Plutonia - Have been wanting to thank you...

[JackRiddler]

.

For this post, which has been going through my mind for a while.

And it's actually pretty easy to tell if someone is being not "in good faith" I think, no matter what words are coming out of their mouths.

Is it? For an aspie, I mean. Isn't it the whole hallmark of Aspergers that one with the condition cannot read faces/emotions? How have you learned to cope? For example, how can you tell through the fog of Aspergers just when someone is in good faith - especially when the person is represented on video?

I think most people can be manipulated into thinking someone is being sincere when s/he is not, and vice versa. or maybe not even manipulated but just... make a mistake.

I'm more of an Autie (right brain dominant) than an Aspie (left brain dominant) CW. One of the misconceptions about us spectrum folks is that we are insensitive, but that's just a neurotypical bias, a misunderstanding. Actually it's kind of a joke within the spectrum community.

I've been hyper-sensitive all my life though increasingly less so as I get older. When I was a kid I had great difficulty understanding what adults said because, from my perspective, they were expressing so much more than just the actual words they were saying - body language, tone, inflection, other unconscious stuff - and a lot of it contradictory. Faced with too much information to consider, I would often be at a loss for how to respond and would just stare blankly with my brain whirring away trying to figure it out. So a fog, yeah, but one of a plethora, rather than absence.

So how did I learn to cope? School of life just like everyone else. And self-examination - not so much like everyone else. At some point I learned to ignore most of what people express when they are talking.

I think most people allow themselves to be fooled by others and here's one reason why: It's kind of built into the social compact to take other people at face value (odd phrase that) and there's a subtle social pressure that enforces it - I've run into that more than once dammit! It's considered rude. It seems like a inbuilt tribal instinct, but maybe it's just fear of being confrontational. I dunno.

Anyway, in the case of good or bad faith, all you have to do is stop listening to what someone is saying (spoken words tend to confound more subtle perceptions) and just observe. Over a bit of time, the self contradictions of a bad faith actor become legible.

As for mistakes, those are a given lol!

Hope that answers your Q.

You know, without being a spectrum person, this is all familiar territory somehow.

.

[vanlose kid]

kind of makes me wonder whether this is yet another case of the normal being made abnormal, like ADHD.

...

[Plutonia]

.

You know, without being a spectrum person, this is all familiar territory somehow.

.

Fer sure.

The difference with some of us neurodiverse is, I think, that our ability to stifle perception is impaired compared to most people.

I worked really hard at it for a long time and had some success by the time I was in my twenties, but the effort made me so anxious and neurotic and stupid that I gave up.

If you are interested in developing perceptual abilities the spotlight/lantern model of attention is useful - "lantern" being like the meditative state.

If you allow the idea of your body being a very finely tuned transmitter/receiver, sit and open up your attention like a lantern, you may begin to "hear" the stream of data your body is picking up (and I don't mean internal, physical processes like hunger, though lots of people have no awareness of that stuff either) I mean externally sourced transmissions- like if the person next to you is there under false pretenses. Their voice will conceal that, but their body can't help but transmit that info to your body. Stuff like that.

You know it's impossible to lie (verbally) to deaf people? They can tell because they never learned to orient to just the vocal cues.

[Plutonia]

kind of makes me wonder whether this is yet another case of the normal being made abnormal, like ADHD.

...

In a way I think that's true vk, only in the reverse of how you are thinking of it.

[vanlose kid]

kind of makes me wonder whether this is yet another case of the normal being made abnormal, like ADHD.

...

In a way I think that's true vk, only in the reverse of how you are thinking of it.

sorry, can you explain that? not sure i get it.

...

[Plutonia]

kind of makes me wonder whether this is yet another case of the normal being made abnormal, like ADHD.

...

In a way I think that's true vk, only in the reverse of how you are thinking of it.

sorry, can you explain that? not sure i get it.

...

Sure.

That so-called normal folks are socialized to only attend to a narrow bandwidth of information ie your mother/father/teacher/boss's voice. Whereas we on the spectrum are considered to have a "disorder" because we tend to not be able to do that.

[eyeno]

You know it's impossible to lie (verbally) to deaf people? They can tell because they never learned to orient to just the vocal cues.

That might be one of the more fascinating sentences in this thread thus far, and also one of the truest. Previous occupation trained me to notice such, and I find that statement to be true, for 'most' part.

The drawback is considering ones self to be a perfect antenna and misinterpreting the feedback. Different people have different mannerisms and no two people present exactly the same. But, there are similarities one can definitely notice in physical mannerisms within the human species.

Some people believe that they can do this with people's writings and they most often make the biggest mistakes in assuming that this is possible. Even through my training the biggest mistakes I made was attempting to interpret the written word. The simple difference between growing up in two different States of a country can extrapolate into huge differences in the written language.

But I agree with you for the most part. If I know a person, or can be around a person for a length of time, its the smallest gestures they make that give them away.

If you really want to get to know a person alert them to the fact that they are being observed by you. They will then suddenly attempt to change what they do and it becomes a show of noticeable shifts.

[Plutonia]

The drawback is considering ones self to be a perfect antenna and misinterpreting the feedback.

It's not the antenna that misinterprets. But yes, all my predispositions and psychological disturbances tend to skew my interpretations.

Different people have different mannerisms and no two people present exactly the same. But, there are similarities one can definitely notice in physical mannerisms within the human species.

It's not mannerisms I was talking about, but they can be useful in either supporting or contradicting more subtle perceptions.

Some people believe that they can do this with people's writings and they most often make the biggest mistakes in assuming that this is possible. Even through my training the biggest mistakes I made was attempting to interpret the written word. The simple difference between growing up in two different States of a country can extrapolate into huge differences in the written language.

Excellent two part article about that here: (tldr: reading = telepathy.)
http://www.realitysandwich.com/skywriters_hades_1
http://www.realitysandwich.com/skywriters_hades_2

If you really want to get to know a person alert them to the fact that they are being observed by you. They will then suddenly attempt to change what they do and it becomes a show of noticeable shifts.

Most people don't feel comfortable if they are being openly observed.

Here's a Q: How is it that drug dealers are able to spot narcs?

[vanlose kid]

kind of makes me wonder whether this is yet another case of the normal being made abnormal, like ADHD.

...

In a way I think that's true vk, only in the reverse of how you are thinking of it.

sorry, can you explain that? not sure i get it.

...

Sure.

That so-called normal folks are socialized to only attend to a narrow bandwidth of information ie your mother/father/teacher/boss's voice. Whereas we on the spectrum are considered to have a "disorder" because we tend to not be able to do that.

well, heck, youre the ones i think of as normal and im one of you. so there.



...

[Plutonia]

kind of makes me wonder whether this is yet another case of the normal being made abnormal, like ADHD.

...

In a way I think that's true vk, only in the reverse of how you are thinking of it.

sorry, can you explain that? not sure i get it.

...

Sure.

That so-called normal folks are socialized to only attend to a narrow bandwidth of information ie your mother/father/teacher/boss's voice. Whereas we on the spectrum are considered to have a "disorder" because we tend to not be able to do that.

well, heck, youre the ones i think of as normal and im one of you. so there.



...

Haha! Cheers vk!

[eyeno]

vanlose kid wrote:
kind of makes me wonder whether this is yet another case of the normal being made abnormal, like ADHD.

I'm with vanclose on this one. In my opinion nothing more than pharma packaging the normal into the abnormal for profit. It would take a lot to change my mind but i'm open.

How do drug dealers spot narcs? We aren't really on the same wavelength on this one. This is learned behavior over a period of time.


When I said more or less "put a person on alert that they are being observed" I mean at the moment and then for a period of time after that in the near term, or forever after.

Drug dealers don't suddenly wake up being drug dealers knowing how to spot narcs, this is learned over a long period of time usually.

I"m talking about taking a person unaccustomed to being observed, notifying them that they are being observed, and then noticing the differences. Amazing the change that takes place.

[Plutonia]

vanlose kid wrote:
kind of makes me wonder whether this is yet another case of the normal being made abnormal, like ADHD.

I'm with vanclose on this one. In my opinion nothing more than pharma packaging the normal into the abnormal for profit. It would take a lot to change my mind but i'm open.

Making my point about preconceptions...

How do drug dealers spot narcs? We aren't really on the same wavelength on this one. This is learned behavior over a period of time.

Not if one's personal safety depends on an instantaneous accurate reading.

There was a study (I'm not going to look for it now, maybe someone here knows it?) where a bunch of strangers were brought together and asked to mill around without communicating any personal information and form little groups at random and what the researchers found is without exception the strangers would separate into groups of similar childhood experiences ie all the people who had an alcoholic parent would wind up in a group together etc.

Drug dealers don't suddenly wake up being drug dealers knowing how to spot narcs, this is learned over a long period of time usually.

I think that you are guessing that's how it works.

I"m talking about taking a person unaccustomed to being observed, notifying them that they are being observed, and then noticing the differences. Amazing the change that takes place.

That's using the spotlight form of attention. Ho hum.

I'm talking about more subtle info.

Like, depending on how well i know a person, or how comfortable I am with them, I can often tell the last person they were talking to. It's like an influence that is present in them for a while, or something like that.

I don't usually talk about this stuff. Basically never get a positive reception to uncommon perceptions.

[slomo]

vanlose kid wrote:
kind of makes me wonder whether this is yet another case of the normal being made abnormal, like ADHD.

I'm with vanclose on this one. In my opinion nothing more than pharma packaging the normal into the abnormal for profit. It would take a lot to change my mind but i'm open.

Making my point about preconceptions...

How do drug dealers spot narcs? We aren't really on the same wavelength on this one. This is learned behavior over a period of time.

Not if one's personal safety depends on an instantaneous accurate reading.

There was a study (I'm not going to look for it now, maybe someone here knows it?) where a bunch of strangers were brought together and asked to mill around without communicating any personal information and form little groups at random and what the researchers found is without exception the strangers would separate into groups of similar childhood experiences ie all the people who had an alcoholic parent would wind up in a group together etc.

Drug dealers don't suddenly wake up being drug dealers knowing how to spot narcs, this is learned over a long period of time usually.

I think that you are guessing that's how it works.

I"m talking about taking a person unaccustomed to being observed, notifying them that they are being observed, and then noticing the differences. Amazing the change that takes place.

That's using the spotlight form of attention. Ho hum.

I'm talking about more subtle info.

Like, depending on how well i know a person, or how comfortable I am with them, I can often tell the last person they were talking to. It's like an influence that is present in them for a while, or something like that.

I don't usually talk about this stuff. Basically never get a positive reception to uncommon perceptions.

This thread is fascinating, and touches on all kinds of things, like gaydar, and why my boyfriend and I, who had an instantaneous strong attraction to each other the moment we met, both had really narcissistic academic fathers (and also very similar values in spite of our surface differences).

[eyeno]

Plutonia we are actually overlapping and in agreement on a lot of this. I'm just not taking the time to write precisely enough.

[Plutonia]

This thread is fascinating, and touches on all kinds of things, like gaydar, and why my boyfriend and I, who had an instantaneous strong attraction to each other the moment we met, both had really narcissistic academic fathers (and also very similar values in spite of our surface differences).

Yeah gaydar! That's a great example slomo.

Our ability to perceive and unconsciously act on subtle perceptions about who is like us and who is not, makes sense as a survival adaptation.

But this definitely has something to do with it:

Mind meld: Brain cells synchronize during good conversations

Shades of Mr. Spock -- our brain cells really do "mind meld" during intense communication, suggest psychologists.

In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal study, a team led by Princeton's Greg Stephens looks at functional magnetic resonance imaging brain scans of people involved in unrehearsed, real-life stories. "To make the study as ecologically valid as possible, we instructed the speaker to speak as if telling the story to a friend," says the study.

Following the brain scans of the conversations, the researchers asked the listeners to fill out a questionnaire detailing their comprehension of the story. Remarkably, the scans show similar areas of the brains of speakers and listeners firing, with a slight lag for the listener, during more effective conversations. Further, some listener's brain cells fired up in some brain regions ahead of the speakers, indicating they were predicting where the story was headed, says the study:

"The findings shown here indicate that during successful communication, speakers' and listeners' brains exhibit joint, temporally coupled, response patterns. Such neural coupling substantially diminishes in the absence of communication, such as when listening to an unintelligible foreign language. Moreover, more extensive speaker–listener neural couplings result in more successful communication. We further show that on average the listener's brain activity mirrors the speaker's brain activity with temporal (time) delays. Such delays are in agreement with the flow of information across communicators and imply a causal relationship by which the speaker's production-based processes induce and shape the neural responses in the listener's brain."

The findings add weight to animal studies showing "mirror" neurons, or brain cells, firing up when creatures observe one another, suggested by some as the starting point for empathy in the human brain. "Further understanding of the neural processes that facilitate neural coupling across interlocutors may shed light on the mechanisms by which our brains interact and bind to form societies," says the study.

Fascinating, as everyone's favorite Star Trek Vulcan might say.

By Dan Vergano

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... on-brain/1

Meaning is communicated through brain-matching ie telepathy!

(Spock is an archetypal Aspergerian, BTW )

Edit: I'll look for that study for you slomo.