pull down to refresh
77 sats \ 3 replies \ @elvismercury 26 Nov \ on: The double empathy problem mostly_harmless
As stated here, I think this is a general state of humankind thing (even beyond humankind actually, the problem is generally information-theoretic).
All people are interpreting all other people according to available schemas and experience and tacit assumptions and can interact based on that shared catalogue - it's just that autistic people violate the schemas most people have on hand.
Are autistic people able to communicate with each other more effectively? If so, is it bc of shared experience, or just because they make no assumption of sharing experience?
Are autistic people able to communicate with each other more effectively? If so, is it bc of shared experience, or just because they make no assumption of sharing experience?
It's not a hard rule, although often people at similar levels of the spectrum will get along better than those from different levels. The resulting interaction is a little different from when two normal people with a shared interest connect over it; folks on the spectrum are quite good at "downloading" while the interlocutor "infodumps", and good luck getting a neurotypical to participate in this sort of interaction if they're not making a conscious effort to be polite... ironically enough, this effort is quite similar to how high-functioning autists describe that they can mask their condition and behave normally, although it takes a continued conscious effort.
reply
Thanks.
My understanding was that the "spectrum" is less a spectrum (e.g., EM spectrum) than a high-dimensional subspace, s.t. people can have conditions that make them quite diverse in the ways they want to take in stimuli, including interaction w/ other people.
Do you know if that's right? How does such a thing factor in?
reply
[...] the "spectrum" is less a spectrum (e.g., EM spectrum) than a high-dimensional subspace,
sure; however I caution that the familiar portion of the EM spectrum actually is also a low-finite-dimensional space, spanned by a basis consisting of whichever frequencies trigger your rods, cones, and various other peripheral nerves. The rainbow might look smooth from a distance, yet spectra discretize at both emission and absorption.
s.t. people can have conditions that make them quite diverse in the ways they want to take in stimuli, including interaction w/ other people.
right; the only thing worse than masking 24/7 is doing it 40/51 plus overtime, for decades of a career, and then some shmuck tells you that you're not being yourself the first time you unwind the social fiction compliance by a few clicks.
the adjective "neurotypical" loosely refers to some boring and undifferentiated neighborhood surrounded by a laughably false dichotomy, although proving this offends the social fiction of normality, and is thus academically risky.
Do you know if that's right? How does such a thing factor in?
All I can say with confidence about modern neuroscience is that they haven't declared war against psychiatry yet in response to the DSM-V categorising irrational happiness as a diagnosable condition... why should I bother chasing the moving target of how they euphemise metasocial consciousness this decade? Is the pressure to perform unsupervised learning so strong, and the lack of anything more interesting to read so dire, that I must actually respect that noise?
People deserve respect; academic disciplines don't.
reply