Not true. Many aspies will go through all sorts of contortions to fit in. I played football in high school and had a C- average until my senior year, when I decided to start studying again, and got a 4.7 my final year (4.5 scale, honors courses went to 5.5, so it pulled me above 4.5). I hated football, but I hated myself even more, and wanted desperately to fit in. Having horrible motor coordination meant I was stuck playing line, and socially I was as clumsy as I was physically. It was a massive failure in terms of fitting in, but I had Aspergers, and didn't really understand that there was more to fitting in than adopting a stereotype. Looking back on it, I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a large number of bodybuilders (or athletes) who have some form of aspergers. It's the socially clumsy,"if I just get bigger biceps then everyone will love me" types that I'm thinking about.
Some Aspies avoid social situations, others will make clumsy, awkward attempts to fit in. They'll rehearse everything they say, over-prepare for every social event, and still find ways to fuck it up. They'll go to great lengths to fit in whatever way they can.
I agree. Why is it that some of stupidest, most close-minded comments are coming from those that are promoting "education", or "intrinsic learning", whatever the hell that is. How exactly is getting paid "extrinsic", but being forced to do something without pay "intrinsic"?
Can we conclude based on your remarks that our previous attempts at education left us with no empirical reasoning skills whatsoever? How exactly do you plan on showing that not paying people for work is going to have better results? In the short term, grades go up, so how about doing a study that shows they go back down?
Yes, but they're not training you to be slave. They are supposed to be training you to be someone that gets paid, so that he can take care of himself in the real world. Therefore, paying you early, even if it's "what you're supposed to do", is the right thing. My parents didn't pay me either, but not because they really knew what they were doing or had any good reason for it.
PS. For myself, the couple of time my dad rewarded me, my motivation went up. I felt a sense of dignity and purpose when I was paid. When I wasn't paid, it felt more like slavery. I think there is a sense of pride that comes along with being paid for something. For me, it causes my intrinsic motivation to go up, because I can see that it's valuable, and i'm not just wasting time, even if I never get paid for it. Don't discount the sense of self worth that these students have, because they feel like they are functioning as autonomous individuals, with rights, and pay, for their hard work. By your reasoning, slaves should have the most extrinsic motivation, because they aren't paid anything.
Why is there such a negative reaction to paying people for their work? I find it difficult to comprehend. Maybe their expectations about what a society should be like, and what it should provide, will go up. Is that a bad thing? Even if they have now learned enough in school to actually fulfill some of those expectations? Why is intrinsic motivation better than extrinsic, and further, how exactly can any sane individual draw a line between the two? I love programming computers, have programmed on vacation, but can also do it for pay. There's no contradiction there, and one doesn't diminish the other.
I don't find this be accurate. I'd rather have my kid get an education in advocating for his needs and rights, rather than simply assuming that he should wait in line for his "reward". I suppose it depends on what kind of human being you are trying to create.
I think you should delay only as long as necessary, and no longer. Besides, I don't think that instant gratification is responsible for all of our social ills. Just because we have an economic system that claims (and I mean to use the word claim) to give better results for those who wait, doesn't mean that it's really how the world works. I think you find plenty of examples in nature where NOT waiting is the appropriate choice. Also, I think I would rather be training kids to actively advocate for their needs, rather than passively engage society. The problem with your approach, is that you are treating society as a rigid structure, that needs to be approached by actively waiting in line for what one wants. The reality is that it's a bit more complicated than that. Sometimes, the correct thing to do is demand compensations for ones hard work.
In this case, we're talking about the extreme case of students getting zero reward. How exactly is that delayed gratification. More accurately described, it's zero gratification.
Just to add to the monologue, but the reason labels can be helpful is that without it, you may never know how to apply things to yourself. If you go through life, thinking that you are normal, and applying the insights of the majority to yourself, you will be continually frustrated, as I was. Labels are useful, because they allow you to apply the proper approaches to solving your own unique challenges. I would be curious about how these kids turn out. Do they go on to stellar careers, or is early graduation a predictor of potential issues that are being covered over and compensated for? I'll admit it sounds like a stupid question, but I haven't heard it answered yet.
I think the preferences of people that have it are more important (myself included). I would say it's better to have Aspergers than to wonder why you are a certain way, and have no idea how to fix your problems. In earlier times, he would have gotten a different label, "weird". And, I think it's a bit annoying to say that labels cause problems. It reminds me of people that promote "fat acceptance". Seriously, there are problems with being overweight, just as there are problems with having an autism spectrum disorder. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that all we have to do is accept it, is wrong, in my opinion.
I think as we grow more aware of the extraordinary talents and focuses of those that are on the autism spectrum, we will see more of these fast-track through college kids. People with autism spectrum disorders tend to develop intellectually much faster, but when it comes to dealing with the real world, are usually way behind their peers. One big clue is that he sees no purpose to games. The unpredictability is probably overwhelming to him at this point in his development. If he has motor-coordination issues, that could also make him dislike sports.
So, we'll come to accept people like this for who they are, give them an outlet for their early intellectual development, and also provide a society that supports the fact that emotionally they may be far behind their peers. That sounds like a much better world than one that treats ASD's as a disease or freakshow. While is IQ may qualify as genius, I hope his parents realize that he may very well be disabled in other areas of functioning, and give him the proper support. Too often, people like this feel enormous pressure, and get no support for their weaknesses.
I suppose what bothers me about christians, is that their creator is kind of a dictator, with no understanding of democracy. It's not so much whether or not a god exists or not that bothers me, it's the lack of understanding of democracy or rights that are not endowed by an knowing creator that bothers me. People should be allowed to choose what is best for themselves. Christian churches tend to be hierarchical, and run in a dictatorial fashion. That is what scares me about them. If they started preaching about a god that believes in democracy and views us as equals, that would bother me a lot less.
I have to admit, if someone brought up "finely tuned universe" as an argument for god, it would stop me in my tracks. But, what would stop me, is the cognitive dissonance created by such a phrase, and the fact that we're living in a small slice of time, in an even smaller slice of space, and as far as we know, we're all alone. That would seem to indicate that the universe we live in isn't all that "finely tuned" for life, which I think is the argument that is made. It would seem that we're a random, spontaneous event.
But, then, I suppose they would take the other tactic, which is to say that life is so improbable, that the improbability is also proof of a creator, which is usually where I just give up.
I'm 34 too. When I was younger, I would happily take tests to show how smart I was. Now, I just find them annoying, and think the person that wrote it was an idiot. Then I question their theory, and I think that I'd probably score higher than the douche that designed the test, even if it is a flawed model. Then I notice some kids walking across the lawn....
Also, I think intelligence isn't just about doing well on some test, but also knowing what is crap and what isn't, and that takes experience. I can't tell you how much BS I believed when I was younger, that I now know is false. False knowledge is probably a bigger impediment to success than low IQ. It's not just about being able to remember, it's about knowing what to forget.
Seriously, that would eliminate most advertising. It could get rid of gratuitious sex and violence. Then you could teach your kids that looking out for number one all the time just turns them in to a selfish asshole. You can then teach them that giving to other corrupt institutions, such as churches, isn't a way to make up for being a self asshole. I'd bet a sound analysis of how our wonderful economic system works (like how the music industry finds and promotes talent) would do quite a bit to turn kids away from the neatly packaged rebellion that is pushed down their throats, as well as turn them away from the moronic stuff that is advertised to them starting from infancy.
"Hey Dad, I need you to buy me X". "Gee, when did the tv tell you to do that?"
So, basically, we have a choice between efficient, environmentally friendly vehicles that will require an investment in research that will eventually have many other uses. Or, we can choose gas guzzlers, which apparently make more "economic sense".
Or, there's a third choice, which is scrapping an economy that makes such idiotic decisions. I go with choice number 3, get rid of capitalism, because with it, we're doomed to repeat the same idiotic mistakes because they "make economic sense".
They aren't against Union wages, they are against American wages. They can pay about 10% of what they do in a major US city if they move operations to India. It's not so much about what they are supposed to do. IBM is acting as expected, in accordance with their institutional goals of profit above all else. I think a better question is what WE'RE supposed to do, and how long we're going to put up with their behavior. The first thing we should do is demand that they give the 140 million in tax incentives back. The incentives were given to them for the explicit purpose of keeping workers in the US.
Most lower class people I know understand that they are being shit on. (Ever wonder why you get such bad service at the drive thru?) I think it's something like 40% of the population that votes, the other 60% has "voter apathy", or in other words, they understand that it's a big scam. It's the college "educated", professional folks that have a hard time understanding that they are being shit on. My theory is that most professionals are just comfortable enough to keep from thinking.
Let me put it this way. In 20 years, China and India will be rich and fully integrated into the global system. Russia, which 20 years ago was far ahead of both, will likely not be. For that, Putin needs to answer.
In twenty years, China and India will be outsourcing jobs to America. Over the next five to ten years, Chinese and Indian companies will be learning everything they can from western project leaders and project managers.
Right now, freshly graduated analysts and project people are making over thirty grand per month, including very good living arrangements etc.
To fill the worldwide shortage of middle-managers no doubt. That's all we need is an army of middle managers to solve all of the world's problems.
I doubt it, our society in it's current form, with it's selfish economy, violent sports, and warlike nature is way too volatile, corrupt, and short-sighted to last. I'd give it another 100 years, 200 max. Egypt lasted 5000 years, but that's not us. When I think of America, I tend to think of Rome.
Going a bit further, it's not copyright holders, but profit-oriented copyright holders that are the problem. Our free market system tends to run against standardization and openness.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true. Many aspies will go through all sorts of contortions to fit in. I played football in high school and had a C- average until my senior year, when I decided to start studying again, and got a 4.7 my final year (4.5 scale, honors courses went to 5.5, so it pulled me above 4.5). I hated football, but I hated myself even more, and wanted desperately to fit in. Having horrible motor coordination meant I was stuck playing line, and socially I was as clumsy as I was physically. It was a massive failure in terms of fitting in, but I had Aspergers, and didn't really understand that there was more to fitting in than adopting a stereotype. Looking back on it, I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a large number of bodybuilders (or athletes) who have some form of aspergers. It's the socially clumsy,"if I just get bigger biceps then everyone will love me" types that I'm thinking about.
Some Aspies avoid social situations, others will make clumsy, awkward attempts to fit in. They'll rehearse everything they say, over-prepare for every social event, and still find ways to fuck it up. They'll go to great lengths to fit in whatever way they can.
I agree. Why is it that some of stupidest, most close-minded comments are coming from those that are promoting "education", or "intrinsic learning", whatever the hell that is. How exactly is getting paid "extrinsic", but being forced to do something without pay "intrinsic"?
Can we conclude based on your remarks that our previous attempts at education left us with no empirical reasoning skills whatsoever? How exactly do you plan on showing that not paying people for work is going to have better results? In the short term, grades go up, so how about doing a study that shows they go back down?
Yes, but they're not training you to be slave. They are supposed to be training you to be someone that gets paid, so that he can take care of himself in the real world. Therefore, paying you early, even if it's "what you're supposed to do", is the right thing. My parents didn't pay me either, but not because they really knew what they were doing or had any good reason for it.
PS. For myself, the couple of time my dad rewarded me, my motivation went up. I felt a sense of dignity and purpose when I was paid. When I wasn't paid, it felt more like slavery. I think there is a sense of pride that comes along with being paid for something. For me, it causes my intrinsic motivation to go up, because I can see that it's valuable, and i'm not just wasting time, even if I never get paid for it. Don't discount the sense of self worth that these students have, because they feel like they are functioning as autonomous individuals, with rights, and pay, for their hard work. By your reasoning, slaves should have the most extrinsic motivation, because they aren't paid anything.
Why is there such a negative reaction to paying people for their work? I find it difficult to comprehend. Maybe their expectations about what a society should be like, and what it should provide, will go up. Is that a bad thing? Even if they have now learned enough in school to actually fulfill some of those expectations? Why is intrinsic motivation better than extrinsic, and further, how exactly can any sane individual draw a line between the two? I love programming computers, have programmed on vacation, but can also do it for pay. There's no contradiction there, and one doesn't diminish the other.
I don't find this be accurate. I'd rather have my kid get an education in advocating for his needs and rights, rather than simply assuming that he should wait in line for his "reward". I suppose it depends on what kind of human being you are trying to create.
I think you should delay only as long as necessary, and no longer. Besides, I don't think that instant gratification is responsible for all of our social ills. Just because we have an economic system that claims (and I mean to use the word claim) to give better results for those who wait, doesn't mean that it's really how the world works. I think you find plenty of examples in nature where NOT waiting is the appropriate choice. Also, I think I would rather be training kids to actively advocate for their needs, rather than passively engage society. The problem with your approach, is that you are treating society as a rigid structure, that needs to be approached by actively waiting in line for what one wants. The reality is that it's a bit more complicated than that. Sometimes, the correct thing to do is demand compensations for ones hard work.
In this case, we're talking about the extreme case of students getting zero reward. How exactly is that delayed gratification. More accurately described, it's zero gratification.
Just to add to the monologue, but the reason labels can be helpful is that without it, you may never know how to apply things to yourself. If you go through life, thinking that you are normal, and applying the insights of the majority to yourself, you will be continually frustrated, as I was. Labels are useful, because they allow you to apply the proper approaches to solving your own unique challenges. I would be curious about how these kids turn out. Do they go on to stellar careers, or is early graduation a predictor of potential issues that are being covered over and compensated for? I'll admit it sounds like a stupid question, but I haven't heard it answered yet.
I believe you. But, I don't think it applies to this case.
I think the preferences of people that have it are more important (myself included). I would say it's better to have Aspergers than to wonder why you are a certain way, and have no idea how to fix your problems. In earlier times, he would have gotten a different label, "weird". And, I think it's a bit annoying to say that labels cause problems. It reminds me of people that promote "fat acceptance". Seriously, there are problems with being overweight, just as there are problems with having an autism spectrum disorder. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that all we have to do is accept it, is wrong, in my opinion.
I think as we grow more aware of the extraordinary talents and focuses of those that are on the autism spectrum, we will see more of these fast-track through college kids. People with autism spectrum disorders tend to develop intellectually much faster, but when it comes to dealing with the real world, are usually way behind their peers. One big clue is that he sees no purpose to games. The unpredictability is probably overwhelming to him at this point in his development. If he has motor-coordination issues, that could also make him dislike sports.
So, we'll come to accept people like this for who they are, give them an outlet for their early intellectual development, and also provide a society that supports the fact that emotionally they may be far behind their peers. That sounds like a much better world than one that treats ASD's as a disease or freakshow. While is IQ may qualify as genius, I hope his parents realize that he may very well be disabled in other areas of functioning, and give him the proper support. Too often, people like this feel enormous pressure, and get no support for their weaknesses.
Go away...
No, seriously, just go away...
I suppose what bothers me about christians, is that their creator is kind of a dictator, with no understanding of democracy. It's not so much whether or not a god exists or not that bothers me, it's the lack of understanding of democracy or rights that are not endowed by an knowing creator that bothers me. People should be allowed to choose what is best for themselves. Christian churches tend to be hierarchical, and run in a dictatorial fashion. That is what scares me about them. If they started preaching about a god that believes in democracy and views us as equals, that would bother me a lot less.
I have to admit, if someone brought up "finely tuned universe" as an argument for god, it would stop me in my tracks. But, what would stop me, is the cognitive dissonance created by such a phrase, and the fact that we're living in a small slice of time, in an even smaller slice of space, and as far as we know, we're all alone. That would seem to indicate that the universe we live in isn't all that "finely tuned" for life, which I think is the argument that is made. It would seem that we're a random, spontaneous event.
But, then, I suppose they would take the other tactic, which is to say that life is so improbable, that the improbability is also proof of a creator, which is usually where I just give up.
I'm 34 too. When I was younger, I would happily take tests to show how smart I was. Now, I just find them annoying, and think the person that wrote it was an idiot. Then I question their theory, and I think that I'd probably score higher than the douche that designed the test, even if it is a flawed model. Then I notice some kids walking across the lawn....
Also, I think intelligence isn't just about doing well on some test, but also knowing what is crap and what isn't, and that takes experience. I can't tell you how much BS I believed when I was younger, that I now know is false. False knowledge is probably a bigger impediment to success than low IQ. It's not just about being able to remember, it's about knowing what to forget.
As George Carlin pointed out, when you turn 60 you can crap your pants and no one will care, so getting old isn't all bad.
Seriously, that would eliminate most advertising. It could get rid of gratuitious sex and violence. Then you could teach your kids that looking out for number one all the time just turns them in to a selfish asshole. You can then teach them that giving to other corrupt institutions, such as churches, isn't a way to make up for being a self asshole. I'd bet a sound analysis of how our wonderful economic system works (like how the music industry finds and promotes talent) would do quite a bit to turn kids away from the neatly packaged rebellion that is pushed down their throats, as well as turn them away from the moronic stuff that is advertised to them starting from infancy.
"Hey Dad, I need you to buy me X". "Gee, when did the tv tell you to do that?"
So, basically, we have a choice between efficient, environmentally friendly vehicles that will require an investment in research that will eventually have many other uses. Or, we can choose gas guzzlers, which apparently make more "economic sense".
Or, there's a third choice, which is scrapping an economy that makes such idiotic decisions. I go with choice number 3, get rid of capitalism, because with it, we're doomed to repeat the same idiotic mistakes because they "make economic sense".
They aren't against Union wages, they are against American wages. They can pay about 10% of what they do in a major US city if they move operations to India. It's not so much about what they are supposed to do. IBM is acting as expected, in accordance with their institutional goals of profit above all else. I think a better question is what WE'RE supposed to do, and how long we're going to put up with their behavior. The first thing we should do is demand that they give the 140 million in tax incentives back. The incentives were given to them for the explicit purpose of keeping workers in the US.
Most lower class people I know understand that they are being shit on. (Ever wonder why you get such bad service at the drive thru?) I think it's something like 40% of the population that votes, the other 60% has "voter apathy", or in other words, they understand that it's a big scam. It's the college "educated", professional folks that have a hard time understanding that they are being shit on. My theory is that most professionals are just comfortable enough to keep from thinking.
Let me put it this way. In 20 years, China and India will be rich and fully integrated into the global system. Russia, which 20 years ago was far ahead of both, will likely not be. For that, Putin needs to answer.
In twenty years, China and India will be outsourcing jobs to America.
Over the next five to ten years, Chinese and Indian companies will be learning everything they can from western project leaders and project managers.
Right now, freshly graduated analysts and project people are making over thirty grand per month, including very good living arrangements etc.
To fill the worldwide shortage of middle-managers no doubt. That's all we need is an army of middle managers to solve all of the world's problems.
I doubt it, our society in it's current form, with it's selfish economy, violent sports, and warlike nature is way too volatile, corrupt, and short-sighted to last. I'd give it another 100 years, 200 max. Egypt lasted 5000 years, but that's not us. When I think of America, I tend to think of Rome.
Going a bit further, it's not copyright holders, but profit-oriented copyright holders that are the problem. Our free market system tends to run against standardization and openness.