Siddhartha: "... teachings are of no use to me; they have no hardness, no softness, no colours, no corners, no smell, no taste — they have nothing but words...."
tb: How do you feel about rich media, my friend? Teachings can now be made more tangible -- the words can acquire some hardness, some softness, some colors, some corners in the new substrate. Your description of words (and teachings) is like to a diffuse vapor, imperceptible for more than a few fleeting moments after emission. But now the world features an information substrate that is rendering reality more viscous. Structures can be built and made to persist and proliferate.
Siddhartha: "Knowledge can be communicated, but not wisdom. One can find it, be fortified by it, do wonders through it, but one cannot communicate and teach it. I suspected this when I was still a youth and it was this that drove me away from teachers."
tb: Maybe not; but one can self-exemplify wisdom. Rich media bolsters the effectiveness and extends the reach of self-exemplified wisdom. [a humble example; another] And, Siddhartha, I think I can further phase-transition your enlightened ferryman mind with just a little discourse on network theory and related perspectives. Like a cooking show, where the host can take the finished cake out of the oven right away, allow me to jump to the network-perspicacious hypersegments of the 4D Siddharthapillar.
Siddhartha: Wow! It sure is nice to have a robust theoretical apparatus on which to hang all my hitherto incommunicable wisdom. You have succeeded in communicating much wisdom to me, thereby self-exemplifying your point that it is possible. I might quibble -- in an attempt to save the purity of my 'can't communicate wisdom' wisdom I was trying to impart to Govinda -- that you too are like all teachers in that you have also only shown me knowledge; that my network perspicacity has sprung from the depths of my own soul, as ever.
But I am not so small-minded: You have demonstrated a material shift in the quality of reality, and my former view has given way. Perhaps you have only shown me knowledge, but the new substrate has changed the ratio of knowledge-exposure to wisdom-emergence profoundly. Quibbles about what is being communicated (knowledge vs. wisdom) melt away.
tb: Thank you, my friend. You told Govinda that you do not attach great importance to thoughts; that you attach more importance to things. Do you still feel that way, Siddhartha?
Siddhartha: Yes, but thoughts are now more thing-like, in this new substrate. Thoughts and words and images are now instantiated physically and interconnected as never before.
[Siddhartha bent down, lifted a stone from the ground and held it in his hand.]
Siddhartha: Previously I would have said, "This stone is a stone; it is also animal, God and Buddha. I do not respect and love it because it was one thing and will become something else, but because it has already long been everything and always is everything. I love it just because it is a stone, because today and now it appears to me a stone. I see value and meaning in each one of its fine markings and cavities, in the yellow, in the grey, in the hardness and the sound of it when I knock it, in the dryness or dampness of its surface."
I do not feel otherwise now, but I wish to point out that my respect and love for artifacts like microchips surpasses my respect and love for stones by some orders of magnitude.
[Siddhartha opened his coarse hempen knapsack and drew forth a 4GB micro-SD chip.]
On this tiny flake of matter is encoded vast stores of interconnected knowledge. I have seen electron micrographs displaying its intricate patterns, and with your help I have come to understand the physics of its function.
Without diminishing the beauty of the stone, I perceive a higher order of value and meaning in the microscopic markings and cavities of the microchip, as compared to the chaotic markings and cavities of the stone I hold in my other hand.
And when I put the micro-SD chip into my web-enabled handheld over in my third hand, it becomes physically connected to far-reaching networks of people and information, and wondrous new meta-things emerge and self-organize. Thoughts, knowledge and information are made tangible and communicable and accessible, acquiring a utility far surpassing the humble stone in the hierarchy of things in the thingosphere.
Learn up on Asperger's, seeking clues to what an Aspie worldview might be like; seek out some of the readily available Aspie testimony too -- i.e., try to break out of the neurotyp 'syndrome' mentality, and dig the multidimensional phase space of human cognition -- array, if you will, all human intelligence on this multidimensional hyperboard, yours included.
You are on the same hyperboard, is the point, with the 'Aspies.' You must relax your conception of yourself as 'normal' or 'typical' and see yourself on the same 'spectrum' as all other humans, Aspies included. The Aspie/Autism 'spectrum' encompasses a multitude of cognitive attributes, each one represented by its own orthogonal dimension in the phase space of human cognition. A 'diagnosis' of 'Aspie' means that the clinician has located the subject in a subset hypervolume within that phase space.
The boundary of the hypervolume enclosing 'Aspies' is not well defined, and differs along with the tastes of different practitioners, I imagine (I only imagine, because I am only roughly familiar with a/A spectrum clinical practice; but measurement of cognitive attributes has some serious error bars attached, I further imagine, yielding up ye fuzzy boundary).
Anyway, the point, for neurotyps, is that you almost certainly share some of the attributes that contribute to the 'Aspie' score. They are not binary "on" or "off" attributes, but each one varying along a subspectrum (not necessarily one-dimensional either). You might even register 'Strong Aspie' (or whatever they call it) on some of these attributes, but not very many; and you may register 'Mild Aspie' on a number of them, but not enough to approach the score thresholds of the 'Aspie' diagnosis.
The armchair scientist in me wants to venture that for every individual clinically diagnosed 'Aspie' there are some large multiple of other individuals who would also be diagnosed 'Aspie' if measured. And there is an even larger multiple of individuals who would not be diagnosed, but who inhabit neighborhoods of the phase space of human cognition overlapping the Aspie environs (and Autie environs too).
don't fight it
This is where the 'relax your conception of yourself as normal' thing comes in: it's not that you're 'normal' and Aspies are 'abnormal' or 'mentally ill.' I am hopeful that you will come to understand that overlapping the Aspie environs is nothing to be afraid or ashamed of. Some of the attributes in question are things like meticulousness and industry and transcendent musical brilliance -- got a problem with any of that? So you can imagine that you only overlap in those kinds of attributes if you like. But you can see yourself arrayed on this same hyperboard -- in the same phase space of human cognition. Do you see how you can overlap in a subset of these dimensions?
OK, that's progress. Now: please do not suspect that I am attempting to gain a foothold from which to argue that all of the rest of the Aspie bag must be allowed into polite neurotypical company. I am not arguing that point one way or the other.
Recall that episode of Bewitched where some old Aunt put a spell on Samantha, compelling her to append a rhyme to the tail of every utterance. E.g., "Give it to me ... fiddle dee dee." I know a person who exhibits a similar compulsion in that he cannot miss an opportunity to issue forth puns, and apparently has no filter; it is hard to discern any limit in the extent to which he will reach in order to interject something 'witty' into a dialogue. He believes that this is good, first-class wit; whereas I perceive it to be a degenerate form of wit. We are on either side of one or more A/a attribute borderlines on the pun thing. I am not arguing that anybody needs to put up with this sort of thing.
And coming back to my point, dear Neurotyp, consider the merits of rigorous dialectic habits in this networked information age. This new world characterized by self-organizing interlocutors communicating via interactive multimedia (aka 'rich media'). Iterating out a wikiworld of connected understanding.
Now my point is that the bag of tricks necessary to navigate (and co-create) this world, includes several items from the Aspie bag that -- check out my Aspie aspect -- have been being thrown out with the bathwater in many communities.
So for example, computer programmers to this day are castigated as 'nerds' or 'geeks' etc. by the neurotypicool set. But in the information age, algorithmic sensibilities are necessary! A facility with logical structures, with mathematics more generally -- with complex adaptive systems and network theory and fractal geometry -- these are increasingly necessary literacies. If neurotyps would only relax their aversion to these 'geeky' neighorhoods, they would be doing themselves a favor. In my experience, it is often not lack of interest that keeps their minds closed, but rather fear of having this interest found out by other neurotypicools and being branded 'nerd' or whatever. That's a sorry anti-intellectual memetrap indeed.
. . .. ... .. . .
. . .. ... .. . .
Anyway: all that by way of suggesting to you, dear reader who may be a neurotyp interested in Aspergers, that it would be salutary if you made an earnest attempt to see the world a little bit through clear Aspie eyes.
On the Merits
Neurotyps complain about aspie's inability to 'empathize' among other deficits (from the neurotypical perspective).
But at bottom, what the complaint is often about ... is aspie's unwillingness (or inability) to cave on the merits.
For example:
Neurotyp complains that aspie does not see things from her perspective enough (or at all).
But if her perspective, in a given case, is that she should get her way despite the merits of the situation, then all aspie has done is fail to cave on the merits.
Empathy does not involve necessarily caving on the merits just because neurotyps would prefer it.
If one's feelings won't be sufficiently soothed until one gets the thing one wants, one should take care to want things that, on the merits, one may legitimately expect to get.
And if called out on the merits ... then defend the merits.
Don't say, off-the-merits, that, e.g., aspie's tone of voice is now the problem (attempting to multiply any merit-based arguments of his by zero), or that aspie is too [nerdy / geeky/ type-A / erudite / pointy-headed, etc.], or whatever off-the-merits ploy.
sometimes I think it is a question of different perspectives on what "the merits" are. E.g., you may not want to make the 5-hour drive for the weekend because it has a low ratio [of enjoyment to hassle] ... those are the clear merits, but she doesn't care about that so much because she believes the value of being in some other place for 35 hours is worth the 10 hour driving investment.
If the merits cannot be defended, then:
It is not aspie's fault!
If the merits can be defended, but not real time, then neurotyps should take some time to think it through and then communicate in writing or something.
If neurotyps turn out to be wrong on the merits, they should admit it.
And if they are wrong a lot of the time, they should reflect on that and stop giving aspie so much trouble.
In any event, neurotyps should drop the idea that they are automatically right on the merits; or are entitled to some presumption of being right on the merits; or that they are entitled to summary judgment on the merits; or that the merits need not even be discussed.
To your point above: certainly it's a question of different perspectives on what "the merits" are.
But one should have the opportunity to advance arguments on the merits that will be entertained in good faith; conversely, one should have the obligation to hear the other persons well-reasoned arguments on the merits and entertain them in good faith.
Neither side should get to decide the issue based on unfounded ipse dixit or any other off-the-merits strategy.
Often a [neurotypical] interlocutor protests that s/he 'can't be expected to defend the merits,' or 'think through the issue a little more clearly' due to some information deficit or cognitive disadvantage relative to aspie. This is advanced in lieu of substantive response, in the expectation that it it can overcome the merits and win the argument. Now even if it were true (regarding information processing disadvantages relative to aspie), this would not be aspie's fault; and even if it were chargeable to aspie somehow, such a state of affairs would not impact the underlying merits at all.
1) i don't think you should lump all neurotypicals together in that regard
2) not all aspie's are of superior intelligence and that makes a big difference
1) I'm not;
2) I don't maintain that.
I mean: the subset of neurotypicals who do that; or better yet, people (without labeling them) who do that.
More Aspie Pearls
"Those with [Aspergers] will have problems with communication [and] in reading nonverbal signals, such as facial expressions and body language, and also being able to give the right responses when talking."
Let’s examine these communication problems from a different perspective. I think I am onto some neurotypical behaviors that might account for this type of communication breakdown.
Namely, the habit of saying something other than what is meant. If one party to a communication persistently utters words that do not match the meaning they hope to convey, why is the fault for the ensuing communication breakdown assigned to the person who is not in the habit of doing this (and who is, moreover, in the habit of seeking a clear, unambiguous understanding in every interaction, and being thwarted in that pursuit by the aforementioned word/meaning mismatch habit of the other person)?
In my experience, people often seem very uncomfortable (or even unable) to say what they mean directly. They may not say it directly for any number of reasons: because it does not sound so good out loud; because if the interlocutor picks up too readily on the actual meaning, it may produce an undesired response; because the speaker is not capable of articulating their meaning, or perhaps they are not clear on their meaning to begin with.
A frequently observed behavior is to pull utterances up short; that is, not finish sentences, expecting the interlocutor to clue in on the rest of what is meant (this is especially pernicious in those instances in which the speaker is not even capable of finishing the thought, and is just fishing for someone else to do the critical thinking for them).
A clear-headed communicator, faced with any of the above, is faced with a cloud of potential ambiguity. There is too much of a range in what is possibly meant. Now, it may be neurotypical for participants in conversations to ride through the information gaps, throwing lifelines to each other, guessing as to meanings. And it may even be that people can get very good at guessing meanings, and develop a willingness to play at communicating in that fashion.
But it is a reckless way to communicate, because it is so imprecise; whole worlds of ambiguity are opened up, and often on purpose. For example: let’s say Ann wants her co-worker Bob to take on a particular task. If Ann doesn’t come right out and say “I think you should do that task,” then whatever indirect thing she does say will create a palpable ambiguity, to be danced around, regarding who is to do the task in question. Bob may be well aware that Ann wants her to do the task, but let’s say he doesn’t want to do it. He may respond in like fashion, with some indirect way of attempting to keep the task off his plate. This is an inefficient way to make decisions and achieve the requisite clarity, and I suspect this kind of communication dynamic accounts for a lot of dropped balls.
Let’s inject Clare into the same discussion. Clare favors direct, unambiguous communications, bucking the conventional “dance around sensitive issues” pattern. So now Ann tries to float the task over to Clare’s plate, and Clare shares Bob’s desire not to have that task land on her plate.
So Clare comes out with a direct "I don't think it is appropriate for me to do that task; Ann, that's squarely in your area of responsibility; I think you should do it."
Ann gets bent out of shape, because Clare didn't play the neurotypical game of allowing the merits to be decided unfairly, with improperly supported arguments.
Now, for some (most?) Aspies, I think they genuinely lack insight into what is meant (if it is very different from what is said, especially).
I feel like i have no idea what other people are thinking or how they think....is that an aspie trait? can neurotyps tell better what people are thinking or do they just THINK they can tell what others are thinking?
Often they guess correctly but too often, they do not, but continue to act as if they have (and as if their mode of communication is 'normal' and clearer; more logical forms are abnormal).
I don't know so much about the run of aspies for whom neurotyp meanings are opaque. For me, it's not an inability, or a disability, in discerning meaning, but a kind of hyperability.
For example, I am very Bob-like, quick to clue in when someone else, e.g., is inappropriately trying to waft something over to my plate. I'm extremely, think-12-steps-ahead, quick to clue in and the next thing I do or say is a direct response to what is actually meant (within the limits of my putative hyperability to guess what that is). This often comes as a slap in my interlocutor's face because they may not even know that they mean that; i.e., they may not have gotten that far in the chain of reasoning to understand the logical implications of their utterance.
Or, they may know very well they mean that, but were trying to disguise it, and resent getting hit in the face with it.
Well, anyway, sticking with my solipsistic universe for a second ... I often can't pull out the meaning either; but more often, I can, but simply refuse to play the game of 'communicating' like that, because it's too frustrating and inefficient. And THAT is the kind of reaction that neurotypical writers of books on Asperger's syndrome depict as 'inappropriate communication sensibilities' and the like.
What I do is bottom-line the thing, way earlier than conventional people. I figure (not always correctly) that if I can't understand something, then it needs clarification. Even if I am wrong (and some huge % of others would not find any ambiguity), the thing still needs clarification if one of the parties to the conversation isn't getting the incoming communication (no matter whose fault that is).
It is this process of disambiguation that neurotyps often object to, and often apparently because of their own shortcomings in the articulation and critical thinking departments -- which shortcomings, paradoxically (in my experience anyway), are often advanced in lieu of substantive rejoinder (as discussed above: 'I can't be expected to think as fast as you; so I get to win the point notwithstanding the merits...').
Objecting to that kind of logic is some kind of sin against neurotyp nature, apparently.
And when I put the micro-SD chip into my web-enabled handheld over in my third hand, it becomes physically connected to far-reaching networks of people and information, and wondrous new meta-things emerge and self-organize. Thoughts, knowledge and information are made tangible and communicable and accessible, acquiring a utility far surpassing the humble stone in the hierarchy of things in the thingosphere.
