RE: [aspires-relationship} Bill and Me

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your comments Bill.

We are all different, and can best describe what we have individually

witnessed, or experienced. When I was posting my three pieces the other

day, I was thinking that Bill is sure to have a different slant on all this.

I am not a scientist; and can only set out the speculations and conclusions

that are real and logical to me. Perhaps I might even have to be described

as one of those who Bill mentions, that deal more with Stereotypes and the

anecdotal. (maybe it's the theatrical and the public speaker in me that

comes out???!!!@)

Anyway, as it stands, it appears that my ideas and constructions do fit well

for some of our listers, and if it gives food for thought and the

possibility of better understanding, I'm happy. A lot of what I describe is

certainly pretty accurate for myself, either in my own past, or in

potential. Very frequently, when I see films or TV shows about Aspergians,

I have been able to see and feel very clearly just where the individuals are

coming from, regardless of whether I had had similar experiences or

proclivities. Actually I feel this can represent my only or most

significant experience of what I would describe as Empathy.

I remember just how it was one of the really big lessons that I had to learn

during my first years of AS knowledge, that we Aspergians are not all the

same, and that what is true for me may not be true for the next one. So I

think I made it plain that my contributions were suggestions, and can

describe certain ones in our community.

I guess that Bill and I between ourselves, may serve something of a unique

purpose on the List, of balancing things out from time to time, as we

emphasize equal and opposite factors in the AS style of life. Maybe we can

be said to fit into slots that fit at extreme ends of the Aspie style? He

on the systematic/scientific end, - and me on the artistic end. And

naturally we each speak with reasonable authority for those AS people who

are most like ourselves, and with whom we are more likely to associate. I

like to feel that we share a considerable mutual respect for each other in

the process; and maybe we each have our own significant audience among the

readers.

Cheers, Ron.

[Guest guest]

Ron Hedgcock wrote:

> Thanks for your comments Bill.

>

> We are all different, and can best describe what we have individually

> witnessed, or experienced. When I was posting my three pieces the other

> day, I was thinking that Bill is sure to have a different slant on all this.

> I am not a scientist; and can only set out the speculations and conclusions

> that are real and logical to me. Perhaps I might even have to be described

> as one of those who Bill mentions, that deal more with Stereotypes and the

> anecdotal. (maybe it's the theatrical and the public speaker in me that

> comes out???!!!@)

[ snip ]

> I guess that Bill and I between ourselves, may serve something of a unique

> purpose on the List, of balancing things out from time to time, as we

> emphasize equal and opposite factors in the AS style of life. Maybe we can

> be said to fit into slots that fit at extreme ends of the Aspie style? He

> on the systematic/scientific end, - and me on the artistic end. And

> naturally we each speak with reasonable authority for those AS people who

> are most like ourselves, and with whom we are more likely to associate. I

> like to feel that we share a considerable mutual respect for each other in

> the process; and maybe we each have our own significant audience among the

> readers.

Well put, Ron; well put. We are in agreement on principles. We differ

only in the details, as is expected among those with widely disparate

lives and experiences.

Sort of germane:

picked up on my use of the word " bias " . She gave it the

meaning in common, merely social use, where its common *connotation*

implies malice.

I meant no such thing. In my world, my life, the connotation is

merely " unwanted " . Often also it connotes " unconscious " , or more simply

" unnoticed " .

In science, " bias " may be the degree to which an instrument is " off " ,

not reading correctly. This may be because, unnoticed, its battery is

old and failing.

The " bias " I meant in my ASPIRES post *rarely* is malicious. It

arises in ordinary conversation from things we believe strongly about,

but which merely, and innocently, we forget to describe.

Like disclaimers we think *surely* are unnecessary and don't add in.

Like implied premises we *assume* " everybody knows " .

Like my own unthinking premise: Everybody knows the exact, technical

use of the word, and " of course " will read it the way I meant it.

- Bill, 75, AS; ...precision is no shield against bias.

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm

[Guest guest]

Ron Hedgcock wrote:

> Thanks for your comments Bill.

>

> We are all different, and can best describe what we have individually

> witnessed, or experienced. When I was posting my three pieces the other

> day, I was thinking that Bill is sure to have a different slant on all this.

> I am not a scientist; and can only set out the speculations and conclusions

> that are real and logical to me. Perhaps I might even have to be described

> as one of those who Bill mentions, that deal more with Stereotypes and the

> anecdotal. (maybe it's the theatrical and the public speaker in me that

> comes out???!!!@)

[ snip ]

> I guess that Bill and I between ourselves, may serve something of a unique

> purpose on the List, of balancing things out from time to time, as we

> emphasize equal and opposite factors in the AS style of life. Maybe we can

> be said to fit into slots that fit at extreme ends of the Aspie style? He

> on the systematic/scientific end, - and me on the artistic end. And

> naturally we each speak with reasonable authority for those AS people who

> are most like ourselves, and with whom we are more likely to associate. I

> like to feel that we share a considerable mutual respect for each other in

> the process; and maybe we each have our own significant audience among the

> readers.

Well put, Ron; well put. We are in agreement on principles. We differ

only in the details, as is expected among those with widely disparate

lives and experiences.

Sort of germane:

picked up on my use of the word " bias " . She gave it the

meaning in common, merely social use, where its common *connotation*

implies malice.

I meant no such thing. In my world, my life, the connotation is

merely " unwanted " . Often also it connotes " unconscious " , or more simply

" unnoticed " .

In science, " bias " may be the degree to which an instrument is " off " ,

not reading correctly. This may be because, unnoticed, its battery is

old and failing.

The " bias " I meant in my ASPIRES post *rarely* is malicious. It

arises in ordinary conversation from things we believe strongly about,

but which merely, and innocently, we forget to describe.

Like disclaimers we think *surely* are unnecessary and don't add in.

Like implied premises we *assume* " everybody knows " .

Like my own unthinking premise: Everybody knows the exact, technical

use of the word, and " of course " will read it the way I meant it.

- Bill, 75, AS; ...precision is no shield against bias.

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm