About the Asperger Entitlement Syndrome

Page 3 of 3 [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

qawer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,252

16 Dec 2013, 1:34 am

Verdandi wrote:
qawer wrote:
To discuss this properly, I think it is important to distinguish between the 2 different basic social strategies:


A DOG'S SOCIAL STRATEGY (NT-strategy)

Basic problem: The need to survive.

Survival strategy: Social.

Hunting-style: Group/pack-hunter.

Advantage: You can get help from group members.

Disadvantage: You have leaders (i.e. a social hierarchy). This means you have to accept punishment from higher ranking members for unwanted behaviour on your side.

Basic fear: To be excluded from the group (and then no longer have a group to be excluded from, hence no motivation). This means no more group-hunting, which means death!

Basic motivation: To perform well enough in life to be accepted by the group (i.e. avoid the basic fear). This means ongoing group-hunting, which means survival!

Negative response to cat-strategy: Now that there is nobody to help and nobody to help me, I do not see a reason to keep going!

Source of good self-esteem: The knowledge of having someone in your group with lower social status than you (i.e. you can be dominant over somebody).

Source of bad self-esteem: The knowledge of having someone in your group with higher social status than you (i.e. you have to be submissive to somebody).

Love for others: Love is based on how well people perform. Those who perform the best are loved/liked the most.


So basically, all of this is wrong about dogs:

http://io9.com/why-everything-you-know- ... -502754629

http://academyfordogtrainers.com/blog/2 ... k-animals/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15857815

http://www.leecharleskelley.com/top10my ... eader.html

http://www.caninemind.co.uk/pack.html

They are not pack animals in the sense that you describe. The notion of "alphas" is completely wrong, and both of these are based on observing wolf behavior in captivity. Wolves form family groups much like humans do and do not have this dominance/submission BS as a typical thing. And it's not like dogs have evolved into such creatures.

I also do not really think that NTs work like this.

Quote:
A CAT'S SOCIAL STRATEGY (AS-strategy)

Basic problem: The need to survive.

Survival strategy: Solitary.

Hunting-style: Solo-hunter.

Advantage: You do not have leaders, so you do not have to obey commands from anybody!

Disadvantage: You cannot get help from group members - you are all on your own!

Basic fear: Needing a group (help/leaders) (i.e. being forced to join a group and attain a submissive position in order to receive help). This means no more solo-hunting, which means death!

Basic motivation: To perform well enough in life to not need a group, that is being independent (i.e. avoid the basic fear). This means ongoing solo-hunting, which means survival!

Negative response to dog-strategy: Now that I have somebody to help me, I do not see a reason to do anything myself, I will get help anyway!

Source of good self-esteem: The knowledge that nobody is better than you in the sense that nobody can give you commands you have to obey.

Source of bad self-esteem: The knowledge that someone is better than you in the sense that they can give you commands you have to follow (i.e. that you are forced to people-please/be submissive).

Love for others: Love is based on how well people are treated. People love/like those who treat them well, and hate/dislike those who do not. Solo-hunters have no incentive to love/like people, but to actually love/like them.


I don't have any links to counter this, but these generalizations are rather useless. You're not talking about real people (or cats, or dogs) but about a list of generalizations that conveniently falls into your stated assumptions. Your argument is a circular just so story*.

Quote:
Of course, dogs and cats are not completely extreme in the above sense, but they do tend to pull heavily in those different directions.


Dogs definitely don't pull heavily in those directions, no. Cats aren't like that either.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story


I was only trying to make a "talkable" distinction between group vs. non-group social strategy, to better discuss the entitlement issue we were discussing - not trying to tell you or others exactly how dogs and cats behave. It was only meant to illustrate, in a more obvious way, the distinction between the group and non-group social strategies. Unfortunately, you did not find that illustration obvious. I see I should have tried to make the intention more clear. I was not trying to force you to have any opinion about dog/cat behaviour.



Last edited by qawer on 16 Dec 2013, 2:04 am, edited 3 times in total.

Apple_in_my_Eye
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: in my brain

16 Dec 2013, 1:37 am

qawer wrote:
I have realized the stubborn attitude I (and I believe others on this board can relate) have that I deserve to be treated well and fairly goes hand in hand with a big responsibility.

The fundamental thing is that many people with AS do not want to be hold on a leash, i.e. told what to do and not to do, basically how to behave - they do not want to have commanding leaders who are, in return of the favour of being led/helped, allowed to punish unwanted behaviour.

Those of us with that attitude basically have that attitude because our self-esteem is built on not having (unfair) leaders. This means noone is better than us, because they are not in a position to give us commands - this makes you on the same level as everybody else, be that office bosses, politicians or presidents.

What this attitude requires is the ability to be completely independent. It is not fair to insist on not having leaders punishing bad behaviour while at the same time not being able to survive on your own, huh?


What is your take on this issue?

I have little worry that disabled people are being too arrogant or something. How is it really going to hurt anybody? The disabled have little power and are at a disadvantage in many ways, which seems more of realistic concern to me.

Otherwise, I think it's a matter of balance. If someone gives you a sandwich that doesn't mean they should get to force sexual favors, enslave you for 10 years, or demand that you donate half your liver to them. There used to be "first night," where a knight gets to have sex with your wife before you do on your wedding night, for the privilege of the protection he provides (and that he kill you on a whim). Nowadays, few would agrees that that is a fair arrangement.

Also, the notion that you get to do anything to those who receive help has led to other kinds of abuses. I.e. demanding drug tests of people on welfare. It turned out only 2% tested positive and it also turned out that the governor had a stake in the drug testing company that he hired to do the job. That company made many millions off of that deal. I think gov. Scott cared more about making money than (and making money for friends) whether or not people on welfare were on drugs.

It's a dangerous and common idea that you must give up basic rights to receive any help at all. And, I can't think of any examples of the opposite ever happening (that some minority (except the rich) got too many rights and then something bad happened).



qawer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,252

16 Dec 2013, 1:49 am

Apple_in_my_Eye wrote:
It's a dangerous and common idea that you must give up basic rights to receive any help at all. And, I can't think of any examples of the opposite ever happening (that some minority (except the rich) got too many rights and then something bad happened).


Well said, that's a great point!

In some social circles it can annoy people when someone gets too many rights because they will then not properly "find their right place in the group".



Threore
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 176

16 Dec 2013, 3:23 pm

qawer wrote:
Quote:
It's completely reasonable to expect help from others when you need it without being in their debt because of it


Assume everyone can expect help from others. This means you can expect help from everybody else. But everybody else can also expect help from you, otherwise you would take a privileged position.

When you expect help from others you are in a debt in the sense of other people expecting you to help them back (i,.e. return the favour).

This gives a hierarchy, because some people need more help than others. Those who need a lot of help have to be submissive to those who do not need help, otherwise the latter have no incentive to keep helping!! I know it is harsh, but that is the truth of the matter!

However, small everyday favours are on such a tiny scale that the hierarchy is not obvious/visible at all. But it is still a hierarchy, just a more flat one (because the small everyday favours are not large enough for a visible hierarchy).


First of all let me be clear that I don't think needing help is completely unrelated to hierarchy. That said...

Many acts of help can't possibly translate into hierarchy because the help is anonymous. For example, holding open a door, taxes, volunteering in an administrative position. It's also not required as an incentive; the help I receive with my autism costs other people money, but it's the only way they can ensure they'll get help when they need it. If you'd start making exceptions you'd have to be very very certain that your position won't ever change.
Another thing is that on a more personal scale, people weigh help by how much trouble it is to someone. The people in my house either know that I'm autistic or know the consequences, so if I help with something that's harder for me to do, it weighs heavier than if the same thing was done by someone who has less trouble doing it. People have a sense of fairness. Not an absolute one, but you can't disregard it.
People also are reasonable and fair in many things. I need help planning when to shower and change clothes, so that's help society is willing to give me. If I asked for a golden throne to sit on, that would result in a debt.
Help from others without being indebted is good for society, and therefore promotes the culture that produces it. If you don't help those who need it, their contribution to society is likely to lessen.

Again, I'm not saying help never results in debt, just that it doesn't have to and that many forms of help don't.



Twolf
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 481
Location: Space.

16 Dec 2013, 8:25 pm

TheSperg wrote:
Twolf wrote:
I'm still scratching my head on this one.

Don't understand how not liking to be led makes one think he/she is better than others. Does not compute.

We are all made of the same stuff - atoms, molecules, electricity. No one is better than anyone else. No one has the right to impose upon or order another around, independent or not.


At some point someone DOES have the right to order you around, if you don't believe me go act sloppy drunk in a very public place. Tell the cop responding that she has no right to order you around, post back when out on bail. Government ultimately works because someone has the power to enforce law by force.

qawer's cat and dog theory is a metaphor, I don't think there is any point in factually attacking it because it has no factual basis.


I don't behave in that manner. In any case I believe that this is simple misunderstanding. Others have posted more eloquently on this matter.

This:
Verdandi wrote:
It's a terrible metaphor partly because it lacks any factual basis and party because he's basically cherry picking traits to make his point.

I mean the fact that it is factually wrong in every possible way including his application to people strikes me as quite relevant.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

17 Dec 2013, 8:37 pm

TheSperg wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
It's a terrible metaphor partly because it lacks any factual basis and party because he's basically cherry picking traits to make his point.

I mean the fact that it is factually wrong in every possible way including his application to people strikes me as quite relevant.


It sounds to me a lot like women are from Mars and men are from Venus, you can disagree with it and think it is rubbish but it is basically opinion and nothing more.


It's "Men are from Mars and women are from Venus" and that's a terrible metaphor as well and suggests false dichotomies between men and women, which is largely used to reinforce the misogynist notion that men are people and women are mysterious and difficult to understand.

Something being an "opinion" doesn't make it immune to disagreement or critique.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

17 Dec 2013, 9:05 pm

qawer wrote:
I was only trying to make a "talkable" distinction between group vs. non-group social strategy, to better discuss the entitlement issue we were discussing - not trying to tell you or others exactly how dogs and cats behave. It was only meant to illustrate, in a more obvious way, the distinction between the group and non-group social strategies. Unfortunately, you did not find that illustration obvious. I see I should have tried to make the intention more clear. I was not trying to force you to have any opinion about dog/cat behaviour.


But the "talkable distinction" is itself inaccurate. You've created this broad generalization about autistic people that is simply not true.