= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alicorn comments on On Enjoying Disagreeable Company - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (243)
To be fair, I'm not a neurotypical and have advertised this on the Internet.
I think jimrandomh may be mistaken in selecting "neurotypical" as the relevant criterion - the correlated criterion of "well-socialized" may be nearer the mark.
Good point; that terminology would do a better job of hiding the dissonance in scolding me for my autistic errors, even as Alicorn alone gets the sympathy for being non-NT. Make sure to tell Jim!
"Well-socialized", like "real number", is a perniciously misleading term.
Why?
Because society is not particularly well optimized, the implication of goodness in the modifier "well" is deceptive - a well-socialized person is quite likely to be tribalistic and repressed, for example.
They are? I would expect a well-socialized person to be secure and comfortable and friendly.
Sounds like your definition of "well-socialized" is closer to "well-adjusted" than RobinZ's.
As I understand them, skill in navigating social situations, epistemic rationality and psychological well-being are all separate features. They do seem to correlate, but the causal influences are not obvious.
ETA: Depends a lot on the standard you use, too. RobinZ is probably correct if you look at the upper quartile but less so for the 99th percentile.
As an aside, I would say that jimrandomh's point relies upon describing a substantial population - more like the set of those above the upper quartile than those above the 99th percentile.
I don't know nearly enough to defend my original stance. Consider me confused.
I think the point was that Silas is and he should have responded appropriately. Personally I think NT issue is irrelevant here unless the person receiving the message is not NT, in which case not getting it is a somewhat valid excuse.
Since you advertised it, which "bucket" are you in? My son is on the spectrum, somewhat high functioning, so potential development branches are of personal interest.
I have an Asperger's diagnosis. People who know me in person and know the details of autism symptoms find it entirely credible. People who wouldn't know an autie from any other neuroatypicality are surprised when I tell them (I'm high functioning and have decent social heuristics, and in the minds of the completely uninformed, autism = retardation plus rocking and hand flapping).
Show of hands: who thinks I'm neurotypical?
My hand is horizontal; I think Jim's assumption is that you are. If you are credibly not, and feel you did not get Alicorn's signal due to this you should say so - I think it will create an good case to smoke some peace pipes. Personally, I like you both and wish to see this settled.
Sorry, that ship has already sailed. Alicorn's not interested until first I follow a divaesque list of demands, including "justifying the [probably fake] psychological stress" of having to deal with me, the same stress that somehow manages to disappear when higher-status members do the exact same things she doesn't like.
Actually, my assumption was that he isn't, although this was not based on any strong evidence.
Whoa, when was evidence a pre-requisite for you to post strongly about something? Since two minutes ago?
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you put full credence in Alicorn's self-serving, unverifiable claim to having been diagnosed with Asberger's, despite her infamous, "Why not just meet women on the internet?" line ... am I right?
And yet the very basis for your criticism of me was that I'm making a non-NT-characteristic mistake in interpreting a social situation? Did your arguments come before or after your conclusion?
I, Lucas Sloan, do solemnly swear that Alicorn is not neurotypical, and very probably has Asperger's. I further attest that the information this comment is based on is the result of having physically interacted with her.
I'm not familiar with this “infamous” remark and I'm not sure what you're suggesting it proves or even implies. I recently read the book Born on a Blue Day, which was written by Daniel Tammet, a man with Asperger's. He writes at one point:
Tammet met his partner on the Internet. His reasoning makes sense to me. Is there something ridiculous that I am missing about the suggestion that people, especially those with autism spectrum diagnoses, meet other people on the Internet, as opposed to real life?
Of course. Just check out HughRistik's detailed explanation of how such a suggestion, like "let them eat cake" completely misunderstands the state of an AS male.
Yes, in some time and place it was possible for these internet chats to easily translate into dating for aspies, but apparently, everyone on the site seemed to disagree with Alicorn's assessment.
But taking it as a given that Alicorn's comment completely misunderstood the state of an AS male, how does it show that she also completely misunderstands the state of an AS female, and how does the comment therefore provide support for your suggestion that Alicorn's AS is in doubt because she made that comment?