Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Brains of Autistic Children Are Surprisingly Hyper-Connected

Page 1 of 2 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

StarCity
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,141
Location: England, UK

08 Nov 2013, 12:13 pm

I found this article today, and felt that it would be of interest to other people.
:arrow: DISCOVERmagazine 07/11/2013 *CLICK HERE* to read it.


_________________
We, the people on the Autistic Spectrum have a choice.
We can either try to "fit in" with the rest of society, or we can be so egocentric that we can't be bothered.
I choose the actor. I observe NT's. I listen to their socializing. I practice it, so in social situations I can just emulate/mimic what is expected.
It isn't natural for me, but it enables me to "fit in".
It is VERY tiring and draining, but at least we can appear like them even though it is an act. Like being on the stage.
They can't see it is emulation, and so we are accepted.


jamgrrl
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 128
Location: Seattle, WA

08 Nov 2013, 12:43 pm

Wow, this is awesome. And not surprising given the Markham's work on the Intense World Theory, and Bogdashina's collected research in her books. Oh, and given all the personal accounts from actual aspies. :)


_________________
Aspie Score: 125/200
NT Score: 86/200
Twitter: https://twitter.com/lunalindsey


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

08 Nov 2013, 1:56 pm

It is often considered inappropriate to post a link without some kind of executive summary or excerpts from the article describing what to find there.

Spammers and others of their ilk often use the tactic of posting a link to something along with some kind of title that may or may not appear to be on topic, but when you go to the link you either go to a spam site or to a site that attempts to install malicious content on your computer.

Consequently, I tend to view anyone who posts a link without some kind of executive summary to not really care very much at all about what they are posting and therefore, it is rarely worth looking at even if it is not a spam site or one attempting to install malicious content on your computer.



jamgrrl
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 128
Location: Seattle, WA

08 Nov 2013, 1:59 pm

I visited the link. It's a legit Discover Magazine blog report on a study.

Some people aren't very good at articulating their impressions. StarCity seems to be a long time WP user. :)



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

08 Nov 2013, 2:06 pm

jamgrrl wrote:
Some people aren't very good at articulating their impressions.


That's a good point. I often just post a representative excerpt or two from the page.

Another reason to either provide an executive summary or an excerpt is that just providing a link doesn't give others any indication about what is on the page that they find interesting and want to discuss. In many cases, likely with this case as well, that isn't important. In other cases, I have seen people become a bit upset when the discussion centers around points other than those that the person who posted the link wanted to discuss. It really helps to focus the discussion to somehow indicate what parts of the story the person is most interested.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

08 Nov 2013, 2:30 pm

eric76 wrote:
It is often considered inappropriate to post a link without some kind of executive summary or excerpts from the article describing what to find there.


Let us be clear here: You consider it inappropriate to post a link without a summary or excerpts. The topic is actually more than sufficient here.

Quote:
Spammers and others of their ilk often use the tactic of posting a link to something along with some kind of title that may or may not appear to be on topic, but when you go to the link you either go to a spam site or to a site that attempts to install malicious content on your computer.


Which is why you lecture people who have hundreds or thousands of posts to their name and thus are not likely to be spammers because they have an extensive posting history without being banned?

Quote:
Consequently, I tend to view anyone who posts a link without some kind of executive summary to not really care very much at all about what they are posting and therefore, it is rarely worth looking at even if it is not a spam site or one attempting to install malicious content on your computer.


This is a fundamental attribution error - because people do not meet your criteria for posting a link, you are deciding what they must really think about that link. The truth is you can't know what people think, but what you can know is that they at least cared enough to say "check this out" and you cannot determine how worthwhile the link is based on how closely other people fail to meet the criteria you have decided establishes whether they care about what they're posting or whether it's worth looking at. Neither of these elements can be determined on the basis of how people choose to explain their links.

Which is why when you tried this same thing on me I told you that you were wrong and paid it no mind. If you don't want to read something, that's fine. That's on you. It's not someone else's fault for failing to package it for you personally.

If you want a summary or some choice quotes, just ask for them.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

08 Nov 2013, 2:59 pm

Verdandi wrote:
eric76 wrote:
It is often considered inappropriate to post a link without some kind of executive summary or excerpts from the article describing what to find there.


Let us be clear here: You consider it inappropriate to post a link without a summary or excerpts. The topic is actually more than sufficient here.
It is not at all uncommon for people to consider a naked link to be inappropriate and the failure to provide one to be a violation of etiquette.

I have seen "no naked link" requirements on sites, but never one encouraging "naked links".

Quote:
Quote:
Spammers and others of their ilk often use the tactic of posting a link to something along with some kind of title that may or may not appear to be on topic, but when you go to the link you either go to a spam site or to a site that attempts to install malicious content on your computer.


Which is why you lecture people who have hundreds or thousands of posts to their name and thus are not likely to be spammers because they have an extensive posting history without being banned?


I don't guess you realize that it is possible for people to steal someone's password and use that to post objectionable material. On a number of occasions I have seen college students post naked links on someone else's account when they forgot to log off or were distracted.

Quote:
Quote:
Consequently, I tend to view anyone who posts a link without some kind of executive summary to not really care very much at all about what they are posting and therefore, it is rarely worth looking at even if it is not a spam site or one attempting to install malicious content on your computer.


This is a fundamental attribution error - because people do not meet your criteria for posting a link, you are deciding what they must really think about that link. The truth is you can't know what people think, but what you can know is that they at least cared enough to say "check this out" and you cannot determine how worthwhile the link is based on how closely other people fail to meet the criteria you have decided establishes whether they care about what they're posting or whether it's worth looking at. Neither of these elements can be determined on the basis of how people choose to explain their links.

Which is why when you tried this same thing on me I told you that you were wrong and paid it no mind. If you don't want to read something, that's fine. That's on you. It's not someone else's fault for failing to package it for you personally.

If you want a summary or some choice quotes, just ask for them.
[/quote]It's not an error. I was telling you my preference, one that is shared by quite a number of others on the Internet. It is often considered a blunder or error to click on a link without having any idea what to find at the link. It is quite rare for someone wanting to install something dangerous on your computer or a spammer wanting you to visit a spam site to provide any executive summary at all or even to pay attention to what would be considered an on-topic disucssion.

On the other hand, I don't recollect ever seeing a link with an executive summary that is reasonably on topic that led to a dangerous or objectionable site.

A primary purpose of these forums is to enhance communication. Everyone just posting links hardly enhances communications.



1401b
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Age: 124
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,590

08 Nov 2013, 4:43 pm

Verdandi wrote:
[...] It's not someone else's fault for failing to package it for you personally. [...].

I like this.


_________________
(14.01.b) cogito ergo sum confusus


1401b
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Age: 124
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,590

08 Nov 2013, 4:48 pm

eric76 wrote:
I have seen "no naked link" requirements on sites, but never one encouraging "naked links".

    This is silly.
   ----

eric76 wrote:
I don't guess you realize that it is possible for people to steal someone's password and use that to post objectionable material. On a number of occasions I have seen college students post naked links on someone else's account when they forgot to log off or were distracted.

    This is silly too.
   ----

eric76 wrote:
On the other hand, I don't recollect ever seeing a link with an executive summary that is reasonably on topic that led to a dangerous or objectionable site.

    Of course not. "Click on this link! It'll destroy your computer! Muhahahaha!"
   ----

eric76 wrote:
A primary purpose of these forums is to enhance communication. Everyone just posting links hardly enhances communications.

    This is silly too.
    ----

    I'm not going to give an essay on why these are silly, it'd be book.
    Go here, learn this, everyone will see why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies


_________________
(14.01.b) cogito ergo sum confusus


Willard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,647

08 Nov 2013, 5:34 pm

Quote:
Both studies found that functional connectivity in autistic people’s brains was most increased in the visual and extrastriate cortices, which deal with sight; and in the temporal lobe, which plays crucial roles in processing and associating sensory input.



Duh. Why is that a surprise? The heart of autism is sensory overload. The social dysfunctions originate in the difficulty of differentiating between social cues and the barrage of other, often less relevant or important incoming sensory data.

I cannot comprehend why researchers will waste years and millions of dollars trying to figure out what's going on in the heads of autistic children and adolescents, when all they have to do is ASK adults who have already lived with the condition for decades and can more clearly articulate what they're experiencing. Hel-loOooOOoo, we're RIGHT HERE. :roll:



1401b
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Age: 124
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,590

08 Nov 2013, 5:55 pm

Willard wrote:
Quote:
Both studies found that functional connectivity in autistic people’s brains was most increased in the visual and extrastriate cortices, which deal with sight; and in the temporal lobe, which plays crucial roles in processing and associating sensory input.



Duh. Why is that a surprise? The heart of autism is sensory overload. The social dysfunctions originate in the difficulty of differentiating between social cues and the barrage of other, often less relevant or important incoming sensory data.
[...]

You're right this is a big fat Duh.
----

Willard wrote:
I cannot comprehend why researchers will waste years and millions of dollars trying to figure out what's going on in the heads of autistic children and adolescents, when all they have to do is ASK adults who have already lived with the condition for decades and can more clearly articulate what they're experiencing. Hel-loOooOOoo, we're RIGHT HERE. :roll:

Because it's easier than getting a real job, and they don't have to deal with us annoying SocioTards.


_________________
(14.01.b) cogito ergo sum confusus


Matt62
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,230

08 Nov 2013, 7:23 pm

Someone needed sa study to determine this? You could have asked most of us here.
Interesting how they still assume most of us have no understanding of our condition. Absurd, but true.


Sincerely,
Matthew



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

08 Nov 2013, 8:24 pm

1401b wrote:
eric76 wrote:
I have seen "no naked link" requirements on sites, but never one encouraging "naked links".

    This is silly.
   ----


Why do you think it is silly?

It is rather obvious, but that doesn't make it silly.


Quote:
eric76 wrote:
I don't guess you realize that it is possible for people to steal someone's password and use that to post objectionable material. On a number of occasions I have seen college students post naked links on someone else's account when they forgot to log off or were distracted.

    This is silly too.
   ----


You must be a rather silly person if you think everything is silly.

In any event, that was an observation based on years of experience.

Quote:
eric76 wrote:
On the other hand, I don't recollect ever seeing a link with an executive summary that is reasonably on topic that led to a dangerous or objectionable site.

    Of course not. "Click on this link! It'll destroy your computer! Muhahahaha!"
   ----


You are the one being silly here. Or perhaps a very poor lack of reading comprehension.

Have you ever seen any spammer post an executive summary that is pertinent to the discussion at hand but when you click on the link it is actually advertising something or is designed to install malicious code on your computer? I sure haven't.

Quote:
eric76 wrote:
A primary purpose of these forums is to enhance communication. Everyone just posting links hardly enhances communications.

    This is silly too.
    ----


So what do you think are the primary purposes of these forums if they are not to enhance communications on topics related to autism?

Quote:
I'm not going to give an essay on why these are silly, it'd be book.
    Go here, learn this, everyone will see why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
And what fallacies are present above?

As your post consists of labeling some statements as silly with no explanation or justification at all for those labels and then a link to an article on fallacies, your post was nothing but meaningless drivel. Perhaps you need some serious practice in logic and communication. You certainly showed no capabilities so far.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

08 Nov 2013, 8:26 pm

eric76 wrote:
It is not at all uncommon for people to consider a naked link to be inappropriate and the failure to provide one to be a violation of etiquette.

I have seen "no naked link" requirements on sites, but never one encouraging "naked links".


I have been on the internet since 1992, and you are the first person I have ever encountered who insists that this should be done, or who implies that someone just posting a link with minimal explanation is easily mistaken for a spammer. Speaking as someone who has moderated a handful of forums and mailing lists, spammers are actually much more distinct and easier to spot than that.

Quote:
I don't guess you realize that it is possible for people to steal someone's password and use that to post objectionable material. On a number of occasions I have seen college students post naked links on someone else's account when they forgot to log off or were distracted.


Again, having been on the internet since 1992, I have seen spammers spam with new accounts. I have not seen spammers hijack other accounts as a regular thing and you are again literally (not figuratively) the first person I have ever seen complain about this possibility.

Quoting this for context:

Quote:
Consequently, I tend to view anyone who posts a link without some kind of executive summary to not really care very much at all about what they are posting and therefore, it is rarely worth looking at even if it is not a spam site or one attempting to install malicious content on your computer.


Quote:
It's not an error. I was telling you my preference, one that is shared by quite a number of others on the Internet. It is often considered a blunder or error to click on a link without having any idea what to find at the link. It is quite rare for someone wanting to install something dangerous on your computer or a spammer wanting you to visit a spam site to provide any executive summary at all or even to pay attention to what would be considered an on-topic disucssion.


No, it was an error. You said you view anyone who posts a link...you can see what you wrote above. You were going beyond stating a preference and casting aspersions on the motives of people who choose to post a link without padding it with explanation to your satisfaction. That is called a fundamental attribution error, when you make assumptions about a person's personality or character on the basis of an isolated event.

Quote:
A primary purpose of these forums is to enhance communication. Everyone just posting links hardly enhances communications.


Good thing that's not what was happening in this thread or in the other occasions I have seen you attempt to lay down your personal law on this.

When you do this, you derail threads with your personal peeve.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

08 Nov 2013, 8:33 pm

eric76 wrote:
As your post consists of labeling some statements as silly with no explanation or justification at all for those labels and then a link to an article on fallacies, your post was nothing but meaningless drivel. Perhaps you need some serious practice in logic and communication. You certainly showed no capabilities so far.


If you asked "Could you elaborate on the link?" this conversation wouldn't be happening. But you had to make it about how you view people who don't link the way you want as bad people, and that's where the logical fallacy comes in - I even named it for you.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

08 Nov 2013, 8:45 pm

Verdandi wrote:
eric76 wrote:
It is not at all uncommon for people to consider a naked link to be inappropriate and the failure to provide one to be a violation of etiquette.

I have seen "no naked link" requirements on sites, but never one encouraging "naked links".


I have been on the internet since 1992, and you are the first person I have ever encountered who insists that this should be done, or who implies that someone just posting a link with minimal explanation is easily mistaken for a spammer. Speaking as someone who has moderated a handful of forums and mailing lists, spammers are actually much more distinct and easier to spot than that.


For what it's worth, I've been on the Internet since the 1988 to 1989 time period.

And I have definitely run into quite a few people who strongly dislike the posting of naked links for the purposes I stated above, both on the web, on mailing lists, and on the newsgroups.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't guess you realize that it is possible for people to steal someone's password and use that to post objectionable material. On a number of occasions I have seen college students post naked links on someone else's account when they forgot to log off or were distracted.


Again, having been on the internet since 1992, I have seen spammers spam with new accounts. I have not seen spammers hijack other accounts as a regular thing and you are again literally (not figuratively) the first person I have ever seen complain about this possibility.


You've been on it since 1992 and never run across that problem? That's odd.

Quote:
Quoting this for context:

Quote:
Consequently, I tend to view anyone who posts a link without some kind of executive summary to not really care very much at all about what they are posting and therefore, it is rarely worth looking at even if it is not a spam site or one attempting to install malicious content on your computer.


Quote:
It's not an error. I was telling you my preference, one that is shared by quite a number of others on the Internet. It is often considered a blunder or error to click on a link without having any idea what to find at the link. It is quite rare for someone wanting to install something dangerous on your computer or a spammer wanting you to visit a spam site to provide any executive summary at all or even to pay attention to what would be considered an on-topic disucssion.


No, it was an error. You said you view anyone who posts a link...you can see what you wrote above. You were going beyond stating a preference and casting aspersions on the motives of people who choose to post a link without padding it with explanation to your satisfaction. That is called a fundamental attribution error, when you make assumptions about a person's personality or character on the basis of an isolated event.


I'll say it again -- if someone genuinely wants about discussing the issues from a web site, they will usually provide some kind of executive summary or excerpts from the site or some other kind of information.

I will readily admit, however, that there are clueless users who will post naked links and think that they are somehow magically participating in a discussion.

Quote:
Quote:
A primary purpose of these forums is to enhance communication. Everyone just posting links hardly enhances communications.


Good thing that's not what was happening in this thread or in the other occasions I have seen you attempt to lay down your personal law on this.

When you do this, you derail threads with your personal peeve.
All I did was make a simple observation in my initial thread. I was trying to be helpful without being overbearing about the issue. It was far more of a suggestion than some personal law.

If it was up to me, one of the general rules for posting would be to post some kind of brief description with a link or excerpts from the link. Nothing one would be banned for, but more of a guide to improve communications here.