Page 6 of 14 [ 220 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 14  Next

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 May 2012, 12:36 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
The argument was not about a helmet versus non-helmet debate but whether or not it is socially acceptable for an autistic biker to wear a helmet when most bikers choose not to wear helmets. Today the argument is moot because in most states bikers are legally required to wear helmets. The same principle applies to a construction job. Is it socially acceptable for an autistic carpenter to wear a hard hat when nobody else is wearing one? One rainy day I showed up at work wearing a hard hat and everyone thought I was crazy even though my hard hat did a great job keeping my head from getting soaked. Again today it is a moot issue because most construction jobs require protective gear.

But my point is that most neurotypicals base their decisions on what is socially acceptable rather than a good logical choice.


And then you're assuming most with autism base their decisions on good logical choice? See that is the part I am not getting....I would say people in general tend to base their decisions on what is socially acceptable. Because many with autism don't exactly fit in they aren't exactly welcome to follow what is socially acceptable(at least in my experience) even if they do want to. So I don't feel its that they necessarily are less likely to follow social norms when given the opportunity but that maybe our differences make it less likely we will be treated as 'part of the group.'. But I still don't think people with AS/Autism are by default more logical than neurotypicals.


_________________
We won't go back.


androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

09 May 2012, 12:52 pm

It would basically be impossible for me to fit in. There is no way in hell that i would ride a dangerous motorcycle and not wear a helmet and risk getting my head bashed in just so I would fit in with the other bikers. Of course today since helmets are legally required i stand a better chance of fitting in. But my biggest hurdle today is that I refuse to buy a motorcycle. From my way of thinking there are plenty of motorcycles and these machines should be shared.

Autistics are welcome to follow what is socially acceptable but often they refuse for good logical reasons. One person advised me that I should pick my battles. For things that do not matter I should try and conform and drink the same brand of beer everyone else is drinking but refrain from heavy drug use.



DogsWithoutHorses
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,146
Location: New York

09 May 2012, 1:07 pm

Sometimes it's logical to fit in with social norms because there is a demonstrable benefit to that. I don't think you're being all that logical by rejecting them.
What makes sense to you is not the same as what is the most logical.


_________________
If your success is defined as being well adjusted to injustice and well adapted to indifference, then we don?t want successful leaders. We want great leaders- who are unbought, unbound, unafraid, and unintimidated to tell the truth.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 May 2012, 1:14 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
It would basically be impossible for me to fit in. There is no way in hell that i would ride a dangerous motorcycle and not wear a helmet and risk getting my head bashed in just so I would fit in with the other bikers. Of course today since helmets are legally required i stand a better chance of fitting in. But my biggest hurdle today is that I refuse to buy a motorcycle. From my way of thinking there are plenty of motorcycles and these machines should be shared.

Autistics are welcome to follow what is socially acceptable but often they refuse for good logical reasons. One person advised me that I should pick my battles. For things that do not matter I should try and conform and drink the same brand of beer everyone else is drinking but refrain from heavy drug use.


Just going to throw this out there but the point of that conversation with that other poster was not about helmets I think they just brought that up to make some point about how my points were flawed or something. I don't know read back if you want to see the whole conversation......but I really can't say it makes much difference to me if you want to wear a helmet or not.

Also I don't think it can be said that the majority of time these socially acceptable things aren't followed because of logical reasons...I think there are other reasons as well. I mean I can think of a number of times I haven't wanted to fit into something due to more emotional reasons for instance if I saw someone being picked on I wouldn't join in not because doing so would be illogical(that's kind of irrelevant to me when it comes down to it). but because I think it's wrong to gang up on someone and pick on them. Though in some situations the logical choice might be to join in so i don't get singled out to but to hell with that.

I personally would never drink the same brand of beer everyone else is drinking....in a public setting because chances are that would mean Bud Light.


_________________
We won't go back.


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

09 May 2012, 2:53 pm

This is a very interesting side discussion about logical versus non-logical decisions and choices. I land firmly in the middle with the contention that neither Aspies nor NTs are always logical or never logical in decision making. I think people, both Aspie and NT, use a mix of logic and non-logic. I specifically didn't say "emotional" as the opposite of logic because, as ahogday's posts explain, emotion is a necessary component of decision making.


However, we are probably all working with our own internal definitions of logical decision making. I googled and found this:

http://agreatsupervisor.com/articles/re ... cision.htm

It isn't a defintion of logical decisions but rather advice on how to make them. But I think it helps to have some sort of idea of what people consider a logical way to make a decision.

Here is my personal definition: A logical decision is any decisions where the benefits that are the outcome of the decision outweigh the costs.

Do others agree with this definition, or have their own definition?



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,561

09 May 2012, 3:01 pm

Silvervarg wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Silvervarg wrote:
[Edit: Ohh and aghogday, I'm sure as hell not going to answer posts that consists of people quoting themselves in real time, if I find myself spending more time trying to figure out how and where you're writing compared to understanding what you wrote, I'm just wasting time.


Suit yourself, I feel confident I provided more than enough evidence to refute your assertion/claim that autism is labeled as a disability because autistics are more logical than the rest of the population.

Nope, I'm blaming you. And since I never stated that, so I'm sure you did.


Quote:
Ohh how I love the fact that being logical is considered a disablility, it's truly an NT world
This is the exact statement that you made that I soundly refuted with third party evidence.

The refutation of your statement has nothing to do with how you as individual view yourself as logical or your perception of your specific level of ability to experience emotions, it is based on real world statistics on the logical problems that many autistic individuals have in navigating the world and making decisions as simple as those that concern self help skills. Many others in the discussion have soundly refuted your statement as well.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

09 May 2012, 3:21 pm

Well that is exactly it. If someone is getting picked on at work according to neurotypical ethics it is okay to pick on someone as long as everyone else is doing it. And if the victim gets fired the neurotypicals are rewarded with steady employment. But if I refuse to pick on someone when everyone else is doing it I suppose that makes me mentally ill.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,561

09 May 2012, 4:26 pm

Janissy wrote:
This is a very interesting side discussion about logical versus non-logical decisions and choices. I land firmly in the middle with the contention that neither Aspies nor NTs are always logical or never logical in decision making. I think people, both Aspie and NT, use a mix of logic and non-logic. I specifically didn't say "emotional" as the opposite of logic because, as ahogday's posts explain, emotion is a necessary component of decision making.


However, we are probably all working with our own internal definitions of logical decision making. I googled and found this:

http://agreatsupervisor.com/articles/re ... cision.htm

It isn't a defintion of logical decisions but rather advice on how to make them. But I think it helps to have some sort of idea of what people consider a logical way to make a decision.

Here is my personal definition: A logical decision is any decisions where the benefits that are the outcome of the decision outweigh the costs.

Do others agree with this definition, or have their own definition?


This statement was worth quoting, I think in the article:

Quote:
Decisions are 90% emotional no matter how logical we think we are. Everything we perceive is processed through the emotional center of our brains first, affecting our judgments and reasoning before we ever have a chance of being logical.

Therefore, it is important to have tools and processes to help us make choices. We can't count on our brains alone. Humans are too good at rationalizing, justifying, defending intellectualizing, and denying, which is what we spend much of our brain work doing.

According to Elliot Aronson, author of The Social Animal, "Unless we recognize our cognitive limitations, we will be enslaved by them."


I agree that part of the decision making process in logic in everyday life is based on cost/benefit of outcomes of decisions.

In trying to analyze an argument I often look at logic from the perspective of semantics and mathematics.

For instance, in this discussion a statement was made that "Ohh how I love the fact that being logical is considered a disablility, it's truly an NT world" in reference to the topic discussion on whether or not autism is considered a disability.

It is not a fact that being logical is considered a disability in autism. If this were a fact in relationship to autism it would be evidenced. There is third party evidence that some autistic individuals have problems making logical decisions in every day life, self help care, so if there is disability evidenced in relationship to logic and autism it is a reduced ability evidenced in some individuals in making logical decisions as they relate to outcomes in everyday life functioning.

Deficits in verbal and non-verbal language skills causes difficulty for some in understanding language both written, spoken, and presented non-verbally to make logical decisions in communication, per semantics, and social interaction.

The logical outcomes are highly dependent on one's experiences and common reference points with others in life. Deficits in social interaction and social communication, can result in impairments in these areas of logical communication.

A larger problem in making logical decisions in regard to others can be that there are problems for some autistic individuals, evidenced in the inherent ability to understand that others experience life much differently than they do.

Often in a discussion the reference point comes back to the individual rather than to the millions of autistic people in the world that are being discussed. However, that is the nature of the condition for many, and is to be expected.

But, per the basic rules of logic, the ability to understand the characteristics of the entire subject matter discussed is important, otherwise the subject matter can be reduced as small as the characteristics of one autistic individual rather than millions of autistic individuals. This is another issue that can make it harder among some autistic individuals to reach logical conclusions regarding subject matter.

One area that some autistic individuals excel in, is abstract reasoning, as evidenced in non-verbal tests of fluid intelligence. However, if there are deficits in communication, per verbal and non-verbal communication, it provides limits in how well one can communicate their strengths in abstract reasoning measured through visual rather than verbal means.

Some of these individuals may have difficulties expressing themselves logically in verbal/non-verbal communication, but may excel in other areas of abstract reasoning such as abilities required to program computers, or in solving complex mathematical problems as well as other areas that require abstract reasoning skills per inductive reasoning and logic. This is an evidenced strength discretely measured in some autistic individuals, however it does not minimize the other disabling factors associated with autism.

Nor do those that have conducted the research that provides evidence of the strengths, suggest that it minimizes the other disabling factors associated with autism. In fact, the team of Mottron and Autistic researcher Dawson that provided clinical evidence of these strengths noted that about 80% of autistic individuals require support from families, and about 90% do not maintain full time employment.



Silvervarg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 787
Location: Sweden

09 May 2012, 6:42 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Most of your post.

You're the most amazing debater I've ever met. :D
1. You argue against a point way off what was stated.
2. You're hopless at quoting when there's more than one quote.
3. You contradict youself.
4. You don't understand your own replies. (And ironicly uses the same phrase to end the sentence... Twise.)
5. You change the subject.
6. You fail to understand simple none specifict statements.
7. You acctually tries to steal a point by saying exactly what I said.
I think I'll stop here.

Sweetleaf wrote:
Silvervarg wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
I do learn everything I can about things I am interested in, that does not mean this knowledge necessarily gets me anywhere in life.

What does "gets you anywhere" means specificly?

I don't quite get the question, I haven't really gotten anywhere in life regardless of what interesting things I may learn about. So I don't really know what would get me anywhere.

I can't stop looking at this, it amaze me every time I see it.


aghogday wrote:
This is the exact statement that you made that I soundly refuted with third party evidence.

No you didn't, you provided one link to Wiki and one about Psycopaths.

Quote:
The refutation of your statement has nothing to do with how you as individual view yourself as logical or your perception of your specific level of ability to experience emotions, it is based on real world statistics on the logical problems that many autistic individuals have in navigating the world and making decisions as simple as those that concern self help skills. Many others in the discussion have soundly refuted your statement as well.

By "many others" you mean Sweetleaf...

I'm going to give you another little brain teaser to ignore:
Why is it so that this forum is flooded with post about how people have suffered consequenses from repeatedly having said "inappropirate" (as in: things true that people don't want to hear) things or speaking completely out of place, whilst this seems (in compraison) very rare amongst (adult) NTs.

From what I've learned from my psychology studies, the most common activity is communicating with others, as such one thing becomes very clear. Feel free to point out any holes you find in the following reasoning.

1. If communication is the main activity it must mean that it's where we make most of our decisions during the day.
2. If 1 is true, then it should also be so that most mistakes in the decision making are made there.
3. If 2 is true, (social) errors in the communication are punished by the surroundings, so people try to avoid that.
4. If 3 is true, then people will if possible avoid saying things that might result in said punishment.
5. If 4 is true, most decisions a person makes during the day is if what they are about to say/just heard is socialy acceptable or not.
6. If 5 is true, then most of peoples decisions during the day a emotinaly based.
7. If 6 is true, then it means that a person not following this pattern is either: Unaware of the rules/Ignoring the rules. (Whatever their reason for either option is.)
8. If 7 is true, it means that something els is used as base for most decisions during their day.
9. If 8 is true, (and we assume that most of these people are not pathological liers), that these say are statements of percived facts.
10, if 9 is true, people are more proned to use logic to determine what they consider to be facts or not.
11. If 10 is true, then these people base most of their decisions on logic.

I admit it went a little fast on the end, but it's late and my thoughts are not as sharp as they should be.


_________________
Sing songs. Songs sung. Samsung.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,561

09 May 2012, 8:10 pm

Silvervarg wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Most of your post.

You're the most amazing debater I've ever met. :D
1. You argue against a point way off what was stated.
2. You're hopless at quoting when there's more than one quote.
3. You contradict youself.
4. You don't understand your own replies. (And ironicly uses the same phrase to end the sentence... Twise.)
5. You change the subject.
6. You fail to understand simple none specifict statements.
7. You acctually tries to steal a point by saying exactly what I said.
I think I'll stop here.

Sweetleaf wrote:
Silvervarg wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
I do learn everything I can about things I am interested in, that does not mean this knowledge necessarily gets me anywhere in life.



What does "gets you anywhere" means specificly?

I don't quite get the question, I haven't really gotten anywhere in life regardless of what interesting things I may learn about. So I don't really know what would get me anywhere.

I can't stop looking at this, it amaze me every time I see it.


aghogday wrote:
This is the exact statement that you made that I soundly refuted with third party evidence.

No you didn't, you provided one link to Wiki and one about Psycopaths.

Quote:
The refutation of your statement has nothing to do with how you as individual view yourself as logical or your perception of your specific level of ability to experience emotions, it is based on real world statistics on the logical problems that many autistic individuals have in navigating the world and making decisions as simple as those that concern self help skills. Many others in the discussion have soundly refuted your statement as well.

By "many others" you mean Sweetleaf...

I'm going to give you another little brain teaser to ignore:
Why is it so that this forum is flooded with post about how people have suffered consequenses from repeatedly having said "inappropirate" (as in: things true that people don't want to hear) things or speaking completely out of place, whilst this seems (in compraison) very rare amongst (adult) NTs.

From what I've learned from my psychology studies, the most common activity is communicating with others, as such one thing becomes very clear. Feel free to point out any holes you find in the following reasoning.

1. If communication is the main activity it must mean that it's where we make most of our decisions during the day.
2. If 1 is true, then it should also be so that most mistakes in the decision making are made there.
3. If 2 is true, (social) errors in the communication are punished by the surroundings, so people try to avoid that.
4. If 3 is true, then people will if possible avoid saying things that might result in said punishment.
5. If 4 is true, most decisions a person makes during the day is if what they are about to say/just heard is socialy acceptable or not.
6. If 5 is true, then most of peoples decisions during the day a emotinaly based.
7. If 6 is true, then it means that a person not following this pattern is either: Unaware of the rules/Ignoring the rules. (Whatever their reason for either option is.)
8. If 7 is true, it means that something els is used as base for most decisions during their day.
9. If 8 is true, (and we assume that most of these people are not pathological liers), that these say are statements of percived facts.
10, if 9 is true, people are more proned to use logic to determine what they consider to be facts or not.
11. If 10 is true, then these people base most of their decisions on logic.

I admit it went a little fast on the end, but it's late and my thoughts are not as sharp as they should be.


Attempting to use logic and being successful at it in providing logical outcomes are two different actions, dependent on innate factors, experience, and environment. The information from Wiki and from the article about psychopaths, are far from the many disabling impacts of autism that have been evidenced by third party evidence by myself and others throughout the full course of this thread.

There is absolutley no third party evidence that has been presented by anyone that it is a fact that being logical is considered a disablility, in regard to autism to the actual disabling effects of autism that have been evidenced in this thread.

The logical process involved in social communication that result in logical outcomes, are dependent on inherent factors, influenced by environment, and experience.

Even the ability to solve math problems is dependent on the emotional process of the intrinsic reward of dopamine that provides one pleasure as they arrive at solutions to problems.

There is no escaping emotion in the decision making process. For an individual that spends their entire day solving math problems, they may arrive at more logical conclusions at the end of the day, than someone that is digging ditches; it is dependent upon the individual, innate factors, experience, and environment. An individual that might not have the innate, environmental, or experience to solve math problems would likely have a deficiency in providing correct logical mathematic solutions, and an individual that does not have the same social/communication skills, will likely have a deficiency in providing logical answers to social issues, per difficulties with social skills/communication skills.

What you have provided above is factors as they relate to the actual impairments individuals with autism experience with social/communicative deficiencies they face in everyday life functioning, per logical outcomes in social comunication. Not being able to participate in logical social communication, is not evidence of an advantage in logical social communication, it is evidence of an impairment.

If a person does not say a thing all day long except for the sky is blue, because it is the only answer in social communication that they are sure that is based on reason, per their ability to answer a question, it doesn't provide an advantage in the skills necessary to engage in social communication that lead to logical outcomes, nor does it make the person a more logical individual.

Some of the emotional factors that drive the solution to math problems, drive the solution to social problems per neurochemicals such as dopamine and interaction with the pleasure centers of the brain. Other hormonal influences and neurochemicals may differ, in providing the same emotive intrinsic rewards per the emotion of pleasure to engage in social communication.

Fear is obviously a major associated emotion, involved in inhibiting social communication, but fear of being able to provide logical outcomes in social communication, due to inherent, experiential, or environmental factors, is obviously not an advantage in providing logical outcomes in communication, instead it is an impairment in social communication that is evidenced to result in disability in autism, per the criteria that measures and provides diagnoses for autism spectrum disorders.

Third party evidence that has been provided in this thread as it relates to autism and disability are statistics from the CDC as it relates to the number of individuals that are in classes for the developmentally disabled, (where the 1 in 88 number is derived, in the US); 85% of individuals with autism diagnosed co-morbid with Alexithymia; diagnostic criteria that details the disabilities in ASD's; inherent limit of brain function per US code, statistics of 80 percent of individuals that must rely upon family or society for subsistence and 90% that do not maintain full time employment, the inability of some autistic individuals to make logical decisions as they relate to self help skills; the statistic that decisions are based on emotion and are influenced 90% by emotion; if you don't want to look through the entire thread to find the third party evidence or if any of the references have been left out, I will be happy to provide them to you, if you like.

This is only the tip of the iceberg of the disabilities directly associated with autism, and co-morbid conditions associated with autism that can be disabling. Other co-morbid and clinically disabling factors are associated with ADHD, Depression, Bi-polar, GI infections, short term working memory deficits, executive dysfunction; the list goes on and on.

Can you see why from the broad perspective of autism spectrum disorders, that any advantage one might have in logic per solving math problems, creating computer programs, or providing facts only in conversation, pales in comparison to the many evidenced actual disabling factors associated with autism spectrum disorders.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 May 2012, 9:11 pm

Silvervarg wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Most of your post.

You're the most amazing debater I've ever met. :D
1. You argue against a point way off what was stated.
2. You're hopless at quoting when there's more than one quote.
3. You contradict youself.
4. You don't understand your own replies. (And ironicly uses the same phrase to end the sentence... Twise.)
5. You change the subject.
6. You fail to understand simple none specifict statements.
7. You acctually tries to steal a point by saying exactly what I said.
I think I'll stop here.

Alright man, whatever....

Sweetleaf wrote:
Silvervarg wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
I do learn everything I can about things I am interested in, that does not mean this knowledge necessarily gets me anywhere in life.

What does "gets you anywhere" means specificly?

I don't quite get the question, I haven't really gotten anywhere in life regardless of what interesting things I may learn about. So I don't really know what would get me anywhere.

I can't stop looking at this, it amaze me every time I see it.


Well good for you.


_________________
We won't go back.


Silvervarg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 787
Location: Sweden

10 May 2012, 4:31 am

aghogday wrote:
Post

Swing and a miss.

Quote:
The information from Wiki and from the article about psychopaths, are far from the many disabling impacts of autism that have been evidenced by third party evidence by myself and others throughout the full course of this thread.

Why do you keep bringing this up?
And that's "other", since it's still only one, who simply posted the criteria for the diagnosis.

Quote:
Even the ability to solve math problems is dependent on the emotional process of the intrinsic reward of dopamine that provides one pleasure as they arrive at solutions to problems.

You do realise that you just said that people who do not get a kick out of it (no matter how small) can do math, right?

Quote:
There is no escaping emotion in the decision making process. For an individual that spends their entire day solving math problems, they may arrive at more logical conclusions at the end of the day, than someone that is digging ditches; it is dependent upon the individual, innate factors, experience, and environment. An individual that might not have the innate, environmental, or experience to solve math problems would likely have a deficiency in providing correct logical mathematic solutions, and an individual that does not have the same social/communication skills, will likely have a deficiency in providing logical answers to social issues, per difficulties with social skills/communication skills.

And basic statistics says that people inclined towards logical decisions will end up making more logical decision, than someone who isn't. It's very simple, if something is more likely to occure, it will generaly occure more often. That is why it's easier (a.i statisticly more likely) to hit 7 with two regular dice, than 2 or 12, and much easier than hitting 0 or 14.

Quote:
If a person does not say a thing all day long except for the sky is blue, because it is the only answer in social communication that they are sure that is based on reason, per their ability to answer a question, it doesn't provide an advantage in the skills necessary to engage in social communication that lead to logical outcomes, nor does it make the person a more logical individual.

Failed example, specific conditioned agruments cannot be held against a general conditioned argument unless it disproves the base of the argument. Yours do not.

As I've stated before, lack of evidence is not an evidence to the contrary.

Quote:
Fear is obviously a major associated emotion, involved in inhibiting social communication, but fear of being able to provide logical outcomes in social communication, due to inherent, experiential, or environmental factors, is obviously not an advantage in providing logical outcomes in communication, instead it is an impairment in social communication that is evidenced to result in disability in autism, per the criteria that measures and provides diagnoses for autism spectrum disorders.

Are you implying that most uncommunicative people on the autistic spectrum is this because they fear the responce? If you do, I want to know where the heck you got that from, and if you don't... then I have no clue what you're trying to say.

Quote:
Can you see why from the broad perspective of autism spectrum disorders, that any advantage one might have in logic per solving math problems, creating computer programs, or providing facts only in conversation, pales in comparison to the many evidenced actual disabling factors associated with autism spectrum disorders.

Did I miss the post that made this thread a contest in irrelevant statements?

Janissy wrote:
This is a very interesting side discussion about logical versus non-logical decisions and choices. I land firmly in the middle with the contention that neither Aspies nor NTs are always logical or never logical in decision making. I think people, both Aspie and NT, use a mix of logic and non-logic. I specifically didn't say "emotional" as the opposite of logic because, as ahogday's posts explain, emotion is a necessary component of decision making.

If this clearify a bit I'll use this example to show my position. It's a broad image of how I percive the differences in NTs and spectrumites:

Someone suddenly realise that he/she has not watered his/her (from now on it's a he, less letters) flowers, here there's a fundamental difference in the approach.

Logical: Go and check if they seems dehydrated, if not, no water. (Base: Facts, they did not appear to need water.)
Rational: Fill up water and water them a bit, just in case. (Base: Emotion, consern they might need water.)

(And just for the fun of it.)
Irrational: Break into the neighbours appartment and starts watering their flowers.
Illogical: Starts licking the wall.


_________________
Sing songs. Songs sung. Samsung.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,561

10 May 2012, 3:53 pm

Silvervarg wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Post

Swing and a miss.

Quote:
The information from Wiki and from the article about psychopaths, are far from the many disabling impacts of autism that have been evidenced by third party evidence by myself and others throughout the full course of this thread.

Why do you keep bringing this up?
And that's "other", since it's still only one, who simply posted the criteria for the diagnosis.



Quote:
Even the ability to solve math problems is dependent on the emotional process of the intrinsic reward of dopamine that provides one pleasure as they arrive at solutions to problems.

You do realise that you just said that people who do not get a kick out of it (no matter how small) can do math, right?



Quote:
There is no escaping emotion in the decision making process. For an individual that spends their entire day solving math problems, they may arrive at more logical conclusions at the end of the day, than someone that is digging ditches; it is dependent upon the individual, innate factors, experience, and environment. An individual that might not have the innate, environmental, or experience to solve math problems would likely have a deficiency in providing correct logical mathematic solutions, and an individual that does not have the same social/communication skills, will likely have a deficiency in providing logical answers to social issues, per difficulties with social skills/communication skills.

And basic statistics says that people inclined towards logical decisions will end up making more logical decision, than someone who isn't. It's very simple, if something is more likely to occure, it will generaly occure more often. That is why it's easier (a.i statisticly more likely) to hit 7 with two regular dice, than 2 or 12, and much easier than hitting 0 or 14.

Quote:
If a person does not say a thing all day long except for the sky is blue, because it is the only answer in social communication that they are sure that is based on reason, per their ability to answer a question, it doesn't provide an advantage in the skills necessary to engage in social communication that lead to logical outcomes, nor does it make the person a more logical individual.

Failed example, specific conditioned agruments cannot be held against a general conditioned argument unless it disproves the base of the argument. Yours do not.

As I've stated before, lack of evidence is not an evidence to the contrary.

Quote:
Fear is obviously a major associated emotion, involved in inhibiting social communication, but fear of being able to provide logical outcomes in social communication, due to inherent, experiential, or environmental factors, is obviously not an advantage in providing logical outcomes in communication, instead it is an impairment in social communication that is evidenced to result in disability in autism, per the criteria that measures and provides diagnoses for autism spectrum disorders.

Are you implying that most uncommunicative people on the autistic spectrum is this because they fear the responce? If you do, I want to know where the heck you got that from, and if you don't... then I have no clue what you're trying to say.

Quote:
Can you see why from the broad perspective of autism spectrum disorders, that any advantage one might have in logic per solving math problems, creating computer programs, or providing facts only in conversation, pales in comparison to the many evidenced actual disabling factors associated with autism spectrum disorders.

Did I miss the post that made this thread a contest in irrelevant statements?


Quote:
By "many others" you mean Sweetleaf...


I responded to this statement you made by providing a comprehensive list of the real disabling aspects of autism that are evidenced by third party sources, and by others in this thread. I provided most of the third party evidence on Autism as a disabling condition as provided summarized in my previous post. One individual provided third party evidence on the diagnostic criteria that provide specific impairments that are the source of disability in autism, and Janissy provided evidence that emotions are involved in 90 percent of decisions that human beings make.

And, while you have provided only anecdotal evidence for your claim, there are many others in this thread that have provided their own anecdotal evidence for the other reasons that their autism spectrum disorders are disabling in their lives that have nothing to do with advantages in making logical decisions. Your anecdotal evidence of how you see things in your own life carries no more weight in evidence than their anecdotal evidence of how they see things in their life, per the disabilities associated with autism spectrum disorders.

I stated the ability to solve problems with math are dependent on inherent, environmental, and experential factors. The ability to solve math problems is in part dependent on inherent factors, which include the emotional process which occurs automatically in the limbic system, providing the neurochemical dopamine that provides the ability for individuals to problem solve, including mathematical problems and social problems. Dopamine provides a reward in the pleasure Center of the brain, no matter how small, in providing motivation to arrive at solutions to problems in life. And research provides evidence that increases in the neurochemical of dopamine provide greater incentives for individuals to complete math problems.

ADHD symptoms are clinically recognized as co-morbid symptoms associated with autism spectrum disorders, so there is a direct relationship, in the problems that some have in staying motivated to gain logical outcomes in math problems. Dopamine provides the motivation to complete any task in life, including movement. Humans are dependent upon the limbic system and emotions for survival.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15229048

Quote:
CONCLUSIONS: The significant association between methylphenidate-induced dopamine increases and the interest and motivation for the task confirms the prediction that methylphenidate enhances the saliency of an event by increasing dopamine. The enhanced interest for the task could increase attention and improve performance and could be one of the mechanisms underlying methylphenidate's therapeutic effects. These findings support educational strategies that make schoolwork more interesting as nonpharmacological interventions to treat ADHD.


While there are people who are more inclined to make perceived logical based decisions, there are no statistics that individuals with autism are more inclined to make logical based decisions on average.

Some do make very good logically based decisions, however there is evidence to the contrary that as a group individuals with ASD's make more logical based decisions on average than the general population that are not diagnosed with a disorder that inherently limits brain function.

http://psychcentral.com/disorders/autism.htm

Quote:
The majority of adults with autism need lifelong training, ongoing supervision, and reinforcement of skills. The public schools' responsibility for providing these services ends when the person is past school age. As the child becomes a young adult, the family is faced with the challenge of creating a home-based plan or selecting a program or facility that can offer such services.

In some cases, adults with autism can continue to live at home, provided someone is there to supervise at all times. A variety of residential facilities also provide round-the-clock care. Unlike many of the institutions years ago, today's facilities view residents as people with human needs, and offer opportunities for recreation and simple, but meaningful work. Still, some facilities are isolated from the community, separating people with autism from the rest of the world


Quote:
3. If 2 is true, (social) errors in the communication are punished by the surroundings, so people try to avoid that.
4. If 3 is true, then people will if possible avoid saying things that might result in said punishment.


Those are your statements above that I was responding to; my response on fear and avoidance was in agreement that it can play a part in limiting social communication, but it is not necessarily predictive of whether or not someone is more logical than someone else. Some are rarely afraid to make responses in social communication, regardless if the responses are accepted as logical social ones or not.

I have provided the broad perspective of the impact of autism spectrum disorders, that provide evidence without a shadow of a doubt that the majority of individuals diagnosed do not have the ability to make the logical decisions in life, required to gain independence in life. There are millions of individuals evidenced in the world that experience autism spectrum disorders as a disabling disorder.

You based your statement on your own personal opinion that autistic individuals are more logical than the rest of the population. That statement is solidly disproven by thousands of third party resources that provide the extent of the problem that most autistic people have in making logical decisions in every day life functioning. I can start listing them one by one if you like. Here are a few.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/health/your_health&id=7870808

http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Helpline1&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=66015

And there is also evidence that this is not just limited to those that are often called "low functioning individuals with autism".

http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news/2011/people-with-milder-forms-of-autism-struggle-as-adults

Quote:
People with milder forms of autism struggle as adults

Blurred boundaries:

Social skills have a greater impact on quality of life for people on the autism spectrum than do any specific diagnoses. Contrary to popular assumption, people diagnosed with so-called mild forms of autism don’t fare any better in life than those with severe forms of the disorder. That’s the conclusion of a new study that suggests that even individuals with normal intelligence and language abilities struggle to fit into society because of their social and communication problems.

In fact, people diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS) are no more likely to marry or have a job than those with more disabling forms of autism, according to a Norwegian study published online in June in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders1.

Early intervention has the potential to alter this trajectory, say experts. But until today’s children with autism reach maturity, it will be hard to say how much behavioral intervention at a young age can alter the course of their lives.

“The implication of our findings is that the consequences of having an autism spectrum disorder with profound difficulties in communication skills and social impairment can’t be compensated for by either high intellectual level or normal language function,” says lead investigator Anne Myhre, associate professor of mental health and addiction at the University of Oslo in Norway.

These findings provide support for the proposed merging of pervasive developmental disorder into the autism spectrum in the DSM-5, the edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) set to be published in 2013, the researchers say.

The new edition of the manual takes a spectrum approach, absorbing the separate categories of childhood disintegrative disorder, Asperger syndrome and PDD-NOS into the broad category of autism spectrum disorder. The draft guidelines note that symptoms must appear in early childhood and affect everyday functioning.

“I’m glad that the authors see this as support for the DSM-5 proposed definitions,” says Sally Rogers, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of California, Davis’ MIND Institute. Rogers is a member of the neurodevelopmental working group revising the diagnostic criteria for autism.


Can your provide any third party evidence to refute any of these findings?

Your opinion is meaningful to you, however it does not match the evidence as it exists on the issue of people with ASD's, being more logical on average than the rest of the population. The fact is that ASD's for most individuals diagnosed, are inherently disabling in making the decisions required for independence in life.

And just in case you don't feel like the evidence I provided is precise enough to match what is or what is not logical decisions in life, in regard to the ability of autistic individuals; that specific question has been studied and evidenced. While autistic individuals are evidenced to perform well on non-verbal tests of reason, they are evidenced as less logical than than non-autistics per their ability to contextualize complex verbal material.

The control group in the study was evidenced as having cognitive abilities that were not significantly different than the group of autistic individuals studied.

This study does not address the 38% of individuals measured with autism that are measured as having intellectual disabilities, or the over thirty percent of individuals that are in the boarder line range of intellectual disability. Only about a third of autistic individuals are measured as having normal to above intellectual abilities, per the study funded by the Government CDC agency that provided the 1 in 88 statitistic.

Quote:
Instead of being more rational or more sensitive to the logical structure of the problems, autistic participants were less able to integrate contextual information into their representation of the tasks, or, potentially, less able to combine information from different sources. Autistic children can process complex nonverbal information, and they are also able to reason with
relations, as suggested by their performance on the Raven test (e.g., Dawson et al., 2007), and pictorial tests of analogical reasoning (Morsanyi & Holyoak, in press). Nevertheless, in the case of the present tasks autistic children showed less contextualization than the control
group. Moreover, when contextualization did occur it required more effort than in the control group. Taken together these data suggest a delay in the development of the ability to
contextualize complex verbal material in the autistic group (see also Lopez & Leekham, 2003).



Last edited by aghogday on 10 May 2012, 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

10 May 2012, 4:30 pm

Silvervarg wrote:



aghogday wrote:
The refutation of your statement has nothing to do with how you as individual view yourself as logical or your perception of your specific level of ability to experience emotions, it is based on real world statistics on the logical problems that many autistic individuals have in navigating the world and making decisions as simple as those that concern self help skills. Many others in the discussion have soundly refuted your statement as well.


By "many others" you mean Sweetleaf...

Wait I'm the only one here who has problems functioning? I think they did actually mean many people as there are quite a few who have similar struggles....I mean I know you think you're all logic but I think that's been disproven. For one trying to talk down to people on a forum for disagreeing with you is not really a move based on logic.

I'm going to give you another little brain teaser to ignore:
Why is it so that this forum is flooded with post about how people have suffered consequenses from repeatedly having said "inappropirate" (as in: things true that people don't want to hear) things or speaking completely out of place, whilst this seems (in compraison) very rare amongst (adult) NTs.

From what I've learned from my psychology studies, the most common activity is communicating with others, as such one thing becomes very clear. Feel free to point out any holes you find in the following reasoning.

1. If communication is the main activity it must mean that it's where we make most of our decisions during the day.
2. If 1 is true, then it should also be so that most mistakes in the decision making are made there.
3. If 2 is true, (social) errors in the communication are punished by the surroundings, so people try to avoid that.
4. If 3 is true, then people will if possible avoid saying things that might result in said punishment.
5. If 4 is true, most decisions a person makes during the day is if what they are about to say/just heard is socialy acceptable or not.
6. If 5 is true, then most of peoples decisions during the day a emotinaly based.
7. If 6 is true, then it means that a person not following this pattern is either: Unaware of the rules/Ignoring the rules. (Whatever their reason for either option is.)
8. If 7 is true, it means that something els is used as base for most decisions during their day.
9. If 8 is true, (and we assume that most of these people are not pathological liers), that these say are statements of percived facts.
10, if 9 is true, people are more proned to use logic to determine what they consider to be facts or not.
11. If 10 is true, then these people base most of their decisions on logic.

I admit it went a little fast on the end, but it's late and my thoughts are not as sharp as they should be.


The most common activity in comparison to what?


_________________
We won't go back.


vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

10 May 2012, 6:03 pm

aghogday wrote:
Silvervarg wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Post

Swing and a miss.

Quote:
The information from Wiki and from the article about psychopaths, are far from the many disabling impacts of autism that have been evidenced by third party evidence by myself and others throughout the full course of this thread.

Why do you keep bringing this up?
And that's "other", since it's still only one, who simply posted the criteria for the diagnosis.



Quote:
Even the ability to solve math problems is dependent on the emotional process of the intrinsic reward of dopamine that provides one pleasure as they arrive at solutions to problems.

You do realise that you just said that people who do not get a kick out of it (no matter how small) can do math, right?



Quote:
There is no escaping emotion in the decision making process. For an individual that spends their entire day solving math problems, they may arrive at more logical conclusions at the end of the day, than someone that is digging ditches; it is dependent upon the individual, innate factors, experience, and environment. An individual that might not have the innate, environmental, or experience to solve math problems would likely have a deficiency in providing correct logical mathematic solutions, and an individual that does not have the same social/communication skills, will likely have a deficiency in providing logical answers to social issues, per difficulties with social skills/communication skills.

And basic statistics says that people inclined towards logical decisions will end up making more logical decision, than someone who isn't. It's very simple, if something is more likely to occure, it will generaly occure more often. That is why it's easier (a.i statisticly more likely) to hit 7 with two regular dice, than 2 or 12, and much easier than hitting 0 or 14.

Quote:
If a person does not say a thing all day long except for the sky is blue, because it is the only answer in social communication that they are sure that is based on reason, per their ability to answer a question, it doesn't provide an advantage in the skills necessary to engage in social communication that lead to logical outcomes, nor does it make the person a more logical individual.

Failed example, specific conditioned agruments cannot be held against a general conditioned argument unless it disproves the base of the argument. Yours do not.

As I've stated before, lack of evidence is not an evidence to the contrary.

Quote:
Fear is obviously a major associated emotion, involved in inhibiting social communication, but fear of being able to provide logical outcomes in social communication, due to inherent, experiential, or environmental factors, is obviously not an advantage in providing logical outcomes in communication, instead it is an impairment in social communication that is evidenced to result in disability in autism, per the criteria that measures and provides diagnoses for autism spectrum disorders.

Are you implying that most uncommunicative people on the autistic spectrum is this because they fear the responce? If you do, I want to know where the heck you got that from, and if you don't... then I have no clue what you're trying to say.

Quote:
Can you see why from the broad perspective of autism spectrum disorders, that any advantage one might have in logic per solving math problems, creating computer programs, or providing facts only in conversation, pales in comparison to the many evidenced actual disabling factors associated with autism spectrum disorders.

Did I miss the post that made this thread a contest in irrelevant statements?


Quote:
By "many others" you mean Sweetleaf...


I responded to this statement you made by providing a comprehensive list of the real disabling aspects of autism that are evidenced by third party sources, and by others in this thread. I provided most of the third party evidence on Autism as a disabling condition as provided summarized in my previous post. One individual provided third party evidence on the diagnostic criteria that provide specific impairments that are the source of disability in autism, and Janissy provided evidence that emotions are involved in 90 percent of decisions that human beings make.

And, while you have provided only anecdotal evidence for your claim, there are many others in this thread that have provided their own anecdotal evidence for the other reasons that their autism spectrum disorders are disabling in their lives that have nothing to do with advantages in making logical decisions. Your anecdotal evidence of how you see things in your own life carries no more weight in evidence than their anecdotal evidence of how they see things in their life, per the disabilities associated with autism spectrum disorders.

I stated the ability to solve problems with math are dependent on inherent, environmental, and experential factors. The ability to solve math problems is in part dependent on inherent factors, which include the emotional process which occurs automatically in the limbic system, providing the neurochemical dopamine that provides the ability for individuals to problem solve, including mathematical problems and social problems. Dopamine provides a reward in the pleasure Center of the brain, no matter how small, in providing motivation to arrive at solutions to problems in life. And research provides evidence that increases in the neurochemical of dopamine provide greater incentives for individuals to complete math problems.

ADHD symptoms are clinically recognized as co-morbid symptoms associated with autism spectrum disorders, so there is a direct relationship, in the problems that some have in staying motivated to gain logical outcomes in math problems. Dopamine provides the motivation to complete any task in life, including movement. Humans are dependent upon the limbic system and emotions for survival.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15229048

Quote:
CONCLUSIONS: The significant association between methylphenidate-induced dopamine increases and the interest and motivation for the task confirms the prediction that methylphenidate enhances the saliency of an event by increasing dopamine. The enhanced interest for the task could increase attention and improve performance and could be one of the mechanisms underlying methylphenidate's therapeutic effects. These findings support educational strategies that make schoolwork more interesting as nonpharmacological interventions to treat ADHD.


While there are people who are more inclined to make perceived logical based decisions, there are no statistics that individuals with autism are more inclined to make logical based decisions on average.

Some do make very good logically based decisions, however there is evidence to the contrary that as a group individuals with ASD's make more logical based decisions on average than the general population that are not diagnosed with a disorder that inherently limits brain function.

http://psychcentral.com/disorders/autism.htm

Quote:
The majority of adults with autism need lifelong training, ongoing supervision, and reinforcement of skills. The public schools' responsibility for providing these services ends when the person is past school age. As the child becomes a young adult, the family is faced with the challenge of creating a home-based plan or selecting a program or facility that can offer such services.

In some cases, adults with autism can continue to live at home, provided someone is there to supervise at all times. A variety of residential facilities also provide round-the-clock care. Unlike many of the institutions years ago, today's facilities view residents as people with human needs, and offer opportunities for recreation and simple, but meaningful work. Still, some facilities are isolated from the community, separating people with autism from the rest of the world


Quote:
3. If 2 is true, (social) errors in the communication are punished by the surroundings, so people try to avoid that.
4. If 3 is true, then people will if possible avoid saying things that might result in said punishment.


Those are your statements above that I was responding to; my response on fear and avoidance was in agreement that it can play a part in limiting social communication, but it is not necessarily predictive of whether or not someone is more logical than someone else. Some are rarely afraid to make responses in social communication, regardless if the responses are accepted as logical social ones or not.

I have provided the broad perspective of the impact of autism spectrum disorders, that provide evidence without a shadow of a doubt that the majority of individuals diagnosed do not have the ability to make the logical decisions in life, required to gain independence in life. There are millions of individuals evidenced in the world that experience autism spectrum disorders as a disabling disorder.

You based your statement on your own personal opinion that autistic individuals are more logical than the rest of the population. That statement is solidly disproven by thousands of third party resources that provide the extent of the problem that most autistic people have in making logical decisions in every day life functioning. I can start listing them one by one if you like. Here are a few.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/health/your_health&id=7870808

http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Helpline1&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=66015

And there is also evidence that this is not just limited to those that are often called "low functioning individuals with autism".

http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news/2011/people-with-milder-forms-of-autism-struggle-as-adults

Quote:
People with milder forms of autism struggle as adults

Blurred boundaries:

Social skills have a greater impact on quality of life for people on the autism spectrum than do any specific diagnoses. Contrary to popular assumption, people diagnosed with so-called mild forms of autism don’t fare any better in life than those with severe forms of the disorder. That’s the conclusion of a new study that suggests that even individuals with normal intelligence and language abilities struggle to fit into society because of their social and communication problems.

In fact, people diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS) are no more likely to marry or have a job than those with more disabling forms of autism, according to a Norwegian study published online in June in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders1.

Early intervention has the potential to alter this trajectory, say experts. But until today’s children with autism reach maturity, it will be hard to say how much behavioral intervention at a young age can alter the course of their lives.

“The implication of our findings is that the consequences of having an autism spectrum disorder with profound difficulties in communication skills and social impairment can’t be compensated for by either high intellectual level or normal language function,” says lead investigator Anne Myhre, associate professor of mental health and addiction at the University of Oslo in Norway.

These findings provide support for the proposed merging of pervasive developmental disorder into the autism spectrum in the DSM-5, the edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) set to be published in 2013, the researchers say.

The new edition of the manual takes a spectrum approach, absorbing the separate categories of childhood disintegrative disorder, Asperger syndrome and PDD-NOS into the broad category of autism spectrum disorder. The draft guidelines note that symptoms must appear in early childhood and affect everyday functioning.

“I’m glad that the authors see this as support for the DSM-5 proposed definitions,” says Sally Rogers, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of California, Davis’ MIND Institute. Rogers is a member of the neurodevelopmental working group revising the diagnostic criteria for autism.


Can your provide any third party evidence to refute any of these findings?

Your opinion is meaningful to you, however it does not match the evidence as it exists on the issue of people with ASD's, being more logical on average than the rest of the population. The fact is that ASD's for most individuals diagnosed, are inherently disabling in making the decisions required for independence in life.

And just in case you don't feel like the evidence I provided is precise enough to match what is or what is not logical decisions in life, in regard to the ability of autistic individuals; that specific question has been studied and evidenced. While autistic individuals are evidenced to perform well on non-verbal tests of reason, they are evidenced as less logical than than non-autistics per their ability to contextualize complex verbal material.

The control group in the study was evidenced as having cognitive abilities that were not significantly different than the group of autistic individuals studied.

This study does not address the 38% of individuals measured with autism that are measured as having intellectual disabilities, or the over thirty percent of individuals that are in the boarder line range of intellectual disability. Only about a third of autistic individuals are measured as having normal to above intellectual abilities, per the study funded by the Government CDC agency that provided the 1 in 88 statitistic.

Quote:
Instead of being more rational or more sensitive to the logical structure of the problems, autistic participants were less able to integrate contextual information into their representation of the tasks, or, potentially, less able to combine information from different sources. Autistic children can process complex nonverbal information, and they are also able to reason with
relations, as suggested by their performance on the Raven test (e.g., Dawson et al., 2007), and pictorial tests of analogical reasoning (Morsanyi & Holyoak, in press). Nevertheless, in the case of the present tasks autistic children showed less contextualization than the control
group. Moreover, when contextualization did occur it required more effort than in the control group. Taken together these data suggest a delay in the development of the ability to
contextualize complex verbal material in the autistic group (see also Lopez & Leekham, 2003).
you must agree that most of the time autistics are generaly more rational in there way of thinking


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,561

10 May 2012, 7:09 pm

Silvervarg wrote:
If this clearify a bit I'll use this example to show my position. It's a broad image of how I percive the differences in NTs and spectrumites:

Someone suddenly realise that he/she has not watered his/her (from now on it's a he, less letters) flowers, here there's a fundamental difference in the approach.

Logical: Go and check if they seems dehydrated, if not, no water. (Base: Facts, they did not appear to need water.)
Rational: Fill up water and water them a bit, just in case. (Base: Emotion, consern they might need water.)

(And just for the fun of it.)
Irrational: Break into the neighbours appartment and starts watering their flowers.
Illogical: Starts licking the wall.


An observation that a plant does not need water based on the observation that the plant is not dehydrated is not logic based on fact, it is logic based on speculation.

The understood logical way, based on fact, to determine if a plant needs water is by testing the soil to see if it is moist or dry. By the time a plant is dehydrated it is stressed and potentially subject to die.

That is an easy fact to evidence.

http://voices.yahoo.com/a-beginners-garden-five-favorite-annual-flowers-5159485.html

Quote:
• Water your flowers whenever the top of the soil becomes dry. Don't wait until the plants wilt. If they wilt, they are already dehydrated and stressed.


When one realizes they haven't watered the plants the base emotion of concern is what motivates action. If one is not concerned about the plants, the plants have a much better chance of not surviving.

When one gets to their plants they can either base their logic on speculation in the proper way to take care of a plant, or become properly educated on the process, and base logic on facts.

Not checking the soil is not a logical choice based on evidenced fact nor is waiting to observe the plant under stress a logical choice based on evidenced fact, in a decision to water the plant. Particularly when it is so easy to use google in determing what the facts are in relationship to a logical choice in watering one's plant.

Both choices can be perceived as rational or logical, by the individual who make the choice, depending on perception and available knowledge. However, if someone with an understanding of the facts observes the behavior, it is not likely considered the most logical choice per the facts as they exist.

Logic and rationality are highly subjective and are not necessarily perceived the same by any two individuals.

For example, licking the walls is a sign of a disorder called pica, it can either be of psychiatric origin, per mineral deficiency, or a child copying the behavior of a family pet.

If a child does it, it is not necessarily an irrational behavior. However if one did not understand the knowledge that underlies the condition of pica, one might come to the conclusion that their child's choice in licking the wall is illogical and/or irrational, instead of a result of mineral deficiency or modeling a family pet's behavior.

Breaking into someone's apartment just to water their plants, is neither logical or rational per the basis of the punishment of going to jail, as well as the fact that it is not a cultural norm.

But, for someone who puts their freedom and concern for social norms, below their concern for the plants they may see it as a rational and logical decision. Likely considered strange, irrational or illogical to an observer, but not necessarily strange, illogical, or irrational to the individual with the emotional concern.

They could be potentially extremely upset that the neighbor doesn't take care of their plants, it's quite a step up in empathy for living things like animals and children, however some people get upset, when people don't wash their cars.

It's all a matter of perspective in the decisions people make, and what may be perceived as logical or rational outcomes, are highly influenced per an individuals subjective perception, per experience, knowledge, and inherent factors that impact emotion and empathy. It is safe to say that most people would consider it an irrational and illogical action because it is not part of acceptable cultural norms, and can result in jail time.

This is similar to how things work in the real world of social communication; if one neither has the inherent propensity, or the knowledge to make a logical decision in interacting with others based on cultural norms, those interactions are often not viewed as logical, and at times are possibly viewed as irrational.