Social experiments.

[Bedlamite]

@Pats - I had to look it up myself. Pax Autistica - Autistica refers to autism (I think) and Pax is defined as "a small flat tablet adorned with a sacred image that worshipers kiss when offered the kiss of peace." Now I'm "culturally" confused. I don't know what to kiss - his ring, his big toe? I'm just glad he isn't French!

 

[Autistamatic]

Bonjour mon ami. Parlez vous Autistic?

 

[Pats]

Bonjour mon ami. Parlez vous Autistic?

Hey I know that. lol

 

[Autistamatic]

It's about all I know too, and I did 3 years of French in school!

 

[sidd851]

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?

Here's the question that bakes my noodle...
How would we know, if it occurred?

I try not to be too forthcoming, informationally, anyway, if I am not certain of someone's intent.
I will, however, react with defense of my beliefs, if necessary.
Up to and including the withholding of information, if I feel... something's not right.

 

[George Newman]

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?

This topic is very interesting to me. It seems to follow the “good-cop/bad-cop” approach(sorta).

I think this approach could be actioned in a forum the size of Autismforums.com and most certainly could be scaled-up to something the size of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

This approach probably does occur to get customers (money) or votes (money). I don’t see it because I’m only on Autismforums.com and I don’t see anyone working hard to get the autism vote here.

I would say that I feel pretty comfortable that I know how autismforums.com participants would react.

One small group that would be “triggered” and would automatically comment. This group might strongly agree or disagree.

Another smaller group would advocate for a middle ground and another much larger group would read the post but wouldn’t participate at all.

I believe that the last group is the target group. The subset of this last group which could go one way or the other on the topic would be who the initiator of the post would want to try to understand and manage.

I went back and read the 2017 post that initiated the Autistamatic post here and found it to be quite without compare and disturbing. I would suggest that the thread should have been shut down much earlier(constrictive criticism).

We must be very pragmatic in our social media management. What an amazing tool for good. Manipulation of the platform(s) can and will happen.

Great post! These really get the brain working deeply.

 

[Pats]

It's about all I know too, and I did 3 years of French in school!

I tried to self teach myself French. I posted noted on objects around the house, like sucre on the sugar jar. I'm limited to remembering less than a dozen words and I think we've just hit on them all. lol

 

[Mia]

I believe that the last group is the target group. The subset of this last group which could go one way or the other on the topic would be who the initiator of the post would want to try to understand and manage.

Interesting. As I would be in that subset. Yet I wouldn't give enough information for that to happen. In fact I might attempt to convolute the entire response with misinformation.

 

[Autistamatic]

You've got the nail on the head @George Newman as to why I started this topic. These techniques and others have been used to study and latterly manipulate social groups. Being majority autistic in this community, I'm curious how vulnerable we think we could be. We're different from the majority, but are we more or less vulnerable as a result?

 

[Fino]

First, that sociopath thread is hilarious and amazing!!!! He started out with so much control and confidence in his control then ended with a page and half of only answering our questions and then having the thread closed LOL

Second, this experiment you describe happened here!!!! Did you orchestrate it??

One guy came in saying that Autism is great and we're not disabled, any questions?

Another came in and said we're ants on a griddle, which may or may not be an insult.

And at least one person was C!



Maybe Autistimatic is a psychopath!

Maybe he's the same psychopath from the thread that HE linked!!!

Omg!!!!

*faints twice*

 

[sidd851]

I'm going to go with...
Yes, we are vulnerable.

I've said it before, some of those "help me understand my aspie bf/gf" threads creep me out.
There are very few that I will respond to, and only if I believe the sincerity and goodnaturedness of the asker.
Where there is any doubt, I refrain from comments.
I also ran into the thread from 2017 a while ago--- I was straight creeped out.
Just that someone initiates contact means that they are setting out to achieve some goal.

Recently, I was surprised to see just such a questionable occurrance.
Now, I've pretty much looked into it and I'm pretty much satisfied that I was just being super vigilant.

I guess I don't think we're as vulnerable as maybe I think we are.

I can think of easily 20 individuals here that I believe are similarly hyper-vigilant.
We notice everything.
Maybe not all of us, maybe not every time, but, I think, enough of us, would notice something amiss.
Maybe we are the Borg!

I've had this ability to smell when something is wrong for most of my life.
I can't say whether that is a result of intuiting, or from the rapid shuffling and interchanging of the possible scenarios, and the ability to recognize those that concentrate power and/or control, or if it is both.
Most likely both, I think.
The frequency of my acting on that information, however, is quite another story.

Of course, I would also tend to think that there are enough empaths here that we'd sniff out anyone that was less than genuine.

Am I being overly optimistic here?

 

[All-Rounder]

1. One of the traits of autism I read about is being gullible, it may be connected to the way an autist can comprehend others intentions.

2. My hfa boyfriend is so used to being himself he will never feel like he owes anyone to do something unless he wants to.

3. One of the main reasons for my interest in autism is the thing my ex proved which was defeating my biggest fear for society and future, ever since I am pretty confident the only people able to follow up a plan of defense against highly skilled psychopaths who can even fool prison guards specifically trained for it are aspies. She used to say she is like the mongoose to the snake, she could see through deceit clearly by many steps ahead, and no surprise she was very good at chess also. She had a detective interest among other things and taught me a few things as well.

 

[sidd851]

First, that sociopath thread is hilarious and amazing!!!! He started out with so much control and confidence in his control then ended with a page and half of only answering our questions and then having the thread closed LOL

Second, this experiment you describe happened here!!!! Did you orchestrate it??

One guy came in saying that Autism is great and we're not disabled, any questions?

Another came in and said we're ants on a griddle.

And at least one person was C!



Maybe Autistimatic is a psychopath!

Maybe he's the same psychopath from the thread that HE linked!!!

Omg!!!!

*faints twice*

OMG!

You saw exactly what I did!

Game, Set, Match.

Hyper-vigilance--1
Random occurance--0


Yeah, you know what?
They ain't gettin' over on us Aspies.

 

[Mia]

Fact is they would have to get through tree first, on this forum. And she intuits and understands many things more quickly than most people. There have been a few threads that were similar that were shut down or deleted.

That particular thread, was interesting to some and I considered jousting with the professed psychopath/sociopath/narcissist. Some Aspies understand a great deal about these mental illnesses, having been erroneously linked with them over the years. So the research is done to comprehend any similarities. Often, intent is the sole arbiter in a question and it's not readily known without some responses.

 

[Fino]

OMG!

You saw exactly what I did!

Game, Set, Match.

Hyper-vigilance--1
Random occurance--0


Yeah, you know what?
They ain't gettin' over on us Aspies.

And I forgot to mention how he stopped answering particular questions for various reasons! Flustered! He probably likes Autistic people even less now. Maybe he even has a phobia now!

 

[George Newman]

You've got the nail on the head @George Newman as to why I started this topic. These techniques and others have been used to study and latterly manipulate social groups. Being majority autistic in this community, I'm curious how vulnerable we think we could be. We're different from the majority, but are we more or less vulnerable as a result?

It’s my opinion and it may not be very popular but to answer your question, we are just as vulnerable as our neurotypical brothers and sisters to a degree.

I think we may be more vulnerable in thought than we are vulnerable in action.

Thought must precede action.

As a subtext to this, I believe that 10% of our community is not vulnerable at all. 50% are somewhat vulnerable and 40% are quite vulnerable.

This is my gut speaking here and I bet it matches pretty closely to the NT community.

Please note that the percentages are mainly based on degree of life-experience.

I believe that when it comes down to action, Aspies are better decision makers based on the total of our traits, understanding that traits vary from person to person; tend to lean toward the pragmatic side of thought which should lead to better decision making.

Even after all this said, one could come up with a myriad of secondary variables that could shape ones likelihood to be more or less vulnerable. Not to mention the current culture or the revelevance of the topic.

It seems that most here in the thread feel Aspies are not as vulnerable.

Facinating, yes? What do you think?

 

[Judge]

It’s my opinion and it may not be very popular but to answer your question, we are just as vulnerable as our neurotypical brothers and sisters to a degree.

I would tend to agree. Particularly having seen any number of local and national news broadcasts about all the scams being successfully executed through the phone. Where even logical and educated people sometimes fall victim to such deceptions, regardless of neurological considerations.

That we're all potentially vulnerable to exploitation on various levels and circumstances.

 

[George Newman]

@Autistamatic - I concur. Maybe, because of my background, I am more circumspect than others. I guess sharing information exemplifying "the extent" to which everyone is potentially surveilled is useless?

Bedlamite, Your points are valid granted it may be leading down a different trail than where the original poster was going.

I would be interested in a deeper dive into this topic. Maybe start a new string and let’s unfold the realities and see how it might impact those with autistic traits (the autism community).

What resources could we draw upon? What experiences do others own that relate to the topic?

I’m all in for dialogue.

 

[sidd851]

It’s my opinion and it may not be very popular but to answer your question, we are just as vulnerable as our neurotypical brothers and sisters to a degree.

I think we may be more vulnerable in thought than we are vulnerable in action.

Thought must precede action.

As a subtext to this, I believe that 10% of our community is not vulnerable at all. 50% are somewhat vulnerable and 40% are quite vulnerable.

This is my gut speaking here and I bet it matches pretty closely to the NT community.

Please note that the percentages are mainly based on degree of life-experience.

I believe that when it comes down to action, Aspies are better decision makers based on the total of our traits, understanding that traits vary from person to person; tend to lean toward the pragmatic side of thought which should lead to better decision making.

Even after all this said, one could come up with a myriad of secondary variables that could shape ones likelihood to be more or less vunerable. Not to mention the current culture or the revelevance of the topic.

It seems that most here in the thread feel Aspies are not as vulnerable.

Facinating, yes? What do you think?

I find that I am somewhat vulnerable, but not for lack of knowledge or foresight.

My vulnerability comes from not being unwilling to render aid based on the probability of deception.
IE: On the no matter how slim off-chance that the actuality isn't in line with (my) probability, I don't wish to take the chance of not rendering that aid where it may be genuinely needed.
Willingly deceived?
Too nice?

I still mull the phenomenon to this day.

 

[All-Rounder]

I find that I am somewhat vulnerable, but not for lack of knowledge or foresight.

My vulnerability comes from not being unwilling to render aid based on the probability of deception.
IE: On the no matter how slim off-chance that the actuality isn't in line with (my) probability, I don't wish to take the chance of not rendering that aid where it may be genuinely needed.
Willingly deceived?
Too nice?

I still mull the phenomenon to this day.

I can somewhat relate, it's more along the lines of: the proof is never enough for me to take serious action but I think I tend to deceive myself also and make up excuses for the wrongdoings of a person and tell myself that I am not perfect either. I want to forgive and I rather wait and not do something on not enough grounds but that's not been good for me.