ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, February 16, 2015

Mailvox: dealing with anklebiters

BT was wondering how one best deals with them:
After conversing with a certain individual at length, and realizing only belatedly that they are most likely just another anklebiter, I've come to some hypotheses:

Anklebiters are:
  • 0 to +1 SD intellect
  • Mildly autistic at the least, which leads them to overestimate their own intellect.
  • Far more hurt by a mix of dialectic and rhetoric rather than pure rhetoric (they innately believe themselves above it) or pure dialectic (they'll just retreat to appeals of authority).
For efficacy in pain, the mix of dialectic and rhetoric will probably depend on the level of autism in particular.

The only thing I haven't figured out in this theory is the best way to handle said anklebiters.  Ignoring them certainly works, as they're just self-styled intellectual tough-guys walking around with a chip on their shoulders.  It certainly seems to serve to frustrate their efforts on that end.  But anklebiters can look like an expert to the average stranger, and indeed seems to spend their time trying to convince everyone around them that they are an expert, so it may serve in everyone's best interest to nip that problem in the bud.  How, I do not know.  Domestication training, using dialectic/rhetoric mixes as the stick?
Anklebiters are a brain-damaged form of midwit. They are almost always atheist, further pointing towards the atypical neurological profile required for that, they are usually male, and they tend to be unexpectedly poorly educated and badly read despite their observable intelligence. Most importantly, they lack the normal ability to admit failure, back up, and start over that normal individuals possess. And lacking it, they therefore lack any ability to improve their arguments or even to question any of their adopted beliefs.

That's why anklebiters are always disappearing when trounced, only to reappear again and make the exact same arguments that have already been dismissed. The problem, as BT notes, is that this renders them immune to dialectic, and they tend to ignore pure rhetoric because they are not emotionally invested in their nonsense arguments. The more virulent form, the trolls, are sociopathic and have no meaningful human emotions to which one can appeal.

In effect, anklebiters are little more than genetically human bots, which is why there is no point in arguing with them or insulting them. They are not capable of adding anything to the discourse, so as soon as an anklebiter is identified, they are best ignored by the commenters and spammed by the moderators. There is no reason to concern oneself with how they look to the average stranger, because a) it's not your problem, b) MPAI, and c) their own bizarre behavior will expose them sooner or later.

A guest blogger at Alpha Game has a timely post that addresses some of the issues raised here as part of his Graduating Gamma series. The most relevant quote:
This flows directly from the Gamma’s ever-present and crippling fear of being wrong somewhere and somehow. The Gamma does not understand the deep matters behind what is going on in his own beliefs, which is ironic since most Gammas vastly overestimate their knowledge and ability in most everything.

Labels: ,

64 Comments:

Anonymous Andrew Spooner Jr. February 16, 2015 6:08 AM  

I've been very active recently on the "Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason, and Logic" group on Facebook, and I have had this precise experience numerous times, and this perfectly represents my experience.

There is a particular satisfaction that comes from debating physics with someone who throws complex papers on quantum entanglement at you, and you are able to take all of the wind out of their sails and expose them as a paper tiger simply by throwing a layman's pop science program in their face. (If you want to play who's the better physics layman, it helps to come prepared with at least the basics.)

Sure enough, after disappearing for a few minutes of regrouping, they will invariably pop up again. At this point they will usually concede your original point while pretending a) they never disagreed with you in the first place and you are in fact debating an entirely different issue (the classic fighting retreat) and b) attempting to make the post stretch on so long that the original argument will get lost in a sea of rhetoric. They will not only never admit defeat, THEY WILL NEVER ADMIT THAT THEY LEARNED SOMETHING NEW FROM YOU.

Blogger Vox February 16, 2015 6:18 AM  

You can't fix them. In a case like you're suggesting, you can only force them to go away by quoting their previous errors and asking them to admit that they were wrong. A few will be able to, but most will simply disappear rather than admit it.

What you can do is use it in the future to drive them away, by bringing it up every time they resurface. For some reason that AC could probably explain has something to do with the amygdala, they cannot bear to simply state: "you were right and I was wrong" in front of an audience. Needless to say, these are invariably individuals of very low socio-sexual rank and more than a few of them would have been in institutions 30 years ago.

One reason they have so much time for this nonsense is that they can't hold down even fairly simple jobs that should be no problem for an individual of above-average intelligence.

Blogger JP February 16, 2015 6:23 AM  

A simple rule to always remember is "the guy who gets angry first loses." they're much more likely to go off on tangents or argue from Hitler. If you can keep a level head, you'll be seen as the voice of reason.

Anonymous Andrew Spooner Jr. February 16, 2015 6:26 AM  

I'll admit, for all intents and purposes I should be one of these poor lost souls. I certainly fit all the criteria. The only thing that separates me from them is Christianity and enough past negative reinforcement to suppress my natural desire to indulge in comical hubris in public.

Blogger Vox February 16, 2015 6:34 AM  

A simple rule to always remember is "the guy who gets angry first loses."

That's a good point. One of the average troll's primary tactics is to rhetorically bait the other person into losing his temper. Keep rhetorically hammering on him instead, especially with words deemed provocative but not overly abusive, and he'll usually lose it himself.

Blogger Vox February 16, 2015 6:36 AM  

The only thing that separates me from them is Christianity

But what a separation! After all, what is the signal act that distinguishes the Christian from the non-Christian? It is REPENTANCE. Which is why one so seldom sees Christians in the anklebiting ranks.

If you can repent of your sins, you shouldn't have any trouble at all admitting an error of fact or logic.

OpenID simplytimothy February 16, 2015 6:39 AM  

they lack the normal ability to admit failure, back up, and start over that normal individuals possess

I love your use of the word 'normal'; It plants a flag in the ground stating that personal integrity is the accepted standard and dares the ethically challenged to try and claim it.



Anonymous Andrew Spooner Jr. February 16, 2015 6:44 AM  

I find the one of the greatest strengths of any intelligent debater is to not only admit when you are wrong, but more importantly to recognize when you are speaking to somebody smarter than you. There seems to be a very real threshold somewhere are 115-130 IQs where people have a serious problem recognizing a superior intelligence. As you have pointed out in the past, they are just smart enough to realize they are smarter than most people, but not smart enough to recognize when they are outmatched.

There was a time when I would dive into debates unprepared and have to admit defeat, but recently I've learned to simply recognize when I'm talking to someone who is simply more educated on the subject than me. For example a trained biologist I spoke with recently; I know that they are wrong, and I could probably expose a chink in the armor here or there, but there is nothing to be gained from them demonstrating a far superior grasp of the topic. It doesn't enlighten the audience, and only gives them a chance to engage in intellectual masturbation.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet February 16, 2015 6:48 AM  

One of the average troll's primary tactics is to rhetorically bait the other person into losing his temper

And like an enemy army, if you lay a trap, his arrogance will cause him to rush forward too quickly and be ruined. If you play your cards right and send him down the desired path, he'll soon appear very foolish and will be forced to say contradicting insanities.

Remember, these sort want control. Merely deny them their desire and expose the weakness they've shown through it.

Blogger Vox February 16, 2015 6:54 AM  

And like an enemy army, if you lay a trap, his arrogance will cause him to rush forward too quickly and be ruined.

This works with contradictory women too. When I observe a woman is in a contradictory mood, I will often manipulate her into insisting that black is white or some similarly obvious contradiction. Unlike the anklebiters, it usually takes only one or two experiences to teach them to stop pulling that crap.

Blogger Vox February 16, 2015 7:00 AM  

I've learned to simply recognize when I'm talking to someone who is simply more educated on the subject than me.

There is ALWAYS someone who knows more. Most people would freely recognize that I know vastly more about military theory than they do. I've read everything from Frontinus to Mahan, including Onasander, Vegetius and Vaubon, after all. The keen observer can probably spot some of the specific influences in my books. My favorite email about ATOB was the guy who recognized Jomini in it; it's totally obvious if you know Jomini and invisible if you don't.

And yet, when I was editing Martin van Creveld's latest, he was referring to names I'd never even HEARD. Not only that, but he did so while pointing out how they had contributed an important element to how we think about military strategy. It was a very good reminder that the fact that you might know a lot more than the average man doesn't mean that someone else doesn't know even more than you do.

Blogger James Dixon February 16, 2015 7:03 AM  

> They are almost always atheist, further pointing towards the atypical neurological profile required for that, they are usually male, and they tend to be unexpectedly poorly educated and badly read despite their observable intelligence. Most importantly, they lack the normal ability to admit failure, back up, and start over that normal individuals possess.

Sounds like a prefect description of Asher.

> I find the one of the greatest strengths of any intelligent debater is to not only admit when you are wrong,

Well, being shown to be wrong happens here on a regular basis. Of course, my wife gives me plenty of practice in that regard too, so I've gotten used to it.

> ... but more importantly to recognize when you are speaking to somebody smarter than you.

Someone doesn't have to be smarter than you to educate you. They merely have to know more in a given area than you do. But yes, there are lots of people here as smart or smarter than I am. That's one of the reasons I like this place.


Anonymous Giuseppe February 16, 2015 7:25 AM  

To Vox and BT,
I have noticed that merciless ridicule of their lack of education (with references to specific facts that are demonstrable) send them into tailspins. They try to recover with sophistry but relentless banging on the drum of their educational ineptness and obvious stupidity does cause them harm. It's entertaining if you have the time/inclination. Personally I am out of both, so ignoring works too.

Blogger Vox February 16, 2015 7:29 AM  

I have noticed that merciless ridicule of their lack of education (with references to specific facts that are demonstrable) send them into tailspins

As usual, they give away their weak points with their attacks. They tend to be insecure about their educations and intelligence, which is why they are constantly saying things like "you're stupid" and "get educated!"

Due to their tendency to project, they usually tell you the best way to rhetorically attack them in how they conduct their own attacks. It's the curse of the subjective standard.

Anonymous Giuseppe February 16, 2015 7:32 AM  

If you can repent of your sins, you shouldn't have any trouble at all admitting an error of fact or logic.

Not always easy to know what are our sins. And one can't honestly repent "en masse" for our lives up to now. Not without it seeming gimigky (to me anyway). Just saying, errors of fact and logic seem a lot easier to me.

Anonymous Andrew Spooner Jr. February 16, 2015 7:39 AM  

I have great fun pointing out, on the occasional opportunities that it happens, that I am more well read on a topic than somebody who is currently paying to study it. The best part is if someone with an actual degree is around to confirm that your position is correct. I'm not exactly a PhD when it comes to theoretical physics, though I have read extensively on it since I was a child, but I often find myself being far more educated on even the most basic aspects than somebody who is pursuing it as a degree. The only difference between me and them was I wasn't stupid enough to pay for something that has been free since before they were born.

Anonymous Anonymous February 16, 2015 7:44 AM  

Kind of related, I find I deal more with Gasset's Mass Men than ankle biters in my life. Such types are likely:

1-2 SD above the average.
Has an occupation of status: doctor, lawyer, academic, business executive, finance, etc.
Is successful in life by the world's standards (upper-middle class or above).
May or may it have gone to an institution that has a strong brand recognition( Harvard, Yale, etc.)

The issue I keep having with them is being experts or having expertise and knowledge in a narrow field, combined with their success, they make the mistake of thinking they are equally knowledgeable in other subjects. For example, the heart surgeon who is so certain that global warming is true because scientists say so and he is a "scientist".

If facts and logic worked on them, I wouldn't ask the Ilk what's the best way to deal with them? I've tried facts and logic and very few of them will retreat once shown reasons to not be so certain. What are these types, as they are not ankle biters and worse, others follow them because unlike the ankle biters, they do have legit expertise, just in a narrow, specialized way.

- Durandel

Blogger JP February 16, 2015 7:59 AM  

Another tidbit from my vast vault of clever insights: never enter an internet argument without backup. You will get swarmed, which is the internet equivalent of being shouted down by the mob. Or at least stick to places where comments are moderated by a fair mod (like here). When you go rabbit hunting, you go in a group.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 16, 2015 8:08 AM  

Comment up thread about the 115-130 IQ hits the nail on the head when it comes to me. But I saved myself by taking your Gamma advice before you codified it and wrote it down. I say I'm smarter than I look but not as smart as I think I am, keeps me humble when I need to be humble and allows me to take in new information and process it sanely.

Two things, damned if I can find anything intellectual on the Left, secondly conservatives need IMO to learn how to disqualify and run their lefty adversaries off the field of battle completely. We can't all get George Will's job of putting a sheen of intellectual respectability on leftist turds.

Blogger Nate February 16, 2015 8:26 AM  

"nd they tend to be unexpectedly poorly educated and badly read despite their observable intelligence. "

Pride. Its amazing how much a mid-wit over-values his own intelligence. They honestly think themselves brilliant on a level far deeper than most folks realize. they aren't well read because they simply do not believe they need to be. If you ask them something they have no knowledge or training about... they simply pull something out of their ass... and ***poof*** an ontological miracle occurs... and whatever they said becomes reality. Because it makes sense to them... and they are Super Double Plus Smart. So its true.

Blogger Vox February 16, 2015 8:29 AM  

I suppose you almost have to be poorly read to be that stupidly prideful. How you can think your mind is particularly brilliant after reading Thucydides, or Aquinas, or Cicero, or even the likes of Burke and Schumpeter, I do not know.

Then again, if you're told that Harris and Dawkins are the epitome of Man's intellectual achievement and that's all you've read, I can see where that might lead to some false conclusions about one's own capabilities.

Blogger Nate February 16, 2015 8:32 AM  

"Then again, if you're told that Harris and Dawkins are the epitome of Man's intellectual achievement and that's all you've read, I can see where that might lead to some false conclusions about one's own capabilities."

Touche'

Blogger Nate February 16, 2015 8:35 AM  

I once watched a midwit invent a definition out of thin air to philosophical term. The dude literally had no idea what it meant... he just missed it completely. When I confronted him with that and told him to look it up... he told me he didn't need to look it up because he knows how english words are constructed and can therefore define any word at any time.

Thus... my theory was born.

Blogger Nate February 16, 2015 8:37 AM  

ya know.. this all sounds kind of... John Maynard Keynes doesn't it? No economic education at all... just make shit up... and ***poof*** its all suddenly true.

Blogger Vox February 16, 2015 8:48 AM  

ya know.. this all sounds kind of... John Maynard Keynes doesn't it?

No, he was genuinely brilliant, he was just seriously unstable. Also, the math worked.

Anonymous Working Class Brit February 16, 2015 8:52 AM  

How you can think your mind is particularly brilliant after reading Thucydides, or Aquinas, or Cicero, or even the likes of Burke and Schumpeter, I do not know.

I've never heard of those blokes but Vizzini said Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates were morons compared to him. Well, he didn't seem very clever to me, meaning I'm even smarter. And I'm not well-read at all, I haven't even read The Princess Bride's novelisation. Books are for people who can't think for themselves.

Blogger Nate February 16, 2015 8:57 AM  

"No, he was genuinely brilliant, he was just seriously unstable. Also, the math worked."

well... the math worked... if you accepted the assumptions in the first place.

Blogger Nate February 16, 2015 9:03 AM  

still you're right... Hayek thought the guy was seriously bright... and that's saying something.

Blogger Student in Blue February 16, 2015 9:16 AM  

@Giuseppe
Not always easy to know what are our sins. And one can't honestly repent "en masse" for our lives up to now. Not without it seeming gimigky (to me anyway). Just saying, errors of fact and logic seem a lot easier to me.

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

Just having the concept of fallibility of the self and keeping it in mind goes a long way towards establishing humility and desiring truth. One doesn't have to know every single wrongdoing they have done, just that they are flawed and need their own actions scrutinized.

Pride seems to have this effect of covering the holes in our reality, and the anklebiter seems no different. For the anklebiter, it is holes in logic and facts. From experience, by realizing internally that pride is only paperthin compared to solid ground, it will lead us to want to fill in those holes instead of ignoring them.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet February 16, 2015 9:21 AM  

If I may add... on the flip side, there are many males that struggle to accept that they are genuinely intelligent or skilled in a particular area. The key, as has been noted, is to know where your skills extend and where not. As a man, know your strengths, as well as your weaknesses.

Anonymous Dongle February 16, 2015 9:29 AM  

They are almost always atheist

Well YOU would say that. But go check out the comments on various atheist and pro-science blogs to see the other side of the coin.

Blogger Student in Blue February 16, 2015 9:30 AM  

Agreed. It's "know thyself" and not emasculating self-flagellation. Self-analysis, but no paralysis from it.

See: Soft Equalitarianism topic from Feb 3rd.

Blogger Student in Blue February 16, 2015 9:32 AM  

Woops. I meant to agree with NorthernHamlet, but someone snuck in a comment.

Blogger Student in Blue February 16, 2015 9:38 AM  

@Dongle
Well YOU would say that. But go check out the comments on various atheist and pro-science blogs to see the other side of the coin.
Are you referring to a Biblethumper-esque figure?
From my experiences, they are not the same as what's discussed in the topic. Anklebiters believe themselves more clever than they are, while the stereotypical Biblethumper believes themself more holy than they are. Biblethumpers are very emotionally invested in their arguments, while anklebiters are not emotionally invested, so rhetoric has wildly different effect.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet February 16, 2015 9:47 AM  

Student in blue,

I like your "self-analysis, not paralysis" line. Catchy and spot on. I'll probably use it in the future.

Blogger Student in Blue February 16, 2015 10:02 AM  

NorthernHamlet, I cannot claim credit for that line.

Analysis Paralysis

Anonymous Darth Toolpodicus February 16, 2015 10:53 AM  

"well... the math worked... if you accepted the assumptions in the first place"

Yeah, but it was a simple linear equation, IIRC, of course it worked...as you said the problem was trying to approximate an economy with it.

I remember a microeconomics class where the prof kept repeating the mantra "beware of oversimplification"... And my jaw dropped when he trotted out Keynes and the economy as " Y = MX + b". It dropped further when I overheard some Business majors next to me griping: "this is bullshit! If wanted to learn 'advanced math' like this, I would have signed up for Engineering".

Not to derail, Nate / Vox, but I had always just assumed that Keynes was completely talentless, an overpriviledged buffoon who somehow got a platform.

Blogger bob k. mando February 16, 2015 10:57 AM  

Vox February 16, 2015 7:29 AM
They tend to be insecure about their educations and intelligence, which is why they are constantly saying things like "you're stupid" and "get educated!"




which is why it amuses me so much to take them apart, while not having a degree.

Blogger Nate February 16, 2015 10:57 AM  

"Not to derail, Nate / Vox, but I had always just assumed that Keynes was completely talentless'

He wasn't talentless... Hayek thought he was a genius... but genius or not... he had no econ training at all... and just made all this bullshit up off the top of his head and sold it.

Anonymous After Omega February 16, 2015 11:11 AM  

Vox, do you have a label that captures your posts regarding online debates and arguments? I checked debates, arguments, argumentation, etc , but they either didn't exist or didn't really capture your 'instructional' posts.

Being able to read them together might help those who have been using them. You might get less commenters misusing the terminology.

Blogger Doom February 16, 2015 11:16 AM  

It's irritating, but I can plainly see where there are times when I fit the profile. Yeah, it bugs me. I try to keep an eye on my behavior, for that reason. Hopefully so others don't have to. Haven't been banned here, so there is that... Or was I, just not told? :) Fuckers. An inside joke? Paranoia goes with it, like a fine wine pairing, mind you.

Well... off to troll someone else!

Blogger James Dixon February 16, 2015 11:18 AM  

> Two things, damned if I can find anything intellectual on the Left,

Oh, the Left has it's intellectuals. They just long ago got shoved to the back of the bus. For instance, a true leftist intellectual realizes that gun control laws are actually aimed at keeping the poor powerless and unable to defend themselves.

Blogger Nate February 16, 2015 11:24 AM  

"Two things, damned if I can find anything intellectual on the Left,"

There are plenty of intellectuals on the left with plenty of intellectual arguments. But the left is now such a warren they get no air time. Because Feels.

Anonymous Darth Toolpodicus February 16, 2015 11:40 AM  

"he had no econ training at all... and just made all this bullshit up off the top of his head and sold it."

Econ is one of those things I know very little about, and don't talk much about, but even I could see right away that Keynes' model was crap.

Geniuses often don't know their limitations and also forget that the smarter they are, the smarter the folks that aren't as intelligent as them are too.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet February 16, 2015 12:11 PM  

But the left is now such a warren they get no air time.

Adding some confirmation to James Dixon and Nate: many on the Left try to tar me as a Far-Right Wing Nut if I even suggest conversation should be open to the chance gun control could be abused. They'll feign intellectual discussion on the matter in an attempt to get me to slip somewhere so they can drag out the label. Vox is correct that arguing with many of them is nothing more than their attempt to erode your footing once you conceed an inch.

But I can also attest that I give it my best shot to engage many of you here in intellectual discussion without trickery or BS.

Anonymous Anubis February 16, 2015 1:05 PM  

It took me a while to accept that you can't reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into. Instead of trying to win against one, try to win the audience.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza February 16, 2015 1:25 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 16, 2015 1:58 PM  

they tend to be unexpectedly poorly educated and badly read despite their observable intelligence.

Sometimes reading a book is the worst thing they can do. Makes them think they know way more than they do. I recently had a facepalm worthy exchange on a Seahawks' blog with a guy who'd read a book on football and based on that wanted to defend the play call at the end of the Superbowl.

One thing I realized in the argument was that these sorts, perhaps because of the autism, tend to get very heavily invested in process details and lose sight of end goals (let alone actual results). They will argue how each individual step of the process wasn't inherently a problem, but lose track of the cumulative effect that results in a bad decision. They'll argue that Decision C wasn't a bad decision given the circumstances, but are utterly unable to comprehend those circumstances were the direct result of Decision's A and B in the process.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 16, 2015 2:07 PM  

There are plenty of intellectuals on the left with plenty of intellectual arguments. But the left is now such a warren they get no air time. Because Feels.

Also, I think the intellectuals of the Left are tragically disconected from too much reality. They're mostly the product of affluent societies with boatloads (literally) of surplus productivity and they assume that productivity as a given. They're the people who consciously chose not to participate in the actual production activities - they're not the petroleum engineers and mill operators or farmers or bakers.

And they have the same fatal flaw Keynes had - they don't understand where productivity comes from, so they assume it isn't very important.

Anonymous Trimegistus February 16, 2015 2:57 PM  

I've noticed that they also tend to be the "one book explains it all" sort of autodidact: they were smart enough to be bored in high school or college, but then stumbled across Ayn Rand/Noam Chomsky/whoever, and boom! Now they UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING and want to make sure you know it.

(I suppose there's a parallel among people with adult religious awakenings, but since Christianity puts such a huge emphasis on humility they aren't such colossal assholes.)

Anonymous T February 16, 2015 3:32 PM  

Encountered a particularly bad anklebiter in an AGW debate the other day.

They started every single post with "Sweetheart", and the entirety of their argument is that religion is the root of all evil because it's believing in something that's not real.

I brought up the USSR as a counterpoint, and got another 'Sweetheart' along with 'religion is crazy, period. SORRY!!!!'

When I brought up this person, incredibly inflated ego, and that I thought atheists were supposed to be morally superior, they told me that they deserved their ego, because they work so hard to know so many things.

It was quite breathtaking in its utter stupidity. This one couldn't have even been a midwit. He was practically retarded.

Anonymous Harry Callahan February 16, 2015 4:11 PM  

... on the flip side, there are many males that struggle to accept that they are genuinely intelligent or skilled in a particular area. The key, as has been noted, is to know where your skills extend and where not. As a man, know your strengths, as well as your weaknesses.

A man's got to know his limitations.

Blogger Student in Blue February 16, 2015 4:58 PM  

@T
It was quite breathtaking in its utter stupidity. This one couldn't have even been a midwit. He was practically retarded.

I think that's why it's +0 SD, yet autistic. The obsessive focus on subjects of interest lends to a feeling of intellectual superiority over those around them, even though they are not actually smarter, just more focused on a particular topic.

Probably, then, they do that "mass man" conflation (fallacy of composition) and assume that every topic is their bailiwick.

Blogger Student in Blue February 16, 2015 5:03 PM  

Speaking of autism, there's an interesting theory I read about it.

"As posited by Henry and Kamila Markram of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, the theory suggests that the fundamental problem in autism-spectrum disorders is not a social deficiency but, rather, a hypersensitivity to experience, which includes an overwhelming fear response."

The smallest dogs barks the loudest.

What I'm curious is if Anonymous Conservative's underdeveloped amygdala theory has any connection here. Thoughts, anyone? Am I... barking up the wrong tree?

Anonymous tiredofitall February 16, 2015 5:56 PM  

"And they tend to be unexpectedly poorly educated and badly read despite their observable intelligence."

A lot of those types tend to be "Google smart".

Blogger LP 999/Eliza February 16, 2015 6:15 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Giuseppe February 16, 2015 6:28 PM  

Student in blue,
What I'm curious is if Anonymous Conservative's underdeveloped amygdala theory has any connection here. Thoughts, anyone? Am I... barking up the wrong tree?

Being a borderline aspie myself, i have given this a lot of thought. There is something to what you say, but it's not cearcut. For example, even as a child, my reaction to frightening things was to keep exploring them until they stopped being frightening.
My little daughter was the same for the first year and a half i was with her. Two years with her mother have changed that considerably, but with a little encoragement she still will explore scary things. I also noted she has a weird sense of humour and she actually likes getting frightened. She will get scared by some sudden thing, or even a dog chasing her, but as soon as she is safe she will go poke at it again. And her favourite storybook character in the three little pigs and red riding hood is the wolf.

There is definitely something about being hypersensitive with aspies, but it's not always clear what. I notice that both my daughter and i have relatively decent bullshit detectors, far in excess of the norm, yet we can be emotionally fooled with relative ease under certain circumstances.
I think is one can get a higher metaprogram in place to "deal with fear by facing it" it can help a lot, though it also can cause other problems.

The best strategy I have found so far with dealing with pretty much anything that emotionally is disturbing is to "level up". That is, try to observe the issue from a higher level of perspective. I.e. Struggling with a detail (a specific math equation in a spreadsheet say), try to look at the overall issue (what is the overall function of the whole spreadsheet?)

Blogger Student in Blue February 16, 2015 7:57 PM  

@Giuseppe

I honestly was not thinking of Asperger's at all when I posted that. It didn't even cross my mind, since Asperger's always seemed like, to the aspie, social cues being alien to the point of Lovecraftian mindbending, whereas severe autists were just constantly being amygdala hijacked by the amygdala either overreacting or being overstimulated.

On a side note, what you've described in the last paragraph sounds very much like strategies for avoiding amygdala hijacking that anyone can use.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza February 16, 2015 8:16 PM  

OT: am I allowed to be happy when mom and dad are in disastrous decline?

Analysis Paralysis is no good, the overthinking turns into complete indecision. I suffer from varying degrees of indecision and intense anxiety. The stresses tempt into the wrong things so I zap the emo stress. I used to be swift in making the best choices know I marinate on a issue for a few days.

Blogger Student in Blue February 16, 2015 8:29 PM  

@Eliza

Surround yourself in women who you trust and wouldn't mind becoming. In addition, I will pray for you.

Anonymous Discard February 17, 2015 2:52 AM  

T and Student in Blue: Have you ever met a Civil War nut or a train nut? Some of them are literally -1SD, but have memorized tons of information on the supply trains at Gettysburg or the tractive force of the late model Alco locomotives. They drive the normal aficionados crazy, not to mention those with only a passing interest.
No doubt, some of the invincibly ignorant SJWs fell off the same tree.

Anonymous Discard February 17, 2015 2:56 AM  

Hey, old guys! Anybody remember Country Joe and the Fish, "Sweet Lorraine"? About a hippie chick who affected great knowledge and wisdom about esoteric matters, but "…all she knows, she had to memorize"?

Anonymous Discard February 17, 2015 3:02 AM  

Durandel: My suggestion for dealing with your clever fools is to ask them questions. They may find it hard to resist demonstrating their superior knowledge, and overstep themselves.
"If that's true, then how come…?"

Blogger Student in Blue February 17, 2015 9:12 AM  

@Discard
I feel like the very few -1SD nuts I have met tended to retreat within their specialty and just huddle there rather than attempt to strike out. Definitely related I would agree.
I think it's important to remember that this is a subset of SJW. Vocal and annoying, yes, but a subset. Most of the other SJWs I run into just claim moral superiority (as if that makes them correct), as they operate off of feels and not logic.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts