People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds(sciencedaily.com)
sciencedaily.com
People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/10/231026131628.htm
361 comments
If I'm reading the statistics in the study correctly [0], most of these 80 incidents (70%) were pulled from CCTV footage at a "night time drinking setting." Groups of 18 people on average standing around bars, presumably outside. In 20% of cases someone de-escalated, 5% of the time a bystander joined in to escalate the violent encounter, and 4% it was a mix of escalation/de-escalation. Presumably the rest of the time no one intervened.
This is not an ideal setting to analyze the bystander effect. People are drunk. People know each other. People may have just met but started bonding over alcohol (and cigarettes, if we are outside the bar). Seems more like a study of the behavior of drunk people than anything else.
Fair warning, I'm not great at interpreting statistics nor reading sociological studies, I prefer to read about medicine. I'm open to being corrected.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6790599/
This is not an ideal setting to analyze the bystander effect. People are drunk. People know each other. People may have just met but started bonding over alcohol (and cigarettes, if we are outside the bar). Seems more like a study of the behavior of drunk people than anything else.
Fair warning, I'm not great at interpreting statistics nor reading sociological studies, I prefer to read about medicine. I'm open to being corrected.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6790599/
Yeah but we re talking about the real world. If we re honest, when do most conflicts arise with bystanders ready? When people are drunk at night... (or similarly mentally impaired maybe? why do people have open conflicts in the streets in the first place should be part of the theory).
So you might say that if the theory didnt take alcohol, nights and all your factors into account, then it was as useful as considering investors as rational in an econ theory and predicted nothing worth predicting.
So you might say that if the theory didnt take alcohol, nights and all your factors into account, then it was as useful as considering investors as rational in an econ theory and predicted nothing worth predicting.
Bystander effect is more than just street fights at 1am.
When I saw the title of this piece, my first thought was an emergency situation (eg - automobile accident, building on fire).
Did the study even determine whether bystanders were independent individuals or had a prior relationship to the belligerents? If the second one then it feels like the study is invalidated.
When I saw the title of this piece, my first thought was an emergency situation (eg - automobile accident, building on fire).
Did the study even determine whether bystanders were independent individuals or had a prior relationship to the belligerents? If the second one then it feels like the study is invalidated.
Bystander effect is thought to arise due to a fear of standing out. Alcohol inhibits that fear, which is why it's a social drug.
It's like a study concluding that depression doesn't exist by studying a bunch of people who are medicated for depression.
It's like a study concluding that depression doesn't exist by studying a bunch of people who are medicated for depression.
Intervention by a drunk to stop the fight of more-drunks is part of standard bar protocol, plus inhibitions are lower thanks to alcohol
Doubtful it represents most real bystander situations where you actually need to make a choice, like situations in daily life where you are busy going about your business (rather than being in a bar literally for this sort of fun), or low key stuff like bullying, harassment, etc etc.
Doubtful it represents most real bystander situations where you actually need to make a choice, like situations in daily life where you are busy going about your business (rather than being in a bar literally for this sort of fun), or low key stuff like bullying, harassment, etc etc.
I think people realize too the bar scene attracts shady characters who may retaliate and drag you into an escalating drama you don't want to stick around and find out and have to start dodging bullets or knifes or something outrageous.
I'm inclined to agree simply because humans are way too complex to be defined in that way.
But I have a story of a pretty horrible case of bystaderism that I saw 10+ years ago. A man suddenly had an epileptic fit, or something of that effect, in the street. I was about 30 meters away and saw hos this man just fell to the ground suddenly. On a busy downtown street in Sweden's 4th largest city. People who were walking behind him literally stepped over him and kept walking while I ran towards him to see what was wrong.
But I wasn't the only one who ran to him. The stand out thing was specifically a couple who were walking at his pace behind him and just stepped over him and kept walking, a young couple too in their 20s. Very strange and forever stuck in my head.
But both me and several others rushed to his aide and stayed with him, held him in the side position, until he regained consciousness.
Anyways, about 10 years later I find out I have mild autism.
But I have a story of a pretty horrible case of bystaderism that I saw 10+ years ago. A man suddenly had an epileptic fit, or something of that effect, in the street. I was about 30 meters away and saw hos this man just fell to the ground suddenly. On a busy downtown street in Sweden's 4th largest city. People who were walking behind him literally stepped over him and kept walking while I ran towards him to see what was wrong.
But I wasn't the only one who ran to him. The stand out thing was specifically a couple who were walking at his pace behind him and just stepped over him and kept walking, a young couple too in their 20s. Very strange and forever stuck in my head.
But both me and several others rushed to his aide and stayed with him, held him in the side position, until he regained consciousness.
Anyways, about 10 years later I find out I have mild autism.
The wikipedia page seems slightly one-sided, not mentioning recent high profile cases where people who intervened in public violence or threats of it were severely punished. The perception that this rate might be changing surely contributes to the actions of everyday people.
Counter-counter example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/10/24...
The Bystander was a huge problem in China as recently as 10 years ago, until Chinese authorities made changes to the law.
It's still an issue in India today. (https://www.outlookindia.com/national/explained-delhi-teen-m...)
Quite oddly, the bystander effect is biggest in countries that celebrate collective action, and the smallest in countries with strong individualist bents.
The Bystander was a huge problem in China as recently as 10 years ago, until Chinese authorities made changes to the law.
It's still an issue in India today. (https://www.outlookindia.com/national/explained-delhi-teen-m...)
Quite oddly, the bystander effect is biggest in countries that celebrate collective action, and the smallest in countries with strong individualist bents.
the narrative about the bystander effect is not real either. two of Kitty Genovese's neighbors helped her, one even confronting her attacker. there were also several calls to the police.
Maybe the knowledge of the bystander effect makes people consciously avoid it. Plus all those set-up shows where they get people to do "off" shit and see how people react.
[deleted]
Anecdotal evidence: around me, several kids are on the autistic spectrum. It's hard to prevent them from intervening when they notice what they feel is an injustice, towards them or others.
At some point, this included one of them regularly attempting to rescue babies from baby trolleys, which they considered a prison. Fortunately, the would-be rescuer was only aged 3 at the time.
At some point, this included one of them regularly attempting to rescue babies from baby trolleys, which they considered a prison. Fortunately, the would-be rescuer was only aged 3 at the time.
Hi, I posted this study because I have Asperger’s and this is what was always said about my behavior.
Yesterday I literally had to stop myself from sending photographs to the police of a guy walking his dog off leash in a park that has signs forbidding it. And my reason for wanting to call the police is because of my compassion for the dog or for anyone the dog to hurt. Not so much that it was only that the man was doing something wrong. And I think that’s what gets missed in those of us with ASD, there is still a strong, empathy and compassion that motivates us.
Yesterday I literally had to stop myself from sending photographs to the police of a guy walking his dog off leash in a park that has signs forbidding it. And my reason for wanting to call the police is because of my compassion for the dog or for anyone the dog to hurt. Not so much that it was only that the man was doing something wrong. And I think that’s what gets missed in those of us with ASD, there is still a strong, empathy and compassion that motivates us.
It might be important to realise that signs and rules are made up by sign-makers and rule-makers; often to their benefit. Reality doesnt come with a rule about leashing dogs on grass.
It feels like something is going wrong here in your connecting a dog being off a leash with somehow empathy for the dog.
I read your impulse to act here as your mind being hijacked by the sign-maker to conscript you into their preferred system of rules.
Evaluate all signs, rules, commands in just the same way you evaluate the most average sort of person reading these things out in front of you. Who are you? Why? What do you want? and so on
It feels like something is going wrong here in your connecting a dog being off a leash with somehow empathy for the dog.
I read your impulse to act here as your mind being hijacked by the sign-maker to conscript you into their preferred system of rules.
Evaluate all signs, rules, commands in just the same way you evaluate the most average sort of person reading these things out in front of you. Who are you? Why? What do you want? and so on
There are literally countless videos online of unleashed dogs attacking other dogs, animals, children and adults. Even if you think your precious Fifi would never do such a thing a leash keeps them safe and close to you in the event something happens or scares them off.
For this reason using a leash is not only a recommendation on a sign but the law in many locales.
For this reason using a leash is not only a recommendation on a sign but the law in many locales.
I don't have a dog, but i've known many and never a dangerous one. In the UK its very common to have large parks with dogs just running around; I'm not aware of any cases where this has caused a problem.
I've no objection to the rule. My issue is with how the rule is being interpreted. If someone were to ask, 'please keep a leash on' i'd expect people to be polite enough to do so.
But that's the gravity of the situation here. In almost no universe is the guy we're talking about one of these fringe youtube dog owners you're having some fantasy about.
This is the problem with these abstractions: they invite people to have fantasies of catastrophe rather than engage with the reality in front of them
And what are these fantasy scenarios but just another mechanism by which a brutal system of values comes to be imposed?
Consider the police coming out here and enforcing such a value on this guy walking his dog. Concretely, which is worse: police discipline or a dog in a park ?
I've no objection to the rule. My issue is with how the rule is being interpreted. If someone were to ask, 'please keep a leash on' i'd expect people to be polite enough to do so.
But that's the gravity of the situation here. In almost no universe is the guy we're talking about one of these fringe youtube dog owners you're having some fantasy about.
This is the problem with these abstractions: they invite people to have fantasies of catastrophe rather than engage with the reality in front of them
And what are these fantasy scenarios but just another mechanism by which a brutal system of values comes to be imposed?
Consider the police coming out here and enforcing such a value on this guy walking his dog. Concretely, which is worse: police discipline or a dog in a park ?
- A 2021 study of fatal dog attacks in Europe during the period 1995–2016 placed the United Kingdom (with 56 fatalities) as fourth in the top five countries for number of human fatalities alongside Hungary (#1), France (#2), Romania (#3), and Poland (#5).
- Hospital episode data for England also reveal an upward trend in the number of attendances for dog related injuries in the past 15 years. There has been an 88% increase in attendances, from 4699 in 2007 to 8819 in 2021-22.
- BBC News - Dog attacks: 34% increase recorded by police in England and Wales (2023). Last year, there were nearly 22,000 cases of out-of-control dogs causing injury. In 2018, there were just over 16,000.
But hey, you weren't a witness to any of this, so I'm sure it never happens. If you are trolling well played. You might as well argue we don't need seatbelt laws since you've never been in a crash.
- Hospital episode data for England also reveal an upward trend in the number of attendances for dog related injuries in the past 15 years. There has been an 88% increase in attendances, from 4699 in 2007 to 8819 in 2021-22.
- BBC News - Dog attacks: 34% increase recorded by police in England and Wales (2023). Last year, there were nearly 22,000 cases of out-of-control dogs causing injury. In 2018, there were just over 16,000.
But hey, you weren't a witness to any of this, so I'm sure it never happens. If you are trolling well played. You might as well argue we don't need seatbelt laws since you've never been in a crash.
I'm not arguing against dog leash laws; nor against dog leash signs. The dog leashing issue is irrelevant to my point.
My point is about the role of such signs and rules in policing people's behaviour in the abstract.
If, in the situation so-described, the owner and their dog were in any way an actual danger, then they should be reprimanded. If they werent, then let's observe that they werent.
56 fatal dog attacks in a decade is perhaps lower than what i would have guessed anyway. I would have bet higher.
I just dont see why when invited to imagine that on some sunny day in a park, a person walking their dog without a leash, is precipitating the 57th death. This is absurd.
Removing all the information from the situation and reducing down to a fantasy of possible violence is the pretence here for 'preventing harm'. This prevents no harm in the particular situation involved.
I have no doubt dogs are dangerous, as is almost everything. I have extreme levels of doubt that some random guy in a park with a dog off a leash has anything to do with any marginal changes to the safety of people in that park.
My concern is how this snowballs in people's imaginations away from the concrete reality into some abstraction where there are victims involved.
My point is about the role of such signs and rules in policing people's behaviour in the abstract.
If, in the situation so-described, the owner and their dog were in any way an actual danger, then they should be reprimanded. If they werent, then let's observe that they werent.
56 fatal dog attacks in a decade is perhaps lower than what i would have guessed anyway. I would have bet higher.
I just dont see why when invited to imagine that on some sunny day in a park, a person walking their dog without a leash, is precipitating the 57th death. This is absurd.
Removing all the information from the situation and reducing down to a fantasy of possible violence is the pretence here for 'preventing harm'. This prevents no harm in the particular situation involved.
I have no doubt dogs are dangerous, as is almost everything. I have extreme levels of doubt that some random guy in a park with a dog off a leash has anything to do with any marginal changes to the safety of people in that park.
My concern is how this snowballs in people's imaginations away from the concrete reality into some abstraction where there are victims involved.
You have not asked me once about what types of dogs they were or how the dogs were behaving. so I would say it’s you. That’s operating without any data and it’s just acting out of your imagination.
But it’s irrelevant. Because you’re just thinking about people being in danger and not the dog being in danger or not if it is disturb the other animals that also have at the park like the squirrels in the birds.
You’re only seeing the dog owner as the victim in the circumstance.
And all that doesn’t matter either, because we as a community created this rule, this law, that your dog needs to be on a leash went in this park. If you don’t like the law, you could push to overturn the law. Or if you don’t like the law, you can move to a place that doesn’t have these laws.
We have decided that the risk of even a slight chance of a dog hurting someone is more important than the slight inconvenience of someone having a dog on a leash. Of all people you in data science should understand risk benefit. What is the harm of a dog being on a leash?
But it’s irrelevant. Because you’re just thinking about people being in danger and not the dog being in danger or not if it is disturb the other animals that also have at the park like the squirrels in the birds.
You’re only seeing the dog owner as the victim in the circumstance.
And all that doesn’t matter either, because we as a community created this rule, this law, that your dog needs to be on a leash went in this park. If you don’t like the law, you could push to overturn the law. Or if you don’t like the law, you can move to a place that doesn’t have these laws.
We have decided that the risk of even a slight chance of a dog hurting someone is more important than the slight inconvenience of someone having a dog on a leash. Of all people you in data science should understand risk benefit. What is the harm of a dog being on a leash?
As I said, it's not really about the leash -- nor the sign.
It's about people who deputise themselves in the service of these rules, and who imagine risk, and appoint themselves enforces of a social order of values that is insensitive to particulars.
There are many things I dislike, take littering. I would find it very obnoxious for a person to litter in a park, and to ignore the signs against it.
But I feel no compulsion to go discipline them, or involve myself in their disciplining, or deputise myself as a member of some social police force. Were they to be murdering someone, that would be different.
I am not a person who 'thinks of the children', quite the opposite. I think of a world designed for children, and would then go out of my way to destroy it.
I am unsympathetic with these 'daily oppressions' which constrain people's lived freedom, in the service of radical abstractions with marginal effects; the service of imagined dangers, and the like.
I would much prefer a society in which people occasionally littered to one in which no one dead out of fear of some reprisal.
The problem with "what's the harm" thinking is its aggregation. When you have disciplined people's daily lives to that degree where all these "what's the harm"-level rules are in operation -- then you're living in a nightmare.
It is for this reason I took against ever living in america. Where 'neighbourly policing' seems everywhere; and 'city bylaws' run amok
It's about people who deputise themselves in the service of these rules, and who imagine risk, and appoint themselves enforces of a social order of values that is insensitive to particulars.
There are many things I dislike, take littering. I would find it very obnoxious for a person to litter in a park, and to ignore the signs against it.
But I feel no compulsion to go discipline them, or involve myself in their disciplining, or deputise myself as a member of some social police force. Were they to be murdering someone, that would be different.
I am not a person who 'thinks of the children', quite the opposite. I think of a world designed for children, and would then go out of my way to destroy it.
I am unsympathetic with these 'daily oppressions' which constrain people's lived freedom, in the service of radical abstractions with marginal effects; the service of imagined dangers, and the like.
I would much prefer a society in which people occasionally littered to one in which no one dead out of fear of some reprisal.
The problem with "what's the harm" thinking is its aggregation. When you have disciplined people's daily lives to that degree where all these "what's the harm"-level rules are in operation -- then you're living in a nightmare.
It is for this reason I took against ever living in america. Where 'neighbourly policing' seems everywhere; and 'city bylaws' run amok
Just stop, people want dogs leashed in public for safety. This isn't some social order of insensitive assholes, this is because people actually get maimed by dogs and it's easier to have a blanket rule that all dogs (or all animals) must be leashed.
There is no magical effect of some cadre of people trying to enforce some silliness onto the general public, there's a reason behind these laws.
There is no magical effect of some cadre of people trying to enforce some silliness onto the general public, there's a reason behind these laws.
I think the op is saying, and I might not disagree with them, that a world where dogs run free is a better world, even if it’s more dangerous.
I'm saying a world with too many of these signs in it is worse than one with too few.
I'd prefer to visit a park with unleashed dogs than one where busy-bodies were constantly on the look out for rule violations.
The second one feels more unsafe to me; more repulsive; more invasive.
A busy-body is a much worse creature than a dog
I'd prefer to visit a park with unleashed dogs than one where busy-bodies were constantly on the look out for rule violations.
The second one feels more unsafe to me; more repulsive; more invasive.
A busy-body is a much worse creature than a dog
The UK is also the third most populous country in that study, so that’s not surprising.
I’m not sure the reason behind the rise, but my anecdotal experience is that people are more likely now to keep their dog on a lead than they were in the past.
We have seen a rise in poorly bred and poorly socialised large breed dogs over the past few decades, the latest being the XL Bully. My guess is they are contributing significantly to the rise in attacks.
Also speaking as someone who always keeps their dog on a lead in parks, the lead is really more of a suggestion for a big dog. If a Bully, Doberman or even a Husky wants to attack, a lead won’t stop it.
I’m not sure the reason behind the rise, but my anecdotal experience is that people are more likely now to keep their dog on a lead than they were in the past.
We have seen a rise in poorly bred and poorly socialised large breed dogs over the past few decades, the latest being the XL Bully. My guess is they are contributing significantly to the rise in attacks.
Also speaking as someone who always keeps their dog on a lead in parks, the lead is really more of a suggestion for a big dog. If a Bully, Doberman or even a Husky wants to attack, a lead won’t stop it.
Can you imagine if the whole country was run this way? Please don’t steal things from other peoples houses.
In this case, the discipline on the person who would be a fine. What do you think they’re going to do? Beat him and throw him in jail?
As I said, I’m an advocate for anarchism, so my view on the police should be clear. But we do not live in an anarchistic society, and this is all I have to work with. unlimited freedom for each individual is untenable. That’s what you are looking for. I’m going to make the obvious observation that you’re probably a libertarian.
The truth is that the dog owner was not being compassionate to other people, rather he was focusing so on himself. He was being selfish, and that to me was the moral failing here, it had nothing to do with the rules, as I said, but the rules aligned with my moral beliefs.
In this case, the discipline on the person who would be a fine. What do you think they’re going to do? Beat him and throw him in jail?
As I said, I’m an advocate for anarchism, so my view on the police should be clear. But we do not live in an anarchistic society, and this is all I have to work with. unlimited freedom for each individual is untenable. That’s what you are looking for. I’m going to make the obvious observation that you’re probably a libertarian.
The truth is that the dog owner was not being compassionate to other people, rather he was focusing so on himself. He was being selfish, and that to me was the moral failing here, it had nothing to do with the rules, as I said, but the rules aligned with my moral beliefs.
> Please don’t steal things from other peoples houses.
That is how the country is run.
You can, if you so wish, steal from peoples houses with impunity. The crime will very rarely be investigated, you're unlikely to be caught, etc.
This system of black/white rules that you perceive exists, does not. This misperception lies at the origin of what's trigged your impulse to imagine some threat (which then triggers compassion).
Rather social reality comprises a series of negotiations whose moral content lies in how that delicate interaction takes place. Reducing this down to a chessboard-like system with presumed violent enforcement is itself immoral. It deprives people from living in this negotiated space where morality can take place.
That is how the country is run.
You can, if you so wish, steal from peoples houses with impunity. The crime will very rarely be investigated, you're unlikely to be caught, etc.
This system of black/white rules that you perceive exists, does not. This misperception lies at the origin of what's trigged your impulse to imagine some threat (which then triggers compassion).
Rather social reality comprises a series of negotiations whose moral content lies in how that delicate interaction takes place. Reducing this down to a chessboard-like system with presumed violent enforcement is itself immoral. It deprives people from living in this negotiated space where morality can take place.
So now you wouldn’t call the place if you saw someone breaking into someone else’s house? Would you even call your neighbor? Would you do anything yourself? Gather gang of people together and go over there? But then you would be the police wouldn’t you?
As ever, it would be a case-by-case basis. I do not reason from the abstract to the particular, which i find generally immoral. Rather I consider the particular in all its details.
In general, someone breaking into a house is a present dangerous and serious threat. On that basis I would call the police, etc.
If someone opened the door, saw a mobile, grabbed it and ran off -- then i'd maybe leave a note with the neighbor
In general, someone breaking into a house is a present dangerous and serious threat. On that basis I would call the police, etc.
If someone opened the door, saw a mobile, grabbed it and ran off -- then i'd maybe leave a note with the neighbor
I don't have a dog
This largely disqualifies all your subsequent opinionation. I could tell you some stories about the ups and downs of owning/training large working dogs, but instead I'd urge you to reflect on whether your elaborate critique of abstraction is grounded in anything firmer than your assumptions.
This largely disqualifies all your subsequent opinionation. I could tell you some stories about the ups and downs of owning/training large working dogs, but instead I'd urge you to reflect on whether your elaborate critique of abstraction is grounded in anything firmer than your assumptions.
This struck me as so absurdly anti-social with a pinch of blatant dismissal for why certain rules in public spaces exist to begin with that it reads like you're intentionally trolling the parent in bad faith.
You know what also doesn't care about the rules of ordered society and the potentially deadly consequences of breaking them? Animals.
Disagree? Only a fool spitting into the wind would permit me to unleash my seemingly subservient Dobermann into the "reality" of instinct for just a minute while we had that hot debate in a public park. I care about its life---and the lives of peaceful strangers there to also enjoy the public space, and the lives of birds making a pitstop on a long migratory journey, and the lives of squirrels that call a resident tree home, and even your life when you decide to raise your voice in a way that may or may not be perceived as threatening---to recognize the unabashed arrogance of doing so.
That's the empathy perspective you're missing.
You know what also doesn't care about the rules of ordered society and the potentially deadly consequences of breaking them? Animals.
Disagree? Only a fool spitting into the wind would permit me to unleash my seemingly subservient Dobermann into the "reality" of instinct for just a minute while we had that hot debate in a public park. I care about its life---and the lives of peaceful strangers there to also enjoy the public space, and the lives of birds making a pitstop on a long migratory journey, and the lives of squirrels that call a resident tree home, and even your life when you decide to raise your voice in a way that may or may not be perceived as threatening---to recognize the unabashed arrogance of doing so.
That's the empathy perspective you're missing.
That’s a petty aggressive and condescending response. I have a pretty big dog (GS mix) and she’d likely never be fast enough to catch a squirrel or bird unless she’s lucky (I also trained that response out of her very early on) and she was definitely faster than Dobermans at the park in her prime. Also, even if she did, it’s not like she’s that foreign a concept - dogs are everywhere and squirrels and birds already deal with predators. I honor it in parks that are protected reserves but if there’s a local park with such signage I’d probably ignore it, particularly if no one else is around (more about making them uncomfortable than anything else).
> You know what also doesn't care about the rules of ordered society and the potentially deadly consequences of breaking them? Animals.
You say that like it’s some curse word. Hate to break it to you, but doesn’t matter how many rules you create and try to enforce to “civilize” humans, humans are animals. Always have been, always will be. I would say that developing an understanding of why rules might be implemented and correctly evaluating the “harm” (societal and to any given individual) of breaking it is what being a functional adult human is. Similarly owning the consequences if your rule breaking behavior resulted in some harm is also called for.
Heck, you’re on a website with close ties to YCombinator, an accelerator for Silicon Valley startups often famous for “disrupting” by blatantly ignoring old laws and seeing if they can grow and corner the market before the regulators catch on so that they get entrenched as the incumbents once the regulators do do something.
> You know what also doesn't care about the rules of ordered society and the potentially deadly consequences of breaking them? Animals.
You say that like it’s some curse word. Hate to break it to you, but doesn’t matter how many rules you create and try to enforce to “civilize” humans, humans are animals. Always have been, always will be. I would say that developing an understanding of why rules might be implemented and correctly evaluating the “harm” (societal and to any given individual) of breaking it is what being a functional adult human is. Similarly owning the consequences if your rule breaking behavior resulted in some harm is also called for.
Heck, you’re on a website with close ties to YCombinator, an accelerator for Silicon Valley startups often famous for “disrupting” by blatantly ignoring old laws and seeing if they can grow and corner the market before the regulators catch on so that they get entrenched as the incumbents once the regulators do do something.
Sounds like every pit bull owner up until their totally harmless lovely well trained wouldn't harm a fly pit bull snaps and attacks someone or another dog.
The leash in public areas is to be able to control your dog. If you want your dog off of the leash go to private property or a dog park where a gated leashless area exists for those willing to assume the risk.
I've seen military trained dogs with training worth tens of thousands of dollars disobey orders. I simply do not care how well trained people think their dogs are.
The leash in public areas is to be able to control your dog. If you want your dog off of the leash go to private property or a dog park where a gated leashless area exists for those willing to assume the risk.
I've seen military trained dogs with training worth tens of thousands of dollars disobey orders. I simply do not care how well trained people think their dogs are.
Yeah, what is it with dog owners who all seem to be clueless about the dangers of an unleashed dog? Is there a psychological disorder to explain this worldview? In my life, 100% of dog owners all think their dog is "well behaved" when many are not. Bizarre.
No one hates unleashed dogs (outside of spaces where it is explicitly permitted) more than responsible dogs owners -- except, I guess, people with dog phobias.
Most adult dogs are not OK with being approached by other dogs they don't know. This is absolutely fine so long as all dogs are leashed, and so long as unleashed dogs are limited to private property and to dog parks (you can just not take your dog there if it doesn't like other dogs).
But then some jackass lets their dog loose in a place when you walking your dog on a leash ("It's OK! My dog is good with other dogs!" they shout while running after their dog making a beeline for yours). It gets in your dog's face, your dog warns it to back off, and then you have a dog fight on your hands -- a fight which your dog has the lower hand in because it's leashed.
It's not uncommon for leashed dogs to be mauled or even killed by loose-leash dogs. This is probably one of the most common scenarios where one dog kills another. Sometimes the leashed dog's owner is mauled or killed trying to protect their dog.
Responsible dog owners are extremely familiar with the hazards posed by off-leash dogs in on-leash-only spaces. Only thoughtless owners think otherwise and should be harshly denounced, but please don't paint ALL dog owners with the same brush when most of them would agree with you.
Most adult dogs are not OK with being approached by other dogs they don't know. This is absolutely fine so long as all dogs are leashed, and so long as unleashed dogs are limited to private property and to dog parks (you can just not take your dog there if it doesn't like other dogs).
But then some jackass lets their dog loose in a place when you walking your dog on a leash ("It's OK! My dog is good with other dogs!" they shout while running after their dog making a beeline for yours). It gets in your dog's face, your dog warns it to back off, and then you have a dog fight on your hands -- a fight which your dog has the lower hand in because it's leashed.
It's not uncommon for leashed dogs to be mauled or even killed by loose-leash dogs. This is probably one of the most common scenarios where one dog kills another. Sometimes the leashed dog's owner is mauled or killed trying to protect their dog.
Responsible dog owners are extremely familiar with the hazards posed by off-leash dogs in on-leash-only spaces. Only thoughtless owners think otherwise and should be harshly denounced, but please don't paint ALL dog owners with the same brush when most of them would agree with you.
And 99% of them are correct.
As a dog lover and lifelong dog owner, keep your fucking dog leashed and away from mine. I will 100% defend my dogs with lethal force if I have to, and I will pursue any legal action I can against you.
Just because you think your dog is OK doesn't mean that other dogs are OK with your dog; they don't know your dog, and I don't know your dog.
I hug my friends, but if a strangers runs up and hugs me, I will interpret that as assault and respond accordingly -- so don't ever let your dog do the canine equivalent of that, because any consequences (and they may be severe) fall entirely on your shoulders.
Just because you think your dog is OK doesn't mean that other dogs are OK with your dog; they don't know your dog, and I don't know your dog.
I hug my friends, but if a strangers runs up and hugs me, I will interpret that as assault and respond accordingly -- so don't ever let your dog do the canine equivalent of that, because any consequences (and they may be severe) fall entirely on your shoulders.
Sure. When there’s other dogs around I keep her leashed. When I’m walking her by myself at night when there’s no one around I’m not going to leash her.
If you can hold true to that (e.g., she has excellent recall and you can reliably leash her immediately if anyone else shows up, such that no one even knows you have broken the law), then I am OK with that.
Most people who let their dog off-leash in on-leash areas do not have that kind of control (even when they think they do), and for that reason, I am in favor of the law coming down very hard on this.
(At the same time, I am strongly in favor of more designated off-leash parks. As much as I hate off-leash dogs running around, a fair percentage of this is due to a lack of dog-friendly spaces, and fines can only do so much to mitigate it. I would be in favor of all earnings from off-leash fines having to go toward building and maintaining local dog parks.)
Most people who let their dog off-leash in on-leash areas do not have that kind of control (even when they think they do), and for that reason, I am in favor of the law coming down very hard on this.
(At the same time, I am strongly in favor of more designated off-leash parks. As much as I hate off-leash dogs running around, a fair percentage of this is due to a lack of dog-friendly spaces, and fines can only do so much to mitigate it. I would be in favor of all earnings from off-leash fines having to go toward building and maintaining local dog parks.)
No, these rules exist so that everyone can have a safe space. Go find an off-leash area for your dog.
I'd imagine the person walking his dog was making the area no less safe for anyone else. Maybe people might feel safer.
The rule, in the abstract, can be given some plausible 'social good' defense -- many rules can, even the most insidious. No doubt, on extreme averages, dogs being on leashes marginally improves the on-average saftey.
But this 'on-average' is a radical abstraction. What it says is that the dog's freedom, enjoyment, and that of their owner must be Brought Into Order to fit with a system of values which discounts that entirely.
The sign is a symptom of this system of disciplining people; it conscripts them into a value system which may routinely be against their benefit and that of many others.
The sign doesnt tell you this; the sign gives you no critical autonomy to engage with its system of values --- in the way a conversation would.
That is how I diagnose this commenter's issue: his critical faculties are not being triggered. Rather the sign is seen transparently as a command to be followed.
There are no Commands to be Followed. There are only people commanding, and following them is advised only if it is advised.
The rule, in the abstract, can be given some plausible 'social good' defense -- many rules can, even the most insidious. No doubt, on extreme averages, dogs being on leashes marginally improves the on-average saftey.
But this 'on-average' is a radical abstraction. What it says is that the dog's freedom, enjoyment, and that of their owner must be Brought Into Order to fit with a system of values which discounts that entirely.
The sign is a symptom of this system of disciplining people; it conscripts them into a value system which may routinely be against their benefit and that of many others.
The sign doesnt tell you this; the sign gives you no critical autonomy to engage with its system of values --- in the way a conversation would.
That is how I diagnose this commenter's issue: his critical faculties are not being triggered. Rather the sign is seen transparently as a command to be followed.
There are no Commands to be Followed. There are only people commanding, and following them is advised only if it is advised.
For some reason you don’t think of the sign as conversation. Why not? Our community has put up the sign and when I read that sign I engage in that conversation. Rules that are agreed on are not authoritarian unless we have no choice in changing them. Since we vote, we have a say on changing them.
What you’re saying is, we should have no laws and do whatever we want. We should have no rules and do whatever we want. I’m an anarchist and I don’t even agree with that.
I would feel the same about the dog off the lease whether the sign was there or not. Dogs can be dangerous animals and if I don’t know them, I should be afraid.
What you’re saying is, we should have no laws and do whatever we want. We should have no rules and do whatever we want. I’m an anarchist and I don’t even agree with that.
I would feel the same about the dog off the lease whether the sign was there or not. Dogs can be dangerous animals and if I don’t know them, I should be afraid.
We can have signs and rules, and the rest of it. But we're talking about you wanting to go to the police to enforce one of them.
If a sign is seen as a 'strong suggestion', as 'advisable' or a 'please do this' then there's no issue -- that's what signs are.
But you didnt see the sign that way; and that's what i'm responding to. Your impulse was to bring the disciplinary arm of the state to bare to enforce someone's opinion of how a park should be run.
This is quite the opposite of being critically engaged with the nature of signs
If a sign is seen as a 'strong suggestion', as 'advisable' or a 'please do this' then there's no issue -- that's what signs are.
But you didnt see the sign that way; and that's what i'm responding to. Your impulse was to bring the disciplinary arm of the state to bare to enforce someone's opinion of how a park should be run.
This is quite the opposite of being critically engaged with the nature of signs
If the laws are not enforced, then people don’t obey the laws. That’s how you get both dog bites and white collar crime.
Your assumption is that my “wanting to bring the disciplinary arm of the state“ is based on the rules, and not on my compassion. That’s where you’re wrong. I was using the rules of the state to enforce my compassion, not to enforce the rules. in this case, the rules aligned with my compassion.
And in fact, I would not call police if I saw someone shoplifting. And that’s what people don’t understand about those of us with Asperger‘s. It is a sense of right and wrong not based on rules, but based on right and wrong.
Your assumption is that my “wanting to bring the disciplinary arm of the state“ is based on the rules, and not on my compassion. That’s where you’re wrong. I was using the rules of the state to enforce my compassion, not to enforce the rules. in this case, the rules aligned with my compassion.
And in fact, I would not call police if I saw someone shoplifting. And that’s what people don’t understand about those of us with Asperger‘s. It is a sense of right and wrong not based on rules, but based on right and wrong.
My claim is that your compassion is being hijacked, not that you're blinding following an instruction. Compassion is one of the main emotional mechanisms of social discipline: it is the overbearing mother. Compassion is often the most vicious way of policing people, as its users takes themselves to be moral.
The sign couldve been a poster of a dog off a leach running around with another dog, having a good time. That, I imagine, would likewise trigger a positive emotion in you.
What i'm advocating for is more of a gap between the sign and the emotion. I dont think the sign would be as effective if it were a command read out by 'some average looking person'
the sign here has a special quality in triggering an emotional response, because the usual moderating triggers are absent: those of the falibility of a person
The sign couldve been a poster of a dog off a leach running around with another dog, having a good time. That, I imagine, would likewise trigger a positive emotion in you.
What i'm advocating for is more of a gap between the sign and the emotion. I dont think the sign would be as effective if it were a command read out by 'some average looking person'
the sign here has a special quality in triggering an emotional response, because the usual moderating triggers are absent: those of the falibility of a person
Rules and regulations are not needed to constrain compassion, they needed to constrain sociopathy.
A Sign does not trigger an emotional response in me. My emotions were triggered by the action of the person walking their dog without a leash design told me that other people were compassionate, just like I am.
A Sign does not trigger an emotional response in me. My emotions were triggered by the action of the person walking their dog without a leash design told me that other people were compassionate, just like I am.
Compassion is more dangerous than sociopathy. Sociopaths are transactional, and often follow the rules on a transactional basis.
To conduct a genocide, one needs compassion. In the way people are here having fantasies of dangerous dogs biting children, likewise similar fantasies of danger abound -- compassion for imagined victims driving overwhelming oppression.
I dont consider this morality, quite the opposite. Morality is deliberative, it takes into account the particular, it is a response to the concrete reality not the imagined.
To conduct a genocide, one needs compassion. In the way people are here having fantasies of dangerous dogs biting children, likewise similar fantasies of danger abound -- compassion for imagined victims driving overwhelming oppression.
I dont consider this morality, quite the opposite. Morality is deliberative, it takes into account the particular, it is a response to the concrete reality not the imagined.
I would love to know how compassion was used to cause the holocaust.
But I think I see. I think I see your mistaking compassion for the self as compassion for the other. It’s easy to cause a holocaust if you cause people to only have compassion for themselves or their own kind. It’s very hard to create a holocaust if you have a universal compassion for all humans.
So your answer is “well let’s get rid of all compassion” instead of making our compassion even greater.
But I think I see. I think I see your mistaking compassion for the self as compassion for the other. It’s easy to cause a holocaust if you cause people to only have compassion for themselves or their own kind. It’s very hard to create a holocaust if you have a universal compassion for all humans.
So your answer is “well let’s get rid of all compassion” instead of making our compassion even greater.
> It feels like something is going wrong here in your connecting a dog being off a leash with somehow empathy for the dog.
If that dog bites someone it dies, how is that not empathetic?
dogs are typically required to be on leashes in parks and public areas for a reason.
If that dog bites someone it dies, how is that not empathetic?
dogs are typically required to be on leashes in parks and public areas for a reason.
There is such a thing as a well-behaved dog. I don't see the social benefit of enforcing every last little law on the books all the time.
I think laws (the kind we're talking about, anyway) are best seen as a tool for maintaining public order. If police encounter something dangerous or immediately disorderly, they can express their reasons for intervening in terms of laws. If you run open headers on your car and cause an actual disturbance, you can be cited. When that relationship between order and law is inverted, the result is cops nickle-and-diming the populace when there was no actual underlying problem.
The real application of law requires, you know ... nuance, discretion and situational awareness. That's the standard we should hold police to, not throwing every single page of the book at people all the time.
I think laws (the kind we're talking about, anyway) are best seen as a tool for maintaining public order. If police encounter something dangerous or immediately disorderly, they can express their reasons for intervening in terms of laws. If you run open headers on your car and cause an actual disturbance, you can be cited. When that relationship between order and law is inverted, the result is cops nickle-and-diming the populace when there was no actual underlying problem.
The real application of law requires, you know ... nuance, discretion and situational awareness. That's the standard we should hold police to, not throwing every single page of the book at people all the time.
Ok, let's say your dog is well behaved. I think we can agree that lots of other people who think that their dog is well behaved actually have a dog that is potentially dangerous. How am I supposed to know by looking at you and your dog which it is? So now I get to feel in danger so that you can feel slightly more at home.
How does that make sense?
This is an excellent example of 'ridiculous government overreach' that actually makes perfect sense and some people just don't like.
How does that make sense?
This is an excellent example of 'ridiculous government overreach' that actually makes perfect sense and some people just don't like.
>How does that make sense?
In a word: discernment. If it's a miniature poodle, you can probably chill. If it's a big dog, it's probably worthwhile to enforce the law.
It actually is a pretty good example of overreach insofar as you're advocating the removal of any judgement call from the equation. That is the surest way to build a relentless bureaucratic machine that makes everyone miserable without actually protecting anyone.
The human in the loop is a feature, not a bug.
In a word: discernment. If it's a miniature poodle, you can probably chill. If it's a big dog, it's probably worthwhile to enforce the law.
It actually is a pretty good example of overreach insofar as you're advocating the removal of any judgement call from the equation. That is the surest way to build a relentless bureaucratic machine that makes everyone miserable without actually protecting anyone.
The human in the loop is a feature, not a bug.
because if there's one thing lapdogs are known for, it's a lack of violence.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2021/may/...
Now consider why it is you didn't know this?
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2021/may/...
Now consider why it is you didn't know this?
You are reasoning in terms of total elimination of risk. That is the source of our disagreement.
I was pointing out your discernment of lapdogs is completely off base from reality, undermining your own point.
You respond with a strawman.
You respond with a strawman.
If just seeing a dog without a leash is enough for you to feel in danger you probably shouldn't leave your home, let alone go to the park. That aside, you don't have a right to not feel in danger. You don't even have a right to not be in danger, though you do have a right to not be put in danger deliberately or by negligence.
If they feel threatened by dogs off leashes, that's them, let them live. It seems perfectly reasonable for such a person to go someplace where dogs must be on leashes.
I'm not saying they shouldn't live, I'm saying that if off-leash dogs scare you and you don't want to be scared, you shouldn't be outside. Even if every last dog owner kept their dog on a leash at all times, there would still be some dogs without a leash, and all of them would be outside your house. I assume any person would understand that by the time they reach adulthood and either learn to deal with the fact that some dogs they run into won't have a leash, or they stop going outside if they can't deal with it. Stubbornly refusing to accept reality is childish.
Back in the days people used to shoot any predator in sight, a leash is just a civilized measure that makes everyone happy, but the old way is fine too with me :)
Telling people who have different life experiences and tolerances for risk than you to "stop going outside" is childish, my dude. You seem to struggle with accepting the reality of this person's differing worldview. Maybe take a step back and realize that it's perfectly ok when people disagree with you about stuff on the internet.
I struggle to understand how an adult does not realize that leading a normal life requires taking in some amount of risk, unless the person has some kind of learning difficulty. If you want to go outside, there is a non-zero chance that you'll be mauled by a dog without a leash. There's a much greater chance that you'll be involved in a car accident, and cars are policed much more strictly than dog leashes, not to mention that violations are punished much more severely.
>Maybe take a step back and realize that it's perfectly ok when people disagree with you about stuff on the internet.
Exactly what of what I said implies that I have a problem with disagreeing with people? All I said was "if you do these two things, your behavior is incongruous". That's as politely as I can disagree with someone. Maybe your problem is that I said anything at all, in which case I think you're the one who has a problem with disagreement.
>Maybe take a step back and realize that it's perfectly ok when people disagree with you about stuff on the internet.
Exactly what of what I said implies that I have a problem with disagreeing with people? All I said was "if you do these two things, your behavior is incongruous". That's as politely as I can disagree with someone. Maybe your problem is that I said anything at all, in which case I think you're the one who has a problem with disagreement.
> If you want to go outside, there is a non-zero chance that you'll be mauled by a dog without a leash.
That risk lessens significantly if dogs are mandated to be leashed.
unleashed dogs are regularly picked up by the city and if they're not claimed by someone w/i a specific amount of time, they're euthanised.
This isn't actually helping your case.
That risk lessens significantly if dogs are mandated to be leashed.
unleashed dogs are regularly picked up by the city and if they're not claimed by someone w/i a specific amount of time, they're euthanised.
This isn't actually helping your case.
you've never actually been threatened by a dog off a leash have you?
I never understood why my high school buddy was so afraid of dogs. I would tease him sometimes because when he saw a large dog, even on a leash, he would edge to the other side of me and act nervous. He's a big and typically brave dude so it was out of character. Plus I just never had a concept of dogs as dangerous based on my childhood experiences.
He eventually explained that he grew up in the poor neighborhood, where people keep large, poorly trained "guard dogs" that occasionally escape and roam the streets. As a child he had to evade roaming dogs several times, including one occasion where he genuinely believes he was running for his life. Apparently it fucked him up pretty badly. Poorly trained dogs (especially those that are bread for aggression) are no joke, even to full grown adults.
He eventually explained that he grew up in the poor neighborhood, where people keep large, poorly trained "guard dogs" that occasionally escape and roam the streets. As a child he had to evade roaming dogs several times, including one occasion where he genuinely believes he was running for his life. Apparently it fucked him up pretty badly. Poorly trained dogs (especially those that are bread for aggression) are no joke, even to full grown adults.
Not that I can remember. Therefore...? What's your point?
knowing vs understanding.
You're making some wild extrapolations here. Have you ever watched your dog be mauled to death violently, literally ripped to pieces by another animal off it's leash that is 'harmless and just playing'? Have you ever tried to unclamp an attacking 'playful' dog that someone didn't feel the need to leash from the broken, panicked, dying husk of something that minutes before was an animal you loved?
If not, I'd be careful with how loudly you proclaim ignorant opinions without consideration for people who might have a wider experience than you. Wisdom is knowing when to shut up and listen, sometimes.
If not, I'd be careful with how loudly you proclaim ignorant opinions without consideration for people who might have a wider experience than you. Wisdom is knowing when to shut up and listen, sometimes.
No, society works because we broadly trust that others will follow laws and that institutions will enforce the laws. It has been decided, by the public, that public spaces should not have off leash dogs in them because every dog is a “good dog” until it isn’t and someone or someone else’s animal pays the price.
This is like saying it is okay for good drivers to drive through stop signs, because they’re there for the bad drivers. Just moronic.
If you want to be somewhere where you can behave however you want, move away from other people. Pretty straightforward.
This is like saying it is okay for good drivers to drive through stop signs, because they’re there for the bad drivers. Just moronic.
If you want to be somewhere where you can behave however you want, move away from other people. Pretty straightforward.
Literally nobody in this conversation is arguing that they should be able to do what they want.
That is what arguments like this are:
> In a word: discernment. If it's a miniature poodle, you can probably chill. If it's a big dog, it's probably worthwhile to enforce the law.
Your whole argument is “judgement is an important component of the law” but what that leads to is differing judgements on what we can do. What individual is so far above reproach that they should have the right to discern whether the situation calls for applicability of a black and white law?
> In a word: discernment. If it's a miniature poodle, you can probably chill. If it's a big dog, it's probably worthwhile to enforce the law.
Your whole argument is “judgement is an important component of the law” but what that leads to is differing judgements on what we can do. What individual is so far above reproach that they should have the right to discern whether the situation calls for applicability of a black and white law?
Indeed it is. Applying judgement and "you can do whatever you want" are not the same thing.
watch and be amazed as I successfully do what you're implying can't be done.
raping a 5 year old should be illegal and there is no grey there.
Go on, explain to me why I'm wrong.
raping a 5 year old should be illegal and there is no grey there.
Go on, explain to me why I'm wrong.
That… isn’t what I said can’t be done. In fact it is the opposite.
I said that we should not empower people to decide when laws are and aren’t applicable, because what they judge as applicable may not be the same as what others judge as applicable. That’s the whole point.
Black and white laws are black and white, you can’t just decide stop signs don’t apply to you because you are a safe driver. You can’t just decide your dog is safe to be off leash in a place where the law requires it. Not sure why this is hard.
I said that we should not empower people to decide when laws are and aren’t applicable, because what they judge as applicable may not be the same as what others judge as applicable. That’s the whole point.
Black and white laws are black and white, you can’t just decide stop signs don’t apply to you because you are a safe driver. You can’t just decide your dog is safe to be off leash in a place where the law requires it. Not sure why this is hard.
you can, however, decide that the rape of child is wrong and intervene.
I don't have to be "beyond reproach" to conclude this.
your problem is trying to apply one to the other, it's an equivalency issue.
jaywalking is not equivalent to murder, and it never will be.
I don't have to be "beyond reproach" to conclude this.
your problem is trying to apply one to the other, it's an equivalency issue.
jaywalking is not equivalent to murder, and it never will be.
> you can, however, decide that the rape of child is wrong and intervene
I don’t know why you are latching on to this scenario when it aligns with my point. It is illegal to rape a child, you are agreeing with me. This is black and white.
Now, there is some person out there who thinks this is okay, are they allowed to judge this is okay, break the law, and do it because in they judged the child is mature? No. Okay. We agree.
That same exact reasoning applies to other laws that we, as a society, have deemed necessary for public life. Because you don’t get to judge those laws as inapplicable. If you do not like them you can try and have them changed or you can leave to a place that has different laws.
Where I live it is illegal to have a dog off leash in public places, this law exists for a reason. People should not decide the law doesn’t apply to them because they “discern” their dog is not a threat. If someone cant accept that law, they need to move somewhere where they can have the lifestyle with their pet that they want.
I don’t know why you are latching on to this scenario when it aligns with my point. It is illegal to rape a child, you are agreeing with me. This is black and white.
Now, there is some person out there who thinks this is okay, are they allowed to judge this is okay, break the law, and do it because in they judged the child is mature? No. Okay. We agree.
That same exact reasoning applies to other laws that we, as a society, have deemed necessary for public life. Because you don’t get to judge those laws as inapplicable. If you do not like them you can try and have them changed or you can leave to a place that has different laws.
Where I live it is illegal to have a dog off leash in public places, this law exists for a reason. People should not decide the law doesn’t apply to them because they “discern” their dog is not a threat. If someone cant accept that law, they need to move somewhere where they can have the lifestyle with their pet that they want.
dogs have attacked their owners, this idea that owners somehow are the best judge of what their pet will or will not do is probably not a reliable one.
Yes, well said.
Is it awareness and an application of injustice, or awareness of certain rules that are being applied only partially - the rules could go further.
Because justice and riles are assuredly not the same thing. Who knows the truth to determine what is just for others?
Ultimately, justice is best expressed by the golden rule: Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated.
Dogs are at a different level to people too, so that is a further 'justice complexity' to be navigated by the individual.
Perhaps autistic people struggle with some of the nuances, and prefer the rules rather than the idea of justice or doing right. I think most people are like that.
Is it awareness and an application of injustice, or awareness of certain rules that are being applied only partially - the rules could go further.
Because justice and riles are assuredly not the same thing. Who knows the truth to determine what is just for others?
Ultimately, justice is best expressed by the golden rule: Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated.
Dogs are at a different level to people too, so that is a further 'justice complexity' to be navigated by the individual.
Perhaps autistic people struggle with some of the nuances, and prefer the rules rather than the idea of justice or doing right. I think most people are like that.
no, the nuance is not about rules, the nuance is about right and wrong.
It’s wrong for someone to walk around with an animal that could be dangerous or could harm other people or itself. In this case, the rules aligned with my moral understanding.
Ashan sense of right and wrong is not based on outside rules, but it are internal perception. This is why many of us have anti-authoritarian tendencies.
https://neuroclastic.com/autism-and-responding-to-authority/...
It’s wrong for someone to walk around with an animal that could be dangerous or could harm other people or itself. In this case, the rules aligned with my moral understanding.
Ashan sense of right and wrong is not based on outside rules, but it are internal perception. This is why many of us have anti-authoritarian tendencies.
https://neuroclastic.com/autism-and-responding-to-authority/...
Great article, thanks for sharing and attempting to correct a misunderstanding. I'm going to submit it here actually - I liked it so much. (Except for the singular political snipe - '#AutisticWhileBlack'.)
> Autistic children in school are somewhat notorious for finding it hard to adapt to the authority of teachers– some teachers more than others. This is not because they’re evil little ragamuffins, as some teachers would have it, but because their natural state is to assume equanimity. Autistic students (and I speak from long experience) will not bow to authority for authority’s sake.
Great! The reverse speaks to the problem that I think is common place - people going along with behaviour that they know to be wrong/immoral. Eg coding software that will restrict and restrain others for money. The last few years gave so many examples too.
In all honesty, if this really is the common case, perhaps autistic people might be the best of us - there is no governance structure in their heads, just reasoning.
If that's it, I hope that some autistic folk also do not settle very easily, but continue to research the state of play, refuse to trust 'authority' or conventional knowledge, investigate what their philosophical outlook is, work out what they really know personally.
> Autistic children in school are somewhat notorious for finding it hard to adapt to the authority of teachers– some teachers more than others. This is not because they’re evil little ragamuffins, as some teachers would have it, but because their natural state is to assume equanimity. Autistic students (and I speak from long experience) will not bow to authority for authority’s sake.
Great! The reverse speaks to the problem that I think is common place - people going along with behaviour that they know to be wrong/immoral. Eg coding software that will restrict and restrain others for money. The last few years gave so many examples too.
In all honesty, if this really is the common case, perhaps autistic people might be the best of us - there is no governance structure in their heads, just reasoning.
If that's it, I hope that some autistic folk also do not settle very easily, but continue to research the state of play, refuse to trust 'authority' or conventional knowledge, investigate what their philosophical outlook is, work out what they really know personally.
In case you check, and in case you missed it, the post was here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38072756
cheers
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38072756
cheers
People like us do tend to have a deep sense of fairness and caring yes. I see it too.
I don't read other people's feelings so well. But I still care a hell of a lot how I make them feel. At least the ones I care about which is the default for people I meet. Though once someone is a dick to me they can die in a fire and I wouldn't help them, there is that side too which is not as pretty.
However most people respond with kindness to kindness so I end up caring about most people as a result.
The lack of reading them drives my behaviour a lot because I start pre-empting how my actions could make people feel. And usually going from the worst outcome option so I tend to be a bit withdrawn, going for the safest option.
So my social withdrawal tends to stem from caring. It's weird.
Ps another thing I notice is that autistic people generally tend to be really open-minded and non-discriminating. Because not really feeling part of a group also means not really feeling the need to set your group apart from other groups. We're all just individuals on a journey through life. It doesn't matter what colour, sexual orientation, etc people have, they're just other people <3
Sometimes I wonder if this is why silicon valley is driving diversity so much.
I don't read other people's feelings so well. But I still care a hell of a lot how I make them feel. At least the ones I care about which is the default for people I meet. Though once someone is a dick to me they can die in a fire and I wouldn't help them, there is that side too which is not as pretty.
However most people respond with kindness to kindness so I end up caring about most people as a result.
The lack of reading them drives my behaviour a lot because I start pre-empting how my actions could make people feel. And usually going from the worst outcome option so I tend to be a bit withdrawn, going for the safest option.
So my social withdrawal tends to stem from caring. It's weird.
Ps another thing I notice is that autistic people generally tend to be really open-minded and non-discriminating. Because not really feeling part of a group also means not really feeling the need to set your group apart from other groups. We're all just individuals on a journey through life. It doesn't matter what colour, sexual orientation, etc people have, they're just other people <3
Sometimes I wonder if this is why silicon valley is driving diversity so much.
Are there highly social aspd peeps? I wonder sometimes
This rhymes with my prejudice(?) that people on the autistic spectrum has a lower tolerance for cognitive dissonance. Like it's harder to ignore two truths that are incompatible.
If it's true it kind of says more about non-autistic people than autistic people.
If it's true it kind of says more about non-autistic people than autistic people.
That seems plausible. Cognitive dissonance seems to play a significant role as a social lubricant. Even if there is no direct relationship with autism, the reduced social capacity could mean that they simply do not have the opportunity to develop as advanced a capacity for cognitive dissonance.
Curious what stopped you.
Consider that narc'ing people for victimless crimes is something that can be done to you as well, and you definitely will make enemies and earn a reputation by casually reporting people to the police... so maybe just "leave people alone" is a good default policy.
Consider that narc'ing people for victimless crimes is something that can be done to you as well, and you definitely will make enemies and earn a reputation by casually reporting people to the police... so maybe just "leave people alone" is a good default policy.
I stopped, because I know how cruel people can be. I’ve had a lifetime of doing this and seeing the outcomes. People are vengeful, but today people are more on edge and more likely to carry a weapon.
For example, I nearly gotten murdered on an Amtrak train once, because a man was talking loudly, and I asked him if he could please be quiet because he was clearly disrupting everyone and no one else was speaking up. I spoke up, and he followed me off the train and I had to run into the station to get help.
For example, I nearly gotten murdered on an Amtrak train once, because a man was talking loudly, and I asked him if he could please be quiet because he was clearly disrupting everyone and no one else was speaking up. I spoke up, and he followed me off the train and I had to run into the station to get help.
I literally did this while walking in the woods the other day. A man asked me how I was and his dog was off the leash, and so I told him I would be better if he followed the etiquette of the trail and kept his dog on a leash.
He didn’t seem to like that.
However I saw him on the trail with the same dog a few days later on the leash
So I’m not sure why this is a problem other than if people are worried that people won’t like them.
He didn’t seem to like that.
However I saw him on the trail with the same dog a few days later on the leash
So I’m not sure why this is a problem other than if people are worried that people won’t like them.
Dogs like being off lead. Running around is sort of their driving motive.
A lot of dogs also like to bite people, or scare birds, or scare other dogs….
Just because something likes to do something does not mean we should let it do it.
Just because something likes to do something does not mean we should let it do it.
A few dogs are so aggressive that they bite people. Usually the owner is the problem.
So the owner should be on a leash?
(coming back to this I realize that laws and rules are what put people on leashes.)
And this would mean the owner who don’t put their dogs on leashes are also the problem.
Also
“More than 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year in the United States”
That’s a lot…
https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/pet-owners/dog-bite-pre...
(coming back to this I realize that laws and rules are what put people on leashes.)
And this would mean the owner who don’t put their dogs on leashes are also the problem.
Also
“More than 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year in the United States”
That’s a lot…
https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/pet-owners/dog-bite-pre...
You clearly don't understand how dogs function. The sweetest dog could bite someone if it is scared, startled, in pain, sick. They can be unpredictable and most people do not know how to read a dog's body language. I say that as someone who loves and has dogs.
Most dogs that don't mean harm won't actually break skin, for them it's a warning rather than violence.
This is not what people mean when they talk about people getting bitten by dogs.
This is not what people mean when they talk about people getting bitten by dogs.
The owner is the source problem, but the dog is the immediate problem.
we weed out bad owners by requiring all dogs to be leashed, if you don’t like it move to a more rural area or don’t have a dog
Dogs can be unpredictable, and they're powerful animals. They could start fighting with another dog, run away and endanger themselves, do their needs in someone's front garden, eat something dangerous, or someone else walking by might be scared of dogs. I have seen occurrences of all of these situations.
It's really irresponsible to walk a dog unleashed, especially in populated areas.
It's really irresponsible to walk a dog unleashed, especially in populated areas.
In my experience the probability of dog poop getting scooped by the owner goes down if the dog is off leash.
Ok, but we also have to accept that "empathy" is often misplaced, that's part of the issue I think.
I've never had a loose dog try to attack me. Plenty of dogs on leashes have lunged tho. So I treat the leash status as a signal of how much the owner trusts the dog to behave.
Not that I think there’s much credence to this signal as you’ve stated it, but it does have overlap with what I try to convey to people when I ask them to leash their own dog: it’s for the safety of their dog as much as it is for mine. In other words, as I’ve tried to explain it, “even if your dog is perfectly well behaved, you have no idea if my dog or any other you may encounter is a danger to your dog.”
This has been universally unconvincing to those dog owners who walk their dogs off leash. They don’t—in my experience—actually care if it puts their dog at risk, any more than they care about putting anyone else at risk. Anecdata still, but my experience tells me that whether a dog is leashed or not is mostly an indicator of whether the dog’s human is more concerned with the dog’s safety, or with their own selfish convenience.
This has been universally unconvincing to those dog owners who walk their dogs off leash. They don’t—in my experience—actually care if it puts their dog at risk, any more than they care about putting anyone else at risk. Anecdata still, but my experience tells me that whether a dog is leashed or not is mostly an indicator of whether the dog’s human is more concerned with the dog’s safety, or with their own selfish convenience.
This is 1000% my experience. Even farmers with working herd dogs, who can completely trust their dogs because they work off-leash 10+ hours per day, still clip on a lead in public.
It's not because they don't trust their dog. It's because they don't trust OTHER people's dogs -- especially because a good 80-90% of people with off-leash dogs don't actually have control of their dogs. They just really like the aesthetic of an off-leash dog and, by golly, they're going to do it--even if they haven't put in the gruelling training it requires, and even if it means their dog is endangered by other dogs. They don't care or think about it because they don't actually have a deep bond with their dog and value it; it's an accessory.
It's not because they don't trust their dog. It's because they don't trust OTHER people's dogs -- especially because a good 80-90% of people with off-leash dogs don't actually have control of their dogs. They just really like the aesthetic of an off-leash dog and, by golly, they're going to do it--even if they haven't put in the gruelling training it requires, and even if it means their dog is endangered by other dogs. They don't care or think about it because they don't actually have a deep bond with their dog and value it; it's an accessory.
Your anecdotes are not data. For example. I can count no less than six times when off leash dogs tried to bite me. The most recent one was when two pitbulls and a Labrador charged at me.
I've never been shot, clearly shootings don't happen.
Of all dogs I met, only a police dog was disciplined (german shepherd), all others were unhinged (all sizes).
Can you explain how it's more compassionate for a dog to be kept leashed?
In my experience dogs are less stressed without a leash. The primary reason for using a leash is that I feel compassionate about people who are afraid of dogs or don't like them. Seeing a leashed dog makes them feel more secure.
In my experience dogs are less stressed without a leash. The primary reason for using a leash is that I feel compassionate about people who are afraid of dogs or don't like them. Seeing a leashed dog makes them feel more secure.
Having your dog on a lease is better for everyone involved.
It's very annoying how people anthropomorphize and refuse to take responsibility for their animals.
Guess what, your dog isn't a person and if it gets agitated and attacks someone, that's your fault. If it decides to chase a squirrel he sees across the street and gets hit by a passing car in the process, that's your fault.
Barring all the worst case scenarios, consider that other people don't like your dog jumping up on them nor do they want it pissing and shitting on their property, which is what most dogs do if left to their own devices.
Often people who won't leash their dogs claim that the animal is trained well enough to not need it, but this is rarely true. In reality, such dog owners usually just don't care about others and will readily blame anybody but themselves when their unleashed dog gets into trouble.
It's very annoying how people anthropomorphize and refuse to take responsibility for their animals.
Guess what, your dog isn't a person and if it gets agitated and attacks someone, that's your fault. If it decides to chase a squirrel he sees across the street and gets hit by a passing car in the process, that's your fault.
Barring all the worst case scenarios, consider that other people don't like your dog jumping up on them nor do they want it pissing and shitting on their property, which is what most dogs do if left to their own devices.
Often people who won't leash their dogs claim that the animal is trained well enough to not need it, but this is rarely true. In reality, such dog owners usually just don't care about others and will readily blame anybody but themselves when their unleashed dog gets into trouble.
I'm not GP, but I agree with their statement about it being more compassionate.
It's a safety issue for the dog. I recently saw an off-leash dog get freaked out and run out into a busy road. (The dog didn't get hurt luckily, but it was a horrifying experience for all involved.)
Sure, your dog might be "better" than that. But it's not a risk I'm willing to take with my dog.
It's a safety issue for the dog. I recently saw an off-leash dog get freaked out and run out into a busy road. (The dog didn't get hurt luckily, but it was a horrifying experience for all involved.)
Sure, your dog might be "better" than that. But it's not a risk I'm willing to take with my dog.
I personally don’t think we should have domesticated dogs for pets at all because I think that is cruel on its own. Having an animal for a pet to me, is selfish breeding of pets should be outlawed.
But using a leash is part of the domestication process. I can tell you I was at a national park this year, and two off leash pitbulls and a Labrador charged at me. If it wasn’t for my knowledge about dogs, I probably would’ve been bitten.
So yes, having a dog on a leash makes me feel less stressed.
But using a leash is part of the domestication process. I can tell you I was at a national park this year, and two off leash pitbulls and a Labrador charged at me. If it wasn’t for my knowledge about dogs, I probably would’ve been bitten.
So yes, having a dog on a leash makes me feel less stressed.
> I personally don’t think we should have domesticated dogs for pets at all because I think that is cruel on its own. Having an animal for a pet to me, is selfish breeding of pets should be outlawed.
I fully agree. Yet animal shelters are crammed after the pandemic. Adopting an animal can improve their live.
I fully agree. Yet animal shelters are crammed after the pandemic. Adopting an animal can improve their live.
If a dog bites someone, the dog will be killed.
I've often remarked (informally) that autistic people seem to operate under the assumption that the explicitly-stated rules are the actual rules. "Help others in need" would be the go-to example of how this confusion(?) can lead to a positive outcome.
As a person on the spectrum "help others in need" is actually a very difficult concept because I don't really care about them. When something happens around me where I'm not directly involved my instinct is to ignore it or to get out of the situation so that I can go on with my life.
The only difference is when I see unfairness or injustice, then I feel like I have to do something about it. But it usually isn't about the person, it's about the principle.
The only difference is when I see unfairness or injustice, then I feel like I have to do something about it. But it usually isn't about the person, it's about the principle.
I am autistic as well and what you are saying makes no sense to me. When someone is in need around me and requires help, by definition they need help and are not currently receiving it, which is an injustice and unfair. Therefore I have to remedy the injustice, therefore I have to help. That is how I experience the autistic sense of justice. How are you reconciling that contradiction?
Why do you perceive somebody who needs held and requires it as injustice? Helping others is an ethical thing, the right thing to do, but never an obligation that we owe them.
They probably have a high degree of empathy and feel intrinsically moved to make ethical decisions. Autistic people can have high empathy or low empathy, just like anyone else.
Yep. Autism (and most other neurodivergences) is in addition to personality characteristics and types, not a substitute for them.
As I already answered elsewhere, empathy and justice are not the same thing, and it's a bit irritating that people don't observe separation of concerns principle.
A situation where someone requires help but is not receiving it is unjust, because people's needs are not being met while others have more than they need. It is also unfair, because if you require help and have several randomly distributed attributes, you will receive that help, whereas if you require help and do not have those random accidents of birth you generally will not receive that help. That is definitionally unfair, because random chance is deciding the outcomes of people's lives.
This doesn't really makes sense. Two things that you mention, like determining what people need and role of random chance, don't have anything to do with justice.
For me, justice is fulfilment of obligations between people, that we either take explicitly (as promises or contracts), or a very limited number that should be implicitly upheld by all — about aggression and property. But while helping others is a good deed, I don't think anybody thinks you have an obligation to anybody except your own conciseness or g-d, if you believe in one.
And about random chance — that's your relationship with nature or g-d (again, used here not out of religious sense, but just a very useful rhetoric device), and they're not subjects to justice, because they're not people. Surely, you don't expect other people to have an obligation to correct nature or g-d's perceived mistakes or injustices?
For me, justice is fulfilment of obligations between people, that we either take explicitly (as promises or contracts), or a very limited number that should be implicitly upheld by all — about aggression and property. But while helping others is a good deed, I don't think anybody thinks you have an obligation to anybody except your own conciseness or g-d, if you believe in one.
And about random chance — that's your relationship with nature or g-d (again, used here not out of religious sense, but just a very useful rhetoric device), and they're not subjects to justice, because they're not people. Surely, you don't expect other people to have an obligation to correct nature or g-d's perceived mistakes or injustices?
I'm not the person you're talking to but I am autistic and I do experience a powerful obligation to help others in need. I feel it deeply in my very soul and I always have; I experience every choice not to act on it as a crushing moral and spiritual failure. I understand this isn't typical but surely you can see that it is a possible experience of the world for some people to have?
> I do experience a powerful obligation
That does not contradict my point in any way. I do experience this "obligation" too, and help others, but I don't think this word fits here. But that's just an emotion — that's not a real obligation that I actually owe somebody except for myself.
Emotions are my own volition — I'm free to experience whatever I fee like. Real obligations are not; I have to respect them regardless of my internal emotional state.
That does not contradict my point in any way. I do experience this "obligation" too, and help others, but I don't think this word fits here. But that's just an emotion — that's not a real obligation that I actually owe somebody except for myself.
Emotions are my own volition — I'm free to experience whatever I fee like. Real obligations are not; I have to respect them regardless of my internal emotional state.
I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make and judging from the other comments I think its significance might be peculiar to you.
It's the distinction between something that requires personal consent: my own decision to be charitable — and something that doesn't: my obligations. If I owe you money, you can use force to get it. You can't use force me to be charitable.
I experience this as well, it's a pretty common autistic perspective. Not sure exactly why. Seeing need can be overwhelming as a result as my brain is not filtering out the "should i weigh my potential discomfort to help this person?" question, in the way or degree that many/most neurotypical brains do.
oddly enough, autistic people can have an extremely heightened sense of empathy and moral justice compared to the average population. this seems to me to personally have some very distinct upsides and downsides.
oddly enough, autistic people can have an extremely heightened sense of empathy and moral justice compared to the average population. this seems to me to personally have some very distinct upsides and downsides.
Yes, I spent a lot of my life being very upset at a lot of people who weren't autistic until I read the studies that started coming out showing that it's verifiably the case that autistic people do various things that I have always thought of as "the autistic sense of justice", things that non-autistic people largely don't. For example, doing the right thing regardless of how observable your action is, or resisting social pressures not to break normalcy, or the OP's point about the bystander effect.
When I was in school, I was in the office as part of something else when another young girl began throwing up in the waiting room. There were between five and ten people in the room and the mouth of an adjacent hallway, most of whom noticed before me, because I was reading in the hallway. When I realised what was happening, I ran over to her and held her hair, helped her stay clean, asked the office ladies for a bag and help cleaning up so she could get to the sick bay without slipping, and generally did my best to comfort her. It was very distressing because I got some of the vomit on my hands and had to deal with that for a long time until I could wash them properly. This was not a gender thing because I wasn't the only girl among the students and the office ladies were female. Later that day when school was ending, I was in the office waiting to be picked up and one of the office ladies came over to tell me she thought I was very brave and selfless for having helped that girl. This made me really upset and I asked her why she and the other people hadn't done anything until I asked her for the bag, which got me in a lot of trouble for talking back to admin staff. The guidance counselor at school told me later that they didn't act because they were shocked, which didn't make any sense because they all learned before me so they should have had more time to recover from any potential shock and help, and it didn't make that much sense in the first place that someone just vomiting around them would put every single person into a state of shock.
That is the first incident I can remember where I felt this specific type of anger, but it happened many times in different contexts over the course of my life (once I started watching the news, it would happen very often because of the events depicted there). When these studies started coming out, it explained a lot of things to me and was honestly a huge relief. I had gone through life thinking that a lot of people who were otherwise kind were (apparently at random) cruel, or selfish, or prioritised doing the "normal" thing over other people being hurt, and I didn't understand why they didn't just do the right thing, especially in cases where it's not even hard to do. Specifically, it was reassuring to know that there was probably some neural or developmental difference that was causing them to act this way, and that it wasn't an intentional choice. I know being diagnosed as autistic and learning about autistic patterns of behaviour that I fit helped me feel less bad about how often other people complained that I had made them feel bad for responding to their emotions incorrectly, using incorrect emotions in a given situation, or making people afraid if I had a meltdown. It helped me not because I felt like it gave me carte blanche to just do these things which made other people uncomfortable or hurt, but because in understanding what was happening I could try to find ways to manage the effects on other people and counteract the parts that were anti-social when it mattered, for example by making sure to explain my tone and emotional affect explicitly in circumstances where I suspect someone has misunderstood it. My hope is that as more of this research comes out on why people who aren't autistic often do the wrong thing, it can help them to do the right thing more often and manage more effectively the consequences that their not-autism can have on other people, in the same way as learning about autism helped me to manage the negative effects that my autism could often have on other people.
When I was in school, I was in the office as part of something else when another young girl began throwing up in the waiting room. There were between five and ten people in the room and the mouth of an adjacent hallway, most of whom noticed before me, because I was reading in the hallway. When I realised what was happening, I ran over to her and held her hair, helped her stay clean, asked the office ladies for a bag and help cleaning up so she could get to the sick bay without slipping, and generally did my best to comfort her. It was very distressing because I got some of the vomit on my hands and had to deal with that for a long time until I could wash them properly. This was not a gender thing because I wasn't the only girl among the students and the office ladies were female. Later that day when school was ending, I was in the office waiting to be picked up and one of the office ladies came over to tell me she thought I was very brave and selfless for having helped that girl. This made me really upset and I asked her why she and the other people hadn't done anything until I asked her for the bag, which got me in a lot of trouble for talking back to admin staff. The guidance counselor at school told me later that they didn't act because they were shocked, which didn't make any sense because they all learned before me so they should have had more time to recover from any potential shock and help, and it didn't make that much sense in the first place that someone just vomiting around them would put every single person into a state of shock.
That is the first incident I can remember where I felt this specific type of anger, but it happened many times in different contexts over the course of my life (once I started watching the news, it would happen very often because of the events depicted there). When these studies started coming out, it explained a lot of things to me and was honestly a huge relief. I had gone through life thinking that a lot of people who were otherwise kind were (apparently at random) cruel, or selfish, or prioritised doing the "normal" thing over other people being hurt, and I didn't understand why they didn't just do the right thing, especially in cases where it's not even hard to do. Specifically, it was reassuring to know that there was probably some neural or developmental difference that was causing them to act this way, and that it wasn't an intentional choice. I know being diagnosed as autistic and learning about autistic patterns of behaviour that I fit helped me feel less bad about how often other people complained that I had made them feel bad for responding to their emotions incorrectly, using incorrect emotions in a given situation, or making people afraid if I had a meltdown. It helped me not because I felt like it gave me carte blanche to just do these things which made other people uncomfortable or hurt, but because in understanding what was happening I could try to find ways to manage the effects on other people and counteract the parts that were anti-social when it mattered, for example by making sure to explain my tone and emotional affect explicitly in circumstances where I suspect someone has misunderstood it. My hope is that as more of this research comes out on why people who aren't autistic often do the wrong thing, it can help them to do the right thing more often and manage more effectively the consequences that their not-autism can have on other people, in the same way as learning about autism helped me to manage the negative effects that my autism could often have on other people.
This is likely due to you having low empathy, which is orthogonal to autism (although it may contribute to a lesser ability to mask and therefore a higher likelihood of diagnosis).
How is “help others in need” confusingly explicit?
Maybe it’s my neurodivergence talking but that seems pretty straightforward advice.
Maybe it’s my neurodivergence talking but that seems pretty straightforward advice.
Sometimes those in need don't want your help.
Sometimes you aren't skilled or knowledgeable enough to help, and you'll just do more harm than good if you try.
Sometimes by helping, you'll cause more harm to yourself than you'll prevent in the other person.
Etc.
Sometimes you aren't skilled or knowledgeable enough to help, and you'll just do more harm than good if you try.
Sometimes by helping, you'll cause more harm to yourself than you'll prevent in the other person.
Etc.
Because of the “sometimes people who help get in trouble” part.
Flashbacks to highschool, and my underage...
>I've often remarked (informally) that autistic people seem to operate under the assumption that the explicitly-stated rules are the actual rules.
Yes, and the people who believe that this is not how things should work are, in a word, wrong.
Polities and societies who believe this tend to be very economically prosperous; GDP per capita has a positive correlation with this concept (countries with common law but no meaningfully codified negative rights come a relatively distant are second, civil law countries come third, and despotic regimes a distant fourth).
Immigration patterns of high-skill/high-educated workers follow this correlation as well; all high-achievers want to live in the US, those who aren't quite as autistic land in Canada or the UK, Continental Europe is not a meaningful destination for high-skill migration, and people will die trying to get out of China.
The problem with autistic-minded people, when operating under the notion that society has rules, tend to leak an outsized amount of political power into that society. A society that successfully prohibits itself from trying to capture that power prospers; a society that does not eventually becomes corrupt and devours its own ability to properly motivate those people to bother driving it forward.
Yes, and the people who believe that this is not how things should work are, in a word, wrong.
Polities and societies who believe this tend to be very economically prosperous; GDP per capita has a positive correlation with this concept (countries with common law but no meaningfully codified negative rights come a relatively distant are second, civil law countries come third, and despotic regimes a distant fourth).
Immigration patterns of high-skill/high-educated workers follow this correlation as well; all high-achievers want to live in the US, those who aren't quite as autistic land in Canada or the UK, Continental Europe is not a meaningful destination for high-skill migration, and people will die trying to get out of China.
The problem with autistic-minded people, when operating under the notion that society has rules, tend to leak an outsized amount of political power into that society. A society that successfully prohibits itself from trying to capture that power prospers; a society that does not eventually becomes corrupt and devours its own ability to properly motivate those people to bother driving it forward.
Hate to be another person with another anecdote.
But…
I manage several neurodivergent people and to be honest they are the best thing about our company.
They lead in areas that neurotypicals do not which often is being one of the few to speak out when something appears to be wrong or is wrong.
Specifically…
- issues that impact women, ethnic minorities & lgbtqia
- issues that impact healthcare coverage for pay
- issues that impact compensation for themselves and others
we about had a riot when they found out our org was not matching inflation.
But…
I manage several neurodivergent people and to be honest they are the best thing about our company.
They lead in areas that neurotypicals do not which often is being one of the few to speak out when something appears to be wrong or is wrong.
Specifically…
- issues that impact women, ethnic minorities & lgbtqia
- issues that impact healthcare coverage for pay
- issues that impact compensation for themselves and others
we about had a riot when they found out our org was not matching inflation.
I've had similar experience managing ND people. I'll be more than happy to repeat the experience!
I don’t think that concern for injustice is something universal or even necessarily widespread among autistic people. That is, I believe that there are plenty of autistic people who do not give a fuck, eschew social causes completely, feel misanthropic, etc. Rather, I think that the examples you encountered represent that segment of autistic people who do care, and due to the difficulty that autistic people have with understanding social roles and social boundaries, they felt a need to act and did so, when normies might not have felt a need or would have held back.
I think it's more accurate to say that autistic people tend to express their emotions much more intensly than non-autistic people, when they do decide to express them. Most non-autistic people will tend to consider social norms because they innately understand to not disrupt them. Autistic people, especially when they've decided on something, are completely willing to eschew social norms to right a wrong or express their stance or something similar.
That's not to say they're more or less empathic than others, that's just as variable as with non-autistic people (basically just because you're autistic doesn't mean you're incapable of being an asshole). However because autism partially includes a stunted social growth, the decision making process that might prevent a normal person from say, commenting on someone being rude in public (ie. Not causing a fuss, not wanting the attention to be focused on them) just... isn't quite there. That can both be good and bad depending on the situation.
At least that's been my experience having been a cashier (a couple years ago now) and having had customers who were really obviously autistic. They tended to lean towards being really expressive/opinionated, just... not especially caring if expressing that opinion is appropriate. That can be amazing if you're dealing with an especially frustrating Karen who tries to haggle prices in a fucking supermarket because she didn't bring enough cash (no cashier wants to risk putting their foot down and that blowing up in their face but in supermarkets you do not haggle the total, it's just not a thing), so having another customer back you up feels very solid/helps when management inevitably has to be called. And it can equally be frustrating when they start counting out the VAT that the cashiers computer calculates and they decide the rounding isn't to their liking/when they figure out there's a discount on a product and it isn't applied and then they try to get the cashier to correct it instead of customer service.
That's not to say they're more or less empathic than others, that's just as variable as with non-autistic people (basically just because you're autistic doesn't mean you're incapable of being an asshole). However because autism partially includes a stunted social growth, the decision making process that might prevent a normal person from say, commenting on someone being rude in public (ie. Not causing a fuss, not wanting the attention to be focused on them) just... isn't quite there. That can both be good and bad depending on the situation.
At least that's been my experience having been a cashier (a couple years ago now) and having had customers who were really obviously autistic. They tended to lean towards being really expressive/opinionated, just... not especially caring if expressing that opinion is appropriate. That can be amazing if you're dealing with an especially frustrating Karen who tries to haggle prices in a fucking supermarket because she didn't bring enough cash (no cashier wants to risk putting their foot down and that blowing up in their face but in supermarkets you do not haggle the total, it's just not a thing), so having another customer back you up feels very solid/helps when management inevitably has to be called. And it can equally be frustrating when they start counting out the VAT that the cashiers computer calculates and they decide the rounding isn't to their liking/when they figure out there's a discount on a product and it isn't applied and then they try to get the cashier to correct it instead of customer service.
I don’t quite see how pointing out to the cashier that you’re being overcharged makes someone neurodivergent. I catch wrong prices all the time and say in a friendly tone “hey can I just get you to double check that, I though I saw it was $x.” If they then say to take it up with customer service thats fine, I don’t press it, but pointing it out as soon as you notice is the best response and in many smaller stores there is no one else to deal with.
difficulty that autistic people have with understanding social roles and social boundaries
In many cases those are understood just fine, but with the caveat that they're not optimal for every situation. There are times when it's appropriate to ignore those criteria (eg to prevent an injury or mitigate some immediate risk), and the people wringing their hands about what to do are unhelpful or even in the way.
More than once I've seen bystanders weirded out by an unpleasant situation stand there repeating 'someone should call 911' over and over without being able to complete the thought and do it themselves. I have enormous respect for the people who are sufficiently present to evaluate and situation and act in the moment, even if their actions are not always perfect; I have negative respect for the people who revert to infantile paralysis or try to dissuade others from acting int he absence of a recognizable authority figure.
In many cases those are understood just fine, but with the caveat that they're not optimal for every situation. There are times when it's appropriate to ignore those criteria (eg to prevent an injury or mitigate some immediate risk), and the people wringing their hands about what to do are unhelpful or even in the way.
More than once I've seen bystanders weirded out by an unpleasant situation stand there repeating 'someone should call 911' over and over without being able to complete the thought and do it themselves. I have enormous respect for the people who are sufficiently present to evaluate and situation and act in the moment, even if their actions are not always perfect; I have negative respect for the people who revert to infantile paralysis or try to dissuade others from acting int he absence of a recognizable authority figure.
By the same mechanism, Autistic people may be less likely to agree with the social group's view of an example of injustice. Especially if the wider agreement has a contagious element that oversees its facts. Instead, ASD people may be more prone to attending to injustices that they can individually percieve.
It wasn't about "autism", but there was a study done a while ago, where it was the "cranky independent" people who intervened most. They might have been left-styled or right-styled; what they had in common was that they didn't go along with the crowd.
That doesn't feel contradictory. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a large intersection between autism and "cranky independence".
Every autistic person I've met (and I've met a LOT of them) has this similar drive to stop injustice when they see it (regardless of how much they hate society in general).
There are plenty of people on the spectrum here who will disagree. Moreover, as someone in that category in Eastern Europe with local peers in that category, I find that quite a few of us share the fatalism that the region is known for and can be suspicious or mocking of attempts to stop injustice. Indeed, could it be that in your region (or in the region of the linked study) concern for social justice is simply a common feature of society such that autistic people will share it, and therefore this is a matter of culture and not autism worldwide?
As a fellow amateur batman fantacist and definite sperglord I think it's not so much about justice necessarily, as much as it is about the system. I need for the world to work on a rational systemic way to be comfortable and counter examples are deeply unsettling to me.
Why such irrelevant comment? You have the crystal ball or all seeing eye or what? Read the study before making such comments
From the outside, it's very very difficult to tell what the actual motivation is. As a kid on the spectrum, I learned very early to shut up about everything genuine in myself, because peoples' social reactions were so painful. I still have to unlearn that decades later.
I did things similar to what the kids you mention do, and I think it was out of a very strong desire to "make incorrect things correct" rather than "make unjust things just". Both of those urges are out of the mainstream, but if a person acts in a way that matches both, then there's strong social pressure on everyone else to treat it positively.
I did things similar to what the kids you mention do, and I think it was out of a very strong desire to "make incorrect things correct" rather than "make unjust things just". Both of those urges are out of the mainstream, but if a person acts in a way that matches both, then there's strong social pressure on everyone else to treat it positively.
Ha, I kept wondering whether I feel such a strong need to "make unjust things just", but "make incorrect things correct" rings much closer to home. I guess the former gets crippled hard by social anxiety, while the latter can drive a lot of behaviors where social contact isn't in the foreground.
I have mild autism (not entirely politically correct to describe it that way) without intellectual impairments and I frankly see normal people as disabled.
I know what you mean.
I remember one time I got off the plane in Italy and I was walking with my girlfriend to customs.
At one point we branched off from all the other passengers and she was like "hey we're going the wrong way, everyone is heading there". And I said nope this is the EU passengers exit, look at the sign.
She couldn't believe it was right because the plane was full of others from our EU country. All those people couldn't be wrong, right? I explained I guessed they were all just dumbly following the herd without looking which wouldn't even occur to me. I don't really have that autopilot herd-following program in me. Even when I'm in a group I'm navigating as if I were alone.
So we got to the end and there were 6 free booths in front of us and all the other passengers were queuing up for the 2 unmanned non-EU passport booths :') a security guard had to let them into the right queue.
This applies to the bystander effect too. I'm not surprised about this conclusion at all.
I remember one time I got off the plane in Italy and I was walking with my girlfriend to customs.
At one point we branched off from all the other passengers and she was like "hey we're going the wrong way, everyone is heading there". And I said nope this is the EU passengers exit, look at the sign.
She couldn't believe it was right because the plane was full of others from our EU country. All those people couldn't be wrong, right? I explained I guessed they were all just dumbly following the herd without looking which wouldn't even occur to me. I don't really have that autopilot herd-following program in me. Even when I'm in a group I'm navigating as if I were alone.
So we got to the end and there were 6 free booths in front of us and all the other passengers were queuing up for the 2 unmanned non-EU passport booths :') a security guard had to let them into the right queue.
This applies to the bystander effect too. I'm not surprised about this conclusion at all.
I found it surprisingly helpful to use the heuristic of just pausing when everyone is doing some thing (like moving in a mass) and just literally evaluating the opposite thing to do.
It’s a surprisingly useful heuristic.
It’s a surprisingly useful heuristic.
Indeed! It gives a fresh outlook on life and a sense of freedom, of all options being open. And a lot of us are the ones that come up with solutions to problems because we think outside the box. Or more specifically: there is no box.
I could not live without that sense of freedom.
I could not live without that sense of freedom.
> a security guard had to let them into the right queue.
So, just looking at the final result they ended up in the right place ?
Assuming the security guard made that adjustment because they were so many of them, the strategy seems to be paying off in that specific case.
So, just looking at the final result they ended up in the right place ?
Assuming the security guard made that adjustment because they were so many of them, the strategy seems to be paying off in that specific case.
Someone like the person you replied to would consider a big failure and inefficient to be told by security where to go when there are signs. I'd be thinking about it for a while after too and it'd never happen again in an airport because I'd be even more aware next time to prevent it.
I think the point of GP is "following the herd" is also a strategy that works 90% of the time (I would argue 99% of the time if there is no malicious intent to mislead involved). It's not by chance that this behaviour has been selected by nature. It is simple. It works in a lot of cases including cases where there are no signs or where you can't read the signs. And it makes for a great fallback strategy when you have a better strategy for the specific case.
And what I was sharing is that someone like me wouldn't consider that outcome as "works". Someone that follows the herd in this scenario is exactly the type of person that would say "what do you mean, it worked anyway?".
In my mind if I'm an adult person in an airport and I missed obvious signs and just went with everyone I'd be genuinely thinking about this for days and softly beat myself up, look up the airport floorplan and for years after in every airport I would think about this.
This is not a hypothetical for me because it has happened and I'm still triggered about it to the point that's years later and I'm here typing about it.
In my mind if I'm an adult person in an airport and I missed obvious signs and just went with everyone I'd be genuinely thinking about this for days and softly beat myself up, look up the airport floorplan and for years after in every airport I would think about this.
This is not a hypothetical for me because it has happened and I'm still triggered about it to the point that's years later and I'm here typing about it.
So you’ve never encountered a situation where going against the grain, even if for completely good reasons, fails? I know I’ve been in that place more than once.
GP was only saying that going with the herd is most of the time a more successful strategy, and even if I don’t follow it, I’m not blind to my selection bias to say it doesn’t. As he stated, it wouldn’t have been selected otherwise.
GP was only saying that going with the herd is most of the time a more successful strategy, and even if I don’t follow it, I’m not blind to my selection bias to say it doesn’t. As he stated, it wouldn’t have been selected otherwise.
> So you’ve never encountered a situation where going against the grain, even if for completely good reasons, fails? I know I’ve been in that place more than once.
I'd rather be wrong on my own decision than on one I blindly followed from someone else :)
And it's not about going against the grain. It's about making conscious decisions rather than blind following. The outcome can very well be the same as everyone else's of course.
I'd rather be wrong on my own decision than on one I blindly followed from someone else :)
And it's not about going against the grain. It's about making conscious decisions rather than blind following. The outcome can very well be the same as everyone else's of course.
I probably sit in the middle, where I see the value of good signs (and good design in general) to properly guide the users so they don't have to rely on heuristics and "blind" fallbacks. In particular for airports where dealing with huge influx of users at peak time is critical.
On the other hand, for many people, having to talk to a security guard and move to the lane on the other side is a non-event, and they might have tried to talk to the guard even if there was absolutely no need for it, if they felt it wouldn't be an issue for the guard (not too busy, looks bored etc.). Efficiency could be super low on their priority list, if it wasn't they'd be paying a lot more attention to the signage in the first place.
On the other hand, for many people, having to talk to a security guard and move to the lane on the other side is a non-event, and they might have tried to talk to the guard even if there was absolutely no need for it, if they felt it wouldn't be an issue for the guard (not too busy, looks bored etc.). Efficiency could be super low on their priority list, if it wasn't they'd be paying a lot more attention to the signage in the first place.
I like to exploit these things but not because of autism, but opportunity. The shorter queue at the cinema that no one joins, for example, because they didn't notice because of the big queue.
It is worth taking note of what other people are doing though. Maybe not so much at airports that should have everything running like clockwork, but some places communication of new information is poor, done verbally so not everyone hears. It is worth asking people "why you doing that" sometimes.
It is worth taking note of what other people are doing though. Maybe not so much at airports that should have everything running like clockwork, but some places communication of new information is poor, done verbally so not everyone hears. It is worth asking people "why you doing that" sometimes.
Alternatively: they followed the heuristic that would get them to the right place in any properly-designed airport. Unfortunately this particular airport seems to have been designed improperly.
What does this have to do with autism, though? It is not defined by the ability to read signs, is it?
A week ago I returned to America from abroad and, by reading the signs at SFO, I downloaded the CBP app and abandoned the gigantic line in favor of the completely empty line. I am evidently in the top 1% of sign readers, but I don't know if I am autistic.
A week ago I returned to America from abroad and, by reading the signs at SFO, I downloaded the CBP app and abandoned the gigantic line in favor of the completely empty line. I am evidently in the top 1% of sign readers, but I don't know if I am autistic.
> What does this have to do with autism, though? It is not defined by the ability to read signs, is it?
No but it's partly defined by the lower ability to form part of social groups and thus follow others on autopilot. And thus being more aware of situations.
The story was not really a definition rather than a symptom. One that can be caused by more than one thing.
No but it's partly defined by the lower ability to form part of social groups and thus follow others on autopilot. And thus being more aware of situations.
The story was not really a definition rather than a symptom. One that can be caused by more than one thing.
If you've spent your whole life wondering how the fuck the bulk of people seem to make confusing or challenging decisions maybe you just evaluate 'from first principals' in more situations.
this effect seems to be especially true in airports. they seem to particularly inspire dumb herd behaviour. perhaps there's an increase in perceived danger leading to a stronger desire for safety in numbers?
another example: queueing to board the plane. other than to fit in, why on earth would I stand there and compete to spend more time in a sweaty uncomfortable seat packed with 400 other people? plus, if you get on last, you can take advantage of empty rows before anyone else
another example: queueing to board the plane. other than to fit in, why on earth would I stand there and compete to spend more time in a sweaty uncomfortable seat packed with 400 other people? plus, if you get on last, you can take advantage of empty rows before anyone else
The reason becomes apparent when you take a carry on bag and find yourself desperately searching for somewhere to put it in an overhead bin, but there is none. You boarded too late and everyone ahead of you stole your allotted space.
NOW you have to check in your carry on. And waste time waiting for your bag at the baggage claim. If it even makes it. Your bag has much higher chance of being lost if checked in late.
NOW you have to check in your carry on. And waste time waiting for your bag at the baggage claim. If it even makes it. Your bag has much higher chance of being lost if checked in late.
Yup this. I'm not a herd person but I love boarding first so I can tuck my bag away. It means the worry of that is gone.
And I actually like sitting in my window seat a lot more than at the gate.
And I actually like sitting in my window seat a lot more than at the gate.
Pretty funny use of the word "stole" in this context. The space being above a particular doesn't make it that seat's space any more than the public parking space on the street in front of your house makes it yours. And I've been on probably 8 or 10 flights this year and every time they said carry-ons checked at the gate are returned planeside upon arrival; not once have they been sent to baggage claim.
Actually the opposite is true. When you gate-check your bags, they are handled carefully and go directly into the plane. Sometimes even into a corner of the passenger area. Parents routinely gate-check strollers, and it’s rare to see one get lost.
Also, gate-checked luggage is given to you at the gate when you land. So no baggage claim.
Also, gate-checked luggage is given to you at the gate when you land. So no baggage claim.
> When you gate-check your bags, they are handled carefully
Spend some time at the window seats at the gate looking at earlier flights and how gate-checked luggage is handled.
It gets thrown down this chute that drops hard some 20ft to the ground. It also gets very carelessly thrown in there, so a bunch of the bags miss the chute and just drop straight down to the concrete. If you had anything other than clothes in there, ouch! You'll get back a back full of destroyed fragments.
Spend some time at the window seats at the gate looking at earlier flights and how gate-checked luggage is handled.
It gets thrown down this chute that drops hard some 20ft to the ground. It also gets very carelessly thrown in there, so a bunch of the bags miss the chute and just drop straight down to the concrete. If you had anything other than clothes in there, ouch! You'll get back a back full of destroyed fragments.
>The reason becomes apparent when you take a carry on bag
your unreason will become apparent when you check that bag and stroll completely unencumbered through the vast distances twixt curb and plane (x2 departure and arrival)
baggage claim really doesn't take that long, and you can come up with something zen to do for 5 or 10 minutes, make a phone call or two, talk to family or friends. Life is better when you stop inconveniencing yourself and creating a rat race when there isn't one. Let everyone around you fight over the overheads.
your unreason will become apparent when you check that bag and stroll completely unencumbered through the vast distances twixt curb and plane (x2 departure and arrival)
baggage claim really doesn't take that long, and you can come up with something zen to do for 5 or 10 minutes, make a phone call or two, talk to family or friends. Life is better when you stop inconveniencing yourself and creating a rat race when there isn't one. Let everyone around you fight over the overheads.
> baggage claim really doesn't take that long
Sure. Just recently picked up my partner from SFO on a late night arrival. It tooke THREE HOURS for the bags to start arriving on the belt. Who knows why. Zero information given to the hundreds of angry people standing there. A very miserable time.
Yes, that's not typical, but it happens. If you carry your bags, it can't possibly ever happen.
Sure. Just recently picked up my partner from SFO on a late night arrival. It tooke THREE HOURS for the bags to start arriving on the belt. Who knows why. Zero information given to the hundreds of angry people standing there. A very miserable time.
Yes, that's not typical, but it happens. If you carry your bags, it can't possibly ever happen.
I agreed until I lost thousands of dollars of shit in a checked bag TWICE in one lifetime
The crazy thing is, the chance of someone dying is about the same as the chances of you losing your checked bags.
My intuition is that, in addition to what you mentioned and at least for longer flights, some people have residual effects from the mild hypoxia at altitude when they're on the ground in their destination airport.
I, at least, sure as hell feel dumber for the rest of the day after a six hour flight. Usually that's accompanied by a fairly debilitating headache.
I, at least, sure as hell feel dumber for the rest of the day after a six hour flight. Usually that's accompanied by a fairly debilitating headache.
Commercial airline cabins are pressurized to at most 8k feet; there are no hypoxic effects at that altitude, at least not on decision-making. You don't need continuous oxygen on the flight deck until either 14 or 14.5k feet (in the US, EU might be slightly different). The FAA is dogmatic and wrong about a lot of things, but if there was even the slightest bit of evidence showing decreased decision-making or cognition at lower altitudes, they'd be requiring oxygen immediately, economic consequences be damned.
You can watch your blood oxygen dip when flying, I don't know how significant the effect is on performance but as a sea level dweller there seems to be some observable difference in the data.
Too much CO2 is known to lower IQ scores significantly, for the duration of exposure.
> this effect seems to be especially true in airports. they seem to particularly inspire dumb herd behaviour. perhaps there's an increase in perceived danger leading to a stronger desire for safety in numbers?
There's an increase in potential negative consequences. More people with guns, more chance for "security" to pick on someone they don't like. If you go off on your own and you're right, you don't gain much - if everyone gets on the wrong plane or goes through the wrong gate or what have you, there's not much they can do. If you go off on your own and you're wrong, you might get beaten up, kicked off your flight, held without charge until you dehydrate, banned from the country...
There's an increase in potential negative consequences. More people with guns, more chance for "security" to pick on someone they don't like. If you go off on your own and you're right, you don't gain much - if everyone gets on the wrong plane or goes through the wrong gate or what have you, there's not much they can do. If you go off on your own and you're wrong, you might get beaten up, kicked off your flight, held without charge until you dehydrate, banned from the country...
> There's an increase in potential negative consequences. More people with guns, more chance for "security" to pick on someone they don't like. If you go off on your own and you're right, you don't gain much - if everyone gets on the wrong plane or goes through the wrong gate or what have you, there's not much they can do. If you go off on your own and you're wrong, you might get beaten up, kicked off your flight, held without charge until you dehydrate, banned from the country...
Umm wut? You live in North Korea or something?
Here in Europe things are pretty mellow, there was a while after 9/11 when the security was pretty heavy-handed but luckily things are back to normal and we are now again innocent until proven guilty. We have things like rights here.
But beaten up because you walk around in the wrong public area of an airport?? That did not happen even then.
Umm wut? You live in North Korea or something?
Here in Europe things are pretty mellow, there was a while after 9/11 when the security was pretty heavy-handed but luckily things are back to normal and we are now again innocent until proven guilty. We have things like rights here.
But beaten up because you walk around in the wrong public area of an airport?? That did not happen even then.
I'm European. Even pre-9/11 you'd get stopped and made to leave for saying the wrong thing. Post- we've got a guy getting jailed (famously the first person jailed for an act without criminal intent, because apparently airports get an exception from basic protections) because he went for a smoke and some people were scared of his luggage, and the person getting held without charge and without any water was also my country.
> But beaten up because you walk around in the wrong public area of an airport??
Sure, but if you take a wrong turn you're suddenly in the private area, and even if there weren't any signs, well, why did you wander off on your own, no-one else did.
> But beaten up because you walk around in the wrong public area of an airport??
Sure, but if you take a wrong turn you're suddenly in the private area, and even if there weren't any signs, well, why did you wander off on your own, no-one else did.
Some people live in a scary world. I would think it's quite stupid to be worried about this when the worst that could happen is missing a flight, which would not happen anyway if you pay attention to your surroundings.
That's not the worst that can happen, not by a long way. You have very few rights in an airport, in practice if not in theory.
Have you looked up crime rates in airports or what gives you this idea that it's a dangerous place? Unless you're digging up dirt on Putin and flying through Russia or some outlier situation like this, nothing is going to happen.
It's not a crime when the authorities do it, sadly. I've seen plenty of anecdotes here and elsewhere of people being detained without access to legal representation and without even being informed of what they've supposedly done wrong. If you're denied entry to a country then you have no right of appeal or anything.
The danger factor needs to be weighted between probability of the event and severity of the event. The probability of the things you describe are near zero.
I've personally avoided missing flights by breaking from the crowd in airports
> why on earth would I stand there and compete to spend more time in a sweaty uncomfortable seat packed with 400 other people?
Wonder if you have flown in recent years?
Flights are now set up so that the last several groups who board have zero space for carryone luggage. So if you board after all the space is gone you are in for a very bad time. For a while it started to become an unspoken rule, and now they even announce it on the loudspeaker: if you are in group N or above (N depends on airline) you won't have any space left.
Wonder if you have flown in recent years?
Flights are now set up so that the last several groups who board have zero space for carryone luggage. So if you board after all the space is gone you are in for a very bad time. For a while it started to become an unspoken rule, and now they even announce it on the loudspeaker: if you are in group N or above (N depends on airline) you won't have any space left.
My “rational”answer is that I don’t mind standing, so it’s worth the benefit of guaranteeing space in the overhead bin near my seat, and I like being first to my row.
Plus I almost always have a window seat, so getting there first is the most convenient for myself and my row mates. I don’t do this on flights that don’t seem full.
Plus I almost always have a window seat, so getting there first is the most convenient for myself and my row mates. I don’t do this on flights that don’t seem full.
These days it makes sense to queue up and make sure your bag don't get checked, but I had the same initial observations.
or maybe people are in a new place and processing a totally foreign environment? Maybe theyre stressed/tired from flying? Not thinking because theyre in a rush?
Its not that hard to find reasons for why people might make mistakes in an airport.
> another example: queueing to board the plane. other than to fit in, why on earth would I stand there and compete to spend more time in a sweaty uncomfortable seat packed with 400 other people? plus, if you get on last, you can take advantage of empty rows before anyone else
what? people are following direction, and the way the plane boards is actually important to how fast it loads, so youre messing with that because its a mild convenience to you and you consider that intelligent behaviour?
cpg grey has a video on this i suggest you take a look https://youtu.be/oAHbLRjF0vo?si=jv00xanestDfodPt
> another example: queueing to board the plane. other than to fit in, why on earth would I stand there and compete to spend more time in a sweaty uncomfortable seat packed with 400 other people? plus, if you get on last, you can take advantage of empty rows before anyone else
what? people are following direction, and the way the plane boards is actually important to how fast it loads, so youre messing with that because its a mild convenience to you and you consider that intelligent behaviour?
cpg grey has a video on this i suggest you take a look https://youtu.be/oAHbLRjF0vo?si=jv00xanestDfodPt
>what? people are following direction, and the way the plane boards is actually important to how fast it loads, so youre messing with that because its a mild convenience to you and you consider that intelligent behaviour?
What direction? The only time there were more directions than just "priority" vs "non priority" was on my flight to Korea a few years ago. Most smaller flights in Europe, sadly, do not do that.
What direction? The only time there were more directions than just "priority" vs "non priority" was on my flight to Korea a few years ago. Most smaller flights in Europe, sadly, do not do that.
Full service airlines board by section by direction of the gate agents pre-flight. The video explains why its important for those airlines
I've watched that video when it came out, but my point is that you can fly monthly between european countries without ever coming across proper boarding procedures. Don't get me wrong, it infuriates me, but this is the sad reality we live in.
Even on the flight from Helsinki to Bangkok there was only priority vs non-priority distinction, even though the tickets had different seating groups. Could have saved us all some convenience, but no, we all had to board the plane very chaotically.
Which is why I am usually the last one to go to the boarding, I can chill on comfy seat for 20-30 minutes instead of standing in chilly or boiling hot weather/boarding tunnels.
Even on the flight from Helsinki to Bangkok there was only priority vs non-priority distinction, even though the tickets had different seating groups. Could have saved us all some convenience, but no, we all had to board the plane very chaotically.
Which is why I am usually the last one to go to the boarding, I can chill on comfy seat for 20-30 minutes instead of standing in chilly or boiling hot weather/boarding tunnels.
>what? people are following direction, and the way the plane boards is actually important to how fast it loads, so youre messing with that because its a mild convenience to you and you consider that intelligent behaviour?
if this had been the case even once on the tens of flights I've taken in recent years, then I would have participated in that. in reality however, boarding is almost exclusively two naturally-formed queues, priority and not
the tone of your comment sounds to me like suppressed embarrassment. it's okay, you're not an idiot for queueing for boarding, it's just not a behaviour I'm going to participate in for no real reason
if this had been the case even once on the tens of flights I've taken in recent years, then I would have participated in that. in reality however, boarding is almost exclusively two naturally-formed queues, priority and not
the tone of your comment sounds to me like suppressed embarrassment. it's okay, you're not an idiot for queueing for boarding, it's just not a behaviour I'm going to participate in for no real reason
Same here. Got an anti-herd mentality that while beneficial in some ways, is detrimental in other areas associated with the social aspects. It's also given me a bit of a misanthropic outlook as well.
Reminds me of one time when we had a power outage in the central train station, there was a long queue of people lined up at the (stationary) escalator while the stairs next to it were empty. I just shrugged and went up the stairs, but I do wonder what all those people were thinking.
"Ugh, I hate the stairs I'm sure this escalator will start up any time..."
At the cinema everyone goes out through the door the first person went through. A line even forms while all the other doors are ignored.
> Even when I'm in a group I'm navigating as if I were alone
This ring true to me about my whole life, both in a good and bad senses.
This ring true to me about my whole life, both in a good and bad senses.
Are there connections between ADHD autism in your view? I feel like if I had my wits about me, i woulda made the same choice
They're highly comorbid with a lot of common traits.
I just wonder if sociality and ease of establishing and maintaining rapport is contraindicative of ASPD/autism stuff or whether it really is not only just a spectrum in the sense of a spectrum of impairment but also on a continuum from ASPD/autism <--> "Normal" where impairment can still exist as a sort of sub-spectrum without wholly subjugating me to that subclassification where i could otherwise ddmobstrate skills and traits to the contrary
Insofar as a a spectrum of impairment is referring to a spectrum of diificulty in socializing and a deficiency of adeptness at neurotypical theory of mind
Insofar as a a spectrum of impairment is referring to a spectrum of diificulty in socializing and a deficiency of adeptness at neurotypical theory of mind
Hi, I didn't totally understand your writing.
One reason why a lot of things are comorbid: generally, few mental things have "a single gene" but are manifestations of many gene differences and nature.
One reason why a lot of things are comorbid is just that more people are a little something than a lot something, and people who get diagnosed for one thing are more likely to have resources and reasons to be diagnosed for another something.
After rereading your msg, I'm concerned you're looking for some sort of thing like "If I'm sufficiently good at X I can't be Y"
I don't think these things work this way. Many folks on the spectrum share some social skills weaknesses, but social skills challenges are not really what makes them on the spectrum.
In all, all models wrong - some models useful. An attitude of viewing these things from the lens of asking if they help you understand yourself and navigate the world is probably best. I was really worried with labels before I kept repeating to myself 'all models wrong, some models useful'
Depression, ADHD, autism, all models. All 'wrong'.Still, useful sometimes. They aren't meant to be the be all end all though, and they only sometimes (maybe often) accurately represent reality, which is a bit of a silly statement, since there isn't one reality to it all.
There we go, I got more confusing sorry :)
One reason why a lot of things are comorbid: generally, few mental things have "a single gene" but are manifestations of many gene differences and nature.
One reason why a lot of things are comorbid is just that more people are a little something than a lot something, and people who get diagnosed for one thing are more likely to have resources and reasons to be diagnosed for another something.
After rereading your msg, I'm concerned you're looking for some sort of thing like "If I'm sufficiently good at X I can't be Y"
I don't think these things work this way. Many folks on the spectrum share some social skills weaknesses, but social skills challenges are not really what makes them on the spectrum.
In all, all models wrong - some models useful. An attitude of viewing these things from the lens of asking if they help you understand yourself and navigate the world is probably best. I was really worried with labels before I kept repeating to myself 'all models wrong, some models useful'
Depression, ADHD, autism, all models. All 'wrong'.Still, useful sometimes. They aren't meant to be the be all end all though, and they only sometimes (maybe often) accurately represent reality, which is a bit of a silly statement, since there isn't one reality to it all.
There we go, I got more confusing sorry :)
No like I know I'm word salad here. I just mean that I wonder to what extent certain tendencies are related to stimulant meds vs a natural desire to like be on my own, playing and entertaining myself, and not relying on anyone else to enrich or make sure I'm ok
Hmm, I suspect for example "rambly long post" is more common ADHD trait on stimulants than off. Maybe that's what you're talking about?
Besides that, I think, generally, traits will be "a combination of reasons."
For example, even before stimulants folks w/ADHD had bursts of energy and attitude that can be similar to stimulant-driven quirks. Those quirks are probably just more common w/meds
Besides that, I think, generally, traits will be "a combination of reasons."
For example, even before stimulants folks w/ADHD had bursts of energy and attitude that can be similar to stimulant-driven quirks. Those quirks are probably just more common w/meds
When you say "ASPD/autism" do you mean "ASD/autism"? ASPD is something very different (antisocial personality disorder, which sometimes used to be called psychopathy / sociopathy).
My understanding of the term 'spectrum' in this context is less "a scale from 0-100%" and more "a collection of traits which, if you have enough of them, would suggest you fit into this larger category".
In terms of being being able to navigate social situations, look up 'masking'. Many people on the spectrum learn to behave (sometimes very effectively) in 'normal' ways in social situations but it's a set of learned scripts and behaviours rather than being instinctive.
My understanding of the term 'spectrum' in this context is less "a scale from 0-100%" and more "a collection of traits which, if you have enough of them, would suggest you fit into this larger category".
In terms of being being able to navigate social situations, look up 'masking'. Many people on the spectrum learn to behave (sometimes very effectively) in 'normal' ways in social situations but it's a set of learned scripts and behaviours rather than being instinctive.
Yes ur correct that was an oversight. ASD/autism, although for all i know theres aspd also. Fugh
ADHD and autism are comorbid in one direction (people with autism are more likely than the general population to have ADHD, but people with ADHD are not more likely than the general population to have autism).
> people with autism are more likely than the general population to have ADHD, but people with ADHD are not more likely than the general population to have autism
I'm pretty sure that's not mathematically possible. If W people have both, X people have only autism, Y people have only ADHD, and Z people have neither, can you provide values for W, X, Y, and Z that would make that claim true?
I'm pretty sure that's not mathematically possible. If W people have both, X people have only autism, Y people have only ADHD, and Z people have neither, can you provide values for W, X, Y, and Z that would make that claim true?
Alright, you've nerd-sniped me.
Our assumption is that the ratio of people with autism and ADHD to people with just autism is greater than the ratio of people with ADHD to people in general. Using your variables, that is: W / (W + X) > (W + Y) / (W + X + Y + Z). This simplifies out to the constraint that ZW > XY.
We want to show that the ratio of people with autism and ADHD to people with just ADHD is no greater than the ratio of people with just autism to people in general. This is: W / (W + Y) <= (W + X) / (W + X + Y + Z).
We can recognize that this is almost the same as our assumption, just exchanging the roles of X and Y. (I guess that's obvious from the problem statement.) That means our goal is to show that ZW <= YX, which is immediately just the negation of what we're assuming. That would be a contradiction.
So, indeed, this is mathematically impossible!
(EDIT: It's surprisingly hard to write these formulae down in English without getting confused.)
I think something that would be possible is that having ADHD if you have autism is more likely than having autism if you have ADHD. For instance, "being older than 20 if you're older than 30 is more likely than being older than 30 if you're older than 20" is just obviously true, because one entails the other.
Our assumption is that the ratio of people with autism and ADHD to people with just autism is greater than the ratio of people with ADHD to people in general. Using your variables, that is: W / (W + X) > (W + Y) / (W + X + Y + Z). This simplifies out to the constraint that ZW > XY.
We want to show that the ratio of people with autism and ADHD to people with just ADHD is no greater than the ratio of people with just autism to people in general. This is: W / (W + Y) <= (W + X) / (W + X + Y + Z).
We can recognize that this is almost the same as our assumption, just exchanging the roles of X and Y. (I guess that's obvious from the problem statement.) That means our goal is to show that ZW <= YX, which is immediately just the negation of what we're assuming. That would be a contradiction.
So, indeed, this is mathematically impossible!
(EDIT: It's surprisingly hard to write these formulae down in English without getting confused.)
I think something that would be possible is that having ADHD if you have autism is more likely than having autism if you have ADHD. For instance, "being older than 20 if you're older than 30 is more likely than being older than 30 if you're older than 20" is just obviously true, because one entails the other.
You are correct, and my memory failed me: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3876754/
People with autism are highly likely to have comorbid ADHD.
People with ADHD are more likely than normal to have autistic traits, although nowhere near as commonly as the first statement.
People with autism are highly likely to have comorbid ADHD.
People with ADHD are more likely than normal to have autistic traits, although nowhere near as commonly as the first statement.
W (9), X (1), Y (9), Z (1)
General chance of being in either group: 50% (10 people with autism, 10 with ADHD, 20 total).
Chance of having autism if you have ADHD: 50% (9 with autism, 9 without, 10 total).
Chance of having ADHD if you have autism: 90% (9 with ADHD, 9 without, 10 total).
General chance of being in either group: 50% (10 people with autism, 10 with ADHD, 20 total).
Chance of having autism if you have ADHD: 50% (9 with autism, 9 without, 10 total).
Chance of having ADHD if you have autism: 90% (9 with ADHD, 9 without, 10 total).
> General chance of being in either group: 50% (10 people with autism, 10 with ADHD, 20 total).
This is wrong. With your numbers ("W (9), X (1), Y (9), Z (1)"), 18 people would have ADHD, not 10.
This is wrong. With your numbers ("W (9), X (1), Y (9), Z (1)"), 18 people would have ADHD, not 10.
We don't need mathematical or conjectural proofs here, it makes intuitive sense but if you find a soecific rebuttal to it we'll be glad to reference that as well
p(h)p(a|h)=p(h|a)p(a) therefore if p(a)=p(a|h) then p(h)=p(h|a) too.
Interesting distinction, thank you
It appears that people with high-functioning autism and a high IQ have advantages and disadvantages.
According to https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2016.0030..., crystallized intelligence is reduced, verbal skills and comprehension and coding (psychomotor speed, ability to absorb new material, visual motor speed, drive for achievement) are reduced. However, some other factors like image rotation ability, attention to detail and visual search are enhanced. There might be more "deliberative" decision making that tends to reduce biases and errors. According to https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.02.21265802v..., autistic individuals with exceptional ability suffer disproportionately from high anxiety and low self-worth.
It's a mixed bag with tradeoffs and imbalances, but thinking that normies are disabled just shows that you're overvaluing some factors while undervaluing others.
According to https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2016.0030..., crystallized intelligence is reduced, verbal skills and comprehension and coding (psychomotor speed, ability to absorb new material, visual motor speed, drive for achievement) are reduced. However, some other factors like image rotation ability, attention to detail and visual search are enhanced. There might be more "deliberative" decision making that tends to reduce biases and errors. According to https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.02.21265802v..., autistic individuals with exceptional ability suffer disproportionately from high anxiety and low self-worth.
It's a mixed bag with tradeoffs and imbalances, but thinking that normies are disabled just shows that you're overvaluing some factors while undervaluing others.
You may also be perceiving other people's politeness as incompetence
Frankly that superiority complex may be why neurodivergent people with similar ideas about "normal" people have issues getting along with others, no offense.
Autistic people are often seen as arrogant because they speak honestly about their strengths (and weaknesses), whereas normal people avoid speaking honestly about their strengths unless they are arrogant.
This is many times in my experience not the case, autistic people still have very strong biases hidden under a layer of seeming logic. Incorrect, very confidently held opinions (perseverance -- the trait) are things I see often in the community, I believe.
Bluntness != correctness.
We have the normal emotions and human flaws, they're just expressed differently.
Bluntness != correctness.
We have the normal emotions and human flaws, they're just expressed differently.
We are also liable to mistake politeness and tact for incompetence or foolish "herd behavior." Something I've realized as I've aged as an autistic person is that I was quite obnoxious about this in my youth. Neurotypical people are typically much more aware of the social context of their words and actions than we give them credit for: they aren't stupid they are trying not to embarrass us or be cruel.
NDs want others to perceive the most accurate picture of them.
NTs want others to perceive the best possible picture of them. That makes talking about ones strengths loaded with things like suspiction etc.
NTs want others to perceive the best possible picture of them. That makes talking about ones strengths loaded with things like suspiction etc.
What you call a "superiority complex" is the exact attitude neurodivergent people face constantly
You’re arguing that feeling like everyone (or neurotypical people) is mentally disabled is not an example of superiority complex, right?
You’re arguing that feeling like everyone (or neurodivergent people) is mentally disabled is not an example of superiority complex, right?
What? Of course not.
It's an account of reality, it may be wrong, but so far it looks like that.
NDs lack certain social instincts, that are at the same time very strong in NTs. To a ND, NTs acting under influence of these do appear to be flawed. It is an observation, not a superiority complex. One of the differences is that NDs are not hierarchical, superiority/inferiority of people is a non-category to a ND.
Edit: fixed mixed up shortcuts
Edit: fixed mixed up shortcuts
1. I was being a little facetious.
2. It is absolutely weird to speak for all neurodiverse people in such sweeping ways. I've been involved in the physical sciences most of my adult life and I can tell you I've met plenty of ND people who are also highly competitive and judgemental. Even those these are considered negative traits, you do a disservice to a a huge variety of people by claiming that they are all the same. Its the opposite of acknowledging their diversity.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." -George Carlin
The future is Wall-E...
The future is Wall-E...
I might be missing something here. What does this have to do with this article concerning ASD and the bystander effect.
This has nothing to do with the article. He's just showing his poor lack of conversational skills, typical of the condition that makes him "superior".
relevant
When you're successful at life it's called "neurodiversity".
I have autism as well. I don't see normal people as disabled, just different. I think seeing normal people as disabled is a rather myopic perspective, and I sometimes hear it from the community. I don't like it, personally. Typically I believe because many of the times I hear it, it comes with a need for superiority of some kind, and that gets in the way of other various practical things.
It's the same kind of tradeoff in autism vs neurotypical people as you would have in frequency vs momentum with particles, or resolution vs distance in wavelengths. This is because the autistic brain has much less information filtering coming in, so the brain is less 'biased' towards certain things, but also gets completely overwhelmed with information more easily.
I believe that the reason that many autism traits and cPTSD traits are similar is because they are one and the same -- that they are an emergent result of autism as a result of culture and the world, etc, and are not necessarily inherent to the condition. They just appear that way I believe because the mean/median of our cultures and how they interact with the condition tends to create a fixed point where those symptoms generally tend to arise.
This makes some sense if one considers that in cPTSD, it is many, many accumulated little 't' traumas of sensory overwhelm where tiny bits of the experience 'overflow' and aren't properly encoded in the memory system (EMDR, and misc therapeutic techniques attempt to soften this feeling so that those sensations can be re-integrated).
As far as day to day life goes, I believe I am a superb hard problem solver, but conversely, the day-to-day 'normal' things, I find quite challenging and overwhelming. I can buffer them some with supplements, reducing sensory input (having routines, things with little extra Shannon information, etc), to keep me in that valid range of not hitting information overwhelm. But I find life significantly harder due to my autism, despite the few gifts it provides.
There's not really 'autism without intellectual impairments', really only an inverted U curve of sensitivity to information -- which absolutely is an impairment depending upon the situation. I have a few narrow areas of exceptional gifting, due to my brain's sensitivity to information, and also will be shut down for up to hours from a single screaming baby at a Costco for the same reason.
It's all a balance, there's always tradeoffs, and one can certainly move up or down that curve a little bit with suppelements depending upon their personal 'sweet spot'. NAC I've found for me suppresses the symptoms some, and aspartame quite strongly magnifies them for a day or two. I use both, oddly enough, though I greatly prefer NAC for a few reasons.
I hope you found this comment informative and interesting. I am happy to discuss further and am willing to answer any questions and/or thoughts. <3 :')))) :')))) <3 Thank you.
It's the same kind of tradeoff in autism vs neurotypical people as you would have in frequency vs momentum with particles, or resolution vs distance in wavelengths. This is because the autistic brain has much less information filtering coming in, so the brain is less 'biased' towards certain things, but also gets completely overwhelmed with information more easily.
I believe that the reason that many autism traits and cPTSD traits are similar is because they are one and the same -- that they are an emergent result of autism as a result of culture and the world, etc, and are not necessarily inherent to the condition. They just appear that way I believe because the mean/median of our cultures and how they interact with the condition tends to create a fixed point where those symptoms generally tend to arise.
This makes some sense if one considers that in cPTSD, it is many, many accumulated little 't' traumas of sensory overwhelm where tiny bits of the experience 'overflow' and aren't properly encoded in the memory system (EMDR, and misc therapeutic techniques attempt to soften this feeling so that those sensations can be re-integrated).
As far as day to day life goes, I believe I am a superb hard problem solver, but conversely, the day-to-day 'normal' things, I find quite challenging and overwhelming. I can buffer them some with supplements, reducing sensory input (having routines, things with little extra Shannon information, etc), to keep me in that valid range of not hitting information overwhelm. But I find life significantly harder due to my autism, despite the few gifts it provides.
There's not really 'autism without intellectual impairments', really only an inverted U curve of sensitivity to information -- which absolutely is an impairment depending upon the situation. I have a few narrow areas of exceptional gifting, due to my brain's sensitivity to information, and also will be shut down for up to hours from a single screaming baby at a Costco for the same reason.
It's all a balance, there's always tradeoffs, and one can certainly move up or down that curve a little bit with suppelements depending upon their personal 'sweet spot'. NAC I've found for me suppresses the symptoms some, and aspartame quite strongly magnifies them for a day or two. I use both, oddly enough, though I greatly prefer NAC for a few reasons.
I hope you found this comment informative and interesting. I am happy to discuss further and am willing to answer any questions and/or thoughts. <3 :')))) :')))) <3 Thank you.
> I believe that the reason that many autism traits and cPTSD traits are similar is because they are one and the same -- that they are an emergent result of autism as a result of culture and the world
Something I once heard an autism specialist therapist say was she didn't believe there were any autistic adults without cPTSD. That growing up and entering the world autistic in any of our societies is inherently traumatic. And that one of the big projects for autistic adults is figuring out how to differentiate their autism features from their ptsd symptoms.
It's a pretty hot take and I came to realize it as more of a therapist's practical starting point than a literal fact about EVERY every autistic person. But it's given me a lot to think about and use over the years.
Something I once heard an autism specialist therapist say was she didn't believe there were any autistic adults without cPTSD. That growing up and entering the world autistic in any of our societies is inherently traumatic. And that one of the big projects for autistic adults is figuring out how to differentiate their autism features from their ptsd symptoms.
It's a pretty hot take and I came to realize it as more of a therapist's practical starting point than a literal fact about EVERY every autistic person. But it's given me a lot to think about and use over the years.
Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts. They seem like a very healthy way to look at things that doesn't add the usual cliches one finds online and it's rare to read 1st hand accounts of this quality.
I was being a bit facetious. You are right, of course. Fundamentally, I don't see people as abled or disabled anyway. Those labels are contextual, clearly. But look, I've been a weirdo my whole life, allow me a brief moment of superior feeling.
I did find it interesting. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
God help us. Is it inevitable for every technology forum to eventually descend into proclamations of intellectual superiority?
And this is one good reason to never let a shrink diagnose you.
I'm not even sure what passes for "autism" these days. Back in the late 90s I helped out at a tiny charity that helped out family's of severely disabled kids. They would be utterly dependent on their parents for everything and needed constant supervision. Almost all were non-verbal. Due to the fact that many of them had genetic conditions, they had a bunch of health problems and also looked different to other kids their age. But I remember one kid, he was about 7, looked "normal" and had no other medical issues, but needed constant supervision and was non-verbal. I asked what was wrong with him. "He's autistic". My understanding of autism is a mix of that kid and Kim Peak (the real person behind the Rain Man movie).
Fast forward to this century. I've had full conversations with successful people, who announce that they're autistic.
Which austism is this article talking about and how exactly is it diagnosed?
Fast forward to this century. I've had full conversations with successful people, who announce that they're autistic.
Which austism is this article talking about and how exactly is it diagnosed?
Autism exists on a multi-dimensional spectrum. Dimensions include restricted interests, anxiety, social awkwardness, difficulty reading faces, sensory processing issues, unusual motor of verbal behaviour, among many others. You can think of these characteristics among all people as being distributed like bell curves, and we use the word autism to describe people who are on the tail ends of these. This can also be described as "having autistic traits".
These characteristics tend to be correlated, as well as with neurological differences. But it's important to remember that they are blurry distributions, and also that every autistic person will lie in different points along these characteristics. It's even somewhat conceivable for two people to be autistic and share no autistic traits.
Autism is not by itself a pathology. However, if an autistic trait is especially pronounced, it might cause clinically significant impediment to a person's ability to take care of themselves or integrate with society (especially modern society — more on that later). We can then speak of ASD, or Autism Spectrum Disorder, which is a clinically recognised diagnosis. Many people with ASD also have a learning disability, but certainly not all.
While many difficulties autistic people face are intrinsic to autism, a significant proportion also come from stigma. Modern society is conformist, especially in the working world, and the natural needs, behaviours, and mannerisms of autistic people can conflict with expectations of professionalism or convention. So, high-functioning autistic people have a tendency to consciously or unconsciously learn to imitate neurotypical behaviour, sometimes at great expense in terms of energy and self-identity. This is called "masking".
It's a matter of definition whether we use the word "autism" to refer to this cluster of traits or the clinically significant disorder. Indeed, I think the word used to refer exclusively to the disorder, and it remains controversial. Many people, especially carers of people with low-functioning ASD, feel that saying autism is not an illness trivialises the genuine difficulties they experience. I am very sympathetic to this, but ultimately, I think that without this word "autism", many otherwise fully independently functioning people who fall under the umbrella are left with a void to explain their feeling of difference and social exclusion, and it is bad for society as well, as it pushes autistic people to suppress traits that could potentially be extremely valuable. So, I advocate for this autism vs ASD distinction. But reasonable people can disagree.
I hope you found this useful as a primer on autism, or at least of this autistic person's understanding of it!
These characteristics tend to be correlated, as well as with neurological differences. But it's important to remember that they are blurry distributions, and also that every autistic person will lie in different points along these characteristics. It's even somewhat conceivable for two people to be autistic and share no autistic traits.
Autism is not by itself a pathology. However, if an autistic trait is especially pronounced, it might cause clinically significant impediment to a person's ability to take care of themselves or integrate with society (especially modern society — more on that later). We can then speak of ASD, or Autism Spectrum Disorder, which is a clinically recognised diagnosis. Many people with ASD also have a learning disability, but certainly not all.
While many difficulties autistic people face are intrinsic to autism, a significant proportion also come from stigma. Modern society is conformist, especially in the working world, and the natural needs, behaviours, and mannerisms of autistic people can conflict with expectations of professionalism or convention. So, high-functioning autistic people have a tendency to consciously or unconsciously learn to imitate neurotypical behaviour, sometimes at great expense in terms of energy and self-identity. This is called "masking".
It's a matter of definition whether we use the word "autism" to refer to this cluster of traits or the clinically significant disorder. Indeed, I think the word used to refer exclusively to the disorder, and it remains controversial. Many people, especially carers of people with low-functioning ASD, feel that saying autism is not an illness trivialises the genuine difficulties they experience. I am very sympathetic to this, but ultimately, I think that without this word "autism", many otherwise fully independently functioning people who fall under the umbrella are left with a void to explain their feeling of difference and social exclusion, and it is bad for society as well, as it pushes autistic people to suppress traits that could potentially be extremely valuable. So, I advocate for this autism vs ASD distinction. But reasonable people can disagree.
I hope you found this useful as a primer on autism, or at least of this autistic person's understanding of it!
My son is 7 and nonverbal, as in your example, and I share much the same problem with the widening of the definition of autism. My partner - a successful academic - is also autistic, in the manner of your other examples.
As with any term that has become too wide to be useful, it needs subdividing. There used to be autism and aspergers, high functioning autism and low functioning autism, etc. Each classification had its problems but the general idea wasn't wrong: there has to be a term for people who need support and can't function without it, to differentiate between them and the high flyers (or even just "getting by OK") and to my mind "high needs autism" is the right term.
The definitions of autism as I understand them are.. interesting. The reason a highly successful person can be diagnosed is because the diagnostic criteria - usually the triad of impairments - specify a person must have difficulties but tend not to describe a way of categorising the level of those difficulties.
By way of example, I might have difficulty knowing what to say to a person (social interaction) in an unfamiliar setting (social imagination) which could manifest itself as me awkwardly interacting in a way that isn't called for, but which is recognised as social awkwardness. Some autistic people may freeze - sometimes in terror - and simply stop responding while they try to work out what to do. Imagine how it feels to be lost for words, and then some. To my knowledge, both examples above fulfil the criteria because they're both social difficulties.
I'd recommend reading more about the diagnostic criteria and interrogating the range of problems people can face. To me, the dividing line is independence. I'd suggest starting there in your thinking, but not forgetting that autism can also be a hidden disability insofar AW support needs might be invisible to the people around.
As with any term that has become too wide to be useful, it needs subdividing. There used to be autism and aspergers, high functioning autism and low functioning autism, etc. Each classification had its problems but the general idea wasn't wrong: there has to be a term for people who need support and can't function without it, to differentiate between them and the high flyers (or even just "getting by OK") and to my mind "high needs autism" is the right term.
The definitions of autism as I understand them are.. interesting. The reason a highly successful person can be diagnosed is because the diagnostic criteria - usually the triad of impairments - specify a person must have difficulties but tend not to describe a way of categorising the level of those difficulties.
By way of example, I might have difficulty knowing what to say to a person (social interaction) in an unfamiliar setting (social imagination) which could manifest itself as me awkwardly interacting in a way that isn't called for, but which is recognised as social awkwardness. Some autistic people may freeze - sometimes in terror - and simply stop responding while they try to work out what to do. Imagine how it feels to be lost for words, and then some. To my knowledge, both examples above fulfil the criteria because they're both social difficulties.
I'd recommend reading more about the diagnostic criteria and interrogating the range of problems people can face. To me, the dividing line is independence. I'd suggest starting there in your thinking, but not forgetting that autism can also be a hidden disability insofar AW support needs might be invisible to the people around.
I absolutely agree with you about where the dividing line is. Your experience reminds me of an article my wife read out to me a while back. It was written by a guy who has an autism diagnosis. He brother is also autistic, but low functioning. And likewise he said that it's hurting his brother that there are thousands of people out there claiming to be autistic, whose symptoms are little more debilitating than social anxiety. It causes people to disregard the condition and underestimate the huge effort that families have to put in to care for an autistic child. Similarly, charities that accept donations for autism... Who gets that? The author of the piece that my wife read, said that he needs nothing, but his brother needs constant care.
It depends on the charity. Autism UK provides advice and support as well as helping coordinate groups of carers, undertaking advocacy, etc. It is another one of the areas in which social care funding is lacking.
In any case, it really isn't right not to differentiate. Refusing to do so fails the people who need a voice most of all.
In any case, it really isn't right not to differentiate. Refusing to do so fails the people who need a voice most of all.
Kim Peak wasn't even autistic.
Have a look at the DSM or ICD diagnosis criteria
https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/topics/diagnos...
Have a look at the DSM or ICD diagnosis criteria
https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/topics/diagnos...
Both autisms are the same autism. They call autism a spectrum disorder, which essentially boils down to quite wide variations in symptoms. For any of the related symptoms in the list any specific autist may have that symptom a lot, a little, or not at all.
The reason you see more "normal" for a lack of a better word people with autism these days is because we've gotten better at diagnosing the less visible issues. Someone who's non-verbal is pretty easy to spot. Someone who's verbal but doesn't show facial expressions "correctly", doesn't understand sarcasm, has a strong sense of justice, and overly detail oriented might be a lot harder to spot at a glance. Indeed most people would just mentally file such a person under "bit of an oddball".
Take me for a more concrete example. I've got autism, but most people are rather surprised when I tell them, even if I've known them for years. I tend to not tell people before they know me very well, because I find it taints their perception of me.
I'm generally fairly successful. I've got a home, a job, and a dog. On the other hand I struggle almost daily with identifying feelings I have. I'll often not even notice if I'm stressed for example, until I start getting random sore muscles because I've been tensing them all day. I'm super nervous in social situations I've not been in before. It feels like being part of a play but having never gotten the script and the audience is ready to laugh at any tiny mistake. I'll often misinterpret open questions, to the point where these days I'll often just refuse to answer without clarification. I'm quite picky with expectations, especially regarding food. I'll often talk over people without noticing. This sometimes upsets people, but if I try not to I just end up never getting a turn in conversation. I never know how long to keep eye contact. Do I look away too much? am I staring? I don't like getting touched unexpectedly. A simple touch on the elbow to get my attention is jarring to me. I'm often unable to ignore repetitive noises, especially if there's no pattern to the noise -- the clanging of the pipes the dishwasher generates is currently the bane of my existence. I try to plan everything into excruciating detail, which generally doesn't work anyways. I need to carefully pace myself to not run out of energy halfway through the day and have all the symptoms get worse for the rest of the day. Rooms with echo or reverb tire me out in a hurry. I'm frequently annoyed by people trying to "interpret" what I say instead of taking it at face value.
I could go on and on, but my point is that it's entirely possible to seem perfectly normal outwardly and yet have a lot of hidden problems. I -- and a lot of other autistic people -- have been trying to fit in with "normal" people all my life, it's hardly surprising I've gotten good at seeming normal.
The reason you see more "normal" for a lack of a better word people with autism these days is because we've gotten better at diagnosing the less visible issues. Someone who's non-verbal is pretty easy to spot. Someone who's verbal but doesn't show facial expressions "correctly", doesn't understand sarcasm, has a strong sense of justice, and overly detail oriented might be a lot harder to spot at a glance. Indeed most people would just mentally file such a person under "bit of an oddball".
Take me for a more concrete example. I've got autism, but most people are rather surprised when I tell them, even if I've known them for years. I tend to not tell people before they know me very well, because I find it taints their perception of me.
I'm generally fairly successful. I've got a home, a job, and a dog. On the other hand I struggle almost daily with identifying feelings I have. I'll often not even notice if I'm stressed for example, until I start getting random sore muscles because I've been tensing them all day. I'm super nervous in social situations I've not been in before. It feels like being part of a play but having never gotten the script and the audience is ready to laugh at any tiny mistake. I'll often misinterpret open questions, to the point where these days I'll often just refuse to answer without clarification. I'm quite picky with expectations, especially regarding food. I'll often talk over people without noticing. This sometimes upsets people, but if I try not to I just end up never getting a turn in conversation. I never know how long to keep eye contact. Do I look away too much? am I staring? I don't like getting touched unexpectedly. A simple touch on the elbow to get my attention is jarring to me. I'm often unable to ignore repetitive noises, especially if there's no pattern to the noise -- the clanging of the pipes the dishwasher generates is currently the bane of my existence. I try to plan everything into excruciating detail, which generally doesn't work anyways. I need to carefully pace myself to not run out of energy halfway through the day and have all the symptoms get worse for the rest of the day. Rooms with echo or reverb tire me out in a hurry. I'm frequently annoyed by people trying to "interpret" what I say instead of taking it at face value.
I could go on and on, but my point is that it's entirely possible to seem perfectly normal outwardly and yet have a lot of hidden problems. I -- and a lot of other autistic people -- have been trying to fit in with "normal" people all my life, it's hardly surprising I've gotten good at seeming normal.
> Fast forward to this century. I've had full conversations with successful people, who announce that they're autistic.
People often change a lot over the years. I know people who had serious difficulties as a child who now function "normally" within society.
People often change a lot over the years. I know people who had serious difficulties as a child who now function "normally" within society.
Same. In fact I know one girl who was mute for her first 3 years. She won't shut up now. I'm dead serious.
Well, they've recently identified several brain structural abnormalities which have slightly different symptom patterns, all of which fit within a generalized 'autism' diagnosis. They're hoping this will lead to individualized treatment.
https://news.weill.cornell.edu/news/2023/04/four-different-a...
https://news.weill.cornell.edu/news/2023/04/four-different-a...
>The study was published this week in the October issue of Autism Research and created with collaborators from the University of Toronto. The research participants -- employed individuals, 33 with autism and 34 neurotypical -- were asked to weigh in on hypothetical scenarios involving everything from inefficiencies to inequalities to quality concerns.
It's a survey of 67 people. Could have been online even. Nothing I'd take seriously.
It's a survey of 67 people. Could have been online even. Nothing I'd take seriously.
Sample size is a red herring. If the difference is big and stark enough, you can detect it even in a MUCH smaller sample than this. You only need a big sample if the difference you are looking for is subtle.
Mind you, this is assuming that the sample has been taken in an unbiased manner (nigh impossible in a voluntary survey like this) and that any conclusions you draw are applied only to the population you took the sample from (e.g., if your sample is undergrad psychology students at a particular university, your results apply only to undergrad psychology students at that particular university, not to the general population).
The issue is not the sample size. It's the sampling method. Even if you do a study on 1 billion people, your are liable to get an incorrect result if you don't take the sample correctly.
Of course, the other issue here is that we are claiming something that the study didn't actually cover. The researchers did not look at whether the subjects succumbed to the bystander effect or not: they just looked at how the subjects answered questions. These are two extremely different things! This is bad experiment design.
Mind you, this is assuming that the sample has been taken in an unbiased manner (nigh impossible in a voluntary survey like this) and that any conclusions you draw are applied only to the population you took the sample from (e.g., if your sample is undergrad psychology students at a particular university, your results apply only to undergrad psychology students at that particular university, not to the general population).
The issue is not the sample size. It's the sampling method. Even if you do a study on 1 billion people, your are liable to get an incorrect result if you don't take the sample correctly.
Of course, the other issue here is that we are claiming something that the study didn't actually cover. The researchers did not look at whether the subjects succumbed to the bystander effect or not: they just looked at how the subjects answered questions. These are two extremely different things! This is bad experiment design.
It was the fact that it was a survey that made me throw the article in my mental trash.
Why is a study of 67 people not serious? If their sampling is solid it should be more than enough.
ASD is very dynamic. It is not linear spectrum, think of it more like a polar graph. I would think 67 may be enough people to get an idea for one "hallmark" but certainly not all of them as a comprehension.
Many ASD-related surveys are not confirmed-diagnosed either, but only self-reporting as ASD.
I mean I get it, it'd be a colossal pain to verify all that medical data, but it also makes for bad science.
I mean I get it, it'd be a colossal pain to verify all that medical data, but it also makes for bad science.
If you self report as autistic, you're probably autistic. Especially because, in practice, an autistic person is defined as someone who self-reports autistic traits to a health care provider.
[deleted]
Self reporting autism can be surprisingly accurate.
It's a survey. Ever took one?
Paper is here:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aur.3012
I'll save you the read, in light of the replication crisis, this is the important bit: 33 autistic participants
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aur.3012
I'll save you the read, in light of the replication crisis, this is the important bit: 33 autistic participants
They also say "Because of the relatively small sample size, we did not make corrections for multiple comparisons.".
I don't think that means this should be dismissed entirely because you accomplish what you can with the data available to you. It's extremely hard to conduct studies of specialized populations and if we waited for the perfect conditions nothing would get done. We should just be careful not to make any strong opinions based on this study alone.
I don't think that means this should be dismissed entirely because you accomplish what you can with the data available to you. It's extremely hard to conduct studies of specialized populations and if we waited for the perfect conditions nothing would get done. We should just be careful not to make any strong opinions based on this study alone.
> They also say "Because of the relatively small sample size, we did not make corrections for multiple comparisons.".
Do you think this is somehow a point in their defense? Corrections for multiple comparisons reduce the significance numbers of your results; probably they found that if they corrected for multiple comparisons their p-value was above 0.05 and they wouldn't be able to publish their paper, so they undid it. (Alternatively, they were lazy, so they skipped it).
Do you think this is somehow a point in their defense? Corrections for multiple comparisons reduce the significance numbers of your results; probably they found that if they corrected for multiple comparisons their p-value was above 0.05 and they wouldn't be able to publish their paper, so they undid it. (Alternatively, they were lazy, so they skipped it).
I was just adding onto why we should be skeptical. I'm assuming this was published because it's hard to find data like this, not because the results were spectacular
ASD people may be less likely to be affected by any social effect that is mediated by group attention. Even prior to group approval. The Bystander Effect is one example.
Being enamoured by famous individuals is another. Fame being defined by the number of eyeballs that is on the object. Down to the guy who garners attention by singing in the local dive bar band, who lectures seniors on medicare coverage at the local assisted care facility, or who reads scripture at church once per month. A negative example would be famous popular criminals.
This carries over to social causes and more.
Being enamoured by famous individuals is another. Fame being defined by the number of eyeballs that is on the object. Down to the guy who garners attention by singing in the local dive bar band, who lectures seniors on medicare coverage at the local assisted care facility, or who reads scripture at church once per month. A negative example would be famous popular criminals.
This carries over to social causes and more.
The relevant psychological variable here might be conformity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity
There are interesting other connections as well, for example, men have been found to exhibit less conformity than women.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity
There are interesting other connections as well, for example, men have been found to exhibit less conformity than women.
[deleted]
A pessimistic corollary to this is that intervention is often followed by social punishment if it impinges on anyone else's interests or even just makes the bystanders look bad.
I think taking any action makes you stand out, and if no one's doing anything you "conform" by not taking action too.
"don't make me look bad" is like the neurotypicals prayer
> A pessimistic corollary to this is that intervention is often followed by social punishment if it impinges on anyone else's interests or even just makes the bystanders look bad.
You're not pessimistic, you have depressive realism[1]
Real life is not a movie or television show. Much like women complain they don't like the "manic pixie dream girl"[1] trope of films like Garden State[2]... men don't like, or need the "sullen cherub dream boy" trope you see in movies like Perks of Being a Wallflower.
To be a dissident is a forever decision and if you stray from the narrow, socially acceptable path of back and forth that brought forth our present... global situation... you will wake up one day trying to remind yourself that while your name is not in Wikipedia or IMDB, at least you had an effect on society, that there are people you cannot name or describe, situations you've been in that... moved the needle in the sense you saved a life, or many of them, in ways hard to articulate or prove.
There's an essay I'm struggling to track down that years later, an... let's call her "ex-girlfriend" showed me during my summer in San Francisco post Snowden about the hit Showtime series "Californication"... it talks about how despite being Bukowksi-esque it was actually incredibly feminist, in as much as a sex heavy Showtime series can be...
And rather than actually discuss my life, I'll do the autistic thing and give an example from tv/film... on the show, Hank repeatedly connects with "Trixie" -- she doesn't just "do porn -- she's a full on prostitute, and they have... a banter.
Much like my ex and I... they keep meeting at parties. Hank, the main character... is in love, and even if he wasn't, he doesn't pay for it... and Trixie is forever being "saved" by Hank -- sometimes from rudeness, sometimes from much worse things.
Anyways, when you're autistic, you often meet people who want... a relationship minus the sex. They want to BE the manic pixie dream girl, to embrace life with a dark, brooding intellectual sidekick who can protect them if things go astray. They tend to treat folks like us like a prop, to be discarded when they've gotten their fill (or simply when the summer ends and their "primary" returns), and when they notice this pattern is tipping you towards extremism, they often choose to medicalize the response and blame the victim rather than... call a metaphorical time out and get you out of the cycle of proving oneself smart enough for the good leads.
If you're autistic, and not a jerk... you'll wonder if it's worth the predicaments it got you into, worth the gaslights and gunshots and all the things folks have said, running through my head on nights like these, if you don't have some nest egg to fall back on if the shitstorm your not standing by generates lasts too long.
Anyways, I apologize for the wall of text but... it's true. We're less likely to stand by, and we're more likely to be ostracized for it. I know I felt unwelcome in many infosec spaces because I did not hide the fact that I wasn't a fair weather feminist, and I didn't like how they would treat folks.
People oft conflate autistic and pendantic for a reason -- because they want certain dynamics to persist.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism
[1] Film critic Nathan Rabin coined the term in 2007... talking about [redacted]'s character, he said "[redacted] embodies a character type I like to call The Manic Pixie Dream Girl. [This character] exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures."
You're not pessimistic, you have depressive realism[1]
Real life is not a movie or television show. Much like women complain they don't like the "manic pixie dream girl"[1] trope of films like Garden State[2]... men don't like, or need the "sullen cherub dream boy" trope you see in movies like Perks of Being a Wallflower.
To be a dissident is a forever decision and if you stray from the narrow, socially acceptable path of back and forth that brought forth our present... global situation... you will wake up one day trying to remind yourself that while your name is not in Wikipedia or IMDB, at least you had an effect on society, that there are people you cannot name or describe, situations you've been in that... moved the needle in the sense you saved a life, or many of them, in ways hard to articulate or prove.
There's an essay I'm struggling to track down that years later, an... let's call her "ex-girlfriend" showed me during my summer in San Francisco post Snowden about the hit Showtime series "Californication"... it talks about how despite being Bukowksi-esque it was actually incredibly feminist, in as much as a sex heavy Showtime series can be...
And rather than actually discuss my life, I'll do the autistic thing and give an example from tv/film... on the show, Hank repeatedly connects with "Trixie" -- she doesn't just "do porn -- she's a full on prostitute, and they have... a banter.
Much like my ex and I... they keep meeting at parties. Hank, the main character... is in love, and even if he wasn't, he doesn't pay for it... and Trixie is forever being "saved" by Hank -- sometimes from rudeness, sometimes from much worse things.
Anyways, when you're autistic, you often meet people who want... a relationship minus the sex. They want to BE the manic pixie dream girl, to embrace life with a dark, brooding intellectual sidekick who can protect them if things go astray. They tend to treat folks like us like a prop, to be discarded when they've gotten their fill (or simply when the summer ends and their "primary" returns), and when they notice this pattern is tipping you towards extremism, they often choose to medicalize the response and blame the victim rather than... call a metaphorical time out and get you out of the cycle of proving oneself smart enough for the good leads.
If you're autistic, and not a jerk... you'll wonder if it's worth the predicaments it got you into, worth the gaslights and gunshots and all the things folks have said, running through my head on nights like these, if you don't have some nest egg to fall back on if the shitstorm your not standing by generates lasts too long.
Anyways, I apologize for the wall of text but... it's true. We're less likely to stand by, and we're more likely to be ostracized for it. I know I felt unwelcome in many infosec spaces because I did not hide the fact that I wasn't a fair weather feminist, and I didn't like how they would treat folks.
People oft conflate autistic and pendantic for a reason -- because they want certain dynamics to persist.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism
[1] Film critic Nathan Rabin coined the term in 2007... talking about [redacted]'s character, he said "[redacted] embodies a character type I like to call The Manic Pixie Dream Girl. [This character] exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures."
I've considered getting a serious adult test for something spectrumy. On the casual tests I score high on Systematizing but I fail to score low on the Empathaizing, but again, those are the casual tests.
This is another point for me getting some kind of assessment, because I have a very strong anti-bystander effect that seems almost not in my control.
This is another point for me getting some kind of assessment, because I have a very strong anti-bystander effect that seems almost not in my control.
Start with https://embrace-autism.com/raads-r/ as exploration, and see the other formal tests on the page.
Good re-testability, and they're part of what they use for a formal diagnosis.
Good re-testability, and they're part of what they use for a formal diagnosis.
Wow, that's interesting. It's curious how the 2 main demographics of individualists: the eusocial leadership group and people with autistic tendencies. There is obviously some spectrum overlap. It's probably unhelpful to automatically reduce people to stereotypes, but it helps to model and understand tendencies and behaviors.
Related ongoing thread:
Autism and responding to authority (2019) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38072756
Autism and responding to authority (2019) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38072756
I wish the paper put more emphasis on understanding the mechanism driving the outcome than the implications of the outcomes. It's great to discuss the practical utility of findings such as organizational and employment practices (because it's easy to dismiss research otherwise), but remarkably little time is spent actually discussing how their data reflects things like diffusion of responsibility brought up in the introduction.
Part of being confused by normal practices is that a lot of practices feel abnormal by default so we don't emphasize those expected actions the same way other people to. When most things feel foreign even obvious stuff takes on that vibe. Why wouldn't I help the bystander? Not because I'm better but because it's just as likely a choice as not. Very little bias there.
Standing up for people who can't is important, but any situation calls ensuring your own safety as well—you can't help anyone if you end up a victim yourself. The worse story in recent memory is of someone who got stabbed to death in a subway because they spoke up against someone else being racist.
It’s wild you’re getting downvoted. Probably speaks to HN being comprised of sheltered upper middle class nerds whose idea of “injustice” is being denied WFH 5 days a week.
All you folks who think you’re ready to step in and play captain white knight save-a-hoe are in for the rudest of awakenings when you try this in a situation you have inevitably misjudged.
All you folks who think you’re ready to step in and play captain white knight save-a-hoe are in for the rudest of awakenings when you try this in a situation you have inevitably misjudged.
The only time I got in a serious fight in high school was when I saw a kid get beaten up by bullies. I mean, I was even weaker than him and got really beaten up myself but I lander a few hits and I am still proud of myself for getting beaten up. They left that kid alone after that.
I saw someone getting bullied up at the workplace, eventually got fired. Wanted to do something but I was afraid for my own job. Lo and behold, it didn't matter how good or succesful I was at my job, the circle of shit came back around eventually to where I was on the business end of things. I got what I deserved.
I do my best to avoid people and situations in general that might end up in me witnessing this kind of shit again but I don't think I can not do anything that way again.
I don't think being averse to cowardice makes you autistic though. What's the purpose of these articles and research? Find more ways to label and box people in so they can be more easily dismissed?
"Oh, we're not a bunch of bullies and cowards, that person is just autistic or 'on the spectrum'?" Is that it? Shouldn't everyone resist the bystander effect? Isn't this research doing more harm to that effect than good?
I saw someone getting bullied up at the workplace, eventually got fired. Wanted to do something but I was afraid for my own job. Lo and behold, it didn't matter how good or succesful I was at my job, the circle of shit came back around eventually to where I was on the business end of things. I got what I deserved.
I do my best to avoid people and situations in general that might end up in me witnessing this kind of shit again but I don't think I can not do anything that way again.
I don't think being averse to cowardice makes you autistic though. What's the purpose of these articles and research? Find more ways to label and box people in so they can be more easily dismissed?
"Oh, we're not a bunch of bullies and cowards, that person is just autistic or 'on the spectrum'?" Is that it? Shouldn't everyone resist the bystander effect? Isn't this research doing more harm to that effect than good?
> Standing up for people who can't is important, but any situation calls ensuring your own safety as well—you can't help anyone if you end up a victim yourself. The worse story in recent memory is of someone who got stabbed to death in a subway because they spoke up against someone else being racist.
Well that's just bad situational awareness... you can keep an eye on hands, pockets etc when confronting injustice, and if you've taken martial arts you know how to stop a knife attack.
Well that's just bad situational awareness... you can keep an eye on hands, pockets etc when confronting injustice, and if you've taken martial arts you know how to stop a knife attack.
This is a delusional take. Your karate class hasn’t prepared you to survive - let alone “stop” - a knife attack and the sooner you disabuse yourself of that notion the better.
> This is a delusional take. Your karate class hasn’t prepared you to survive - let alone “stop” - a knife attack and the sooner you disabuse yourself of that notion the better.
They told us what the person below says for a gun -- just give them what they want if it's not your body.
If someone is standing, making threats, blocking your exit, and you've had training, there are techniques to use to disarm them.
I know this because I've done it at least once in the real, and many times in practice before I stopped doing Tang Soo Do.
The key is to keep an eye on their hands/pockets and move in close, get control of the hand, and then either twist until their tendons are gonna snap or... jam their own knife into their leg/side.
It wasn't a smart move, but I had a lot of people block the door and abuse me when younger, so nowadays when someone does it I'm not inclined to de-escalate them one iota.
They told us what the person below says for a gun -- just give them what they want if it's not your body.
If someone is standing, making threats, blocking your exit, and you've had training, there are techniques to use to disarm them.
I know this because I've done it at least once in the real, and many times in practice before I stopped doing Tang Soo Do.
The key is to keep an eye on their hands/pockets and move in close, get control of the hand, and then either twist until their tendons are gonna snap or... jam their own knife into their leg/side.
It wasn't a smart move, but I had a lot of people block the door and abuse me when younger, so nowadays when someone does it I'm not inclined to de-escalate them one iota.
> I know this because I've done it at least once in the real
"at least" once? sounds legit.
> The key is to keep an eye on their hands/pockets and move in close, get control of the hand, and then either twist until their tendons are gonna snap or... jam their own knife into their leg/side.
More cap than a lids store.
"at least" once? sounds legit.
> The key is to keep an eye on their hands/pockets and move in close, get control of the hand, and then either twist until their tendons are gonna snap or... jam their own knife into their leg/side.
More cap than a lids store.
Most effective knife defense training:
if you see a knife, run the fuck away.
if you see a knife, run the fuck away.
Autism based post sees a 77% increase in the average word count of comments. #verbose
There was a similar article postulating that dissidents (for example from Eastern Europe) are often on the spectrum, for that very reason, if they see injustice, they are vocal about it.
Sounds like orientalism to me to be honest, and I would be vary of pathologising someone who takes part in a political struggle even if you don't mean bad. Not Eastern European, but were MLK or Nelson Mandela autistic? To me they seem quite well-adjusted and "normal personalities", except for being against the injustices around them.
No, they were not pathologising it, just explaining (or wondering about) the motivations of some (not all) of them, the fact they were willing to suffer for truth, with no apparent personal gain. And I don't have a link.
If you can, please link to it. I would like to read it. Because a prominent feature of dissidents in the USSR and Putin’s Russia is that they often retreated into private worlds (samizdat literature, organizing cultural events privately in their own flats, writing for their desk drawer) instead of overtly challenging the regime. To the point where such dissidents can be suspicious of those who are vocal: people who actually stand up against the regime are viewed as either fools or as possessing some ulterior motive.
Go ask American conservatives today how they feel about groups that allege to publicly challenge the uniparty regime here, like "Patriot Front". Every conservative I know views those groups as honeypots for dissidents being operated by the regime itself (FBI, FBI informants etc).
They have their own substack and medium feeds that are unshackled by conventional reporting standards and frequently contrast deeply against regime narratives, be they COVID, Ukraine, Jan 6th, etc.
They have their own social circles, which they ideologically police to make sure that those holding regime viewpoints are not invited to private social events.
The way you've described the culture of dissidence in the USSR and Russia sounds eerily familiar, taking a look at US dissidents today.
They have their own substack and medium feeds that are unshackled by conventional reporting standards and frequently contrast deeply against regime narratives, be they COVID, Ukraine, Jan 6th, etc.
They have their own social circles, which they ideologically police to make sure that those holding regime viewpoints are not invited to private social events.
The way you've described the culture of dissidence in the USSR and Russia sounds eerily familiar, taking a look at US dissidents today.
>a prominent feature of dissidents in the USSR and Putin’s Russia is that they often retreated into private worlds (samizdat literature, organizing cultural events privately in their own flats, writing for their desk drawer) instead of overtly challenging the regime. To the point where such dissidents can be suspicious of those who are vocal
How times change. I can't speak on places I've never been, but in my homeland I have organized events in my home for folks from Russia and other places. I had a reputation as being a "milquetoast neoliberal" right up until the moment some old comrades saw me standing next to a crowd with my backpack despite always being the one who stood by the door, opening it only if it seemed certain it would be broken down to demand a warrant as folks filed out the back.
In modern times, activism seems performative -- lots of people who retweet and reshare things not attached to their real name, while a much smaller number took incredible risks -- financial, social, personal... to change the very architecture of the internet to make resistance more possible.
But I didn't bust a window during the G20 or write "ACAB" on my Tinder, so I'm not cool enough for the local collective.
It's ok to be VOCAL, as in... go to a protest. But if you do it performative, not with the expectation this is the beginning of a slow suicide... you're a fool.
We've got a generation that forgets things like the original members of one of the few true Russian punk bands I've encountered did not speak English, were thrown into a literal gulag, then had the name carried on by another generation as they rotted in the worst types of jail.
The "ulterior motive" you mention I oft see is oganized crime... they hate "the state" so they can keep young women (and men) addicted to drugs, pimped out, and, if they get out of line, scooped up by "the state" they claim to hate as they go muck about in so called civil society, stymying progress that would bring about true change such folks could live in harmony rather than scam credit cards and hook folks on overpriced black market drugs that if legalized, would still cause issues, but be more like alcohol in terms of issues created rather than a pathway to white slavery.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: to be a dissident is a forever decision, often a form of slow suicide, and no one should be shamed for taking another path, for life is precious and not everyone is suited for this work.
(I wasn't. I made bad decisions, and I'm stuck with them.)
How times change. I can't speak on places I've never been, but in my homeland I have organized events in my home for folks from Russia and other places. I had a reputation as being a "milquetoast neoliberal" right up until the moment some old comrades saw me standing next to a crowd with my backpack despite always being the one who stood by the door, opening it only if it seemed certain it would be broken down to demand a warrant as folks filed out the back.
In modern times, activism seems performative -- lots of people who retweet and reshare things not attached to their real name, while a much smaller number took incredible risks -- financial, social, personal... to change the very architecture of the internet to make resistance more possible.
But I didn't bust a window during the G20 or write "ACAB" on my Tinder, so I'm not cool enough for the local collective.
It's ok to be VOCAL, as in... go to a protest. But if you do it performative, not with the expectation this is the beginning of a slow suicide... you're a fool.
We've got a generation that forgets things like the original members of one of the few true Russian punk bands I've encountered did not speak English, were thrown into a literal gulag, then had the name carried on by another generation as they rotted in the worst types of jail.
The "ulterior motive" you mention I oft see is oganized crime... they hate "the state" so they can keep young women (and men) addicted to drugs, pimped out, and, if they get out of line, scooped up by "the state" they claim to hate as they go muck about in so called civil society, stymying progress that would bring about true change such folks could live in harmony rather than scam credit cards and hook folks on overpriced black market drugs that if legalized, would still cause issues, but be more like alcohol in terms of issues created rather than a pathway to white slavery.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: to be a dissident is a forever decision, often a form of slow suicide, and no one should be shamed for taking another path, for life is precious and not everyone is suited for this work.
(I wasn't. I made bad decisions, and I'm stuck with them.)
I have met people that clearly have autism, then I have met people who claim to have autism every time they say something bad in teams.
None of my business what other people think about me.
I'll definitely render help as long as I find it possible.
I'll definitely render help as long as I find it possible.
My wife recently discovered "Young Sheldon", and one of the most egregious goofs so far is the idea that Sheldon would suffer from stage fright. We both agree that stage fright is something probably only suffered by people who care about the opinions of strangers.
That depends. Us autists tend to get bullied a lot and picked on for anything and everything we do.
Being on a stage means a lot more people see what you do, and what you do wrong, and you'll get a lot more bullying.
And if you're also a perfectionist and feel like you've failed over the tiniest mistakes, this can get even worse.
I — myself autistic — am close to thirty now and I still suffer from extreme social anxiety and stagefright due to the bullying I experienced in school.
Being on a stage means a lot more people see what you do, and what you do wrong, and you'll get a lot more bullying.
And if you're also a perfectionist and feel like you've failed over the tiniest mistakes, this can get even worse.
I — myself autistic — am close to thirty now and I still suffer from extreme social anxiety and stagefright due to the bullying I experienced in school.
There are many reasons why stage fright might happen. One that I suspect is very common, is the desire for excellence.
Young Sheldon was probably very aware that he's not the best at communicating complex thoughts to a broad audience due to his unique, or atypical world view.
He also had a very high bar of personal excellence and would probably feel like a fool if he exposed himself and failed to meet that bar.
There is nuance in "caring about the opinions of strangers". He probably didn't care at all when he was happy about his performance - i.e. it was on them to not understand what he was saying after great thought and probably a very carefully crafted delivery. He probably did care how the others felt when he felt like failed himself by not being up to his own standards.
Young Sheldon was probably very aware that he's not the best at communicating complex thoughts to a broad audience due to his unique, or atypical world view.
He also had a very high bar of personal excellence and would probably feel like a fool if he exposed himself and failed to meet that bar.
There is nuance in "caring about the opinions of strangers". He probably didn't care at all when he was happy about his performance - i.e. it was on them to not understand what he was saying after great thought and probably a very carefully crafted delivery. He probably did care how the others felt when he felt like failed himself by not being up to his own standards.
I don't know what's supposed to be the young Sheldon's diagnosis, but social anxiety is more common among autistic people than neurotypical population.
I have Asperger‘s, and my stage fright depends on what I’m doing. I’ve been a lead singer and guitarist in quite a few bands and I’ve never had stage fright while playing.
But push me to stand up and talk about something and I will freeze and act like a total spaz.
But push me to stand up and talk about something and I will freeze and act like a total spaz.
[deleted]
ASD is a spectrum. There are likely some who do not get stage fright, but there are likely many who do.
[deleted]
I don't know about this. I think things like stage fright can be more nuanced than just caring about other's opinions.
Being on a stage is moving into a situation you are not familiar with, and making a performance, which is different to the general opinion of strangers.
If you rescue someone, that's all about that person's safety - which has got just about zero to do with getting on a stage and making something all about yourself.
If you rescue someone, that's all about that person's safety - which has got just about zero to do with getting on a stage and making something all about yourself.
"Autists ignore the herd mentality" in other words.
What is happening in this comment section.
[deleted]
RecycledEle(4)
“With autism”
A large portion of the autistic community is very against this phrasing. Autism is not a disease you carry, or something you “have”.
It should be used as an adjective to describe a person:
“Autistic people less likely to succumb to bystander effect”
Edit: If you follow through to the actual paper referenced you can see they use the correct phrasing.
A large portion of the autistic community is very against this phrasing. Autism is not a disease you carry, or something you “have”.
It should be used as an adjective to describe a person:
“Autistic people less likely to succumb to bystander effect”
Edit: If you follow through to the actual paper referenced you can see they use the correct phrasing.
And yet, the clinical standard has been to use the "with" terminology for a long time now. For exactly the general reason that you present, just with your grammatical paradigm inverted.
The fact is that anyone can copy and paste "offense" complaints and insert any grammar that they want into ad-lib spaces.
What the ASD community could use less of is individuals utilizing it as their political arena.
The fact is that anyone can copy and paste "offense" complaints and insert any grammar that they want into ad-lib spaces.
What the ASD community could use less of is individuals utilizing it as their political arena.
> And yet, the clinical standard has been to use the "with" terminology for a long time now. For exactly the general reason that you present, just with your grammatical paradigm inverted.
If that's the clinical standard, why didn't the cited paper use it that way? From the research paper:
> autistic individuals
> autistic employees
> autistic participants
The peer reviewed research paper uses this standard. Only using "with" in reference to diagnoses.
It is "Science Daily", a news site, who skirts the standard by changing the paper's wording.
If that's the clinical standard, why didn't the cited paper use it that way? From the research paper:
> autistic individuals
> autistic employees
> autistic participants
The peer reviewed research paper uses this standard. Only using "with" in reference to diagnoses.
It is "Science Daily", a news site, who skirts the standard by changing the paper's wording.
I'm a brown haired person. I'm also a person with brown hair. Neither phrasing makes my brown hair a disease I carry.
This is my take too. Ultimately the precise language used is immaterial. It is the intent behind it that matters. The precise language used may be indicative of intent, but that should be judged on a case-by-case basis rather than assuming "phrasing X good, phrasing Y bad", which will lead to both false positives and false negatives.
There's no point in arguing about these interpretations. Some people get convinced that "X with Y" means that X has Y, and since this is used in sentences like "X has cancer," autism is portrayed as a disease. There are other people who oppose the adjectival phrase for similar reasons.
IMO, the point in these cases is more that a certain phrase has obtained a negative connotation, and should be avoided, but it is framed in some Sapir-Whorf-like style.
IMO, the point in these cases is more that a certain phrase has obtained a negative connotation, and should be avoided, but it is framed in some Sapir-Whorf-like style.
Euphemism treadmill, etc.
But are you an entity with Person or a Person with Entity?
If one cannot analyze words to w/i an inch of death, what is one to do on the internet other than speak in the 3rd person?
If one cannot analyze words to w/i an inch of death, what is one to do on the internet other than speak in the 3rd person?
That’s a totally false comparison. Brown hair is something you physically have.
While I can see where you’re coming from, I don’t believe those around me or the community I live in see it as such a dire designation and of a disease. It’s a common term of phrase that doesn’t really need to be picked apart.
Your community may not be the problem. There are other communities (such as Autism Speaks) which do view it as a disease. And the popularity of this viewpoint is evident by the number of jigsaw puzzle piece bumper stickers around.
Most people with autism don't care at all.
I've been told to use both "autistic person" and "person with autism", and that the alternate phrase is bad. For any individual I'll use whichever they prefer, but there is no consensus of this whatsoever.
The "with autism" stuff seems to be pushed by relatives of autistic people. I doubt most autistic people would care.
The journalists and corporate communication people seem to be in disagreement with this. There has been a big push to change everything to be "person of" or "person with". "Person with vision impairment" rather than "blind person". To emphasize that they are regular people first.
Those have very different meanings to me. "vision impairment" suggests at least some degree of vision, while "blind" is basically "can't see at all."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect#Counter_examp...
even wikipedia has updated saying