I feel like you’re missing me with “And for the reasons I don’t care about your black friends when it comes to racism I don’t care about your autistic friends when dealing with harmful impact and enforcement of neurotypical values.”
I think you perceived me mentioning my autistic students and partner, and my autistic character, as an attempt to persuade you of something? In particular, it seems like you read me as saying “this impact can’t be harmful, because my intentions are good” or “this impact can’t be harmful, because these people would have noticed.”
Which is not what I was attempting to convey. Obviously those things are orthogonal to questions of harmful impact and enforcement of neurotypical values.
I do note, though, that just because someone has declared something to have a certain harmful impact, or just because someone has claimed that something is tantamount to enforcement of neurotypical values, doesn’t mean it is. People are highly trustworthy when speaking to their own direct experiences but not particularly trustworthy when extrapolating out to “therefore, this impacts the population thusly.”
You’re raising valid hypotheses, and as I noted above, the very existence of your reaction is evidence that something could be improved.
But I still don’t buy that the [harmful impact] (to the extent that it exists) has its roots in my actions versus having its roots in other people’s preconceptions and projections. And I simply disagree that I’m enforcing neurotypical values, except I guess insofar as I’m validating that there is a difference between autists and non-autists (a fuzzy, population-level statistical one, not one that allows particularly accurate predictions on the level of individuals).
i.e. this raises my sense that I ought to change something, to see more of the impact I’d like to see in the world. It doesn’t nearly as much raise my sense that I have done something wrong, and need to change my attitudes or fundamental policies.
I’m open to arguments on that, though. And I reiterate appreciation for the thing you’re standing in defense of—it is good and worth defending.
As for things I’ll be changing immediately—I buy your argument that “pseudo” is not the right term to use, here, but I don’t yet have a replacement that avoids signaling greater confidence in my own being-on-the-spectrum nature than I actually have. There’s something in the vein of appropriation that I was trying to dodge by not claiming that my [thing] is in the set of autistic special interests.
So I guess at the moment I’ll have to use a longer sentence rather than a short phrase.
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 note that it also works in mirror that just because someone has declared that they are not doing something doesn’t mean that they are not doing the thing.
So if not “this impact can’t be harmful, because my intentions are good” or “this impact can’t be harmful, because these people would have noticed.” was meant, what was meant? Outside of the frowned upon telepathy I am at a loss for relevance. So I am asking rather than assuming.
You seem to be convinced that “pseudo” is not communicating what it is supposed to communicate and that dropping the link to autism is not worth the damage it does in establishing the point. And you seem to think that should you find yourself in a situation where you have an impulse to use the short phrase you should just bother to write a longer sentence.
I also note you are not reworking to existing article to use a longer sentence instead.
Trying to read the article and take it seriosly/literally it does raise a question do you realise how extreme/harsh line it is doing.
This was in the list of terrible ideas
Publish a set of absolute user guidelines (not suggestions) and enforce them without exception instead of enforcing them like speed limits. e.g. any violation from a new user, or any violation from an established user not retracted immediately upon pushback = automatic three-day ban. If there are Special Cool People™ who are above the law, be explicit about that fact in a way that could be made clear to an autistic ten-year-old.
It doesn’t say “retracted after discussion” or “retracted fast”. And it also doesn’t say “upon establishing it happened” or “after credible claim” or “on balance of evidence”. Now this is a terrible idea and I guess part of it is to not rely on “suggestion guidelines”. It says “immediately upon pushback”. At the beginnig of this comment-thread that as of this writing stands at −10 karma I linked to an instance where a hospitality norm was non-centrally violated in a oneline comment and it was addressed by spelling out an assumtion of unfamliarity with norms, that it is unwanted and why it is unwanted. That user edited out the most eggrecious of the unhospitality maybe on the balance that it was not needed to convey the message. One would think that ideally atleast that line would extend for those that write longer messages and which are more central to the core userbase.
I do realise that I am sounding like some bad mechanics over at the mindkilly side. Maybe I actually am, but my goal is not to control productions/writings authored by others. I see that somebody wants to attain a high standard and wants help even in the small details. I would think that ideally when people make mistakes they would actively go hunt out tips that they are in the wrong “say oops” and correct on the their own accord. Not because they anticipate a social backlash. Not because there is a threat of a ban. “But sometimes there’s a mountain there, and it’s kind of wild that you can’t see it.”. Do you want help in climbing this particular mountain?
And I simply disagree that I’m enforcing neurotypical values, except I guess insofar as I’m validating that there is a difference between autists and non-autists (a fuzzy, population-level statistical one, not one that allows particularly accurate predictions on the level of individuals).
Is this relevantly different from calling autists stupid? I think I want to tease out and explicate taken very literally “that there is a difference between autists and non-autists” could be value neutral and the kind of “social information vs general information” kind of that is going on here. But it feels like taking it in the sense that there is a single linear axis where the two groups don’t have the same median and other statistical properties would also be justified (from able to not able, from competent to non-competent). Does this kind of distinction fall out of the scope of
I (extremely) agree with you that doing so is and would be rude, bad, unwelcoming, and a violation of basic hospitality norms.
I ended up still wanting to dumb a scenario even if it is a bit mindready. I am doing a dirty trick of making a separate comment of tanking negative karma.
In the movie Idiocrazy, the protagonist at one point is faced with the challenge of fixing farming. The population is using energy drinks to water the crops. The protagonist thinks they would be better served by using water for irrigation.
-”you are killing the plants by poisoning them”
-”No but this has got electrolytes which is what plants crave” [points at massive billboard]
-”No, but if you would just try it...”
-”But we have always done it this way. Its common knowledge everybody knows that electrolytes are good for crops”
Being the head of agricultural sector in some sense makes that the most compent farmer around. But that is distinct from being right. I guess the current lingo fashion would be to say that instead of indirect arguments of reliablity talk about gear-level models on what is the impact exposing to water vs exposing to electrolytes. And in order to do this cleanly one needs to suppress the “knowledge” that electrolytes help plants.
Like working all your life around plants doesn’t guarantee good croppping working all your life with and towards autists doesn’t guarantee good attitude. The gear spinning doesn’t care where you have been lurking.
I feel like you’re missing me with “And for the reasons I don’t care about your black friends when it comes to racism I don’t care about your autistic friends when dealing with harmful impact and enforcement of neurotypical values.”
I think you perceived me mentioning my autistic students and partner, and my autistic character, as an attempt to persuade you of something? In particular, it seems like you read me as saying “this impact can’t be harmful, because my intentions are good” or “this impact can’t be harmful, because these people would have noticed.”
Which is not what I was attempting to convey. Obviously those things are orthogonal to questions of harmful impact and enforcement of neurotypical values.
I do note, though, that just because someone has declared something to have a certain harmful impact, or just because someone has claimed that something is tantamount to enforcement of neurotypical values, doesn’t mean it is. People are highly trustworthy when speaking to their own direct experiences but not particularly trustworthy when extrapolating out to “therefore, this impacts the population thusly.”
You’re raising valid hypotheses, and as I noted above, the very existence of your reaction is evidence that something could be improved.
But I still don’t buy that the [harmful impact] (to the extent that it exists) has its roots in my actions versus having its roots in other people’s preconceptions and projections. And I simply disagree that I’m enforcing neurotypical values, except I guess insofar as I’m validating that there is a difference between autists and non-autists (a fuzzy, population-level statistical one, not one that allows particularly accurate predictions on the level of individuals).
i.e. this raises my sense that I ought to change something, to see more of the impact I’d like to see in the world. It doesn’t nearly as much raise my sense that I have done something wrong, and need to change my attitudes or fundamental policies.
I’m open to arguments on that, though. And I reiterate appreciation for the thing you’re standing in defense of—it is good and worth defending.
As for things I’ll be changing immediately—I buy your argument that “pseudo” is not the right term to use, here, but I don’t yet have a replacement that avoids signaling greater confidence in my own being-on-the-spectrum nature than I actually have. There’s something in the vein of appropriation that I was trying to dodge by not claiming that my [thing] is in the set of autistic special interests.
So I guess at the moment I’ll have to use a longer sentence rather than a short phrase.
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 note that it also works in mirror that just because someone has declared that they are not doing something doesn’t mean that they are not doing the thing.
So if not “this impact can’t be harmful, because my intentions are good” or “this impact can’t be harmful, because these people would have noticed.” was meant, what was meant? Outside of the frowned upon telepathy I am at a loss for relevance. So I am asking rather than assuming.
You seem to be convinced that “pseudo” is not communicating what it is supposed to communicate and that dropping the link to autism is not worth the damage it does in establishing the point. And you seem to think that should you find yourself in a situation where you have an impulse to use the short phrase you should just bother to write a longer sentence.
I also note you are not reworking to existing article to use a longer sentence instead.
Trying to read the article and take it seriosly/literally it does raise a question do you realise how extreme/harsh line it is doing.
This was in the list of terrible ideas
It doesn’t say “retracted after discussion” or “retracted fast”. And it also doesn’t say “upon establishing it happened” or “after credible claim” or “on balance of evidence”. Now this is a terrible idea and I guess part of it is to not rely on “suggestion guidelines”. It says “immediately upon pushback”. At the beginnig of this comment-thread that as of this writing stands at −10 karma I linked to an instance where a hospitality norm was non-centrally violated in a oneline comment and it was addressed by spelling out an assumtion of unfamliarity with norms, that it is unwanted and why it is unwanted. That user edited out the most eggrecious of the unhospitality maybe on the balance that it was not needed to convey the message. One would think that ideally atleast that line would extend for those that write longer messages and which are more central to the core userbase.
I do realise that I am sounding like some bad mechanics over at the mindkilly side. Maybe I actually am, but my goal is not to control productions/writings authored by others. I see that somebody wants to attain a high standard and wants help even in the small details. I would think that ideally when people make mistakes they would actively go hunt out tips that they are in the wrong “say oops” and correct on the their own accord. Not because they anticipate a social backlash. Not because there is a threat of a ban. “But sometimes there’s a mountain there, and it’s kind of wild that you can’t see it.”. Do you want help in climbing this particular mountain?
Is this relevantly different from calling autists stupid? I think I want to tease out and explicate taken very literally “that there is a difference between autists and non-autists” could be value neutral and the kind of “social information vs general information” kind of that is going on here. But it feels like taking it in the sense that there is a single linear axis where the two groups don’t have the same median and other statistical properties would also be justified (from able to not able, from competent to non-competent). Does this kind of distinction fall out of the scope of
I ended up still wanting to dumb a scenario even if it is a bit mindready. I am doing a dirty trick of making a separate comment of tanking negative karma.
In the movie Idiocrazy, the protagonist at one point is faced with the challenge of fixing farming. The population is using energy drinks to water the crops. The protagonist thinks they would be better served by using water for irrigation.
-”you are killing the plants by poisoning them”
-”No but this has got electrolytes which is what plants crave” [points at massive billboard]
-”No, but if you would just try it...”
-”But we have always done it this way. Its common knowledge everybody knows that electrolytes are good for crops”
Being the head of agricultural sector in some sense makes that the most compent farmer around. But that is distinct from being right. I guess the current lingo fashion would be to say that instead of indirect arguments of reliablity talk about gear-level models on what is the impact exposing to water vs exposing to electrolytes. And in order to do this cleanly one needs to suppress the “knowledge” that electrolytes help plants.
Like working all your life around plants doesn’t guarantee good croppping working all your life with and towards autists doesn’t guarantee good attitude. The gear spinning doesn’t care where you have been lurking.