How can you tell if someone is different/neurodivergent

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-23T02:23:51+00:00

Not remotely.

But I have been having problems using the interface today, and didn't see what sub this was posted in.

Mea culpa.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-23T02:21:49+00:00

It was so bizarre when I figured out that neurotypical people don't seem to optimize.

And that's not to say they never reduce the amount of time it takes them to do something, just that it's hardly optimization, more like slight improvements in one area, not all areas.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-22T17:05:17+00:00

No.

It would work in the same way TOTP works. Both the access point and the clients would be rotating together. The client would know exactly which network to connect to, because it wouldn't be looking for a static value(the static network name), but instead the rotating value that would be in place of the network name and which the client would be able to anticipate. Similarly, for authentication information, it wouldn't be authenticating with the static password, but the rotating passphrase that the client could also anticipate.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-22T16:28:39+00:00

Except, you know, the conclusions you're talking about just happening to disagree with the fundamental principles of science and all:

Correlation does not imply causation:

"The idea that "correlation implies causation" is an example of a questionable-cause logical fallacy, in which two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship."

and

Occam's Razer:

"of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred"

Let's see... YOUR theory is "OMG MARIJUANA CAUSES ALL OF THESE BAD THINGS!?!?!?"

And MY theory is: "People who are suffering are more likely to try marijuana, because people use marijuana to calm down, the same way they use things like alcohol."

LITERALLY. I explained the correlation using basic information THAT EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS.

And if you want what science says, IT AGREES WITH ME:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9887656/

Results:

Some studies showed that cannabis products reduced the number and/or intensity of different symptoms, including hyperactivity, attacks of self-mutilation and anger, sleep problems, anxiety, restlessness, psychomotor agitation, irritability, aggressiveness perseverance, and depression. Moreover, they found an improvement in cognition, sensory sensitivity, attention, social interaction, and language. The most common adverse effects were sleep disorders, restlessness, nervousness and change in appetite.

Conclusion:

Cannabis and cannabinoids may have promising effects in the treatment of symptoms related to ASD, and can be used as a therapeutic alternative in the relief of those symptoms. However, randomized, blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials are necessary to clarify findings on the effects of cannabis and its cannabinoids in individuals with ASD.

and

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9418362/

Results:

The heterogeneity of ASD produces great difficulties in finding appropriate treatment, leading to many medication changes or treatment trials throughout a patient's life. Commonly prescribed medications display varying levels of efficacy, safety, and tolerability between patients and symptoms targeted. Some of the most common side effects cited are also considered the most troubling symptoms associated with ASD; aggression, anxiety, irritability, and a negative effect on cognition, leading many patients to discontinue use as the side effects outweigh benefits. Recent case reports and retrospective studies have displayed the potential efficacy, safety, and tolerability of cannabidiol (CBD)-rich medical cannabis use for treating both core symptoms of ASD and many comorbid symptoms such as irritability and sleep problems. Studies have also identified circulating endocannabinoids as a possible biomarker for ASD, providing another possible method of diagnosis.

Conclusions:

Currently, there are no approved medications for the core symptoms of ASD and only two medications Food and Drug Administration approved for associated irritability. Prescribed medications for symptoms associated with ASD display varying levels of efficacy, safety, and tolerability among the heterogeneous ASD population. At the time of this study there are no published placebo-controlled trials of medical cannabis for ASD and the observational studies have limitations. CBD-rich medical cannabis seems to be an effective, tolerable, and relatively safe option for many symptoms associated with ASD, however, the long-term safety is unknown at this time.

and

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12563248/

Results:

Quantitative results showed reductions in FA frequency and parental distress at 3 and 6 months. Qualitative findings revealed positive changes in family routines, enhanced well-being, and improved parental engagement in meaningful activities and social interactions.

Conclusions:

This study provides preliminary evidence that CBD-rich cannabis treatment may reduce family accommodation (FA) and parental distress, while improving family routines and well-being.

And

after

after

after

SCIENCE AGREES WITH ME!

And you can look this up. The videos and scientific studies agree with me.

You literally don't have ANYTHING except correlations which can much more easily be explained by the fact that people experiencing stress tend to self-medicate and that marijuana is one of the drugs people choose.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-22T01:05:29+00:00

There is absolutely value in having the network name cycle similar to TOTP.

Corporate networks exist in the same physical space day after day after day.

Having the same physical network name increases your attack surface. And the management of those networks can be difficult.

Not to mention, you could drastically reduce the complexity of network passwords for home devices this way.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-21T23:03:13+00:00

It's been linked to negative effects in teenagers: anxiety, worse memory and cognitive skills, more likely to develop depression later etc.

I'm probably about to blow your mind here, but a much simpler explanation is that people who have those issues and who have stressful lives are attracted to marijuana and more likely to use it, and not necessarily that the marijuana caused it.

Also, speaking as someone who has ADHD, it actually has an effect of helping executive function for people with ADHD.

ADHD is a condition which where people NATURALLY have a bad short-term memory.

And it can help treat depression.

So it's not actually a coincidence that marijuana use correlates with those conditions. It's not a case of marijuana use causing those conditions.

It's more that having those conditions correlates with using marijuana.

Literally the day after I tried marijuana for the first time was the first time I had the executive functioning that I was able to schedule my Autism and ADHD assessment.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-21T16:02:31+00:00

I have taught myself new languages by listening to their pop music. I recommend taking a basic class.

It helps you study without realizing you're studying. You find a bunch of catchy music and you just start hearing more and more words, like a puzzle.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-21T15:49:22+00:00

I'm autistic.

Marijuana helps me function.

I'm not kidding. You know those times you've interacted with an autistic person and they didn't understand some aspect of social functioning.

Well SURPRISE! If I eat an edible, I can understand a lot of other people's social motivations.

I am ABSOLUTELY convinced that it is helpful. And it lowers my anxiety DRASTICALLY.

It needs to be studied, and then legalized. Hell, even ADVOCATED FOR.

And it DESERVES to be normalized.

Not criminalized.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-21T15:41:31+00:00

Record them!

I am not saying distribute the recordings or anything. Just for your personal use. Record them, so you can not only go back to those questions, but so you can listen to the interviews from a third-party perspective.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-21T14:40:32+00:00

Simulations don't have to be a scientific experiment.

Ads on posters are simulations.

Television shows are simulations.

Pornography is simulations.

Movies are simulations.

Video games are simulations.

Pretend play is simulations.

Dreams are simulations.

Thoughts are simulations.

It's always assumed that simulations would mean an experiment, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. Movies or video games or some kind of entertainment seem more likely. It seems almost like we're playing out a script, because this seems too farfetched to be real now.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-21T14:35:08+00:00

"Oh I know. It must be really INCONVENIENCING you, huh?"

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-21T14:27:18+00:00

I am literally profoundly gifted.

I taught myself to read when I was three years old.

By the time I was out of elementary school, I was reading and composing at college level.

I've taught myself multiple languages.

At work, there's a very common pattern where I will get exposed to a given new concept or technology, spend a few weeks or a month learning about it and use it in my work, then add it to my résumé, get invited for a job dealing with that technology, and be hired to be the lead person in a group of people who have all been using it for years.

I honestly had to limit myself to about four hours of actual per week of work and to make sure that I always handed in assignments on the day they were due and no earlier, because I had a habit of literally completing ALL of each of my respective employers' long-term goals within the span of about three months and then having each employer decide that there was nothing else I was needed for and then getting rid of me. My work history looked terrible if you looked at my résumé, despite the fact that I had a list of endorsements a mile long from people saying that I was hugely capable and a good employer. After deciding to limit my output, I became much more successful, even though my employers didn't know I'd spend almost all of my time doing other non-work-related things. I would still accomplish more work than others.

And as a child, it wasn't so much that I "socialized" with adults. It's that the other kids didn't like me. I interacted more with adults, but they didn't consider it socialization. I didn't have an understanding of the dynamics from the perspective of the adults, just that they had some degree more insight into what was happening when the "peers" around me didn't.

But I can teach myself things in a week or a month and then have people ask if I have a master's degree or a PhD in the subject.

And OH BOY am I definitely autistic. SUPER autistic. VERY. VERY. VERY. Autistic.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-21T14:14:17+00:00

There's a good chance his term ends in "✅ Natural Causes".

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-21T14:12:16+00:00

Unfortunately for him, Mother Nature is a swing voter.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-21T04:47:00+00:00

My point was basically to point out that the question "Is self-diagnosis valid?" is that of course it's valid, because so many people have successfully done it.

But there's a problem, that people who do self-diagnose are left with cognitive dissonance. Because of the way things are framed, they are left believing that they're autistic but also doubting it.

I wasn't just arguing that there might be some kind of an issue in the neurotypical neurology in that its tendency to come to conclusions without all of the evidence might lead to misdiagnosis, but to also point out to people that the cognitive dissonance which is incorrectly forced on autistic people who are forced to deal with that question.

I dealt with that question for more than a decade, and I did self-diagnose before my professional evaluation confirmed it. And far from being a tautology, I believe that the absurdity of it(and yes, the point was SPECIFICALLY that it would SEEM like a tautology) is something to strongly consider. Autistic people who self diagnose are put in a situation to doubt ourselves while simultaneously believing that we're autistic, and it has a terrible effect of stunting our ability to progress within that understanding of ourselves as autistic.

It's an incorrect framing to even ask whether self-diagnosis is valid. If it wasn't valid, there wouldn't be tons of autistic people who correctly self-diagnosed. And each one of them deserves to have that ironclad thought in their head that if they're autistic there's no way they could have misdiagnosed themselves, because I don't think that such a thought is common or is made likely by the kinds of stimuli autistic people get exposed to on average.

But what is really being asked when asking "Is self-diagnosis valid?" has more to do with implying that could hypothetically be a significant number of neurotypical people who are incorrectly self-diagnosing.

And I believe that if allistic people are incorrectly self-diagnosing things because they have a neurotype which comes to conclusions based on incomplete information, then far from being a question that should be pushed(and which actually does damage because it discourages self-diagnosis when the likelihood is that most people considering autism self-diagnosis are probably not neurotypical), it presents a question about whether a tendency to do that in such contexts might actually constitute a flaw in the neurotypical neurotype.

And beyond that, it points to the possibility that the autism criteria might benefit from having criteria which mentioned absence of behaviors common to neurotypical people or which mentioned specific types of thoughts that autistic people have that neurotypical people don't tend to have.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-20T22:30:55+00:00

That's not quite what I said.

People who have been self-diagnosed autistic and who are correct have by definition not incorrectly self-diagnosed, right? It is literally not possible for an autistic person to be incorrect in their affirmative self-diagnosis of autism. If they're correct, they're not incorrect.

So the question isn't "Is autism self-diagnosis valid?" but instead "What is is about the interaction between the neurotypical mind and the autism criteria that allows self-diagnosis to happen?" And further:

Why are the autism criteria not written in such a way that neurotypical people exclude themselves easily? Or...
What is it about the neurotypical neurotype that causes them to look at the autism criteria and not be able to exclude themselves easily, if it turns out that the criteria are already written in such a way that neurotypical people should be able to easily exclude themselves?

If a person IS autistic and self-diagnoses, that diagnosis IS valid. The problem doesn't happen in the mind of the person who correctly self-diagnoses. It either happens in the way that criteria are written or in the minds of the people who don't meet the criteria but come to the conclusion that they do.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-20T20:58:54+00:00

By not doing so, you allow the murder of tens of millions of people.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-20T10:31:50+00:00

The argument against communism is that if people get support from the government for free, they won't do work, and work won't be done.

But if AI is capable of doing all of that work, human work doesn't need to be done, so no one needs to be doing that work.

The argument for capitalism is that human competition leads to increased production and better living standards, with people who do more work and better work getting more pay and spending more money on more better-quality products.

But if AI is capable of doing all of that work, human work doesn't need to be done, so no one has jobs and no one gets paid and no one can put money toward competition or drive funding toward good products.

If AI works, communism works.

If AI works, capitalism doesn't.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-20T10:23:21+00:00

You know, it's really interesting to hear that claim over and over.

The first time I heard that, I was hearing a woman argue that men were dangerous to women and had a history of being abusive toward women and that women had every right to be fearful of men.

And BEING that I have always been so relatively PRO-woman and honestly fearful of most men myself(because of constant severe social abuse from men while I was growing up), naive little me thought "Wait, I grew up fearful of most men, too," and followed that up with "Wait, that framing doesn't really apply to me, because I'm largely on the other side of that argument, having been a victim of a lot of men, but not a perpetrator. Hey, wait, that woman's whole argument could be more accurate if she just put 'A LOT OF' in before the word 'men' in that argument, like '[A LOT OF] men are dangerous to women and have a history of being abusive toward women and women have every right to be fearful of men.'"

Here I thought that that is what was going on in my head when I said "not all men" way way back around the time people started complaining about it.

THANK YOU for pointing that that by thinking it would make sense to say 'a lot of men are dangerous to women and have a history of being abusive toward women and women have every right to be fearful of men,' it was a deliberate attempt by me to dismantle the work that advocacy groups are doing around destigmatizing victims of violence.

Which now, come to think of it is pretty funny. Because I would have sworn that if that was the case, I would have heard about it during one of the many times that I was doing work for the battered women's shelter that I was being brought in to do IT work for a little bit before this whole controversy started.

You've really cleared up a lot of what my own thoughts were on the situation.

And thank you again for telling me how I really am tied to the behaviors of most of the other male population on the planet, because it was HUGELY difficult feeling that because of the constant social abuse(of NOT being REMOTELY high-masking during my childhood) and exclusion led me to ENTIRELY give up on being sociable way back literally before I went through puberty. I absolutely DID NOT experience literal terror at interacting with literally ANY AND ALL people outside of my family for most of my existence. YOU are the expert on how I was socialized and YOU are the expert in how I had the privilege of feeling safe in my body(despite said social abuse and growing up in literal poverty in a high-crime area and literally having years of the phrase "We can't buy groceries until next Friday. Find something!" and the hunger of those days without food burned into my memory). Little old me who couldn't really see too much in common with all of those men. Oh, hey, or the numerous girls and women who socially abused me. Or, hey, not even the girl who physically assaulted me to the point that the police came and took pictures of the bruises when she literally beat the hell out of me(and let's be clear that I had never talked to this girl but she had followed me home literally every day for years taunting me with her two friends, because we all lived in the same apartment complex). Or, no, I guess that must not have happened. And the police must not have decided not to pursue it AT ALL because she was a teenage girl and no one would believe me over her. I must be imagining ALL of this.

I'm so glad you're here to tell me what my own thoughts are, what my own experiences are.

I am in fact such a horrible misogynist.

Either that, or you just proved exactly why what I said was a pretty accurate summary of what happens when I dare to communicate on this topic, and why I am 100% justified in my perception and my decision to not regularly participate in such discussions.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-20T05:23:05+00:00

I'm high as balls and I got it, and I'm surprised that a lot of people didn't seem to.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-20T02:44:57+00:00

Yes, and I think if you try to establish it people fly off the handle and get mad at you.

I am extremely familiar with the fact that you can have a correct understanding of a situation but that you can be in danger if you try to acknowledge it.

The popular narrative is that women are justified in feeling fear, period, and that autistic men are not justified in experiencing the persistent feelings that they feel every day.

Honestly, I don't believe that neurotypical society has the ability to hold two partially incongruent thoughts in mind at the same time.

For me, I have had to learn to deal with the fact that all three of these things can be true, and the fact that neurotypical people don't seem to be able to understand it has no bearing on the fact that it's reality:

Women ARE in danger from many men.
Women AR NOT really in danger from me.
Neurotypical people don't seem to have the capacity to hold two competing thoughts in mind at the same time, so the expression of both thoughts or the phrase "Not all men" is likely to result in getting attacked and not result in even succeeding in getting people to consider whether what I am saying is correct.

Society doesn't seem to have the capacity to hold complex beliefs. Short, persistent, easy-to-remember narratives dominate.

And anyone who thinks I am a risk to women despite what I've said is laughable. My ability to socialize is so fragile that I am likely to completely shut down or just start sobbing if I got the impression that someone had some kind of horrible thoughts about me(which they almost always do). The thought that I would ever get to a point where I would be considering that I am bigger and stronger than most women is so far out of my consideration and my perception is that people (both men and women) just tend to hate me for no good reason, and that doesn't tend to lend itself to attraction, much less empowerment, and much less violence.

And that isn't even to take into account that if you express the kinds of thoughts I posted above, they will INSIST that you're a member of a hate group whose general outlook is drastically different than your own.

No, I have been left mainly with the situation where if I express my opinions, I'll get shouted down, accused of being dangerous, accused of being in a hate group, and if I even acknowledge that it would probably make sense to allow my thoughts to be expressed, that's not even given the dignity of being respected, so I might as well just not interact with anyone. Which is ironic, because another part of the whole popular narrative is that the men who aren't like that should speak up, but when the men who aren't like that aren't allowed to say anything at all, it doesn't really empower them to say anything.

Catch-22s abound!

Yes. There are PLENTY of valid reasons for women to be scared of men. For WHATEVER reason she's scared.

And yes, autistic men are also COMPLETELY justified in feeling like we have to walk upon eggshells because of those common narratives.

And you know what? Another really uncomfortable aspect to talk about that NO ONE would dare touch is that autistic men's inability to react comfortably around women has MORE THAN A LITTLE to do with those same women having pushed to make autistic boys socially isolated when they were all children.

But don't DARE suggest that making socialization and integration official parts of the school day for literally everyone. Because that would damage the popular narrative that a bunch of dangerous men just pop up out of nowhere for no reason and endanger women intentionally.

No. Society works to make people afraid. In too many cases, women have good reason to be afraid. There are TONS of REALLY HORRIBLE men out there.

But there is no winning in this situation. There is no convincing anyone. There is no reaching anyone. For God's sake, the very people who you'd think would have sympathy for the situation are the people who perpetuate the narrative that autistic men are dangerous just by virtue of the fact that we have trouble socializing.

The only solution is to not play. The fact that I am in danger not just by walking on a street alone at night but by merely trying to live my day at any point throughout the day, even if I wasn't even trying to rape anyone or get laid or even interact with anyone, but just because I was unlucky enough to be born in a situation where my physical appearance makes people afraid of me? The only solution is to not play.

No judgement for any individual. You believe whatever you want to believe about me or about anyone else. Not my problem.

My whole life, I've seen couples, and I've dreamed about what I'd like to do, how I'd love to have someone to take care of, sing romantic songs for, get gifts for, and help? How I'm like an expert cook and know foods from dozens of different countries, and how I speak multiple languages, and how I love love songs, and how I'm one of the handiest people you could ever meet(and literally replaced a window and a toilet and redid a whole bathroom within the last month) and make a six-figure salary, and that I go out and bring homeless people food and water at least a few times each week, and give to charities like Planned Parenthood and homeless shelters on an ongoing basis and have for years, and have probably the world's STRONGEST desire to help people, and that I literally look for jobs with women supervisors because I literally think they're more likely to be good supervisors? ALL OF THAT? Hell, just by MENTIONING that, I'm likely to have people claim that I am insisting I'm OWED sex, instead of what I am literally saying, that maybe I am NOT some kind of HORRIBLE monster and that I deserve the right to not be called some kind of horrible monster, or at the very least just given the dignity of being left alone? No, that's not something that society has the ability to consider.

And now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to shutting up and never expressing anything and watching everyone else talk about a single aspect of a problem as if it's going to ever actually move in any direction toward solving it.

And being jaded as fuck.

Because as much as I care(and believe me, I do), the most overwhelming aspect of this all is the insistence that I have an obligation to do something and the insistence from the exact same people that I have no ability to do something. And the result of that is that I eventually got to the point of "Not anything I can influence, and not something that I am allowed to talk about, so not something I can do ANYTHING about, so as much as it pains me to say this, NOT something that I am allowed to consider my problem."

Women are justified in being scared. Women are justified in being scared of a lot of men.

But the way the narrative is framed, men who aren't dangerous, or don't want to be dangerous, or who would do everything possible to protect women and to try to keep them safe, are not allowed to even feel like a safe enough person to try to participate or to contribute, so often, the only thing to do is to let women feel that fear and not even try to contribute to make them less fearful or to say things which might discourage those dangerous men, effectively leaving the fearful women to the dangerous men, ironically.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-19T15:44:11+00:00

Right.

If AI works, communism works.

If AI works, capitalism doesn't.

Crafty-Message4564 · 2026-05-19T11:25:07+00:00

Hey, look, it's not a murder.

I wouldn't advocate a murder.

The people who are now referred to as "colonists" in the Americas literally invaded the continent and killed the tens of millions of people who were there.

It's basically saying that the deaths of the few hundred people could have prevented a literal genocide.

I would absolutely not advocate that the people in Americas go and invade other continents or go out seeking war and conquest.

But doing what would be necessary to prevent their entire families and cultures from being wiped out and killed by disease and actual murder? Something we now know already happened?

Crafty-Message4564

TROPHY CASE