does anyone know any helpful psychology books that explain autism / the psychology of autistic people / what went wrong in their development?
preferably something that's not trying to normalize it or talks about "neurodiversity"
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
browse IQfy
>preferably something that's not trying to normalize it or talks about "neurodiversity"
why?
i don't want to read something about how lack of social skills is actually normal and should be embraced
It kind of is normal though. Like how lack of legs is normal in some people.
False equivalency. Acceptance of one thing that is inevitable but still means they can participate in a healthy society vs some autistic social cue clueless simpleton who contributes less than the minimum standard yet demands that everyone else bow down to accomodate them is not the same. Neurodiversity has become a cover to accept the socially inept - someone on the spectrum may or may not be useful per se but the term has become over-embracing and not everyone who is neurodiverse has a memory like rainman or super artistic talents. A lot are simply repulsive and divisive in any work scenario.
now say that about black people.
>in a healthy society
a society based around convoluted games and incapable of being clear and direct, relying instead on "cues", due the fear of being divisive or hurting someone feelings can not be considered healthy but an overfeminised extended highschool and your definition of "bowing down" is being reprimanded by bullying disabled people
the way you speak also betray your npc nature as the only thing concerning you is the usefulness to the "muh society" or to the corp and not being "divisive", aka "problematic"
These "neurodiverse" people should go frick off together in a village where they can make their own clothes out of bubble wrap and yarn or whatever the frick doesn't bother them. I have never had such a displeasure as meeting these fake autism/ADHD individuals in person and seeing just how fricked up they are because they are constantly coddled.
>tfw make my own clothes and Halloween costumes
pls don't make me live with the comment section people
>I HATE DISABLED PEOPLE )^:<
>THEY SHOULDN'T GET ANY HELP, OR BE ENTITLED TO TALK TO EXPRESS THEIR DISPLEASURE )^:<
No one thinks you're cool.
Vaccines cause autism. The link is already scientifically proven for over a decade now. Also, autism is brain damage, but I'm sure it's over-diagnosed to push pills and pharma products, much like ADD/ADHD was over-diagnosed not long ago.
Who are you quoting? See
>you prefer socializing somewhere that doesn't enable anti-social behaviors like scouring through someone's post history to get them banned or to create strawmen of what they've said in the past to shit up current discussions?
>you're heckin socially traumatized
Get a load of the sociology major here. You're an idiot.
Autism is a genetic remnant of the Neanderthals. And there aren't "more of them now", we just started diagnosing people who were previously written off as "weird" or something.
If it's all about freak reactions to vaccines, why does it run in families? You're fricking stupid, man.
>Vaccines cause autism. The link is already scientifically proven for over a decade now.
You assert a claim without actually providing the source. Source please.
>Also, autism is brain damage,
That's too general of a description. Does it involve abnormalities in the frontal lobe, in the cerebellum, in the hypothalamus? How can you be sure that a behavioral diagnosis maps clearly, one-to-one, on some anatomical abnormality when the diagnosis is not based on any hard neurological data? Sure, you say it's overdiagnosed but by how much? By 20 %, 50 %, 90 %?
You're arguing with a guy who fakes or feigns a neurological disease in order to avoid taking responsibility for the mistakes he or she made in his life. Mental illness is just extremely easy to fake and most people believe the mental illness equates neurology gone wrong link.
There's a shit ton of people like that. In earlier times, they used to become religious aka born again virgins who went from house to house to inform you about Jesus Christ. Nowadays, they ride some form of corporate neurodiversity train because that's the current thing.
>Just stop being an butthole. You're literally attacking disabled people.
Ad hominem argument to shut down critical discussion around.
>Yes they were. Their parents just never took them to a doctor.
That argument makes sense for a condition that didn't even officially exist until the mid '60s. Even then, I don't think the numbers of parents who took their children to a doctor rised by 10'000 percent or so within 40 years to account for that big autism number nowadays.
You also show a surprising naivety in regards to doctors making the right diagnosis given a diagnosis that is not based on hard medical criteria and doesn't even use any neurological tests. I'm sure, the doctor isn't going to diagnose more and more children to get more reimbursements from his insurance policies.
>Ad hominem argument to shut down critical discussion around.
No, it's pretty much what people are doing.
I'm not pretending I don't see it. They want to stuff the autism genie back in the bottle, so they can go back to socially excluding strange people, and not feeling guilty about.
Well too bad. Everyone can see you're a bad person now. You're not getting away with it anymore.
And yes, I am an SJW, and I am trying to cancel you.
>I'm not pretending I don't see it. They want to stuff the autism genie back in the bottle, so they can go back to socially excluding strange people..
No one, really, regards the whole autism issue as a civil rights issue.
You didn't get the autism diagnosis because some psychologist thought that they had to affirm your civil rights. You got the diagnosis because a psychologist or psychiatrist decided that, based on your behavioral dysfunction, you most suffer from some kind of brain damage (which they haven't really found but no one cares). Ever figured why it was called a disorder, a developmental or neuropsychiatric one? It's about shifting the blame to you, otherwise they would call it discrimination or some other shit.
Sure, people will pity you, they will also try to accommodate you to some degree. But once the cure comes (or really they start advertising some pill with potentially nasty side effects), they're not going to put up with you much longer because there's no reason for them to do so.
>Well too bad. Everyone can see you're a bad person now. You're not getting away with it anymore.
You're weirdly emotionally manipulative for an autist.
>And yes, I am an SJW, and I am trying to cancel you.
Just because you've got an autism diagnosis doesn't make your BPD diagnosis go away.
>No one, really, regards the whole autism issue as a civil rights issue.
They should.
Didn't read the rest of your cope.
Meds
Yes and no. I think the world is extremely oversocialized these days and could do with taking a few steps back inward.
hyper-socialized homie detected!
Depends what kind of autism. I suspect you're looking for Saving Normal, a book about over diagnosis in psychiatry with a large focus on autism's expansion as a diagnosis. You probably also want to look at the later work of Sherry Turkle on how media engagement and lessened social engagement can produce autism-like syndromes. Both of those are going to be highly anecdotal, but they provide a useful framework for a condition caused by societal trends which could be theoretically eliminated by changing the societal pressures, negative and positive, that produce it.
However, there are always going to be some people born autistic, and it probably is too broad a category to find a unifying etiology, just like how there's too many causes of cancer to invent a singular cure or treatment for all of them.
thanks
i mean the kind of autism where people have attachment issues / lack of social skills
Turkle's going to be most on point for that.
is this written by AI
No, idk if they can rec books still in copyright but i'm reasonably certain I'm not a bot.
No just by
Someone who’s clearly autistic
Evolutionary Psychopathology by Marco del Giudice
I'm almost certain autism does not exist. Unless you define autism as simply lacking social skills.
The problem is that the term autism has been stretched so far to include anyone who's socially anxious, introverted, or a bit different in any way. If you've ever met a true autist you'll immediately know that there's something terribly wrong with them, be it extreme stimming or having an meltdown when someone has a license plate number they don't like
I am genuinely diagnosed autistic and can tell you I have a number of habits that would drive people up a wall like teeth gritting and hair twirling and you can tell. I have obsession with bodily symmetry too, must have the same sensation on both sides of my body at all times.
I've been diagnosed autistic and don't have any particular habits or obsessions that I know of.
Its probably just a social thing for you then
Get the frick back to Tumblr you SJW rat.
>The problem is that the term autism has been stretched so far to include anyone who's socially anxious, introverted, or a bit different in any way.
hence the "spectrum" part. Kind makes it feel like a polite way of categorizing anyone deemed remotely abnormal. Or not, idk.
>If you've ever met a true autist you'll immediately know that there's something terribly wrong with them
What is "true autism"? my problem is that I think it's ill-defined. I actually have met a nonverbal "autistic" person but the difference between him and other "autists" is so stark that it's hard to call it the same condition. It makes one wonder why there isn't just one condition called "madness" that isn't applied to everyone who is abnormal, whatever being abnormal means.
But my main problem is that I don't see how it becomes relevant to the autist to know that he has been diagnosed with autism. People generally say that it's so they can "know" themselves, but I doubt that's even possible. You are never JUST autistic.
I don't think it's possible to truly "understand" oneself. Not even sure that there is a "true self"
Well the main thing that happened in the last few years is aspergers got taken away as a diagnosis, so now everyone is just "autistic".
I'm aware. Because Dr. Aspergers was a nazi apperantly.
>I meant more that they poorly appraise their own actions and externalize problems that are very clearly a result of their own behaviors.
well, I tend to believe in free will and think that those who do and realize that everything you do and what happens to you is always, at least partially, your fault automatically gain some self-awareness. But this is not unique to "autists" or whoever people identify as autists.
It's a pervasive communication disorder, double satan. Add in other common symptoms like lacking theory of mind and a kind of narcissism stemming from it, a persecution complex that externalizes problems because they can't see those problems due to fundamental misunderstandings of themselves and the world (which is part of a communication disorder), and the comorbid "friends" that come with it, and you have disorder that exists on a spectrum of symptoms of different severity.
Focus on core symptoms and you see how it differs from other symptoms in isolation.
That's what falls under the umbrella of schizophrenia tbh
You have never met a schizophrenic.
There are psychoses that manifest without florid symptoms. This kind of thing is mentioned often in psychoanalytic case studies
It doesn't
those have very different neurological profiles and symptoms
there is no resemblance between them
Nta but autism develops out of early versions of schizophrenia. It used be a key trait of schizophrenia, so the two diseases were thought to be linked. The word exists originally to describe a schizophrenic symptom set which isn't emphasized now. It's like with schizotypal being seen as pre-schizophrenia. Most of the diseases with neurological profiles were discovered pretty early on in medicine, and the current divisions of mental illnesses have no neurological support that new or clearer as a result of better imagery.
tl:Dr they used be linked to the point of being the same in older wordsalad with no proof, but in current wordsalad with no proof, they aren't
>develops out of early versions of schizophrenia
it doesn't
> It used be a key trait of schizophrenia,
>so the two diseases were thought to be linked.
that's irrelevant as there's no actual link between them
> but in current wordsalad with no proof, they aren't
we have brain scans and better analyse of symptoms showing that both are real and distinct
None of the brain scans back up shit. That's why plasticity is the new emergent model, because it looks increasingly like making shit up when you have that many brain scans not showing any consistency.
And autism literally does come from the time when mental illnesses were divided by schizophrenic and neurotic, categories which are no longer used but we don't have anything better to replace them with.
you have no idea of what you are talking about, the neurological profiles of autism is very consistent and schizophrenia show about three consistent paterns(that are used as argument for it not being one disease but three distinct syndromes)
They're not though. There's never been any consistency between doctors giving a patient a specific diagnosis either. Doctors most certainly can't diagnose someone from a brain scan for either condition, because there's more consistency in signs and symptoms than brain scans. It's not even a case where we need more data to be conclusive, that's why so few diseases have passed from psychiatry to neurology, because neuro can do almost nothing for them but is willing to admit it. Most all the actual neuro diseases we knew what that brain looked like before we had scans because you can see them in dead brains.
>They're not though
they are
> Doctors most certainly can't diagnose someone from a brain scan for either condition
they can
>that's why so few diseases have passed from psychiatry to neurology
most psychiatric diseases are also treated under neurology, there's no "passing from one to the other"
>Most all the actual neuro diseases we knew what that brain looked like before we had scans because you can see them in dead brains
what is meaningless
also you can't see the connective and activation pattern in brains by looking at dead ones, that why brain scan were such big deal
you know shit on the topic and is only pushing some schizo BS
Now you're just lying, and in a way that practically anyone with only a psych history can see you're lying, because basically near zero of them will have ever seen a neurologist. Those that have are generally being referred away from neuro services to psych services. There's a very small number of neuro cases in psych care, and they generally invariably sue for the kind of massive misdiagnosis that got them treated by a psychiatrist instead of a neuro.
meaningless as all psychiatric disease has neurological basis, just because they got their meds from specialized branch of neurology, aka psychiatry, doesn't mean that the illness isn't recognizable by the typical alteration in brain connection patterns and activity patterns
The scans literally do not support it, and the medicines have no proven efficacy. The APA literally has guidelines that say there is no reason to suspect their most common drugs work at all to avoid liability. It's not a branch of neuro, because neuro has actual evidence and proven etiologies and ethically viable interventions.
I should add I'm pretty narcissistic and double down on it which shows up in my writings
I find everyone is kind of narcissistic. I'm suspicious of "narcissism" as a concept.
I think everyone is basically self-absorbed, and they just don't like when they see other people doing it.
Unless they're charismatic. Then it mysteriously becomes "confidence", and it's a good thing.
Autistic narcissism is saying things like "I want someone to pay for everything so I don't have to work", with no irony or awareness of how that looks for a man to say, and expecting to be taken seriously. Or buying gifts for your boyfriend and expecting something in return, something being his trip out of town and dinners paid for because he's broke this month. Narcissists know they're doing this and will glibly, if shamefully, admit to it and how [socially acceptable appraisal of unacceptable actions] it is. Spergs aren't even aware of that.
As I have someone in mind, he wants to be taken seriously but watches streamers and openly ogles dudes. If it isn't clear, he's a gay and a lot of gays are spergs.
Not all of us are. I find homosexuality disgusting.
On that topic, and I'm sure you see it here, spergs have a monomaniacal obsession with paraphilias, or have paraphilias. Mention pedophilia or homosex and many of them will latch on to it and start a reddit monologue no one asked for. Redditors are mostly on the spectrum, doing a failed impression of normative behaviors.
Because saying anything other than "I want to be self sufficient as I am able to be" is a massive turn off. No one even wants that in a woman, or a child.
>I don't think it's possible to truly "understand" oneself. Not even sure that there is a "true self"
I meant more that they poorly appraise their own actions and externalize problems that are very clearly a result of their own behaviors. Speaking of the same dude, coldly dismissing anything anyone else is doing or interested in, to talk about video games that you have shown little interest in, and having any doubt why you were turned down for a promotion; that's the kind of thing I was talking about.
Or smelling bad. Or anything that the least bit of self reflection of your own actions as the cause would hint to.
>Because saying anything other than "I want to be self sufficient as I am able to be" is a massive turn off. No one even wants that in a woman, or a child.
Well sure. You work because there are practical necessities (and society guilts you about it because of protestant work ethic and shit). But if you COULD just get everything for free, why would you not want that?
Tell a girl you want a sugar momma to take care of you and see how long it takes to find an overweight, diabetic spinster who snorts like a pug from drinking 2 quarts of Hennessy a day. They're out there, but it's not whatever kind of woman you want.
You're missing the entire point of what I'm saying.
You work because there are social and practical consequences for not working, not because you want to work. No one wants to work, unless your jobs is "hang out and have fun all day, then go home".
He's going through the normie routine of having a particular value that he sees as obvious and which he believes to be obviously and self-evidently justified, but which he can't actually defend except within the parameters of a particular social reality.
Like, if I go up to someone and actually tell them "I don't want to work", then this arrogantly implies to them that you're happy to have others work and provide for you, so you'd be stupid to do so naturally. But, at the same time, there have been plenty of societies where "holding down a job" was seen as something beneath a free man, something for lesser men to toil away at while this freed you for greater things. On the other hand, there are plenty of people, many of which have said this straight to my face, that they "wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they didn't have a job", and need external coordination to not be broken by feelings of directionless.
In the time we like in in particular, enormous amounts of wasteful work is being done which effectively is done mainly for posturing and social status and which wastes the resources of the world. Working less is absolutely a practical virtue in many ways, it leaves more employment opportunities for others and gives workers more power in that way, so long as you aren't going to excessively waste the limited resources available, then striving to be 'independent' (while actually being heavily dependent in ways a frontier man wouldn't) is typically less of a virtue in the effects it has on the world than many would acknowledge.
Unless you have some awesome job, very few enjoy work. With money most people would choose not to work and just enjoy themselves.
The point was less about work, as the statement was about someone else paying or providing for you so you don't have to work.
The embarrassing aspect isn't choosing not to work, but rather being dependent on someone else. This places you at the level of a child dependent on another man's will.
Somewhat incorrect - there is psychological need for providing yourself with proofs of yourself being something, that indirectly leads to aquiring the enjoyment of work.
Yes, because some unwritten tradition most of statements like "i want my life to be better without doing anything" said straight-faced leads normal people either to the conclusion, that you consider that possible and viable for yourself and that you have actual plans for it (which places you in the "moron, who doesn't understand reality" category) or to the conclusion, that you challenge them by placing yourself above them on social hierarchy (as most of them cope, that their work skills make them something better, than actually standing over them in hierarchy rich people, who, thanks to the media, are percepted by this working people as "i do nothing and others bring me money" category). Hence such phrases place you in one of two "unwanted" categories. So to exist within society of normal people, who by default would not consider pure observation as observation, but as socially "loaded" interaction, one has to cease most of interactions but most common and simple, with most of normal people and choose his listeners with extreme caution - unfortunately this realisation comes with personal experience most if the times.
>statements like "i want my life to be better without doing anything" said straight-faced leads normal people either to the conclusion, that you consider that possible and viable
You are over thinking it. What others hear when you say that is "I am a lazy tard with zero drive and no life aspirations"
>Because saying anything other than "I want to be self sufficient as I am able to be" is a massive turn off. No one even wants that in a woman, or a child.
Pardon? "I want someone to pay for everything so I don't have to work" is what all the "best", most desirable, people implicitly say, and it is how they live (getting free money from the Government, etc.).
Weird because I feel like I'm the only one without one
>"I want someone to pay for everything so I don't have to work"
Why would you not want that though?
Get the frick off my board, incredibly underage moron. Imagine self-reporting like this then complaining about other people being "taken seriously"
>I find everyone is kind of narcissistic. I'm suspicious of "narcissism" as a concept.
I think this too. Especially when they say that narcissists can never admit to or be aware of their narcissism. Ok, how do you know you're not a narcissist then? Is it just how others perceive you then? It's nonsensical, and I think carries depressing implications
Everyone is ego-centric to a degree. Some level of egotism is necessary for survival and advancement.
The distinction between everyday egotism and narcissism is not always clear cut. A narcissist imo is grandiose and cannot accept his own limitations or boundaries. The key feature is an inflated sense of self comically contrasted to his or her own actual insignificance.
I believe such a category is not fixed and can change over time. We all act narcissistic at times, and over time a person can become more or less narcissistic. For some though it is an enduring part of their personality
I would add that a good amount of narcissism is probably necessary in certain positions. A leader who is constantly second guessing his every move likely would not do very well
That's a word that has been beaten to death by modern American style therapy and has lost any meaning. It now means "thing I don't like"
>I'm almost certain autism does not exist. Unless you define autism as simply lacking social skills.
this is true autism doesn't exist. Science and medicine are not the best tools to understand the mind, and an understanding of human difference or deviance that starts from scientific or medical categories is bound to be myopic.
All this mental health shit, all these invented pet disorders that everyone has, they're only coherent within the scientific-medical understanding of the human being, where the main way you work out essential characteristics about yourself is through interlocution with therapists and doctors. Many people just take this mental health philosophy for granted, not even realizing that it's a particular worldview that should be open to criticism. Can you imagine how much your average normie with some fake diagnosis like autism, ADHD, depression .etc. would seethe, if you just told them "I don't believe in any of that," when they started talking about it.
tl;dr lack of social skills is apparent, not fundamental to autism
The biggest problem with normalgays talking about autism is that all they focus on is lack of social skills. Not even the characteristic features of this deficiency peculiar to autists. Here are the actual features of autists that are universal:
>abnormal sensitivity
Sense perception can be unusually heightened or lowered. When I was a kid, I wouldn’t eat certain foods because of the texture. My mom would have to cut the labels from clothes, because I would go mad from the slight itch. I couldn’t stand being in crowded places because of the noise. On the other hand, I have a great ear and got compliments from my guitar teacher for recognizing certain atypical chords as harmonic. I was told that my taste perception is very refined to the point that I can easily deconstruct a dish by its ingredients from the taste alone. I can also simply not notice or not care about stimuli that normalgays would consider off-putting.
>overly structured, focused thinking
Autists love collecting information and finding patterns. This makes some autists great at stem. I myself always performed exceptionally well in math and theoretical physics. But this ease of understanding can also lead to societal problems. I am easily bored if something is too easy for me. My worst grades by far were in classes with a “nice” professor who gave us piss easy assignments that bore me to death so I checked out. Your peers will also frick you up out of jealousy. The fact that these pursuits are so self-centered doesn’t help either. When normalgays see me not willing to do group work, they think I’m a wienery narcissist. I just prefer solving problems on my own, it’s just easier for me. Our focus on details can also be off-putting to normalgays. When I correct you on this or that fact, I don’t do it to paint you as stupid, I do it because it is important to me that people remain curious and close to the truth.
>lack of social finesse, bluntness
We autists are simple people who don’t like playing social games. We want everything spelled out directly to us. White lies are more offensive to us than hurting our feefees with honest answers. Naturally, autists are terrible with women and romance. In an autist’s ideal world, a man would just come up to a woman and ask her if she wants to have sex. She would respond with “yes” or “no”. Obviously, normalgays perceive this as weird. This disconnect creates two types of autists: paranoid and unaware. The paranoid type understands the games, but refuses to play them. Every white lie is perceived as threatening due to our lack of social cues. I don’t know if you want to hurt me or just fricking around, so I assume a defensive stance. The unaware type is the stereotypical autismo who completely ignores these games entirely. This is the guy who keeps talking about his favorite subject with no regards to the interest of those who listen.
>The biggest problem with normalgays talking about autism is that all they focus on is lack of social skills.
That is because a) normalgays are all about social interactions, they don't have inner world in most cases, thise, who do, are insane in a different way and still require irl social connections, even with "realictic" illusions, created by their insanity, and b) rest of tge symptoms are innate and are not seen or experienced by normalgays (and would never be experienced until someone would invent telepathy).
>When I correct you on this or that fact, I don’t do it to paint you as stupid
That one took me forever to figure out. People actually really fricking hate it when you correct them, or try to dissect something they said.
To me, that's a game, and honing the precision of a thought is kind of it's own reward.
What they perceive is that you basically slapped them in the face, and tried to make a grab for their social status.
I would always get so confused when people would get mad when I had basically been anticipating a friendly back and forth, where we could kind of develop an idea together.
Yep. I have only realised this very recently as well. It's like having a discussion is a direct attack on their "ego" and they go into a kind of animal mode from it. Even though it was never about harming their character it was talking about the subject.
Took time for me to get that because were not every one that react negatively, so I think it's just more of a problem when dealing with low IQ normies and ego driven people
>In an autist’s ideal world, a man would just come up to a woman and ask her if she wants to have sex. She would respond with “yes” or “no”.
This should be normal and you should also be allowed ask people for info dumps irl more often
Formal courtship is a middle ground between the blunt autistic extreme and the normie vibe haze, and it's the most common system historically for respectable people to find life partners
That is not an answer to the sex question, that is an answer to a life partner question. Normies just want sex sometimes too I bet. I think we should be allowed ask because it would make it simpler for everyone and normies wouldn't have to lie to each other so much.
I'd rather women asked me, tbh.
That's why I'm starting to like trannies. They're forward about their desires.
I mean both ways and also gay people could ask their own gender. I quoted anon to show which bit I liked, but what I like about it is people being able to ask simple and direct questions without it being seen as weird or mean.
I also would prefer that "white lies" were socially unacceptable. Not being able to trust that anyone is being sincere ever is not comforting, it's anxiety inducing.
If you think I'm a big stupid idiot and you don't like me, at least tell me, and maybe I can do something about it.
I like some white lies, but most of the time they are stupid. Especially when you don't like something and say it's nice because then how do people know you don't like it?
But I do like some white lies, like telling children dragons or fairies are real. Most white lies are not like that because people don't mean to tell you the truth later.
sadly white lies are considered acceptable because most people prefer validation over honesty
Insanity
I turn 27 in May, read the rational male by rollo tomassi, the game by neil strauss, how to win friends and influence people by dale carnegie, the 48 laws of power by robert greene.
Also the manipulated man by esther vilar
I could read all of that stuff (and I think I know the gist of most of it anyway), but I would feel incredibly guilty about knowingly manipulating people.
Unfulfilled too. Because what's the point of being successful if I have to be an actor to get there? And what am I going to do with a bunch of friends who don't even want to talk about Sonic?
>I would feel incredibly guilty about knowingly manipulating people
why ? you are just communicating more efficiently and being more persuasive
unless you are lying to people and going out of your way to frick them over there's is hardly anything considerable about it beyond beating the normies at their own game
>Because what's the point of being successful if I have to be an actor to get there?
to enjoy the thing you conquer by applying skill and knowledge
also you are not being an actor, just a better people-reader and communicator
> And what am I going to do with a bunch of friends who don't even want to talk about Sonic?
Contacts aren't the same as personal friends, also having contact increases your chance to find people that would like to talk about sonic
Idk anon, the 48 laws of power are how normies work. I don't think you will ever find normalhomosexuals who wanna talk about sonic. If associating with normies isn't relevant to your goals then there's no point, but if they are then you can either adapt and get the results you want or you can not adapt and not get the results you want. Same concept applies to all the books really.
/thread
Don't forget the third option, blending in and larping as a normie, if you can get to the point that you get laid then as far as anyone else knows you are not autistic. I still think normies are stupid, they always have been and always will be
if you dont mind my asking, how old are you? I do this but I'm in my late twenties now and its starting to get tiresome. books for this feel?
and the rarest forth type
those who analytic dissect the game to better understand it and end up better than normies and able to manipulate them like NPCs in a game by messing with their algorithms
Don’t kid yourself, you’re still in the paranoid type. Games are external to you. You master them to “frick with the normalgays” as you put it. It’s still a defensive mechanism, just raised to an absurd degree. You think socialization is your ally? You merely adopted socialization. Normoids were born in it, molded by it. They didn’t see self-sufficiency until they were already men, but by then it was nothing to them but debilitating!
This post is extremely good and explains everything.
awww, thx, anon 🙂
>In an autist’s ideal world, a man would just come up to a woman and ask her if she wants to have sex. She would respond with “yes” or “no”. Obviously, normalgays perceive this as weird.
Precisely why I write theory in the first place.
>normies being desperate to prove autism isn't real or is over diagnosed, so they don't have to feel guilty about all of the autistic people they have bullied throughout their life
Just stop being an butthole. You're literally attacking disabled people.
>well the dorks I beat up every day when I was a kid weren't autistic!
Yes they were. Their parents just never took them to a doctor.
>You're literally attacking disabled people.
But it's the funny, screeching kind instead of the pathetic, wheelchair-bound kind.
Physically disabled men have a much easier time getting laid than mentally disabled men. I've witnessed a lot of them cross the line with girls I've been with. Too bad its considered bad taste to pummel the shit out of them.
bullying is bad whether or not autism exist. Lack of moral character and poor supervision by adults will not be sufficient excuses for the bully to act like a moron.
Why can't they just the parents intervene and discipline the kid themselves?
I dunno, just askin'
weak parents maybe. Perhaps the school tard wrangler should expand his expertise to include wrangling bullies as well. Give him the necessary equipment as well
That would be nice
But then theres this
Bullying also primarily involves group cohesion and isn't the stereotypical case I outlined
here. Most often it is students who perform well and are well socialized, often gifted, who are spoiled shits with a different kind of dysfunction at home. They usually have a group of, mostly cronies and bootlickers who they entertain as a form of social status, because they are popular and well socialized in some capacity. They push that overachieving voice that they internalized from their parents on the easy, marginal, targets. Girls are much more ruthless about it due to the nature of female competition, boys tend to attempt some kind of "kind" social gesture that is shunned by the victim, then it turns ruthless.
It's literal monkee shit and never ceases to be as necessary as it is poorly understood and managed by an overworked and not all that bright public school system full of women. They don't even see it most of the time, because the kids that do it are smart and cunning and don't otherwise have behavioral issues. They notice when someone with behavioral issues acts out again.
As someone who got bullied a lot, it was not "smart and well off kids". It was the scum. Just shitty people, who are dumb as a brick, usually poor, sometimes black, have more testosterone than they know what to do with, and need to take it out on someone else.
Those exist too, it depends on how poor your school district was. The Draco Malfoy is a more common archetype in practice, it's all a question of whether his dad is soon to be in jail for robbery or white collar robbery. Black girls do it in rhyme.
I just don't buy that as a concept. I think people like the idea of the rich bully, because it ties into the whole underdog narrative that people are in love with.
A little guy triumphing over an evil big guy is a better story than the little guy just being kind of shitty.
No, I mean most cases of bullying are about social conformance, and autists and other dregs are targeted by "Populars" or big fish in a small pond who are hyper-conformant. The image of your overgrown scumbag or
is not as common, but is usually the only kind of case that is addressed. Both are picking an easy target, but the majority of bullying is about getting people to conform or making the bully appear of higher status in a textbook act of narcissism.
Not that it matters because the trend now is to completely ignore subnormals instead of ostracize them, which is arguably worse and may explain all the school shootings to some degree. The jury is still out, but the two trends align with anti-bullying campaigns and zero tolerance policies. That does also mean that smarter bullies get away with it more often and is part of why it's so much more common.
Popular people just aren't that vindictive. They're usually too busy having friends to even notice people they think are beneath them.
It's the people who are maybe one social rung above you who are the problem. The people who the actual well liked people still don't really like.
I'll concede to that, on the grounds that we are still talking about the kind of big fish in their own sphere of influence. In workplaces, it gets worse the higher you get in status; professors in academia told me some horror stories about colleagues.
Bullies usually have parents that are physically or sexually abusive. Alcoholics, junkies, stereotypical meathead pieces of shit living out their own generational traumas. Asking the parent to do something leads to either nothing happening in most cases, or some kid being beaten to death, in others. This is why I got out of social work, so I wouldn't drink myself to death.
This book was a fun quick read. I also saw a video of him getting mad at his wife because she wasn't enjoying standing at a random intersection for hours looking at trains lol.
Forgot pic
It's genetic, that's all there is to it.
Do you guys think there are genuinely a lot of autists on IQfy? Is there some truth behind the meme?
The interest boards are like 80% autists and 20% shitposters who are probably also autists. No one else cares about fricking cartoons and fricking cartoon characters. You notice it on IQfy as well, although high IQ autists are more able to emulate the normoid mind and, at least on paper, recognize things like basic character motivations. The ones that can't ask things like
>Why is she sad that her baby died? It was a newborn, it's not like she had time to get attached.
or something else equally dumb and genuinely not bait.
>No one else cares about fricking cartoons and fricking cartoon characters.
are you sure?
Oh I dont get character motivations that's why I primarily read nonfiction
I think it's partially a social contagion disorder.
Yes. I think it appeals to the autistic mentality of just wanting to interact with information and trivia, and not having to follow social rules.
In fact I think people who aren't autistic would get very little out of IQfy. I don't know what they're doing here at all. Looking at porn, I guess.
Absolutely, I'm one of them, diagnosed with aspergers when I was 5 in 2002
This. IQfy is as real as it gets. Normie world is built off of delusions.
This place is nearly 100% autistic and mostly in the good way not the Etsubatsu way. No neurotypical person cares about Plato, Hegel, Proust, Homer to the extent you guys do.
No. I think most people on IQfy are just socially traumatized and undersocialized but not autistic, because if they were autistic they would lack the self-awareness to know that they are weird, malformed freaks. Really whether you know you are a freak or completely lack the self-awareness to know that you are not normal is the real difference between the normal but malformed and the autistic.
That's just being autistic but high IQ enough to get your own limitations.
I always discover new things which make me malformed as a human.
What is there to aspire to as an autist who can't function like other people? Breeding is out of the question. Traveling is much more stressful than it's worth. The outside world is uncomfortable.
Buying slightly more expensive things? Honing skills nobody will even notice? There's nothing to life. Everything is pointless. Only enjoyment comes from being alone and doing things you enjoy.
The most soothing thing for me is thinking about death. There's not much hope for this life other than praying God Almighty will take me painlessly and that He will have mercy upon my wretched soul.
>does anyone know any helpful psychology books that explain autism / the psychology of autistic people / what went wrong in their development? [SIC]
ATTEMPTING TO EXPLAIN AUTISM, FROM PSYCHOLOGY, IS AKIN TO ASKING A WINE AUNT TO EXPLAIN THE CHEMISTRY OF FERMENTATION.
AUTISM IS NOT A DISORDER, BUT A REORDER; IT IS NOT THE RESULT OF SOMETHING THAT «WENT WRONG».
THE ÆTIOLOGY OF AUTISM IS PHYSIOLOGICAL, NOT PSYCHOLOGICAL; AUTISM IS AN INNATE CONDITION, ALSO, NOT ACQUIRED: ONE CANNOT BECOME AUTISTIC; ONE IS BORN AUTISTIC: NOT DEVELOPMENTAL, BUT ONTOLOGICAL.
I probably have autism but this little autistic community circlejerk is so cringe
there's a moronic youtube that reviews movies and everything to him is hurr durr muh autism
piss off homosexual you're worse than israelites saying that everything is about the holocaust or black people and racism
fricking FRICK OFF
stop being so fricking LIMITED
i'm probably autistic but this shit is not my only fricking characteristic
shit gets me pissed off for real
At this point, I'm done counter-signalling autism, and contributing to my own oppression, and the oppression of other autistics(and yes that is what it is), because of some pathetic self-hatred I internalised as a child.
I'm fully on board at this point. Autistic people need to be as loud and obnoxious and demanding as every other identity movement, because we've been shit on for too long and we deserve better.
>well I don't agree!
I hope you get punched in the face LMAO. Frick off.
>need to be as loud and obnoxious and demanding as every other identity movement
>need
Frick off. Only i decide what i need if anything. And what i "should" or "must" if anything.
You remind me of this "patriotic" orators, who tell everyone they "need" to die for the country, or this advertisers, who is trying to force you to buy their shit by telling you, that you "need" it. Frick off, have a nice day.
It's how things get better. It's how you force the crowd to give you what you want.
Everyone else has been doing it for decades. I don't see why I shouldn't.
>w-well you should just try harder to be normal!
No, stop being a bigot.
This was written years ago by an autism researcher.
Baron Cohen's theory is pretty sexist and empirical research keeps proving him wrong about male empathy.
It's because of refrigerator mothers
>helpful psychology
My little sister, 4 years younger than I, is an actual autist. By this I mean “hates loud noises, ecolalia-suffering, giant animal-loving, low verbality, listens to the first 15 seconds of a song for 4 hours” level of autism. She is, however, very smart, and has a surprisingly high level of reading comprehension, as she can read a word in Spanish (our native tongue), and say what it means in English, and vice versa. She has also surprised us by saying a random word related to what we were talking about. (We were talking about a house that had some probably paranormal phenomena happening in it in extremely vague terms, and she said “ghost!)
> “hates loud noises, ecolalia-suffering, giant animal-loving, low verbality, listens to the first 15 seconds of a song for 4 hours”
Was the mother on any prescription drugs during pregnancy, by chance? Your description is actually weirdly close to the kind of neuronal hyperstimulation caused by neurochemical withdrawals that you can also see in adults when they try to wean off psychotropic drugs. Listening to the same piece of music over and over again may be an attempt to self-soothe.
Does the kid show signs of tremors? Is she prone to random anger fits or is she extremely volatile emotionally? Does she show poor control over her body. These are all symptoms seen in kids whose mothers took drugs while being pregnant.
>most psychiatric diseases are also treated under neurology
False
>that why brain scan were such big deal
Brain scans aren't used in any diagnostic tests so they're not of use to diagnose a mental disorder. Said enough.
>I'm done counter-signalling autism, and contributing to my own oppression
Autism isn't an identity. It's not a race or a sex. It's a social construction with no hard physical evidence. You can't really rally behind something that can be taken away from you at any given time.
>does anyone know any helpful psychology books that explain autism / the psychology of autistic people / what went wrong in their development?
Most of what is currently said about autism barely advanced from what was said in the '60s to '80s so I will try to redirect you to the early names:
Bleuler: Called negative symptoms in schizophrenia as autism. -> Lack of social rapport, disinterest in others, flat affect etc.
Asperger's and Kanner's original work: For Kanner, there is good reason to believe that he invented autism to let upper-class parents get diagnoses other than mental moronation for their kids. Asperger described a bunch of aggressive and destructive kids that were of normal intelligence. His description has little to do with what would later come to be known as Asperger's syndrome -> Wing
Bettleheim's fortress, psychoanalytic analysis of childhood schizophrenia aka infantile autism. In essence: Autistic kids deliberately retreat from others because of maltreatment and emotional neglect.
Wing: British psychologist, proposed the spectrum metaphor of autism in the late '70s. She later regretted the spectrum metaphor. Reintroduced Asperger's works by introducing Asperger's syndrome. Proposed it as a form of autism without mental moronation. Based her clinical work on patients that, however, were mentally moronic.
Uta Frith's "autism", originally published in the early '90s but there's a more recent one, mostly deals with very severe autism cases that, from the outside, look like brain damage cases but apparently aren't. Presents three different theories (none invented by her): mind blindness, cognitive incoherence (inability to unite or connect related things) and, iirc, social dysfunction (no interest in socializing that causes kids to not comply with developmental prerogatives).
Simon Baron-Cohen: Frankly, much of it is junk science. Proposed in the late '90s that autism is simply an extremely male version of the human brain. The theory was recently slanted as "sexist" based on a political decision that autism should affect as many females as males.
>based on a political decision that autism should affect as many females as males
I would like to see these ideologues complain about the overwhelming female majority in nursing and elementary education. They claim to strive for equality, but it’s always targeted against men. Insane hypocrisy.
>much of it is junk science
Tbf the reason he gets called junk science is because his sexist bias. He suffers from the autistic=special/savant/more logical robot better than human memes a lot of stuff around autism has, but he also really wants men to be smarter than women. There's pretty irrefutable evidence some forms of autism exist, and exist pretty evenly across sex, but those forms of autism mean your kid is absolutely moronic and never going to live unsupported. Baron Cohen thinks smart emotionless males are peak maleness, so you get the kind of junk you would expect from asking any alpha male social media star would expect as proof. There's a lot of evidence that a hyper male brain has more empathy signs so he has walked it back a bit, but only some, in the face of overwhelming evidence, but it took a lot more than reasonable levels of evidence to get that far.
>he also really wants men to be smarter than women
He doesn't need to when we already are.
But are you nihilistic with a wicked sense of humour?
>He suffers from the autistic=special/savant/more logical robot better than human memes a lot of stuff around autism has
It's difficult to judge from the outside whether or not this really is just down to his own sexist bias or if it's about promoting a market. He's also the guy who came up with Einstein being autistic, maybe inspired by some dyslexia charity who tried to cast Einstein as dyslexic. Was a thing in the '90s I believe.
>There's pretty irrefutable evidence some forms of autism exist
Yes, but that evidence would preclude it from being a psychological condition. Of course, things like broken legs, brain damage etc. exist physically.
>and exist pretty evenly across sex
I believe, you refer to Rett's syndrome here.
>There's a lot of evidence that a hyper male brain has more empathy signs so he has walked it back a bit
Possibly. Apparently, more testosterone makes men more cooperative.
Personally, I consider the notion of empathy to be fairly circular because the ability to understand what others want and think is assumed to be an independent variable of what you yourself want from an think of the world. If you think like the others, you're going to appear more empathetic than someone who does not think like the others (by simply projecting his own ego on others). Technically, both would fail miserably in gauging what someone wants or thinks who's unlike both of them.
> but it took a lot more than reasonable levels of evidence to get that far.
Fascinating how little proof is needed to assert a claim and how much is required to roll back on it. It's politics.
It's not Rett's syndrome (it's female dominated, but a lot of near autistic moronation is), but a variety of syndromes and conditions we have greater physical evidence for than just symptoms that take up the extreme end of diagnoses. Most of this thread is not discussing that form of autism, and the forms with less evidence and more symptom based approaches are obviously the easiest to both politicize and create social contagions to market to from.
Any diagnosis which can be read as smart or sensitive beyond the norm can become a kind of social trophy, and there's definitely always been an impulse to swing richer kids towards nicer diagnoses and more resources because they pay the bills.
>(it's female dominated, but a lot of near autistic moronation is)
I doubt it. Rett's syndrome is the only one that I know of as being definitely female-dominant and that's due to the nature of the genetic syndrome itself which is sex-linked. Mental moronation as per measures on an IQ test is clearly male-dominant (2 : 1) on the other hand.
>but a variety of syndromes and conditions we have greater physical evidence
Yes, but de novo mutations and other genetic mutations are usually not sex-linked.
>Most of this thread is not discussing that form of autism
I don't think, we're talking about autism at all here then. Genetic conditions are measurable and most of them never actually cut it as autism in the first place. There's still a very large gap between ordinary mental moronation syndromes and classic autism (which should involve social withdrawal but apparently no one cares about that anymore). Many severe autism cases nowadays involve weirdly social kids. And only the kind of totally antisocial classic autist can be symptomatically aligned with the Asperger's cases because their developmental issues can be argued to be the result of the aforementioned social withdrawal as opposed to social dysfunction being just another function of overall slowed down or disturbed development. It's the reason why classic autism cases are sometimes reported as becoming "asymptomatic" when reaching adulthood. You don't see that with Down's.
>Any diagnosis which can be read as smart or sensitive beyond the norm can become a kind of social trophy
I contend that the diagnosis was specifically marked that way to boost (diagnostic) sales. The insurance companies don't care and the private market that sells autism services and diagnoses depends on it. Once investors enter into it, the primary goal devolves into finding new markets so they can grow and return investments.
>and there's definitely always been an impulse to swing richer kids towards nicer diagnoses and more resources because they pay the bills.
It's true that autism diagnoses are too closely linked to school services, just like ADHD diagnoses. Meaning that perverse incentives are involved. I contend, there's also denial involved in it. It's always nicer to hear that you're not the cause of the problem and that you can't do anything about it.
>I doubt it. Rett's syndrome is the only one that I know of as being definitely female-dominant and that's due to the nature of the genetic syndrome itself which is sex-linked. Mental moronation as per measures on an IQ test is clearly male-dominant (2 : 1) on the other hand.
>>but a variety of syndromes and conditions we have greater physical evidence
>Yes, but de novo mutations and other genetic mutations are usually not sex-linked
It's females driving de novo mutations, and it's much more than Rett's. You're taking the third SD out as though that's not all outliers: it's the same problem people have with Marilyn vos Savant's score being miles out into "male" territory, but the sex association peters out as you stray from the first deviation.
Sorry meant to give you a meta analysis not just quote you back to you
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20852-3
Normies are brain damaged, tbh.
Put a bunch of autistics in a room, and you'll have a room of people who are nicer, smarter, and more civilised than you apes.
What's really funny is that I've seen normies react with serious perplexion to this. They've specifically said to my face "you all don't gossip and create drama, why?", like they don't understand how someone could be not driven to judge people all the time instead of trying to resolve any conflict through openness and understanding first off, they just see that as weird.
It was a joke, and while you're just randomly name-dropping Schopenhauer, he has more books. The title of Parerga and Paralipomena should have tipped you off there were other works. So...when are you starting Kant?
Wrong thread! Forgive my autism.
The popular autism isn't real, it's a condition that israeli doctors have made up for maximising pharma profits. Real autism is basically mental moronation where the person needs constant care and supervision.
>made up for maximising pharma profits
Yeah, those doctors must make so much money of those pills they give to autists to make them less spergy. Apparently.
>pharmaceutical reps don't do exactly that
medical journals have been upselling drugs to doctors since the 50s
Consultations, pills, the entire "I am a special snowflake" culture is designed to take up their time which is money. There is like an entire new medical specialty these days that only deals with "autistic" people. Forget highly paid heart surgery or brain surgery, becoming a fricking autism doctor with a 5 mile long queue of special snowflakes waiting to be diagnosed is literal goldmine
neurodiversity isn't trying to normalize it, it's about accepting people unlike yourself. it argues for a less homogenous society. it's medicine which seeks to normalize people as productive citizens of the status quo or the future society governments and technocrats wish to build