Plutonia - Have been wanting to thank you...

[Plutonia]

what we lack is culture. one that for instance does not deem you weird if you choose not to watch television or entertain yourself 24-7, or whatever the current norm is.


*

Oh-oh-oh-oh!

We do! I was just now listening to Tyler Cowen talk about that very thing! It's just that it's so new we don't recognize it. It's hard to describe. It has to do with little bits, information flows, co-creation, streams of meaning, long intervals of interest, authenticity, contribution and interiorization.

Have a listen, see what you think: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/0 ... ultur.html

BTW, Cowen is probably "on the spectrum", as we say.

he may be. not sure. but on listening, first thought: Freakonomics. second thought: snakeoil. he sounds confused. they both do.

whatever his prediction is it's probably sugary.

sorry if i sound dismissive. but being able to break things into bits (what things and how) and putting them together however you see fit doesn't necessarily entail that what you come out with has use or sense. seems to me he has a pitch and massages whatever he likes around it.

is the moniker "behavioral economist" supposed to suggest that what TC's doing is empirical as opposed to the Keynesian rationalists? is that a good thing?

empiricists are no closer to "reality" than rational/idealists (reality is how they define it, makes theory generation so much easier, everyone can be original). they carry the same philosophical baggage. they just do different things with it.

*

Now I'm confused. Didn't you say that you are re-reading Create Your Own Economy? And isn't the last chapter The Future of the Universe, where he makes his audacious (and maybe sugary) prediction?

The crux of what I think he's saying about the internalization of culture, is that previous to now, us Westerners, we've mostly been involved in culture as (sometimes force-fed) consumers. Whether we go to a concert, on vacation, or shopping, the form of culture has been blocks of unrelated activities, one after the other. John Taylor Gatto says that TV and school are the same institution for this reason - one hour block, unrelated subject matter, next. The internet undoes this form because it supports continuous relatedness. It's our own interiority that selects for meaning from all the bits of vids, tweets, posts, pics, essays, news, tunes etc. It's paradoxical because it looks like a shorter attention span but it actually a long stream of interest. It's the opposite of mass culture and not reproducible as mass culture, because each string of bits is unique to the individual and probably only comprehensible to him/her.

He also seems to be saying that there is a kind of potential economy in organizing data that will become more important in the future. That data flows are a potential currency? Harder to grok that one.

As for the rest, not all was worth listening to, but there are some gems.

Also, he's a Libertarian I think and he does seem to have an unusual brain.

Here he is presenting quite lucidly at the Cato Institute (I know, I know) - fits neatly into these ideas about neoteny that I've been playing around with:

[vanlose kid]

no, sorry, i'm rereading Wittgenstein. never heard of Cowen before today.

sorry.

*

[hanshan]

...

Plutonia:

The crux of what I think he's saying about the internalization of culture, is that previous to now, us Westerners, we've mostly been involved in culture as (sometimes force-fed) consumers. Whether we go to a concert, on vacation, or shopping, the form of culture has been blocks of unrelated activities, one after the other. John Taylor Gatto says that TV and school are the same institution for this reason - one hour block, unrelated subject matter, next. The internet undoes this form because it supports continuous relatedness. It's our own interiority that selects for meaning from all the bits of vids, tweets, posts, pics, essays, news, tunes etc. It's paradoxical because it looks like a shorter attention span but it actually a long stream of interest. It's the opposite of mass culture and not reproducible as mass culture, because each string of bits is unique to the individual and probably only comprehensible to him/her.

He also seems to be saying that there is a kind of potential economy in organizing data that will become more important in the future. That data flows are a potential currency? Harder to grok that one.

tho not directed at me, had to note your astute observation (bolded).
to folks who don't have a tv mind, or, educated in an alternative manner,
this is obvious re: attention/ retention spans;
& what one is programmed for. i.e., if your channel isn't already primed
one doesn't even pick up the signal. Thus no need to filter signal/ noise ratio.
Energy conservation, etc. Mass culture (oxymoron) is the artificial creation of want.
I.e, manufactured & re-inforced (a la Skinner) infantilization.
Skinner box, as Chinese.

Data flows as potential currency. Yeah, for those that are looking to
monetize ever'little thing:... Mammon's slaves. Otherwise, just a cool breeze...

& tx ... & we do love Mate


...

[Plutonia]

...

Plutonia:

The crux of what I think he's saying about the internalization of culture, is that previous to now, us Westerners, we've mostly been involved in culture as (sometimes force-fed) consumers. Whether we go to a concert, on vacation, or shopping, the form of culture has been blocks of unrelated activities, one after the other. John Taylor Gatto says that TV and school are the same institution for this reason - one hour block, unrelated subject matter, next. The internet undoes this form because it supports continuous relatedness. It's our own interiority that selects for meaning from all the bits of vids, tweets, posts, pics, essays, news, tunes etc. It's paradoxical because it looks like a shorter attention span but it actually a long stream of interest. It's the opposite of mass culture and not reproducible as mass culture, because each string of bits is unique to the individual and probably only comprehensible to him/her.

He also seems to be saying that there is a kind of potential economy in organizing data that will become more important in the future. That data flows are a potential currency? Harder to grok that one.

tho not directed at me, had to note your astute observation (bolded).
to folks who don't have a tv mind, or, educated in an alternative manner,
this is obvious re: attention/ retention spans;
& what one is programmed for. i.e., if your channel isn't already primed
one doesn't even pick up the signal. Thus no need to filter signal/ noise ratio.
Energy conservation, etc. Mass culture (oxymoron) is the artificial creation of want.
I.e, manufactured & re-inforced (a la Skinner) infantilization.
Skinner box, as Chinese.

Data flows as potential currency. Yeah, for those that are looking to
monetize ever'little thing:... Mammon's slaves. Otherwise, just a cool breeze...

& tx ... & we do love Mate


...

Well, it was Cowen who pointed at it, but thanks hanshan.

The implications are stunning. If the medium is the message, then the meta message has been nothing is connected. So the paradigm shift is from seeing the world as dots of unrelated phenomenon/activities/information, though a process of connecting-the-dots, to there are no dots, everything is connected. And I don't think that people will give that up very easily.

And as for economy angle, there are ephemeral economies that exist outside of dollars, like social capitol for instance. So a good case study might be this place, RI, where a bunch of people have been organizing information for years just because of mutual interest - the result is that what were just data points are contextualized very efficiently and that's added value. There may be no monetary benefits, and it may be difficult to discern how valuable that added value is, but I'd say over all, it's highly valuable. The monetized equivalent would be the Think Tank.

Hmmm... the RI Think Tank ... ?

[Project Willow]

You might want to check out Donna Williams, Willow.

DIDiva thanks you for this introduction and she will spread the gift of Ms. Williams to her community. That interview was very powerful.

The autistic person may well try to cope with the intense and aversive world by avoidance. Thus, impaired social interactions and withdrawal may not be the result of a lack of compassion, incapability to put oneself into some else’s position or lack of emotionality, but quite to the contrary a result of an intensely if not painfully aversively perceived environment.”

<snark>
Any adequately observant and sane human would perceive the environment exactly the same way. People are violently selfish, conniving, manipulative, brutal, and just plain unsafe to be around. Avoidance is prudent. Those who embrace society with little hesitation, and/or sing its praises, are mad as hell, or just as evil as everyone else.</snark>

Your right, of course they aren't. The difference is our awareness of our "awareness" of ourselves.

That's not what I meant, but why quibble? I just think homo sapiens exceptionalism is a scourge on the biological sciences.

"The first thing to do is to emphasize our continuity with the animals." In fact, Churchland believes that primates and even some birds have a moral sense, as she defines it, because they, too, are social problem-solvers.

Exactly.

But, I think that the "survival of the fittest" evolutionary paradigm is being challenged in all sorts of ways right now and that multiple disciplines are competing to explain supposedly moral behaviors like reciprocity, sharing and a sense of fairness, that are being found in animal groups:

Well, that is astounding. I didn't see that the bat example was a challenge to the (as generally defined) paradigm.
Often new theories are presented as challenges when in actuality they are expansions of or additions to existing work that is inadequately integrated because it involves more than one discipline.

[vanlose kid]

...

The autistic person may well try to cope with the intense and aversive world by avoidance. Thus, impaired social interactions and withdrawal may not be the result of a lack of compassion, incapability to put oneself into some else’s position or lack of emotionality, but quite to the contrary a result of an intensely if not painfully aversively perceived environment.”

<snark>
Any adequately observant and sane human would perceive the environment exactly the same way. People are violently selfish, conniving, manipulative, brutal, and just plain unsafe to be around. Avoidance is prudent. Those who embrace society with little hesitation, and/or sing its praises, are mad as hell, or just as evil as everyone else.</snark>

...

yep. either that or self-medicating on "legal drugs", e.g. viewtopic.php?p=442271#p442271

*

[vanlose kid]

i'm having a french-canadian period, or is it week?



*

[Plutonia]

Hey! I like Quebecois too vk!

...

The autistic person may well try to cope with the intense and aversive world by avoidance. Thus, impaired social interactions and withdrawal may not be the result of a lack of compassion, incapability to put oneself into some else’s position or lack of emotionality, but quite to the contrary a result of an intensely if not painfully aversively perceived environment.”

<snark>
Any adequately observant and sane human would perceive the environment exactly the same way. People are violently , brutal, and just plain unsafe to be around. Avoidance is prudent. Those who embrace society with little hesitation, and/or sing its praises, are mad as hell, or just as evil as everyone else.</snark>

...

yep. either that or self-medicating on "legal drugs", e.g. http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... 71#p442271

*

Funny.

On the subject of empathy, trust and bonding ...

Oxytocin

Recent studies have begun to investigate oxytocin's role in various behaviors, including orgasm, social recognition, pair bonding, anxiety, and maternal behaviors.[1] For this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the "love hormone". The inability to secrete oxytocin and feel empathy is linked to sociopathy, psychopathy, narcissism and general manipulativeness.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin

So people are really excited about oxytocin (Patricia Churchland for one) and they are researching and saying things like "the hormone of love and cuddle chemical oxytocin" and "studies have already shown a correlation of oxytocin with human bonding, increases in trust, and decreases in fear" and "people with more oxytocin in their bloodstream appear to be more trusting, more empathic and more respectful than others" and "oxytocin, the molecule of connection (also known as the molecule of love)."

One guy even wrote a book about it calling it the "Moral Molecule". Apparently he's a neuroeconomist(?) and he did a TED talk that I dare you to watch without Ambien: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAdlU2ETjU

On second thought, no, don't watch it. Really. Don't. Gah!

So of course it's a race to see who can dose autists with it fastest. Gee, swell.

Thing is, it terms of social bonding, it worked. But with a surprising (and revealing) reversal.

This is Michelle Dawson's analysis (she's funny too):

Oxytocin versus autism: A cure for altruism

The widespread message arising from Andari et al. (in press) is that the hormone oxytocin "may be a powerful weapon in fighting autism" or words to that effect.

The heart of this study is a computer game version of catch which appears to involve four human players. When a player is thrown the ball, he must then throw it to another player of his choice. Every time a player receives the ball, he receives a bit of money.

In Andari et al. (in press), small groups of autistic and nonautistic adults ("P") individually play this game with three strangers ("A" "B" "C"). Much is done to persuade the autistic and nonautistic participants that the strangers, who in fact are elaborately programmed, are actual, present, proximate (in adjacent booths), decision-making human beings.

The three strangers start by equally distributing the ball to the other players. Then the elaborate program kicks in: A and C increasingly favour one player (P and B, respectively) while shunning the others. B's behaviour does not change.

In a prototypical display of us-vs-them thinking, the nonautistic Ps responded by ganging up with A to reap the social and monetary gains of a close alliance founded on the exclusion of half the players.

The autistic Ps in contrast displayed no such selfish and discriminatory behaviour. They continued to throw the ball to the other players in equal proportion, ignoring their self-interest in favour of keeping all players equally included.

Further, subjective ratings of the other players revealed that the autistic Ps did not have the kinds of biases that are routinely called hypocrisy. They did not judge C, who shared the most with B, as worse or less trustworthy than A, who shared the most with themselves.

According to Andari et al. (in press), autistics "cannot understand or engage in social situations," as evidenced by autistics' outstandingly altruistic performance in this game. It is this profound social deficit, this altruistic autistic behaviour, that was targeted for treatment.

And indeed, the treatment was successful. Autistics randomly administered a nasal mist containing oxytocin, rather than a saline placebo, significantly improved. They became willing to work with one of the players in an effort to shun and discriminate against the other two, and thereby get more than their fair share of money and attention. They became willing to see the player who shared with them as good and trustworthy, and the player who shared with someone else as bad and untrustworthy. They learned and displayed selfishness and hypocrisy and us-vs-them thinking. Their objectivity, fairness, and altruism were--temporarily--cured.

Then this finding was replicated in a second small group of autistic adults who performed the same task but without monetary rewards.

Success! Cue the avalanche of blogging and media stories. Uta Frith says, "This could be revolutionary."

There is more to Andari et al. (in press), which also reports on two tasks involving face images, about which a few quick notes:

[..]


Reference:

Andari, E., Duhamel, J., Zalla, T., Herbrecht, E., Leboyer, M., & Sirigu, A. (2010). Promoting social behavior with oxytocin in high-functioning autism spectrum disorders Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0910249107

Right. I always suspected - the world is upside down.


And yes, Willow, Donna Williams is indeed awesome. Unfortunately, when she got her DID diagnosis the anti-vax zealots crowed about her being a fake autist like they did to Amanda Baggs when a hired detective found out she had done LSD in college. *sad sigh*

[Plutonia]

More on the body as a transmitter/receiver:

Irish psychologists at NUI Galway and University College Dublin [2][3] have recently begun to measure body-centred countertransference in female trauma therapists using their recently developed 'Egan and Carr Body-Centred Countertransference Scale' (2005), a sixteen symptom measure.[4]

Their research was influenced by developments in the psychotherapy world which was beginning to see a therapist's role in a therapeutic dyad as reflexive; that a therapist uses their bodies and 'self' as a tuning fork to understand their client's internal experience and to use this attunement as another way of being empathic with a client's internal world.[5][6] Pearlman and Saakvitne's seminal book on vicarious traumatization and the effect of trauma work on therapists has also been an important directional model for all researchers studying the physical effects of trauma work on a therapist.[7]

High levels of body-centred countertransference have since been found in both Irish female trauma therapists and clinical psychologists.[8] This phenomenon is also known as 'somatic countertransference' or 'embodied countertransference' and it links to how mirror neurons might lead to 'unconscious automatic somatic countertransference' as a result of postural mirroring by the therapist.[9][10]

Loughran (2002) found that 38 therapists out of 40 who had responded to a questionnaire (which was distributed to a sample of 124 therapists) on a therapist's use of body as a medium for transference and countertransference communication reported that they had experienced bodily sensations (nausea or churning stomach, sleepiness, shakiness, heart palpitations, sexual excitement etc.) while in session with patients.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body-cent ... ansference

[slomo]

I realize that spectrum is not the same as introversion, but this seemed as good a thread as any to post this:

The Rise of the New Groupthink

SOLITUDE is out of fashion. Our companies, our schools and our culture are in thrall to an idea I call the New Groupthink, which holds that creativity and achievement come from an oddly gregarious place. Most of us now work in teams, in offices without walls, for managers who prize people skills above all. Lone geniuses are out. Collaboration is in.

But there’s a problem with this view. Research strongly suggests that people are more creative when they enjoy privacy and freedom from interruption. And the most spectacularly creative people in many fields are often introverted, according to studies by the psychologists Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Gregory Feist. They’re extroverted enough to exchange and advance ideas, but see themselves as independent and individualistic. They’re not joiners by nature.

One explanation for these findings is that introverts are comfortable working alone — and solitude is a catalyst to innovation. As the influential psychologist Hans Eysenck observed, introversion fosters creativity by “concentrating the mind on the tasks in hand, and preventing the dissipation of energy on social and sexual matters unrelated to work.” In other words, a person sitting quietly under a tree in the backyard, while everyone else is clinking glasses on the patio, is more likely to have an apple land on his head. (Newton was one of the world’s great introverts: William Wordsworth described him as “A mind for ever/ Voyaging through strange seas of Thought, alone.”)

more...

For the record, I consider myself a centrovert (neither introvert nor extrovert) and if I am on the spectrum at all, it would probably be a very mild manifestation of Aspberger's. I don't know that I'm neurotypical though. I don't really know what I am. I don't really care anymore.

[Plutonia]

Reflecting upon his scientific achievements, Albert Einstein once noted: "I sometimes ask myself . . . how did it come that I was the one to develop the theory of relativity? The reason, I think, is that a normal adult never stops to think about problems of space and time. These are things which he has thought of as a child. But my intellectual development was retarded, [italics mine] as a result of which I began to wonder about space and time only when I had already grown up." (quoted in Einstein: The LIfe and Times by Ronald Clark, p. 27). Einstein "intellectually retarded"? What he was referring to is neoteny (Latin for "holding youth"), a concept in developmental biology that refers to the retention of childlike characteristics into adulthood.

One of the best books on this subject is Ashley Montagu's Growing Young. In the first half of the book, Montagu describes biological neoteny; how, for example, two traits - the rounded forehead and chin of an infant ape - are "lost" as that ape grows into maturity (in the adult ape, the forehead recedes and the chin juts out sharply). In this case, there is no neoteny - these youthful characteristics are not retained into maturity. But with homo sapiens, the rounded forehead and chin of an infant child are retained into adulthood. The adult may have gray hair, wear eyeglasses, and develop jowels, but those two infantile traits of chin-ness and forehead-ness have been largely preserved. In this case, there is neoteny: these two youthful traits have been retained into maturity.

The great evolutionary thinker Stephen Jay Gould believed that human beings are just neoteous apes; in other words, the youthful characteristics of apes have, in the course of evolution, simply been held into adulthood in human beings. According to Gould, this is the most important determination of human evolution (see his book Ontology and Phylogeny). It was neoteny, for example, that slowed down the development of the human brain after birth so that it could continue to grow and develop in relationship to the specific environmental conditions around it.

This brain neoteny conferred an incredible capacity for adaptability onto humans, leading to increased chances for survival and the passing on of "neotenous genes." In the second half of Ashley Montagu's book, he talks specifically about psychological neoteny. He examines several psychological traits of children - playfulness, curiosity, humor, creativity, sensitivity, and wonder, among many others - and suggests that these are also traits that need to be retained into adulthood (I have also explored the importance of retaining these childlike traits into adulthood in my book Awakening Genius in the Classroom).

What happens, for example, if the flexibility of childhood is lost in adulthood? Then you have a situation where the world is full of inflexible adults. Consider that some of these inflexible adults have their fingers on nuclear buttons around the world and are involved in major global disputes. You can begin to appreciate how the presence or absence of the childlike trait of flexibility may make all the difference between our species continuing to survive, or alternatively, our species blowing itself up in a nuclear war and becoming extinct. Similarly, what happens when curiosity or creativity are lost as the child becomes an adult? Then we develop a culture that cannot continue to adapt to changing conditions.

Fortunately, our species seems to retain these psychological youthful traits in at least some of its members; mostly, it seems, in creative artists, inventors, musicians, entrepreneurs, and other innovators of society. Look, for example, at the boyish qualities and childlike enthusiasm of Bill Gates - there's a case of neoteny that has had a profound influence on technology. Other examples of neotenous individuals might include Pablo Picasso, Ludwig van Beethoven, Isaac Newton (who said he felt like a child on the beach playing with ideas as if they were beautiful seashells), William Shakespeare (whose bawdy puns and insults offended the non-neotenous critics of his day) and many others. It deserves mentioning here that the concept of neoteny puts a bit of a crimp in the concept of "immaturity" in psychiatry and psychology. It turns out that being immature may not be such a bad thing after all!

http://www.thehumanodyssey.com/2007/04/ ... e_los.html

I broke the article into paragraphs to avoid wall-o-text.

Did you notice that a number of the individuals mentioned are people who are speculated to have been on the spectrum and Gates, who is on the spectrum?

[eyeno]

Reflecting upon his scientific achievements, Albert Einstein once noted: "I sometimes ask myself . . . how did it come that I was the one to develop the theory of relativity? The reason, I think, is that a normal adult never stops to think about problems of space and time. These are things which he has thought of as a child. But my intellectual development was retarded, [italics mine] as a result of which I began to wonder about space and time only when I had already grown up." (quoted in Einstein: The LIfe and Times by Ronald Clark, p. 27). Einstein "intellectually retarded"? What he was referring to is neoteny (Latin for "holding youth"), a concept in developmental biology that refers to the retention of childlike characteristics into adulthood.

This brain neoteny conferred an incredible capacity for adaptability onto humans, leading to increased chances for survival and the passing on of "neotenous genes." In the second half of Ashley Montagu's book, he talks specifically about psychological neoteny. He examines several psychological traits of children - playfulness, curiosity, humor, creativity, sensitivity, and wonder, among many others - and suggests that these are also traits that need to be retained into adulthood (I have also explored the importance of retaining these childlike traits into adulthood in my book Awakening Genius in the Classroom).

This nicely illustrates some hesitation I have with labeling certain types of "abnormal" behavior as a psych disorder that necessitates treatment. I do realize that there are disorders that certainly need treatment and that the people treated are able to live a more fruitful life.

My belief and concern is that the definition of 'disorder' has become interpreted too broadly and ensnares many young children into a lifetime of treatment when it may not be necessary. Being different from the herd is not necessarily a sign of mental disorder that requires treatment but the tempo is increasing to broaden the definition of 'disorder' to include people that are simply different from the herd. What would have been the fate of Einstein had he grown up in this day and age? Would society have drugged the brilliance out of him because he was "abnormal."

I feel this way about ADD. I personally know children who were diagnosed with ADD, their parents radically changed their diet and administered organic vitamins, and the behavior of these children improved drastically. These children were saved from the complications of becoming addicted to speed for a lifetime. I consider it normal for a large percentage of children, when suddenly introduced to the confinement of a school desk, books, and discipline by strangers, to rebel and be unable to sit still and concentrate until they become accustomed to doing so. Or perhaps 'broken' like a horse is when trained to wear a saddle and tolerate a human passenger.

[Sounder]

Plutonia wrote...

that slowed down the development of the human brain after birth so that it could continue to grow and develop in relationship to the specific environmental conditions around it.

This neoteny idea is mostly new to me, so thanks for the info Plutonia. Keeping the neuronal pathways open, in one parlance, or resonant potentials open in another, is at odds with social integration and conformity requirements, as that is expressed in today’s world at any rate. Imagine what life would be like if the conceptual structures that drive our collective psychical development were designed with an intent to assist these laterally connecting pathways to not only remain open but to multiply.

It makes sense that as conceptual structures become formalized, time is required for implications to be recognized and ‘formulas’ to become internalized. The formulas say what is or how it is and also leave room for what will be. While attempting to make claims of and/or express truth, the formula leaves a residue in ones sub-conscious that indicates this thing is a lie. When our conscious model learns how things can be true and false at the same time, then we will be going places.

Something that appears to be true within the limits of a given frame may not be true in a different frame.

Or this same thing may be true in another reference frame and yet that truth may be derived through essentially unrelated antecedents.

[Twyla LaSarc]

Just want to say, as a spectrum adult raising (still) an aspie, this is an interesting thread.

It is not that I don't see emotion, it's that it becomes too overwhelming. It takes quite of bit of work to deal with the casual emotions/ cruelties/ drama of 'normal' folk so I tune it out...with the result that I appear not to have registered it and I scamper around after various dramas going, "Whaaa?". My kid amazes me, for the most part he just strips it all bare. I may not agree with his conclusions at times, but he has no patience with the kind of false emotion that we associate with the victorians and is still pandered to today.

Emotion is there but is not false or falsified. If you are tugging on my heart out of maudlin exploitation I will say "meh". If I am emotionally engaged by real people I will cry for days.

IMO, our emotional coldness on the spectrum is highly overrated.

[Plutonia]

Just want to say, as a spectrum adult raising (still) an aspie, this is an interesting thread.

It is not that I don't see emotion, it's that it becomes too overwhelming. It takes quite of bit of work to deal with the casual emotions/ cruelties/ drama of 'normal' folk so I tune it out...with the result that I appear not to have registered it and I scamper around after various dramas going, "Whaaa?". My kid amazes me, for the most part he just strips it all bare. I may not agree with his conclusions at times, but he has no patience with the kind of false emotion that we associate with the victorians and is still pandered to today.

Emotion is there but is not false or falsified. If you are tugging on my heart out of maudlin exploitation I will say "meh". If I am emotionally engaged by real people I will cry for days.

IMO, our emotional coldness on the spectrum is highly overrated.

I totally relate Twyla.

There's a kind of persona level to peoples emotions it seems, one which uses emotions to get needs met, say. That level of emotions is kind of like shouting, it's a loud and exaggerated expression. And there's often a covert coercion involved which puts one in a bind - either participate in the other person's persona emotions and take them as seriously as they do (and be overwhelmed) or they will get angry at you (also overwhelming!) So going blank, or tuning that level of interaction out, is a survival strategy. I do it all the time. Social interactions are like swimming through a pool that's full of fish hooks.