AdeleneDawner comments on Introduction Thread: May 2009 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (22)
They're both accurate descriptions, but I think the former is clearer: The latter would likely be taken to imply that I'm nearly NT, which isn't the case at all.
I'll think about it. I expect that the hardest part of that will be figuring out which aspects of it are most interesting to other people.
Much of what I can perceive correlates well with identified brain structures. (But not 1:1 - in some cases I have slightly more information, and in some cases I have much less, about a given system or subsystem.) I can also perceive a few things that I believe are specific electrical patterns - extremely minor seizures (rare for me; more common in the population than you might think) and specific kinds of overload - and more general states, like specific kinds of mental fatigue.
With effort, I could. Did you have a particular task in mind?
This question almost doesn't make sense, but I think the proper answer is no: I can perceive and influence things about how I'm processing information that, according to my neuroscientist friend, are not normally consciously perceivable, and I can also observe the workings of various brainbits that I don't have any direct way of consciously influencing, to various degrees.
Pretty confident. What I perceive squares well with neuroscience, and on top of that, I do actually make use of my awareness. I've picked up a few tricks that way that work reliably enough to convince me even if the correlation with neuroscience wasn't so strong. The most convincing one is that I can consciously stop a brief memory from forming, if I have warning beforehand - that particular one is rarely useful, but since I can remember having done it, and what general type of information I did it to, without remembering the actual information despite much curiosity, it makes a good proof. (A more useful, but slightly less provable, one, is 'next time I see X, remember Y'. That one is also usefully reliable and has been known to trigger over a year after having been set, but there's an anthropic bias inherent in it: If it fails, I'm unlikely to realize that it has, in many situations.)
I suspect so. The correlation with neuroscience implies that my neurodifference is a difference in degree more than a difference in type, and my interactions with other people since I've figured out how to compensate for that have generally supported that theory.
You seem to be on the right track. What else are you curious about?