I'm trying not to post my thoughts on Facebook or YouTube so much

[Misty Avich]

i thought autistics, were less violent generally than general population, such a down to read theres a lot of autistic violent people.

Well it surprised me too. I mean, we don't see people with Downs Syndrome murdering people in the news, do we?

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Correlation is not causation basically means one does not cause the other, statistic people like this.

 

[Misty Avich]

Correlation is not causation basically means one does not cause the other, statistic people like this.

What's the "correlation" part though?

 

[Hypnalis]

i thought autistics, were less violent generally than general population, such a down to read there's a lot of autistic violent people.

You didn't read that in this thread. The "data" is "cherry picked". And FWIW

The real question isn't "Are some high-profile violent people diagnosed with ASD?
That's one way the Apex Fallacy is set up - it's quite unlikely to produce meaningful answers.

The correct approach is to compare ASD behaviors with everyone else, and see if there are differences.

So asking things like "What proportion of people diagnosed with ASD are violent vs the proportion of violent people in the population as a whole?" would be useful.
Even that's not enough. e.g. the issue could be non-ASD "comorbid" illnesses (which AFAIK are more common among ASDs than the general population) - you'd need to control for these too.

If anyone has access to real data I'd be interested to see it.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Basically are they related to each other like as tied together.

 

[Misty Avich]

Basically are they related to each other like as tied together.

Yeah, that's the bit that worries me.

 

[Misty Avich]

You didn't read that in this thread. The "data" is "cherry picked". And FWIW

The real question isn't "Are some high-profile violent people diagnosed with ASD?
That's one way the Apex Fallacy is set up - it's quite unlikely to produce meaningful answers.

The correct approach is to compare ASD behaviors with everyone else, and see if there are differences.

So asking things like "What proportion of people diagnosed with ASD are violent vs the proportion of violent people in the population as a whole?" would be useful.
Even that's not enough. e.g. the issue could be non-ASD "comorbid" illnesses (which AFAIK are more common among ASDs than the general population) - you'd need to control for these too.

If anyone has access to real data I'd be interested to see it.

I've approached this through an emotional sense rather than a logical sense. I just freak out whenever the next killer in the news is outed as autistic.
When I first heard about the killing in Southport, UK, last summer, I thought to myself "please don't be another autistic one." Then, voila! The next headlines were revealed that the evil monster had autism. So it's quite distressing for someone like me (and others) who have always hated their diagnosis to see so many really evil people being outed as autistic within the last 10+ years of reported mass murders.

Also it's the terrifying pattern I noticed that was true for all the killers I've mentioned here, that they were young men with an obsession with knives and killing, their browsing history being full of brutal murder searches and downloads, and having anxiety and stress disorder along with their autism and a history of being bullied at school, and then finally leading to their evil sickening plans to murder innocent people.
I'd be less anxious about this if these attacks were made through impulse, like in the moment during violent meltdowns or something, but these killings were carefully planned out, so they knew exactly what they were doing and had no remorse in court.
It's just evil, psychopath stuff that I can't even begin to comprehend. Yet they're autistic. We share a spectrum with these evil psychopaths. I can't bear it. What does that say about us to the general population? It's very distressing for us. When will a lone mass murderer just be allistic?

 

[Hypnalis]

@Misty Avich

You should read this, which is a more general case of the logical error you've fallen prey to.
Cherry picking - Wikipedia
(**)

BTW people here might be a bit less likely to use faulty logic than NT's, but it's not uncommon. I usually just ignore it, but not necessarily when it's being used to demonize ASDs.

I get that the technique (select/exaggerate/embellish/weaponize) is routine these days - almost everyone is exposed to it, and many people learn and use the words without realizing that it's counterfactual, disguised by faulty logic.

It's potentially very harmful though. In this case it seems to be affecting you,

Here's an example:
Someone selects a member of a group they want to demonize. That individual has done something quite bad (any groups with, say, 1000+ members will have a suitable target). They exaggerate a bit, embellish the message with inflammatory words and fear-mongering, then:
1. Claim the single person's behavior was representative of the group as a whole.
2. Tell their audience that all members of the group are a clear and present danger to others (society as a whole, or some subset of if that their immediate audience resonate with)

Finding one or two exceptional "bad examples" and presenting them as representative of the whole is the "cherry picking". (**)

Yet they're autistic. We share a spectrum with these evil psychopaths.

You probably share genetics with (almost) bad person ever. So if you really embraced the principle of guilt by association, you'd have a lot of atoning to do. But that's a faulty principle.

A more practical approach is to regulate your own behavior, and check the statistics before being concerned about possible intrinsic negative characteristics.

(**) AFAIK the most general version is this one:
Fallacy of composition - Wikipedia

Understanding that and its inverse:
(Fallacy of division - Wikipedia)

.. is enough to recognize and avoid perhaps 50% of the nonsense/illogic on the internet.

 

[Misty Avich]

This thread has entirely gone off-topic. I know I agreed earlier that it was okay by me as the thread creator, but I think now we've made our point about autism and murderers, we ought to get back on-topic again, while things are still civil lol.

 

[NB79]

I deleted my comments of youtube some time ago. I don't want problems, sometimes i think i believe people are nice generally, but something reminds me there is lots of bad and evil people in the internet.

 

[Roisin]

Recently I've become more aware of the similarity in myself between anxiety and OCD, its the attachment to thoughts that I've been working on, I came across this animated video on a helpful channel.

 

[Outsider]

I have had a nightmare in the past on Facebook with trolls, gas-lighters, stalkers and other unsavoury characters. It is part of the reason why I left.

I consider it to be a toxic platform.

I would love having those unsavory characters posting on my Facebook feed, it is far better than seeing no one responding to my antivaccination posts. I'm used to negative attention, actually I thrive on it.
I'm not being combative, I just want to get my message across. I consider my posts as the beginning salvo in my war against Big Pharma. I'm tough as nails, and I'm not going to delete any negative comment.

 

[Misty Avich]

This is the thing, I've never actually been combative online but others have and then I'm the one who gets the blame for some reason (if it's on forums).

I think of a really good contribution to a public Facebook post but think twice now because I really don't want another rude comment thrown at me. I mean, the nerve of some people. Yes I know I'm stupidly sensitive but I just don't do well with personal attacks when I don't provoke them. I'm quite outgoing and extroverted online so the need to post is overwhelming.

My therapist actually shook her head when I told her I go on online forums. She said that's the worst thing one can do when they have anxiety. I told her that most of the time people aren't deliberately trying to upset or scare me, but she said internet forums aren't the best coping strategy these days.
But, like smoking, it's an addiction that is hard to just quit. If I had to pay for each post I made anywhere on the internet then I'd probably be able to control my addiction more, but because it's free and unlimited, it's soooo hard to quit.

 

[thejuice]

My therapist actually shook her head when I told her I go on online forums. She said that's the worst thing one can do when they have anxiety. I told her that most of the time people aren't deliberately trying to upset or scare me, but she said internet forums aren't the best coping strategy these days.

Thats interesting, are you able to expand on that a bit please? I agree with the therapist's premise. People are a lot nicer in real life, there is less discord (pardon pun!). I think everyone is lonely, over stimulated and spikey online. It can give you a really warped view of humanity if you dont get out much.

But, like smoking, it's an addiction that is hard to just quit. If I had to pay for each post I made anywhere on the internet then I'd probably be able to control my addiction more, but because it's free and unlimited, it's soooo hard to quit.

Thats a good point. Whats more you'd get rid of 90% of deranged online trolls by introducing a subscription model to social media. Youd get rid of 99.9% with identity verification, but that obviously has a lot of implications that I havent really thought about in any detail.

 

[Misty Avich]

Thats interesting, are you able to expand on that a bit please? I agree with the therapist's premise. People are a lot nicer in real life, there is less discord (pardon pun!). I think everyone is lonely, over stimulated and spikey online. It can give you a really warped view of humanity if you dont get out much.

Online posting is obviously a godsend to folk like us who want to be heard and have somewhere to express ourselves about things we might not be comfortable expressing with people offline. Conversations offline work differently. Online you can just throw in your two cents whenever, wherever.
Unfortunately online posting is also a godsend for people who like being jerks, which isn't right. Although I've been called every name under the sun online for having conservative opinions, I've very seldom been a jerk/bully/troll about it. Maybe once or twice I have posted something that may have felt like a good idea at the time but then regretted. We've all done that. But what I do know is I haven't ever gone around personally attacking people online for no reason.

A true saying is "attack the idea, not the person". Saying "I don't agree with this because" is not the same as saying "all people of a certain demographic are all idiots and should be wiped off the face of the planet". But these days, on the internet, saying the former is treated as a murder crime if it doesn't align with what certain people want to hear. I won't elaborate further as it will become political.

Thats a good point. Whats more you'd get rid of 90% of deranged online trolls by introducing a subscription model to social media. Youd get rid of 99.9% with identity verification, but that obviously has a lot of implications that I havent really thought about in any detail.

It would probably help, even if it was cheap (like 5p a post or something). It would stop kids from posting their trollish crap too, as a lot of trolls are kids with no respect or intelligence (atrocious spelling, ignorant, etc).
And also someone always ends up getting offended by one sentence from a post by taking it too personally (even though I'm not talking about them), so I'll add a disclaimer to avoid this:
By saying "no intelligence" it doesn't mean all kids online lack intelligence. By using "atrocious spelling" as an example it doesn't mean all people who struggle with spelling are unintelligent or whatever.

There, that should cover my ass. I know that I did not intend to offend anyone but someone will still come along and call me bad names because they're offended, so I find I have to keep adding disclaimers to my posts now. I shouldn't have to though.

 

[Misty Avich]

A very interesting and true quote I saw today.

If you cannot help them, at least don't hurt them. This profound statement embodies a fundamental principle of human compassion and empathy.

In our interactions with others, we may not always be able to offer assistance or support. But what we can always control is our own behavior and the impact it has on those around us.

By choosing not to hurt someone, we create a safe space for them to navigate their challenges without added suffering. This simple act of restraint can be a powerful gesture of kindness and respect.

In a world where hurt and harm are often inflicted thoughtlessly, this principle stands as a beacon of hope and humanity. It reminds us that our words, actions, and choices have real consequences and that we must consider the impact on others.

Let us strive to create a culture where we lift each other up, rather than tear each other down. Where we prioritize empathy, understanding, and compassion. And where we recognize that even in our inability to help, we can still choose not to hurt.

May this principle guide us in our interactions, big and small, and may we create a ripple effect of kindness and compassion that touches hearts and lives everywhere.

Author unknown

 

[thejuice]

I could imagine some of your tormentors actually writing that themselves. Their real point is to hurt, or at least try to show whose top dog, usually. But the bark is worse than the bite.

 

[NB79]

A very interesting and true quote I saw today.

I always say you can be of a bad humor maybe you don't want to help anyone, but at least don't hurt anyone in any way. For people it seems sometimes just that is hard to do. This is why the world sucks so much, it would be paradise if only people didn't hurt others. Which seems easy to do, is not asking to do something is asking to not do anything.