May 02, 2004

• I have Asperger's Syndrome. Some effects are positive advantages, such as mental accuity in *some* areas, but others are a very great disadvantage, and hard to come to terms with, socially. The symptoms vary widely between individuals, however. Most of my family suffer from neurological dysfunctions of one type or another.
• A friend of mine has Asperger's. He told me that one of the last things his ex-wife shouted at him was "Your facial expression hasn't changed in two fucking years!"
• Nostrildamus, I hope my fascination didn't come off as cruel.
• If so, I apologize.
• Well, because I have Asperger's, derised, I didn't process your comments in that way, so no, of course not. :D And I certainly don't have any sense of self pity, nor require extra sensitivity or anything; I don't think like that. It's not a disability, AFAIC. After many years, I learned a few tricks in analysing 'neurotypicals' and their behaviour, so I'm not quite as at sea as others with the condition, but I have to be on the ball. Wolof, my wife tells me I always look 'aggressive' - even when I'm having a good time. :) I have to remind myself to smile in social situations, otherwise I can put people off. A turning point for me, dealing with other people anyway, was seeing a BBC documentary on body language when I was a teenager - it was a revelation to me, as I had no idea that such a thing even existed (and of course can't 'read' body language at all) - so I studied the information and adopted it's use in much the same way an alien might don a disguise to appear more human.. hehe. Things improved a bit. I had to use my intellect to overcome my problems in that way. Still coming to terms with it. Of course, interfacing with humans thru the web is much easier, although really you're all just words to me and it's quite hard most of the time to connect with the fact that there is a person on the other end of the data. The downside is that emotional outbursts are unfiltered and can come across totally inappropriate. One can be naive to the point of retardation, in regards to human guile. But the upside is I can talk to animals! Yay! :D
• Reading the recent MetaFilter post about Asperger's (especially that which goes undiagnosed in childhood) I wonder about how far it might go to explain my own social awkwardness. (I say to to my girlfriend: "But there are some places where it sounds like people with Asperger's have trouble but I don't at all. For instance, I don't have any trouble reading body language." And she laughs and says, "Well...") The idea that it's geneticly conditioned is especially interesting, since my parents are both introverted, my father very much so, but my sister (who is adopted) is very extroverted, in marked and obvious contrast with me and our parents. The idea from the MeFi thread about "social skills running in emulation" is something that hit very close to home. On the other hand, I tend to see myself in many descriptions of conditions/syndromes/disorders (ADHD, OCD, whatever one might say Hikikomori sufferers have) so I don't know how seriously to take my own suspicion that I might lie on the Asperger's/Autism spectrum. Nostrildamus, thank you for sharing with us. Derised—I'm equally fascinated with people who don't see in themselves some trace of the symptoms of this kind of condition. It doesn't surprise me at all when threads about Asperger's or Hikikomori fill up with people saying that feel something like that. People who seem to have access to the invisible (to me, largely) book of simple ways to deal with life seem quite alien to me. Last thought: I did a report on Autism in high school, and found it fascinating, but I didn't really see myself in the descriptions in any way at all. Since Asperger's strikes such a chord with me, I tend to think the views expressed in various places that they might not actually be part of the same spectrum might be correct.
• rustcellar: One of the more valuable things I picked up from reading undergrad psych texts is that actual diagnosis for most mental illnesses where there are no objective indicators (such as serotonin levels) is basically a matter of degree; whether or not you are regarded as having a mental illness is basically a matter of how dysfunctional you are. If you have trouble relating to and reading people you may just be shy and gullible, or you may have Asperger's. It's all in the degree. It's worth bearing that in mind when evaluating the mental illness-du-jour, because all to often pop-reporting will be angled at showing an epidemic based on a bunch of symptoms that could apply to many, many people (eg ADD, which seems prne to being diagnosed in any kid who is more than a trifle rambunctious...) who don't actually have any real problem (in a medical sense).
• About a year back, there was this looong heated debate at the SDMB, initiated by a poster who claimed that parts of the DSM-IV were a crock of s***; that diagnosis was a crapshoot and half of the mental illnesses didn't have any sound objective basis. Needless to say, lot of people didn't take kindly to that viewpoint. If you're interested, this is the thread.
• Fascinating - thanks for the link.
• Gyan: given that DSM categorised homosexuality as a serious mental illness until quite recently, I would hardly be surprised to find other bits are a crock of shit. And anyone who's seen the way that, say, schizophrenia is assigned as the mental illness of anyone who doesn't fit other categories but obviously "ain't quite right in the head" would be pretty suspicious of some of the disorders.
• I first encountered Temple Grandin over ten years ago, when I was working at the Meat Industry Research Institute of New Zealand. She was (and still is) an acknowledged authority on stock handling owing to her insights into animal behaviour. She is a singular person, and I think it's worth bearing in mind that she is a very atypical autist, in that she has been able to bring huge intellectual horsepower to bear to compensate where other autistics are left behind. Anyway, I don't feel a lot of faith in her claim "I think more like an animal". It seems to me she is imposing her cognitive model on deer just as much as a person with more orthodox mental wiring might. And her example seems especially dodgy to me. She describes choosing between clearly defined visual alternatives. That's cool, and I wish my choices, which are usually framed verbally, were so clearly articulated. But she leaves unanswered the question of how she chooses between alternatives. To me, that is most important: how does she make value judgments about which behaviours are most desirable? And futher, what does "desirable" mean to someone who is cut off from the emotional sensations of the majority? What makes reasoning worthwhile is NOT laying out the alternatives, it is making the choice. Without a consistent pattern of choices, we wouldn't be able to infer reasoning in animal (or human) behaviour. (Think about it: it's the phenonmenon of choice that we see. We mostly speculate about the mechanism behind choice, or the precursors to it. Damnit, she's best placed to provide an alternative account of choice. So i'm still hanging: I see the premises, and the conclusion, but the line between them is still just a line). What I've been reading recently suggests that emotion is what enables choice between outcomes. So her description of a nonverbal mode of thinking is neat, but I feel shortchanged: what drives her choices?
• Having moderate autism myself, I can somewhat understand what the author is on about. But generally I have found that people with Autism are unique and it is useless to try to find anything but vague similarities. I like the comment on the Asbergers guy's blank face problem, I get asked if I'm upset all the time (thanks Wolof, I actually laughed at that). I like articles like these, because I send them to my friends and they gradually are getting a better understanding of the wierd way my brain works.
• rustcellar: I'm equally fascinated with people who don't see in themselves some trace of the symptoms of this kind of condition. Actually, the articles really made me wonder if there was some sort of parallel condition on the opposite end of the spectrum. I've been told I have an uncanny knack for reading people, and I do feel hyper-aware of the little nuances of speech and body language; human interaction is one of my greatest fascinations. I'm especially struck by the mannerisms people borrow from cultural sources. As a result, I always get the joke, sometimes when no one else does. I frequently burst out laughing when I got in trouble as a kid, which pissed my mom off to no end; it just killed me to see the elements of Lifetime TV-movie melodrama tacked on to a lecture about bad table manners or something. Boys who try to be intimidating by talking like Scarface (it happens SO often) are another one of my favorites. I hate routine. I can't stick to it. As a result, I miss way too much class; I've been known to skip things I've been anticipating for weeks because I'd rather go ride my bike. When I move, I have to carry my telephone number on a slip of paper for months; I can't make a number stick in my head no matter how hard I try (dates were bad in high school, and formulas were worse). It takes me even longer to learn friends' phone numbers, and I still get confused when I've known them for years. That kind of thinking is a huge effort for me; when I'm drunk, numbers are the first thing to go. I'm excellent at language, though, both written and verbal. I'm far from the world's best communicator, though; I spend entirely too much time rearranging words in my head and obsessing over the precise way I want a statement to come across. I can't say anything without scripting and editing it in my head; it's impossible for me to socialize in a group of more than three people. I weigh everything I say against everyone around me (as a result, I'm NEVER offensive without damn well meaning to be); when I'm talking to one person, it happens quickly enough to be unnoticeable, but I never know figure out exactly how to say something in a group until the moment has passed. I also find it hard to talk to two very different people (or a small child and an adult, even); I have to find a phrase and intonation that will go over flawlessly with both of them, and sometimes it seems impossible. I've tried to make my mind relax and stop working so hard, but it's impossible.
• Often wondered in my youth why so many people found it necessary to amass photographs of their friends and family or places they visit -- my younger reaction being, "But doesn't everyone just remember faces and places?" Doesn't everyone remember which section of a page a passage they read in a book or a magazine appeared on? [Not 'photographic memory' but can tell if it was the right or left hand leaf, and if it was at the top, bottom, or middle of a page.] Doesn't everyone become so immersed in reading or writing they literally don't hear other people calling them? When I was learning to read as a kid, for a period of five or six years, I used to actually envision printed text appearing as people spoke, complete with punctuation and quotation marks, but I quickly learned to be circumspect in informing people of this ability. We all have idiosyncracies of the mind and of the body -- seems the great trick is to learn to deal with them skillfully, so they aren't an impediment, but an asset. Heh. Always more to learn. Never enough time.
• Heh. Always more to learn. Never enough time. Amen to that. I do usually become so engrossed in reading that I don't hear people calling me. But my experience of reading is quite the opposite. The printed word becomes a world to me, creating entire landscapes where I lose myself. Once I put a book down, I forget alot of it, actually. People and events stay fairly vivid, but the details start to fade, the way one's memories of a good party or that bunch of cool classmates whom you have never met again after graduation.
• Sounds like some of your reading goes into 'short-term memory' as opposed to long-term, alnedra. What I read usually stays with me for decades, unless it's something I absolutely detested having to read in the first place -- like the works of Heidigger -- whose name I have probably misspelled -- but fine, the man deserves it. Or maybe 'twas the translator. Finding the way to navigate the web has been a distinctly different trip for me, since much of it is so ephemeral, with text appearing and disappearing or being altered in what seems a whimsical manner. (Eeekeek, it's not how it woz! or where it woz! or in the same colours it woz! or the same columns! or again, where'd it go, it woz right here six years ago!) My experience, reading is a completely symbolic or metaphoric construct a reader fleshes out after the hints/map a writer gives. I also get whole savannahs, or mountainscapes, peopled with intriguing strangers, complete with varied voices, clothing with different colours and textures, the whole works -- can be right up there with lucid dreaming for vividness. Frankly, I have yet to see a movie, play, or video that can compare in detail or drama or colour with what I experience when I read some works.
• You're absolutely right, nothing really compares to what I read. Although some movies come a bit close. The upside for my short-term memory is that I can re-read my favourite books barely weeks after I last finished them, without feeling like I was running ahead of the book when reading. Actually, I have very little stored in my long-term memory. Some scattered trivia from childhood, some short poems, perhaps snippets of significant events. Even faces of my family and friends are a blur. The only vivid thing is music, funnily. Lots and lots of songs, all stored up there.
• Aspect of my reading experience that always puzzles me: I imagine scenes and environments in great detail, but people are always rather blurry. When I latch onto enough description of them to picture their bodies, I still feel like I'm looking over my shoulder at them or out of the corner of my eye. And they never have faces. Ever. I register descriptions of facial expressions, but as some data not parallel to all the other visual descriptions, and the image of a body just aquires an attribute like "disappointed" or "confused" or whatever (not a word, an idea). It's not just reading, though—when I imagine conversations with friends, I also leave out things like faces even if I'm thinking hard about what their expressions might convey. On preview: Sounds like Alnedra has a similar experience. I also have a great memory for music, which isn't a bad thing at all. And books seem to slip away fairly quickly. I think it's time to reread Pattern Recognition...
• this whole post has sent my mind racing. i hadn't heard mention of aspergers since the early 70's in first year psych, and then simply remembered the name for exam purposes. then i read the nyt's article and now i'm following this thread with great curiousity. i don't mentally visualise at all. no pictures or such in my mind, no matter what i'm thinking or doing. until a few years ago, i thought it was the same for everyone else. surprise! i was astounded...."you can see real pictures in your mind?", i asked, in awe and confusion. finally i understand why all those meditation things say to visualise a relaxing situation or surrounding. they mean it literally. i took it figuratively and could never master their processes. all my life i've suffered from, what i call, 'foot in the mouth disease'. if i'm thinking it, i say it. if i say it, i mean it. i simply can not lie or confabulate. i have an excess of intellect that i deliberately hide behind humour. i also have a bizarre sense of humour from seeing juxtapositions that's others don't. it tends to alienate many people. i love words, but numbers, over the sum of my fingers and toes, defy my comprehension. i can not balance a checkbook or manage a budget as the numbers are meaningless to me. yet i have graduate level statistics and methodology under my belt, completed an empirical thesis and can unravel stats to tell you how they've been manipulated. it's all so confusing and i've been pondering this for a few days now. i had to see my psychiatrist today anyway, so i queried her and we are going to do some cognitive testing etc. although i've been seeing these doctors since '72, no one has ever done any testing on me. they have their diagnosis of manic/depressive...which i can't argue with, and they have their pills and that's the way it's always been. now i'm hoping to learn a bit more about how my mind works and perhaps improve it's efficiency. so thanks for all this information. i'd like to say i 'see' the light. /but i can't see any such thing unless i can actually put my hands on it.
• dxlifer, when you write comments like the past one do your thoughts flow from your mind to your fingers directly? Do you ever consider what to write before writting? Seriously, I'm not criticizing you. I'm just amazed and curious about your condition. I can pass hours, and I mean it literally, hours having imaginary conversations or doing imaginary posts before actually making them real. Most of the time they never come to being. And let me praise you because, like Mozart, you seem to create beautiful things (in this case comments) without ever rehearsing.
• oh...yes, zemat...that's the way i write. from here to there. i do proof-read, though and sometimes, if feeling leisurely will do a bit of editing to change the 'melody' of words. i don't imagine things before i write them, but have often have conversations with other people in my head; that's more like a rehearsal, though when i have something that needs to be clearly communicated. it was handy when i worked, in a rather twisted manner, as i could often pass off a formal interviews with clients, that passed informal conversation and find out all i needed. i could always pick up the 'wrong' answer to what should have been a standard query and response and then zero in to what was being hidden. my clients hated that! i've noticed how long it takes other people to write things. and the literal agony some folks having getting words out. / and i can throw in puns and play with words, as i go. but usually people miss these things. it's a small amusement of mine. i always had a secretary and don't know how to type and find it more difficult to use a keyboard for written translation than a pen: but i'm learning, slowly. words have always been my 'thing'. mofi is my first attempt to use html, as well. it's not so different though, than the old word processing program i first learned with. and thanks for the compliment. when putting words on public view i try to make them pleasing in both content and flow for the reader. when i know i've succeeded, then it makes me happy.
• Wow! This is all so fascinating. Thanks so much to those of you who are letting us get a glimpse of how you 'see' things. Great post, derised!!! Really interesting information all around.
• The Woman Who Thinks Like A Cow