🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:45:56 -0800, glen herrmannsfeldt
<gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> That's all a load of nonsense.  Asperger's is just another
>> way of saying someone spent substantially more time focused
>> on certain mental exercises /other/ than social interaction.
>
>I doubt many readers here believe that.  


Doubt away, but don't pretend you speak for everyone.


>Most of us knew very
>early that we were good at science, math, or engineering.


No, you knew that by concentrating on it, without other
distractions like social interactions, you became very
proficient.  What one does well, they tend to pursue.  Call
it a vanity, or call it common sense to continue on a course
of study and practice at that which provides a positive
mental feedback, a sense of accomplishment and the good 'ole
physiological,  biochemical reward system.  Those who can't
find this reinforcement of estudious ideals through
recognitions, or mental masterbation, often end up addicted
to nicotine or heroin, if available.



>It wasn't that we chose those things, we were already good
>at them.

Define "we".  You're attempting to ignore context, that all
children do not grow up in the same environment.  You're
also ignoring the natural human tendency to pursue what had
seemed to be attainable and fruitful.  Suppose a child at
age 7, is relatively attractive amongst peers for whatever
the reason.  That child will have a reinforced ideology that
it is not study so much as social networking that has
advantages in life.  Now contrast that with a child that
does not have gratification from social interactions at the
same age but does from the educational reward system which
is fairly straightforward, that by memorizing text in a
book, one can parrot it back and feel superior.  Even more
importantly (I don't mean to discount the important of
learning), by having memorized a few facts, it becomes a
buliding block to better interpret further information.

Either way, whether one feels the most success at social
interactions or mental exercises, or some kind of balance
between these two, humans are creatures of habit and will
continue to pursue what had provided a positive feedback.
If one only has this positive feedback in mental exercises,
they may isolate themselves to these exercise and through
this have gained an understanding that allows a more
intensive understanding of any further information gained,
an ability to put further information in context better, but
so it is also with social interactions, though it is
realized to a lesser extent because there is a lesser depth
to the social interactions than the vast expanse of an ever
increasing human knowlege base in the sciences.

The key is to recognize there is MORE to life than
repetition.  To say to one's self "even if I feel I am good
at everything I do, maybe that really means I avoid doing
things that are distinctly different or that I'm not
comfortable doing".

The same logical thought patterns that are applied to
science, math, engineering, etc, can also be applied to
other dissimilar fields.  There is much to be said for a
flexible, open mind.  Don't assume you are good at only
certain things, in contrast to other things.  You are more
versatile than you realize.  Everyone has to do (everything)
as a "noob", the first time.  Practice makes perfect (or so
the saying goes).


>
>> What one does regularly, one becomes good at, while also
>> building skills applicable to somewhat similar endeavors.
>> Unfortunately if one shuns social interaction too much, it
>> is going to be more difficult for them to "catch up" to some
>> kind of average set of social skills, because as a person
>> grows, matures, ages, they have a self-evolution in their
>> personal identity and the way they interact socially will
>> be changing and evolving.
>
>> Also, you're more than a wee bit paranoid if the only two
>> alternatives would be asperger's or  direct communication
>> with others who would /supposedly/ think negatively about
>> you. 
>
>My understanding is that there is a continuum, not a
>yes or no decision.  As with many genetic traits, a little
>is good but a lot can be bad.

You place far far too much emphasis on genetics.  You are
not forced into anything by genetics, you have free will and
can choose your own course in life.  Genetics may determine
your height, bone structure, various physical attributes
that might not allow you to be a supermodel, but unless you
are only trying to be accepted by those who only accept
supermodels, your mind is yours to do with as you please for
better or worse, it is NOT constrained by genetics unless
you happened to have a rare birth defect, a malformation.


>> In your eyes God intends for you to shun interactions with
>> your own (human) race?  IMO, you need to be a little less
>> subjective about this.  There is a happy medium.
>
>As I understand it, some believe that there is a connection between
>autism and Aspergers, and others don't.   

... and some believe the main connection is that one wants
to find a reason why they are who they are, instead of
refecting back on the events that shaped their lives and how
the situations they were placed in, determined their most
logical reactions.  Some also believe the modern
institutions of the educational system and modern television
and radio mediums have a large impact, depending on the time
and choices in exposure.  Some also believe there is a link
between nutrition and environmental stresses that impact
decision making, and that with each decision, new or
different opportunities are realized and there is a snowball
effect that can substantially change the course of a
person's life.

Generally speaking, labels such as autistic or aspergers,
serve little purpose until one has carefully evaluated the
preceeding events, personal decisions (or lack thereof),
environment (including exercise, diet, dominating factors
such as parental, peer, employer or other societal
impositions), and made their own personal decisions about
what (their) own personal weaknesses are and how to best
address those.  There is no "Superman", but everyone does
have the ability to choose between perpetuating a state of
engrossing themselves with similar activities, or
deliberately seeking to add some variety to life.



>Either way, some of
>us are better at science and engineering than others, and some are
>better at communicating than others.  The variety is the way God
>intended it, that is, genetic diversity.

Nonsense.

You (assuming you suppose yourself to be better at science
and engineering) could have as easily found yourself in an
environment where there was more positive feedback from
social interactions than scientific studies.   There is a
basic premise that man does what (he) feels most benefits
him at any given moment.  Some forsee how this impacts (his)
future and some don't think longer term, but nevertheless,
at an early age a child seeks acceptance, and whether that
acceptance seems more important from peers or teachers and
parents (also depending on the parent's ideology) has
everything to do with which efforts are perceived as being
the most rewarding.

IOW, you can rise above the context in which you learned
everything you know, and expand your horizons.  It all
starts by saying to yourself, "OK, I'm about to do *X* but I
always do that, today I'm going to do something totally
different for a change."  Will this totally different thing
come as easy as what you had practiced doing?  Of course
not, just as you had to start out slowly with what you have
practiced, so long ago,  so it is with each new thing.
Don't let vanity get in the way of being well rounded, like
everyone you will not be good at some things until you have
practiced awhile, just as you had nowhere near your present
level of science/engineering/etc ability when you first
started learning that.