|
You may like to contact our Autism Helpline team who are best suited to answer. |
This is different from normal, and has made me a little uncomfortable, they are posts i have replied to and to me the mod seems to be saying the answers you already have are crap so ring us for the right answer. An i being over sensative? It's hard enough to write in here as it is without feeling like your answer is being negated by an official
Hi Deepthought .
Again Thank you.
Hey Song.
My pleasure ~ I am really glad to have been of some assistance :-)
If you have not already done so you could always contact the community manager, communitymanager@nas.org.uk, and say that you are interested in being a moderator.
Further to the "turquoise and orange problem", there is the additional unceratinty, not about the words themselves (which is enough of a stumbling block to communication), but about which words are emphasised (and therefore should be particularly considered by the reader or listener).
Definitely, the consideration of 'emphasis' is covered by the, "What do I 'mean' by asking for Turquoise and Orange please?" bit, as could be spoken in any mood or with any attitude ~ sarcastically, jokingly, rudely, politely or whatever.
A decorator might for instance have been given blue and red paint by staff at a decorating shop or warehouse ~ rather than the requested colours, or a philosophy lecturer might be saying it to their students.
I have to admit that the words "best suited" did not even register with me, as I said before, but some people would obviously see those words and, yes, interpret them the way Song did.
It's the old classic with sensibilities and sensitivities of course, with some being more and others less so in whichever and whatever way to particular things.
In my case I spent a lot of time, especially during my preadolescence, not noticing that I was getting verbally bullied. I was focused on the correct use of words, and there is in bullying that thing of calling people what they are not, or just using words for effect rather than knowing what they even mean.
I got really confused by other boys calling me 'gay' as on some days I was not 'happy' in any way at all, i.e. post seizure migraines and cuts and bruises etc, but as I found out more confusingly at the time ~ I was 'gay' or 'homosexual' because I much preferred the company of girls . . . ?????
That bible verse that goes, "Forgive them for they know not what they do." made a lot of sense on this matter.
Another twist on things as a child, I found reading what were called Peter and Jane type children's books incredibly hard going, as I found sexism so nonsensical, with the emphasis on what Peter liked doing being the predominant theme, with Jane just being a tag along. Whereas instead, I found reading large or huge books on the nature of existence that most adults found really hard going ~ really very easy and infinitely more enjoyable.
What I saw was yet another moderator advising someone to contact the helpline, and that caused me and several others to have a discussion about how appropriate it is to tell someone on the spectrum to make a phone call, when that person might very well feel uncomfortable doing so.
I think expressions like, "Once you have met one autistic person, you have met one autistic person" and, "You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time." make a lot of sense in this respect.
My interpretation completely ignored the fact that Song had pointed out that there was something different about the way the moderator had advised the person to contact the helpline
If you had known about Song's take on things, or recognised it yourself, it might have 'been possible to have 'completely ignored' the moderator's communication glitch, providing you were not you, which fortunately you are.
In this case, the words were different from usual. Therefore, I completely missed what Song was trying to say. To her, the difference in wording was so obvious that just quoting the new wording should have made the rest of us understand immediately what point she was trying to make.
Completely missing or being ignorant of Song's sense of things on the matter does though make a lot of sense, as it does also that others miss or are ignorant of things that others notice immediately.
Colour blindness and tone deafness are classics in this respect, along with the fact that often greater inabilities in one field of experience involves greater abilities in others. Things in life are prone to balancing out in this way, what with people in some cases being for example soldiers, others doctors, and so on and so fourth.
We have also as such the further consideration of those who more prone to being followers, supporters, leaders or facilitators in just one or all areas life. I found out about a thing called 'Toolbox Philosophy' in this respect that states in essence that every tool is designed to perform a specific function, and without a full toolbox the mechanics of life tend to breakdown and stay broken down. So I was always staggered by peoples insistence that basically, individuality is a societal crime, rather than a fundamental constant always exhibited in and through nature.
I think this illustrates how misunderstandings start, even in spoken language. Written language is difficult to interpret for the reasons already outlined, but spoken language is supposed to be easier, because we have the cues from the voice, hand gestures, body language, facial expressions, etc. to tell us what the other person means.
In my varied and extensive attempts to not just understand but also comprehend the irregularities of the way I related to people, and the way people related to me, as involved studying body language, which turned out to be amazingly contradictory to how people were actually feeling.
Social masking or societal camouflage makes body language as easy to interpret as seeing what someone looks like in complete disguise ~ from the empathic perspective, which is my primary sense when relating to and with people.
The difficulty is that most people are to the full extent psychically disassociated, due to birth trauma and so fourth. Hence they have no problem humiliating or abusing others because they are themselves emotionally disabled, and are as unable to appreciate the emotional beauty of others as blind people are to the visual beauty of sunrises and sunsets etc.
However, since we, as people on the spectrum, don't like making eye contact, we may miss subtle facial expressions, and many of us also miss body language and such as well. For us, it is a learned skill which some of us have not yet mastered, whereas for NTs it is presumably automatic (I don't really know how that works though).
I do not have difficulty with eye contact myself as I am an extrovert in that sense, rather than an introvert, but people did not like making eye contact with me and it was they who would quickly look away.
I had to learn to retract my visual cones so that they did not cross the distance between me and others.
One problem I had before I learnt this, was being told off by teachers who kept on telling me to look at them why they were speaking to (or more actually shouting at) me, and when I did look at them they kept on telling (or yelling at) me not to look at them that way.
In my sense of things back then ~ I either looked at someone or did not look at someone, so that did not go well at all during those sort of things.
With though the automatic aspect of body language ~ it is like dancing in a sense, where the vast majority of people unwittingly just mimic one another in turn ~ one set of steps in one direction and another set of steps in the other direction, repeatedly over and over and over again.
As a very young child I kept asking people why they did the repeated behaviourisms thing, but no one I asked knew, they just said everyone did it, and it was only when I stated studying psychology and sociology that I found out the names for the habituated behavioural patterns, and the reasons for them. My first base on this was reading Eric Berne's "Games People Play", on the topic of Transactional Analysis. Then moving on to Psychoanalysis via Freud, Jung and Adler etc, etc, etc.
For me, I can usually understand when someone is being sarcastic just from their voice, but sometimes someone will say something really hurtful and later claim it was just a joke, and everyone around will just accept that and blame me for not getting it.
Same here pretty much, but when people attempt to blame me for not having a sense of humour, they are not referring to a sense of humour in the funny sense, unless one means funny in the sense of being odd or weird, Many people mistake humour for traumatically triggered hysteria, as being heckling more instead of comedy.
Some languages completely rely on context. A sentence can have several meanings, and the correct interpretation depends on what has happened previously in the conversation. This is also true in English, to some extent.
All languages rely on the context of at least three objects, such as for example very young children (as being one object) hear an adult (as being the second object) saying, "Blah you blah blah blah I blah blah you blah sweets (as being the third object), which translates as "If you behave really nicely I will buy you some sweets."
For most people they are merely saying lines and only do thought-tracking, which of course they understand in terms of involving themselves or others in relation to particular objects, like sweets as just mentioned or wages for example, but they do not comprehend the blah blah bits of the sentences they speak.
Obviously this applied to small degree to your understanding of the moderator's statement, but once you were made aware of another level of meaning, the blah blah factor on that level became comprehensive words with meaning for you. One example of a person not comprehending what they were saying was someone who I met who could quote the bible number, chapter and verse, but it meant nothing at all to them in part or whole regarding the written content ~ it was totally blah blah blah blah to them. They just really really enjoyed pleasing people that way, and people were really really impressed with it.
So we have a written or spoken sentence, and there are so many ways to misinterpret the meaning, assuming in the first place that the sentence is gramatically and otherwise correct and complete. The words themselves can be misunderstood. The emphasis can be misunderstood. Whether or not the sentence, or part of it, is meant is fun, i.e. the intention, can be misunderstood. If someone hears or reads the sentence without knowing or considering what went before, that can cause misunderstanding, i.e. the context can be misunderstood.
Just as there are many ways to misinterpret spoken statements, there are as many ways to interpret them too obviously. One area in this sense goes back to what I mentioned above about most people having been psychically or empathically disassociated by birth and or socialised trauma. For there is psychic, mental and physical 'intension' as gives rise to the mental 'intentions' to do something about it. Reverse psychology becomes as such quite reliable, in that to whatever extent and in whatever sense a lady or gentleman protests to much, or not at all, and all that.
It is a wonder that humans can communicate with each other at all!
When people first get to recognise this stuff, so many people say or write those exact same words, or paraphrases very closely equivalent to them, but the meaning holds true in each and every case.
I also would like to know how moderators are chosen. I am trying to figure out and understand this but I cannot find the information.
Some how to become a moderator tips can be found via the following link:
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/become-website-moderator-46570.html
Further to the "turquoise and orange problem", there is the additional unceratinty, not about the words themselves (which is enough of a stumbling block to communication), but about which words are emphasised (and therefore should be particularly considered by the reader or listener). I have to admit that the words "best suited" did not even register with me, as I said before, but some people would obviously see those words and, yes, interpret them the way Song did.
What I saw was yet another moderator advising someone to contact the helpline, and that caused me and several others to have a discussion about how appropriate it is to tell someone on the spectrum to make a phone call, when that person might very well feel uncomfortable doing so.
My interpretation completely ignored the fact that Song had pointed out that there was something different about the way the moderator had advised the person to contact the helpline. In this case, the words were different from usual. Therefore, I completely missed what Song was trying to say. To her, the difference in wording was so obvious that just quoting the new wording should have made the rest of us understand immediately what point she was trying to make.
I think this illustrates how misunderstandings start, even in spoken language. Written language is difficult to interpret for the reasons already outlined, but spoken language is supposed to be easier, because we have the cues from the voice, hand gestures, body language, facial expressions, etc. to tell us what the other person means. However, since we, as people on the spectrum, don't like making eye contact, we may miss subtle facial expressions, and many of us also miss body language and such as well. For us, it is a learned skill which some of us have not yet mastered, whereas for NTs it is presumably automatic (I don't really know how that works though). For me, I can usually understand when someone is being sarcastic just from their voice, but sometimes someone will say something really hurtful and later claim it was just a joke, and everyone around will just accept that and blame me for not getting it.
Some languages completely rely on context. A sentence can have several meanings, and the correct interpretation depends on what has happened previously in the conversation. This is also true in English, to some extent.
So we have a written or spoken sentence, and there are so many ways to misinterpret the meaning, assuming in the first place that the sentence is gramatically and otherwise correct and complete. The words themselves can be misunderstood. The emphasis can be misunderstood. Whether or not the sentence, or part of it, is meant is fun, i.e. the intention, can be misunderstood. If someone hears or reads the sentence without knowing or considering what went before, that can cause misunderstanding, i.e. the context can be misunderstood. It is a wonder that humans can communicate with each other at all!
Isn't it interesting how much difference a few words can make to one person when another person doesn't even notice?
There is thing called the 'Turquoise and Orange Problem" in Sophistry, in that all words have at very least two possible meanings, out of a minimum three.
That happens quite frequently in human communication.
The variations on how we relate to words and objects depends on where and with whom we have learnt to speak and converse ~ in terms of involving dialects as being 'particular forms of language which are peculiar to specific regions or social groups' as for instance ~ "the Lancashire dialect seemed like a foreign language" (Google).
In Sophistry people learn either to use words to persuade people to accept particular points of view, or else conversely to provide direct information or facts for people to make their own decisions.
Now the 'Turquoise and Orange Problem' involves sussing out the irregularities and the probabilities of the following statement,
"What do I mean by asking for Turquoise and Orange please?"
The most obvious irregularity is that we do not know what the person means, but the most likely probabilities in concrete or objective terms are either that both are colours, or that Turquoise is a semiprecious mineral, and Orange is a fruit.
Basically then, who a person is, what they do and what the situation is, will inform us of the most likely intention that the person has, and thus what they mean. Along with this involving dialectic or linguistic variations, is that what is written by one person and read by another, can only be accurately interpreted up to a maximum of 67% percent ~ at very best.
Hence we have the expression "Lost In Transliteration" ~ when it comes to interpreting written material, or "Lost in Translation" for spoken material. The 33% margin of vagary allows for evolutional developments, i.e. pauses for thought, new topic directions or other activities elsewhere ~ in either the singular or the collective sense.
It's not just an autistic thing, either.
This applies to all the neurologically typical, atypical and divergent dialects of social communication in whatever language ~ as regarding the form or structure of the words and sentences being used, and the meanings or content of the information getting related and interpreted by each person or group of people, in one way and another, as a matter of basic principle, in nature.
More particularly then regarding the characteristic structure and content of most neuro-typical people's dialects, they have a broader less specialised range of interests as compared to the narrower or more specialised range of neuro-divergent people's interests or interest, such as ours more in terms of being Autistic or Aspergic.
I am absolutely certain that it is just unfortunate wording, and that the meaning you inferred was not that which was intended by the moderator.
I was myself almost certain that it was unfortunate wording, or as I like to call such things a "typo" (or typing error) in words ~ which as previously stated I am immensely prone to myself, along with standard letter typos also. Praise and blessed be the inventors of spell-checking tech ~ Yay!
Anyway, I took the liberty of reporting the error in wording to the NAS at about 3-am on the 17th of April 2018, as follows:
Frederica Mod' stated:
"You may like to contact our Autism Helpline team who are best suited to answer."
Do to the nature of autistic psychology, in terms of black or white thinking, the antonym of "best suited" is "less suited" and as such offence has been caused to a community member, see:
http://community.autism.org.uk/f/miscellaneous-and-chat/12252/moderators
Perhaps Frederica might consider a more appropriate response as being something like:
"You may also find it useful to contact our well trained and resourced advisors on the Autistic Helpline."
If that helps any?
Deepthought
Have a good one ~ filled with infinitely more :-)
And at 16:57 on the same date I got the following answer:
Dear Deepthought,
Thank you for your email and bringing this to our attention.
We appreciate you sharing your feedback in regards to one of our moderators response to a community member.
It is never our intention to cause upset or offence, so it is very useful for us to be informed if we unintentionally have, so we can make changes to ensure this can be avoided in the future. I will be forwarding your feedback and suggestion to all of our moderators.
Thank you again for sharing your feedback. It is very useful and valuable.
Kind regards,
Ayshe
Community Moderator.
If that is of any assistence?
I see what you mean now. I am absolutely certain that it is just unfortunate wording, and that the meaning you inferred was not that which was intended by the moderator. I honestly did not notice that the wording was any different from any other post by a moderator where they advise someone to call the helpline, so we have been having a discussion about a different (though related) topic.
Isn't it interesting how much difference a few words can make to one person when another person doesn't even notice? That happens quite frequently in human communication. It's not just an autistic thing, either.
We had a poll on here recently which, although it only had a limited number of replies, suggested that people on the spectrum preferred to communicate by e-mail, writing or text and no-one answered that they preferred to communicate by phone.
I feel therefore that while it may be appropriate to suggest NTs contact the helpline it is not (as) appropriate to suggest people on the spectrum contact the helpline.
I do not use phones and I would not call there.
Phones make me extremely anxious.
I can do e-mails, writing or text.
I feel sometimes that the society exists for the benefit of families and friends of people on the spectrum and only tolerates people on the spectrum itself.
It wasn't that the OP's could contact the help line, more that the help line was "best suited" ie we the forum members were worse suited.
Exactly, and, given that, people should not have to wait a whole month for a reply to an email. People at the helpline should check their email regularly and provide a timely response.
We had a poll on here recently which, although it only had a limited number of replies, suggested that people on the spectrum preferred to communicate by e-mail, writing or text and no-one answered that they preferred to communicate by phone.
I feel therefore that while it may be appropriate to suggest NTs contact the helpline it is not (as) appropriate to suggest people on the spectrum contact the helpline.
Outside bodies may have the excuse of ignorance but the NAS do not or should not have that excuse.
Nobody thinks that your posts are rubbish or that they should be removed. The way the moderators respond by suggesting that people contact the helpline seems to be the default answer that moderators give, perhaps because they have been told to do so. I'm absolutely certain that it is nothing personal, because such a reply appears in several threads each day.
While I think they are mostly doing a great job, I wish the moderators would put a bit more thought into their copy-and-pasted replies, because there are some questions that can be answered immediately without compelling someone to go through the whole unpleasant process of making a phone call and being placed on hold for a long time, or emailing the helpline and waiting a month for a reply. Worse still would be to go through all that and then find out that the helpline is not even able to provide an answer.
I'm so are you saying that she didn't mean what she wrote?
Well that is a fairly neurologically typical response that I often hear or read in such circumstances, given the abstract vagaries thing ~ i.e. pretty much just getting an often said sequence of words wrong. I am pretty good at that myself actually ;-)
If she has written something she doesn't mean then it would be an over reaction, but if she meant what she said then she should have messaged me to tell me to stop spouting crap at people.
Not so much an over reaction as the statement is demeaning, but being more demeaning as you suggest regarding your statement, that is in the territory of an over reaction, but none the less the statement is not appropriate ~ so feeling upset by it is very reasonable methinks.
And posted to my post that it was rubbish or removed them. Or just kick me off.
This does not seem to me to be a reasonable statement, going by what I have read of your posts so far. Mentioning to the moderator that her statement does cause concern is more viable than you getting kicked off, and even if you do not wish to inform her, remaining a community member is more viable anyway perhaps?
Maybe I should go. I'm going in circles.
Well if you wish to be in the company of other circle goers ~ you know where we are ;-)
I don't doubt for a moment that the help line when you are able to get through can give expert advice, but surely when you ask a question in forum you are asking for peer advice or experience.
Most certainly and no doubt with that methinks :-)
I doubt - for the past three months, so MUCH longer than "a moment" - that the NAS helpline gives expert advice in every case! Because I have called them for such 'expertise' and received nothing, nada, and zilch!! Oh, and that was after about half a dozen calls trying to get through in the first place! The only good thing I'll say about the NAS helpline is that it's about par for the course apparently as others I've tried have been just as useless.
...Me again. I forgot to write... That the "Mods" generally do not/will not write anything which could possibly be (mis)interpreted as bad advice, hence the neutral and aloof part.
A good example is when they usually post address to that "NAS-dot-aspx" address, when someone has asked for a specific link. The specific link does not always exist, and the NAS Website is very difficult to negotiate in places... but NAS will not say that.
Also, "NAS cannot be held responsible for information given outside of NAS"...etc. etc. Hopefully anyone gets what I mean, here...?
if they don't have enough staff, then why do they keep telling people to contact the helpline, only to wait on hold forever?It sounds like an exercise in frustration rather than a way to get help with a genuine problem. I realise they are trying to help but it just doesn't work to refer people to the helpline all the time.
I am sorry, but I do not know the answer to the question.
It does not make much sense to me either.
I am also worried that a lot of autistic people do not like and prefer to avoid phones.
I think you'd be a good moderator. I wonder how moderators are chosen.
Thank you!
I also would like to know how moderators are chosen. I am trying to figure out and understand this but I cannot find the information.
