Climate change. Vaccines as a cause of autism. The existence of God. Abortion. Gay marriage. Bring up any controversial topic, and sooner or later there will be someone, usually more than one someone, who takes the position (and you have to at least give them credit for honesty) that their mind is made up for all time. Is this kind of person rare? Not at all. In fact, the type is so common that attempts to provide evidence, to educate, to clarify, are usually doomed to failure. It’s often said that you can’t change people’s mind with mere facts. The question is: why is this so?
Anyone who assumes that humans are basically logical and rational is either grossly misinformed or delusional. Economists are in the process of discovering this: people don’t generally make the wisest financial choices, even when the benefits of a particular choice are perfectly clear. But economics is a practical discipline, and its principles can be applied, tested, and discarded if necessary. In almost every other area of life, the experts seem to have a bias against the very facts that would help them make headway in changing minds.
The basic default for the human mind, when it’s not concerned with the purely concrete and practical, is emotional reactivity. And that reactivity comes most strongly into play when ingrained beliefs are challenged. The earlier a belief system has been introduced to the growing mind, and the more often it’s been reinforced, the less likely is it that the person will ever be able to think in any other terms. That mindset works in tandem with education (usually poor) and intelligence (average) to produce a human largely closed to new and challenging ideas.
Nowhere in any of our social institutions is this acknowledged. And the institution which should logically be the one to counter conditioning, closed mindedness, and inability to think clearly rather than react emotionally, the educational system, is instead the primary sustainer of the status quo. The result is that the mind of the average citizen (or should we just drop that pretense and say “consumer?”) belongs to every agent of persuasion who comes down the pike: to the advertisers, politicians, medical quacks, and spiritual hucksters. Whose mind is it? The chances are very good that the next person you meet will not be the owner of his or her own mind. How about yours?
Note: Since I wrote this post, a new study has come out, stating flatly that there is no evidence of a link between vaccination and autism. How many of the anti-vaccine people will change their minds?
Filed under: Autism spectrum, Human nature | 0 Comments
Tags: conditioning, belief systems, emotional reactivity, rationality
We judge people by what we observe about them. From our observations, we come to all kinds of conclusions, some of which have nothing to do with the reality of the person. Eye contact seems to be of great importance to neurotypicals, and lack of it tends to generate harsh judgments, based on assumptions about why someone fails to make adequate eye contact. The two most frequent reasons for lack of eye contact, that I’ve read about, are: oversensitivity to the light reflected from eyes, and eye contact as one more processing problem for a system that can’t function on too many channels at once.
Reading about eye contact issues has made me aware that my own isn’t the best — not enough for people to complain about it, but maybe enough, along with my other “problem” traits to tip the balance onto the negative side in how people judge me. Since I’m mildly faceblind, it would certainly help in recognizing people if I paid more attention to their faces. But I don’t. And I’ve started thinking about that more, after talking to someone, whether it’s a stranger, casual acquaintance, or someone I know well. I think the main reason I don’t make a lot of eye contact is simple privacy. I’m an extremely private person myself, so looking directly at someone for more than a quick glance makes me feel as if I’m violating their privacy, their personal space. And maybe faces are an extra processing channel. When I’m thinking, either working out an idea or trying to figure out what to say to someone, I withdraw into myself by looking away, usually down.
But whatever the reason, every person who has trouble with eye contact is going to be judged in pretty much the same way: anti-social, a snob, unfriendly. It’s just one of the many areas where people automatically judge by superficials, and where we expect them to be somehow aware of the problems rather than judgmental. I wonder what the real difference is, between neurotypicals imagining that we’re all capable of “mind reading,” and aneurotypicals expecting them to be aware of invisible disabilities.
Filed under: Autism spectrum | 0 Comments
Tags: eye contact
Good or bad, favorable or unfavorable, a stereotype is always a distortion of the truth and a substitute for thought. There is a very clear parallel between the stereotypes concerning gifted children and adults, and people on the autistic spectrum. The standard picture of the gifted person used to be that of a nervous, fragile individual whose mind was overtaxed by the strain of living with a high IQ, and who eventually could be expected to collapse mentally, and even physically, as a result of that strain. Thanks to Lewis Terman’s decades-long study of a selected group of high-IQ people, the picture changed drastically. Now, the gifted were bursting with good health and mental stability, bound to achieve spectacular success in life, and that has tended to be the accepted view. We’ll pass quickly by the eventual realization that Terman’s study was extremely biased in its selection of subjects, tainted by his personal involvement with them, and that one or two fulfilled their promise by committing suicide.
Today, we see the wholly negative view of autism and Asperger’s slowly changing to a more positive, if not always nuanced, position. But not everyone who writes about the spectrum, even if they are on it, is sufficiently knowledgeable, and they tend to create new stereotypes in the process of opposing the old ones. By far the worst contributors of misinformation are those whose writing isn’t from personal experience or even from acquaintance with people on the spectrum. Instead, they write for money, doing as little research as necessary in order to churn out an article that fits a site’s requirements, including searchable keywords.
In some ways, these articles are laughable, as long as you ignore that they will be taken as factual by the casual reader. Some of these writers, of course, just accept the negative stereotypes as true and repeat them, reinforcing them in the public mind. But some, who we do have to credit for at least being open-minded, inadvertently create new stereotypes. Whether it’s a matter of not knowing which resources are reliable, misinterpreting what they read, or overgeneralizing from limited facts, they produce new distortions of what autism and Asperger’s are and what people on the spectrum are like.
The most recent such article I encountered makes aspies sound like over-achieving boy and girl scouts. They are dependable and loyal; they always speak their minds and stand up for themselves, even in the face of opposition, and they have excellent memories. These traits are presented as if they are typical of every person with Asperger’s, and are then used as the basis for generalizations about how they can reasonably be expected to behave. The large percentage of aspies who desperately spend years trying to hide their characteristics and fit in with normal society just haven’t heard that bit about standing up for themselves.
Apparently taking at face value the stereotypical ideas that aspies have no imagination, and that they cannot lie, the author jumps to the conclusion that they are also never con artists or manipulators. Aspies are completely non-judgmental, and free of prejudice, a “fact” not to be contradicted by the fierce discussions on aspie forums in which some members claim superiority over “normal” people, and lavish scorn on neurotypicals for their stupidity and hypocrisy, among other unlovely traits.
Their need for social contact isn’t as strong as that of “ordinary” people, “ordinary” being repeated several times as the standard against which aspies are apparently being measured. So aspies are what? Extraordinary? Difficulty with social relations is turned into a virtue which allows them to be very selective about choosing friends, and because of that selectivity, they choose people who are genuine, honest and dependable. Obviously, stories of aspies who have naively accepted people at face value and suffered abuse at the hands of their “friends” are pure myths.
As amateur social workers, aspies are superior because they are able to listen without forming judgments, and can offer fresh perspectives. That ability is probably enhanced by their often being more intelligent than “ordinary” people. It would probably be too confusing to this writer to note that many non-aspies are also more intelligent than “ordinary” people. Endurance and exercise are treated to the same “booster” interpretation, with the particularly amusing conclusion that aspies do particularly well at exercise routines and maintaining physical fitness because of their natural persistence.
Misinterpretation, conflation, hasty research, and lack of insight combine with good intentions to produce a new brand of stereotypes which, given the willingness of the average reader to take such articles as authoritative, will probably confront aspies with new and completely unrealistic expectations. From Rainman to multi-talented, all-seeing genius. At least it’s a step up.
Update: Going back to the article a few weeks later, I find that my comment has been either deleted or not published. Could it have had something to do with my criticizing the author for writing about something she knew nothing about?
Filed under: Autism spectrum | 2 Comments
Tags: asperger's, stereotypes, neurotypicals
Obsessively Wonderful Book
I wish I could remember who recommended Elizabeth Moon’s “The Speed of Dark,” but I can’t. If you discussed it lately on your blog and are reading this, many thanks. I swallowed this fairly long SF novel in two enormous gulps, abandoning almost everything I neeeded to do for two highly pleasurable days. Despite being a big SF fan, I’d never heard of Moon. Taking a brief look at her titles, they seem to be mostly space opera type stuff, which doesn’t interest me, so my ignorance of her makes sense. But will explore further in case I’m missing other gems of hers.
Briefly, the novel is about a young man, Lou, who is part of a group of autists employed by a pharmaceutical company. For reasons that are never explained fully (the one flaw of the book) the company wants them to undergo experimental treatments to make them “normal.” This is not a “Flowers for Algernon” type of story, either in its broad outlines or its ending. Instead, it’s a serious look inside the mind of a brilliant person who just happens to be a high functioning autistic. It’s an amazing piece of work, really, especially if Moon isn’t on the spectrum herself, because Lou’s thought processes have the same obsessive precision and search for clarity that I had found in a person in an online forum and that first alerted me to the possibility that I might be on the spectrum.
Along with the delight of getting into Lou’s mind, I kept thinking that this is exactly the kind of thing that would turn off many “normal” readers. I have no idea how popular the book is, but it’s certainly one that should be read by anyone with any interest at all in autistic cognition. It’s barely science fiction, limiting itself to discussions of changes in the treatment of autism, and the persistence of bigotry toward those who are different, and offhand references to differences in computer technology. It’s primarily a study of character, and as such, is totally engrossing and convincing. The experimental protocol is central to what’s going on with Lou and his friends, and I found myself saying “Don’t do it, Lou; don’t agree to the surgery.” What did happen, and how it turned out were a surprise, and I won’t spoil it for you. Just read it.
Filed under: Autism spectrum, Intelligence, Science Fiction | 0 Comments
Tags: autism, Elizabeth Moon, Science Fiction, Speed of Dark
Scientific research can bring about great changes in our thinking and attitudes. And what could be a greater change than to think about animals as having rights, and possibly even personhood? It turns out that the great apes are more like us than we ever could have imagined. They use tools, communicate with each other, and apparently even have a sense of humor. Little wonder that there is a movement afoot to grant them personhood, a status that would place them on a more equal footing with humans.
Is there some slight irony in granting personhood to apes, but not to autistics, who, despite their various disabilities, are recognizably human? Where is the science that proves that 50 to 75% of autistics are mentally retarded, as is commonly believed? Meredyth Goldberg Edelson, a professor of psychology at Willamette University, examined the available research and found that 74 percent “lacked their own research data to back up the assumption. Thirty-nine percent of the articles weren’t based on any data, and even the more rigorous studies often used questionable measures of intelligence.” On the basis of this “research,” counselors and therapists often advise parents that their newly diagnosed children are hopeless cases, doomed to lifelong care because they will never be able to take care of themselves.
So prevalent is this belief, which is perpetuated by the media, that it serves as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Children with no verbal communication skills are given IQ tests based on exactly those skills. They are subjected to “treatments” which can be harmful and even downright deadly, and some of which amount to nothing less than torture. The insistence by horrified parents and by organizations whose survival depends on the most negative possible view of autism, that autistic children are little more than mindless animals, means that they are often deprived of aids and education which are taken for granted as essentials for other types of disabilities. Maturation of the nervous system, and the effects of learning are dismissed as irrelevant. So, autistic adults who have overcome or learned to compensate for many of their problems are considered no longer autistic. Worse, they are often accused of faking their autism, of never having been autistic at all.
There are vast contradictions and inconsistencies in attitudes toward autistics. For some reason, Temple Grandin is considered a marvelous example of what even severely autistic people can accomplish, and is given credit as a spokeperson for autism. Yet Amanda Baggs, equally autistic, and a well-known blogger/advocate, is often reviled as a fake, and accused of setting herself up as a spokesperson. The only reason for the difference in attitudes that I can determine is that Grandin became well-known before the current “autism epidemic” and the hysteria surrounding it, which allowed her to establish herself as fully human and to speak openly in a way that is now very difficult for anyone on the autism spectrum.
Change is coming, but slowly, and it is going to have to be fought for. The idea of neurodiversity, that there are different kinds of minds and that all have the right to education, fair treatment, and the opportunity to live their lives as fully as possible, has become a point of controversy rather than a statement of the obvious. Even scientists are having to change attitudes which have been based on assumptions rather than facts. “”If Amanda Baggs had walked into my clinic five years ago,” says Massachusetts General Hospital neuroscientist Thomas Zeffiro, one of the leading proponents of the difference model, “I would have said she was a low-functioning autistic with significant cognitive impairment. And I would have been totally wrong.”
Source for quotes: The Truth About Autism: Scientists Reconsider What They Think They Know, David Wolman, Wired Magazine, issue 16.03
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/16-03/ff_autism
Filed under: Autism spectrum, Mind | 1 Comment
Tags: autism, mental retardation, personhood
This NT World #1
The thrift store where I volunteer is closed for the afternoon and a meeting for all the staff and volunteers is supposed to start at 1:00. I leave my work and come upstairs, where chairs have been dragged out and snacks laid out on a table. It’s a bit after one and everybody is standing around chatting. It’s almost 1:30 and everybody is still standing around chatting. Nobody seems disturbed by the delay. I wander around, at loose ends, mildly annoyed, wanting to either go home or go back to work if nothing is going to happen. Finally, I approach the woman I work with and tell her I’m going home, and would she brief me on the meeting the next time I come in. She looks at me strangely and nods her head. I leave.
The next time I come in, I find that nothing of real importance came up in the meeting, and the subjects could have been summarized in a few lines and posted on the bulletin board.
Filed under: Human nature, Neurotypicality | 0 Comments
Tags: asperger's, neurotypical meetings
Examining Faith
Religious faith is a fascinating subject to wonder and conjecture about. No more inherently fascinating than any other kind of faith, such as faith in the existence of ghosts, but more inclusive and complex since it takes so many forms and provokes so many different kinds of responses. Almost ten years ago, I realized that there is probably a vital difference between people who are capable of belief in invisible beings and those who are apparently incapable. Which now makes me wonder if the study of belief by those who try to understand and explain it, aren’t missing an opportunity. Wouldn’t that understanding best be served by identifying a population of natural non-believers and comparing them with the usual run of believers? Instead of all the theorizing — and it is just theorizing — about evolutionary fitness, social cohesiveness and whatever other explanations are currently in favor, it seems to me that direct comparison between two populations would be more likely to get to the root of the problem.
I suspect that natural non-believers may have many characteristics which are part of the same mental makeup. I theorize that they will tend to be unable to hallucinate, in the sense of seeing things or people that aren’t actually there. They may be relatively immune to peer pressures, social mores of all kinds, the socially constructed realities with which all societies surround themselves, and possibly even to crowd hysteria. It’s possible that they’re among those who aren’t susceptible to hypnosis, and who are even able to resist brainwashing techniques. I wouldn’t assume that all natural non-believers have all those characteristics or have them to the same extent, but I think the relationship would probably be strong enough to mark a particular type of consciousness very difference from the norm.
Filed under: Mind | 2 Comments
Tags: belief, brainwashing, faith, hallucinations, non-belief, peer pressure
Minds in a Rut
I don’t pay a lot of attention to politics, being pretty much in agreement with Frank Zappa’s opinion that “politics is the entertainment division of industry.” Skimming the daily headlines is enough to show me the trends, the persistent focus on trivialities, and the continuation of business as usual. But there is one idea that’s been hanging around my head for a while, and it would make a good subject for a research study sometimes next year.
I suspect that a good many of the people who voted for Bush twice and who are now very unhappy with him and his administration, will vote for McCain. The study would have to differentiate between those who approved of his policies and merely felt that he hadn’t fulfilled his promises, and those who belatedly realized that the whole eight years were a disastrous mistake.
What I’m betting on is that most people will continue the kind of thinking that led them to make mistakes in the first place, political or otherwise: faith in a political party, belief that whatever measures have failed so far have done so because they weren’t carried out properly, taken far enough, etc., or that mysterious evil forces intervened in what should have been glorious successes. Find the scapegoats and you solve the problems.
But the real problem, the one that’s never going to be solved, is that the minds of the majority are so easily focused on the local, the immediate, the trivial, and on what concerns them personally. And that seems to be the task of the media, whether deliberately or just as an outcome of the need for ratings and advertising revenue. So, what’s overlooked is the long-term consequences of actions, most of which don’t reveal themselves immediately, and the big picture where multiple forces interact on a scale far beyond that of day-to-day interests.
It’s not a political problem, or even an economic or social problem; it’s a human problem. All the other problems are simply the outcomes of doing what comes naturally, and it’s the same pattern that humans have followed since they first gathered in small bands to pursue their goals. Nothing has changed; nothing will change, except that the unforeseen consequences are becoming ever more deadly.
Filed under: Human nature, Mind | 0 Comments
Tags: consequences, politics, thinking patterns
I give up
I think I’ll just have to confess to being a total and unregenerate snob. I tried, for the second time, to write for Digital Journal and earn a bit of extra money, but I can’t do it. The standards there aren’t any worse than they are on any website that pays token wages, but the predominance of semi-literacy, ignorance, and yellow journalism keeps me constantly discouraged, disgusted, and angry, and I can’t afford to keep expending my energy that way. So much for citizen journalism — a fancy name that allows people to pretend that something worthwhile is going on, when it’s really no different from most of the garbage on the web.
I need to stick to what I really care about.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 0 Comments
How do people manage to move from facts to conclusions that are so outrageously illogical that all you can do is laugh at them? God makes you stupid? Apparently the way to opppose a statement is to concoct something that is supposedly the very opposite. The current brouha over the claim that higher intelligence is related to decreasing belief in god is fascinating for the idiocy swirling through it. Unfortunately for the hysterics who see attacks on their religious beliefs under every bed, that doesn’t in any way imply that only stupid people believe in god. In fact, nothing at all has been said about stupid people, much less about their religious beliefs. When we say that some people are smarter than others, it doesn’t mean that those who are less smart are necessarily stupid.
Atheism does have its extremists, unfortunately, and some of those seem to feel that belief in god is associated with stupidity. But they are not representative. Belief in god exists at all levels of intelligence, and intelligent people, even if they’re atheists, know that. Every instance of the statement that belief in god makes you stupid is by the authors of the articles writing about Richard Lynn’s report. It isn’t something he said or even implied.
What I find especially amusing is that the correlation between IQ and atheism has been known for years, but never hit the spotlight until now. It’s also true that academics are more likely to disbelieve in god. As it happens, though, among academics, scientists are far more likely to be atheists than those in any other field. There’s absolutely nothing new here, and it’s only the screams of those who are trying to give the impression that they’re being called stupid that has even brought this to such wide public attention. Luckily, like all tempests in a teapot, it will die down very soon.
But to those who have been so deeply offended that they believe they’ve been insulted, and the reporters who can’t read and understand what has actually been said, I’d like to assure you that your stupidity has nothing to do with your belief in god. It’s something you were granted at birth, long before your parents ever had a chance to indoctrinate you.
Filed under: Human nature, Intelligence, Religion | 0 Comments
Tags: Intelligence, religious belief, stupidity
Generalization of the day
The problem with smart people is that they like to be right and sometimes will defend ideas to the death rather than admit they’re wrong.”
Smart people don’t defend their ideas in the face of evidence that they’re wrong. If they do, they’re not very smart, regardless of their IQ.
Filed under: Intelligence, Quotes | 0 Comments
Tags: Intelligence, smart
I heartily support the idea of reinstating intelligence and knowledge as something to cherish rather than denigrate, but I do have a few caveats about a new site which is setting out to do just that. In its sidebar, Carnival of the Elitist Bastards publishes its battle cry:
“It’s time we stop letting our culture celebrate willful ignorance and start promoting genius instead.
“We’ll celebrate our cerebrums, jerk the sledgehammer out of the hands wielding it against us, and kick anti-elitists to the curb. We’ll delve into the delightful varieties of elitist and elite pleasures. We’ll wax philosophical and hold up the elite of our societies for praise.”
First, even if this is meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, I question whether “taking back” the word “elite” is a worthwhile endeavor. In the US it started out with a built-in handicap, the historic taint of money and privilege, and it is now so heavily loaded down with misunderstanding and contempt that I doubt it can ever be rehabilitated. Trying to rescue “elite” and “elitism” has some similarity to Don Quixote’s quest. If Cervantes accomplished nothing else, he contributed “quixotic” and “tilting at windmills” to the language.
Second, the promotion of genius as a counterpoint to ignorance has a few significant flaws. The opposite of ignorance is knowledge, not genius, and such an error will surely come to the gleeful notice of detractors. But more important, genius is a very rare quality, and the mere possession of intelligence and knowledge doesn’t necessarily result in genius. Making that claim for a broad group of (self-identified) people will simply reinforce the antagonism and resentment which now exist. I’m perfectly willing to advocate the destruction of an education system which destroys intelligence and ensures ignorance, but I can’t promote self-aggrandizement. The first carnival is, by and large, a fine collection of thoughtful and well-written blog posts, but the mothership could use an overhaul before it sets out to sea again.
Filed under: Intelligence | 0 Comments
Tags: elitism, elitists, Intelligence
What just happened?
One of the most basic of human assumptions is that we all share the same kind of consciousness. That assumption is slowly being whittled away by the increasing sophistication of studies in cognition, and by the personal testimony of those who, in one way or another, differ in the quality of their consciousness. Realistically though, if two people are watching a television program or a movie, we tend to think that they are both seeing the same thing. This is just one of the areas where self-observation is telling me something very different — that a different kind of consciousness will see the world in a very different way.
An example: As a rule, I don’t care much for television series, and that includes mystery/crime programs. But every once in a while I hear about one that sounds interesting, and check it out, usually by renting from Netflix. I’m currently going through “Wire in the Blood,” which I like because it’s edgy and dark, and character-driven. Disappointingly, much of what I liked about the first few episodes has been toned down significantly, in very much the same way that “Dexter” has been toned down to be more in line with mainstream tastes, but I still enjoy it.
Continue reading ‘What just happened?’
Filed under: Human nature | 1 Comment
Tags: attention, novelty, television
Basins of attraction
My mind keeps circling around and coming back to fascinating topics which should be more than enough to keep me busy. Alas, never enough. I wish I could focus on just one or two topics the way normal people do–giftedness, for example, since that’s the subject of my primary blog. But one thing leads to another, the connections proliferate, and the seemingly simple grows ever more complex. Every new set of ideas demands that I pay attention to it and abandon everything else for a while.
So the pile of books to be read — immediately — grows ever taller, and I find myself spinning around in circles, trying to juggle too many plates and balls. Why did the subject of neoteny suddenly come to consciousness again, years after I decided not to pursue it? Why did the idea that neoteny might have something to do with the sad plight of humans come to mind as something worth exploring? Why did the subject of belief in psychic phenomena suddenly raise its head, when I decided long ago that it was a frivolous dead end? And, speaking of basins of attraction, chaos theory is always there in the background as a kind of metaphor to be further explored.
I have a terrible short-term memory, and a huge storehouse of information which is only partially accessible on demand. At a level far below consciousness, facts and ideas are being sorted, categorized, connected in ways that apparently make it impossible for them to be called up as isolated, independent units. I have an image of multiple basins of attraction to which the tidbits of information are drawn, swirling around until they find the connections which can make them meaningful. And it’s only when they’re meaningful for my current thinking that they become accessible, floating up into consciousness and becoming visible.
Filed under: Mind | 6 Comments
Tags: chaos theory, basins of attraction, memory, neoteny
Attention must be paid
Well, April has gone and taken with it Autism Awareness Month. Like all such months, weeks, days of observation, awareness of autism will slide into obscurity for another year and then arise to repeat the same information and meet the same challenges and arguments. And in that year, stereotypes, half-assed definitions, and muddled bits of third-hand information will be passed around as factual.
This isn’t exclusively a problem for those on the autistic spectrum. If you’re blind, people are likely to speak loudly to you, assuming that you’re also deaf, or even worse, speak to the person with you as if you weren’t even there. If you’re in a wheel chair, you’re very possibly either deaf or stupid. If you have invisible problems such as pain and fatigue from CFS or fibromyalgia, auditory processing problems, or anything else that limits your ability to respond and interact as expected at all times, then you’re probably faking, and trying to get special privileges that you’re not entitled to.
Filed under: Human nature | 3 Comments
Tags: autism, minorities, stereotypes
A new book by developmental psychologist Susan Pinker, The Sexual Paradox: Troubled Boys, Gifted Girls and the Real Difference Between the Sexes, probably won’t settle any arguments, but it does provide a lot of information for those interested in the issues. The Telegraph reviewer feels that some of the statistics quoted don’t actually prove anything one way or the other about gender and her final impression she came away with was that the book is more journalistic than scientific.
“Why is it that some boys who fail at school or university - Albert Einstein and Bill Gates come to mind - go on to forge spectacular careers while many talented girls never reach the top of the career ladder? Here, in a nutshell, is the paradox explored in the developmental psychologist Susan Pinker’s new book.
“It is time, says Pinker, to stop thinking of men as the ‘default’ setting and women as variants of the norm, when advances in brain imaging and genetic mapping confirm fundamental genetic, neurological and psychological differences between the two sexes.”
Filed under: Books | 0 Comments
Tags: book review, gender, Susan Pinker
Genderless Mind
A few months ago, I submitted a sample of my writing to Gender Guesser, a little online app that analyzes the text and determines (with claimed accuracy of 60 -70%) whether you’re a male or female. It seems that I’m resoundingly male, with scores of female-152, male-710 for informal writing and female-221, male-420 for formal writing.
This started a train of thought that’s been following me around ever since, so that I’ve apparently become more sensitized to the prevalent idea of the gendered mind: women write and speak one way, and men another. This is so taken for granted that it’s hard to see the many ways in which much of that gender divide is culturally determined. The result is that when a women speaks or writes in a way that isn’t considered “feminine,” she is said to be speaking or writing like a man. If she becomes a computer programmer or a scientist rather than a caregiver of some sort, she is acting like a man, “invading men’s territory,” etc. And the reverse is also true, though not to the same extent: if a man is empathetic or chooses a job as a caregiver he is considered more feminine than the normal male.
Continue reading ‘Genderless Mind’
Filed under: Mind | 1 Comment
Tags: culture, gender, Mind
Never the Twain Shall Meet?
I’ve been thinking a good deal lately about the overlap of traits in people with Asperger’s and those who are gifted. I wonder if I’m the only one who’s noticed. I can think of plenty of objections people might have to such an idea–even outrage. It’s a subject well worth exploring.
Filed under: Giftedness, Mind, asperger's | 1 Comment
Tags: asperger's, gifted
Species-norm
Almost all assumptions about what the human mind is capable of are based on species-norm intelligence. Studies of beliefs, behavior, unconscious motivations and influences are also based on species-norm intelligence. It was a college course in social psychology that was the defining moment for my understanding of what it means to possess an “alien” mentality. For the first time I saw, clearly laid out, examples of how normal humans behaved in going about their lives. “This is what it’s like to be human.” It was illuminating, and also horrifying.
Most humans are little more than automatons, following patterns to which they’ve been conditioned since early childhood. They have little awareness of anything outside their immediate sphere of activities and concerns, and are easily manipulated, by subtle as well as blatantly obvious influences, which they are completely unaware of.
Is it any wonder that those who are interested in such matters have always assumed that people make decisions based on relevant information, choosing the actions and behaviors that will be most beneficial to them? After all, the observers are of the same species mindset. It’s only lately that new studies are showing the extent to which people make choices that are anything but beneficial. Economists are suddenly made aware that how people spend or don’t spend their money is controlled much more by non-rational influences affecting their emotions rather than by an understanding of their self-interest. The same pattern is being revealed about every aspect of normal life, even to the choice of a mate.
Could education make a difference? Could an early understanding of psychology and social psychology alert people to their own behavior, enabling them to make more rational choices? Of course, the answer is yes. But it won’t happen because mass education is an intrinsic part of the enclosed, self-reinforcing social reality which surrounds everyone. By and large, escape is possible only for those whose “alien” mentalities automatically place them outside the social reality.
Filed under: Human nature, Mind | 1 Comment
Tags: automatons, Intelligence, self-interest, species-norm
Not one of us
There are very few days when I’m not reminded, in one way or another, of existing outside the boundaries of the socially constructed reality of modern life. That’s somewhat amazing, or would be if I wasn’t so accustomed to it, considering that I’ve become a virtual hermit, and interact with that world primarily through the internet. I did tolerably well most of my life–the years of raising a family and passing for normal, but I’m grateful that I’ve been able to retreat from the stresses and aggravations that involved. I don’t have the energy for it any more, and less interest in it than ever.
Trying to understand the strangeness of the human race, learning how to function in a manner that’s at least minimally acceptable–those were a big part of my life, but I realized recently that I just don’t give a damn about all that any more. The mass of humanity is pretty much what it has always been, and the likelihood of significant change is nil. I think that humans will eventually prove to be one of nature’s failed experiments. Their complexity, compared to that of other animals, and their ability to master their environment, have concealed their weaknesses. The long history of humans has led everyone to assume that we are the splendid peak of creation, even though that history is a insignificant blip in the history of the planet. Continue reading ‘Not one of us’
Filed under: Human nature, Intelligence, Uncategorized | 0 Comments
Tags: history, Human nature
