Re: (article) Autism: From Mind Blindness to Context Blindness

[Guest guest]

helen_foisy wrote:

> --- In aspires-relationships , WD

> Loughman wrote in response to my comment:

>>> LOL this wasn't meant to be a clinical article, this is an

>>> article written for a digest for families of children with

>>> autism.

>

>> Of course, ...unmistakeable. But still wrong at root.

>

> and

>

>> The " fresh insight " is incomplete. Therefore will mislead some

>> readers, as it seems to have done already.

>

> Hi Bill, how do you feel the article is wrong at the root and

> misleading? What specific points in the article do you disagree with?

As I said before: " Non-sequiturs and unsubstantiated claims ALL over. "

> Here's the link again (for convenience)

> http://autismdigest.com/autism-from-mind-blindness-to-context-blindness/

That is not the piece to which I was responding.

provided an attachment in her post of 06/17/2012 04:56 AM

(230__Vermeulen.pdf). She asked for comments.

It was/is 's attached PDF which provoked my comments. It *is* full

of non-sequiturs and unsubstantiated claims.

For example(s) the (picked apart) entire second full paragraph is:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

" The biggest problem for people with autism spectrum disorders is: there

are no absolute

meanings in our world. "

ME: *Biggest* problem? I doubt that. And " no absolute meanings "

simply is wrong.

" The meaning of almost every stimulus in life is context dependent. "

ME: A bald statement unsupported by good evidence. Explicitly

denied by some very deep thinkers (though supported by some). *This is

where* the importance of Searle's " Chinese Room " is apparent. Even,

Vermeulen's statement may be unprovable.

" People with autism are context blind: "

ME: A bald statement unsupported by good evidence. And it's

*falsified easily* by simple observation: *I* am not context blind; *nor

are* most AS on ASPIRES.

" they give meaning in an absolute rather than a contextually sensitive

way. "

ME: We AS *don't* all do that; the statement is falsified easily as

above.

" We should clarify the context of stimuli so that people with autism can

find their way “blindly” in a word full of relative meanings. This

contextual clarification is the

core of autism friendliness. "

ME: At last some good *general* advice, applicable to *everyone*

and not just autists. Still, IMO, both statements are non-sequiturs,

hence - to me - not especially convincing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Yes there were some simplifications and generalizations made for the

> sake of brevity.

But what he calls the " Key " messages *are* those same simplifications

and generalizations. None of which are supported by good evidence, some

of which " do not follow " , and many of which likely are wrong (IMO).

[ snip ]

> I would

> like to know how he addresses context blindness - if there are any

> similarities to Steve Gustein's RDI work.

I can't tell you.

But I think Gutstein's premises are wrong, and I don't like his

approach. I guess doesn't like it either? Ask .

> Vermeulen's article does

> attempt to debunk the main assumption about the autistic population's

> lack of social skills and social cognition, which I thought was

> refreshing. However, I do have an open mind, I want all the facts

> before me, so please expand

I can't expand on what I've not yet read (or written).

- Bill, AS

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

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

[Guest guest]

david bailey wrote:

> Bill said:

>

> - Bill, AS, ...doesn't like the emergent third context = muddled

It's only the " muddle " I don't like....

> Me here:

> Bill. I like the emergent properties of systems. helps to explain a lot

> of unexplained and unstructured behaviour.

> I see your point- you dont like it because it is unexplicable- i like it

> because it explains......everything i dont get.

> for the non scientists a quick lesson in emergent behaviour ( have we

> done this before?)

[ snip ]

....'cause, like you, I *love* " emergent " . Good stuff.

> 40 AS emergent property fan. Reductionist explanationist.

- Bill, AS, ...me too.

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

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

[Guest guest]

An even simpler simplistic version of context blindness from myself. Much of the battle that Ian says he faces, is that he doesnt 'get' what is going on around him. Added to which, he usually brings his own context to a situation and that is at odds to the existing context... if that makes any sense. At the weekend, Ian tried to talk to the man next to him when we were sitting quietly in a bar (one where he feels safe, its a hotel bar for non residents which is usually not that rowdy or noisy). The guy responded in a friendly manner which meant Ian went full tilt into his 'spiel' - what he writes, how long he has written, and what he is writing now. The man was responsive again, but started looking anxiously behind him

at his wife, who was waiting for him to rejoin her. Now, I would have expected the man to take the lead and wind up the conversation if he was not able to continue it, but he didnt, and unaware of hovering wifey, Ian carried on. He was really happy to have achieved a conversation in this way. Then wifey interrupted with a sharp word and dragged man away. Ian was mortified - was it his fault, why did the man leave? Context was, friendly man, cosy bar, Ian opening up - then being dashed by the arrival of another. I explained that wives all over the world come forth and drag men away from chatty drinkers, especially strangers, at bars. Ian did go into his life story for some minutes, including his first book at 14, because the man had asked him what he did for a living. So the context for Ian

is, the man asked, I shall tell. I know this isnt so intellectual or deep as all the other analysis, but I wanted to explain that for Ian, context (when to say when he speaks, what the dynamic is) is often his downfall. I doubt if I can get him to understand that with fewer words, and more nods to missus just over there, he might have enjoyed a reciprocal conversation that would have benefited both parties. The man looked interested at first. But, I fear that if I try to broach the subject of what happened, Ian will over analyse his words - dissecting them and going over the conversation - and trying to see why his lovely new friend left so soon. Ian took it badly. However, explaining that people can be like that - or that perhaps he should have toned it down a bit (which will hurt him, so I will leave that one for now) that doesnt wash. For

Ian, context was : man, bar, words. Public place, chat, asked question, answered question. Finally, he has just said to me, why do I work so late and hard (just before this post I had spent two hours doing a piece of paid work on the laptop). I say, because I need to earn money. He says, you shouldnt work so hard. He doesnt equate my working hard with a need, but with what he thinks is my WISH to do so. If only!!! Judy B, Scotland To: aspires-relationships Sent: Tuesday, 19 June 2012, 20:10 Subject: Re: Re: (article) Autism: From Mind Blindness to Context Blindness

Most excellent post, . I really like the way you elaborated on

the issues.

You are so on-target when you say, "Linear logic has its

place. Great for science. Not too good for people, though."

Great job...

~CJ

Comment One.

I'm going to keep this very

simple, but try not to be simplistic.

What's involved in understanding context is perspective-taking,

and we can all use that term and its meaning without

"special reference" to autism or to linear logic.

Especially without regard to linear logic, And yes, RDI is

one way of looking at perspective taking, although at this

time I'm pretty sure Steve Gutstein and le Sheely

are getting pretty tired of their own self-coined term,

even though they've raked money in hand over fist with

their "intellectual patent." However, I do take some

comfort in the fact that they've been outrun by others

whose multidisplinary approach to working with adult

intellection has come to run circles around the age and

conceptual limitations of "pure" RDI.

Comment Two.

Linear logic has its place. Great

for science. Not too good for people, though.

Art has its place too, and so do

things that don't make immediate sense or even matter much

at all to "the fact folks."

What Vermeulen's getting at is the process whereby social

beings-- us -- as receiver/senders" learn to develop a

wider perspective --acknowledging context, for example

--when it comes to explaining our "process" to others and

more importantly, relating successfully to and with them

in real life. Not just from the keyboard, and not in

only making I-statements.

However, thank gollies we is so diverse!

At the risk of offending, I must

venture to suggest that both Uta Frith and Vermeulen are

and have been for the longest time definitely on to

something new, despite protestations that they're stating

the obvious. That's because if you read their original

works from a long time ago, they both expressed concerns

about things not quite going right even THEN with an

understanding of what autism was/is.

Please remember it was Frith who

did the first creditable translation of Asperger's

original article in her own 1991 edited book of early

contributions on autism/Asperger Syndrome that preceded

publication of the DSM IV. Vermuelen has been around

easily that long as well.

I have found that as many folks

who've had difficulty even understanding the idea of being

open to a broader view of things that their

locked-on-it-at-all-costs linear logic trips them up with

increasing frequency to the point where they've become

hobbled by an intellectual need to remain consistent with

former observations, notions, and even hallmark

obsessions, no matter what's put on the table before them.

I'm forced to recall a brief quotation from Self-Reliance

(R.W. Emerson) "A foolish consistency is the

hobgoblin of little minds."

This saying DOESN'T mean we can't

change. And yes, I'm uncomfortable with the "zinger" about

little minds. But ya gotta admit there's been

staying power in the line.

Comment Three: There is a good, current

example of what broadband perspective taking can look like from

our own community. From "two of us."

If you'd like a good example of

the breadth of view that IS possible once a broader

perspective involving context is taken by some pretty

remarkable critical thinkers, how about carefully reading

the second lengthy policy brief co-authored by Ari Ne'eman

of ASAN and Kapp of LA on ASAN's link to both

comments on the DSM V? Anybody who values not only

research of the literature, but an analysis of

the issues in that literature is bound to have a different

opinion of what "we say and how "we say it" after reading

both of these briefs.

On June 6, an exceptionally

well-written comment to the mindless we're going to

do it anyway idiocy of the APA's Work Group is the

first brief. However, Helen has forwarded the links to

both comments 1 (written about a week to ten days ago) and

the most recent one just dated June 15, the day it was

submitted as a closing comment to the DSM V website.

Maybe if folks spent some time

reading and thinking first before they reach for their

keyboard, we'll see what an expansive approach to

acknowledging the importance of understanding things

in context is all about. Fruitful as it's been, the

discussion has pretty much been a tempest in a teapot,

although the tea has been quite refreshing.

I'm reminded of the imprecations of Hubert Cross begging me to

take my careful recovery and resurrection of his early,

remarkable essay and website on Mindblindness down from my

website because he was concerned about how his early

observations would prejudice the world's treatment of his son

just nearing adulthood. Hubert wanted his words taken back. He

also wanted to re-write history, not only his, but a lot of

other history. Why? Because it didn't suit him just then. Talk

about blindness to context. A classic example. Fortunately, I

had the good sense to deny his request. Once out there, it's

"simply out there" presented without judgment or editorial

comment as a courtesy to one courageous writer who really got

something right, and wrote about it quite thoughtfully.

It's almost as though something that makes our intellectual

teeth itch is something we'd rather wish would go away.

But not so fast.

Back to Business:

This first link is the one sent in

early June: It's "less scholarly" than the lengthier June

15 one, shown below. http://autisticadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/DSM-5_Policy_Brief_ASAN_final.pdf.

However, it's no less political, as politics is just

another way of dressing up sophisticated

contextually-sensitive perspective-taking.

Here's the June 15 lengthy policy

brief: http://autisticadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ASAN_DSM-5_2_final.pdf.

It's overflowing with frequent references to context and

how absence of considering its role and consequences in

science AND politics within the academy has led to blunder

after hamfisted blunder in the clinical and academic

community.

Nuff said.

N. Meyer

And on with the storm......

[Guest guest]

CJ wrote:

> Most excellent post, . I really like the way you elaborated on

> the issues.

>

> You are so on-target when you say, " Linear logic has its place. Great

> for science. Not too good for people, though. "

Perhaps meant " classical logic " .

" Linear logic " in fact is what the " ordinary " people mind seems to

use. It's not only good for us, it's necessary - though consciously we

may not always be aware of it.

>

> Great job...

Yup, I share your appreciation. 's always worth reading.

>

> ~CJ

>

>

>> *Comment One.*

>>

>> Â

>>

>> I'm going to keep this very simple, but try not to be simplistic.

[ snip ]

- Bill, AS

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

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

[Guest guest]

I explained that wives all over the

world come forth and drag men away from chatty drinkers,

especially strangers, at bars.

Judy, for some reason I found this funny. Perhaps it's the image

the words conjure up for me..... lol

Ian did go into his life story for some minutes,

including his first book at 14, because the man had asked

him what he did for a living. So the context for Ian is, the

man asked, I shall tell.

Maybe you can find a way to explain to Ian that "tell" doesn't mean

"tell all".

One starts with a wee bit of information on the topic, then allows

the other person to comment and demonstrate their interest. If the

other person doesn't really engage, they are probably just being

polite and not really interested in hearing more than a few words.

Assuming one gets the "green light" to continue, then share a little

bit more. If the listener still engages, then it's okay to

continue. Otherwise, it's time to change the topic.

Judy, do you think Ian could understand the concept if he is

reminded that he needs to repeatedly stop and check for interest

before continuing to share more?

I doubt if I can get him to understand that with

fewer words, and more nods to missus just over there, he

might have enjoyed a reciprocal conversation that would have

benefited both parties. The man looked interested at first.

The man probably was interested, at least in the early stages of the

conversation. In my experience, most people don't want the full

blow-by-blow, first-the-earth-cooled-and-then-it-began-to-rain

unabridged version... they just want a little bit of the story. If

they want to know more, they will probably ask questions or

otherwise encourage the speaker to continue.

Best,

~CJ

[Guest guest]

Hi Bill, this is starting to look like another " who's on first " routine LOL.

The subtopic which I was addressing began here:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/aspires-relationships/message/18396 when CJ

posted a link to the Autism Aspergers article, and you responded to CJ's link

here: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/aspires-relationships/message/18397.

Follow the thread down and you will see I was speaking to your response to

*that* article.

I feel that that particular article was written for parents of further into the

spectrum children who have challenges the likes of which very few (or perhaps

no) ASPIRES members who count ourselves on the spectrum side have. These

children will likely need continued services and assisted living support as

adults. In contrast, most AS children would have known what door to answer, or

if they didn't because they were preoccupied, would have probably asked " which

door? "

not wanting to waste precious time un-necessarily, LOL. I once saw a full blown

autistic child make a similar misinterpretation as was cited in the article. He

was talking to his mother but standing with his back to her, talking to the

wall. She said to him gently, " please turn around when you are talking to me. "

And so he did, and he kept turning, and turning and turning, LOL.

If you can get married, have children, have a career, chances are, you don't

have " context blindness " (or whatever semantics the sticklers for precision

settle on in the future)to a degree that occurs more frequently than in the NS

population. I am sure that some in the very high functioning ASD population

might argue that it is NS who are " context blind. " It might be compared to two

different cultures who place different values on various issues. Hence, AS/NS

miscommunication. One side deems the other rigid and arrogant, the other side

deems the other imprecise and irrational.

In my opinion, that article (the one that CJ provided the link for) was not

written about *us* Bill, it was written for parents of clinically diagnosable

" autistic " children who have significant challenges.

This is getting exhausting. I will leave off now, LOL.

- Helen

> > --- In aspires-relationships , WD

> > Loughman<wdloughman@> wrote in response to my comment:

> >>> LOL this wasn't meant to be a clinical article, this is an

> >>> article written for a digest for families of children with

> >>> autism.

> >

> >> Of course, ...unmistakeable. But still wrong at root.

> >

> > and

> >

> >> The " fresh insight " is incomplete. Therefore will mislead some

> >> readers, as it seems to have done already.

> >

> > Hi Bill, how do you feel the article is wrong at the root and

> > misleading? What specific points in the article do you disagree with?

>

> As I said before: " Non-sequiturs and unsubstantiated claims ALL over. "

>

> > Here's the link again (for convenience)

> > http://autismdigest.com/autism-from-mind-blindness-to-context-blindness/

>

> That is not the piece to which I was responding.

>

> provided an attachment in her post of 06/17/2012 04:56 AM

> (230__Vermeulen.pdf). She asked for comments.

>

> It was/is 's attached PDF which provoked my comments. It *is* full

> of non-sequiturs and unsubstantiated claims.

>

> For example(s) the (picked apart) entire second full paragraph is:

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

> " The biggest problem for people with autism spectrum disorders is: there

> are no absolute

> meanings in our world. "

> ME: *Biggest* problem? I doubt that. And " no absolute meanings "

> simply is wrong.

>

> " The meaning of almost every stimulus in life is context dependent. "

> ME: A bald statement unsupported by good evidence. Explicitly

> denied by some very deep thinkers (though supported by some). *This is

> where* the importance of Searle's " Chinese Room " is apparent. Even,

> Vermeulen's statement may be unprovable.

>

> " People with autism are context blind: "

> ME: A bald statement unsupported by good evidence. And it's

> *falsified easily* by simple observation: *I* am not context blind; *nor

> are* most AS on ASPIRES.

>

> " they give meaning in an absolute rather than a contextually sensitive

> way. "

> ME: We AS *don't* all do that; the statement is falsified easily as

> above.

>

> " We should clarify the context of stimuli so that people with autism can

> find their way " blindly " in a word full of relative meanings. This

> contextual clarification is the

> core of autism friendliness. "

> ME: At last some good *general* advice, applicable to *everyone*

> and not just autists. Still, IMO, both statements are non-sequiturs,

> hence - to me - not especially convincing.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> > Yes there were some simplifications and generalizations made for the

> > sake of brevity.

>

> But what he calls the " Key " messages *are* those same simplifications

> and generalizations. None of which are supported by good evidence, some

> of which " do not follow " , and many of which likely are wrong (IMO).

>

> [ snip ]

> > I would

> > like to know how he addresses context blindness - if there are any

> > similarities to Steve Gustein's RDI work.

>

> I can't tell you.

> But I think Gutstein's premises are wrong, and I don't like his

> approach. I guess doesn't like it either? Ask .

>

> > Vermeulen's article does

> > attempt to debunk the main assumption about the autistic population's

> > lack of social skills and social cognition, which I thought was

> > refreshing. However, I do have an open mind, I want all the facts

> > before me, so please expand

>

> I can't expand on what I've not yet read (or written).

>

> - Bill, AS

>

> --

> WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

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

>

[Guest guest]

Ah, But even logically imperfect writings can be gleaned for their "gist" rather than tweaking or twisting them to get at them for their grammatical or strictly illogical faux pas. On the second "point" I'm not in disagreement with Gutstein but I do have serious questions about his professional business practices and the mystique he attaches to the licensing and re-certification process for RDI therapists. Furthermore, there are clearly identified limitations to his approach -- as discussed by others -- as his group or individual clients move through adolescence into young adulthood and beyond. He and his wife have had their approach around for nearly ten years, and I'm not sure whether he's conducted longevity studies to assess the later-in-life sticking power or generalization of his clinical approaches first introduced to his clients when they were younger. N. Meyer Re: Re: (article) Autism: From Mind Blindness to Context Blindness > >helen_foisy wrote: >> --- In aspires-relationships , WD >> Loughman wrote in response to my comment: >>>> LOL this wasn't meant to be a clinical article, this is an >>>> article written for a digest for families of children with >>>> autism. >> >>> Of course, ...unmistakeable. But still wrong at root. >> >> and >> >>> The "fresh insight" is incomplete. Therefore will mislead some >>> readers, as it seems to have done already. >> >> Hi Bill, how do you feel the article is wrong at the root and >> misleading? What specific points in the article do you disagree with? > >As I said before: "Non-sequiturs and unsubstantiated claims ALL over." > >> Here's the link again (for convenience) >> http://autismdigest.com/autism-from-mind-blindness-to-context-blindness/ > >That is not the piece to which I was responding. > > provided an attachment in her post of 06/17/2012 04:56 AM >(230__Vermeulen.pdf). She asked for comments. > >It was/is 's attached PDF which provoked my comments. It *is* full >of non-sequiturs and unsubstantiated claims. > >For example(s) ..........[snip]

[Guest guest]

rogernmeyer@... wrote:

> Ah,

>

> But even logically imperfect writings can be gleaned for their " gist "

> rather than tweaking or twisting them to get at them for their

> grammatical or strictly illogical faux pas.

Uh, -- are you suggesting I'm " tweaking or twisting " to get at

your *logic* ??

....If so, we need to talk.

>

> On the second " point " I'm not in disagreement with Gutstein but I do

> have serious questions about his professional business practices and the

> mystique he attaches to the licensing and re-certification process for

> RDI therapists.

Yes. That's a big part of why I don't like his/their approach.

>

> Furthermore, there are clearly identified limitations to his approach --

> as discussed by others -- as his group or individual clients move

> through adolescence into young adulthood and beyond. He and his wife

> have had their approach around for nearly ten years, and I'm not sure

> whether he's conducted longevity studies to assess the later-in-life

> sticking power or generalization of his clinical approaches first

> introduced to his clients when they were younger.

On *both of the above* - I agree. I'd said: " I think Gutstein's

premises are wrong, and I don't like his approach " .

- Bill, AS

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

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

[Guest guest]

Interesting article. Although I am wary of any pronouncement of THE

explanation, especially in a phenomenon as multivariant as autism,

thinking in terms of context does shed a different light on the problems

we have with social thinking. I know lack of context is a big problem

for me.

I have a question, though, primarily for either our neurotypical friends

or the psychologists: how do NT's perceive context? Is it a matter of

learning all the rules so thoroughly that they can process them quickly

enough to respond in real time, or is context reading a qualitatively

different faculty? And if so, how does it work?

Andromeda

[Guest guest]

Bill,

I'd much rather not get into the what he said she said he said she said. Let's

just leave things where they are. I've pretty much run the course on this

particular topic.

Re: Re: (article) Autism: From Mind Blindness

to Context Blindness

>

>rogernmeyer@... wrote:

>> Ah,

>>

>> But even logically imperfect writings can be gleaned for their " gist "

>> rather than tweaking or twisting them to get at them for their

>> grammatical or strictly illogical faux pas.

>

>Uh, -- are you suggesting I'm " tweaking or twisting " to get at

>your *logic* ??

>

>...If so, we need to talk.

>

>>

>> On the second " point " I'm not in disagreement with Gutstein but I do

>> have serious questions about his professional business practices and the

>> mystique he attaches to the licensing and re-certification process for

>> RDI therapists.

>

>Yes. That's a big part of why I don't like his/their approach.

>

>>

>> Furthermore, there are clearly identified limitations to his approach --

>> as discussed by others -- as his group or individual clients move

>> through adolescence into young adulthood and beyond. He and his wife

>> have had their approach around for nearly ten years, and I'm not sure

>> whether he's conducted longevity studies to assess the later-in-life

>> sticking power or generalization of his clinical approaches first

>> introduced to his clients when they were younger.

>

>On *both of the above* - I agree. I'd said: " I think Gutstein's

>premises are wrong, and I don't like his approach " .

>

>- Bill, AS

>

>--

>WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

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

>

>

>------------------------------------

>

> " We each have our own way of living in the world, together we are

like a symphony.

>Some are the melody, some are the rhythm, some are the harmony

>It all blends together, we are like a symphony, and each part is crucial.

>We all contribute to the song of life. "

> ...Sondra

>

> We might not always agree; but TOGETHER we will make a difference.

>

> ASPIRES is a closed, confidential, moderated list.

>Responsibility for posts to ASPIRES lies entirely with the original author.

> Do NOT post mail off-list without the author's permission.

> When in doubt, please refer to our list rules at:

> http://www.aspires-relationships.com/info_rules.htm

> ASPIRES ~ Climbing the mountain TOGETHER

> http://www.aspires-relationships.com

>

[Guest guest]

helen_foisy wrote:

> Hi Bill, this is starting to look like another " who's on first "

> routine LOL.

>

> The subtopic which I was addressing began here:

> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/aspires-relationships/message/18396

> when CJ posted a link to the Autism Aspergers article, and you

> responded to CJ's link here:

> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/aspires-relationships/message/18397.

> Follow the thread down and you will see I was speaking to your

> response to *that* article.

Hmm. Three people posting under the same (unchanged) Subject header;

with two of them referencing different but related articles. ...One of

them not noticing the slight shift among the commentaries. Probably me;

anyway I'll take the fall.

[ snip ]

> In my opinion, that article (the one that CJ provided the link for)

> was not written about *us* Bill, it was written for parents of

> clinically diagnosable " autistic " children who have significant

> challenges.

No quarrel from me, about that.

My whole quarrel was and remains Vermeulen's creation of (writing about)

" Context Blindness " as some kind of new *theory*. One meant to

over-arch the classic Triad and (somehow) explain it all.

I don't buy any of it.

>

> This is getting exhausting. I will leave off now, LOL. - Helen

[ snip ]

Yup. I'm done. This particular fray really isn't going anywhere useful.

- Bill, AS

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

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

[Guest guest]

> In my opinion, that article (the one that CJ provided the link for) was not

written about *us* Bill, it was written for parents of clinically diagnosable

" autistic " children who have significant challenges.

I didn't interpret it quite that way, Helen. I read the focus on

" context blindness " as being a primary issue in communication deficits

for spectrum folks at any ability level. Whether their difficulty in

interpreting context adversely impacts their lives depends on the degree

of severity.

I know several Rocket Scientists (the real kind, not the proverbial

variety) who are geniuses, yet whose mastery of social context is so

poor that they manage to alienate themselves wherever they go. They

only manage to hold onto their jobs because they are surrounded by other

'oddballs' and have talents that are very specialized and difficult to

find in the job market.

> This is getting exhausting. I will leave off now, LOL.

I'm sorry that it came to this, Helen. I had really been enjoying this

topic too... at least until all the quibbling began.

Best,

~CJ

[Guest guest]

But

even logically imperfect writings can be gleaned for their

"gist" rather than tweaking or twisting them to get at them

for their grammatical or strictly illogical faux pas.

Exactly.  It seems to me that an inability to get the "gist" of a

logically imperfect writing would be included under the "context

blindness" umbrella, no?

Best,

~CJ