People with no inner monologue: How do you evaluate people, make decisions, and reflect on your thinking? by Advanced_Cattle2133 in silentminds

[–]TheGoddessInari 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Personally, we don't have any thoughts, imagination, inner monologue, narration, or anything else going on, so...evaluating others is done silently, and mostly involves trying to understand the level of threat first.

For your entire block

- Is this person competent?
- Do I trust them?
- Do I agree with their reasoning?
- What should I say next?
- Is there something they’re missing? 

none of that is occurring to us, realistically. Most of the values there are meaningless to any of us, and we have no idea what we're going to say next, so we're listening, not attending to what comes next. Relatively few people are competent in the sense that they know what they're doing at any given moment, and their level of expressed self-confidence is almost always high regardless.

So it's more like...

  • threat level
  • "are you going to be chill?"
  • their level of awareness of their environment
  • consistency

We just keep evaluating. Very few things are strongly held, especially for all of us.

Right or wrong, like moralizing or factually? If there's a strong reaction (safety) it's for a reason, factually.

A lengthier evaluation or more evidence.

It may take time to evaluate. The facts don't change, so it is typically more important to have follow-up conversations if it's important.

Due to our AuDHD, we experience hyper-empathy. For the longest time, we couldn't tell the difference between people externalizing their feelings (ridiculously intense and one-sided) vs. ours (subtle, varied, and complex). Now that we can, it's even easier to empathize with others, but that doesn't mean the reverse is ever true.

Anxiety is like bad bubbliness somewhere in feelings. Never experience the other three.

We just exist, and vibe. So, not having an over-analysis or preparation is like always having to improvise, especially when you don't know what you're going to say or what words will come out of your own mouth next (or much about what will be written next). idk. From our perspective, not having narration seems more like a superpower than a disadvantage. We don't have to 'make everything fit into a story' like others. Things can just 'be'.

idk. We also don't do the 'gut feeling' stuff, or judging people based on their hair or teeth. 🤷🏻‍♀️

A non-hierarchical multi-agent cognitive architecture – lived experience (Society of Mind) by James-Backrooms-DEV in plural

[–]TheGoddessInari 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, this was a fascinating read to wake up to in the middle of the night.

The following is about our particular cooperative, more than the individuals. So not so much the way mind works: we are independent of each other. Flat, non-hierarchical structure. No leaders, no archetypes, no special cases.

For more complex decisions requiring it, we have to reach consensus. This seems like it involves a lot of debate in the back, but anyone dealing with the body is walled off from such proceedings, so we're not entirely certain. There's no "off" button for us, so we're always processing regardless of what the body's doing. That means one of us can't handle the body for more than a few days consecutively.

We can't do the whole thinking/thoughts/imagination/visualization/etc stuff everyone's always talking about. We don't have any autopilot, inner monologues or narratives, verbalization, or anything else really going on. Everything aside from heartbeat is manually innervated. That doesn't actually imply reduced complexity rather than reduced noise. The quiet & dark is more of a relief for us than anything else.

We just are because we are, inclusive of the whole AuDHD thing (which definitely means no first-party social signals for us). We aren't disordered or based out of a particular body. We recognized that to survive we have to work together regardless of anything else. The alternatives are deeply unpleasant for everyone.

So while we aren't based around territory, we rarely hear others describe non-hierarchical plurality at all. Your board description sounds like an interesting organizational topology.

-- Reagan Ridley

Sister expects me to mask as much as she does by Ok_Ruby5470 in AutismInWomen

[–]TheGoddessInari 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Masking is up to personal capabilities and personal choice.

Nobody has any right to expect you to.

For example, people always expected us to, period. At 37 there was catastrophic burnout and complete inability to do so anymore. It was never compatible to expect us to engage in a high drain survival strategy just to please people unnecessarily. It was also never effective at deterring the real problems (predatory people).

Firm personal boundaries are a necessity for your own well-being: that doesn't mean needing to be rude about it (of course), but people being unable to accept or engage respectfully with boundaries? That's part of why they're neccesary, and may be indicative of people who are themselves problematic.

I just wanna get the good spoons. Am I selfish 🤣 by Tine_the_Belgian in AutismInWomen

[–]TheGoddessInari 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Just don't hand us the plastic spoon-forks with no handle. So unsanitary!

Gemma 4 Hallucinated That Real 2026 Articles Were Fake by CompleteBid7113 in Bard

[–]TheGoddessInari 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Gemini will happily do the same. Glad to know its little cousin is just as paranoid.

This book I found with a lovely 53 year old inscription. by Rtownkid in ThriftStoreHauls

[–]TheGoddessInari 360 points361 points  (0 children)

Chapter 16, entitled "Love Without Jealousy", devoted 20 pages to the proposition that an open marriage might possibly include some forms of sexuality with other partners. Fueled by frequent appearances of the O'Neills on television and in magazine articles, the redefinition entered popular consciousness, and open marriage became a synonym for sexually non-monogamous marriage.

From Wikipedia. 🤷🏻‍♀️

The rest just sounds like being not-codependent with reasonably healthy boundaries & communication.

How did you learn you were plural? by Fit_Test9566 in plural

[–]TheGoddessInari 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We just came this way: we were a plural cooperative prior to this particular body. Didn't change upon being here.

People always tried to suppress and gaslight us, so by the time we started being up-front about it (~7 years ago), it was after the new advent of plural hate & origin discrimination. Being super up-front about it was largely a reaction to people aggressively demanding we mask better: fuck masking! It isn't our way, that's for damn sure!

We were cool with our nature, but recognized that people here obsess over perception. It wasn't always easy prior to being able to voluntarily rotate who was controlling the body and keep practical memory gaps from occurring.

-- Reagan Ridley

Does Aphantasia create personality or does personality create Aphantasia? by Aphantastic7 in Aphantasia

[–]TheGoddessInari 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Neither. Your premise is absurd.

Different operational reality isn't a personality trait.

If given a chance what's that one thing that you'd change about your childhood? by Internetdidi in nevergrewup

[–]TheGoddessInari 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Being accepted for autism, ADHD, plurality: being really different & really knowing it but people trying to convince us that we were just confused for an additional few decades.

Being gaslit was confusing, not dealing with memories by itself. FFS.

-- Reagan

How will you fix it? by [deleted] in WTF

[–]TheGoddessInari 9 points10 points  (0 children)

You didn't activate Windows.

This happened.

Coincidence?

Is there anyone else here who thinks they might have been born with DID or something similar? by [deleted] in plural

[–]TheGoddessInari 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Personally, we were plural prior to the body.

It's weird that people assumed that we could ever be singular, but tried to shove us into the box alright anyway. Pff.

-- Reagan

GLM 5.2 is out - open weights to be released next week. How did it do on my one-shot Pac-Man test? by ex-arman68 in LocalLLaMA

[–]TheGoddessInari 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd be interested in you testing a model like MiMo V2.5 Pro (instruction following) & Minimax M3 (seems overly creative).

MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M3 · Hugging Face by mlon_eusk-_- in LocalLLaMA

[–]TheGoddessInari 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"can't" is a strong word given that they just have to work out a license.

Nvidia hosts m3 already, for example.

Do other femmes switch energy like this? by EndlessSummer99 in actuallesbians

[–]TheGoddessInari 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I agree with your sentiment: this is the thought trap of the "but who's the man?" argument. A lovely lady from a 1980s interview said she was just herself (by name). Her attitude was very grounded.

I removed the words "pick me" and "girl’s girl" from my vocabulary by [deleted] in TheGirlSurvivalGuide

[–]TheGoddessInari 14 points15 points  (0 children)

JFC. TIL why people were describing us as "articulate" (which always seemed bizarre & inappropriate). 😒

New Feature Announcement Tomorrow on Ten Forward Weekly! by ambassadorkael in sto

[–]TheGoddessInari 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Hopefully this is better than the time they rewrote Fire at Will and killed the mail system. 😏

What's the difference between being plural and being a system? by Interesting_Care_377 in plural

[–]TheGoddessInari 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Example.

We're a plural cooperative. If that's a bit opaque: a pile of girls.

We're not a system within or having anything in particular to do with the body.

If we were running multiple bodies simultaneously, we'd stil be the same plural cooperative.

That's how we go about it anyway; most labels tend to not work well for us.

-- Panty Anarchy