Math Talent, Asperger's Syndrome,"Social Skills"

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]

This post is all ego.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. In fact, it contains many irrational statements that Slansky is using to keep his warped world view internally intact.

Just as an example, why is zipping you pants inherently of value? A nice breeze would often be kinda comfy. In a "rational" world it would be a decision no more deserving of judgment than whether you decide to zip up your jacket or not - merely a matter of comfort.

The fact is that social skills indeed have a purpose despite appearing irrational - they are a system designed so you can recognize people of your own society and place people accurately into societal subgroups, and a method of non-verbal communication that's actually very efficient and very valuable.

Some small percentage of the population choose to opt out of that system. Some are bums, some are mad professors, some are so wealthy or powerful they don't care what others think. But it doesn't serve any of them well and isn't an indication of genius.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a fair amount of experience w/ Asperger's Syndrome. Back in college, I lived next to a guy in my dorm (suitemate, we shared a bathroom) who had a pretty severe case.

First off Asperger's != math genius and vice versa. There is obviously some overlap and it's a continuum, but real Asperger's is a very real, physical problem. Asperger's patients are simply missing all innate social skills that are built in to the vast majority of humans. There is a very large skill set of innate abilities most humans have with regard to social situations, that most are really never aware of until you meet someone lacking these skills.

Asperger's patients learn social skills like most of us learn math from a textbook: as a 100% logical experience. They learn to carry on "conversation" by algorithm. If someone says this, answer like this. If you meet someone for the first time, say this. This sounds like it could work, but in practice it does not. For a normal person there are a massive amount of factors that go into the normal social interaction of "making conversation": facial expression, vocal intonation, overall mood, body language, and much, much more. A continuous balance of all this information going back and forth leads to a constant, mostly unconscious adjustment by both parties in normal social interaction.

My point in this is that I don't believe an Asperger's patient could ever truly be as socially adept (or moreso) than an average person (regardless of how dedicated they were or if they decided to stop acting "silly"). They are simply not equipped. There are no books that teach underlying social skills. If there were, they would be impossibly long and detailed. The problem is that social interaction provides a constant opportunity for truly novel situations that have never occured before (even if the differences are subtle). It's impossible to be truly socially adept using the "algorithm" method - and those with Asperger's do not have any other way.

These are the conclusions I draw after spending a year in close contact with a guy with a serious case of Asperger's who had spent his entire life in the best treatment money can buy. Every single conversation with him was awkward, despite him having some idea what to do or say in most normal situations. He was a smart guy and great with numbers, but regardless of his logical intellect, there is no chance he'll be "taking over the world" - ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post is consistent with medical literature on the subject.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This post is all ego.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. In fact, it contains many irrational statements that Slansky is using to keep his warped world view internally intact.

Just as an example, why is zipping you pants inherently of value? A nice breeze would often be kinda comfy. In a "rational" world it would be a decision no more deserving of judgment than whether you decide to zip up your jacket or not - merely a matter of comfort.

The fact is that social skills indeed have a purpose despite appearing irrational - they are a system designed so you can recognize people of your own society and place people accurately into societal subgroups, and a method of non-verbal communication that's actually very efficient and very valuable.

Some small percentage of the population choose to opt out of that system. Some are bums, some are mad professors, some are so wealthy or powerful they don't care what others think. But it doesn't serve any of them well and isn't an indication of genius.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly the zipping pants example wasn't as strong as the not taking a shower one. The point is that there are social conventions based on thought and common sense and others that are based on random fashion.

Secondly I never argued that some conventions need to be extablished. I only argued that dumber people are not struck by the arbitrainess of them. And in cases like cuffs, they don't realize that the reason that stuff matters to so many is because they need to think about things to get their mind off the fact that they have nothing more important to contribute or think about.

[David Sklansky]

People with severe Aspergers have to learn social conventions via algorithms because they themselves don't want the conventions used on them. So they find it hard to believe that others want them.

Someone asked me how a bunch af nerdy types relate to each other. My experience is that they do quite well. They don't think that the others are unfriendly. Because they not only don't exhibit the conventions that don't crave them either.

The trick is to show these people that others should be looked at like children. They may be considered the "normal" ones but only in a certain sense. Its similar to the fact that depressed people are actually realistic about the future while "normal" people are irrationally optimistic. Many of the sillier social conventions are defense mechanism to help people avoid contemplating truths. Those who find that they don't have these defense mechanisms can learn these conventions through algorithms and other means.
And don't sell alorithms short. The best ones come close to passing the Turing test.

[SplawnDarts]

Ok, I'll accept showering in place of pants-zipping as a strong example.

However, I do think that some other cases are less arbitrary than you're making them out to be.

Your run-in with yearly rotating fashion is an example. The system allows one to make the following silent statements:

1) I am rich (or in the case of kids, my parents are rich) - by wearing up to date fashions & high end brands
2) I am poor but trying to fit in - by wearing slightly outdated fashions or slightly lower price brands
3) I'm intentionally outside the social order - by wearing things that weren't ever in fashion

Now, to the people who designed the system (namely the rich kids and their parents) it's a very useful system. It lets them identify their own at a glance. That's not irrational - it's a highly efficient form of communication in terms of marginal cost to convey the same message to numerous people. Their choice of cuffs vs. no cuffs, in and of itself, is arbitrary. Just like in language where sounds are assigned meanings with no particular scheme other than short sounds for common meanings. But one meta-level up, it's not irrational at all, any more than spoken language is.

I suspect that most people with strong social skills get this intuitively and as such the "arbitrary" choice of fashion bothers them no more than the arbitrary phonetics of words does most speakers.

I think the right view for smart people who don't "get" social interaction to adopt so they can blend in is that it's a language, with symbols chosen more or less arbitrarily, but the higher lever meaning is not a waste of time, is not arbitrary, and is (for most people) very important.

[David Sklansky]

Your theory is contrived and probably wrong. Especially regarding things like cuffs. My theory is that people artificially find trivial things to place a lot of importance on because without that they would lead lives of quiet desperation.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
Your theory is contrived and probably wrong. Especially regarding things like cuffs. My theory is that people artificially find trivial things to place a lot of importance on because without that they would lead lives of quiet desperation.

[/ QUOTE ]

My "theory" is not at all contrived, nor is it really a theory. It's just how the world works.

If you chose to ignore or disbelieve it, then there's really nothing else to say. You'll incorrectly believe others are behaving irrationally and stubbornly barge on, and they're not going to change because the system works quite well for them.

Trust me - when people put effort into fashionable clothes (or any other similar social communication), it's anything but an alternative to "a life of quiet desperation"

I suspect you already take as given many aspects of theory I presented. For example, do you believe clothes can and often do convey economic status? Note this is a general belief - everyone can come up with individual counterexamples.

Next, do you believe there are times when conveying your economic status is useful communication? For example, when trying to attract a mate?

Lastly, if the communication system works, and the communication is worthwhile, what's so "arbitrary" about using the system? Isn't it simply a case of using a tool to get useful work done?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
As for Phil and his social skills, allow me to postulate that his success was probably due in part to the fact that he was operating in an acedemic environment outside the US. I'd like to see how well he would do at Miami Dade.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just saying I was a normal guy, even though I was book smart and a freshman at 16. And I despise the culture of Miami; I'd be crazy in 6 months. Perhaps you're smarter than I give you credit for. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Divad Yksnal]

"When I was in fifth grade I was berated for wearing pants with cuffs as they were "out" that year."

Again, you have failed to understand biology.

Does the undisputed smartest person on this forum need to explain everything?


DY.

[David Sklansky]

Both theories have validity. Rooting for your high school football team fits yours. Rioting at your cities soccer team fits mine. Wearing Dior fits yours. Worrying about cuffs fits mine.