Brains of Autistic Children Are Surprisingly Hyper-Connected
I found this article today, and felt that it would be of interest to other people.
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.
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. :)
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.
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
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
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.
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?
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.
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.
I have seen "no naked link" requirements on sites, but never one encouraging "naked links".
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.
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.
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.
This is silly.
----
This is silly too.
----
Of course not. "Click on this link! It'll destroy your computer! Muhahahaha!"
----
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
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.
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.
----
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
This is silly.
----
Why do you think it is silly?
It is rather obvious, but that doesn't make it silly.
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.
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.
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?
Go here, learn this, everyone will see why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
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
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
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.
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:
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.
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
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Autistic adult banned from library children's section |
10 Mar 2024, 8:04 am |
Rare Genetic Variants Are Curiously Connected With Being |
06 Apr 2024, 3:47 pm |
A counterpoint to Autistic Supremacy? Autistic Inferiority? |
26 Feb 2024, 1:46 pm |
Handbook for autistic-autistic social interactions |
08 Feb 2024, 1:31 pm |