what do you think about the following opinion of Rand's?

I do in fact have a diagnosis of Asperger's (although possibly other, unrelated matters interfere additionally with my socialization -- survivors of repeated/prolonged childhood traumas, too, often come across as socially "wrong" in some undefined ways.)

Therefore, what you may have feared I'd regard as an "accusation" by Phil, I regard as merely an intelligent (and correct) deduction from available evidence:
deduction of a diagnosis that I don't always name to others early in my contacts with them -- though I may describe, as I've done, effects of the condition -- but that I likewise always confirm when someone suspects it.

Post 101

Monday, September 28, 2009 - 3:20am

Is dishonesty a hallmark symptom of Aspergers?

How lucky for Phil that he was right, but I still consider his remarks rude.

Why you would display wonder for others to "put into words" your sometimes strange writing style now seems like a game to you. Because you weren't forthcoming with this, the last thing I would guess is a disorder like Aspergers. I still think it was rude of Phil, unless you were willing to acknowledge it in the beginning.

Because this claimed disorder was deliberately withheld, I can now only "deduce" that you're toying with the members here.

Steve, Post 68: People started wondering why so many of Kate's posts were questions that all seemed to be about some negative view of Rand. (In effect, does Rand hate the handicapped? was Rand mistaken about Aristotle and A is A? wasn't Rand being hypocritical by letting Dagney and Francisco steal rides on the Taggart train, etc.) I, myself have felt uncomfortable with something in Kate's approach, something that goes beyond just those questionable questions, but haven't been able to put it into words yet.

Kate, Post 78: To anypne who *can* put it into words, please do so here -- I could use the information.

Quite a few people, my whole life long (and NOT just the oddball types!) have consistently told me (in person, over the phone, and in recent years by e-mail) things like
"Something about your verbal style makes me very uncomfortable, for no reason that I can put my finger on. Whatever it is, you have got to change it, but unfortunately I can't tell you just what to change or how, as I don't happen to know -- I just feel it."

This happens in all manner of social situations, and -- before I found self-employment -- it happened with employers (including, or especially, those employers who told me that I met or exceeded every objective criterion they applied in making personnel decisions -- they claimed, often, that my work "just somehow felt 'off' even though it was certainly up to standard when it was actually examined; there is nothing identifiable that you are actually doing wrong" or words to that effect, "but please change whatever it is that you *are* doing.")

Steve guessed wrong, so no honesty for him! Phil was right, so *ding ding ding!* He gets the prize.

Post 102

Monday, September 28, 2009 - 7:08am

Re:

Is dishonesty a hallmark symptom of Aspergers?

No -- but being misinterpreted as dishonest is very common for us.

How lucky for Phil that he was right, but I still consider his remarks rude.

I don't -- and I'm the one that his remark should most affect.

Why you would display wonder for others to "put into words" your sometimes strange writing style now seems like a game to you.

No, it doesn't seem like a game to me at all.
I've been testing out -- for a while, and with difficulty -- a therapist's advice (re Internet fora) to describe one or more effects of my syndrome *without* naming the syndrome until others twigged to it (he assured me that this would get me "more accepte" and that it would help me to improve my ability to not "bore others" with information that I deem important but that others may not). His advice has failed, which I'd expected but which he had told me probably wouldn't happen. (A pity -- I thought I had found *one* "helping professional" who did not use his position to try to change my views on politics, the economy, and so forth. Many therapists -- at least, all those I've encountered in my adult life -- don't bother to conceal that they regard the "wrong" [i.e., non-left-wing] political or other views as a form of mental illlness needing treatment: I won't annoy you with illustrative incidents unless you ask for them.)

Re

Because you weren't forthcoming with this, the last thing I would guess is a disorder like Aspergers. I still think it was rude of Phil, unless you were willing to acknowledge it in the beginning.

My web-site acknowledges it, and has long acknowledged it -- on the "about Kate Gladstone" page -- long before I came here, so I would have felt willing to mention it "in the beginning" although (for a reason stated above) I did not do so.

I confess ignorance of the right time (if any) to mention this sort of thing without waiting for someone else to ask about it, and this ignorance does cause problems:
one listserv (on a subject unrelated to Asperger's or to the subjects usually discussed here) barred me for having admitted to Asperger's when first asked about it (the list moderator said that I somehow "should have intuitively known that something like this needed to be mentioned" when asking to join the group -- although she admitted that nothing in the group's rules or on the group's web-site actually said so. (She further stated that I could have fulfilled that expectation by mentioning "that stuff" anywhere on my web-site -- and was *not* pleased when I pointed out that she could verify for herself that my web-site *did* mention it, on a page whose most recent update had taken place before I'd joined her listserv. She looked, she agreed that this held true, but stated that "this still doesn't count because I [the moderator] had not noticed that fact at the time: if you did not have your problem, you would realize that there are more important things than facts when it comes to living in this world." [At that point, of course, I would have left if she hadn't removed me.])

Because this claimed disorder was deliberately withheld, I can now only "deduce" that you're toying with the members here.

Deduce what seems right to do -- therefore, do what seems right to you -- I won't complain.

Re my own earlier remarks (which you quote) about people telling me to change my communication "somehow" but not knowing what, precisely, I'd need to change --
Knowing that I have Asperger's
*does* *not* let me know (any more than that bit of knowledge would let a reader or listener know) precisely what I had done wrong in an e-mail or other communication; therefore, having that bit of knowledge doesn't tell me (let alone tell other folks) just what I should have said differently, let alone just how I should have said it instead.

Like some other people with Asperger's, over the years I've submitted to a tremendous amount of "social coaching" in hopes to cure or conceal the undefined "off"-ness. The results persistently disappointed both me and the coaches-- parents, teachers, and later therapists -- as they and I eventually had to admit that precisely following their instructions documentably either did not improve matters, or in at least some cases made matters visibly worse.
Analogy: If an art student paints something which a viewer describes as "somehow grossly unsatisfactory, though I don't know why," knowing the critic's dissatisfaction (and even knowing or finding out the probable cause, such as a color-vision problem on the artist's part) does not let the student know how to avoid such problems in future work. An aspiring but color-blind painter can switch to some other art (such as sculpture or drawing) -- but "color-blindness" in the arts of socializing and communicating does not permit such a solution (because failure at socialization and/or communication necessarily has far worse social consequences than failure at a particular form of art.)

Post 103

Monday, September 28, 2009 - 9:03am

Kate discussed her Aspergers a month ago, here,

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/1485_3.shtml

Post 63.

And Teresa, what the hell are you going on about?

Post 104

Monday, September 28, 2009 - 9:18am

The Asperger's thing did jump out at me as a possible source of the disparity here. I didn't guess at it, if I recall correctly Kate mentioned it in a prior post. The social awkwardness angle isn't what drew my attention, although it could account for employers getting odd vibes I guess. What immediately came to mind when Kate posed the question was, again if I recall correctly, the common behavior of Asperger's people to obsess over a certain field, exploring the most exacting of detail while at the same time often missing the big picture. I can easily see someone with Asperger's relentlessly firing off question after question regarding out of place data, quotes lacking wider context, and similar hiccups that are bound to occur in a lifetime of public speaking. Questions that are rather easily dealt with or seen as anomalies when viewed from a wider integration of the philosophy. Social deficits would only exacerbate the issue among a community that can't understand why the questioner might not be able to see the forest for the one odd tree.

Post 105

Monday, September 28, 2009 - 10:32am

I don't recall mentioning Asperger's earlier, but I could well have done so inadvertently.
And you've well analyzed why I asked about what I've asked about. (Re the issue beginning this thread: I would never interfere with anyone's decision to keep his or her own children from coming near a particular person or persons: I'd assume that the parent deems that decision to best serve the child's interests.)

Back to the matter of social deficit: the term's uses sometimes include a mis-use that may interest (and incense) Oists. Some teachers, therapists, and parents regard as "social deficit" any preference for objective data (rather than for other people's preferences) as the standard of what to believe. E.g., I know of a fifth-grader whose therapist considered that one major sign of the boy's social deficit was that the boy had ventured to investigate and disconfirm his "social studies" teacher's statement that "the USA has the highest literacy rate." To the therapist's mind, finding otherwise was a deficit -- and needed "cure" -- because the teacher and the majority of the students believed the teacher's statement: making it "socially inappropriate behavior" for one student to investigate the claimed "fact" and find reason to disagree: let alone to mention his findings during a teacher-led "class discussion" of "why the US has the highest literacy rate."

(Oh, the therapist agreed that the teacher was factually wrong -- but she thought the fact's "social inappropriateness" should have mattered far more to the boy than "mere factual accuracy.")

Post 106

Monday, September 28, 2009 - 12:56pm

Kate:

E.g., I know of a fifth-grader whose therapist considered that one major sign of the boy's social deficit was that the boy had ventured to investigate and disconfirm his "social studies" teacher's statement that "the USA has the highest literacy rate." To the therapist's mind, finding otherwise was a deficit -- and needed "cure" -- because the teacher and the majority of the students believed the teacher's statement: making it "socially inappropriate behavior" for one student to investigate the claimed "fact" and find reason to disagree: let alone to mention his findings during a teacher-led "class discussion" of "why the US has the highest literacy rate."

It floors me how it is possible for anyone to read an anecdote like that and not see it as clear cut religious indoctrination. The deficits are self-referential to the presumption of proper 'socialization' -- as if, we lived in a theocratic state, and Social Scientology was not only the accepted, but the expected religion of choice.

And yet, for those of us properly 'socialized', we are totally inculcated to the religious indoctrination, and see it not as indoctrination, but simply, informed enlightened 'truth.'

Just like the True Believers in every Theocracy.

I suspect that it would be difficult to get widespread recognition of any particular problem in the above anecdote, except by the student.

In any discussion of 'social', I think it wise to remind folks of its root: from the Latin 'socius': ally, companion, known associate. Clearly, the uses of the word 'social' above are related to something else and not the simply residue of free association.

The 'social' consensus implied by the above anecdote is applicable only to a society of Invasion of the Body Snatchers 'Pod' People...

That is one such society; it isn't clear why that model should serve as the basis for all 'social' thought, unless the 'social' thought being considered was based on some True Believer religious movement, like Social Scientology.

Objectivists should start a rumor of a new mode of social organization: free associations, plural, of free thinkers.

United We Stand. Plural. Free to disagree. Not, United 'It' Stands.

The religion of Social Scientology is waning ever more theocratic and totalitarian. It smells its collectivist grasp over a once free nation, once characterized by free associations of free thinkers.

That freedom is what used to make us strong, and the new theocracy of totalitarianism is what is making us ... crazy.

Post 107

Monday, September 28, 2009 - 5:04pm

Jon,

Thanks for the link, and getting me up to speed with this. I have zero interest in any/all mental disorders, but thanks anyway.

Kate, it might be a good idea to alert other people when questions arise over things you've said. Steve could have benefited, and I know I would have.

Post 108

Monday, September 28, 2009 - 5:54pm

Teresa suggests:

Kate, it might be a good idea to alert other people when questions arise over things you've said. Steve could have benefited, and I know I would have.

Teresa -- to benefit Steve, you, and presumably others, I'll need to know exactly what you have in mind as the kind of "alert" you'd like to see.

/1/ What factual content do you suggest that such an alert should contain? (E.g., could you suggest one or more sample wordings?)

/2/ You suggest that I "alert other people when questions arise over things [I]'ve said."
In other words -- if I take your meaning correctly:
From now on, whenever I post anything and the replies to that post include questions, you ask that any reply I might make (to the questions asked) should include some sort of "alert" text.
If you indeed mean this, please confirm.
If you mean something else, please explain.

Post 109

Monday, September 28, 2009 - 6:09pm

Actually, TSI, you're out of context... If you had checked, you would have discovered that Kate discussed her Asperger's and that of her husband quite some time ago in another thread.

So, if I had said nothing, then I would be known as rude and clever. But that title is already taken here, I think...

(TK0)

Post 110

Monday, September 28, 2009 - 6:16pm

One more post like this from either of you and I expect to see either cat costumes or a pool full of mud!

Don't make me post pictures!

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/28, 6:17pm)

Post 111

Monday, September 28, 2009 - 6:51pm

TSI!

Wow! And you thought I was rude... Goodness, girl, bite your tongue!

Aspergers is not universally considered a "mental disorder." Along with the typical inability to intuitively grasp social stuff, there is also a strong correlation with overall high intelligence, and especially pattern matching. Aspys go crazy over someone talking in a theater during a movie, because it jerks them out of the pattern being woven by the movie, and if there is one thing that is pretty universal among Aspys, it is the ability to totally concentrate on something to levels that "normals" find incomprehensible. We completely lose ourselves in a good movie, but that ability to open up to external stimuli comes at the price that it requires no outside interruptions.

A large percentage of the top programmers - as well as scientists - are allegedly Aspys, including the guy who wrote the Bit-Torrent software, but also, very likely, Bill Gates (sad to say). It has been suggested that Rand herself was an Aspy along with Mozart, Newton, Einstein, Franklin, Adams, Washington, Henry Ford and a virtual roll call of the most successful or paradigm-creating people in history. If the ones I mentioned specifically were the only ones, that would mean that about 50% of the total value of humanity to date was generated by Aspys - or because of the contributions of those individuals. If only ten percent of the list of those generally presumed to be likely Aspys were in fact Aspys, then, given that it is estimated that perhaps one in five hundred people have Aspergers, we would still be far more valuable to civilization that non-Aspys, on average.

Low-ball estimate then: 5% of the total net worth of humanity generated by 0.5% of the population. Do these people have a mental disorder? Or, is it perhaps those other 99.5% who should be getting therapy?

Go see the movie "Adam" and you'll understand some of both the positive and negative aspects of Aspergers.

Because Aspys almost compulsively try to fit things into a larger pattern, and are driven to sleepless distraction by pieces that don't fit, they make good researchers, but their constant nit-picking and questioning makes the average person who is satisfied with a nice logical sequence very nervous around them. We Aspys notice the stuff that other people conveniently forget or compartmentalize. We can't help it. And because it is always in our minds, we also talk about it and often mistakenly assume that everyone else will find it interesting.

In a scientific research setting, this is generally regarded as a virtue. However, in a power relationship that depends upon everyone going along with the currently popular lie, the Aspy stands out as a convenient target, as in the child in the classic Emporer sans clothes paradigm.

One of the most frequently cited paradigm childhood experiences of being an Aspy was described by a mother, whose elementary school aged son received a message signed by his entire class to the effect that they really would prefer that he commit suicide, soon. And it wasn't because he was physically attacking anyone or telling lies or deliberately doing anything destructive or hostile. It was just that his way of looking at the world without lies made them uncomfortable.

Post 112

Monday, September 28, 2009 - 9:53pm

Maybe it is only me, Maybe I'm not in a very sprightly mood today, but this thread drags and depresses and seems endlessly without purpose or reward for being here.

Kate, if you want any feedback, here is mine, and I hope it will be my very last in this area.

Don't ask these questions about Rand or Objectivism that appear designed to elicit negative remarks - at least not until you've formed better relations here, or chosen to make the questions in the Dissent area, or find a different style of presentation, one that won't trip troll alarms.

Post 113

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 3:12am

Actually, TSI, you're out of context... If you had checked, you would have discovered that Kate discussed her Asperger's and that of her husband quite some time ago in another thread

Phil, if you're of the mind that I have any motive to read every single post here, you're completely out of it.

Kate -

You're absolutely right.

Post 114

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 7:15am

Re (I assume) my previous message, Teresa writes:

Kate, you're absolutely right.

So you need some (unspecified) kind of "alert" from me whenever I respond to any question that a previous message of mine has raised.

This presents me with a new problem:
My previous message (the one you call "absolutely right") asked you what such an"alert" ought to look like -- e.g., what wording, what content, would it have to have in order to meet your needs? -- and you have not (so far) answered that question.
Note that:

/1/The possibility of providing some requested good or service (such as an "alert") depends on knowing what, exactly, the requester wants to have: in this case, what wording or content (issued every time I respond to a question that a message of my own has led someone else to ask) would the requester consider to meet her need to receive an "alert"?

/2/ Therefore -- until and unless you let me know what (exactly) you expect me to provide as an "alert" in such a message, I cannot provide it because the request lacks some essential content. (Until and unless you and I -- and presumably Steve and whoever else would benefit -- can agree on what constitutes a Rebirth of Reason "Kate alert," how could I meet any demand to produce such an item?)

The above *is* *not* a refusal to supply the item requested: it *is* a request for further information necessary to create and provide what you ask for.

Post 115

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 8:15am

NOTE: Although this message answers a response to messages of mine, it ignores another member's request to provide some sort of "alert" for all such messages, because that other member has not (yet) made clear what wording or content she would accept as constituting a proper Rebirth of Reason "Kate alert."

Re Steve's and Phil's postings --
Steve writes:

It has been suggested that Rand herself was an Aspy

I began to suspect the same -- very strongly -- while reading her various biographies (including biographical material written by good friends and supporters of hers, such as Mary Ann Sures on a web-site where she shares her memories of Rand). However, whenever I see or hear "It has been suggested," I ask: "Who has suggested it, and on what evidence?" Steve (and anyone else who knows), I'd value having that question answered.

Re:

the average person who is satisfied with a nice logical sequence

In my experience and observation, an average person is more often satisfied with a nice ILlogical sequence.
;-)

Re an event that Steve describes ...

... a mother, whose elementary school aged son [who has Asperger's] received a message signed by his entire class to the effect that they really would prefer that he commit suicide, soon. And it wasn't because he was physically attacking anyone or telling lies or deliberately doing anything destructive or hostile. It was just that his way of looking at the world without lies made them uncomfortable. ...

Almost the same thing happened to me, in fourth grade. (In my case, the letter signed by my classmates -- delivered to me by my teacher after she'd publicly, smilingly, read it aloud -- requested lobotomy rather than death: "There is an operation to make people not think and have ideas so much, and we really hope she can get that sometime soon before we have to start hating her even more than we already do. She needs to learn that it is stupid to do things like complaining when we took the majority vote on whether the class pet is a boy rabbit or a girl rabbit. This is a free country and the rabbit can be whatever we vote it.")

Phil writes -- raising questions that I hope someone else can answer if he himself feels disinclined to do so --

Don't ask these questions about Rand or Objectivism that appear designed to elicit negative remarks

How can I know, before asking a question, if someone else will regard the as-yet-unasked question as "designed to elicit negative remarks"?
To have that knowledge (of how someone else will regard a message I haven't posted) would require me to possess precognition and/or ESP.

- at least not until you've formed better relations here

How?

or chosen to make the questions in the Dissent area

As I already promised the last time someone suggested this -- an *objective* and follow-able suggestion which therefore merits, and gains, my gratitude --
when next I query a statement of Rand's, I will post that query in Dissent.
Since the message I'm now typing does not query a statement of Rand's, the message I'm now typing is not in Dissent.

or find a different style of presentation, one that won't trip troll alarms.

"Find a different style of presentation" -- How?
What should I make different?
(Edited by Kate Gladstone on 9/29, 8:18am)

Post 116

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 11:22am

Kate, just a few points that you may find of use. Basically my take on the questions you raised. I can't quote from my iPhone btw, so this may require some cross referencing to make sense.

1. I'm not sure what Teresa's full meaning of the whole "alert us" thing is, especially since she's apparently on the warpath, but here is my take on it. When you find that responses seem to be heavily skewed toward the irritated and negative, especially if they are defensive when you didn't think you were on offense, it could be useful to briefly mention that you are prone to being misunderstood and clarify yourself. This goes double if someone asks what you mean. I asked you to clarify your intent with a question in the first post I remember you making to the site. You refused.

2. "Crazy objectivist" and "my history of abuse" stories in nearly every thread. People form broad impressions and wonder why these get shoehorned in consistently. It looks like you want pity and discrediting pseudo-objectivists in the background at all times. I personally am only interested in learning from you, respecting you, and potentially collaborating on projects. Not pity you or get consistently irritated at every prick that was ever mean to you under the guise of my philosophy.

3. Regarding Phil's suggestion. I think that's a bit excessive. However, it might be a good idea to have someone proofread your thread starters for you. NOT to tell you what you "can" ask but to tell you the tone and sense they get from your presentation. That might help get your intent and others perception a little closer together. That would also help you route your threads a little more clearly too.

Post 117

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 3:12pm

Ryan suggests:

/1/
When you find that responses seem to be heavily skewed toward the irritated and negative, especially if they are defensive when you didn't think you were on offense, it could be useful to briefly mention that you are prone to being misunderstood and clarify yourself. This goes double if someone asks what you mean.

Everything about that suggestion strikes me as excellent and worth following, save for two concerns:

/a/
The phrase you suggest -- "prone to being misunderstood" strikes me as self-sacrificial (as if a businessman described himself as "prone to not being paid," he would thereby appear to blame himself for not having received payment). Would you mind if I used a less self-sacrificial wording? (e.g., "Others often misunderstand my messages")?

/b/
Since the most frequent (and the strongest) complaints against my postings have come from Teresa, no suggestion -- however excellent -- can serve the purpose unless she approves it. (If I adopt your excellent counsel, and then Teresa finds it insufficient or otherwise improper or ineffective .. why, in that case I might as well not have bothered.)

Re:

I asked you to clarify your intent with a question in the first post I remember you making to the site. You refused.

I don't recall refusing -- and I don't (yet) know how to search this forum for old posts -- so I'll clarify now:
Objectivism interests me, I agree with a lot of it (not all -- or not yet all), and those strike me as sufficient reasons to participate here.

Re the recollections, observations, and experiences I've shared:
I felt curious to see if others here had similar recollections, observations, and experiences. Thanks to those who've posted theirs.

Re:

It looks like you want pity and discrediting pseudo-objectivists in the background at all times.

I don't want pity (I don't like the way it tastes). Re discrediting the pseudos -- I sought to know whether most Oists resembled them in certain significant and (to me) disturbing ways. (Experiences here have persuaded me that most of the Oists here do not resemble the pseudos I'd run afoul of.)

Re:

it might be a good idea to have someone proofread your thread starters for you.

Unfortunately, the only person I live with (my husband) has neither time nor inclination to read and correct material written on topics that do not vastly interest him. Even if he had the time and inclination, he too has Asperger's -- so anything I wrote that looked okay to me would, almost certainly, look okay to him too. (And I don't have the budget to justify hiring someone to come in every day and vet all my thread starters.)

So let's first see if following your other suggestions will work (if Teresa approves, of course: for the reason I stated above).

Post 118

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 3:23pm

So you need some (unspecified) kind of "alert" from me whenever I respond to any question that a previous message of mine has raised.

No, no. Kate, I'm so sorry. I was in a huge hurry this morning. I don't need any kind of alert. It would be cruel to expect something like that from you. When I said "You're right," I meant that you're right about not being able to provide an alert. How would you know? You wouldn't know, so it was wrong of me to ask that you know. (Ya' know?)

You're fine. I'm the problem. :c/

Please accept my profound apology. I was completely wrong, and I'm very sorry.

Post 119

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 3:25pm