I do know that asked about it and since I asked I should wait for answer to that. I thought about it and elsewhere the balance of having to do the cognitive work gets lobsided so for the interest of getting things done sharing on what brain cycles already have been sacrificed for pushes thins easier forward.
Hypothesis A: You think that I am seeing things that are not there and therefore semi-randomly opening random facts. “See nothing under the jacket, nothing up the sleeves”. I am annoyed as my specific worry doesn’t get addressed as I have trouble expressing/pinpointing it.
Making long-reaching speculations on info that is available: Why the bar was expressed as smashing 10-year old and autistic together isn’t an abstract conceptual one but it is abstracted from many particular students. Getting an autism diagnosis can get tricky and while autism doesn’t have a onset or offset, identifiability or diagnoasability varies. So a 10 year-old that is know to be an autist at the time they are 10-year-old is likely to be obviously and strikingly autistic and is likely to be high support needs. (For the reference one can think of taking all the 25 or 80 year olds with diagnosis (or whatever boundary one wants to use for “actually being”) and ask were they were and what they were doing when they were 10). Working for a long time with such people might make the challenges very concrete. This leads to this being a very stark image and memory.
So when communicating that stark image can seem very simple and likely the word delineates a very delicate pattern. But not everybody is a support provider, or particularly knows about neurotypes. Would LW be an environment that would be expected to have autism conccepts generally known?
I know that a communication option I am about to use is not near anywhere near the one used. One way of expressing a very demanding accessibility requirement would be to say “So that every goddamn retard gets it”. To not be needlessly hostile we can drop a pure intensifier cursy words and we can replace a technical synonym to get “So that everyone even with a learning disability gets it”. (There is some cross agitation in my brain going on with italics and being at a punchline place favouring message intention to be intense). We can think that learning disability people are valuable and respectable and all. And that is the condition you get labeled with if you are clinically stupid.
If nothing we wanted to communicate was a demanding standard for the understandability the previous paragraph would be towards that direction. So either there is additional aspects or there is incorrect borrowing of meaning. There is the possibility that the information is social in nature and the bar is meant to be set especially on the social front. Examples of things of pure legibility would be phrases like “in no uncertain terms”,”black on white in big letters”. However there is the shadow side if we mean “struggling in life”, “struggling in social circles” to mean “less socially able” the way “less wrong” is supposed to point to being correct. (So does that make Less Wrong a peer-support group for people that are incorrect?)
So when I am reading the article seeing that there is otherization in very near proximity to use autism circle concepts (pseudo-autistic special interest). I have a memory that this happened and things like that occasionally happening. I also at the time feel like the issue at hand doesn’t have to do with autism per se but comes as a off-topic dangling at a punchline time that feels it could be an intensifier. Those are things that others than me could also see.
This guessing game would provide that a very specific memory was being referenced. That memory reference is not very legible to the audience. It is being presented to an audience that sometimes gets harassed for being overtly pedantic.
I do think part of this phenomena might be that the hyperfocus makes the bearability of the social situations different. That is sensory and social overload in a situation which one percieves to be important and so rackets up attention could be especially draining. Like those that with special interest with Star Trek might find it too bothersome to discuss things with fans that can’t even quote every episode verbatim, there could be a conception and argument that is LW the forum for people with intense interest in rationality to deepen and endulge in that special interest. Then there could be a worrying current of neurotype discrimination where “you can’t try hard enough to become sufficiently interested. As neurotypicals you are not wired to have these conversations so you need not apply”. I personally think this doesn’t sound promising for LW. I do think that such an arrangement can pull some things off that more inclusive arrangements could not. And I think the frustration with “screwy people” might have a shade of “reverse ablism”, disablism? (and I am playing with fire here canvasing out emotional possiblities). Edit: thinks of the “brokenly disorganised” to be exhibiting a pathological neurotype and thinking that the autistic neurotype is healthy, so is just an instance of ablism,
I do know that asked about it and since I asked I should wait for answer to that. I thought about it and elsewhere the balance of having to do the cognitive work gets lobsided so for the interest of getting things done sharing on what brain cycles already have been sacrificed for pushes thins easier forward.
Hypothesis A: You think that I am seeing things that are not there and therefore semi-randomly opening random facts. “See nothing under the jacket, nothing up the sleeves”. I am annoyed as my specific worry doesn’t get addressed as I have trouble expressing/pinpointing it.
Making long-reaching speculations on info that is available: Why the bar was expressed as smashing 10-year old and autistic together isn’t an abstract conceptual one but it is abstracted from many particular students. Getting an autism diagnosis can get tricky and while autism doesn’t have a onset or offset, identifiability or diagnoasability varies. So a 10 year-old that is know to be an autist at the time they are 10-year-old is likely to be obviously and strikingly autistic and is likely to be high support needs. (For the reference one can think of taking all the 25 or 80 year olds with diagnosis (or whatever boundary one wants to use for “actually being”) and ask were they were and what they were doing when they were 10). Working for a long time with such people might make the challenges very concrete. This leads to this being a very stark image and memory.
So when communicating that stark image can seem very simple and likely the word delineates a very delicate pattern. But not everybody is a support provider, or particularly knows about neurotypes. Would LW be an environment that would be expected to have autism conccepts generally known?
I know that a communication option I am about to use is not near anywhere near the one used. One way of expressing a very demanding accessibility requirement would be to say “So that every goddamn retard gets it”. To not be needlessly hostile we can drop a pure intensifier cursy words and we can replace a technical synonym to get “So that everyone even with a learning disability gets it”. (There is some cross agitation in my brain going on with italics and being at a punchline place favouring message intention to be intense). We can think that learning disability people are valuable and respectable and all. And that is the condition you get labeled with if you are clinically stupid.
If nothing we wanted to communicate was a demanding standard for the understandability the previous paragraph would be towards that direction. So either there is additional aspects or there is incorrect borrowing of meaning. There is the possibility that the information is social in nature and the bar is meant to be set especially on the social front. Examples of things of pure legibility would be phrases like “in no uncertain terms”,”black on white in big letters”. However there is the shadow side if we mean “struggling in life”, “struggling in social circles” to mean “less socially able” the way “less wrong” is supposed to point to being correct. (So does that make Less Wrong a peer-support group for people that are incorrect?)
So when I am reading the article seeing that there is otherization in very near proximity to use autism circle concepts (pseudo-autistic special interest). I have a memory that this happened and things like that occasionally happening. I also at the time feel like the issue at hand doesn’t have to do with autism per se but comes as a off-topic dangling at a punchline time that feels it could be an intensifier. Those are things that others than me could also see.
This guessing game would provide that a very specific memory was being referenced. That memory reference is not very legible to the audience. It is being presented to an audience that sometimes gets harassed for being overtly pedantic.
I do think part of this phenomena might be that the hyperfocus makes the bearability of the social situations different. That is sensory and social overload in a situation which one percieves to be important and so rackets up attention could be especially draining. Like those that with special interest with Star Trek might find it too bothersome to discuss things with fans that can’t even quote every episode verbatim, there could be a conception and argument that is LW the forum for people with intense interest in rationality to deepen and endulge in that special interest. Then there could be a worrying current of neurotype discrimination where “you can’t try hard enough to become sufficiently interested. As neurotypicals you are not wired to have these conversations so you need not apply”. I personally think this doesn’t sound promising for LW. I do think that such an arrangement can pull some things off that more inclusive arrangements could not. And I think the frustration with “screwy people”
might have a shade of “reverse ablism”, disablism?(and I am playing with fire here canvasing out emotional possiblities).Edit: thinks of the “brokenly disorganised” to be exhibiting a pathological neurotype and thinking that the autistic neurotype is healthy, so is just an instance of ablism,