I had no idea, maybe l suspected as much.....

[Aspychata]

Andy Warhol​

As famous for his eccentricity as he is for painting cans of soup, Andy Warhol was never diagnosed with autism in his lifetime.


However, like Mozart, Einstein and several others, many leading experts agree that the famous pop artist displayed many of the characteristics and behaviours synonymous with an autism diagnosis.

Known for being socially inept and often struggling to recognise his friends, Warhol would also use very few words in speech and was also adamant about routine and uniformity in his life.

Most experts suggest that Warhol had Asperger’s, though of course, this never stopped him becoming one of the most iconic artists of his age.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

fisher was too bright for his own good thought his opinions were the only ones that mattered. When I was a lot younger saw him as a idiot, who caused his own challenges. Either way chess is a game not life.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Andy Warhol was famous at the time for being famous.

 

[Aspychata]

https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-historical-figures-who-may-have-been-autistic/katherine-ripley

 

[Aspychata]

A lot of Andy's art was repetition, like those soup cans, which l quite like.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

A lot of Andy's art was repetition, like those soup cans, which l quite like.

He also put his name on other's work to give them credibility.

 

[Boogs]

discussion about measures of personal success will eventually turn into a flame war /lol.

Yes, but will it be a successful flame war?

 

[All-Rounder]

Miss Montana.. reminds me of my beauty contest wins and people praising me for acting skills and whole class going like "wow" when I thought they were bluffing and making fun of me

 

[Hypnalis]

Yes, but will it be a successful flame war?

/lol.

Though there's an answer to that.
(An aside: Have you ever read Iain M. Banks' "The Algebraist"?)

Everyone who actively chooses to engage in a flame war is successful by definition. The most heavily engaged on both/all sides get what they want, even if it was started as an act of sabotage or revenge.

From that perspective, the war is indeed successful ("unsuccessful" would be a failure to ignite).

There are actual losers of course: if a forest burns down, the owners, the foresters, the hikers, and the wildlife aren't happy.

And the people who claim they were drawn into it against their will?
Whiners? Collateral damage? Lacking agency to the degree that other people must direct their lives? Innocent bystanders (if you believe an adult can have that status online)?
Such questions are why society as a whole needs philosophers, but shouldn't let them run things

 

[Mary Terry]

Andy Warhol was famous at the time for being famous.

Yep. The proverbial 15 minutes of fame, a statement attributed to him.

 

[Boogs]

(An aside: Have you ever read Iain M. Banks' "The Algebraist"?)

Long time fan, read Excession back in the 90's, great stuff! I wish my mind was a Mind!

Everyone who actively chooses to engage in a flame war is successful by definition. The most heavily engaged on both/all sides get what they want, even if it was started as an act of sabotage or revenge.

Hmmm, not so sure myself, or at least not in all cases. There's also the emergent group behaviours, the social juggling for dominance (by being acclaimed as 'right' by the majority of other group dominants).

And how to define 'actively'? One poster may feel compelled to mouth off at another because they believe (rightly or wrongly) they've been grievously diss'ed in some way, usually engendering a feeling of vulnerability requiring an aggressive response to try and avoid losing face and thus position within the group.

Uh oh! Just realised, I could be well on the way to starting a flame war here!

Such questions are why society as a whole needs philosophers, but shouldn't let them run things

But of course! It needs the philosophers to come to the understanding they mustn't be allowed to run things!
The big question is, who should be allowed to run things? And who decides that?

 

[Roisin]

W.B. Yeats eh, he never struck me as Autistic, though it might be fun to revisit his story with this in mind.

 

[Hypnalis]

@Boogs

"The Algebraist" uses a MacGuffin to drive the story, in the form of a supposed obfuscated list of the locations of a huge number of endpoints for instant transport via "wormholes". They have to be located where there is very low gravity.

At the end of the book it turns out that there is such a transport network, using that technology, but that it solves the low gravity requirement in an unexpected way.

But there's a description of the "unexpected" (for the reader) solution at the start of chapter two of the book, packaged in such a way that most readers will miss it.

I always think of it when there's a simple solution to what seems like a complicated question. In this case, yours, about "successful" flame wars Every flame war is successful for someone.

Flame Wars entertain some people:
A. The "Dark Triad", many of whom enjoy the ensuing chaos, "sow the wind" on purpose, and enjoy feeding the flames with "accelerants".
B. People with intemperant, inflexible views start them with the unjustified confidence that they have the only correct opinion on the topic, and all others are heretics who should be fed to the flames. Or if they start some other way, these people are drawn to discussion on those topics like moths to a lamp - they participate because they must.
C. Anyone who just enjoys the game can manipulate the other groups, and might do so for their own amusement, without the destructive goals of the dark triad.

I could probably make the list longer, but that covers a majority of cases.

The point is that flame wars are not usually random. They form due to the actions of people who want, or don't mind, the possible ignition, and they burn because they and others choose to feed the flames.

A and B start them over nothing. (C) could start them, but (generally) don't.

It follows that the answer to "can the be a successful flame war" is a simple one. Yes - they are all successful.
But the full answer isn't so simple, because few, if any, are successful for every participant and/or involved party.

A & B will keep going forever. Serious mental issues (A) and the need to impose "correct thought" on others (B) provide infinite energy for engagement.
Of course there will be collateral damage, but neither A nor B care about that, no matter how serious it is.

"Some people just like to watch the world burn"

 

[thejuice]

Going into 'Discount Buddha' and bare faced hypocrisy mode:

I'd say success is savouring being present and aware in the moment as just a continual chain of 'nows'. That's where we thrive.

As opposed to letting it all slide by with indifferent detachment, whatever your priorities be, whether it be skewed towards work or rest.

 

[thejuice]

In my family the need to impose correct thought describes brother and inflexible views describes father. Cue explosive argument. Great insight as always. @Hypnalis

 

[thejuice]

Hmmm, not so sure myself, or at least not in all cases. There's also the emergent group behaviours, the social juggling for dominance (by being acclaimed as 'right' by the majority of other group dominants).

And how to define 'actively'? One poster may feel compelled to mouth off at another because they believe (rightly or wrongly) they've been grievously diss'ed in some way, usually engendering a feeling of vulnerability requiring an aggressive response to try and avoid losing face and thus position within the group.
that?

How familiar!! Don't defy or upset self important forum members or you may get a scolding!

 

[stevens]

That's how I obtained success my special skill, combined with my natural intelligence and education.

I found I could be successful this way. But I also found a few other things. One of them was that I always needed a "patron." Like a patron in the arts, even though I was in the tech world. My coworkers always tried to undermine me, probably because they thought this would help them get rid of me. But when I had a patron, often in management and even when I didn't actually work for them, there was a degree of protection from being undermined. We all know someone who is brilliant at something, but whom everyone "hates." I won't claim to be brilliant, but I was pretty good at what I did when I was working full time. Without people in positions of power who kept the detractors at bay, I would have been run out, just like in high school.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

When I started their was five lab techs working shifts I worked days did special projects, when I retired I was the only lab tech. And after retirement no lab tech was required I had fixed every issue, put quality systems in place. fixed the ink formulas. Being an Aspie my special skill supported by my specialized education made me unstoppable. some of the other lab techs had undergraduate degrees in chemistry, my engineering. quality, knowledge in manufacturing coatings made it so they could not compete. I was competitive enough not to allow getting screwed around by silly games. My biggest issue was keeping the managers at bay As I knew exactly what I was doing. I had a plan from day one took 21 years to play out.

 

[Boogs]

@Boogs

"The Algebraist" uses a MacGuffin to drive the story, in the form of a supposed obfuscated list of the locations of a huge number of endpoints for instant transport via "wormholes". They have to be located where there is very low gravity.

At the end of the book it turns out that there is such a transport network, using that technology, but that it solves the low gravity requirement in an unexpected way.

But there's a description of the "unexpected" (for the reader) solution at the start of chapter two of the book, packaged in such a way that most readers will miss it.

I always think of it when there's a simple solution to what seems like a complicated question. In this case, yours, about "successful" flame wars Every flame war is successful for someone.

Flame Wars entertain some people:
A. The "Dark Triad", many of whom enjoy the ensuing chaos, "sow the wind" on purpose, and enjoy feeding the flames with "accelerants".
B. People with intemperant, inflexible views start them with the unjustified confidence that they have the only correct opinion on the topic, and all others are heretics who should be fed to the flames. Or if they start some other way, these people are drawn to discussion on those topics like moths to a lamp - they participate because they must.
C. Anyone who just enjoys the game can manipulate the other groups, and might do so for their own amusement, without the destructive goals of the dark triad.

I could probably make the list longer, but that covers a majority of cases.

The point is that flame wars are not usually random. They form due to the actions of people who want, or don't mind, the possible ignition, and they burn because they and others choose to feed the flames.

A and B start them over nothing. (C) could start them, but (generally) don't.

It follows that the answer to "can the be a successful flame war" is a simple one. Yes - they are all successful.
But the full answer isn't so simple, because few, if any, are successful for every participant and/or involved party.

A & B will keep going forever. Serious mental issues (A) and the need to impose "correct thought" on others (B) provide infinite energy for engagement.
Of course there will be collateral damage, but neither A nor B care about that, no matter how serious it is.

Yes, I actually recall those details (unusually for me!). To be honest it's Bank's sheer inventiveness (to my perception anyway) of cultures involved and ideas of how they work, even if anthropomorphised, that are entertaining, though a lot of wish fulfilment going on, but that's ok, a nice light hearted read! Nothing like the more questioning and thoughtful inventiveness on the nature of reality that someone like PK Dick would write about, but great fun and easy reading!

The term 'flame wars' means more to me from the early social media days before it was commercialised.
The old newsnet times, firing up the nntp reader, browsing through the billion alt.whatever.the.hell.and.so.on groups. Running uudecode to build an microscopic gif broken up over a dozen messages, etc. (Luddites unite and fumble! Who needs http? ).
And the virulent arguments, often over the technology itself and the nerd subculture that supported much of it, were the first flame wars I encountered (knowingly at least). Watching temperatures and bloods pressures rising over whether eating an egg big end first or little end first is better! (big endian vs. little endian - for the nerds here) was most entertaining though not a little intimidating for a little lurker like myself back then. But at least it was arguments about something definitive rather than base opinions garnered from another without the reasoning (if any) they came from.

A. There will always be arsonists of one type or another. But then is not every culture in existence built on another that was previously burnt to the ground? Maybe these are really the seeds of creation as much of destruction, as we are seeded from supernova's? (or other forces powerful enough to fuse small atoms into large atoms).

B. Without the flock, there's nothing for the arsonist to burn down or the creationist it to build with. Type C can be so easily successful because type B are so easily manipulated once typical human responses are understood, and type A manipulated simply by disagreeing with them. B's are the engine that provides the power.

C. The most messed up group of all. They can only destroy, any creation is incidental or accidental. But what separates A from C? What is the motivation of A that defines their difference from C when both appear to engage on destruction for the sake of it? The main difference with C is they have awareness of what they do regarding disrupting the A's, while A is target focussed and and the destruction is a side effect.

Collateral damage is inherent with any destruction or creation. Change will bring advantages and disadvantages but only from the perspective of one outlook - it's entirely subjective.

Personally I see it more as an emergent behaviour of humans as they need to expend less effort and time in personal and group survival against other species and the environment, to finding that other humans are the now the 'other species' from whom we must exploit to survive or be beaten by. Hence our combative nature against each other.
Our last 'enemy' is other people. It's group behaviour to agree with others in the group, create and maintain a group identity by doing so, direct the group towards extremism to do this, and ultimately strive for a hierarchical position within that group by exploiting those elements. Factionalisation across the groups leads to a development of a defined dogma to rationalise the groups identity and difference from the other groups (as perceived by it's members) but due to dogma being created to fit the current state, it lacks a stable platform and is open to in-fighting over it's definitions, purpose and meaning. The development of that internal dogma is guided by the internal divisions created by power plays among sub-groups. The 'winners' dogmas or variation of dogma will become the established mode.

In the end, it's just evolution doing it's thing, and us anthropomorphising it from our subjective view points.

"Some people just like to watch the world burn"

I think this too represents evolved behaviour. To take the stance that if one cannot have that which others have, then better to destroy that thing and deprive all from using it, which put's all groups on a more even footing.
It benefits those with nothing, vs. those with more, and gives the 'have-nots' a better chance to survive. On that basis, "watching the world burn" maybe just the perception of the 'haves' as it takes from them, yet for the 'have-nots' they gain in relative terms, and relative terms are the ones that matter.

 

[Hypnalis]

A partial answer, from the middle of your post:

* A's like chaos. They create it for it own sake. They're the ones who like to watch the world burn (real world or a forum - they don't distinguish).
* B's create chaos, but then complain about everyone else they drew into it. They're "right", so they take no responsibility for any side-effects of the way they share the "truth".
* C's are neutral. If they create pointless chaos for fun they're A's, not C's. C's won't burn the real world. But they'll go after A's and B's sometimes.

The "Dark Triad" really do like chaos. Most people greatly underestimate the proportion of all RL social problems, large and small, that they cause. And their numbers (as a proportion of the total population) are growing.