Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Thurs nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts with FREE Prizes!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE Live AFA Seminar! See locations and details.


Scam free! Check out Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife



View Active Topics       Latest 100 Topics       View Your Posts       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


I would say most people here fall on the Asperger's Spectrum

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Re: I would say most people here fall on the Asperger's Spec

Postby BlackKnight » Wed Dec 02, 2015 4:59 pm

gnosis wrote:Asperger's is no longer even recognized as a valid diagnosis by psychologists and psychiatrists. It was formally eliminated as a diagnostic category about two years ago.

In any case, psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) is notorious for its poor reliability and validity.

Guys, BlackKnight is an obvious troll. We need to stop responding to his posts. Winston! Why haven't you banned this clown yet?



This low IQ handicap points out a classification change (Asperger was folded into autism spectrum disorder in one single journal... out of hundreds) and he acts like it's some big deal because he can't read :lol: So to reduce this idiocy to what it really is, he's basically saying: 'Asperger is on AUTISM DISORDER spectrum.
BlackKnight
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 12:04 am







Re: I would say most people here fall on the Asperger's Spec

Postby josephty1 » Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:06 pm

I don't know if "most people" here but I am in the spectrum. Maybe some of us are "old souls"
MarcosZeitola wrote:It's a pretty awful condition for a lot of people, especially the ones who have not received proper care and attention when they were younger. Nowadays autistic children are helped to learn social skills and be better prepared for life in the big bad outside world from an earlier age. As a result, these children may grow into fully functional members of society. A lot of autistic people, especially among the older generations or those born to more ignorant families, tend to face serious issues in their social, professional and romantic lives.

A lot of people on this site are odd, to say the least. For a lot of them, I feel their lack of dating success may be due to social issues. The more lonely a guy becomes, the more these social issues can grow until they're hard to overcome. It's highly likely a lot of people on this website have a (mild?) form of autism. I know of at least three who have openly said they were diagnosed, or there were at least serious suspicions.


Thanks, despite my struggles in social life (I am 18) I think there's some advantages: you don't get brainwashed as easily. A lot of men my age get wasted on video games, chasing low-quality women, and/or football. To some extent, school too.

MarcosZeitola wrote:There is the perception that a lot of autistic people are somehow geniuses, and I believe this is false. A small minority will use their unique one-track minds to focus on subject or skill, master it and make good money out of it. The vast majority, sadly, does not obsess over something that is actually practical. Instead of science, their obsession would be a video game, or a television series, or a sexual perversion. And these people, locked away in their rooms as they are, get nowhere in life.

I would not use "autistic" as an insult. If anything, I pity these people a great deal. I think with tough love, a lot of one-on-one attention and a complete change of scenery, a lot of these people could lessen their symptoms enough to still live productive lives.


I agree, I had good grades in high school, lots of people called me "smart" but that doesn't mean I have high IQ.

Winston wrote:Could it be that some of us here have aspergers from vaccinations? Dr. Andrew Wakefield and others, including RFK Junior, discovered a link between vaccines and autism. But of course, the powers that be attempted to discredit him by fudging and manipulating numbers and inflating numbers to make every connection look coincidental. Typical of them. But no matter how much you fudge numbers though, people still instinctively sense a connection between vaccines and autism, especially parents whose children immediately regressed and suffered brain damage immediately after being vaccinated.


If I didn't get vaccinated I may have not been aspergers. I already knew this years ago but my doctors denied it. Then again I was born in Vietnam, so I have no idea who vaccinated me. Heres my vaccine history:

Image
Public school, most people between 12-35, and often your parents are brainwashed and trying to brainwash you.

*sigh* money and workaholic culture replaces healthy social interaction.
josephty1
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2015 8:23 pm
Location: Seattle WA

Re: I would say most people here fall on the Asperger's Spec

Postby The Un-American » Tue Dec 08, 2015 7:24 am

Aspie here.

I think people misunderstand Asperger's. In particular, the idea we don't care about anyone other than ourselves and have no sense of humor. That's ridiculous. I actually get frustrated with how humorless and merciless most people are. To me most neurotypicals and many fellow Aspies are stuffy, judgmental, callous, shallow, and utterly lack a sense of humor and curiosity. They are generally mercenary and ruthless, and can only make exceptions for "sacred cows" such as veterans/soldiers, dogs, and babies. This is why homeless people always point out the fact they served in the war, or keep a dog with them. Just being a suffering human being doesn't mean shit to most neurotypical people, and indeed many Aspies. Most people are driven solely by instinct and this is why most people's empathy is limited to small children, relatives, close friends and warriors and they keep an indifferent to hostile stance towards everybody else. Those are the ones who will help propagate their genes.

Aspies tend to be logical people driven more by inner thought and feeling rather than pheromones and body language so we aren't as biased towards kin and things like nationalism do not make sense to us.

I would argue that most people with Aspergers care too much about others, but due to our conceptual blindness we can often appear uncaring. Eventually people start treating us badly because they think we don't care about them and they think we are "weird" and thus bad, and then we start to get compassion fatigue. When people laugh at you just because you "look funny" doing something, and act mean to you for no reason, you slowly start to care less.

I think with Aspie men and dating, women perceive our awkwardness as threatening and our dissociation from the world makes us care less about grooming ourselves. Also our sensitivity to touch makes us more averse to wearing nice clothing. Women are also attracted to men who work hard (even/especially if they are lazy themselves), and people with Aspergers have an extremely difficult time working in retail and kitchen environments because of our struggles with social skills and our sensory pains. The fact that America is hyper-capitalist and expects swift speed and endless chores for little pay makes this all the more frustrating for people with Aspergers.

This means that many men with Aspergers end up living in poverty and or on the dole and have less wealth to impress women and to afford dates, decent clothing, living space to get laid, etc.

Another issue is that people falsely assume men on the autistic spectrum are asexual or gay because of our indifference to gender roles, so women might not even realize we are interested in them. The fact many of the medications Aspies take screw with their hormones doesn't help either.

All of these factors hurt the self esteem of men with Aspergers, and make the situation worse.
The Un-American
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:46 am

Re: I would say most people here fall on the Asperger's Spec

Postby BlackKnight » Thu Dec 10, 2015 12:35 pm

Bingo!

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
BlackKnight
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 12:04 am

Re: I would say most people here fall on the Asperger's Spec

Postby Winston » Sat Dec 12, 2015 5:46 am

BlackKnight,

You are assuming the fallacy that American culture is normal and healthy and sane and that all people ought to fit into it unless they have a mental problem like aspergers. That doesn't make sense. You FAIL to take into account many things:

1. First, you falsely assume that American culture is for everyone, or else there's something wrong with them. In this thread, I explained why that's a fallacy and gave examples why it is:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27332

American culture and people are very fake, paranoid, toxic and socially disconnected. So it's only natural for many people not to fit into that, especially people who are introverted, authentic, down-to-earth, soulful, freespirited, or sensitive. So how is that our fault? Whether we have aspergers or not, this is the reality in America.

2. Second, you fail to take into account that America has the highest rate of mental illness in the world, which is documented by World Health Organization. And it also has an epidemic of loneliness and social isolation as well, due to the social disconnectedness in American society. This is even reported in the media. See links here:
viewtopic.php?t=19445

3. Third, you fail to take into account that some members here have happy successful lives overseas. For example, my friend Rock, who is a veteran poster here, does not fit in America socially, but in Asia he has dated middle class quality women in both Taiwan, Thailand and Philippines. He has made a lot of money in Asia as well. So, whether he has aspergers or not, you gotta ask: If the problem was him, then why does he do a lot better overseas in Asia? Doesn't that indicate that America was the problem? Why can't you just be honest and admit that some people fit better in overseas cultures for whatever reason? In fact, why do YOU BlackKnight, make trips to Europe to meet girls? Why don't you just date in the US if you think that all normal sane guys can?

4. Fourth, you fail to take into account that many great thinkers, writers, philosophers and psychologists have said that usually it's the majority that are insane, not the misfit. See many quotes here:
http://www.happierabroad.com/Quotes_Insanity.htm

For example, Eric Fromm, the Swiss psychologist, said:

"The sick individual finds himself at home with all other similarly sick individuals. The whole culture is geared to this kind of pathology. The result is that the average individual does not experience the separateness and isolation the fully schizophrenic person feels. He feels at ease among those who suffer from the same deformation; in fact, it is the fully sane person who feels isolated in the insane society - and he may suffer so much from the incapacity to communicate that it is he who may become psychotic."
- Eric Fromm, Swiss Psychologist (The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness)

And the great German philosopher Nietzsche said:

"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." - Friederich Nietzsche

And even great Indian philosophers and gurus have said:

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

And even Roman Emperors have said:

“The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” - Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor

Now that being said, is there any physiological or neurological evidence that aspergers even exists? Or is it just a label and judgment, like schizophrenia, with no physical evidence to support it?
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23573
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Re: I would say most people here fall on the Asperger's Spec

Postby josephty1 » Sat Dec 12, 2015 8:54 am

Think about it - if aspergers is claimed to be rising and American culture changing to be more antisocial, since mutations/evolution happen really slowly (its not like the chemtrails dramatically affect humans' DNA by that much) the environment is at fault.

Aspergers only rises if the society gets more antisocial. American society is getting more antisocial and thus more people cannot adjust to it, so they are labeled "aspergers" when really they should've just moved to another society. In fact, many recent immigrants from foreign countries hate it here - cannot connect to American people - do they have aspergers?
Public school, most people between 12-35, and often your parents are brainwashed and trying to brainwash you.

*sigh* money and workaholic culture replaces healthy social interaction.
josephty1
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2015 8:23 pm
Location: Seattle WA

Re: I would say most people here fall on the Asperger's Spec

Postby GoingAwol » Sun Dec 13, 2015 7:33 am

I was diagnosed with aspergers when I was a kid, i'm 24 now. I was pretty awkward when I was a kid, but I have gotten better at socializing as I have gotten older. Most people act shocked when I tell them I have aspergers and they tell me they would have never guessed I have it. I also saw another psychologist a few years ago and he said he couldn't even tell that I have it. Even though I've adjusted well I still have some issues with nonverbal communication, particularly when it comes to reading women. I also rarely smile and squint my eyes because they are sensitive to light and appear unfriendly because of this. People have told me I can appear standoffish and unfriendly at first, but they think i'm really nice and down to earth once they get to know me. Also, while it's true that a lack of empathy (putting yourself in others shoes) is associated with aspergers, keep in mind that most people lack empathy. And atleast people with aspergers have an excuse, most people who lack empathy are just azzholes. The aspergers brand of a lack of empathy is announcing I am going to town to get a bite to eat without asking everyone else if they would like to come or would like something because I assume they would speak up and ask if they wanted to go or wanted something. A normal person's brand of a lack of empathy is assuming poor people are only poor because they are lazy and they themselves work hard and are rich, therefore hard work pays off and people who are unsuccessful have no excuse . Which is worse? If someone actually speaks up and asks the aspie instead of expecting him to read their mind he would probably oblige them. The second person on the other hand is just an asshole who can't be helped. My personal opinion of aspergers is that it is just a personality type, nothing more nothing less. We are honest and open and expect others to be the same way, is that so wrong? I think its hard to be an aspie in America, but aspie traits are appreciated and even celebrated in other cultures.
GoingAwol
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 10:07 am

Re: I would say most people here fall on the Asperger's Spec

Postby BlackKnight » Sun Dec 13, 2015 9:44 am

Winston wrote:BlackKnight,

You are assuming the fallacy that American culture is normal and healthy and sane and that all people ought to fit into it unless they have a mental problem like aspergers. That doesn't make sense. You FAIL to take into account many things:

1. First, you falsely assume that American culture is for everyone, or else there's something wrong with them. In this thread, I explained why that's a fallacy and gave examples why it is:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27332

American culture and people are very fake, paranoid, toxic and socially disconnected. So it's only natural for many people not to fit into that, especially people who are introverted, authentic, down-to-earth, soulful, freespirited, or sensitive. So how is that our fault? Whether we have aspergers or not, this is the reality in America.

2. Second, you fail to take into account that America has the highest rate of mental illness in the world, which is documented by World Health Organization. And it also has an epidemic of loneliness and social isolation as well, due to the social disconnectedness in American society. This is even reported in the media. See links here:
viewtopic.php?t=19445

3. Third, you fail to take into account that some members here have happy successful lives overseas. For example, my friend Rock, who is a veteran poster here, does not fit in America socially, but in Asia he has dated middle class quality women in both Taiwan, Thailand and Philippines. He has made a lot of money in Asia as well. So, whether he has aspergers or not, you gotta ask: If the problem was him, then why does he do a lot better overseas in Asia? Doesn't that indicate that America was the problem? Why can't you just be honest and admit that some people fit better in overseas cultures for whatever reason? In fact, why do YOU BlackKnight, make trips to Europe to meet girls? Why don't you just date in the US if you think that all normal sane guys can?

4. Fourth, you fail to take into account that many great thinkers, writers, philosophers and psychologists have said that usually it's the majority that are insane, not the misfit. See many quotes here:
http://www.happierabroad.com/Quotes_Insanity.htm

For example, Eric Fromm, the Swiss psychologist, said:

"The sick individual finds himself at home with all other similarly sick individuals. The whole culture is geared to this kind of pathology. The result is that the average individual does not experience the separateness and isolation the fully schizophrenic person feels. He feels at ease among those who suffer from the same deformation; in fact, it is the fully sane person who feels isolated in the insane society - and he may suffer so much from the incapacity to communicate that it is he who may become psychotic."
- Eric Fromm, Swiss Psychologist (The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness)

And the great German philosopher Nietzsche said:

"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." - Friederich Nietzsche

And even great Indian philosophers and gurus have said:

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

And even Roman Emperors have said:

“The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” - Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor

Now that being said, is there any physiological or neurological evidence that aspergers even exists? Or is it just a label and judgment, like schizophrenia, with no physical evidence to support it?


What you fail to understand is Qualitative Research Methods! The only people agreeing with you are aspies and total losers. Nothing you said iS verifiable, NOTHING! Moreover, the deeper you go with YOUR stories/theories the more you find Asperger's Spectrum/ignorance masquerading as intelligence. Here, let me help you out: “Diverse viewpoints are important for generating novel ideas that eventually are sifted out to yield the most comprehensive, logical, coherent, and empirically verifiable one at a particular time.”. in other words, you don't stop until you get verifiable results!

Objectivism is the notion that an objective reality exists and can be increasingly known through the accumulation of more complete information. Objectivism is thus an ontology (the world exists, is real), and an epistemology (knowledge can increasingly approximate the real nature, or quality, of its object -- that is, knowledge can become increasingly objective). Objectivist epistemology presupposes an objectivist ontology -- in order to objectively know the world, there must be a real objective, definite world. (The inverse relation is not necessary -- it is theoretically possible that a real world exists but cannot be known objectively because human perception is biased, for example.)

The relation between objectivist ontology and epistemology is best articulated by the philosophy of science known as critical realism. Mario Bunge explained that this perspective keeps the seventeenth-century distinction between the thing in itself and the thing for us (as known by us). But critical realism drops Kant's thesis that the former is unknowable and that the thing for us is identical with the phenomenal object, i.e., with appearance. Critical realism maintains that the thing in itself can be known (in a gradual fashion). Things are too grand and complex to be known through the senses; they can and must be known by conceptual thinking objectified in scientific theories.

Objectivism in psychology

Objectivism is a perspective adopted by certain practitioners in all the social sciences. In the field of psychology -- which shall be used to illustrate the principles -- objectivist ontology means that psychological phenomena -- such as emotions, perceptions, reasoning, intelligence, memory, motivation, personality, developmental processes, and mental illness -- are real and have definite properties and causes. At a given moment, I have a real anger at my brother because I interpret his action to have been willfully selfish and I recall that this is a typical behavior on his part that I have decided I cannot tolerate any longer. My memory, reasoning, interpretation, decision, and anger are real and they have definite qualities. A psychologist, a policeman, a judge, or layperson such as my brother, who wants to understand my psychology must objectively comprehend the real, objective qualities of my psychological phenomena.

Objectivist ontology and epistemology are reflected in objective descriptions of phenomena. This is known as semantic realism. Whatever the organization of a people's psychology may be (which may be complex and contradictory), this definite, real form must be denoted in a truthful description.

Ontological, epistemological, semantic, and methodological realism require each other. Denying any one of them undermines all the others. For instance, denying semantic realism -- by severing discourse from knowledge about reality, and claiming that contradictory statements about psychology are equally true and useful -- implies that there is no ontological psychological reality that needs to be reflected in discourse. If ontological reality exists and affects us, then it would be foolhardy and dangerous to ignore it in our discourse.

Ontological, epistemological, and semantic realism/objectivism yield universal theories, thinking, methods, explanations and descriptions.

Since a psychological phenomenon has a definite reality -- which may be complex and contradictory -- all descriptions must strive to apprehend it. My anger at my brother incorporates cognition, memory, interpretation, and contradictory feelings of kinship, however this entire package is one package which must be described and explained in one true and complete account. It cannot be described equally completely and accurately by different accounts. An account that said I truly loved my brother but was afraid to admit it would be inaccurate. Of course, accounts may describe different aspects of the complex whole, but they must all be consistent with each other to represent the real unity of my psychological package.

A given psychological reality unifies/universalizes the theory, epistemology, mentality, and methodology of all those who would comprehend it.

Pluralism

A plurality of contradictory theories, methodologies, and epistemologies cannot exist for an extended time, because they cannot all explain and describe the single reality of the organization of psychology equally well. Freudian notions of the Oedipus complex cannot co-exist with behaviorism to explain my anger toward my brother. As Albert Einstein said, at any given time, among competing theories, methodologies, epistemologies, and conclusions that constitute the stock of accumulated knowledge about a particular phenomenon, one is the best (most comprehensive, logical, predictive) way to comprehend its single reality.

Diverse viewpoints are important for generating novel ideas that eventually are sifted out to yield the most comprehensive, logical, coherent, and empirically verifiable one at a particular time. The best one commands general agreement because all observers are striving to comprehend the same, definite object. Diversity and pluralism are stepping stones to general validity and agreement. They are not goals in themselves; nor do they constitute a state of scientific achievement. One is not objective simply because one entertains a diversity of perspectives. *On the contrary, maintaining a diversity of perspectives precludes discovering the best representation/approximation of the single reality that confronts us*. It is objectively the case that automobile manufacturers contribute to global warming by resisting ecological-friendly improvements in cars (e.g., mileage standards). If someone tries to balance this fact by insisting on a different perspective that automobile manufacturers bear no responsibility for global warming, their pluralism and balance have destroyed objectivity.

Of course, diverse viewpoints reappear whenever established theories, methodologies, and conclusions are questioned. But no sooner do they reappear, then they are again sifted to yield more valid, agreed-upon constructs.

Objectivism-realism, Psychological Science, and Communication

Ontological, epistemological, and semantic objectivism-realism are fundamental to all science. There can only be a psychological science, for example, if psychological phenomena are real and can be objectively known (to an increasing degree). If you deny objectivist ontology or epistemology you have renounced the possibility of psychological science. If psychological phenomena are not real and have no definite properties, or if humans cannot objectively know these properties, then there can be no scientific study of psychology.

Denying objectivism not only precludes psychological science, it also precludes informal understanding and communication about psychology. My brother could not understand my anger-reasoning-memory-interpretation because either these would not be real and definite, or because his epistemology (like all humans') would be incapable of knowing my psychology. I might say I felt angry, but if my anger was not real this would just be idle discourse on my part. Or, I might really feel angry, but my brother would be under no obligation to understand this because epistemology simply cannot comprehend psychological phenomena, even if they are real. Denying objectivist ontology and/or epistemology means that nothing meaningful can be said about social psychological issues. Comments about them would be nothing more than idle utterances that express nothing real.

Challenges to Objectivism-realism and Psychological Science

Social constructionists and post-modernists advocate this kind of anti-realist, anti-objectivist position. They claim there are no substantive psychological phenomena. Instead, people construct their psychologies as they discourse with one another. Psychology is nothing more than momentarily created discourse about psychological themes (such as desire, emotion, thinking, motivation, recall). Conversely, discourse about psychological phenomena is nothing more than discourse. It does not refer to real phenomena that can be objectively known (see http://www.sonic.net/~cr2/subjectivism.htm).

Social constructionists and postmodernists raise three challenges to objectivism and psychological science.

1) Psychological phenomena are socially constructed and culturally specific; they are not universal. Consequently, different epistemologies are necessary for apprehending different phenomena. To study "saving face" in Taiwan requires a special epistemology that is different from studying romantic love in California. In other words, ontological relativism leads to epistemological relativism. This perspective repudiates universal epistemology on the grounds that it would overlook culturally unique features of psychology. A unique phenomenon is only intelligible to an epistemology and methodology that are specifically honed to its qualities.

Epistemological relativism here means that different epistemologies are necessary in different cultures. This relativism is not an inclusive welcoming of diverse epistemologies into a culture to gain varied insights from each. It is an exclusionary, divisive relativism which only accepts one epistemology -- the indigenous one -- as appropriate in a given culture, and banishes other viewpoints to other cultures.

2) The observer is inextricably formed by his distinctive cultural outlook to understand only the culturally relative phenomenon of his niche. His formation precludes him from understanding the subtle, complex psychology of people outside his niche. Thus men are banned from commenting on "women's issues", and whites cannot comment on blacks because they lack the appropriate cultural epistemology.

The distinctive cultural formation of researchers also precludes them from endorsing a single general theory and methodology that transcend their indigenous cultures.

3) The ontological relativity of psychological phenomena (emotions, perceptions, mental illness, self-concept, intelligence) means they are unreal, indefinite, ineffable, inexplicable, random, spontaneous, idiosyncratic (i.e., beyond the pale of general cultural psychological principles) and open to numerous, impressionistic, interpretations, descriptions, and explanations from diverse methodologies. This is the argument that ontological (cultural) relativism entails ontological and epistemological nihilism. This argument denies cultural-psychological reality and denies it can be (really) known. Girishwar Misra, an Indian indigenous psychologist, echoes extreme constructionists such as Ken Gergen in claiming there is no objective reality which psychologists have to map, and examine the accuracy of that mapping with the objective reality.

Nihilists say that all epistemologies and methodologies are equally acceptable in all situations because there is no objective reality that would make any more useful than any other. Theories and methodologies are purely a matter of personal preference -- "whatever works best for me."

Objectivists have used these challenges to refine objectivism, not deny it.

1) Ontological relativism does not imply ontological, epistemological, semantic, or methodological nihilism

With psychology, for example, the fact that a people's psychology is culturally constructed and specific does not mean it is unreal, indefinite, ineffable, inexplicable, random, spontaneous, idiosyncratic (i.e., beyond the pale of general psychological principles), and open to numerous, impressionistic, interpretations, descriptions, and explanations. Culturally organized psychology is real and has definite features which are independent of the researcher who studies it -- just as the powers accorded to a president, a judge, a policeman, a CEO, or a landlord are real, definite, objective, and powerful although they are humanly constructed and accepted. Ontological relativism (the culturally relative organization of psychology) is compatible with ontological, epistemological, and semantic realism. John Searle aptly said, the denial of External Realism, typically in the form of idealism is the ultimate bad faith of philosophy because it arrogantly arrogates to each individual the power to fashion the world as he or she wishes.

Actually, most relativists are realists, not nihilists. They believe that culturally relative psychology is real and can be objectively known with culturally indigenous epistemology.

2) Ontological relativism is consistent with epistemological, semantic, and methodological universalism

A culturally specific psychological phenomenon does not require a distinctive epistemology or methodology that is only available inside the culture. The researcher must certainly acquire knowledge about the phenomenon's particular content through understanding the culture. But this is far different from claiming that a culture-bound epistemology and methodology are necessary for comprehending the phenomenon.

This point may be illustrated by a comparative example from biology. An ornithologist who visits a new ecology has to learn about different anatomies of birds that are specific to particular ecologies. But her way of comprehending them does not change. She uses a general theory about the factors that form bird anatomy, and she uses established research procedures and cognitive processes (logic, analysis), to understand the anatomy of these particular birds. In other words, she applies general theories and procedures to elucidate the distinctive properties of specific species. The specific content of this species' anatomy does not require a distinctive epistemology and methodology for comprehending it. In fact, any local epistemology and methodology that did not utilize generally accepted principles would fail to explain the local birds' anatomy.

The same is true for psychological phenomena. Their content is culturally specific and variable, but general theoretical, epistemological, and methodological principles are necessary to identify culturally specific content. Without them, indigenous understandings will be deficient.

Outsiders can understand the subtle, complex cultural-psychological meanings of a foreign people. Searle aptly observed that I can understand the beliefs people have without sharing them. Anthropologists routinely understand the emotions, thoughts, perceptions, reasoning processes, self-concept, mental illness, and motivation of people very different from themselves. Moreover, they convey their understanding to readers of their works who are even further removed from the indigenous culture.
These second and third order understandings (removed from the first order of indigenous people themselves), are made possible by the human capacity to represent particular events and experiences in general (cultural) symbols that are understandable by other people who have not participated in the event of experience. Symbolic language developed to enable people in different positions to communicate information that was not directly experienced. A hunter in one location could communicate in general symbols (words) to a hunter in another location what he had seen (e.g., a band of deer heading toward the second hill), so that the second hunter could gear his action toward this event he did not experience. Robert Merton explained that denying that one person can understand the experience of another is to deny social existence and communication.

3) Culturally embedded scientists can produce and agree to universal science.

Psychologists can objectively comprehend the psychology of diverse people by undergoing scientific training that teaches them general principles and methodologies that are applicable in any setting. Natural scientists undergo similar scientific training. Regardless of their cultural backgrounds and indigenous beliefs about physical phenomena, they all learn the scientific vocabulary of their discipline (atoms, molecules, genes, germs, cells, gravity, thermodynamics, sound waves) that have proven to more accurately describe and explain their subject matter than their indigenous beliefs did. Since science is more objective and accurate than indigenous beliefs, scientists renounce the latter and adopt the universal conceptual system that best explains their subject matter.

Exactly the same is true for social scientists. All cultural psychologists, for example, can come to agree on scientific cultural psychological concepts that explain the culturally organized psychology of people. Scientific cultural psychology transcends the culture (cultural psychology and relative epistemologies) of its practitioners just as natural science does.

The social constructionist/indigenous psychology contention that all thought processes are restricted to the conditions of their birth is wrong. As Searle says, the mistake is to suppose that because all facts are stated from within a culture and a point of view, that therefore the facts exists only relative to a culture, a point of view, an 'interpretive community'.

http://www.sonic.net/~cr2/objectivism.htm

What you actual want is cumulative-reciprocal learning. However, you don't have a serious understanding of science and at times show complete ignorance of the subject. So now you have a group of retards and losers who have the combined IQ of 40 following your lead posting complete nonsense."my nonsense is more legit than your nonsense you're a troll". The purpose of this place should have been to generate knowledge and stimulate anthropological thoughts. A place where you could discuss different issues; share personal thoughts, experiences, and ideas. Where you could learn something every day, through a dialogue-based learning approach from members who represent students-academic-researchers with diverse backgrounds. But that time has past. Now there is a new force on the horizon that will seized the opportunity you missed ;)
BlackKnight
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 12:04 am

Re: I would say most people here fall on the Asperger's Spec

Postby Winston » Sun Dec 13, 2015 4:41 pm

BlackKnight wrote:
Winston wrote:BlackKnight,

You are assuming the fallacy that American culture is normal and healthy and sane and that all people ought to fit into it unless they have a mental problem like aspergers. That doesn't make sense. You FAIL to take into account many things:

1. First, you falsely assume that American culture is for everyone, or else there's something wrong with them. In this thread, I explained why that's a fallacy and gave examples why it is:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27332

American culture and people are very fake, paranoid, toxic and socially disconnected. So it's only natural for many people not to fit into that, especially people who are introverted, authentic, down-to-earth, soulful, freespirited, or sensitive. So how is that our fault? Whether we have aspergers or not, this is the reality in America.

2. Second, you fail to take into account that America has the highest rate of mental illness in the world, which is documented by World Health Organization. And it also has an epidemic of loneliness and social isolation as well, due to the social disconnectedness in American society. This is even reported in the media. See links here:
viewtopic.php?t=19445

3. Third, you fail to take into account that some members here have happy successful lives overseas. For example, my friend Rock, who is a veteran poster here, does not fit in America socially, but in Asia he has dated middle class quality women in both Taiwan, Thailand and Philippines. He has made a lot of money in Asia as well. So, whether he has aspergers or not, you gotta ask: If the problem was him, then why does he do a lot better overseas in Asia? Doesn't that indicate that America was the problem? Why can't you just be honest and admit that some people fit better in overseas cultures for whatever reason? In fact, why do YOU BlackKnight, make trips to Europe to meet girls? Why don't you just date in the US if you think that all normal sane guys can?

4. Fourth, you fail to take into account that many great thinkers, writers, philosophers and psychologists have said that usually it's the majority that are insane, not the misfit. See many quotes here:
http://www.happierabroad.com/Quotes_Insanity.htm

For example, Eric Fromm, the Swiss psychologist, said:

"The sick individual finds himself at home with all other similarly sick individuals. The whole culture is geared to this kind of pathology. The result is that the average individual does not experience the separateness and isolation the fully schizophrenic person feels. He feels at ease among those who suffer from the same deformation; in fact, it is the fully sane person who feels isolated in the insane society - and he may suffer so much from the incapacity to communicate that it is he who may become psychotic."
- Eric Fromm, Swiss Psychologist (The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness)

And the great German philosopher Nietzsche said:

"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." - Friederich Nietzsche

And even great Indian philosophers and gurus have said:

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

And even Roman Emperors have said:

“The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” - Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor

Now that being said, is there any physiological or neurological evidence that aspergers even exists? Or is it just a label and judgment, like schizophrenia, with no physical evidence to support it?


What you fail to understand is Qualitative Research Methods! The only people agreeing with you are aspies and total losers. Nothing you said iS verifiable, NOTHING! Moreover, the deeper you go with YOUR stories/theories the more you find Asperger's Spectrum/ignorance masquerading as intelligence. Here, let me help you out: “Diverse viewpoints are important for generating novel ideas that eventually are sifted out to yield the most comprehensive, logical, coherent, and empirically verifiable one at a particular time.”. in other words, you don't stop until you get verifiable results!


STOP copying and pasting from third source websites and trying to pretend that they are your words you dishonest bastard. It's a pathetic attempt to make yourself look smart when you aren't at all. FYI, the points I made above are VERIFIABLE and backed by organizational sources. But even if they weren't, as Einstein said, direct experience is the true form of knowledge, not information. What I experience from my own experiences is far more valid than any scientific paper by a corrupt government controlled organization.

But anyway, yes the high rate of mental illness and loneliness are backed by third party sources, even from the establishment websites. If you followed my links above, you'd see that. See below:

Links from authoritative sources about the unusually high rate of mental illness in America:

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20040601/rate-of-mental-illness-is-staggering
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/10/why-more-americans-suffer-from-mental-disorders-than-anyone-else/246035/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5111202/
http://nysun.com/editorials/are-we-really-ill?fark
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/01/19/1-in-5-americans-suffer-from-mental-illness/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030507080958.htm
http://www.thekimfoundation.org/html/about_mental_ill/statistics.html
http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/12/20/us-rates-mental-illness-rates-are-persistently-high
http://www.samhsa.gov/newsroom/advisories/1201185326.aspx

The media has also reported on the growing epidemic of social isolation and loneliness in America, citing that Americans have fewer friends than they did in the past. See their reports here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/weekinreview/02fountain.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201763_pf.html
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060331_loneliness.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/pacificnw/2005/0213/cover.html

So you see, you are wrong again. STOP bullshitting and copying and pasting from other sites to make yourself look smart when in reality, you are full of it!
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23573
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Re: I would say most people here fall on the Asperger's Spec

Postby alexmerlin » Tue Dec 15, 2015 7:50 am

This is another problem with my generation. Since when is being autistic an insult?
User avatar
alexmerlin
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 7:39 am

Re: I would say most people here fall on the Asperger's Spec

Postby Blue Murder » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:08 am

alexmerlin wrote:This is another problem with my generation. Since when is being autistic an insult?

Exactly!
Self-improvement addict. Always striving for perfection.
Blue Murder
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 10:25 pm
Location: Climbing that mountain; reaching that plateau.

Previous

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests