Lots and lots and lots of autistic folk

[Jonn]

I'd take that further to say I suspect many an attributed inventor has actually been the person who was best at lauding themselves as the inventor, not the originator of the idea.
A trait (taking credit) that would seem to be far superior in NT's on average?

I tend to agree.

My opinion:
Those on the spectrum, overall, have an increased likelihood to be honest, fair-minded, and less prone to social status-seeking.

 

[jsilver256]

I am a firm believer that the incidence of autism has not changed, it is society that changed.

I see 2 family members in my father's generation who could have been autistic.

I see 2-3 family members in my own generation, myself included.

I see 2-3 potential autistics in my children's generation.

Seems pretty consistent. Albeit, as the famous saying goes - the plural of anecdote is not data.

 

[thejuice]

Emotion management is not our strong point, particularly in real life situations.
In a forum context, irrational outbursts "should" he heavily mitigated, I would think.

Yup. You would think the delay between trigger, contemplation, typing and posting would create some space for inhibition to kick in. That would be weighed against the repressed, impotent rage of the terminally online and the complete lack of repurcussion for any flaming and mobbing, especially in a corrupt forum with weak rule. Snark on the internet is the online equivilent of lobbing a rotten egg at someone out of a moving car. Its not big nor impressive or unique in any way. I mean in their head they are bold and brave.

 

[Stuttermabolur]

I am a firm believer that the incidence of autism has not changed, it is society that changed.

I see 2 family members in my father's generation who could have been autistic.

I see 2-3 family members in my own generation, myself included.

I see 2-3 potential autistics in my children's generation.

Seems pretty consistent. Albeit, as the famous saying goes - the plural of anecdote is not data.

I wouldn't discount an actual rise in autism out of hand, but I tend to agree, in that I think the vast majority of the current increase in autism diagnosis is due to better and more universal education on the subject. Especially with how many diagnoses nowadays are older people (as seen on the forum).

 

[Mr. Stevens]

It seems the concern over more people being Autistic comes from some non-Autistics having difficulty with the Autistic people they know; strict ideas of what a human should be; and narrow ideas of what constitutes Autism. The use of the words disorder and syndrome in relation to us doesn't help. I don't personally find the concern relatable.

 

[Boogs]

I tend to agree.

My opinion:
Those on the spectrum, overall, have an increased likelihood to be honest, fair-minded, and less prone to social status-seeking.

Quite!
But I don't see it as necessarily something born of negativity in itself. In fact, from my own personal view, it's a skill I lack rather than one that other's employ against me. I'm unable to rely on many of the instinctive and intuitive processes most other NT people seem to be able to employ without conscious awareness of doing so; I'm forced to have to process input in a far more cumbersome and slow fashion, piecing the words together to try and find the underlying meaning, but this process forces me to consider as many possibilities as I'm able to think of and then work out which were the most likely possibilities. In doing so I have to treat all these options to pretty much the same considerations, so I pick up on options that more skilled communicators wouldn't think of, because they never needed to.

How that relates to other ND's is hard to say, but I'd not be surprised if each have their own barriers to intuitive subconscious communication that force them to have to put conscious thought into understanding the message(s) that are being received, which can overcome the unconscious biases that enable people to cheerfully make such irrational decisions sometimes.
But looking at it from an NT p.o.v. it could be seen as wholly functional to be less honest and fair, where the focus of function is on social acceptance and positioning. From an evolutionary perspective it's these instincts and intuitions that have been the source of our 'success' as a species up until fairly recently (where intellect started to replace genetics as the primary evolutionary driver).

 

[Boogs]

Yup. You would think the delay between trigger, contemplation, typing and posting would create some space for inhibition to kick in. That would be weighed against the repressed, impotent rage of the terminally online and the complete lack of repurcussion for any flaming and mobbing, especially in a corrupt forum with weak rule. Snark on the internet is the online equivilent of lobbing a rotten egg at someone out of a moving car. Its not big nor impressive or unique in any way. I mean in their head they are bold and brave.

But what also may be a significant factor is that most popular social media platforms are tuned to exacerbate contention, outrage, anger, hate, all the emotions most likely to keep a 'normal' person online and clicking for as many minutes of the day as possible. The last thing these behaviour modifiers do is promote the idea of slowing down and reading with care, and putting thought into replies, they are designed to promote rash and extreme responses.

There seems to me to be a grey area between what an individual can do to others through social media, and what social media does to an individual, and of course these will feed off of and into each other. There are some nasty positive feedback loops set up in most of the worst of social media, thanks to the underlying motives of those who use, own and profit from these types of social media.

 

[thejuice]

But what also may be a significant factor is that most popular social media platforms are tuned to exacerbate contention, outrage, anger, hate, all the emotions most likely to keep a 'normal' person online and clicking for as many minutes of the day as possible. The last thing these behaviour modifiers do is promote the idea of slowing down and reading with care, and putting thought into replies, they are designed to promote rash and extreme responses.

There seems to me to be a grey area between what an individual can do to others through social media, and what social media does to an individual, and of course these will feed off of and into each other. There are some nasty positive feedback loops set up in most of the worst of social media, thanks to the underlying motives of those who use, own and profit from these types of social media.

I remember reading that negativity increases engagement and angry posts tend to be shorter. The conspiracy theorist angle: that is the reason why Twitter messages are capped at 240 letters.

However probably the worst forums I've ever come across are web 1.0. You know the ones that treat harassing someone to death as a mild hobby. (Perhaps they would have gone fishing pre internet?) It's probably because it's more of a wild west and they're hosted in Timbuktoo.

The boundary crossing, manipulating, corpo ghouls have some regulations. Problem is these social media giants have economies the size of small countries, and are often more powerful than those trying to hold them to account.

 

[Au Naturel]

Another factor to consider is that we are finding a lot of females who are autistic. Within my lifetime, there was a time when it was thought that females could not be autistic. It was thought an exclusively male disorder. Some of that bias remains, particularly in Europe.

 

[Neri]

Emotion management is not our strong point, particularly in real life situations.
In a forum context, irrational outbursts "should" he heavily mitigated, I would think.

This.

 

[Au Naturel]

Quite!
But I don't see it as necessarily something born of negativity in itself. In fact, from my own personal view, it's a skill I lack rather than one that other's employ against me. I'm unable to rely on many of the instinctive and intuitive processes most other NT people seem to be able to employ without conscious awareness of doing so; I'm forced to have to process input in a far more cumbersome and slow fashion, piecing the words together to try and find the underlying meaning, but this process forces me to consider as many possibilities as I'm able to think of and then work out which were the most likely possibilities. In doing so I have to treat all these options to pretty much the same considerations, so I pick up on options that more skilled communicators wouldn't think of, because they never needed to.

How that relates to other ND's is hard to say, but I'd not be surprised if each have their own barriers to intuitive subconscious communication that force them to have to put conscious thought into understanding the message(s) that are being received, which can overcome the unconscious biases that enable people to cheerfully make such irrational decisions sometimes.
But looking at it from an NT p.o.v. it could be seen as wholly functional to be less honest and fair, where the focus of function is on social acceptance and positioning. From an evolutionary perspective it's these instincts and intuitions that have been the source of our 'success' as a species up until fairly recently (where intellect started to replace genetics as the primary evolutionary driver).

There can be an element of self-congratulation here. People need to see themselves as good and that what they have is preferable to what the other guy has. One must beware of the temptation to pat oneself on the back and imagine that one's superiority is why one is having problems being accepted..

That's a kind of sour grapes response. It is easy to devalue what one cannot get. Since I can't have them, those grapes are probably sour.
The Fox and The Grapes - Fables of Aesop

 

[Neri]

Another factor to consider is that we are finding a lot of females who are autistic. Within my lifetime, there was a time when it was thought that females could not be autistic. It was thought an exclusively male disorder. Some of that bias remains, particularly in Europe.

Us females often present in "subtler" ways. We are odd, sure, and quite often quiet and working really hard to be "under the radar". It works against us, perhaps, as much as it works for us.
The other factor with "passing" as "not autistic" would be higher IQ (than average) I have a son who is a good "passer", he is incredibly bright and well rounded in his knowledge bases and skill sets, and has psychology as a special interest, and although he is extremely Autie , he comes across so polite, articulate and interesting, due to his intellectual prowess and social skills, acquired through intense study (and having an autie mum like me, with intensely worked-at emotional&social intelligence and skill sets), he masks so well, it is problematic for him, and an asset, at the same time.

 

[Jonn]

But I don't see it as necessarily something born of negativity in itself. In fact, from my own personal view, it's a skill I lack rather than one that other's employ against me. I'm unable to rely on many of the instinctive and intuitive processes most other NT people seem to be able to employ without conscious awareness of doing so; I'm forced to have to process input in a far more cumbersome and slow fashion, piecing the words together to try and find the underlying meaning, but this process forces me to consider as many possibilities as I'm able to think of and then work out which were the most likely possibilities.

In other words, the usual for many of us.

But looking at it from an NT p.o.v. it could be seen as wholly functional to be less honest and fair, where the focus of function is on social acceptance and positioning.

Yes,
NT and autistic priorities are often very different.

 

[Jonn]

But what also may be a significant factor is that most popular social media platforms are tuned to exacerbate contention, outrage, anger, hate, all the emotions most likely to keep a 'normal' person online and clicking for as many minutes of the day as possible. The last thing these behaviour modifiers do is promote the idea of slowing down and reading with care, and putting thought into replies, they are designed to promote rash and extreme responses.

Well, that doesn't work with me.

 

[Boogs]

One must beware of the temptation to pat oneself on the back and imagine that one's superiority is why one is having problems being accepted.

I wasn't, I was highlighting their superiority, and the fact my inferiority gives me a different insight.

It is easy to devalue what one cannot get.

Oh, I wasn't devaluing it, quite the opposite, it must be rather nice to be able to do that.

For every advantage one has, it makes for a disadvantage too. A different view may not be better, or worse, other than from a particular perspective, but that doesn't invalidate it either.

 

[Boogs]

Well, that doesn't work with me.

"...contention, outrage, anger, hate, all the emotions most likely to keep a 'normal' person online and clicking"

 

[Judge]

"...contention, outrage, anger, hate, all the emotions most likely to keep a 'normal' person online and clicking"

Particularly cable news as well, and how they don't really pander to any one single audience share, but rather both those who love their programming, and those who hate it. That's a big audience, regardless of neurological considerations.

-A very deliberate process of exploiting one's baser instincts..

With smirking shareholders mumbling, "We've got them coming and going".

 

[Boogs]

-A very deliberate process of exploiting one's baser instincts..

I gave up watching TV about 30-odd years ago, for those (and other) reasons!
But also I just dislike being told what I should know about. Much rather read the news and decide which bits I want to look at for myself. Not to mention I find much harder to process real time speech anyway.

 

[All-Rounder]

Us females often present in "subtler" ways. We are odd, sure, and quite often quiet and working really hard to be "under the radar". It works against us, perhaps, as much as it works for us.

And we are terrible judges of character.

 

[Neri]

And we are terrible judges of character.

Yep.