not at all.

:shrug:

 

[Syne]

Yes, wynn, I know you have a similar predilection for casting blame far and wide of individual responsibility. There is no surprise in your sympathy.

 

[Futilitist]

Yes, wynn, I know you have a similar predilection for casting blame far and wide of individual responsibility. There is no surprise in your sympathy.

Are you familiar with the Libet experiment? There is very good reason to believe that the concept of free will may not be valid. That would call into question the whole concept of individual responsibility, as you frame it. Check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Neuroscience of free will refers to recent neuroscientific investigation of questions concerning free will. It is a topic of philosophy and science. One question is whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions or decisions. As it has become possible to study the living brain, researchers have begun to watch decision making processes at work. Findings could carry implications for moral responsibility in general. Moreover, some research shows that if findings seem to challenge people's belief in the idea of free will itself then this can affect their sense of agency (e.g. sense of control in their life).

Relevant findings include the pioneering study by Benjamin Libet and its subsequent redesigns; these studies were able to detect activity related to a decision to move, and the activity appears to be occurring briefly before people become conscious of it. Other studies try to predict a human action several seconds early (with greater than chance accuracy). Taken together, these various findings show that at least some actions - like moving a finger - are initiated and processed unconsciously at first, and only after enter consciousness. The role of consciousness in decision making is also being clarified: some thinkers have suggested that it mostly serves to cancel certain actions initiated by the unconscious.

Also, at the group level, assigning individual responsibility is often political and based on power. I believe that "responsibility" is largely shared in groups, but that it is sometimes convenient to assign responsibility to particular individuals in order to maintain group cohesiveness. I think humans are semi consciously aware of this, and this is evident in our language and expressions. For example, what is a "fall guy"? A fall guy is unfairly given individual responsibility for the actions of others.

Correctly determining individual responsibility is a can of worms.

---Futilitist

 

[wynn]

Yes, wynn, I know you have a similar predilection for casting blame far and wide of individual responsibility. There is no surprise in your sympathy.

Beware. One day you might need someone who would understand you, relate to you, and even defend you: and there might not be anyone left who would be willing to do so.

 

[wynn]

Are you familiar with the Libet experiment? There is very good reason to believe that the concept of free will may not be valid. That would call into question the whole concept of individual responsibility, as you frame it.

Let's not go crazy.

Good interpersonal interactions simply require an amount of goodwill and generosity, even in the face of hostility.