Recently I stumbled across an old thread started by a self-confessed psychopath who asked to understand Autistic minds better.
I have questions for Aspies.
He suggested that he liked Autistic people but that he found them hard to read and therefore difficult to manipulate. This made him uncomfortable because he was used to being able to control everyone else which had afforded him wealth and social status. It was received with mixed feelings, some were quite disturbed by it, others approached it with a more open mind and shared information.
It put me in mind of a particular variety of social experiment involving social media communities that I read about some time ago and have seen mentioned on Twitter recently too.
The experimenter creates two completely different profiles on a platform discussing a particular topic. Let's say for example it's a forum discussing ecological issues.
Profile A claims to be a great supporter of their ideals. They are a fount of knowledge and want to share it with others. They share their belief in climate change, their determination to eliminate plastic from the oceans, support for alternative energy and more. They essentially are the most enthusiastic sounding proponent of the subject the community is focused on.
Profile B claims to be a former ecologist and a scientist. They used to believe in all the same ideas the community members do, but they have been disillusioned by science and the extremely blinkered nature of the typical community members. They claim that they know a truth they don't wish to see and they have been made unpopular because of it, but they have the proof. Shun them if you wish, but then you'll never know.
Profile C is a control. This personality is set up prior to the experiment by a few weeks to ascertain the structure and tone of the community so it can go with the flow, being neither exceptional nor controversial.
The experimenter places enough posts to make their claims for both primary fictional personalities to look credible then retreats and posts no more, certainly not offering any of the evidence or information either profile has professed to be willing to share. They then wait and see what the responses are.
Originally the point of the experiment was to see how the communities reacted between the two extremes and compared to the control. Was there more reaction to the positive profile A or to the antagonistic profile B? How much emotional content was there in the responses? How willing were people to share personal information in such posts? Did people become suspicious of their motives?
It can also have slightly more sinister overtones. By conducting the exercise aggressively, data can be gathered about individuals and the group as a whole. It can be used as a recruitment tool to rally the disaffected to a cause, or manipulate those who are committed to the existing cause into doubting their conviction. To some it may be seen as entertainment - a variety of trolling - winding up the members being seen as a kind of sport, even using profile c to comment on the other two and further stir the pot. It can even be a challenge to some, scored on the number of responses they get for the least number of posts.
I have to wonder - given that we are such a diverse community, full of strong personalities many of whom are usually very pragmatic and sceptical, how would we react as individuals and as a whole, if such an experiment were to be conducted on us?
I have questions for Aspies.
He suggested that he liked Autistic people but that he found them hard to read and therefore difficult to manipulate. This made him uncomfortable because he was used to being able to control everyone else which had afforded him wealth and social status. It was received with mixed feelings, some were quite disturbed by it, others approached it with a more open mind and shared information.
It put me in mind of a particular variety of social experiment involving social media communities that I read about some time ago and have seen mentioned on Twitter recently too.
The experimenter creates two completely different profiles on a platform discussing a particular topic. Let's say for example it's a forum discussing ecological issues.
Profile A claims to be a great supporter of their ideals. They are a fount of knowledge and want to share it with others. They share their belief in climate change, their determination to eliminate plastic from the oceans, support for alternative energy and more. They essentially are the most enthusiastic sounding proponent of the subject the community is focused on.
Profile B claims to be a former ecologist and a scientist. They used to believe in all the same ideas the community members do, but they have been disillusioned by science and the extremely blinkered nature of the typical community members. They claim that they know a truth they don't wish to see and they have been made unpopular because of it, but they have the proof. Shun them if you wish, but then you'll never know.
Profile C is a control. This personality is set up prior to the experiment by a few weeks to ascertain the structure and tone of the community so it can go with the flow, being neither exceptional nor controversial.
The experimenter places enough posts to make their claims for both primary fictional personalities to look credible then retreats and posts no more, certainly not offering any of the evidence or information either profile has professed to be willing to share. They then wait and see what the responses are.
Originally the point of the experiment was to see how the communities reacted between the two extremes and compared to the control. Was there more reaction to the positive profile A or to the antagonistic profile B? How much emotional content was there in the responses? How willing were people to share personal information in such posts? Did people become suspicious of their motives?
It can also have slightly more sinister overtones. By conducting the exercise aggressively, data can be gathered about individuals and the group as a whole. It can be used as a recruitment tool to rally the disaffected to a cause, or manipulate those who are committed to the existing cause into doubting their conviction. To some it may be seen as entertainment - a variety of trolling - winding up the members being seen as a kind of sport, even using profile c to comment on the other two and further stir the pot. It can even be a challenge to some, scored on the number of responses they get for the least number of posts.
I have to wonder - given that we are such a diverse community, full of strong personalities many of whom are usually very pragmatic and sceptical, how would we react as individuals and as a whole, if such an experiment were to be conducted on us?
Last edited:
But he knows I think he is a sociopath, while he has been diagnosed as bipolar. I'm sure that's the diagnosis he acted out - he is NOT bipolar. I lived with him. I watched him do what he does, and that's probably why he doesn't get upset when I diagnose him as sociopath. He doesn't know how NOT to lie - even our kids know they can't take what he says seriously. I don't know why I've always still been drawn to him - wait - sociopaths tend to do that with their magnetic personalities. And he does. People who hate what he has done can not dislike him.
Pax Autistica intact 
