Sorts and Purposes

It takes me a very long time to come to the point, in fact, before I bury it again, let’s begin with it: the purpose of the Autist is to explain the Neurotypical to the Neurotypical.

We are a mirror, instructive by contrast. What a neurotype cannot see of itself, it can of another type, and vice versa. The Autist, familiar with their own mind, learns what a Neurotypical mind is by listening to them describe ours, the one we know – by a process like arithmetic we can glean what sort of mind theirs is.

It would seem the reverse is not happening, the Neurotypical, familiar with their own minds, rarely learns what an Autistic mind is by listening to us describe theirs, the one they know, and applying the addition or subtraction of our perceptions – thus my partially tongue in cheek new term for the most common, or dominant type – robust. They are not so easily given to introspection, the implicit reverse logic and the opportunity to audit themselves this way doesn’t seem to occur to them.

I think it’s a neurotypical trait, the darkest side of which is conformism, a sort of a policy that other sorts are not equal and comparable. It’s not an insult, it’s a requirement for their very typicality and dominance, isn’t it?

But it’s exactly my point.

This is exactly the sort of thing that everyone else knowing it doesn’t mean jack. They have to know it, somehow, I mean they have to know it’s only a neurotypical trait, rather than God’s Universal Bloody Will, right?

And that impossible job is ours.

It is not our job to explain to the genetically unconsciously xenophobic about all the different sorts out there, that is obviously impossible, they aren’t even interested.

It is our job to explain to them how their way of life is killing the planet and that they won’t survive it either. Right? I may be new as an Autist who knows it, but I am not new as a human being and the framing is always theirs and it is always wrong, and the abuse is always named after the victim, and the abuser has no name, it’s just . . . typical. Because with names comes shame. They are not going to do it themselves. If you have seen the quality of what they call “research,” regarding Autism, you know, they are never going to classify themselves in their system of faults and treatments.

Our job – and I’m tired of doing it alone, honestly.

Jump in any time, Kids.

Jeff May 26th., 2023

Robusti Non Carborundum

I’ve discovered my Autism at last, and I’m learning all the terminology, and sad contrarian that I am, I’m already arguing and rewriting the new language my way. It is what it is, I guess.

I’ve written three blogs and several Twitter rants complaining that the “neurotypical,” are a type, with plusses and minuses about them, that “neurotype,” has what is called a totality of the concept missing, they way it has been presented to me, it seems everyone has a type, except the “typical,” who apparently are somehow beyond neurotype, and they are the model and we all diverge from them. It’s part of what we call “the medical model,” of pathologizing of the neurodivergent, but it’s insidious.

A personal aside:

By accident of my life, I have long held an idea of what a “normal person’s” neurotype is. I didn’t know that’s what they were and I didn’t know what I was, but I knew they didn’t think like I did, and I wasn’t indoctrinated in the idea that they were right and I was wrong – if you saw the uh, feces folly that I grew up in, you’d understand, perhaps you would think those people had nothing to teach you either. In the end, my family doesn’t look particularly neurotypical, and it was a lot of other people that sold me on their type, their different way of thinking, like, pretty much everyone else I ever met.

So for reasons of arrogance and independence, the idea that anyone was “non-divergent,” didn’t satisfy me, if anyone is “non-divergent,” that by definition, would have to be me because – my initial reason as a young Autistic child – they are beating the crap out of little children. What I think when I hear it is, “That is your perfect form from which we all diverge?”

Back to technical matters:

It doesn’t satisfy me many ways, but the totality of the concept is that all are some type, and all types are evolved and not created, and all will have good and bad traits, depending on context, and that to speak to anyone, you have to have some idea of their type and what it means – and this is not less true if there are more of them. All are some type, and self knowledge regarding this is good for everyone – but due to the incomplete nature of this word today, all the typical type of person has for self-knowledge is that they are numerous, and perhaps if they hear of it, that they are not Autistic or another type.

The other option, stated in the previous entry, is the myth of Human Nature in which all things are possible, any good or any evil – this is my point, neurotypes have Big Data, statistical traits. Yes, “anything is possible,” for anyone, but it’s like the American dream: it’s possible, anyone can, but how many do?

This is what I mean by a partially developed concept, the statistical thing where more of one neurotype think and do more of one sort of thing that the other neurotypes, that’s what neurotype means. This Human Nature business stretches to anything, a person would have to be all neurotypes at once to be this myth. The Robustic (someone likes it!), formerly the Neurotypical, is not all of that, not the universal type with all options included. If they were, they could talk to the rest of us, couldn’t they? No, they are another evolved type like the rest, ostensibly purpose-built by evolution for whatever pressures it faces.

Different types suggest different niches to fill, different evolutionary processes involved in their creation, and different environments they are best adapted to – this is another proof, if there was one neurotype that does it all, why did the rest evolve?

It leads to stereotyping, where individuals are wrongly forced into general perceptions, but always there is more – is it every neurotype that would force every person into their stereotype? Or perhaps, ought there to be one about a certain sort that turns everything natural into a law and calls the cops?

If many Autists that work are in science and medicine, perhaps this can be a stereotype for good reasons, something about the Autistic type is good for that – but my Autistic self wouldn’t be forcing Autists into it! I think that is a Robustic trait, the conformism, I’m sorry. But it’s not me that said it first, it’s easy to see that when they describe Autistic social traits, that this is only the mirror image, that we do not pick up on (and so conform to), social cues. Note the parenthesized bit, the unspoken social cue, the non verbalization of “and conform to,” – of course this is Robustic framing, where conformity is understood, it’s sort of in the air.

Much Autistic confusion may have been avoided if they could only say that out loud, but I guess it’s not really conformity if you have to be reminded of it. Gilbert Gottfried smile.

Autists talk about it, we complain about the toll on ourselves of a conformism we cannot succeed at, and the concept is not full, perhaps we see it as a “trait,” but maybe we think it’s everyone but ourselves, part of the Human Nature deal, maybe we don’t think of it as a type specific trait, meaning both a superpower and a disability, depending on circumstance, of a specific neurotype?

There would seem to be a simple arithmetic to be discovered, we have neurotypes and environments (human made environments, to be sure, some meta stuff), so that if we see the environment, it should be clear what sort of mind has adapted for it/created it, or if we knew our minds, we could guess what sort of a world they are made for/are making, sort of thing. I wish it went without saying – knowing neither you can’t really do anything. Worse still, seeing either of these things clearly is extremely difficult on its own. Those that achieve one tend to specialize in it, and I’m not sure who knows both.

Again, though, if you have one, you can guess the other. Neurotypes, this concept, makes this far more possible. I had intuited my answer here long ago and said many times, with an apology that this was all I had, intuition, that what I was up against in opposing spanking seemed to be a warrior mindset, but it was the Matrix, I was the anomaly in the equation, because I didn’t share this mentality that I was ascribing to all of humanity – learning about Autism, and the bigger idea, neurotypes, solved this. (I mean, thank goodness. I never wanted to be The One, eish. LOL. ) Solved both sides of it, my mind, and “most peoples’” minds. Now it’s pretty much a tautology.

The environment is conflict, if it’s not war, “peacetime,” is competition in our war against the common enemy, Earth and all of its inhabitants – so the dominant neurotype is “warrior.” I’m sorry I have to say this, but that is the job of writing, I am starting to grasp, saying it: that is not the model of neuro-health, I mean it is, but it can’t be. Nothing would be justified in forcing a mindset of conflict on people and the goal of any “cures,” for neurotypes other than the Robustic one, is a bad goal, a goal that maintains a world of war.

Again, I didn’t say it first, it’s their reason for all of it, to be strong, to make the nation strong, so we can fight off “the enemy,” note the forever, content free phrasing. It’s all good in their framing, strength trumps all. We fight off the enemy in this, the best of all possible worlds. This is some of the reverse engineering mentioned in the previous post.

Nothing at all would be justified by this, much less ABA torture.

In fact, we really need to go the other direction entirely and start pacifying our species, and from Autism to Robustism, I say, stop already, you can’t get tough enough for the world you are creating.

That you think you can, this . . . this is not a superpower.

We need to cut down on your red meat. You need help. None of your own people will help you, I’m sorry to say, they all have the same problem. They are much too busy pissing you off to make us all strong to help you solve any aggression or anger problems you may be experiencing. If you wish to ever find peace, you must listen to someone else, another sort of mind.

Have you seen the news?

Jeff

May 23rd., 2023

Hatching NR People

Written late last night, on Twitter (so all caps for emphasis), with some cleaning up:

The neurorobust, (TM, formerly “neurotypical,”), being the typical and dominant neurotype, cannot be arsed to change the world, as, due to their dominance, the world is already as their brains would have it. It “makes sense,” to them, no matter it is forever sliding into wars and other nightmares, it is doing so in a way they can understand, none of it is unthinkable to them, their brains are made for it.

I’m saying that nothing changes unless we address the common disabilities OF NORMAL (dominant culture) PEOPLE.

It is literally and critically NOT ABOUT FRINGE PEOPLE.

Of course the bad guys are wrong about that, but we’re the good guys in the same losing game, and boosting and saving fringe people, while important and necessary and good, WON’T CHANGE THINGS. It will remain, as it has been, a forever losing battle.

The neurorobust, (TM, formerly “neurotypical,”) don’t get it about their own disabilities, and some of the disenfranchised also do not appreciate the disabilities of the “normal,” and cis, and white, and straight – the neurorobust, (TM, etc.) I believe is the point. It is not the skin colour or the sexuality of these people that makes haters of many of them – it’s their neurology, or social complications arising from their neurology – same as us, right?  I worry we the neurodivergent also are perhaps not entirely free of the medical model, where NR, (TM, etc.,) people are literally the model of neuro-health, for no logically structural reason, only by consensus.

They are not, they shouldn’t be, there shouldn’t be such a thing, it’s another hangover of creationism, that there is some perfect, God-made version of the human being. There are no “Non-Divergent,” types, because there is no manufacturing spec – obvious, for actual materialist atheists. It is a relativistic relation, all types diverge from all others.

NR (TM, etc.,) people are a neurotype, complete with let’s say neuro-common TRAITS, some good, some bad, depending on context. Superpowers or disabilities (or neutral), depending on context – SAME AS US (Autists).

Right?

And, late hatchers at least, how much did finally being introduced to what is known about your Autistic neurotype help you? (ADHD folks too, all the “ND?”)

This self knowledge is massive, right?

Don’t we think it would be for everyone? NR (TM, etc.,) people included? It would. Of COARSE it would. 😘

So let’s do that for them, with them – starting with flattery.

The NR are my friend ‘cause they’re so big and strong! 😻

(Wanna getta cat, Spike? That’s dysphemism, the worst possible version, of course, I’m joking, but spoiler alert, it’s all I ever talk about, that will be a big part of it, the strength.)

A great deal of the NR trait list is easily gathered, we have the well known descriptions they make of us, these are easily reverse engineered, we have the ironic lists already, the NT dictionary pages, the @NTtakes  sort of accounts are listing it all – we can just be a little less humorous and sarcastic about it, it’s funny, but let’s not bury that it’s real also.

I know, aren’t I a ton of fun. They laugh because it hurts.

Part of the puzzle as I see it is I think the NRs take “different but equal” wrong. They think they’re perfect, so they think it means we’re perfect too, only different, and so it’s powerless. The NR (TM, formerly “NT,”) need to understand they have disabilities, and if we can get there, what they are.

(because spoiler alert, what those failings are killed the planet.)

All true and a bit obvious, right? 😘 To some, maybe, but this is my superpower, hearing what it is a speaker doesn’t know, and if anyone knows what this blog says, no-one on my feed is saying it.

I feel like the self knowledge thing was too quick, wants an example. What awful traps did you fall into forever before learning you’re Autistic? I guess for me, I thought I could explain anything to people, I thought anyone could learn anything or something, despite my whole life of never succeeding at it. Now I know, telling folks doesn’t mean much at all. Also the so called DEPT, I finally get that they mostly hate me, this has to help, going forward. 🙄

But surely any Autist reading had their traps and some relief – without naming any tonight or speculating, imagine what sorts of traps the NR (TM, formerly “NT,”) folks have, and no-one to tell them there’s a reason for them, no neurotype for them to discover and finally understand. Uh oh, my catchphrase is calling – just evil, broken Human Nature. That’s what they are given to understand. Hey!

That’s the same too, huh.

That’s what we were before we had a neurotype too, innit. That’s what we were given to understand too! But there was more, wasn’t there? 😈❤️ And there is more for the people formerly known as merely “typical,” or the medical sounding merely “neurotypical,’ the Neurorobust, the maybe eighty percenters too, that very sort of life saving, life changing self knowledge exists for them too, we all just need to know the logical structure I’ve given here, and then look where the logic says that knowledge will be.

Plus, if along the way this self knowledge helps anyone else, well, that wouldn’t be bad either, would it? Surely some of our personal Autistic discoveries, our self understanding stopped us hurting someone else too, didn’t they?

This is going very well, but does anybody know whose wheel I’m reinventing? And if not – where’s my money, I mean, I am looking for a hyperlexic author, a partner. I’m just an idea guy, I need someone for, you know, the work.

😘☮️

Jeff

May 18th., 2023

Neurorobust People

We have discovered a useful sort of a classification system regarding different sorts of thinking coming from different sorts of minds, and named it “neurotype,” clearly just Greek for brain type, perhaps with a connotation of thought type, and it’s good. We count Autism as a neurotype, and ADHD, many things pathologized as “disorders,” in the past work as well or better as entire other brain types than as different problems within a single type – but it is a very difficult concept, akin to the differences between the universe and the multiverse – something of a stretch, honestly, expecting we apes to get our heads around that, at least quickly.

We spend our lives in the zero sum game of trying to psychologize and empathize with other people, and that is impossible enough with infinite variables even if we were all the same between the ears, let alone to multiply the whole deal exponentially upon learning we are not. We’re not there yet, but have faith with me, that no matter how complex reality turns out to be, it is still more workable than a myth or a lie, no matter how simple that is.

It is overwhelming, but it’s where the hope is.

There are the former “disorder,” neurotypes, and there is the former “normal,” type for which mostly they do not generally medicate or lock you up. This seems to have fallen through the cracks as we move from one terminology to another, that a “type,” has more power than a disorder, that “type,” in theory describes all the types, and what it means to be one type or another of that thing – basically that every individual in such a system can be assigned a type, I mean, sometimes you need a “miscellaneous,” type too.

But that’s usually not the majority! The “main,” type of a thing is a type, as much or more than the rest of the types, so it needs a name, and some criteria. “Neurotypical,” tells us the main sort is “typical,” which, this is some criteria for something but it doesn’t apparently reference neurology. What is the average “neurotypical,” person like then?

Hmm. Numerous, you say.

Crowds, then, are neurotypical? We will revisit this non-comedically, I do think so in a way, but for now – China and India must be neurotypical as all get out, huh. Cities in general, LOL.

I think I have a name for that sort that means something about their brains, in the title, Neurorobust. I suppose “neuro,” is redundant, we don’t say, “neuro-Autistic,” do we, it’s a word that references a neurotype already, but “robust,” on its own already is a word – I want to say, “Robustic,” make an adjective of it, match, “Autistic,” call people Autists or Robusts, but it’s a bridge too far – can we carry on with the idea and iron out the word tomorrow, please?

I’ll use that, Neurorobust, today, it’s not perfect, but it does sort of explain itself, it says, “neurotype,” at least, and “robust.”

I’d better explain “robust,” in this context, huh.

The idea is that, starting from my Antisocialization Theory, that what we call the typical neurotype is the human brain in Warrior Mode: strong, aggressive, highly social, meaning, uh, unambivalent in regards to people. Loves ‘em or hates ‘em, to some degree. I mean, “robust,” partially in this group conflict, game theory way, that “strong,” human groups can defend themselves and survive, and also that “strong,” individuals thrive within the group as well, and further that this order of things, that the strong should survive, this attitude is robust and survives attacks from critiques and peaceful social movements.

Being robust is a robust social plan, and so the robust are the typical, or the dominant sort. It works for me many ways, but one of the best is that they will like it, they will agree, it is them, my Neurorobust people for whom this is the highest compliment, “strong and robust.” I think it may fool them into letting it pass. “Robust,” is so positive! It’s Newspeak already; they are going to love it.

More still, every neurorobust brain is tough, and resistant to change.

Like the proverbial Cape Breton man, you can always tell a Neurorobustic – but you can’t tell him much, LOL. The thing I speak of in the previous one, the thing I’m always talking about, the behaviour that ensures the strength, the spanking and the police, these behaviours too – robust AF. Sort of impervious to critique.

So, the form of the word is an issue – but “robust,” is the word, every which way.

And, as I said in a late addition to the previous one, it’s good in its contrast to the former “disorders,” like Autism, in which the many common co-resident health issues show a lack of what we collectively call robustness, of our physiology. That the Autistic mind is not robust, this is a challenging part of the argument, perhaps it is enough to suggest that we have a lot of moving parts, that we require more maintenance, or at least less abuse, because of it. The final piece is Antisocialization Theory, that I don’t think childhood abuse makes at least some Autists more robust, as it would seem to do, by their measures, for most of the Neurorobust.

Again, by their measures, and they see mostly the “strength,” and positively when they do. That’s how their brains seem to work.

Something came up on Twitter, someone saying again, “Nothing about us without us,” because the neurotypical professionals attempts to explain our experience fall dead, and the reason for that is the half baked way we use “neurotype,” again, they speak as though only the former “disorders,” are neurotypes and normal people are not, somehow. Communication will always fail when the speaker is not self-aware, when they think they are some perfectly functional default and not just another weird neurotype. Know thyself – thy neurotype – first. I think it is theoretically possible to speak about others’ neurotype without looking like a fool, but you would have to know you are also a type and what yours is.

Honestly, my hope falters if I think we cannot somehow speak across the gulf. They are too robust, they won’t listen, until they understand it about themselves, that it is a trait of their neurotype, a superpower in some contexts and a disability in others, and that they must factor their own neurotype into their thinking, that we all must disclose what we can of our own minds in order to clearly see the world.

Jeff

May 17th., 2023

Sapiens Neurorobustus

My tentative name for the modern neurotypical human being, of course it’s far from correct, we are not different species that require different names – sure, it’s a laughable Autistic attempt at clickbait – but hear me out, bear with me, the language is some combination of undeveloped around this stuff still, and just something so new that I haven’t learned it yet. Part of this is to establish the totality of the concept of “neurotype,” and for that the “typical,” type needs a name and a definition.

I propose “robust,” or something like it, to describe what we call “typical,” which presently lacks any sort of description other than the socially understood numerical superiority. That’s all “typical,” means – and it doesn’t really even have to be true, just has to sound right, when there is no description. Popularizing half of a concept is an all too common form of oppression, you must conform, but we don’t write the rules down, so you can never prove you’re compliant, there is never a defense against conformity. Lawyers, arguments don’t help you.

“Type,” is the sort of concept that applies to everything, though, everything is a “type,” of whatever it is – “normal,” people too.

I started my journey by critiquing the core concept of punishment, and this led me to seeing all the ways in which human society makes itself stronger, and that in a world of war, it seems the adults begin training the children to fight at an early age, and all grow up strong, every human group prides itself on its strength and credits its existence to it, against the neighbors, who unfortunately are also rather strong. It is my contention that the stress and beatings of human childhood are intended to, and generally succeed in producing this strength, as well as the suppression of other traits in the process, in order to reach the same goals.

I’m always trying to talk you out of it, I always say that and then quickly add, “not an endorsement!,” but today, my disapproval isn’t the point.

It is what it is today.

And today that’s a neurotype, because I think it works better on some people than others. I escaped the roughest sorts of it, but I got the idea, and I’m not tougher. Just like the rightly critiqued Chagnon said about the children applying this process to one another, it doesn’t work on everyone. He said they would goad the ones it didn’t work on until it either did and they fought, or they let themselves be killed, but he said there were such – surely there are trans kids and gay kids and Autistic kids and perhaps simply non-violent kids everywhere (and if I’m leaving people out, I’m sorry).

It clearly works best on the “typical,” neurotype, clearly more of the Autistic etc. kids are the ones subject to escalations of the process, such as ABA and conversion “therapies,” than the “normal,” type (again, that’s all “typical,” means), because it doesn’t take so readily in some types. Always, the practice has mystified me, while no-one around me understood my confusion. I spent sixty years with no idea why so many people don’t like their childhood beatings but somehow learn to love the process as adults – I didn’t realize there were different neurotypes until very recently, and now I can sort of accept that different things make different sorts of sense to different sorts of minds, and I am simply not of the type that normal human discipline makes any sense to.

Plus, the sort it does make sense to seems like everybody, so I guess it’s a “neurotypical,” sort of sense – but again, numbers are not the point, so let’s name that, it makes sense to the neurorobust (add to dictionary). To the neurorobust, some welts on your ass aren’t going to kill you, you’re fine. To the neurorobust, shutting up and doing as you’re told isn’t so bad, why wouldn’t you? To the neurorobust what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. You want these people with you when the fighting starts, straight up, but of course they probably started it too.

To Chagnon’s probably over-simplified and worse Yanomami neurorobust boys, beating your weird little brother to death isn’t so bad, I guess, while the dead boy had decided that death was better than hitting his brother or something, I assume the pacifist boys didn’t have the robust neurotype – please note, our weird, non-gregarious boys get singled out for “extra,” too, as I said, ABA, conversion ordeals. I don’t know Chagnon, and I’m not defending him, but if he had said, as I am, that he was talking about us when he described the boys’ basic training murders, we may have disliked him even more, or somebody would have.

How do you like me so far?

That’s all I want to do, call the “typical,” a type, say that is has tendencies, identifying cognitive elements, suggest a name for it – and there’s always the next one. Be careful out there.

 Oh, yes –

and to contrast that new name with Autism, say why I like it – because it is the Autists that have all the so-called, “comorbidities,” which add up to frailty, the opposite of robustness, Autistic brains, built from Autistic genes perhaps, with perhaps Autistic bodies and co-resident medical over-variance, that’s us, and Robust brains, built from Robust genes and with more Robust, trouble free meatsuits, that’s the more numerous sort of human being, at least apparently the more common neurotype.

Jeff

May 15th., 2023

Gonzo Science – Your Fighting Genes

Gawd, the propaganda is so obtuse, so horrifying simple and false. The flighty sounding talk about self-knowledge isn’t always high level, it’s basic as can be too: if you don’t know yourself, you can’t know anything, even your own thoughts, speech, and actions may not be you, how would you know? If the world clearly seems a certain way to you, you have to ask yourself, why is this what my mind looks to see? Why have I evolved the sense of that certain way? If the world is clearly a struggle and a fight to your mind, then you were evolved to see fighting, you have genes for fighting.

It follows that of course we have other genes with other concerns as well, and the current and long time social narrative is that these others have to live around the fighting. The current and long time idea is that you “have the fighting genes,” end of story, it’s static, created Human nature in new words, we are still and forever dealing with them, but of course what is missing from the conversation is the environmental control of genetic expression. If our other genes and other concerns wish to change anything about the fighting, we need to take that argument a level deeper, and undermine the gene, find a way to stop selecting it.

If we could adjust the environment away from abuse, our children would be slightly less under its control, and this would give their children a better chance to do the same. This was my parenting plan – you want to make God laugh? Never mind, it’s still my theory.

Come on, this was easy, it’s obvious. The minute I heard of epigenetics, this was all sitting there, obvious.

There are fighting genes in humans, and there is epigenetics, and there is spanking: the gene, the control mechanism, and us working it like an oar, making sure from approximately birth, that the environment is a fight, ensuring the activation and repeated selection of the war genes. Plain as day, I have had trouble expressing this because I assumed it was obvious and simple and everyone knew, I swear to God. How do we not? Do you not?

I mean, this obvious truth is buried under a ton of flummery.

Freud’s drives are just the static Nature broken down into components, balancing them seems to be all that can be done and I guess most people manage it well enough? Primatology too, just talks about the past, the “making of our Nature,” or something, it looks away from our this-minute evolution too. Any system of human parts and components comes out of the static meme, the meaningful parts are behaviour and genetics, not the structural hardware.

What if your baseline “Human Nature,” was a moving thing, a foundation of shifting mud? (the following I wrote a few days ago on Twitter.)

What if?

What if there were those “warrior genes?”

What if there were? What might the world look like?

Well, you’d expect war – check.

You might expect some rape, warrior genes selecting themselves – check.

You might expect a military sort of social organization, an hierarchy of authority – check.

You might expect that a creature with such genes admires and promotes strength and aggression – check. Ask me if you don’t believe me. It’s most of the blog.

You might expect a development that turns adorable babies into aggressive adults – check. Again, I’m always writing this.

You would expect that individuals lacking the selected for aggression would be pathologized and/or marginalized, perhaps killed – check. (Won’t make you ask: all the “gender critique,” can and should be seen as patriarchy, warrior patriarchy and they don’t really care if boys love boys, but they care terribly if boys love at all and hate insufficiently. This would seem to be the obvious aim of male circumcision, so we do things for this reason.)

Enough?

Show me something about people that says we DON’T have and live from our warrior genes.

Every argument you have for a nasty Human Nature would support warrior genes, wouldn’t they?

Has this book been written yet?

😘

(back to live on Saturday.)

I suppose if the book existed I would have found it by now. I want to write it, but I’m doing this instead.

I’m jaded; I don’t have the hope that we will do this, see our own making, and I have to say, it means all that nineteenth century talk about consciousness is rubbish, that if we don’t see this first level deep into ourselves, we cannot claim to have it. We remain beasts indeed, as long as we do not take this step.

Jeff

May 13th., 2023

The Double Masking Problem – no, sorry: The Shadow Empathy Problem

Written on Twitter:

I seem to have had a non-standard experience. I didn’t know, didn’t know to mask, I just got high and went into the breach numbed and otherwise as my weird self. It’s true there wasn’t any social success.

I suppose there were times when small talk seemed easier. Hyperlexic, if I couldn’t produce any small talk, I sometimes said so, talked about that: I’m sorry, I wish I had some small talk for you. I’m here. ❤️

I suppose I’m always wishing I could STFU.

It’s either this or I am just still brutally unaware.

I’m trying to find it, that’s why I’m talking: you know the NT version of “the mask?” That’s the one my people were talking about the whole time, what is not “the shadow,” is “the mask,” the mask is what people allow themselves to see about themselves, our FB selves, while the shadow is our dark side, the things we will not acknowledge, and everyone has one, they say, it is filled with Freud’s dark drives and the seven deadly sins, and aspects of ourselves that we use as insults for others. Basically, your shadow is that bad penny, evil Human Nature’s bad side. Your (NT psychological) mask, is your cherry-picked personality – OMG, hey, it is so good to think in text! #ActuallyAutistic , everyone come in, check this.

NTs have one theory of masking as part of their theory of mind, and Autists have an entirely different one as part of ours, wait for it – so we see them masking, conforming, our theory of mind says: “there’s something more going on underneath, surely they understand more than they’re saying they do.”

But when THEY detect an Autistic  masking, what does THEIR theory of mind tell them?

What is behind a mask in their minds?

THE SHADOW.

Oh my gawd, this is the DEP, they see us masking, and what is behind our mask in their theories is everything they have already decided they hate about themselves.

For real, y’all. This has truthiness from here to Timbuktu, I believe it already. Ouch. (I can bounce this off of someone IRL, one who was and is very into shadow work and such.

I’ll get back. ❤️ )

“Empathy,” was close, that’s part of it, what is buried in our shadow we lack empathy for (repression, per Alice Miller); the shadow is all that is repressed in us, the blind spot.

But these are not two individual versions of the same phenomenon, these masks.

In theory, Autistics have a psychological mask also, of course, repressed things – but it’s not that mask we get caught out at, NT people don’t bust each other or anyone for the shadow’s mask. It is not two psychological masks passing in the night, not a different bunch of micro-empathies from otherwise identical systems like a language problem, but a two theories of what an Autist’s mask is covering problem. The NT only knows the shadow and projects and assumes the worst.

I got Autistic therapists here, right? Surely they know the shadow and the whole world is here before me? The big takeaway, I guess, Autists, get yourself a counsellor that has done their shadow work, one that has the chops to understand their own reactions to people, I’d want to know they had the idea.

Jeff May 4th., 2023

Automaton

That’s what I’m calling you, I guess. That’s Antisocialization Theory.

Like a rubber band airplane. Your momma winds you up, and your lieutenant sets you free. Then you go off and do the predictable thing, what you’re designed and built to do, spending the energy they put into you.

Jeff

Apr 14th., 2023

Internalized AST

That will be ableism, to you, internalized ableism. Perhaps internalized racism, internalized sexism, internalized “gender-ignorance,” internalized hetero-neuro-normative whatever, you name it, I feel my marginalization as an Autist, so I’ll say ableism. It’s not a huge point, because my point that it’s not about any particular marginalized group, we are not responsible for our own disenfranchisement – and words like “ableism,” always name the hate after the victim.

“Anti-Asian hate,” a year or two ago, it’s all-victim, perpetrator-free crime. The news won’t even tell Asians who to watch out for, just don’t be Asian. But ableism.

Thinking ableism is “about” disabled people is agreeing with your enemies.

I know; “about,” and “because,” are complex, and the limitations of language hinder us, I’m trying to solve some of that.

Abuse “because,” we’re disabled, that’s their line – and it’s internalized ableism if it’s ours. It’s not because of us.

Having to abuse everything and everyone, this is some “them,” we’re talking about, a trait of some “theirs,” not everyone except theirs. It’s not like the haters single out your marginalized group, it’s obviously the other way about, they single out one group to keep and marginalize the rest with one broad stroke.

The community on Twitter is forever saying, “nothing about us without us,” and that’s great – but to the haters, it was never “about” us in the first place, they don’t know who we are. We say, they need to start seeing/thinking something about us, but again, they don’t know what we are and they don’t much care, they do it to everyone, it’s a function that really doesn’t look past “Other,” it really doesn’t spend any cognitive energy on things with that designation (what does @autismsupsoc call that, fast and dirty Allistic processing?). That would seem to be the point of the designation, no processing resources for you.

Black people wonder, “what’s wrong with being black?” and the LGBTQ+ community wonders, “what’s so wrong with not breeding?” and the ND community wonders, “what’s so wrong with thinking differently?” and of course the answer always, collectively and individually, is nothing!

Of course, nothing!

I mean, everything has its upsides and downsides, I guess, but nothing, nothing about any of these labels is something anybody needs to bloody do anything about! This trait of wanting to do something about people, though, can we please, before the end of eternity, talk about that? Obviously, that is a problem.

Black and brown folks talk about white people, the Non-Binary talk about cis people, the ND talk about the “neurotypical,” which describes nothing but their perceived numbers, and I don’t deny the Venn diagram is basically one big circle for all of those things, especially around here, but it’s just not the point.

It’s not white peoples’ skin colour that’s the problem any more than it is anyone’s skin colour, is it, and it’s not cis peoples’ breeding habits and it’s not “neurotypical” peoples’ commonness, is it? The hate isn’t “because,” of diverse types of people – and so it’s not “because,” of the simple existence of the haters either, something has gone terribly wrong with them, of course, this is what I’m saying too, but I can’t abide ending the conversation there, naming and blaming isn’t enough.

That we have already been trying for some generations already, the Good Fight is keeping us morally occupied but it’s not solving the problems. Anyway, to say it’s because of who they are, their natures or some such, that’s their crime and their error, isn’t it?

Can we not escape the same lethal ideology of the worst human sorts?

I won’t be caught parroting that, and I’m here to beg you not to be either. There are real world reasons for things, not natures, and the more people insist upon these natures, the worse those people behave.

As I said, there are reasons, there have to be – sometimes I think it is not in my Autistic neurology to accept a noun as an answer to “why” anything, and “because they are, racist, haters, Nazis, white, cis, NT, all these are nouns – and because they simply are doesn’t satisfy me. Nouns are “whats,” and this Autistic needs a verb.

“Why,” is an action question, you “neurotypical” weirdos. Not only is “because those people,” wrong, it’s not even grammatically sane, you couldn’t be right no matter who you named. “Why,” demands a verb.

Of course I had to make my own, it’s “antisocialize.”

The extreme antisocial nature of racism, sexism, etc., this is a noun we all know, hate, but creating hate requires action, a verb, despite what they told us in Sunday school, and despite what your high school science teachers who also attended your Sunday school told you too. You weren’t conceived with a load of hate already on board. They, we, are making the hate.

The noun that refers to knowing this function I have designated Antisocialization Theory, or AST for short, and the dominant folks of this world have it the worst, but most of us have it. It’s what is internalized, AST, the hurt and the need, the hurt from people hurting one another when they think someone needs it and the belief, born of the need, that someone does. Rather, AST describes the process of internalizing negativity generally, regardless of the flavour, and how it changes us, antisocialization is the process of acquiring our internalized hate – I mean the feeling of hate.

Ah!

The specifics, who we’re to hate, and the whys and wherefores of our applied hate, these are perhaps merely informational, a part of our general socialization, certainly they would be considered to be, if we felt that all people have enemies and conflict were inevitable – but the emotional effect, antisocialization, this sets that default. If you were spanked, hate is natural and inevitable to you, and you’ll need to know where to put it.

The same logical structure exists in the positive, your prosocialization would derive from your emotional experience of feeling loved, and so being loved would be natural and necessary for you, but the general socialization of your society and environs likely specifies who and what to love . . . ah, something sort of new, isn’t it.

I’ve been calling “socialization” a general, inclusive heading, the name for all of it and saying it’s made up of positive, neutral and negative socialization – now maybe classic “socialization,” can just mean informational, period, who and what – but the pro- and anti- versions mean something else, something emotional, antecedent to any specifics, the template, the blank forms, so to speak.

Wow, I do believe something moved there.

If only anyone knew, huh.

So the theory is, if you want your kids to experience love, love them and they’ll want that, and if you think you need them to hate, hate on them a little, beat on them a little, and they will want that too, and we know they will find their own people and things to love – and that is the AST theory of racism, etc., that they will find their own things and people to hate too, society provides mates and enemies.

You can “teach,” racism, but you don’t have to. Spank them, show them the systemic racism, and they’ll figure it out, their hate will find its niche. Same for ableism, sexism, too, spanked people and relatively consequence-free targets for them.

This is AST, and this is what we need to fight and to change, that second thing, the “hating on your kids a little,” meme. All of our disenfranchised identities can lobby to be on the “prosocialized for,” list alone, in competition for this decade’s entry, or we can try to solve the problem at its root, with simply deciding we don’t need that, we would rather our kids weren’t hate-ready before they can even speak.

That’s the battle, and it’s the same battle, no matter who you are, stop the spanking, stop the hate.

Simple!

Jeff April 9th., 2023

“Choosing” Love

 . . . all great ideas, Mrs. Marx and Engels, Drs. M. L. King, Gabor Mate, Alice Miller, Mr. Cavoukian – Bell Hooks, just names from my personal logos, but so many great humanists, all with a terrific idea about how things ought to be, about love over hate, too many to name them all, so many good folks trying, so many apparently obvious rhetorical questions posed, why wouldn’t we choose love?

If I have readers, you know what I think: spanking and it’s mythological excuse, “Human Nature,” is why. But today’s question isn’t that, it’s “why would this be rhetorical?”

All good things hit this wall.

We would choose love – but goddammit, I have forever been choosing love and receiving hate and I’m sorry, but it’s not love I got too much of and not love I need to void myself of, is it? If you didn’t want this from me, why did you do that?!?? We would, but, kind of thing, right? But not for them, or something, right? Surely there is someone out there who deserves some of the limited resource of my mercy.

I’m trying to tell you, you ask, “why choose hate?” like it’s rhetorical, like there’s no answer, like we’re not really looking for an answer.

I woke up today with a thought that is childishly simple, yet still unfortunately true of a world of adults. You know the old saw, a child says in anger, “You made me feel X,” you know, X equals sad, mad, something awful and at some age we start saying, “other people don’t make you feel things, your feelings are yours.”

It’s a bit of gaslighting, doesn’t matter what I do to you, you are responsible for your own feelings, but it has a sort of truth, we do need to own our feelings enough to control them some and such, but it has just occurred to me for the umpteenth time, that isn’t this just what every sort of hate, every “ism,” is, the hated groups are blamed for the feelings of the haters, the haters hate everyone but themselves and it’s everyone’s fault but theirs, all their hate.

But you know what? It’s not so simple, this gaslighting. Rather, there are multiple levels, a ruse within a ruse, and while we gaslight one another in the here and now, that we aren’t responsible for one another’s new and current feelings, we are also closing off any conversation about anyone creating feelings in anyone – about antisocialization, in a word. Nobody affects nobody, apparently.

AST, so, you feel bad, you blame someone, but Psych 101 says your feelings are your own, from some other trauma, not from the person in front of you, so now you feel bad and it’s not their fault, it’s you, and “some other trauma,” of yours, and trauma is always some sort of accident, Psych 101 knows your abuser had their own trauma, so no-one tried to make you feel that way, it’s a . . . choice, ultimately, how we respond to a tragic accident. Why not choose love?

Uh, because it was a trauma and not an orgy?

These haters really don’t create all this hate themselves, is all I’m saying, the haters’ parents do, their caregivers do, their preachers, teachers and coaches do. Contrary to your memes, we can’t just make our own hatred from thin air and we’re not born with an unlimited supply, and of course somebody else makes you feel that way!

I want to say, of course we make each other feel things when we interact, but that’s not the point, the point is they were made to feel that way as a part of their upbringings, and it’s a feeling that doesn’t go away, somebody else makes you feel that way for life.

Your mom, your dad. Your people do that.

Why not choose love? It’s not bloody rhetorical, there’s a real world, living reason, and it’s because of the way they have made us feel, as I tried to express above. If we do not choose love, it is because we have been made to feel something else. Feelings are . . . real, materialistic, they are born and die here, in this world. Your bad feelings happened here, and the source is knowable.

I’m trying to tell folks: we can’t get there from here, but if we stop hurting our kids, maybe they can see more from there, maybe they can “choose” love a little more often than we did.

Jeff

March 23rd., 2023