Autism conference.
in [Autism]
|
Prev: Subtypes of autism
Next: Asperger's Achievements
From: Hylander on 26 Oct 2005 19:03 The V person wrote: > "Hylander" <john.gagon(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1130347607.468115.103850(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > The V person wrote: > >> "Terry Jones" <terryjones(a)beeb.net> wrote in message > >> news:o0lul19j6o739hauhcv1lg82hcpamgh7l4(a)4ax.com... > >> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:10:02 GMT, "The V person" > >> > <Victorious(a)cantbebothered.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> H wrote: > >> >>> Terry also said something I was trying to explain but said it more > >> >>> clearly this time. There may be no bell shape at all, it could be > >> >>> camel > >> >>> humped within the spectrum for example for one range of traits and > >> >>> flat > >> >>> for another, and a left or right side hill or a bunch of bumps....for > >> >>> some of the more unique traits. > >> >> > >> >> I think the idea was to find out what the normal distribution is > >> >> for say : eye contact : essentially I think that what these people are > >> >> trying to say is if we do not know what the norms are for say eye > >> >> contact > >> >>in the population how can we base an assuption on what is abnormal if > >> >>we > >> >>have no basis for understanding the phenomenon in the first place. Not > >> >>sure > >> >>if that makes sense but I am just trying to figure out what angle that > >> >>these > >> >>people are coming from. > >> > > >> > One problem is that the "normal" curve in maths *doesn't* mean what > >> > "normal" normally means :) > >> > > >> > For them a "normal" curve is the name they use for a Bell Curve (also > >> > called a Gaussian Distribution). > >> > > >> > Thus the "normal" (in the normal sense of the word :) curve for a > >> > particular trait, *isn't* necessarily a "normal" curve in the > >> > mathematical sense - it could easily be some other type of curve. > >> > > >> > So someone who assumes that any specific trait *must* follow a > >> > "normal" (bell shaped) distribution is simply *wrong* - It *may* do, > >> > since this type of distribution is quite common in nature, but there > >> > are plenty of others too - so first you collect the data, *then* you > >> > find out what sort of pattern it fits. > >> > > >> > You need to ask the person in question for references which show that > >> > the trait in question actually *does* follow a normal (bell curve) > >> > distribution (and in a sample large enough to contain a representative > >> > proportion of autistics). > >> > > >> > Terry > >> > >> EeeK! Terry !!! Information over load! > >> Math tottaly cripples me.. > >> I do get the gist of what you are saying though.. > >> I wouldn't have a clue as how to converse of the subject matter with any > >> knowledge to fall back on... > >> THanks though Terry... :-) > >> V. > > > > Your mention of "norms" seemed to be interpreted from "normal" in curve > > so Terry was clarifying. (I'm worse I think in trying to explain it) > > Yes,,, Now I am getting really lost John,,, > I understood what Terry said.... it doesn't stay in my Mind though,,, it's > very frustrating for me . > Graphs, Bells, numbers all are perplexing to me.. > I was just parroting what some one said ::::: about trying to get a basis > for understanding norms, before researchers jump to the conclusion of > abnormal and I think it is a fair arguement to my untrained eye.. > > I think the basis is to put a chink in the idea that there are vast > normal ideas on what is normal that aren't normal... > Oh that was fun :) Like Thinking about Thinking.. > I think I'm following your "train" now. :D I needed an inkblot journey. :) H
From: Hylander on 26 Oct 2005 19:15 Terry Jones wrote: > On 26 Oct 2005 07:47:35 -0700, "Hylander" <john.gagon(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > >I should spout less off the top of my head but I thought I got some of > >it right. > > > ><sheepish grin> > > Unfortunately people do tend to use it loosely / improperly. (Like a > lot of other things - one which particularly annoys me ATM is that > even the BBC keep saying that someone "refuted" an allegation when > they'd simply *denied* it [without providing any evidence to support > that denial]). > Some people here use "accusation" or "indictment" as if they had already been "incarcerated" or "convicted". A media favorite.I know what you mean. A refutation or "allegation" is not a serious thing like having cancer or anorexia. It's part of the meme "Big words sound contagious / aweful" and "Loud words are always funny". H
From: Tunnelblick on 27 Oct 2005 05:42 The idea of Autism and Computing is that autism is part of normal. They build a computer model that models a "normal" mind that also explains an "autistic" mind. In their theory, mind is a system that distributes attention to all mental processes. Distribution of attention is important because available attention to the brain at any given time would be limited. They suggest some paramaters of how attention is distributed in different people (also in the same person at different times) is on a normal distribution curve. They suggest a monotropism-polytropism spectrum, which means sort of an attention-tunnel with deep focus, and great multitasking abilities on the other end of the spectrum. The website also states the authors view on autism: "The autistic condition is puzzling, and not well understood. We think the first step towards understanding it is to see that it is not an illness, but a way of being. We think people like this are part of the normal variety of humans and that variety is a good thing. We outline here some different ways people can vary in terms of how they use attention, and explain the impact of that on life in society." -- Tunnelblick ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tunnelblick's Profile: http://usenethealth.com/member.php?userid=5626 View this thread: http://usenethealth.com/showthread.php?t=770649
From: Hylander on 27 Oct 2005 10:41 Tunnelblick wrote: > The idea of Autism and Computing is that autism is part of normal. They > build a computer model that models a "normal" mind that also explains > an "autistic" mind. In their theory, mind is a system that distributes > attention to all mental processes. Distribution of attention is > important because available attention to the brain at any given time > would be limited. They suggest some paramaters of how attention is > distributed in different people (also in the same person at different > times) is on a normal distribution curve. They suggest a > monotropism-polytropism spectrum, which means sort of an > attention-tunnel with deep focus, and great multitasking abilities on > the other end of the spectrum. The website also states the authors view > on autism: > > "The autistic condition is puzzling, and not well understood. We think > the first step towards understanding it is to see that it is not an > illness, but a way of being. We think people like this are part of the > normal variety of humans and that variety is a good thing. We outline > here some different ways people can vary in terms of how they use > attention, and explain the impact of that on life in society." Autism isn't too puzzling. It's primarily a way of being yeah. I'd agree about the normal variety. I wouldn't want people to expect "normal" of me though although what is normal for me may not be normal for them. I've tried to take back the word normal even though the idea of normal is a precarious one to desire. It's overly sought after. This is a "spamtest". I am confused that you chose my post and did not quote/remain in the context of the thread. H > -- > Tunnelblick > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Tunnelblick's Profile: http://usenethealth.com/member.php?userid=5626 > View this thread: http://usenethealth.com/showthread.php?t=770649
From: Terry Jones on 27 Oct 2005 17:17
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:42:39 -0500, Tunnelblick <Tunnelblick.1xk5yb(a)no-mx.usenetdiets.com> wrote: >The idea of Autism and Computing is that autism is part of normal. They >build a computer model that models a "normal" mind that also explains >an "autistic" mind. In their theory, mind is a system that distributes >attention to all mental processes. Distribution of attention is >important because available attention to the brain at any given time >would be limited. They suggest some paramaters of how attention is >distributed in different people (also in the same person at different >times) is on a normal distribution curve. They suggest a >monotropism-polytropism spectrum, which means sort of an >attention-tunnel with deep focus, and great multitasking abilities on >the other end of the spectrum. The website also states the authors view >on autism: Trouble is it doesn't really fit the evidence - Yes *sometimes* autistics display narrow & deep focus - But a lot of the time there doesn't seem to be *enough* attentional / processing resource available. For example the reasonably common experience of not being able to (usefully) do eye contact *and* hear what the other person is saying *at the same time*. Or *not* being able to sustain concentration (but not productively multitasking either). It would help a great deal if the theorists would *listen* to autistics first, rather than basing their theories (apparently) on just their own external observations and interpretations. Terry |