|
|
#21 |
|
FFR Veteran
|
Well if you are talking about your parents then all I can say is that if they thought you were incompetent, then why do you blame them for trying to make you competent?
Realize this: What would one's life be like with asperger's? And what would that same person's life be like without it because it was treated? Yes there are benefits and consequences to each senario, but just because you hated being treated, doesn't change the fact that you wouldn't have DIED or become mentally sick or something hugely different had your ailment been totally treated. You said that the things that define you were results of asperger's (I think). Ok that's given, but had you been rid of that you would have had other things that defined you because you didn't have the disease. In conclusion to this whole ordeal, whether or not something like asperger's is treated or not yields no huge ramifications. You have it, you deal with it, adapt to it and move on. You get rid of it, you adapt, you change your way of life, and move on. IMO it's like choosing a career, doing this yields this life and doing that yields that life. Sorry that you hated your parents for trying to force the medications on you. Can't change that. But can you really tell yourself what you're trying to prove? That they wanted to make you into this "normal person" that would slip into society and have no personality? That they wanted to be apart of this huge conspiracy to "equalize" everyone's intelligence? I don't think you could. They had/have your best interests in mind and will keep suggesting what is best in their opinion, even if you don't agree. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 34
|
I'm not really sure if Aspergers is a disease. It could just be that one is extremely introverted. From Wikipedia:
"Eysenck proposed that extroversion was caused by variability in cortical arousal; "introverts are characterized by higher levels of activity than extroverts and so are chronically more cortically aroused than extroverts". Because extroverts are less aroused internally, they require more external stimulation than introverts. This theory may be backed up by evidence that the brains of extroverts are more responsive to dopamine than those of introverts [2]. Other evidence of this “stimulation” hypothesis is that introverts salivate more than extroverts in response to a drop of lemon juice [3]." Now the cerebral cortex, which is what's referred to as the "cortical activity", is what " plays a central role in many complex brain functions including memory, attention, perceptual awareness, "thinking", language and consciousness." according to Wikipedia. That would explain your superior intellect but your lack of social skills/activity. That's really what it boils down to for me. It's quite a simple answer. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Age: 31
Posts: 109
|
In the first few sentences he says he's "intelligent," yet he spelled 'intelegent'.
I'm confused. By the way, my cousin has severe autism, so yeah. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
FFR Veteran
|
@alex: so would being extremely introverted be abnormal or not? One of the aspects of the disease definition is that it makes you function abnormally. You don't really say in your post but you kind of imply it even though you still say that you aren't sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 34
|
No, it's not abnormal, no more than anyone who's on the other side of the scale (really, really, REALLY outgoing/extroverted) is abnormal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#26 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
__________________
Squirrels are evil. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 |
|
FFR Player
|
ah, a good read, although the rest of the thread is kind of irritating >_>.
I'm pretty sure my brother has aspergers, he is pretty smart, yet he has a ton of social issues >_>. Also, it seems to be more severe than this case in the story, because he has a lot more troubles than that. Also, I have a cousin with severe autism, and it is completely horrible.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Resident Penguin
|
alex I think an entire slew of evidence lies heavily against you.
First of all, I'm not even entirely sure that introversion is a dominant characteristic amongst those with asperger's. The problem with those who have asperger's is that they simply do not understand or grasp normal social interaction intuitively and I have never seen any evidence that would suggest that introversion stems from the inability to grasp social interaction, but rather, as that wikipedia quote would suggest, from other innate causes. Perhaps a decreased willingness to interact socially because of increased internal stimulation (as Eysenck might propose). And if those with asperger's WERE able to grasp social interactions as others do, they may very well be just as proportioned between extroverts and introverts as normals. I'm positive there's evidence demonstrating at the very least that those with asperger's can be socially engaged with others that have asperger's, which wouldn't be true if asperger's were just some case of severe introversion. Secondly, introversion does not explain at all the deficit in emotional perception in those with asperger's. Thirdly, introversion does not explain the aptitude for math and for visual thinking, as not all introverts are skewed towards being better at mathematical skills than verbal ones in the same way that those with asperger's are. I'm sure you've run across introverted kids that like to read books or write poetry or whatever. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
|
Sigh. Do I dare begin to enter into this madness?
Gerbi: No wonder there's a backlash about aspergers if all people who have spergers are as condescending as you are. However, I doubt everyone is, because to say that all people with Aspergers carry the same ideas as you do would be grossly over-generalizing, which is what I think you've done. If the first link that you put on your first post is correct, it even said that all people with Aspergers don't even show above normal intelligence. Before you get onto my ass about it, I like the overall idea that aspergers shouldn't necessarily be thought of as a disease. I think its wonderful that you don't think of yourself as diseased, although it seems that not thinking of yourself as such is at least partially because of the aspergers itself. For instance, I think that it would be much harder for someone with, say, schizophrenia to so readily accept that it isn't a disease, even for those whose symptoms aren't posing much of a problem for themselves and others around them, although it's certainly possible. You say that you don't get insulted about people who make fun of you. Well, that's fine. You don't have to, but you've obviously realized that others get emotionally hurt by situations where you don't, and if you want people to accept you, then it'd be better if you employed tactics to not insult other people. The way you call everyone who doesn't have aspergers as 'neural typical' gets my back up instantly. What, am I somehow not good enough because I wasn't a wonder child? Is the fact that I enjoy being social a detriment to me? Just as I shouldn't think less of you because of aspergers, you shouldn't think less of me because I don't have it. Reach: If you support the opinion of someone else, and take it on as your own, then it is your own, whether or not you came up with it yourself. Also, be careful what you say about fields of study you know little about. Calling psychology a 'pseudo science' is only accurate in one way, I think, in that its friggin hard to study people in a scientific manner because of the huge loss of information there is when you objectify, or measure, people. (Objectify in the true meaning of the term, not as in 'objectifying women'). I don't think you meant it in this way however. Your tone conveys it as like, astrology or something. That's an understandable opinion to have, yet you clearly have not studied it in any way to have a good enough understanding of it to accurately scorn it. The fact that you say psychology has largely accepted that the brain is rapidly evolving shows just that. It sounds to me like you've only read 'pseudo-psychology', which is what unfortunately is what is largely on the internet these days. Also, you clearly have a poor understanding of what evolution is and how it works. The only reason that people with higher intelligence would be evolving would be if they were surviving while less intelligent people would be dying AND not have children AND if the more intelligent people who were surviving would be because the intelligence would be carried through the genes. This is not happening. Find me proof that this is happening, and I might believe you. No, don't find me some random person's opinion or some clueless journalist making a sensationalistic story. Besides, there's nothing which is making smarter people *that much more able to reproduce* than stupid people. There's no disease which wipes out stupid people only or something like that. Wait, that's called eugenics, which is morally deplorable and even stupidly done because intelligence is largely determined by environment. You wouldn't be smart with numbers if you hadn't had an opportunity to learn about numbers. People don't need social skills before like they used to? Perhaps you'd better think about that a little longer, there are just too many things which socialness is good for, from an evolutionary perspective, since you're so cut up on using it. People with Aspergers are still extraodinarily social if you look over the entire evolutionary scale. Why do I need to be good at math? We have calculators for a reason. All I need is someone to be good at it so they can put it all into a computer for me. Alex: Please don't bring up random garble from the internet which you obviously have little understanding about. I don't care if that was a misrepresentation of Eysenck's ideas or if Eyesenck himself is too out-dated to know how the brain works, but using buzz words like 'dopamine' and 'cortical stimulation' doesn't mean it makes sense. Your argument makes NO sense. The cortex is involved in all types of 'higher functioning', which includes such things as co-ordinating how we reach and grab things, understanding the rules of baseball, and all social interactions. Also, dopamine is a neurotransmitter involved throughout the brain, and hence, throughout mind functioning. Levels of salivation is a non-sequetor in terms of introversion and extroversion. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 | ||||
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Hmm, it really is a pseudo-science.
Astrology isn't even science, so obviously I don't mean it in that sense. But psychology is not scientific method for the most part, and I would say it's a pseudo-science, and so would a lot of people (ironically, people that teach it). Not that psychology shouldn't be studied, I enjoy it, it's just hard to be objective and scientifically sound in such an area where most of it is not based on direct evidence. After talking to a few doctors of biology, I am almost tempted to classify it as such as well XD jokingly, but, atleast you can directly observe evidence in biology in many areas. Quote:
Quote:
Why would the less intelligent people have to die? Evolution doesn't work this way... Geeze, if it did we wouldn't have species diversity. They would have all changed since apparently dumb organisms have to die out o_O IQ is highly heritable. This IS a fact, and it is generally acknowledged that intelligent parents produce children of equal or greater intelligence. Yea, it's largely environmental too, but only some 20-30% =/ And essentially, IQ is a measure of how well someone functions within modern society. Yes it is evident that race plays absolutely no part in IQ itself, but within a population people have different IQ's for genetic reasons. If anything I'll agree with, is that low average IQ trends are going to happen. People of lower intelligence are actually producing more xD However, economics and the power of society doesn't depend on the average IQ but more or less the number of PH.D's and highly educated 'brains' in an area ![]() Quote:
Quote:
This has nothing to do with psychology, actually. It's a biological fact XD and certainly not 'pseudo-scientific', unless you would like to try and disprove the theory of evolution. Yes, 'ideas' on how the brain is evolving is very pseudoscientific, like much of what I have said. Oh well ![]() Or I suppose you could toy with the word 'rapidly'. Such can be used in a very non scientific manner, since you can't really define 'rapid'. But that doesn't change the fact it's happening. Natural selection doesn't just go 'oh, look at this, social and cultural constructs, hmm, I'm going to stop selecting now'.
__________________
Last edited by Reach; 08-31-2006 at 03:04 PM.. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Old-School Player
|
You know, speaking as someone labeled with this, I think I have a fairly good idea of how the process works.
I was pretty much given a test without being told what it was for. Since I assumed it was an IQ test, I gave lengthy, well thought out answers, and spared no details or possibilities. Actually, it was an Asbergers test, and it showed I was "unable to make simple assumptions" and "overanalzyed minute details" of picture tests and verbal questions. Once my mom informed me what the test was really for (since she felt I had something) and told me the results, I was appalled, horrified, and disgusted. I demanded a retesting, which I was never given. That "evaluation" gave the papers all the ammo they needed to tarnish my name with this headline: http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...75P1010654.JPG |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 | ||
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Quote:
As for the second part, that's why I'm writing this damn thing. So people will actually THINK ABOUT IT instead of saying that I don't think it's a disease because I have it. As for the rest of the **** you posted, it's really off topic. I think Reach would have enough sense to stay on topic. BTW about that 1 in 166 number, I found it on a news article that was in the New York Times posted at the Neurologist place. They don't show their articles publicly but I did get a search that returned it: http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2006 If you're too much of a dumbass to see which result to click on, the first one.
__________________
Squirrels are evil. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Resident Penguin
|
I misremembered your post and thought the 1/166 number referred to asperger's, not autism.
I didn't come across any source (albeit in a brief search) that had a solid grasp on the epidemiology of asperger's. Last edited by talisman; 08-31-2006 at 10:01 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 | |
|
DADALADAH
|
Quote:
I never said that the cortex was the cause of introversion and extroversion. I said that it was reported that introverts have a higher level of activity as opposed to extroverts. And I'll say it again, because apparently you didn't get it the first time "The human cerebral cortex is 2-4 mm (0.08-0.16 inches) and plays a central role in many complex brain functions including memory, attention, perceptual awareness, "thinking", language and consciousness." Memory. Attention. Perceptual Awareness. THINKING. What about it do you not understand? People with Aspergers have extremely high levels in each of those. Explain to me how it doesn't make sense for a connection to be made between introversion and aspergers. @Talisman: you make some very good points, i'll respond to your post tomorrow or something when i have the time to think about it
__________________
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 | |
|
DADALADAH
|
Quote:
__________________
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
|
Reach:
So, are you saying that the human race is then becoming more than 1 species, and that we have evidence that intelligence is the deciding factor here? Obviously, the entire human race isn't becoming as such. Are you saying that this is happening because intelligent people are having babies with other intelligent people? You have yet to give me any evidence that this is happening. You only say that its largely accepted. Sorry buddy, I'm too skeptical and critical to concede to the oh-so-obvious truths of the masses when I don't see evidence to support it. IQ is definitely not a measure of how well someone works in society. Who was talking about IQ anyways? I was talking about intelligence, and so were you earlier. Where'd you get that only 20-30% of intelligence is caused by the environment? Perhaps in one definition of the word intelligence, you can separate it into environment vs. genetics, however the two obviously interact. Are you referring to measures of heritability, and the infamous twin studies published in the 50's where it was found to be 0.71, where researchers were strongly suspected to have fudged their results because no original data was found? Nowadays, the heritability of IQ, not intelligence mind you, is measured to be closer to 50%. But that doesn't tell me that intelligence is 50% genes. The environment of anyone in north america (and even the world) is so similar that we're looking into only a very small window of what intelligence actually CAN be. For instance, the very method of testing automatically rejects anyone who can't read. Take the most intelligent person in the world you know. Now, go back in time and lock them up in a room for the first 20 years of their life with as little human contact as possible. Now tell me that they've lost only 30% of their IQ or intelligence for that matter. You're the person who strongly implied in the first place that psychology has something to with evolving brains. Show me where the biological fact of evolving brains came from. Use big words, I can handle it. Wait, are you going to link me a picture of fMRI, of an 'average' brain of yore versus today? How about pictures of autopsied brains? Maybe I'm being stupid here, but I have absolutely no idea how someone would go about showing that the brain is evolving within humans. But lets pretend its actually been shown that there is clearly more tissue development, or something like that, in brains from the past 5 years versus human brains as far back as even, geez...what IS meant by rapidly? Regardless, what tells you that it is the genes in humans which have caused the differences in brains? It's ENTIRELY possible that the differences in the state of brain development would solely be because of the state of the environment of now versus then, and no new genes have been turned off, on, mutated, added or taken away. Go back to my example of being raised in a closet. Evolution, in the strict sense of the word, involves genes. You're right, natural selection doesn't stop because there're social constructs made. But those constructs are now a part of the way the world works too. The thing about humans is that we have an amazing capacity to learn, adapt and teach what we have learned to others. No other species' behaviour is so controlled and altered by the environment. We have very few behavioural reflexes, and this itself is 'novel' to the process of natural selection. I don't think that humans, as our genes are right now, have reached the apex of how 'intelligent' we can become. Someone said earlier that aspergers has grown exponentially in the past few years, and that this is evidence that our brains ARE evolving. Now I don't know the stats about this at all, but I would think that the numbers of people DIAGNOSED with aspergers has increased. This doesn't mean incidence of the actual phenomena has increased though, just that more people are aware of it. It obviously isn't going to be counted that you have aspergers before the classification even existed. And as the knowledge of the existence of this classification spreads, so too will our diagnosis of it. Since this is a fairly new term, I'm very strongly inclined to think that we're still seeing rising numbers of aspergers not because its actually increasing, but because we're still not diagnosing everyone who actually has it. Computer science doesn't rely on quantum mechanics. And you have no need to put the 'advanced' in front of mathematics. Computer programming uses logic. |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
|
Alex:
I was saying the sentence about drooling didn't make sense about introversion/extroversion. The cerebral cortex plays roles in, well, what you've already said, and more besides. As per what Gerbi essentially re-iterated, people diagnosed with Aspergers don't necessarily show increased levels in all of awareness, thinking, language, and conciousness. Also, again as I said before, more activity in the cerebral cortex would include more activity in the area associated with social functioning, which is at odds with Aspergers people having poor social skills. Personally, I'm still dubious as to what wikipedia said Eysenck found, that introversion/extroversion is correlated to cortical activity, but that's because it just doesn't fit into my own knowledge base of neurology. Gerbi: I'm sorry I came off sounding like I was saying that you only thought you didn't have it because you had it and that that was a side-effect of the disease, or something like that. I didn't mean it in that way at all. I meant it because you say that you don't feel the negativity of people making fun of you, and obviously don't feel the pressure to conform to others opinions, so you will much easier be able to adopt a differing view from what the world thinks. That's what I undestood from your original post at least. Not thinking that aspgergers is a problem is contrary to popular opinion. That's all I meant. I merely used the schizophrenic example because I've heard about schizophrenics say that what they have isn't a problem either, at least those people who can function in society. They liked that they had voices in their head whom they could talk to. It was an advantage, it was calming, it was something special. They weren't crazy, they just happened to hear voices, and they wouldn't trade it for the world. For these people though, I would imagine it would be harder for them to adopt this idea because it IS so contrary to popular opinion, and because they DO feel peer pressure. That's all I meant, that its probably easier for you to adopt your stance, as well as any other stance, easier than most people. To me, your point makes sense, just as the schizophrenics points made sense to me. I'd also be a little shocked if you still thought that I'm not thinking about this. There is no set line that everyone will agree on about what a mental illness is. By and large though, and for better or for worse, it seems that the cut-off line is if you can fit into society. Of course, we can all fit into society if society accepts everyone. And no, please don't get the impression that I'm being condescending towards you right now, like I'm trying to appease you while inside, I think you've got serious problems but I should accept you anyways. I don't think that. I do, however, feel a little sorry for you because of your lack of understanding sex. :-p I know that the rest of what I said was off topic to your original post. So shoot me. It's allowed. |
|
|
|
|
|
#38 | |
|
DADALADAH
|
Cavernio: if you read what Gerbi said:
Quote:
__________________
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#39 | |
|
Old-School Player
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
FFR Player
|
I'm a little lazy and as soon as you started I felt a bit of a connection as I have tourette's and a bit of aspberger's. Sorry if this isn't a post worthy of the critical thinking section just had to say it out first. I'll finish reading now.
__________________
Everything ever said or written has a little truth to it no matter what anyone says. PM me about my sig and try to give me a contradicting sentence. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|