1081: "Argument Victory"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1081: "Argument Victory"

Postby J Thomas » Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:58 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:I think at this point we can set aside the big long quote train and accept that while we both have positions based on various reasons, we agree that there are cases where too much certainty is troubling, but we are both unlikely to be awful babyhaters who want to [throw the world into a new stone age/new hadean era] despite not agreeing on exactly the same things.

Wanna ride the waterslide together?


Great!

On another topic, I'd like to present the possibility that the "Asperger's Syndrome" concept may not serve you.

On first sight it looks valuable. People who accept it don't consider you just an insufferable boor, they think it is not your fault because you have a disease.

But all it takes to get this disease is to decide to tell the truth as a regular thing. If you make this philosophical choice, and stick to it, you will do all the things that get people to think you have Asperger's Syndrome. You will say things that are not polite. You will say things that are awkward. As you get ostracized from polite society the rest will tend to follow.

People tend to have some concept that it's admirable to choose good philosophical principles and stick to them even though they cause you problems. We tend to admire people who do that, when it's ideals we agree with. The man who dies providing covering fire to his buddies, so they can withdraw from an untenable position. The whistleblower who reveals the horrible conspiracy though she can never again get hired for a responsible position. The journalist who braves death threats and kidnapping attempts to publish the story that powerful people want him not to tell. Etc. But in general if you do heroic things people would prefer you do them somewhere else. Far more convenient to honor your memory after you die for your ideals, than put up with you being heroic when they don't want you to.

I noticed in grade school that there were two obviously conflicting views about telling the truth. On the one hand, there's the position that you should be able to say anything you want if it's true, and nobody ought to try to stop you. On the other hand, there's the view that you have a responsibility to stand up for your honor. If somebody says something dishonorable about you or yours, you should be ready to fight them even if they far outnumber you, whether or not what they say is true. Especially if it is true. It's your responsibility not to let them say such things, and if you're too craven to stop them then that's like admitting they're true and that you're a coward, both.

People who tell the truth can expect to get into a lot of fights in grade school. It settles down later, though. If you say uncomplimentary things about people that you owe -- your employer, your patron, somebody who has done you a favor, etc -- then you show you have no loyalty and people will stop doing you favors. Why should anybody be on your side if you show you won't be on their side afterward? They mostly won't hit you. They might give you bad work reviews, scapegoat you for any failures that could have been your fault, possibly frame you for crimes, etc.

It does not make sense to act like an aspie unless you are willing to suffer for your philosophical position. But there doesn't have to be anything else wrong with you than that single mistaken ideal. People can have various sorts of brain dysfunctions that leave them unable to read body language, unable to tell when other people are uncomfortable, unable to tell when they are annoying everyone around them, etc. And those will get the same diagnosis. But they are not the same.

I say, if you are willing to suffer for telling the truth, you ought to hold out for the benefits that go along with it. You may be a political dissident, someone who deserves to emigrate to a place where they appreciate dissidents from your country. You may find people who respect you for speaking up for yourself despite the consequences. That's worth something.

If you agree that there is something wrong with your brain which makes you do it, you lose all that. And you open the way in coming years to involuntary treatment. You are causing misery for yourself and others. If a treatment is found -- perhaps involving aversive behavioral measures, painful electric shocks to your prostate etc when you misbehave, maybe -- and you could be cured, it would be a blessing for you whether you wanted it or not. You would thank them afterward. Guaranteed you would thank them afterward, since the treatment is not complete until you are ready to thank them for it....

Of course my view is only my opinion. It's one way to look at it, that I think is worth considering.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1081: "Argument Victory"

Postby blowfishhootie » Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:23 pm UTC

But all it takes to get this disease is to decide to tell the truth as a regular thing.


Do you really think that Aspberger Syndrome is nothing more than a habit of telling the truth? Aside from the fact that there are several other attributes of the disease that have nothing to do with that, there's also the fact that you can tell an uncomfortable truth and still display empathy. It is the lack of empathy (among other, unrelated things) that marks Aspberger, not always telling the truth.

You are totally misinformed as to the nature of the illness.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1081: "Argument Victory"

Postby J Thomas » Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:50 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:
But all it takes to get this disease is to decide to tell the truth as a regular thing.


Do you really think that Aspberger Syndrome is nothing more than a habit of telling the truth? Aside from the fact that there are several other attributes of the disease that have nothing to do with that, there's also the fact that you can tell an uncomfortable truth and still display empathy. It is the lack of empathy (among other, unrelated things) that marks Aspberger, not always telling the truth.

You are totally misinformed as to the nature of the illness.


There are people who lack empathy who get diagnosed (or informally diagnosed by laymen) as aspies.

But people who consistently tell the truth will also get that diagnosis. If you tell the truth it will be possible to interpret that behavior as lacking empathy.

I am not saying that the only people who get that diagnosis are people who compulsively tell the truth and have nothing else wrong with them. I am saying that people who have nothing else wrong with them will also get that diagnosis.

So for example I have not seen that Max cannot do empathy. He keeps trying to establish the truth long after most other people would quit. When he catches people lying, he doesn't necessarily let them off the hook for it right away when they want him to. Those could both look like an incapacity for empathy, but I say they are not.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1081: "Argument Victory"

Postby Max™ » Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:01 pm UTC

I have lots of empathy for animals, and people are just another type of animal.

I have difficulty with the particular type of empathy where someone knows what someone is feeling without being told that the other person is feeling a certain way.

If you are walking around depressed and upset about something, if I'm not paying attention and trying to read your cues it is unlikely that I would figure this out. If you tell me your 16 year old cat died last night I will hug you and cry with you because I understand how awful that is, but I lack the ability to directly pick up that sort of mental state.


Edit: Hah, I was looking for something to help explain this and found the same example I just used:
http://psychcentral.com/lib/2011/debunk ... ome/all/1/
6. Myth: They lack empathy.

Fact: “Empathy is a complicated concept,” Gaus said. Some researchers have divided empathy into four components: two called “cognitive empathy” and two called “emotional empathy.” People with Asperger’s struggle with cognitive empathy but have no problem with emotional empathy, she said.

Take the above example: The person with Asperger’s isn’t able to intellectually infer that the co-worker who lost their friend Catherine might be sad, especially in the moment. They might realize this hours later at home. “But when they do know the person is sad, they are able to feel that sadness without any difficulty, perhaps even more intensely than typical people,” she said. In other words, “they have difficult expressing empathy in a conventional way.” It’s a problem of communication, not empathy, she said.



With the discussion we've been having the point you are noticing is what I sum up as: I would rather be right than liked. If someone doesn't like me for who I am, who cares? If you like me and I like you, great, if you dislike me and I like you otherwise, if your dislike is based on a mistaken assumption about me I would prefer to correct that, as I would hate for you to labor under a misconception, but I'm not going to take it personally, opinions don't count.
J Thomas wrote:
Max™ wrote:I think at this point we can set aside the big long quote train and accept that while we both have positions based on various reasons, we agree that there are cases where too much certainty is troubling, but we are both unlikely to be awful babyhaters who want to [throw the world into a new stone age/new hadean era] despite not agreeing on exactly the same things.

Wanna ride the waterslide together?


Great!

On another topic, I'd like to present the possibility that the "Asperger's Syndrome" concept may not serve you.

On first sight it looks valuable. People who accept it don't consider you just an insufferable boor, they think it is not your fault because you have a disease.

But all it takes to get this disease is to decide to tell the truth as a regular thing. If you make this philosophical choice, and stick to it, you will do all the things that get people to think you have Asperger's Syndrome. You will say things that are not polite. You will say things that are awkward. As you get ostracized from polite society the rest will tend to follow.

Uh, no, it isn't quite that simple.

The normal human brain has hardware and software packages which are generally purposed for certain things, with a few packages that specifically excel at things ranging from judging distances while walking, to interpreting the mental state of other people based on various bits of information.

Most of this happens "in the background", you don't look at someone and notice that the angle they're holding their body at, the way they have their chin tucked in while they look at you, the position of their eyebrows, and the clipped ending of certain words indicates that they are saying one thing but meaning another due to their feelings on the subject.

You just know this, some people are better at it than others, but it is a fairly normal thing that is taken for granted.

For a long time I assumed that body language was a massive cultural lie; everyone assumed everyone else could observe and read it, so everyone claimed they could as well, but as I am unable to detect any sort of information content supposedly attributed to it, I was baffled as to where this claim emerged.

Various other things like this added up until I was diagnosed and learned, no, in fact everyone is not crazy and lying about shit like that, I just lack a few software packages that normally get installed as your brain matures.

It's not that I am just blunt or honest, I can consciously turn that on or off, I can't just flick a switch and naturally express and interpret body language or properly interpret subtle verbal cues or engage in eye contact without seeming a bit odd.

People tend to have some concept that it's admirable to choose good philosophical principles and stick to them even though they cause you problems. We tend to admire people who do that, when it's ideals we agree with. The man who dies providing covering fire to his buddies, so they can withdraw from an untenable position. The whistleblower who reveals the horrible conspiracy though she can never again get hired for a responsible position. The journalist who braves death threats and kidnapping attempts to publish the story that powerful people want him not to tell. Etc. But in general if you do heroic things people would prefer you do them somewhere else. Far more convenient to honor your memory after you die for your ideals, than put up with you being heroic when they don't want you to.

I noticed in grade school that there were two obviously conflicting views about telling the truth. On the one hand, there's the position that you should be able to say anything you want if it's true, and nobody ought to try to stop you. On the other hand, there's the view that you have a responsibility to stand up for your honor. If somebody says something dishonorable about you or yours, you should be ready to fight them even if they far outnumber you, whether or not what they say is true. Especially if it is true. It's your responsibility not to let them say such things, and if you're too craven to stop them then that's like admitting they're true and that you're a coward, both.

Yeah, this is reading more into what I said than I meant. I tell the truth because it's what it is. If someone makes a mistake, it doesn't make sense to me that it would be more socially acceptable to ignore it than to try and help by noting it and explaining the error. I'd be far more embarrassed at being wrong than having it be corrected publicly, it took some time to realize not everyone, in fact most people, don't feel that way.

People who tell the truth can expect to get into a lot of fights in grade school.

Wasn't grade school actually, I never got in fights in school, I was too busy helping kids with their schoolwork. Conflicts relating to social situations in school didn't exist for me, to have social conflicts requires you to consider others your peers, but kids in school were just kids to me. I don't care what they think about me, why would anyone let someone else's opinion matter to them?

Well, not quite accurate, I did get into conflicts, but that was with the school system itself, after being told enough times that I was testing at a 12th grade level or higher I began to ask why I needed to do busy work any longer, could I not simply take the appropriate tests and move on? Getting the answer "because you have to go along with the system" just agitated me so I began pushing at the boundaries of the rules til I finally left and got a G.E.D. instead. Looking back I should have just slid through and aced everything while applying for scholarships, but it didn't occur to me that I could get into college just by being smart. I figured since we were poor, that wasn't something I would be doing, so I just studied on my own.
It settles down later, though. If you say uncomplimentary things about people that you owe -- your employer, your patron, somebody who has done you a favor, etc -- then you show you have no loyalty and people will stop doing you favors. Why should anybody be on your side if you show you won't be on their side afterward? They mostly won't hit you. They might give you bad work reviews, scapegoat you for any failures that could have been your fault, possibly frame you for crimes, etc.

Oh, I know this sort of thing well enough now.

It does not make sense to act like an aspie unless you are willing to suffer for your philosophical position.

This isn't just a philosophical position, there's no such thing as an aspie philosophy, it's a specific type of developmental deficiency related to the complex neurological functions which come with being a social animal.
But there doesn't have to be anything else wrong with you than that single mistaken ideal. People can have various sorts of brain dysfunctions that leave them unable to read body language, unable to tell when other people are uncomfortable, unable to tell when they are annoying everyone around them, etc. And those will get the same diagnosis. But they are not the same.

Uh, yeah, THAT is actually what AS is, a mild form of autism, I'm not locked in my head, but I'm locked out of YOUR head in ways that most people are not.

I say, if you are willing to suffer for telling the truth, you ought to hold out for the benefits that go along with it. You may be a political dissident, someone who deserves to emigrate to a place where they appreciate dissidents from your country. You may find people who respect you for speaking up for yourself despite the consequences. That's worth something.

If you agree that there is something wrong with your brain which makes you do it, you lose all that. And you open the way in coming years to involuntary treatment. You are causing misery for yourself and others. If a treatment is found -- perhaps involving aversive behavioral measures, painful electric shocks to your prostate etc when you misbehave, maybe -- and you could be cured, it would be a blessing for you whether you wanted it or not. You would thank them afterward. Guaranteed you would thank them afterward, since the treatment is not complete until you are ready to thank them for it....

Uh, no, there's not something wrong that makes me do something, there is an explanation for why I don't "have an app for that", I can fake it and run through practiced interactions which can at times seem fairly normal, until someone does something which I'm unable to model and everything goes fuzzy in my head while I try to figure out what went wrong between my expectations and observations... which can get a little awkward when you're in a conversation and suddenly freeze up while you start going over things in your head as the other person/persons wait for a response.

Of course my view is only my opinion. It's one way to look at it, that I think is worth considering.

Well, I appreciate the thought I suppose, but you're a bit misinformed about what AS is or why I would bring it up. Like I said, it is not an excuse, I would go so far as to say if you see someone online blaming something on AS with a "not my fault" overtone, they're a self-misdiagnosed "assburgers" type who thinks it's an excuse to be an asshole.

I don't need an excuse to be an asshole, if I feel like it, I can, and if there are consequences I will deal with them.

I do think that it might be useful to explain why I do or don't respond in a typical fashion in some instances, and would describe my use of this explanation as more of a "whoops, my bad, sorry" than a "fuck you, I don't gotta apologize, Imma aspie" type of thing.
mu

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1081: "Argument Victory"

Postby J Thomas » Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:31 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:The normal human brain has hardware and software packages which are generally purposed for certain things, with a few packages that specifically excel at things ranging from judging distances while walking, to interpreting the mental state of other people based on various bits of information.

Most of this happens "in the background", you don't look at someone and notice that the angle they're holding their body at, the way they have their chin tucked in while they look at you, the position of their eyebrows, and the clipped ending of certain words indicates that they are saying one thing but meaning another due to their feelings on the subject.

You just know this, some people are better at it than others, but it is a fairly normal thing that is taken for granted.

For a long time I assumed that body language was a massive cultural lie; everyone assumed everyone else could observe and read it, so everyone claimed they could as well, but as I am unable to detect any sort of information content supposedly attributed to it, I was baffled as to where this claim emerged.

Various other things like this added up until I was diagnosed and learned, no, in fact everyone is not crazy and lying about shit like that, I just lack a few software packages that normally get installed as your brain matures.

It's not that I am just blunt or honest, I can consciously turn that on or off, I can't just flick a switch and naturally express and interpret body language or properly interpret subtle verbal cues or engage in eye contact without seeming a bit odd.


I see! So my ideas don't apply to you. You really do lack those capabilities. You might be applying them to something else, giving you extra capabilities in place of the ones you lack, or maybe they just don't work.

I tell the truth because it's what it is. If someone makes a mistake, it doesn't make sense to me that it would be more socially acceptable to ignore it than to try and help by noting it and explaining the error. I'd be far more embarrassed at being wrong than having it be corrected publicly, it took some time to realize not everyone, in fact most people, don't feel that way.


And when you did realize that, you internalized it and learned to expect it, right? People who take the philosophical position that they are right and the other people are wrong, tend to make fewer allowances even after they understand what the others are doing. "Why should I do it his way? He's wrong."

.... Conflicts relating to social situations in school didn't exist for me, to have social conflicts requires you to consider others your peers, but kids in school were just kids to me. I don't care what they think about me, why would anyone let someone else's opinion matter to them?


I wonder how much that had to do with it. If you don't care about their opinions, you may not have as much incentive to pay attention to their body language. On the other hand, if it's harder to find out about it, then you have less incentive to care.

This isn't just a philosophical position, there's no such thing as an aspie philosophy,


Back up. There could be an aspie philosophy. It just doesn't apply to you.

it's a specific type of developmental deficiency related to the complex neurological functions which come with being a social animal.


That can give the same diagnosis.

But there doesn't have to be anything else wrong with you than that single mistaken ideal. People can have various sorts of brain dysfunctions that leave them unable to read body language, unable to tell when other people are uncomfortable, unable to tell when they are annoying everyone around them, etc. And those will get the same diagnosis. But they are not the same.

Uh, yeah, THAT is actually what AS is, a mild form of autism, I'm not locked in my head, but I'm locked out of YOUR head in ways that most people are not.


Interesting! How are you about interpreting tone of voice? Can you hear human feelings in music? Can you sometimes interpret human feelings in visual art? Can you tell the different sorts of touches apart? I hope you don't mind me asking about this stuff. I know some people would be embarrassed to be the center of attention that way. I can back off if it's a problem.

I say, if you are willing to suffer for telling the truth, you ought to hold out for the benefits that go along with it. You may be a political dissident, someone who deserves to emigrate to a place where they appreciate dissidents from your country. You may find people who respect you for speaking up for yourself despite the consequences. That's worth something.

.... there's not something wrong that makes me do something, there is an explanation for why I don't "have an app for that", I can fake it and run through practiced interactions which can at times seem fairly normal, until someone does something which I'm unable to model and everything goes fuzzy in my head while I try to figure out what went wrong between my expectations and observations... which can get a little awkward when you're in a conversation and suddenly freeze up while you start going over things in your head as the other person/persons wait for a response.


I wonder how you'd do in a different culture. Like say, you went to france and you didn't already speak the language. You can expect all sorts of awkward pauses just from not knowing the words. Would you pick up the social cues when you have every excuse not to know them and people tend to give you a pass when you don't? Or is it missing circuitry that would still fail the second time around? I'm thinking that sometimes primary circuits fail, and other times they get inhibited when something secondary fails....

Do you ever go to a bar and notice when somebody who's trouble comes in? Does everybody else notice first?

Do you notice when somebody is staring at you? Do you notice when you're in a crowd and somebody is trying to approach you? I think these last two probably date back to when we were fish. I'd hate to lose them.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1081: "Argument Victory"

Postby Max™ » Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:15 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:I see! So my ideas don't apply to you. You really do lack those capabilities. You might be applying them to something else, giving you extra capabilities in place of the ones you lack, or maybe they just don't work.

Nah, I don't buy the "I'm a retard but I have superpowers" argument, there are savants, I've seen actual savant abilities, not all people with disabilities get benefits to make up for them, though it would be nice to min-max IRL some. I've got great concentration and an endless thirst for information, but that's just a personal quirk due to an innate sense that there was something wrong about everything; that there are things like a universe and I exist within it and experience the sensation of experiencing it just seemed too improbable to me, don't know why, but that formed my basic philosophy. There is nothing beyond questioning, if someone tells you that you can't question something, ask them why, and do it anyway.

I was very happy to discover that Richard Feynman also espoused a similar position; "Religion is a culture of faith. Science is a culture of doubt."

I tell the truth because it's what it is. If someone makes a mistake, it doesn't make sense to me that it would be more socially acceptable to ignore it than to try and help by noting it and explaining the error. I'd be far more embarrassed at being wrong than having it be corrected publicly, it took some time to realize not everyone, in fact most people, don't feel that way.


And when you did realize that, you internalized it and learned to expect it, right? People who take the philosophical position that they are right and the other people are wrong, tend to make fewer allowances even after they understand what the others are doing. "Why should I do it his way? He's wrong."

Well, I still have to remind myself about this, and I generally tend to do my best to make the world deal with me on my terms due to the defensive habits I developed originally. "You want to get into a fight with me for no reason? Fine, I'll learn how to fight and carry a stick around, bring it the fuck on!"

I have softened some due to the influence of my woman, she helps me be a better person, rather than just being a big human-looking cat like I had been.

.... Conflicts relating to social situations in school didn't exist for me, to have social conflicts requires you to consider others your peers, but kids in school were just kids to me. I don't care what they think about me, why would anyone let someone else's opinion matter to them?


I wonder how much that had to do with it. If you don't care about their opinions, you may not have as much incentive to pay attention to their body language. On the other hand, if it's harder to find out about it, then you have less incentive to care.

Eh, they are related, but the body language was something that I noticed popping up in like 3rd or 4th grade I think? Originally I was clearly ahead of other kids because we were all on the same level regarding social skills but I had been actively learning and studying since I learned to read, so I started kindergarten around the same time I started learning about relativity. I noticed other kids seemed to have less knowledge, so I spent my time helping out, showing them how to figure out things rather than giving them answers, and so on.

Later I noticed that while I still knew far more information, there was a distinct difference between myself and everyone else, and odd behavior involving a preference for being in groups and fitting in. That was when I began to suspect everyone else was crazy, particularly after this body language hooey came up, as I mentioned above.

This isn't just a philosophical position, there's no such thing as an aspie philosophy,


Back up. There could be an aspie philosophy. It just doesn't apply to you.

There is no such thing as a prototypical aspie, so there is no way for there to be an overarching aspie philosophy.

Want a funny bit of irony? I got banned from wrongplanet for mentioning that I liked to troll on another forum due to the generally more jovial attitude there (bluegartr, a ffxi forum that morphed into an odd community of current and ex-players) and got banned because my post was misread to imply that I liked to troll on wp as well. I attempted to explain this to the admin but gave up when I realized I didn't particularly care if they reversed the ban so long as I was confident I had made my case and that they could enjoy being wrong if they wanted.

it's a specific type of developmental deficiency related to the complex neurological functions which come with being a social animal.


That can give the same diagnosis.

Well, the diagnosis is only accurate if it fits certain criteria, an insistence on truth-telling does not fit, though excessively literal use of language is a sub-section of one of the required criteria.

Interesting! How are you about interpreting tone of voice? Can you hear human feelings in music? Can you sometimes interpret human feelings in visual art? Can you tell the different sorts of touches apart? I hope you don't mind me asking about this stuff. I know some people would be embarrassed to be the center of attention that way. I can back off if it's a problem.

I'm awful at it, I have no vocal affect either, it apparently surprises people to learn I'm from Texas because I have no noticeable accent unless I say "ya'll", which I only use because English lacks a proper version of "ustedes".

I suspect I may have something like a synesthetic response to music, though I haven't been diagnosed with it officially, but I get a very visual and spatial impression from music, shapes and positions. Probably why I'm drawn to drums, mapping what I hear to most instruments is difficult (guitar notes are squiggly jagged shapes at different vertical positions relative to my temples, but matching each shape to a specific chord is not something I'm good at, not enough resolution and I can't "see" them because they aren't in front of me), but drums (low, round, oriented to my sides and in front of me) fit naturally. Language is the same way, which makes me fantastic at spelling or memorizing things, I hear a word and see letters, if I've read the word before I can spell it accurately every time, if I know the language and general rules I can often fake it, and I can produce reasonable phonetic interpretations. Numbers are a plane, positive real to my right positive imaginary vertical. Grouping shapes and manipulating them across the plane is doing math, though I actually have to deliberately manipulate the images, unlike say Daniel Tammet who I imagine has an effect more like my sense of drums/spelling when it comes to numbers.

3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899...
pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosises


I wonder how you'd do in a different culture. Like say, you went to france and you didn't already speak the language. You can expect all sorts of awkward pauses just from not knowing the words. Would you pick up the social cues when you have every excuse not to know them and people tend to give you a pass when you don't? Or is it missing circuitry that would still fail the second time around? I'm thinking that sometimes primary circuits fail, and other times they get inhibited when something secondary fails....

I've already experienced this in mostly spanish speaking groups. I understand enough spanish to get by after acclimatizing to it, but there is still a lack of cues and body language.

Do you ever go to a bar and notice when somebody who's trouble comes in? Does everybody else notice first?

People notice that? >.<

Do you notice when somebody is staring at you? Do you notice when you're in a crowd and somebody is trying to approach you? I think these last two probably date back to when we were fish. I'd hate to lose them.
[/quote]
Now, this I notice on an animal level, think about how you'd react if you were walking around surrounded by horses and dogs, you can tell when they're paying attention to you, but can you really figure out what they're thinking?

I perhaps have a slight advantage in that the effort needed to model an animals mental state is generally less than that required for humans, I start to have difficulty once we get up to orangutan or dolphin complexity, and chimps are just as hard to interpret as humans or elephants.
mu

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1081: "Argument Victory"

Postby blowfishhootie » Wed Jul 18, 2012 10:37 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:
But all it takes to get this disease is to decide to tell the truth as a regular thing.


Do you really think that Aspberger Syndrome is nothing more than a habit of telling the truth? Aside from the fact that there are several other attributes of the disease that have nothing to do with that, there's also the fact that you can tell an uncomfortable truth and still display empathy. It is the lack of empathy (among other, unrelated things) that marks Aspberger, not always telling the truth.

You are totally misinformed as to the nature of the illness.


There are people who lack empathy who get diagnosed (or informally diagnosed by laymen) as aspies.

But people who consistently tell the truth will also get that diagnosis. If you tell the truth it will be possible to interpret that behavior as lacking empathy.


You can say this over and over in as many different ways as you want, and it will never be true. If you tell the truth without empathy it can be interpreted as a lack of empathy. For example, a doctor who has the misfortune of telling a patient he has just days to live and not understanding why this causes the patient to freak out is telling the truth without empathy. A business executive who constantly points out his employee's flaws without ever noticing their strengths is probably telling the truth without empathy. But just because these ways of telling the truth exist does not mean every person who tells the truth is guilty of doing it without empathy. Most doctors would anticipate the patient freaking out and would share the news in the most comforting way possible. They've done nothing but tell the truth, and yet nobody who has a shred of a clue as to what Asperger Syndrome is could ever accuse him of having it. This flies in the face of your claim. An executive who both compliments his employees when they do something well and points out where his employees can improve is doing nothing but tell the truth, but there can be no question Asperger Syndrome is not present.

I repeat, if you think telling the truth is the same as having Aspergers, no matter how many different ways you restate that stupid, stupid sentence, then you have no clue whatsoever what Asperger Syndrome is. Your asinine argument assumes both that the truth is usually unpleasant, and that there is no way to share an unpleasant truth that won't be interpreted as antisocial. Both of those assumptions are ridiculous. You sound like you are trying to justify to yourself either being an asshole or being a compulsive liar.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1081: "Argument Victory"

Postby J Thomas » Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:51 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:
J Thomas wrote: ....
There are people who lack empathy who get diagnosed (or informally diagnosed by laymen) as aspies.

But people who consistently tell the truth will also get that diagnosis. If you tell the truth it will be possible to interpret that behavior as lacking empathy.


....

I repeat, if you think telling the truth is the same as having Aspergers, no matter how many different ways you restate that stupid, stupid sentence, then you have no clue whatsoever what Asperger Syndrome is. Your asinine argument assumes both that the truth is usually unpleasant, and that there is no way to share an unpleasant truth that won't be interpreted as antisocial. Both of those assumptions are ridiculous. You sound like you are trying to justify to yourself either being an asshole or being a compulsive liar.


My empathy is functioning. I detect .... hostility.

Look, my view makes sense from my experience. probably it does not make sense from your no-doubt-extensive experience, and your background assumptions. Could we perhaps live and let live? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you don't actually know the only way it can ever be. I agree that AS is often not the way I describe. Can we agree to disagree?
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1081: "Argument Victory"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:39 am UTC

hawkinsssable wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:For instance, when asked to pin a political alignment label on myself (which I'm reluctant to do in earnest) I will say "conservatively progressive libertarian socialist" and then invite people to ask wtf that means, since most on either the mainstream left or the mainstream right will consider that phrase a complete contradiction in terms. How they explain the "contradictory" parts sheds light on which "side" they favor, and lets me know which foot to lead with as we begin the dance of rational discourse instead of the usual and customary shouting matches most people seem to prefer.


On this note: It seems like that actually describes a particular sort of ideology. I'd assume 'libertarian socialist' is just another title for / slight variant of left libertarianism (exploitation is impossible if we all start equal!), and that 'conservatively progressive' just means "I'm all for progress / place no value on the status quo per se, but think we should be very cautious of unforeseen consequences." To me, the only real contradiction is that left libertarianism, since it involves both massive redistribution of resources and the end of the state as we know it, seems to demand a lot of 'progress' and not very much caution.

Is this kinda on the right track, or is the label just a handy tool to find out what people believe?

It is partly on track, but the label is mostly a tool. Common labels are too easily misinterpreted (usually in multiple ways), so I don't like to use them at all. Instead I use one that will be hard to interpret for the kind of people who are quick to paint you as friend or foe and judge you by that group membership instead of what you say. If you've heard of the position which is actually called "libertarian socialism", or even "left libertarianism", odds are you already aren't one of those people, and would give me a chance to explain how I'm not exactly a typical one of them either anyway.

On which note, without starting a long subthread about what exactly my position it, I can say that you are spot on about what I mean by "conservatively progressive": I mean "conservative" in a sense of "not radical", lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater; and "progressive" in a sense of "not reactionary", open to and interested in improvements from the status quo. That describes my approach to change, but says nothing about what ends I would aim that conservative progress toward.

"Libertarian socialist" serves as a label for those ends in that phrase, but I don't mean it in the same sense as those who normally label themselves thus. Rather than "exploitation is impossible if we all start equal!", I say more that massive persistent (even growing) inequality is evidence of imperfect liberty, which calls for a "bug hunt" in programming terms: finding where those lapses in liberty are. I've done (and continue to do) such a bug hunt and found that a closer examination of "right-libertarian" principles (of property rights, in particular) will reveal a system which is naturally distributivist; where unlike under traditional (right-)libertarian interpretations of property rights, wealth cannot so effortlessly be used to accumulate more wealth, and so those who are more wealthy will have to labor just as hard to maintain their wealth advantage, or (more likely) they can continue (for a while) to live off their wealth, but only at the expense of that wealth, paying it to those who are laboring for them (most likely because they lack such wealth), until they reach a point where they need to labor just as much as the next guy to keep up. There may still be wealth disparities proportionate to ability, but along more of a gaussian distribution (as with ability) than the logarithmic distribution we see today; or (perhaps more likely) the more able will simply have more leisure time as they are able to meet the common standard of wealth more easily. All this by having the state do less, not more, and without abolishing private property but rather strengthening it.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

jonsimon
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 pm UTC

Re: 1081: "Argument Victory"

Postby jonsimon » Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:33 am UTC

Some people have time to plot evil things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

My favorite is the part about the former Nuremburg medical tribunal member conducting human lsd experiements without informed consent or regard for safety.

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: 1081: "Argument Victory"

Postby webgiant » Wed Aug 08, 2012 9:31 pm UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:I'm not. I don't trust Disney when it comes to politics.

But I must agree. As someone who works in government the very idea that anyone has time to plot evilly is actually laughable.

Everyone in government has the time to plot evilly. Implementation of one's evil plans tends to go by the wayside, getting relegated to a Walter Mitty style of fantasy universe.

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: 1081: "Argument Victory"

Postby webgiant » Wed Aug 08, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:"Libertarian socialist" serves as a label for those ends in that phrase, but I don't mean it in the same sense as those who normally label themselves thus.

Since no one knows your made-up word definitions, you're better off not bothering with a label in the first place. We will assume it sounds the way its spelled, and will not pronounce it Throat-Wobbler-Mangrove without a paragraph that renders the original label meaningless.

Llywelyn
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:56 am UTC

Re: 1081: "Argument Victory"

Postby Llywelyn » Sun Aug 19, 2012 2:07 am UTC

jonsimon wrote:Some people have time to plot evil things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra


This.

The lede isn't the LSD experiments (worse was done to test radiation levels in infants in the US & in other human experiments around the world, including the children born in Norway to Nazi fathers). The lede is that they successfully raped teens in bids to blackmail the CIA's legislative & budget ovrsight and it worked; they successfully hid the whole thing & destroyed their own records; & the damned thing was discovered by accident because of a filing error.

Today, records are indexed on a network, which opens the risk of a WikiLeaks scenario but also of complete and thorough memoryholing.

It's hard to say where it would fit into a high school curriculum, but the story should be told more without the humor and dismissal of oh-yeah-that-psychic-and-drug-BS-they-used-to-get-up-to.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1081: "Argument Victory"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:38 am UTC

webgiant wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:"Libertarian socialist" serves as a label for those ends in that phrase, but I don't mean it in the same sense as those who normally label themselves thus.

Since no one knows your made-up word definitions, you're better off not bothering with a label in the first place. We will assume it sounds the way its spelled, and will not pronounce it Throat-Wobbler-Mangrove without a paragraph that renders the original label meaningless.

I do mean it in a sense close to those who normally label themselves thus, though; in a "family resemblance" sort of way, but not a strict "yes I buy all of their tenants verbatim". But if "liberal" and "conservative" and "socialist" and "libertarian" and every other political label can be appropriated by whoever feels that group "feels" closest to their beliefs, even if everyone else in that group is going to say they're No True ___alistivian*, I'm fine with roughly labeling myself "libertarian socialist" and sorting out the details later.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AlgaeSea and 45 guests