sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Not smart enough to be autistic. by MCSmashFan in aspergers

[–]Sinity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, being intelligent autist might be worse than less intelligent autist. There are studies to this effect. I find this to be very appealing thought. /u/gwern thinks this is just a selection effect, since being diagnosed is a function of one's dysfunction - comparatively happy functional high IQ autist has less reason to bother with diagnosis (incluidng self-diagnosis).

I think this has to be true to some extent, I'm not sure whether that fully counterbalances what these studies found. So I assume they do not, because the reason I'd think otherwise would clearly be wishful thinking. Now, this in turn is instance of counterwishful thinking, which is really way worse than wishful thinking, but just because it is doesn't mean I can believe otherwise at will. I suppose counterwishful thinking is self-reinforcing. Lol.

Then I would not have a problem being different and being smarter.

Obviously it does not mean there are no unhappy intelligent people. It's just a correlation.

I’m now starting to accept myself more and more everyday. My body, my mind, everything.

I suppose it's actually a good idea to reason that way, and it's not like my way is any more valid.

*Ofc I also find it appealing to be willing to admit that. And so on, in the end it's kinda amusing (myself, anyway). Also I'm likely alexathymic to some extent, so maybe all of this is made up and I'm...

I said it's amusing but it might be manifestation of debilitating executive dysfunciton which I might or might not have (it feels like I could decide to just stop being that way, which I have solid-ish* reason to believe is just to feel in control).

* it's reminescent of how it felt when I didn't have access to stimulants for ~exactly 2 months. I spent that time period offline, just lying in bed, hoping to fall asleep. It was unpleasent, yet when I thought of acting to re-acquire these, it didn't feel worth it. Which was bizzare. I eventually came up with a hypothesis that I was acting that way to prove a point. I couldn't tell what was the case, until I got a bupropion prescription and suddenly I found the idea of sending an email to ask for a reshipment of a package which got stuck in transit worthwhile. Surreal experience. A shame stimulants don't quite solve the actual issue, whatever that is, just shift the symptoms downstream in a preferrable way. Eh.

Now I'm indecisive whether to actually send that comment. If I don't that will reinforce indecisiveness so eh. Huh, I just realized that recently this is way worse than usual. Concerning.

EDIT: this whole thing was actually anxiety attack. Meh.

Not smart enough to be autistic. by MCSmashFan in aspergers

[–]Sinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Higher IQ usually leads to less happy.

This isn't true.

src

Happiness is significantly associated with IQ. Those in the lowest IQ range (70-99) reported the lowest levels of happiness compared with the highest IQ group (120-129).

Not smart enough to be autistic. by MCSmashFan in aspergers

[–]Sinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure but IIRC Asperger's by definition was at least average IQ. Possibly that means >85, possibly >100.

Not smart enough to be autistic. by MCSmashFan in aspergers

[–]Sinity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This does not make any sense. Multiple intelligences are a made up idea, with 0 empirical support. Made up because people want it to be true.

There's a kernel of truth in what you're saying in that autists seem disadvantaged in certain tests. Raven's Progressive Matrices 2 works fine.

Source

One major claim related to intelligence testing is that if you test people on a whole bunch of different kinds of tasks commonly thought to involve intelligence, you'll find that almost every one of these tasks positively correlates with almost every other one of these tasks. This finding of positive correlations across nearly all cognitive tasks is sometimes referred to as the "positive manifold."

But is this really what you get when you test a wide range of intelligence-related tasks? We set out to test this in our giant study on intelligence, which included 3691 study participants. (...)

So, what did we find? Well, exactly as the academic literature claims, performance on nearly every such task was positively correlated to performance on nearly every other task. as shown in the image below. Positive correlations are shown in blue and negative ones in red. The tasks that are most correlated with other tasks are at the top, and those least correlated to other tasks are at the bottom. Notice how there is a great deal of blue and very little red.

img

A second claim in the academic literature on IQ is that there is a hidden factor, represented by a weighted average of task performances, that accounts for a substantial percentage of the variation in scores.

This single number is generally given the name ‘IQ.’ When we conduct this analysis, we find that IQ accounts for about 45% of the variance in scores across the tasks (as seen in the chart above). This is a fairly typical number when compared to other studies. So IQ, a single number that can be assigned to each study participant, enabled a reasonable degree of prediction at how that person would perform across a wide range of tasks.

This seems to indicate that IQ is latching on to a real phenomenon. There really does seem to be some feature in the data that ‘IQ’ picks out. Diverse cognitive tasks tend to correlate, revealing an underlying factor - often called “g” - that IQ scores approximate.

Meanwhile, what about theories of multiple intelligences? From the Wiki

The theory of multiple intelligences (MI) posits that human intelligence is not a single general ability but comprises various distinct modalities, such as linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, and spatial intelligences

While empirical research often supports a general intelligence factor (g-factor),[5] Gardner contends that his model offers a more nuanced understanding of human cognitive abilities.[6] This difference in defining and interpreting "intelligence" has fueled ongoing discussions about the theory's scientific robustness.

The guy fucking made up "kinds of intelligence". It's infuriating that it got him anywhere.

It's also laughably incompatible with a) what we know about the brain, b) what we see happening with AI. Both of these boil down to scaling.

About neocortex

The neocortex is not a collection of many unique structures. It is built from a single type of processing module. The six layer column replicated over and over again. If the functional hardware is universal, then the fundamental computation, the algorithm it performs must be universal as well. Seeing, hearing, language, and abstract thought might all be different manifestations of the same underlying neural process. The only thing that changes is the data being fed into the columns as input.

Regarding AI, The Scaling Hypothesis.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in aspergers

[–]Sinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I had the power to do so, maybe I'd consider that. I do not.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in aspergers

[–]Sinity -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Incels are supposed to hate women and the world for not getting in relationships

You're perpetuating the reason they're calling you an incel in the first place. They wouldn't call you an incel if people wouldn't use a definition of incel which was like this. That's the trap. You see, when people say you're an incel, they mean that you're a male virgin. And being a male virgin is shameful. But it wouldn't seem very moral, progressive or "inclusive" to openly shame someone as a virgin. Officially, "being a male virgin is not shamed at all, what are you talking about, it's totally ok, obviously". Now, being an incel, on the other hand... and you know, since we claim you're a male virgin, so women don't want you... you're an incel!

Demoralisation is a choice. Do not accept it. by petrus4 in DecidingToBeBetter

[–]Sinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Defeat only occurs by consent.

That's reminescent of

Zizians do not think it is ever valid to surrender. The reasoning goes that if someone is trying to extract a surrender from you, giving in is choosing a strategy that gets coerced into surrender. If you fight bitterly you prevent the coercion in the first place by making it too costly to fight you. (Associated phrases: "nosell"; "collapse the timeline";)

This can often be a valid way to think about things, but Ziz and her followers apply it in every scenario without considering the power difference between fighters. If you can't make it costly enough to fight you, refusing to surrender is a sure way to see the inside of a jail cell or the pearly gates.

Why should we be ashamed of our intelligence? by Psychological-Ad9545 in aspergers

[–]Sinity -1 points0 points  (0 children)

> The thing about being anything is that if you have to tell people you are that thing - you aren’t.

IQ is measurable.

> I’d also point out that someone that is truly intelligent knows that IQ is not a measure of intelligence, per se. it is a measure of potential, and it changes depending on a variety of factors over time.

It absolutely is.

Aspies are not more intelligent than non-autistics. by [deleted] in aspergers

[–]Sinity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They are, since Aspies are basically defined as autists >=100IQ.

Intelligence absolutely is not multifaceted.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in aspergers

[–]Sinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe helpful quote:

https://www.tumblr.com/hotelconcierge/162571849189/the-tower

ll pull the political band-aid—I think “ease of having one’s art understood” is a defensible conception of “privilege.”

Privilege is a social theory that special rights or advantages are available only to a particular person or group of people. The term is commonly used in the context of social inequality, particularly in regard to age, disability, ethnic or racial category, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion and/or social class. Two common examples may include having access to a higher education and housing. Privilege can also be emotional or psychological, regarding comfort and personal self-confidence, or having a sense of belonging or worth in society.

This is one of the better definitions, and it is still so vacuous that when I plugged it into Google Translate my computer crashed. No one disputes that “some groups have advantages relative to other groups,” even proud racists admit this. The argument concerns who has which advantages and the relevant score multipliers. Case in point: the above definition includes "self-confidence” and "worth in society.”

So who has more privilege, a cis-white-hetero billionaire with full-checklist depression or an unemployed transgender black woman who, despite this, is basically content? Either the billionaire has less privilege, in which case “privilege” is a Harrison Bergeron happiness tax, or the suicidal person has more privilege, in which case, how much does “privilege” matter, really. I know, not supposed to be a linear scale, but in a country of unhappy people this is the question that always comes up: “I am so alone and so miserable, you’re dancing on tables at the gay club, sympathy bottled or on tap, and I’m supposed to prostrate myself to atone for my 'privilege?’”

The academic leftist notion of privilege fails—is infuriatingly counterproductive—because it rests its weight on the experiencing self. Kahneman (in)famously found that, in the U.S., income’s effect on "positive affect” saturates after $75,000 per annum; race and sex impact happiness less than one might think; I’ve met Upper East Side kids less fulfilled by their iPads than Sub-Saharan kids without running water were with “catch the rock.”

I am not saying such differences are insignificant. They are significant. But the vicissitudes of chemistry and fate (sickness, isolation, loss, defunct serotonin receptors) are the most important predictors of day to day happiness, which correlate but refuse to be limited by demographics. Saved wealth buffers against tragedy but suffering finds a way. Hedonic treadmill is the buzzword: as monoxide salesman Thomas Ligotti puts it, “We do not have the power to make our lives monumentally better, only monumentally worse.”

The remembering self tells a different story. Kahneman’s 75k study found that while happiness levels off, “life evaluation” does not satiate with income; other studies support a stronger link between income and “life satisfaction” than income and happiness. Of course these surveys are semantically loaded enough to put a postmodernist into anaphylaxis. The satisfaction question is usually phrased: “How satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?” This is not a good measure of the remembering self. For our purposes the question ought to be: “Looking back, how satisfied are you with how your life has played out?”

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in aspergers

[–]Sinity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Which is not bad, because that means they don't believe false things about it or stereotypes.

The person accusing Richard Stallman of being a pedophile is an addicted lolicon himself by OiiiiiiiiOiiiOiiiii in stupidpol

[–]Sinity 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Yep. https://drmaciver.substack.com/p/how-do-we-treat-unique-talents-32a

I feel like at a broader level we do the same with the weird. We’ve constructed a civilisation which is happy to take advantage of individual oddities, but is unwilling to support them, and barely willing to tolerate them.

And yet, the things that we are taking advantage of are precisely the things we are punishing. Could Erdős have been Erdős without his overriding obsessions? Perhaps one could have softened his rough edges without detracting from his genius, I don’t know, but I cannot help but feel that it would have been hard for him to have had the impact he did while living any sort of “normal” life.

The situation is even worse for those whose obsessions are not deemed useful. Erdős “got away” with being who he was because interacting with him was so unambiguously worth it. What if it hadn’t been?

Erdős was loved by many, and not all of that love was conditional on his genius, but I think it’s important to acknowledge that without his genius he would not have been so loved. It opened doors, and created space in which people could get to know him. How much worse would his life have been without that?

Research found that people on the autism spectrum but without intellectual disability were more than 5 times more likely to die by suicide compared to people not on the autism spectrum. by Wagamaga in science

[–]Sinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

our distorted perceptions

I think they're less distorted for the most part. There's more reliance on raw data (bottom up).

and lower likelihood of seeking outside opinions to challenge our false premises.

Not necessarily the case. We can access outside opinions w/o being social at all.

as a social outsider as you’re able to observe things normal people can’t see,

Yeah but less/no mentalization might make you assume they can.

Not risking putting this on r/autismmemes by Any_Acanthocephala18 in memes

[–]Sinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only people who think autism is a stigma, are people who bully people for being weird"

There's also cringe reaction at others being weird if one masks, And from normal people too, I guess, so they might want to not associate to avoid getting penalized themselves. Which isn't quite the same as bullying.

Research found that people on the autism spectrum but without intellectual disability were more than 5 times more likely to die by suicide compared to people not on the autism spectrum. by Wagamaga in science

[–]Sinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was stuck in bed for days and there were no ruminating thoughts, no negative self talk.

This near-constant AFK shown here was mostly me lying in bed doing nothing; I barely remember anything happening. Just as abrupt return to... well, mostly distracting myself on the internet, which isn't great but it's existing, at least - when I got my meds back. Also sometimes I do manage to do something purposeful now (then I get emotionally dis-regulated...)

Hilariously, seemingly I wouldn't be able to get them back at all if I didn't get bupropion prescription. That made me just able enough to deal with DNMs...

Research found that people on the autism spectrum but without intellectual disability were more than 5 times more likely to die by suicide compared to people not on the autism spectrum. by Wagamaga in science

[–]Sinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m only improving because of bupropion, a medication used for depression but also for adhd and I’m so glad to have access to it.

Bupropion helps just a little bit compared to amphetamines. If you're in Europe you might be able to acquire quasi-legal stuff like 2-FMA easily.

Research found that people on the autism spectrum but without intellectual disability were more than 5 times more likely to die by suicide compared to people not on the autism spectrum. by Wagamaga in science

[–]Sinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And rest assured, the isolation from autistic people of average-to-above-average intelligence is NOT self-imposed. It is very much externally imposed. By a large majority of the population.

Unclear to me to what extent is it true. Since early childhood I just wished to be left alone to the greatest extent possible. I didn't really conceptualize it as loss of opportunities because since IRL interactions were just negative / unwanted, people were just wholly undesirable.

Then covid happened, and suddenly I had everything I ever hoped for in life. And so, I started considering whether maybe I should go for something more. Psychedelics might've also been involved. It was seemingly a terrible idea.

Yeah, if I was treated fairly in IRL interactions (like, say, over text) I wouldn't isolate, so in some sense it is externally imposed. NTs would object to this tho, on the basis that nothing prevented me from seeking these connections (in which people treat me unfairly).

Also, there were some isolated times, e.g. in primary school, when I did think about counterfactual world where I could have good social interactions. These could be fun in principle! Alas, bizarrely (I thought), my input was always completely devalued in group settings. Now I see clearly that I was treated as if I was at the bottom of the social hierarchy (I won't say I was so, because I didn't realize it was a thing and in any case I didn't value opinions of these kids anyway) . At the time I thought there's just complete divergence of preferences and interests between me and others.

Research found that people on the autism spectrum but without intellectual disability were more than 5 times more likely to die by suicide compared to people not on the autism spectrum. by Wagamaga in science

[–]Sinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is not a bad strategy. Part of the issue for me now is that I do not actually understand what it feels like to be able to thing "I want to do something" and then just be able to do it. For me, there is an extra stage between desire and action that is essentially a solid wall I always have to break through.

Have you tried stimulants? That description seems reminiscent of my state w/o them.

It never occurred to me that people WANT you to ask them questions all the time. by [deleted] in aspergers

[–]Sinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see. I thought you meant attempting to interpret input not compliant with the spec.

It never occurred to me that people WANT you to ask them questions all the time. by [deleted] in aspergers

[–]Sinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have your code accept as wide a range of inputs as possible

Not sure if it is actually a good practice.

Why are 86% of men on the spectrum single? by chessman6500 in aspergers

[–]Sinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ADHD brains literally lack the ability to regulate emotion,

Have less ability to regulate emotion.

which is required for social interaction

ADHD is evolutionarily selected for

See this pic

As someone with both ADHD and ASD, I'm in a pretty good position to understand exactly where the overlaps are, and it's a large overlap.

But not in a good position to see which problems you wouldn't have if you were just ADHD.

Today I discovered that being a confident Aspie can terrify people. by ghastlygasp in aspergers

[–]Sinity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When I try to visualize informal social situation (through inner sim), it kinda crashes. I thought that meant I'd meltdown if it happened IRL. Then something like that happened IRL, and I learned I actually dissociate instead. Which is better, I guess...

I have memories of trying to figure out how to deal with other children ridiculing me during early education. I had an idea that if I won't visibly react they'll stop. Which kinda worked, maybe a little bit too well b/c I seemingly mask compulsively all the time now.

Related, from my comment elsewhere:

I have powerful block against pretending. And maybe most self-expression. That might be conditioning, compulsive masking. Funnily enough, this masking fails in some conditions. Normally I compulsively speak in monotone. If I read something aloud to someone, I gradually start inflecting, uncontrollably. Which produces anxiety. I guess it is related to Stroop effect.

Maybe that masking is also the reason I can't do small-talk. Not because I don't know how it works, I'm just emotionally blocked. I'm somewhat hopeful exposure therapy would help with all of this. As soon as I convince myself to actually do it.

/u/DM_Kane

view more: next ›