Post by Joel SmithPost by Francesco S.Good point. Agreeing is not mimicking. I agree with you on this. To
show to somebody the object of his/her mimic is a very good way to
argue, isn't it? To mimic someone else is the very way to errors. It
is a key point about autism itself in my opinion.
No one here is mimicing anyone as far as I can tell.
Post by Francesco S.Post by sggaBAnd if they
disagree with you, apparently you think they're not thinking, just
mimicking. (Or just negative, like you called me.)
Here I disagree. When I see the same sentence I already have read in a
lot of papers is forwarded to me, as an answer, what I think first is
if the author is or not mimicking others without thinking. Its
happens so often. You responded to my writing you used short
sentences which sounded as slaps and looked as cut-and-paste, until
the one here above.
If you asked, "What shape is the Earth?", you'd probably get a bunch of
responses saying "The Earth is round." (Well, here you'd probably get "The
Earth is almost round." <grin>) That doesn't mean they cut and paste or
that they took the words from somewhere else, although I suspect most of us
were told in those words by someone else when we were young...
Hi Joel. The same happened when people was believing that the earth is flat.
Post by Joel SmithI would be very careful about accusing people of not thinking. If you are
right, fine. But I wouldn't be so sure of you being right... On autism -
including the "looking young" issue, most of us have heard these things *A
LOT*, discussed them *A LOT*, and, most importantly, *THOUGHT* about them *A
LOT*. If you look through the Google archives, you'll see "looking young"
is not a new topic for us. Some opinions - mainly the low muscle tone - are
well supported by evidence, so chances are we'll mention those when asked.
It isn't parroting, it is simply saying what we think is most likely, even
if the theory was orriginally developped by someone else.
I see your point and I think I have poorly expressed myself. More below.
Post by Joel SmithPost by Francesco S.Post by sggaBI've seen autistics
engage in groupthink, but disagreeing with psychodynamic theories of
autism is not an example. This is more an example of various people
looking at reality and coming to the same conclusions more or less
independently of each other.
This is not at all a guarantee to be right. On the contrary, group
thinking is the best way to keep thinking wrong, because the group act
as a uncatchable falsifier (here I am almost certain that I am
misusing English, nevertheless the message should pass). The group is
based on mystification.
No doubt that we might come to the same conclusion and be wrong. But argue
on that, not the fact that we came to the same conclusion! Tell us *WHY* it
is wrong, not that we are wrong simply because we agree or that we are wrong
because we use the same words or that we might not be wrong, but we aren't
thinking instead because of those things.
I will try to do so. Group thinking is something interesting when
talking about autism wich is, in my veiw of course, a group product of
the sixties, based on Kanner and Asperger's writings in principle, but
grown up later in something different. Researchers have begun to study
group thinking after 1848, when groups become political subjects. There
are some pillars about group thinking and the one I am always referring
is a French scholar who worked in Canada and then at Stanford
university, René Girard, now 81. In his last book there is a couple of
paragraphs about autism and latest neurologic research, among an ark of
other interesting things. If we were writing in Italian it could be easy
for me to explain how I find this author so important on many subject
related with autism. But it is quite better and faster, even if perhaps
not the fairest thing to do, to declare plainly my sources. I think that
his books are easily available in any bookshop.
Post by Joel SmithI do not think this group is based on mystification, at least based on the
definition of that word. I tend to think most things said here are pretty
plain, and shy away from confusing terms and such. But if you don't
understand something, reply and say that.
Post by Francesco S.Autists don't act in group and have a huge sensibility about
victimaries dynamics, of which they are so often the object.
Object to what? And we do act in group sometimes - probably not exactly
like NTs qualitatively or quantitatively, but it is there nonetheless. I've
seen it, and I've done it. That simply isn't what is going on here though.
Post by Francesco S.Will
they even be able to act as a collective subject, but not mimicking
one another and leaving in their path a growing number of victims, as
usual it happens to groups? This is the crucial question.
I have no idea what you are talking about, probably too abstract for me.
Let us assume that group thinking is the opposite of scientific work and
disovery. Galileo faced group thinking about the earth being the center
of the universe and immobile, for example. To be membr of a group is
very easy: just mimic the others, nobody wil ask you if you have
understood. The behavior of the group towards the researcher who come
out with a finding that changes the truth supposed by the group is
usually to aggress him in a number of ways and sometime kill him. Later
on, the same group will build a temple in honour of that person. I try
here to offer a synthesis of Girard's thought.
Post by Joel SmithI will say that I get very sick of hearing about how autistics are mimicing,
groupthinking, or controlling one another. I've heard this about myself -
About controlling one another, mine was simply the idea to adapt Gaamen
Bank's technics to groups of autists.
Post by Joel SmithI've had people tell me that my thoughts were not *REALLY* my thoughts, but
I was simply just mimicing someone else's. I assure you that at all of
those instances, I was *NOT* mimicing the person they thought I was.
I don't know about who told you this nor the situation and I believe you
très volontier.
Fran.