Situations that NTs and Aspies would perceive differently?

Page 3 of 6 [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

katzefrau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,835
Location: emerald city

12 Jan 2012, 10:41 pm

the research based on this poison / sugar scenario is suggesting is autistic people cannot reason out that good intentions can lead to a bad outcome. this can't be true. as with many things people believe about autism, i wonder if the meaning of the results isn't what the researchers have assumed. we don't fail in the reasoning department; rather we often fail in the department of factoring in emotional impact, when trying to reason things out. or we fail in the area of understanding what the question really is asking. i wonder why researchers assign motives to autistic behavior (or assume there are none) rather than asking autistic people why they do things, or rather than assuming that autistic people (like NTs) do not always do things for the same reason. John Elder Robison wrote about this, that researchers noted "darting eyes" in autistic people and assigned no motive to the behavior, but he knew full well why he had darting eyes, because he was constantly on guard for socially threatening situations.

i wonder if both this (the poison / sugar story) and the commemorative cup thing (earlier in the thread, for those only joining the conversation since its resurrection) are really issues of semantics. maybe autistic individuals are more rigid in their definition of "blame" for example, and are less inclined to factor intention into their opinion of whether or not someone deserves blame. i can't think through these types of scenarios without haggling over distinctions about what is really being asked. personally i would make the distinction that accountability or responsibility could be assigned rather than blame, and i would add that caveat before answering the question, because i understand that "blame" can carry with it "shame" or "punishment." and i don't automatically believe that someone should receive punishment for making an error. if the person's job is Q.C. at the sugar / poison factory, then yes, they are to blame. if the person was asked to pass the sugar, but not also asked to first verify that the sugar wasn't poison (so unlikely a scenario that no one would possibly consider it), then no. so there is MY autistic answer.



fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

12 Jan 2012, 11:42 pm

I agree, 'blame' is terrible. It also requires a blamer who could be anyone. I think these questions are often framed in a way that makes intuitive sense to nonautistics' emotional, hierarchical way of seeing things. They then equate this to morality.



katzefrau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,835
Location: emerald city

13 Jan 2012, 1:28 am

fraac wrote:
I agree, 'blame' is terrible. It also requires a blamer who could be anyone. I think these questions are often framed in a way that makes intuitive sense to nonautistics' emotional, hierarchical way of seeing things. They then equate this to morality.


yes. blame is moral judgment, and to even pose such a question one must first assume the person being asked consents to such judgment and feels qualified to assess the situation. the blamer required is the person being asked the question. i have a hard time straight away with it and would want to be a conscientious objector.



ediself
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Oct 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,202
Location: behind you!!!

13 Jan 2012, 5:38 am

Hum....did you guys pay attention to the last paragraph? here:

Quote:
Impaired moral judgment is associated with distinct neural systems, including the right temporal parietal junction4. Gabrieli says his group is working on an imaging study focusing on which brain regions are active in these individuals while they are engaged in moral reasoning.

They'd better work quickly: Frith predicts that the utility of the new test may be limited. "I have no doubt that the Asperger's community will get hold of the test, study it, and learn the scenarios," she says.

So, of course, I had to get mad about THAT, too....
Do they think we study their tests just so we can CHEAT on them?? what an NT thing to say really.......



fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

13 Jan 2012, 6:47 am

That's Uta Frith, the most senior and respected autism researcher. I wonder if she replies to emails like SBC does...

I challenged her to come up with ANY novel scenario where I couldn't give the nonautistic answer.



PersephoneX
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 142

13 Jan 2012, 8:04 am

rabidmonkey4262 wrote:
Supernova008 wrote:
there was this video posted on these forums recently where shapes moved around and NTs and Aspies would maybe view it differently. I'm wondering if there is something with a similar aim (not necessarily similar execution).
I'm the one who posted that: Social Attribution Task , but yeah there are some other things you can try. There are the ever popular lottery questions: You have a 90% chance of loosing, do you buy the ticket? You have a 10% chance of winning, do you buy the ticket? An aspie would likely answer no to both questions. An NT would answer no and yes, respectively.

Then there's this:

Free cup case

ImageImage

The autistic brain picks out the smaller letters first, while the NT brain will process the bigger letters first. You can see the bigger letters, but you need to think about it more. It's a Gestalt grouping.


Wow, so LOL on the first one NT people would really answer no and yes? That is illogical. We need to put the NTs on medication immediately. LOL


On the drink thing, He just wanted the biggest drink and he neither cared about the free cup nor paying an extra dollar. They were inconsequential/unintentional. It's hard for me to even see why it would be interpreted differently. Refer to my response on the above. lol Shhh They need our help as they don't quite get this logic stuff.

Yes, I noticed the small ones first. That is very interesting.



PersephoneX
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 142

13 Jan 2012, 8:15 am

ediself wrote:
btbnnyr wrote:
The free cup case annoys me. Just give the guy his drink and stop bugging him with these stupid gimmicks. On the page, people who thought that the second case was intentional didn't explain their reasoning in any way that made sense. It's a balancing of priorities. At the moment, he wanted the drink. The dollar didn't matter, because he wanted the drink a lot, and it was only one dollar. If it had been a million dollars, then it would have mattered, because the priorities would have changed. Not ending up bankrupt is more important than getting the drink.

$1 = unintentional

$1,000,000 = intentional

I admit that I saw the small letters first and counted them and appreciated their lined-up symmetry before I noticed any big letters. Even after knowing about the big letters, I still see the small letters and ignore the big letters.

Yeah there, that's always been my problem with the cup case, like I'm going to even THINK about one dollar. I have no job but I'm lousy with money AND thirst is the only feeling this case gives me, thirst is a very imperious need. Pay whatever, not intentional.
I'm sure it would be funny if the letter test was taken in front of a psych, and they notice us all looking first at the bottom small letters, radomly, from down to up or right to left.... They'd probably think we don't master the "basic reading procedure" of going left to right...........




LOL The only intention was the one he came in with, which was to buy the drink.

Here is the definition of intention:
a determination to act in a certain way

He was determined to buy the drink, he was not determined to pay more money. ( That's BS )



NTs are illogical.



PersephoneX
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 142

13 Jan 2012, 8:20 am

I'm preaching to the choir!



bumble
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,073

13 Jan 2012, 8:28 am

rabidmonkey4262 wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
About the lottery thing, it depends on the person, nothing to do with NT or aspie. Some may say yes anyway because they are hoping they get lucky and win while another person knows for sure they will not win since winning is very slim so they say no to buying the ticket. I would say no to both.
It has alot to do with the discrepancy between NT and aspie. NTs will change their response depending on the emotion implied in the statements. If you tell an NT that he has a 10% chance of winning, there's a good chance he'll buy the ticket because of the attached positive emotion. If you tell that same NT he has a 90% chance of loosing, chances are he decide against buying the ticket because the question was phrased with a negative implication. Aspies will give the same answer for both questions, because they'll rely more on logic and are less likely to respond to the emotional aspect of the statements.


Both questions are, in effect, the same...you still have the same chance of winning or losing however it is phrased. So the answer would be the same to both questions. Yes if you felt like taking a risk and no if you did not. The odds have not changed and a 10% chance of winning is relatively low.



PersephoneX
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 142

13 Jan 2012, 8:38 am

katzefrau wrote:
the research based on this poison / sugar scenario is suggesting is autistic people cannot reason out that good intentions can lead to a bad outcome. this can't be true. as with many things people believe about autism, i wonder if the meaning of the results isn't what the researchers have assumed. we don't fail in the reasoning department; rather we often fail in the department of factoring in emotional impact, when trying to reason things out. or we fail in the area of understanding what the question really is asking. i wonder why researchers assign motives to autistic behavior (or assume there are none) rather than asking autistic people why they do things, or rather than assuming that autistic people (like NTs) do not always do things for the same reason. John Elder Robison wrote about this, that researchers noted "darting eyes" in autistic people and assigned no motive to the behavior, but he knew full well why he had darting eyes, because he was constantly on guard for socially threatening situations.

i wonder if both this (the poison / sugar story) and the commemorative cup thing (earlier in the thread, for those only joining the conversation since its resurrection) are really issues of semantics. maybe autistic individuals are more rigid in their definition of "blame" for example, and are less inclined to factor intention into their opinion of whether or not someone deserves blame. i can't think through these types of scenarios without haggling over distinctions about what is really being asked. personally i would make the distinction that accountability or responsibility could be assigned rather than blame, and i would add that caveat before answering the question, because i understand that "blame" can carry with it "shame" or "punishment." and i don't automatically believe that someone should receive punishment for making an error. if the person's job is Q.C. at the sugar / poison factory, then yes, they are to blame. if the person was asked to pass the sugar, but not also asked to first verify that the sugar wasn't poison (so unlikely a scenario that no one would possibly consider it), then no. so there is MY autistic answer.


Can you please direct me to this "test"?



fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

13 Jan 2012, 9:24 am

https://www.google.com/search?q=mcgurk+ ... utf-8&aq=t

Nonautistics fail at spotting the McGurk Effect. It's interpreted by nonautistics as an autistic failing.

Persephone: https://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news ... -in-autism



PersephoneX
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 142

13 Jan 2012, 9:38 am

fraac wrote:
https://www.google.com/search?q=mcgurk+effect+autism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t

Nonautistics fail at spotting the McGurk Effect. It's interpreted by nonautistics as an autistic failing.

Persephone: https://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news ... -in-autism



My moral reasoning is the same as that of an NT. I did not think she was to blame.



fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

13 Jan 2012, 10:44 am

fraac wrote:
That's Uta Frith, the most senior and respected autism researcher. I wonder if she replies to emails like SBC does...

I challenged her to come up with ANY novel scenario where I couldn't give the nonautistic answer.


She ignored my challenge and replied that autistics could reasonably give either answer so the test wouldn't be valuable.



Mdyar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,516

13 Jan 2012, 11:08 am

ediself wrote:
Hum....did you guys pay attention to the last paragraph? here:
Quote:
Impaired moral judgment is associated with distinct neural systems, including the right temporal parietal junction4. Gabrieli says his group is working on an imaging study focusing on which brain regions are active in these individuals while they are engaged in moral reasoning.

They'd better work quickly: Frith predicts that the utility of the new test may be limited. "I have no doubt that the Asperger's community will get hold of the test, study it, and learn the scenarios," she says.

So, of course, I had to get mad about THAT, too....
Do they think we study their tests just so we can CHEAT on them?? what an NT thing to say really.......


It'l corrupt their study, edi.

There is plenty to be mad about these days. I've been on the receiving end of prejudices because of preconceived notions of "normalcy" in interactions. Given enough time here, people get to see where you are coming from, and it breaks down the moral judgement, but the difference is polarizing here non the less. The more non- heterogeneous, the more the division. Most common: " Black people are just people , and white people are or can do, or would do the same if given the same impoverished conditions, but I'm OK over here and they are OK way over there; I'm glad I'm white."

It's an inevitable dynamic.



Last edited by Mdyar on 18 Jan 2012, 8:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

PersephoneX
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 142

13 Jan 2012, 11:12 am

fraac wrote:
fraac wrote:
That's Uta Frith, the most senior and respected autism researcher. I wonder if she replies to emails like SBC does...

I challenged her to come up with ANY novel scenario where I couldn't give the nonautistic answer.


She ignored my challenge and replied that autistics could reasonably give either answer so the test wouldn't be valuable.


Then why is she bothering making any assertions at all? I assert that her tests are worthless. I let my 8 year old Aspie daughter answer the question and she also answered "correctly". You know what pisses me off? These "researchers" are so arrogant that they have to come up with broad generalizations and call it research. That they will make a test based upon the interpretation of a single word as the word "intention" in the above test, which I still believe they are using it incorrectly and not us, according to the dictionary. I asked my NT friends how they would answer regarding the "Free Cup" and this is how they responded...lol:

"Is the commemorative cup, in fact, the largest size smoothie they offered? Or was the clerk just pushing the cup because of some employee incentive program? What caused his dehydration in the first place? How affluent was he, anyway, that he didn't care about the cost of things? Enquiring minds want to know ..."

another asked:

"I'm with the end-game. Was it worth the re-hydration?" In other words, was he dying of thirst?

So, even with NTs this single word wasn't really enough information and it boils down to the interpretation of a single word and that word was "intentionally". I guess if you consider the opposite of intentional to be accidental, it makes more sense, but in the context of being a goal or desired outcome, it was not intentional. So, I agree with the person who stated it was semantics.



PersephoneX
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 142

13 Jan 2012, 11:24 am

Mdyar wrote:
ediself wrote:
Hum....did you guys pay attention to the last paragraph? here:
Quote:
Impaired moral judgment is associated with distinct neural systems, including the right temporal parietal junction4. Gabrieli says his group is working on an imaging study focusing on which brain regions are active in these individuals while they are engaged in moral reasoning.

They'd better work quickly: Frith predicts that the utility of the new test may be limited. "I have no doubt that the Asperger's community will get hold of the test, study it, and learn the scenarios," she says.

So, of course, I had to get mad about THAT, too....
Do they think we study their tests just so we can CHEAT on them?? what an NT thing to say really.......


It'l corrupt their study, edi.

There is plenty to be mad about these days. I've been on the receiving end of prejudices because of preconceived notions of "normalcy" in interactions. Given enough time here, people get to see where you are coming from, and it breaks down the moral judgement, but the difference is polarizing here non the less. The more non- heterogeneous, the more the division: " Black people are just people , and white people are or can do, or would do the same if given the same impoverished conditions, but I'm OK over here and they are OK way over there; I'm glad I'm white."

It's an inevitable dynamic.



What a paranoid fascist. I think we need to medicate her. lol