Re: Open Letter....

[Guest guest]

alfamanda wrote:

> I once read something differently than it was meant

> and got told that the person who wrote it spends way too much time

> around NTs already and didn't need this " reading between the lines "

> crap from me.

It depends on what you mean by " reading between the lines. " Below, you

wrote that calling Jeanette paranoid is " reading between the lines. "

From that, I can surmise that you have a broader definition of that

term than I do. I call that " reaching a conclusion based on observed

evidence. " That is not what I call reading between the lines. Reading

between the lines is seeing meanings in the writing that are not there,

and attributing those meanings to the writer of the message. Jeanette

does that enough to where debating her feels like debating an NT-- and I

have debated enough autistics and NTs to have noticed that there are

some notable differences. Jeanette shows a lot of these differences. To

wit:

* When I suggested that Jeanette may have something more akin to

paranoid schizophrenia, she flew off the handle, and later revealed that

this was because I was " basically saying I don't belong here, and that I

have really no way of getting better- hopeless. " I was not saying that

in any way, basic or otherwise. I was stating that I perceived her as

paranoid, and that she might better fit another diagnostic category.

* Jeanette has now decided that I despise her, despite the fact that I

have never said this. She has apparently decided this based on the fact

that I am pretty short with her-- but I am short with everybody, and

that does not mean I dislike them. She also seems to think I like Steve

(which I also never said-- I said he is not a total troll, that he did

not need to be driven from the list, and that there is rationality

underlying his outbursts). That neither supports nor rebuts the

assertion that I like Steve. I have not given an opinion on whether I

like Steve. And if anyone remembers, I tore into Steve a hell of a lot

harder than I did with Jeanette (unless you think that suggesting

another diagnosis is an insult in and of itself). If anyone cares to

take a stroll down memory lane, here is the link:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse/message/7813

> The funny thing being, when I read Jeanette's posts, I can generally

> track the reasoning behind assumptions *you* call " paranoid " , well

> enough that when she finally explains the reasoning, it's usually the

> one I was guessing at (aside: hmm.. does this give me too much ToM

> to be autistic?).

No, you do not. I bet you did not have much (if any) ToM at five years

of age. You've learned since then.

I can track her reasoning now that she has posted it. I must admit that

I had no idea what her reasoning was before she posted her message.

What I do know is that it is not rational to say that it is certain that

getting a dx would make her homeless or dead. That is by no means

certain, which is pretty obvious. It still requires some paranoid

thinking to make the leap from being diagnosed to " obviously " becoming

homeless.

My roommate of many years ago got hooked on Klonopin. He got very

paranoid. At one point, he heard a helicopter flying overhead, and

panicked that the police were coming for him. I could track his thought

process... most helicopters that flew overhead there were police

helicopters, and most of the time, if they are flying around, they are

looking to arrest someone. The paranoid leap came when he thought he

was the one they were after. He had prescription drugs with no rx, and

he thought, in his panic, that they were coming for him.

The fact that you can track the thought process does not mean the

thinking is rational. And, in both of the cases I am writing of here,

there is one point where there must be a leap of paranoia, one that

defies logic and rationality. It was not rational for my roommate to

think that the police would come, with a helicopter, to arrest him for

having prescription drugs. It is not rational for Jeanette to think

that having a diagnosis will suddenly make her unemployable and

homeless, especially since many people have both diagnoses and jobs. It

is not rational for her to think that all Washingtonians are

closed-minded idiots, and it is not rational to think that all NTs are

idiots. It is not rational to assume, with no other data, that

discrimination against women is the cause of someone getting turned down

for disability. It is not reasonable to think that vets are just out to

get rich (with the amount of education they have to have to be one, they

could have gotten a degree that would really allow them to rake it in).

I could go on and on.

That was the premise for my assertion that she is not being rational,

and specifically is thinking in a paranoic way. It is not reading

between the lines to reach that conclusion. I don't think any less of

her; I have thought she was a conspiracy nut (please note that I do not

use " nut " to mean mentally ill here) for a while, and I have noted her

tendency to post irrational messages from the beginning. She is still

the same to me as she was before we had that debate on ideology. She

said before she thought it was a game, and now she thinks I was

attacking her... the fact is that I was debating against ideas (economic

liberalism) that I find incorrect, and it was neither a game nor an

attack. I argue with points I find incorrect on the list... that's it.

And if Jeanette thinks I am any more harsh with her than anyone else,

she should check the archives.

> Your calling them paranoid is another form of

> " reading between the lines " , basically filling in the gaps between

> what's said with what you think is there (and you seem to think

> " paranoia " is there, whereas I see sound but pessimistic reasoning).

And if this example was the only one of what I call paranoid thinking, I

might be inclined to think the same, with the exception that I cannot

figure out how she got from " being diagnosed " to " being unemployable. "

I told her that if she does not want to tell her prospective employer,

then DON'T. Making that leap is irrational. This has been a pattern

with her; I did not determine that she was paranoid based on this one

message. I say that my reasoning that she is paranoid is sound.

> So I think it's really pointless to take *that* tack in a debate

> about whether someone's NT or not.

To a large degree, that is true. However, in the context of this

debate, I am trying to establish my basis for saying that I wondered if

she had AS (note also that I never stated it as a given). I was aware

that the statement may touch off a heated exchange, but I wanted to

raise the point, so I did.

> As I've said before, anyone who's

> capable of understanding *in whatever form* (be it by sheer

> phrase-memorization or by applying rudimentary metaphor management or

> something) the phrase " reading between the lines " , is more capable

> of reading between the lines than I was when I thought it referred to

> invisible ink.

I thought of it in terms of lined paper that people write on, in which

case ALL the reading is between the lines.

[Guest guest]

>No. If you did not hate them, you would not have reacted so

>vitriolically when I suggested that possibility. This is what 's

>post was about, in part.

Here you go again, ignoring anything and everything I say in rebuttal, making

blanket assumptions about me to suit your world view.

You assume that my reaction has to do with me hating schizophrenics, which is a

stupid assumption to make, and it apparently doesn't matter what I say, because

you refuse acknowledge what I say or that it has any validity to suit your

needs. didn't say that I hated them, either. Her post was about being

judgmental, and she said that we were BOTH sort of guilty.

You made your rebuttal to that and so did I. Of course, yours is perfect in

your mind and mine is to be ignored.

I don't like first off to be labeled, then have someone who doesn't really know

me that well judge me and tell me I'm " nuts " OR " mentally ill " (you used the

same terms interchangeably, then accused me of being " intolerant " when I did the

same thing.)

Then to be labeled with something incurable and with a worse stigma than AS,

just because, it rather insulting and disrespectful of me, because it assumes

that I don't know myself and that you know me better than I do, which is quite

arrogant and a lot of bullshit.

>I hate you, everyone else hates you

>because you're different, and they are sitting there waiting for you to

>get a dx so they can call you one more thing... or else they hate you

>because you're female, and are just waiting to find the opportunity to

>keep you down.

It doesn't matter what I say, you will just ignore anything I say that disproves

your little theories on me to suit your own needs, what ever they are. I've

already stated the basis of those things and how I never said " people are out to

get me " but now I see you argue the same way Tom Leykis does- ignore what the

other person is saying if it doesn't prove your point, never ever accepting you

are wrong even if I have proven you to be so. It is an unfair form of debate

designed to ensure that you are never really challenged.

>Stop reading things into what I wrote.

Why? Does it bother you? Why would it bother you- does it say something about

you that you don't like?

> You are labeling me to get rid of me and wash me away, so you won't have >

to " deal " with me anymore.

>I am? How would that work?

By labeling me with something other than AS, there may be a reason to get rid of

me- get me off the list. By labeling me something other than AS, it may color

the minds of others and my posts will be ignored, and I can be brushed aside.

No, it's not going to work. I'm going to stay here and annoy the shit out of

you. I will not go away.

>Don't think you can judge the tone of my posts. You'll miss every time

>if you do that. That is not an autistic trait.

Collin thought you were going at me, and I was going at you based on the " tone

of the posts " and that it was getting personal. Since HE read into that, is HE

autistic now?!

At first I took your word for it. Now I'm beginning to see another side of you,

and it really was personal all along.

The " don't pay attention to the tone " stuff is just another excuse to be abusive

and hide it- the same way you say you see that in other people's posts.

YOU read into things as well, by assuming everything I say about myself isn't

true, by ignoring it and repeatedly saying the same things to me over and over.

I'm not going to take your word for it anymore, since you refuse to believe

anything I say about myself, why should I believe anything you say about

yourself? I'm not the only one you've done this to, either.

>I have no interest in being your friend.

When I said " be my friend " I meant that you were trying to look like " you

cared " , which is another definition of " being a friend " .

>I am trying to explain to you what I mean, but you have such a vested

>interest in maintaining your set of beliefs that you won't get it, no

>matter how hard I try.

LOL!! Talk about calling the kettle black! YOU are the one who has a vested

interest in maintaining your set of beliefs!!

>I cannot confirm that it was this one

I do respect and understand your decision, but I think my point has been proven

ANYWAY.

>No, that was not rational. Look, we can go in circles like this forever;

there's no point.

AAAHHH- so he IS irrational. And there IS a point- I've proven MY point,

whether you want to admit it or not.

>Or perhaps I am more perceptive than you are.

Or perhaps you *think* you are.

> I do not see you as being grossly overemotional as Steve is.

OK, , here is the definition of histrionic from the dictionary:

Excessively emotional or dramatic.

" overemotional " and " histrionic " are the same thing, if not damn close.

>Actions speak louder than words... exactly what actions have I taken?

You have labeled me, judged me, ignored my responses on myself, assume that when

I explain myself I am full of shit... THAT's what you have done. You don't have

to see those things in action, in fact they are intangible; your ATTITUDE

demonstrates those things.

Calling me a " nut " is judging me. Repeatedly bypassing everything I say about

myself and my explanation of me is assuming that what I say is not true. That's

a fairly arrogant stance to take.

>It was a debate, plain and simple. I have debated with Jerry, with

>Jane, and with Jypsy, and I like all of those people too. I can debate

>with anyone and not hate them but you. Please.

You never labeled them they way you labeled me.

>It is sad, because people that are not in a great deal of pain don't act that

way.

Just because someone is in a lot of pain doesn't mean that they NEED me to be

sad for them. I don't think it's helpful in the end- in this case.

BTW, you READ into Steve's posts and decided that HE WAS IN PAIN. So much for

your notion that I am the only one who " reads " into things, or that it is not

possible to do that and be autistic.

>I would never call someone that was schizophrenic " fucking nuts, " and

>you equated schizophrenia and " fucking nuts. " That's pretty hateful.

Oh really? Then why is it that you think I'm Schizophrenic and call ME a nut,

huh? Is THAT hateful?!

> You don't seem to be able to differentiate between finer details of

> things- you don't trust what I say when I talk about myself. For

> example, if I'm laughing at Steve's silly posts, then I must be also

> laughing at him. Not the case.

>I don't see a difference.

That's the problem. There IS a big difference, and you refuse to see it. That

is what the sticking point is between you and I. You call it irrational. I

don't know what to call your assumptions about me.... that is a specific term.

I'll have to look that up.

> Do you really know what the definition of schizophrenia is? What

> paranoid schizophrenia is?

>Yep.

If you did, you wouldn't say that I have it.

Jeanette

[Guest guest]

The funny thing being, when I read Jeanette's posts, I can generally

track the reasoning behind assumptions *you* call " paranoid " , well

enough that when she finally explains the reasoning, it's usually the

one I was guessing at (aside: hmm.. does this give me too much ToM to

be autistic?). Your calling them paranoid is another form of " reading

between the lines " , basically filling in the gaps between what's said

with what you think is there (and you seem to think " paranoia " is

there, whereas I see sound but pessimistic reasoning).

Ha-ha-ha-ha!

I WIN BLOND BOY!

Thanks ! Again! ;o)

(Finally, someone has come to my aid and backed me up!!!)

Since you've posted this, I will rest my case and let-

*Sarcasm*

Dr. Klein, (who will soon have a new book called " Are you reading between the

right lines or the wrong ones " on what lines are " OK " to read into but not

others, depending on his opinion of things... and another book " Are YOU

paranoid? A Klein guide to sanity, in other words, agreeing with " )

*Sarcasm*

-spill out his rants about how nuts and zany and paranoid and WACKO I am.

*silly joke*

Maybe he thinks I'm just like the Ice cream called " totally nuts " . I do feed

the squirrels at the college campus, so I do have some " loose nuts " .

*silly joke*

Jeanette

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

>My female friend (the one living here) finally could not carry on the NT

>act any more, and became depressed enough to be unable to get a job,

>after 15 years of working and earning relatively decent money. She was

>good at putting on her NT face and getting through interviews; she had

>done it 15 times in 15 years successfully (which is why she was never

>fired; she moved to a new job every time people began to realize that

>she was not able to do what they asked), so having to do interviews was

>no longer an impediment to her. She was very good indeed at hiding

>herself and appearing NT.

>

>The pressure of hiding who she really was finally caught up with her a

>few years ago, and when she lost her job and found herself unable to get

>another one, despite a hellacious amount of effort on her part, she lost

>her apartment and became homeless. She didn't " hit the street " for

>good, though, for she had some friends who took her in. She was wearing

>out her welcome there when I offered her the opportunity to live here

>and let me advocate for her through the Social Security process, which

>is still ongoing.

>

>This is very much like what you describe, with one exception: it was not

>the diagnosis that put the nails in her coffin. It was the autism/AS

>itself, not the label, that caused the difficulty. It was also not the

>stigma that she had been locked in a mental hospital for a single 2 year

>admission; they did not know about that. Her strong work history for a

>decade and a half meant more to them than that anyway. It was that the

>AS/autism itself (she is probably HFA, given that she was diagnosed

>off-the-books as having autistic tendencies when she was 2 or 3 years

>old, but she has now an AS dx) that made her unable to do what they

>wanted (she picked a really bad field for an autistic... sales),

>

Sales?!?!? ARRGH!! I can't think of a more unsuitable job for an

autistic person.

(The Spectrum is broad enough that I suppose there exists at least one

successful autistic sales

person, but most of us have traits that would be a very serious

impediment to that kind of work).

I tried selling once. Lasted six weeks. Did I dust myself off and try

it again? Hell No!

It was blindingly obvious that it was the wrong fucking job for me!

I have stuck to techy stuff ever since. I'm good at that, and Aspie

traits are so common among

computer geeks as to be part of the stereotype, so no NT act is really

necessary.

Job interviews went a lot better after I started letting this work for

me instead of trying to fake NT.

Me trying to follow all the standard job interview advice to fake NT was

so off-putting as

to scare away almost anyone who interviewed me.

She should be congratulated for lasting so long in sales. Even NTs

usually burn out on it sooner.

It also seems more than likely that she could work and be happy at the

right job.

I think this is also true for many others on the spectrum who are not

currently employed.

In many cases the " right job " does not yet exist.

>and it was the repeated failures in that and her always having to hide

>who she really was that led to her becoming severely depressed.

>

In the right job, there is no need to hide what we are. There isn't

any need to advertise it

either because the things that we require as accomodations are offered

routinely.

A formal diagnosis would have been helpful when I was growing up, but

back then the

professionals were utterly clueless. Now I have no need for one. I

am obviously Aspie

and score 42 on the AQ and 14/85 on that other test. If I had a formal

diagnosis it wouldn't

make any difference at work, since I would not be requesting any special

accomodations.

Teleommuting is not a special accomodation, since all the engineers are

allowed to do it.

Telling other people about AS isn't all that easy. If they already

know what it is,

they probably already know I've got it if they've been around me for

awhile. If not, then

they won't know what I'm talking about. I am a bit daunted by the task

of explaining

something that even the " experts " have a very hard time communicating.

Ride the Music

AndyTiedye

[Guest guest]

Jeanette wrote:

> Then to be labeled with something incurable and with a worse stigma

> than AS,

AS is incurable and not treatable; schizophrenia is not. And the stigma

is in your mind, not mine.

> just because, it rather insulting and disrespectful of me,

> because it assumes that I don't know myself and that you know me

> better than I do, which is quite arrogant and a lot of bullshit.

once thought she was schizophrenic. Did she not know herself?

No, she just didn't have all of the facts. A lot of mentally ill people

won't ever admit that they are.

> It doesn't matter what I say, you will just ignore anything I say

> that disproves your little theories on me to suit your own needs,

> what ever they are.

Jeanette, you haven't disproven a thing I have said since you joined the

list. You've argued against me, but you haven't successfully countered

a thing I have said. Countering things I say does not prove anything.

> I've already stated the basis of those things

> and how I never said " people are out to get me " but now I see you

> argue the same way Tom Leykis does- ignore what the other person is

> saying if it doesn't prove your point, never ever accepting you are

> wrong even if I have proven you to be so. It is an unfair form of

> debate designed to ensure that you are never really challenged.

I am not ignoring the things you say-- they just don't make any sense.

> > Stop reading things into what I wrote.

>

> Why? Does it bother you? Why would it bother you- does it say

> something about you that you don't like?

No. It's irritating.

> > You are labeling me to get rid of me and wash me away, so you won't

> > have > to " deal " with me anymore.

>

> > I am? How would that work?

>

> By labeling me with something other than AS, there may be a reason to

> get rid of me- get me off the list. By labeling me something other

> than AS, it may color the minds of others and my posts will be

> ignored, and I can be brushed aside.

>

> No, it's not going to work. I'm going to stay here and annoy the shit

> out of you. I will not go away.

You will go away if I want you to. I don't need to label you to do

that. And if you try to annoy any user of this list, me included, you

will go away.

> Collin thought you were going at me, and I was going at you based on

> the " tone of the posts " and that it was getting personal. Since HE

> read into that, is HE autistic now?!

He was mistaken-- that's my point. You'll get it wrong if you try to

decide whether or not I like someone based on the tone at what I write.

> At first I took your word for it. Now I'm beginning to see another

> side of you, and it really was personal all along.

Yes, I decided to be economically conservative just to spite you. Paranoia.

> The " don't pay attention to the tone " stuff is just another excuse to

> be abusive and hide it- the same way you say you see that in other

> people's posts.

The only one that has been abusive in this thread has been you. You

have all but called me a liar several times, and if there is one thing I

am not, it is that. That is abusive. You have been very sarcastic at

times. I have done nothing but stated my opinion, and you have gone

ballistic.

> YOU read into things as well, by assuming everything I say about

> myself isn't true,

How is that reading into things? You're grasping at straws here. That

notwithstanding, I have never said that anything you said about yourself

was wrong, other than your belief that you have AS. No, calling people

a liar is an indignity only you have perpetrated in this debate.

> I'm not going to take your word for it anymore, since you refuse to

> believe anything I say about myself,

Like what? That you think you have AS? I believe you think that. I

happen to think you are wrong.

> why should I believe anything

> you say about yourself?

Because I am not a liar.

> I'm not the only one you've done this to,

> either.

I suffer fools badly, indeed. You are not the first fool I have met,

for sure.

> When I said " be my friend " I meant that you were trying to look like

> " you cared " , which is another definition of " being a friend " .

Well, I did, at one point, care about you, but I'm getting to the point

that I don't.

> I do respect and understand your decision, but I think my point has

> been proven ANYWAY.

You think a lot of neat things, Jeanette, and most of them make no sense.

> OK, , here is the definition of histrionic from the dictionary:

> Excessively emotional or dramatic.

Look up autism in the dictionary and tell me if that is accurate. The

dictionary is not the ultimate source of data about psychiatric terms.

> > Actions speak louder than words... exactly what actions have I

> > taken?

>

> You have labeled me, judged me, ignored my responses on myself,

> assume that when I explain myself I am full of shit... THAT's what

> you have done.

Those are words. I have never said you were full of shit. I have said

that your statements are irrational.

> Calling me a " nut " is judging me.

Yes, it is.

> Repeatedly bypassing everything I

> say about myself and my explanation of me is assuming that what I say

> is not true.

Not accurate, more correctly.

> That's a fairly arrogant stance to take.

Oh, I'm arrogant, I admit that, but I have good cause to be so.

> > It was a debate, plain and simple. I have debated with Jerry, with

> > Jane, and with Jypsy, and I like all of those people too. I can

> > debate with anyone and not hate them but you. Please.

>

> You never labeled them they way you labeled me.

I said I wondered if you have AS, and that I think you might be paranoid

schizophrenic or something similar. That is not labeling; that is

statement of my opinion.

If you don't agree, then why do you care so much what I think? You can

call me schizophrenic all you want, and I'n not going to bat an eye

about it.

> > It is sad, because people that are not in a great deal of pain

> > don't act that way.

>

> Just because someone is in a lot of pain doesn't mean that they NEED

> me to be sad for them. I don't think it's helpful in the end- in

> this case.

You might be right about that. I was not saying you were bad to not

care about Steve. I just said that I cared about you, and that I felt

bad for Steve.

> BTW, you READ into Steve's posts and decided that HE WAS IN PAIN. So

> much for your notion that I am the only one who " reads " into things,

> or that it is not possible to do that and be autistic.

That was a conclusion, not reading into things.

> > I would never call someone that was schizophrenic " fucking nuts, "

> > and you equated schizophrenia and " fucking nuts. " That's pretty

> > hateful.

>

> Oh really? Then why is it that you think I'm Schizophrenic and call

> ME a nut, huh? Is THAT hateful?!

The two are not related. You are a conspiracy nut, which is true of a

lot of non-schizophrenic people too. I have a lot more terms than that

if I am really intent on being hateful. And I think you are paranoid

for sure, quite possibly paranoid schizophrenic. That is not hateful of

schizophrenics.

[Guest guest]

Klein danced around singing:

>Like what? That you (Jeanette) think you have AS? I believe you think

>that. I

>happen to think you are wrong.

Actually, she sent me a fairly extensive description of herself several

weeks ago when she first joined the lists. She absolutely fit the spectrum

criteria, both in DSM and in terms of sensory/perceptive traits. Just

thought I would point that out, so that you as listowner and my fellow

members don't get the impression there's an NT here when there isn't. Or

if there is one, it's not Jeanette. :-)

[Guest guest]

Jeanette wrote:

> I WIN BLOND BOY!

I'm not blond.

> Thanks ! Again! ;o)

>

> (Finally, someone has come to my aid and backed me up!!!)

And if you notice, I agreed with most of what said. I could

follow your thought process to, except for the one sticking point, as I

detailed in my letter to her. is unfailingly logical and utterly

rational, at least in my experience, and I have a lot of admiration for

her. If she says something, I consider it very carefully. She does

not, as far as I have seen, make half-baked statements; she can back up

everything she says.

Jeanette-- you want to prove your point? Go to a shrink, one that knows

a lot about AS, tell the truth about how you think about everything you

have posted about here, as well as all you care to tell him or her about

yourself, and get him to say you have AS. Then I will accept that I was

wrong. That is how you disprove a point-- by offering more facts than

the other person. You don't disprove anything by simply calling someone

wrong. My opinion about your diagnosis may be right or wrong. Until

you go get official, my guess is as good as yours.

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

> And if you notice, I agreed with most of what said. I could

> follow your thought process to

^^ or " too "

[Guest guest]

DeGraf wrote:

> Actually, she sent me a fairly extensive description of herself

> several weeks ago when she first joined the lists. She absolutely

> fit the spectrum criteria, both in DSM and in terms of

> sensory/perceptive traits. Just thought I would point that out, so

> that you as listowner and my fellow members don't get the impression

> there's an NT here when there isn't. Or if there is one, it's not

> Jeanette. :-)

Now look under " negative symptoms " under schizophrenia.

[Guest guest]

> Sales?!?!? ARRGH!! I can't think of a more unsuitable job for an

> autistic person.

> (The Spectrum is broad enough that I suppose there exists at least one

> successful autistic sales

> person, but most of us have traits that would be a very serious

> impediment to that kind of work).

I agree, although I admit to knowing one person who did very well in

that job and was autistic -- by memorizing everything about every item

and being very good about matching the memorized description of the

item to what the customer was looking for.

[Guest guest]

alfamanda wrote:

> I agree, although I admit to knowing one person who did very well in

> that job and was autistic -- by memorizing everything about every

> item and being very good about matching the memorized description of

> the item to what the customer was looking for.

My friend did well by having an interest (and thus a heck of a lot of

knowledge) in the thing she was selling. Her product knowledge and the

fact that she is a pretty female in a field dominated by men (including

her buyers) were responsible for her success, by her own words. She

did, though, have to act the part of a chatty, NT female, and it took a

toll.

Acting like something you are not is a horrible, soul-stealing thing to

do. When she got out of the mental hospital, where she was erroneously

diagnosed with avoidant PD with psychotic features, she had been trained

to act NT, just as surely as if she had ABA... she believed that she was

" cured " of her PD, and was now ready to go be her newly normal self.

She was strong and determined enough to pull it together for many years,

but it was not, ultimately, sustainable.

Now, to address Andy's message: I agree; I know she will be able to do

something once she beats her depression-- and I know she will beat her

depression. Once the stress of not having a place to live or an income

is gone, she will be able to relax like never before, and I am very

optimistic about her chances of beating the depression with the stress

off. Right now, the stress is too severe, and she is fighting just to

keep from getting worse. Once she recovers, she can re-enter the work

force, with new knowledge of her limits and her considerable abilities.

She has talked about going back to school and getting into language

pathology, and working with autistic kids-- I think she would be

outstanding at this.

[Guest guest]

Klein danced around singing:

> > Actually, she sent me a fairly extensive description of herself

> > several weeks ago when she first joined the lists. She absolutely

> > fit the spectrum criteria, both in DSM and in terms of

> > sensory/perceptive traits. Just thought I would point that out, so

> > that you as listowner and my fellow members don't get the impression

> > there's an NT here when there isn't. Or if there is one, it's not

> > Jeanette. :-)

>

>Now look under " negative symptoms " under schizophrenia.

" negative symptoms, i.e., affective flattening, alogia, or avolition "

That explains flat affect, silence/speechlessness, and inertia... However,

that leaves out sensory hypersensitivity/hyposensitivity -- admittedly

that's not in the DSM for Autism either, but the criteria for

Autism/Asperger's does outline behaviors that are largely the result of our

sensory differences. I don't remember schizophrenia as having that

combination, does it?

[Guest guest]

> once thought she was schizophrenic. Did she not know herself?

> No, she just didn't have all of the facts. A lot of mentally ill

people

> won't ever admit that they are.

It was *much* more complicated than just not having all the facts,

although that was part of it.

> > At first I took your word for it. Now I'm beginning to see

> > another side of you, and it really was personal all along.

> Yes, I decided to be economically conservative just to spite you. >

Paranoia.

That is not what I get from her word usage.

I think you're both doing about the same thing, here, actually. At

least from my vantage point.

Both of you are taking a single inaccurate view of the situation.

Hers seems to be the most pessimistic one possible. Yours seems to be

the one that interprets her words as if they are the most paranoid

possible, while *not* doing so to other listmembers who do or think

similar things.

I doubt that either of you are doing it on purpose, but you're

definitely both being incredibly selective about what you're seeing

and incredibly irrational in certain regards, and you both seem to

*think* you're being rational.

> The only one that has been abusive in this thread has been you. You

> have all but called me a liar several times, and if there is one

thing I

> am not, it is that. That is abusive. You have been very sarcastic at

> times. I have done nothing but stated my opinion, and you have gone

> ballistic.

Calling someone paranoid could easily be construed as insulting. (I

just got called paranoid on a public forum, for (without at *all*

trying to discredit FC) commenting that influence sometimes happens in

FC, and expanding on that theme as well as requesting thought about a

certain kind of influence I've experienced. I didn't think the first

part, at least, would be a newsflash for anyone. And it *was* pretty

insulting to be called paranoid for that, although I admit to

commenting that I wasn't sure that someone who considered criticizing

one part of a process as " damning " the entire thing and speculating

about my past was a good person to assess *my* paranoia levels.)

> > I'm not the only one you've done this to,

> > either.

> I suffer fools badly, indeed. You are not the first fool I have met,

> for sure.

Most people who say " I suffer fools badly " seem to be using code for

either " I blow up a lot at people who annoy me " or " I form really

narrow hard-to-shake opinions about certain people " or something like

that. It rarely says anything about whether the person they are

talking to is actually, in reality, a fool.

> > You never labeled them they way you labeled me.

Well he *did* call Jane a conspiracy nut too awhile back.

> I said I wondered if you have AS, and that I think you might be

paranoid

> schizophrenic or something similar. That is not labeling; that is

> statement of my opinion.

You do realize that (insert disclaimer about shrinkish terms not being

my favorite terms in the world) a person can be dxed with both autism

and " psychosis " , right? That, in fact, this is common enough to be

noted as one possible developmental course for some kinds of autism?

There are nationally recognized autistic people who hallucinate.

> If you don't agree, then why do you care so much what I think? You can

> call me schizophrenic all you want, and I'n not going to bat an eye

> about it.

" If you don't agree, then why do you care so much what I think? "

doesn't work. Autistic people have our diagnoses called into question

so much that it *does* get to be insulting. It hurts when people tell

me I'm not autistic, I'm [schizophrenic, faking, borderline,

dissociative, whatever]. I don't see why this would mean the person

is right.

There's an old myth that goes " If I say something and it really hurts

someone, then I've hit a 'sore spot' and that must mean I'm on to

something. " Half the time what it really means is that people have

told that person that before enough to *create* a sore spot, not

necessarily that what they're saying is true.

I should explain what happens to me when someone questions my

diagnosis, or comes up with a diagnosis that is inaccurate. (The last

one was " elective mutism " , a term conferred on me by a staff person

with a lot of power in her organization and neither grasp of nor

degree in any field that would lead her to any knowledge of this.)

I contemplate packing up and leaving the state. Seriously. I start

planning it out in my head -- what stuff to take, how to keep the cat

safe, how to hide, where to hide, how to get money, what bus to take,

what alternatives there are in case there's no bus, and so forth. I

start wondering if maybe they're right, maybe I'm not autistic, maybe

I'm whatever else I've been told I've been. I decide I want to go

somewhere where nobody knows me and nobody can get hold of me to lock

me up (and at that point I'm usually thinking that they will want to

lock me up in California, which means if I get across the state line

they probably won't follow me). Then I run around kicking all the

doors in my house and whacking my head on things until I either (a)

get tired, ( knock myself out, © get too overloaded to do

anything, or (d) remember there's usually *some* form of sedative in

the kitchen and apply it appropriately. I may also do a fair amount

of screaming.

Compared to that, Jeannette's response (at least as visible on the

screen) sounds trusting and calm.

While the *response* is completely irrational (and indeed indicative

of a diagnosis that I have in addition to autism), I hardly think it's

indicative of not being autistic or of the things being told to me

being somehow meaningful and real. And the sort of *stimulus* that

originally provoked that response is one that is present in a lot of

autistic people's lives, whether directly or indirectly.

> > BTW, you READ into Steve's posts and decided that HE WAS IN PAIN. So

> > much for your notion that I am the only one who " reads " into things,

> > or that it is not possible to do that and be autistic.

> That was a conclusion, not reading into things.

It seems to me that " conclusions " are what happens when you think the

conclusion is right, and " reading into things " are what happens when

you think the conclusion is wrong. Either way, it's still reading

into things. There are ways to do so that are more accurate than

others, and the inaccurate ones are the ones that usually get called

" reading into things " -- they still employ the same basic process,

which is taken the given information and forming conclusions based on

information that is not directly observable.

[Guest guest]

> And if you notice, I agreed with most of what said. I could

> follow your thought process to, except for the one sticking point, as I

> detailed in my letter to her. is unfailingly logical and

utterly

> rational, at least in my experience

I'm actually not -- I can be quite influenced by emotion, and even

when I am, I quite often appear rational because I don't have a very

emotive style of language use. Which can be dangerous, because if I

am (because of emotion) overlooking something important, I generally

appear rational enough that people will believe me.

I do try to be based in reality as much as I can, but my perceptions

of it have definite points at which they become much more faulty than

usual. I do try to be aware of where those points lie, though. (You

can see an example of an extremely *irrational*, and fairly common,

reaction in the last post I made.)

The fact that I back up my points actually makes people think I'm

condescending, which is annoying. I simply don't know *how much*

information people have, and I try to give as much information as

possible because when I give too little I get in serious trouble. But

then if I give more than they need, they think I'm insulting their

intelligence. Plus language for me is a gloss around various concepts

that often (to me) *include* all the background I give.

I did ask my aide the other day about my assessment of reality,

because I'm always doubting it. She told me, " You don't seem too

detached from reality. A little *obsessive*, yes, but your

perceptions of reality are fine. "

I asked her whether she would expect anything *less* than

obsessiveness out of me, and she told me I had a point. <grin>

But I do have my moments. And they're some pretty serious moments.

After writing that stuff I wrote for my website the other day, I spent

the night sincerely believing that I was time-travelling between two

different places and that it was unclear which one I would end up in

by the end of things. Then they started mixing, and when my aide came

in in the morning I couldn't recognize her because she kept turning

into someone else. That wasn't very fun or very

current-reality-based, and it technically qualifies even as

hallucinatory. But outside of that single area (and there's a

definite bending of reality perception and thought that occurs around

certain events even without hallucinations -- see other post for

details), I think I'm pretty together.

[Guest guest]

> >Now look under " negative symptoms " under schizophrenia.

> " negative symptoms, i.e., affective flattening, alogia, or avolition "

> That explains flat affect, silence/speechlessness, and inertia...

However,

> that leaves out sensory hypersensitivity/hyposensitivity -- admittedly

> that's not in the DSM for Autism either, but the criteria for

> Autism/Asperger's does outline behaviors that are largely the result

of our

> sensory differences. I don't remember schizophrenia as having that

> combination, does it?

[The usual disclaimer about shrinkspeak -- I'll leave out my critiques

of the entire category this time, everyone's seen them.]

Actually, it does. A *huge* part of the reason I used to think I was

schizophrenic was not only had I been diagnosed with it, but I'd been

handed a book called " Surviving Schizophrenia " by E. Fuller Torrey.

(A man I'd like to lock in an isolation room along with Bernie

Rimland, his evil twin of the autism world.)

I made a post to another mailing list quite awhile back with the

quotes I had highlighted, that I found when I found my old copy of the

book. Its descriptions of sensory experiences, difficulty

interpreting language, difficulty filtering information, and so forth,

were *very* similar to autism.

Here is a description from my psych book:

" Suspicious and frightened, the victim fears he can trust neither his

own senses, nor the motives of other people... his skin prickles, his

head seems to hum, and " voices " annoy him. Unpleasant odors choke

him, his food may have no taste. Bright and colorful visions ranging

from brilliant butterflies to dismembered bodies pass before his eyes.

Ice clinking in a nearby pitcher seems to be a diabolic device bent

on his destruction.

" When someone talks to him, he hears only disconnected words. These

words may touch off an old memory or a strange dream. His attention

wanders from his inner thoughts to the grotesque way the speaker's

mouth moves, or the loud scrape his chair makes against the floor. He

cannot understand what the person is trying to tell him, or why.

" When he tries to speak, his own words sound foreign to him. Broken

phrases tumble out over and over again, and somewhat fail to express

how frightened and worried he is. "

(From _Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life, Ninth Edition_.)

I bet that, at the very least, the sensory and language aspects of

that description would be familiar to a good deal of people on this

list. Descriptions like that convinced me this label had the merit

for me everyone told me it did.

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

>How would you know that? I can barely fake NT... but as GPton

>remarked, you only think you're fooling them with your NT act.

>

My NT act was never good enough for me to believe I could fool anyone

with it.

>They know that you are different.

>

So I go for blazingly polychromatically proudly diffferent.

> They can call you brain damaged, geek,

>dork, loser, retard, bitch, shithead, or any number of things they will

>come up with to explain your behavior, or you can give them something else.

>

>

They can call me a geek all they want. I write cryptographic code for

Cisco routers. It doesn't

get much geekier than that.

Being called those other names are a symptom of being with the wrong

kind of people.

Hang out with freaks and ravers and they'll just think you're on drugs

like they are.

No one is neurotypical when under the influence of good psychedelics.

People in such a scene become acclimated to neurodiversity.

And they're nicer people anyway.

They also provide positive contexts for the wierdness to manifest itself.

That which makes it impossible for me to sit still

is that which allows me to dance all night long.

(Sitting still is bad for you anyway).

Ride the Music

AndyTiedye

http://www.tiedye.com

[Guest guest]

> No one is neurotypical when under the influence of good psychedelics.

I am. :-)

Or at least, that's the closest simulation of neurotypical perceptions

that ever happened to me in my life, and everyone around me noticed

that I was suddenly " so normal " in their words (although most didn't

know why, which caused me no end of amusement).

Not that I'd recommend that as a course of action.

[Guest guest]

alfamanda wrote:

>

>

> > once thought she was schizophrenic. Did she not know

> > herself? No, she just didn't have all of the facts. A lot of

> > mentally ill

> people

> > won't ever admit that they are.

>

> It was *much* more complicated than just not having all the facts,

> although that was part of it.

Of course. I have read your posts, so I know what you mean, but it does

illustrate that being wrong about your own dx does not mean " not knowing

yourself " as Jeanette suggested.

> That is not what I get from her word usage.

>

> I think you're both doing about the same thing, here, actually. At

> least from my vantage point.

>

> Both of you are taking a single inaccurate view of the situation.

, have you caught up on the posts you missed while you were on

hiatus? You're seeing this debate in a vacuum, if you have not seen all

of the interaction between Jeanette and I. She is doing more than

taking an overly pessimistic view.

> Hers seems to be the most pessimistic one possible.

> Yours seems to

> be the one that interprets her words as if they are the most paranoid

> possible, while *not* doing so to other listmembers who do or think

> similar things.

Because other list members show a rationality that she does not, for

one, and also because they have not established a pattern of irrational

thoughts.

I am well aware that there are people a lot more paranoid than Jeanette.

> I doubt that either of you are doing it on purpose, but you're

> definitely both being incredibly selective about what you're seeing

> and incredibly irrational in certain regards, and you both seem to

> *think* you're being rational.

Once again, my judgment that she is paranoid is not based only on this

debate. Read her other posts too.

> Calling someone paranoid could easily be construed as insulting.

Calling someone autistic is insulting to some people too (my mom's

boyfriend won't call me that, as he thinks it is insulting), but that

does not change the fact that it may be true. Things that are taken as

insulting are not always insults. " You're an idiot " is an insult;

" you're paranoid " may be taken as an insult, and it may BE an insult,

depending on how it was used. I used it descriptively, not as an insult

to Jeanette.

> (I

> just got called paranoid on a public forum, for (without at *all*

> trying to discredit FC) commenting that influence sometimes happens

> in FC, and expanding on that theme as well as requesting thought

> about a certain kind of influence I've experienced.

And that would be an insulting type. I have explained on the list the

premise of my thinking Jeanette is paranoid; it is not some word I

called her to piss her off. Besides, it was " schizophrenic " that really

got her going, and she seemed to totally miss your point about how some

autistics try to distance themselves from schizophrenia.

> I didn't think

> the first part, at least, would be a newsflash for anyone. And it

> *was* pretty insulting to be called paranoid for that, although I

> admit to commenting that I wasn't sure that someone who considered

> criticizing one part of a process as " damning " the entire thing and

> speculating about my past was a good person to assess *my* paranoia

> levels.)

And that is part of what defines the usage of a term like that as an

insult, or just as a conclusion one has reached.

> Most people who say " I suffer fools badly " seem to be using code for

> either " I blow up a lot at people who annoy me "

Which I don't... I showed a lot of restraint with Gareth when he was

baiting me, and for Steve too until the very end...

> or " I form really

> narrow hard-to-shake opinions about certain people " or something like

> that.

I don't do that either. On the contrary-- I change my mind about things

so often that I often appear wishy washy. I once said that I don't like

Gareth much, but right now, I think I do like him.

> It rarely says anything about whether the person they are

> talking to is actually, in reality, a fool.

Well, the basic thing with me is that I will exhibit as much decorum as

my opponent in debate. If I am insulted, I will be insulting. If

people are sarcastic with me, I will be quite sarcastic with them. And

if people are rational and logical, I will be so as well. I may not

exhibit those traits in the same proportion that the other person did,

but I rarely lose control and make the first move. Even in my debate

with Jane, where I called her a conspiracy theorist (I don't think I

used the term nut with her, but I may be wrong), she had already said

that there was no point in discussing reality with me, with no other

statements in the letter about why that may be. If she had backed it

up, I may not have considered that an insult, but it was an insult as

posted, and I responded in kind, if disproportionately.

When people like you discuss things with me, where you are respectful

and rational, I am the same way. When people post wholly irrational,

insulting posts like some of Steve's (I have already tried how I think

about this to Jeanette, and I failed), I respond in kind there too.

What this means is that when people get foolish, making accusations

about me that are not true, trying to piss me off rather than debate the

topic, et cetera, I will often be pretty harsh with them.

> >> You never labeled them they way you labeled me.

>

> Well he *did* call Jane a conspiracy nut too awhile back.

I call them as I see them.

> You do realize that (insert disclaimer about shrinkish terms not

> being my favorite terms in the world) a person can be dxed with both

> autism and " psychosis " , right?

Yes, I know that. However, AS and some forms of schizophrenia look

similar enough to make me wonder if that is warranted in any but a small

percentage of cases. AS plus delusions or psychoses looks a LOT like

schizophrenia; all of the flat affect, problems with body language,

social withdrawal, lack of friends, etc., are often part of the

schizophrenic syndrome. Schizophrenics also tend towards OCD type

behaviors, which can look a lot like autistic perseverations. And I

have heard about them having sensory problems like ours, and that some

schizophrenics rock and stim as we do. One of the big differences is

that there is some delusion or psychosis included with schizophrenia.

So that being the case, it makes me wonder if it's not just straight-up

schizophrenia in a form that looks a lot like an ASD.

According to statistics, people with AS or autism are no more likely to

have schizophrenia than anyone else. One would thus expect maybe 1-2 of

every 100 autistics to have some schizophreniform mental illness. And

the percentage that have autism and psychotic features, absent the full

schizophrenia syndrome, would possibly (probably) be greater than that.

And if that proved to be the case with Jeanette, I would have no problem

admitting I was wrong.

People think that my dogged, unrelenting debate style and refusal to

give an unearned inch means that I am closed-minded, but I really am

not. Above all, I like to know the truth, and I am often happy to be

shown to be wrong, because it gives me an opportunity to learn.

Apparently, this is 180 degrees opposite of how I appear to a lot of

people, because of the way that I argue. Many, maybe most, people have

no idea how to logically counter assertions; they say something like

" No, that's wrong, " and then post something that does NOT show how the

statement was wrong (example: me saying that unions are bad for the

economy, and a response of " So it's okay to exploit workers any way you

want? " ) That retort does not address the comment at which it was

directed. It proves nothing, and so I will not concede the point-- I

will react as if nothing has been said on that topic (as it pretty much

hasn't been), which makes people think I am not listening, because they

think they successfully " proved " my point wrong, and I did not react as

if they did that.

Some people do not argue like that. You do not. I glanced at your

other post about this, about your rationality... I do not see you as

condescending at all. I think in a lot of detail (and generally miss

the big picture, unless I specifically look for it), and I think the way

you support your statements to be delightful. In contrast...

....while I have cited examples of why I think Jeanette is paranoid, and

that her apparent AS may be explained by paranoid schizophrenia (in a

mild form, obviously), and how very much of AS can look almost exactly

like schizophrenia to professionals as well as lay-people (including, as

you noted, sensory issues, stims and stereotyped behaviors,

perseverations, OCD traits, monotonic voice, abnormal body language,

avoidance of other people/asociality, et cetera-- just about everything

that is described in AS texts), and how her paranoia (as I see it) plus

the negative symptoms (which is the part that looks like AS) IS the

definition of schizophrenia... she has taken to insisting that I despise

her, that I am lying when I say I care about her, that schizophrenia is

a horrible thing, and that is a terrible insult to be told you may have

it, and vowing to stay on the list so as to annoy me-- and not provided

any data of her own about why I am wrong. I can only consider what she

posts, not what she knows but does not post. And until she provides any

sort of data to the contrary, I have no reason to doubt my guess about

what she has. And from my perspective, she has not done anything to

disprove my assertion at all.

> That, in fact, this is common enough

> to be noted as one possible developmental course for some kinds of

> autism? There are nationally recognized autistic people who

> hallucinate.

I have doubts about them too.

> " If you don't agree, then why do you care so much what I think? "

> doesn't work. Autistic people have our diagnoses called into

> question so much that it *does* get to be insulting.

She has not been diagnosed, for one thing; that is part of the point.

And it does not insult me... it irritates me, as does any statement that

is not true (especially about me). I have been told I am not autistic

plenty of times; never have I taken offense at it. I don't understand

why it would be insulting.

> It hurts when

> people tell me I'm not autistic, I'm [schizophrenic, faking,

> borderline, dissociative, whatever]. I don't see why this would mean

> the person is right.

I did not suggest that it does. I wonder why she is so concerned about

it. I belabor the point with NTs sometimes, because the assertion that

I am not autistic is usually part of them telling me that I have no idea

about autism, and given that I think that getting the message through

the defenses is important, in the interest of saving her kid from a lot

of nastiness, I persist in the debate. Outside of that context, it

would not be any more insulting than someone telling me that I was short

(which is not true).

> There's an old myth that goes " If I say something and it really hurts

> someone, then I've hit a 'sore spot' and that must mean I'm on to

> something. " Half the time what it really means is that people have

> told that person that before enough to *create* a sore spot, not

> necessarily that what they're saying is true.

I think you are possibly recycling old arguments against people that

have used the " why does it matter " defense on you. I was not thinking

about any of that. I simply do not understand why she would find my

opinion insulting. I would not find her opinion that I am schizophrenic

insulting.

> I contemplate packing up and leaving the state. Seriously. I start

> planning it out in my head -- what stuff to take, how to keep the cat

> safe, how to hide, where to hide, how to get money, what bus to

> take, what alternatives there are in case there's no bus, and so

> forth. I start wondering if maybe they're right, maybe I'm not

> autistic, maybe I'm whatever else I've been told I've been.

How would leaving the state resolve that? I do not understand what you

are saying. It is unfortunate that you still have moments of doubt

about being autistic. Perhaps that is why you find it insulting to have

people tell you that you are not autistic, and I do not-- I have no

doubt about it. My only doubt is whether I have the right to use the

" autistic " label; I present enough like someone with AS (despite my

early history looking autistic; I could have been dx'd at 2 if I were

evaluated at that time), and have four times more AS diagnoses than HFA

diagnoses, that I have moments of doubt about which dx is more

accurate... but I am not in doubt that one or the other is correct.

> I decide

> I want to go somewhere where nobody knows me and nobody can get hold

> of me to lock me up (and at that point I'm usually thinking that they

> will want to lock me up in California, which means if I get across

> the state line they probably won't follow me). Then I run around

> kicking all the doors in my house and whacking my head on things

> until I either (a) get tired, ( knock myself out, © get too

> overloaded to do anything, or (d) remember there's usually *some*

> form of sedative in the kitchen and apply it appropriately. I may

> also do a fair amount of screaming.

>

> Compared to that, Jeannette's response (at least as visible on the

> screen) sounds trusting and calm.

Jeanette posted ideas and predictions about what they would bring; you

just described a particular response to a trauma that is most certainly

PTSD linked. I don't understand the connection.

> While the *response* is completely irrational (and indeed indicative

> of a diagnosis that I have in addition to autism), I hardly think

> it's indicative of not being autistic or of the things being told to

> me being somehow meaningful and real.

The difference is that you know it is irrational, and Jeanette has

resisted the assertion that her thinking is irrational each time.

That's part of what is meant, psychiatrically, by the term " insight. "

It is not indicative that you are not autistic... and if I want to

ignore probabilities, I could say that Jeanette's apparent paranoia is

not necessarily indicative of a lack of AS... but given that " AS with

psychotic features " is less likely than " paranoid schizophrenia, " and

that she has never been evaluated by someone that knows both AS and

autism, I would have to say that the paranoid schizophrenia is more

likely. Someone that has traits that are common to AS and

schizophrenia, and who has one additional trait that is a part of

schizophrenia but does not occur exclusively within schizophrenia...

think horses, not zebras.

> >> BTW, you READ into Steve's posts and decided that HE WAS IN PAIN.

> >> So much for your notion that I am the only one who " reads " into

> >> things, or that it is not possible to do that and be autistic.

>

> > That was a conclusion, not reading into things.

>

> It seems to me that " conclusions " are what happens when you think the

> conclusion is right, and " reading into things " are what happens when

> you think the conclusion is wrong. Either way, it's still reading

> into things.

No. Conclusions are ideas that are reached about someone based on his

or her statements, through analysis or other means. Reading into things

occurs only when one person thinks another is SAYING something that he

is not. I never assumed that Steve said he was in pain, just as I never

assumed that Jeanette said she was paranoid.

[Guest guest]

I wrote (quoting Jeanette and , in order):

> >>>>>> You never labeled them they way you labeled me.

> >

> >> Well he *did* call Jane a conspiracy nut too awhile back.

>

> I call them as I see them.

I would like to add that I do NOT mean this to say that I still think

this way about Jane, or that I would like to revisit this topic with

her. What I mean is that I write what I am thinking; I don't worry

about whether I am labeling or not... my only concern is that my

statements be accurate as I see them.

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>Jeanette-- you want to prove your point? Go to a shrink, one that knows

>a lot about AS, tell the truth about how you think about everything you

>have posted about here, as well as all you care to tell him or her about

>yourself, and get him to say you have AS. Then I will accept that I was

>wrong. That is how you disprove a point-- by offering more facts than

>the other person. You don't disprove anything by simply calling someone

>wrong. My opinion about your diagnosis may be right or wrong. Until

>you go get official, my guess is as good as yours.

That's assuming the shrink could not be wrong. And that an

NT shrink knows more about Jeanette than Jeanette does.

If I tell you that three highly respected experts in the

field of political economics all agree that your opinions

on economics are wrong, will you change your opinions? If

so, I will send you a reading list -- you won't have to

read the books, of course. Their mere existence (as expert

witnesses) will be enough to " prove you wrong. "

Jane

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>But I do have my moments. And they're some pretty serious moments.

>After writing that stuff I wrote for my website the other day, I spent

>the night sincerely believing that I was time-travelling between two

>different places and that it was unclear which one I would end up in

>by the end of things. Then they started mixing, and when my aide came

>in in the morning I couldn't recognize her because she kept turning

>into someone else. That wasn't very fun or very

>current-reality-based, and it technically qualifies even as

>hallucinatory. But outside of that single area (and there's a

>definite bending of reality perception and thought that occurs around

>certain events even without hallucinations -- see other post for

>details), I think I'm pretty together.

Reading that paragraph reminded me of a time in my life when

I was in a very similar state (of mind) for several months.

There were times during that period (it lasted about six

months, I suppose) when I " was " and " acted " entirely rational.

But for much of the time, I was hallucinating and believing

things that are " crazy " /unreal (e.g., that I could walk through

walls if I really wanted to; that I was in danger of falling

through the surface if I stepped on shadows; etc.).

If I went to a shrink and described that period, I suppose I

might be given some diagnosis that would justify my life-long

paranoia about being locked up if " they found out " about the

" real me. " Fortunately, nobody was paying much attention to

me at that particular part of my life, so I was able to get

through it on my own.

Jane

P.S. Come to think of it, there was another time, a couple

of decades after the one described above, when I was what

might have been called " clinically paranoid. " The main

symptom, oddly enough, was a fear of bears. I knew it was

irrational, but knowing that didn't help. I still had to

remind myself to sniff the air when I was afraid a bear

might be lurking in the next room (sniffing helped, because

I was sure I would be able to smell a bear if it were that

close). Training myself to sniff for bears was what I later

came to discover was a technic of " cognitive therapy, " a

way of self-training one's self out of harmful or useless

behaviors that get in the way or sap energy.

Hmmmm. Have a detected a pattern of recurrent paranoia in

my life? If so, at least the pattern has the advantage of

long periods of " remission. "