Happy Atheist Forum

The brains at Cambridge University have come up with this simple test to gauge how autistic some people might be. Devised by the brother of Borat (no shit!) this simple test will show you how you rate on the autism scale.

http://www.channel4embarrassingillnesse ... tism-test/ (http://www.channel4embarrassingillnesses.com/features/take-the-autism-test/)

I got an 8. I'm decidedly un-autistic then.

Jesus, I got 36, I think it's caused by not liking to meet new people.

QuoteBelow is a link to the test. The average score from a control group was 16.4, and 80% of those with autism or a related disorder scored 32 or higher.

This is not a diagnostic test â€" and many people who score above 32 and who meet the diagnostic criteria for mild autism or Asperger’s have no difficulty in functioning in their everyday lives.

Agree: 2,4,5,7,12,13,16,19,20,21,22,23,39,41,42,45,46: 1 point
Disagree: 1,10,11,14,15,17,24,27,28,30,31,32,34,36,37,38,47,48,50: 1 point
Score: 36

It seems to make no difference between strongly agree and slightly agree though, which seems to make having two categories redundant, most of my answers were of the "slightly" variety.

33. I may be mildly autistic, but after having been poked and prodded every which way by psychiatrists throughout my life, I kinda' doubt it... They would normally have seen it.

Quote from: "Asmodean"33. I may be mildly autistic, but after having been poked and prodded every which way by psychiatrists throughout my life, I kinda' doubt it... They would normally have seen it.

I tend to agree with you.  The very first psychologist I saw for PTSD issues nailed it inside the first session.

Agree: 4,5,12,16,22,26,35,46: 1 point
Disagree: 11,14,24,27,34,37,38,50: 1 point
Score: 16

I'm basically right at the average of the control group.

I wonder, when the tech becomes available, if I fix all the abnormalities in my brain, would I still be me?

Agree: 4,5,6,7,12,13,16,18,19,22,23,26,33,35,39,41,43,45,46: 1 point
Disagree: 1,10,11,15,25,27,28,30,31,32,34,36,38,44,48: 1 point
Score: 34

Quote from: "Ultima22689"would I still be me?

Yes. You would probably not be the same as you are now though

Agree: 5,6,12,13,19,22,23,26,43: 1 point
Disagree: 1,10,11,15,17,24,29,30,34,38,44,48,49,50: 1 point
Score: 23

there needs to be a middle ground on these questions too, plus I agree with SSY on the strongly agree and slightly agree thing.  And I'm a designer, we are trained to notice the details!  It becomes second nature after so many years  

Lucky 13.

12  

Quote from: "SSY"Jesus, I got 36, I think it's caused by not liking to meet new people.

36, jeez you must be weird  
I did it twice and got 35 & 34.

...I scored 45.  

Then again every shrink I've been to seems to have brought up asperger's at least once. Though Schizoid pd comes up more often... At least when I first start out with them, Avoidant pd tends to creep into conversations laster on. Though I never stick around them long enough for anything conclusive to arrise. Most of them just annoy me, though a few were amusing for a time.

Quote from: "SSY"Jesus, I got 36, I think it's caused by not liking to meet new people.  

I can understand that to be honest. I used to be really up for meeting new people and was probably rather annoying to people like you because of it, but these last three or four years, i've been totally happy in the company of people i already know. So much so, It's actually got to a point where i've been deliberately non-conversational to potential new friends. I haven't felt guilty about it in the slightest either.

I don't know whether it is because i'm getting older, have saturated my friends gland or i'm becoming increasingly cynical and cantankerous. Hopefully it's the former

...I just realised I pronouce autistic the same way I pronounce artistic. Exactly the same way...  

40.  I think the prevalence of such high numbers makes me doubt the validity of tests such as these.  Should somebody be labeled as "autistic" because they like to be alone?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"40.  I think the prevalence of such high numbers makes me doubt the validity of tests such as these.  Should somebody be labeled as "autistic" because they like to be alone?

I'm inclined to agree but then there was a disclaimer citing 'this is not a diagnosis'. I have been surprised by a lot of the scores here to be honest.

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"40.  I think the prevalence of such high numbers makes me doubt the validity of tests such as these.  Should somebody be labeled as "autistic" because they like to be alone?

I'm inclined to agree but then there was a disclaimer citing 'this is not a diagnosis'. I have been surprised by a lot of the scores here to be honest.

The only other atheist forum I've frequented had a surprisingly high number of members claiming to Aspis.
I thought atheist sites, focusing on science and such were attractive to them.

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"40.  I think the prevalence of such high numbers makes me doubt the validity of tests such as these.  Should somebody be labeled as "autistic" because they like to be alone?

I'm inclined to agree but then there was a disclaimer citing 'this is not a diagnosis'. I have been surprised by a lot of the scores here to be honest.

I read the disclaimer.  I should have mentioned it.  Nobody has labeled me as anything.

Score: 32

Quote from: "humblesmurph"40.  I think the prevalence of such high numbers makes me doubt the validity of tests such as these.  Should somebody be labeled as "autistic" because they like to be alone?

The test focused too much on mere sociality and numbers.  There are too many forms of high functioning autism not covered by this test.  it's par for the course on internet tests.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"40.  I think the prevalence of such high numbers makes me doubt the validity of tests such as these.  Should somebody be labeled as "autistic" because they like to be alone?

The test focused too much on mere sociality and numbers.  There are too many forms of high functioning autism not covered by this test.  it's par for the course on internet tests.

Would you have any suggestions on how to get a more reliable test?  Or is it the case that a questionnaire can't accurately measure such things no matter how the questions are worded?  Would I have to go see a (gasp) psychiatrist to get an idea of whether I've got this Asperger's syndrome?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Would you have any suggestions on how to get a more reliable test?  Or is it the case that a questionnaire can't accurately measure such things no matter how the questions are worded?  Would I have to go see a (gasp) psychiatrist to get an idea of whether I've got this Asperger's syndrome?

I would say yes.  The only real way to get a questionnaire that wouldn't leave anything out would be too large for anyone to bother.  I would also say that a psychiatrist or psychologist wouldn't be really reliable either.  The doctors that tend to know what they're doing on the topic of autism are child development specialists (yes, they're often psyches, but they're specialized) and won't see adult patients.  That's why I've not been officially diagnosed when everyone I know who knows about high-functioning autism thinks I'm likely an aspie.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Would you have any suggestions on how to get a more reliable test?  Or is it the case that a questionnaire can't accurately measure such things no matter how the questions are worded?  Would I have to go see a (gasp) psychiatrist to get an idea of whether I've got this Asperger's syndrome?

I would say yes.  The only real way to get a questionnaire that wouldn't leave anything out would be too large for anyone to bother.  I would also say that a psychiatrist or psychologist wouldn't be really reliable either.  The doctors that tend to know what they're doing on the topic of autism are child development specialists (yes, they're often psyches, but they're specialized) and won't see adult patients.  That's why I've not been officially diagnosed when everyone I know who knows about high-functioning autism thinks I'm likely an aspie.

So you self diagnose and try to temper the negative affects of this personality type on your own?  What reasons do specialists give for not dealing with adults?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"So you self diagnose and try to temper the negative affects of this personality type on your own?  

Self diagnosis of ANY disease is bad news.  I merely recognize what "failings" I can in myself and attempt to correct them (if I feel they need correcting).

QuoteWhat reasons do specialists give for not dealing with adults?

They're pediatricians.  Often they require a referral that you can't get as an adult and even then the insurance company won't honor it anyway, but most often they simply say "we don't take adults".

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"So you self diagnose and try to temper the negative affects of this personality type on your own?  

Self diagnosis of ANY disease is bad news.  I merely recognize what "failings" I can in myself and attempt to correct them (if I feel they need correcting).

QuoteWhat reasons do specialists give for not dealing with adults?

They're pediatricians.  Often they require a referral that you can't get as an adult and even then the insurance company won't honor it anyway, but most often they simply say "we don't take adults".

Would Asperger's be accurately described as a disease?

 Isn't mild Asperger's just a personality type that makes things a little bit harder in present society?

 Maybe Aspies are just highly evolved and the rest of the world needs to catch up.

 Do you use techniques outlined in books on Asperger's to help you recognize your "failings" and how to correct them?

I'm pretty sure asperger's is a syndrome...

Quote from: "Byronazriel"I'm pretty sure asperger's is a syndrome...

In your view, what is the difference between a syndrome and a disease?

A disease is an imparment of health, or an abnormal functioning.

A syndrome is a recognised constellation of symptoms.

I'll have to look it up, but those are the definitions that I remember from health class. Should be close to it. I know I have a medical textbook somewhere...  :upset:\

Update: Merriam-Webster defines them as:  Disease: a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms.

Syndrome:  A group of signs and symptoms that occur together and characterize a particular abnormality/condition, or set of concurrent things (as emotions or actions) that usually form an identifiable pattern.

From a psychological standpoint it's a disorder.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Maybe Aspies are just highly evolved and the rest of the world needs to catch up.

That's a thought that had crossed my mind.

QuoteDo you use techniques outlined in books on Asperger's to help you recognize your "failings" and how to correct them?

No.  I use feedback from people who care about me.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"A disease is an imparment of health, or an abnormal functioning.

A syndrome is a recognised constellation of symptoms.

I'll have to look it up, but those are the definitions that I remember from health class. Should be close to it. I know I have a medical textbook somewhere...  :upset:\

Update: Merriam-Webster defines them as:  Disease: a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms.

Syndrome:  A group of signs and symptoms that occur together and characterize a particular abnormality/condition, or set of concurrent things (as emotions or actions) that usually form an identifiable pattern.

I'm aware of the definitions of both words. I was just wondering if you personally had some other usage in mind given the vivid imagination you display in your surprisingly pleasant writing.

I was also asking Poop if he simply used disease interchangeably with syndrome or if he thought that there was something about Asperger's syndrome that would cause him to consider it a disease in his opinion.

Poop,

Disorder. Got it.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I was also asking Poop if he simply used disease interchangeably with syndrome or if he thought that there was something about Asperger's syndrome that would cause him to consider it a disease in his opinion.

I do believe that it's caused by an abnormal brain morphology that isn't being researched for some very good reasons.

24
These tests are highly flawed.  I also don't like how being above average at anything is considered a problem....unless you're catching/kicking/throwing a ball.

It's not so much a "problem" as it is one of the symptoms that are associated with the autism spectrum, probably the lower end and asperger's in particular.

Euphoria, religous awe, and tasting key lime pie are all symptoms as well... Not of autism, but just in general.

Agree: 2,4,5,6,7,9,12,13,16,18,19,22,23,26,33,39,41,43,45,46: 1 point
Disagree: 1,10,11,15,17,24,25,27,28,29,31,32,34,36,37,38,40,44,47,48,49,50: 1 point
Score: 42


I have been diagnosed as autistic by a psychologist.  I am semi-verbal meaning I can communicate on a superficial level (i.e. Hi, how are you? Fine thank you, and you?) and on an occupational level (i.e. Would you prefer long stem roses?) but not on a meaningful level.  Most of my meaningful conversations occur in writing.  I need life scripts to simulate normal spoken conversation.  I generally create my own scripts or learn what the expected responses are by watching others.

On another note: it's just my opinion but I think that if your life is not adversely affected by your social skill deficiencies you probably aren't autistic.  I suffered homelessness as a young adult because I was unable to adapt to a weird situation - my parents ran away from home.  I could have just couch surfed with friends for the summer and gone to college in the fall with my multiple, high-value scholarships if I hadn't been autistic.  Instead, I had a total meltdown and became homeless.

Sounds like you're a mid-functional autistic.  Some of the highest-functioning levels of autism are difficult to detect because they function so well.  To me, that makes it a mainly empty diagnosis.  For some people, like my son, the detriment is minimal, but real.  There's a reason autism is a spectrum disorder.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Sounds like you're a mid-functional autistic.  Some of the highest-functioning levels of autism are difficult to detect because they function so well.  To me, that makes it a mainly empty diagnosis.  For some people, like my son, the detriment is minimal, but real.  There's a reason autism is a spectrum disorder.

Actually, they consider pretty much any autistic person capable of living alone to be high-functioning.  I function well.  I got jobs, I pulled myself up.  Then I held down a job as an award-winning professional floral designer for 18 years before I became physically disabled and now I write for a living.  I can pretend to hold a meaningful conversation as well as most people can.  In a business setting (consulting with a bride regarding her wedding flowers, for example) I can fake normality flawlessly.  

I work off more scripts than average but everyone uses scripts of normal interaction whether they admit it or not.  I had to teach dozens of people I trained to use the scripts for being a good floral designer or assistant.  Any new job requires anyone to learn a series of appropriate behavior scripts.  I just also use them in my private life to prevent neurotypical people from harming me or becoming uncomfortable in my presence as well as to avoid being seen as sneaky.

I think everyone is on the spectrum but once the symptoms are not noticeable you've hit the neurotypical end of the spectrum.  If you appear normal without any effort at all, I don't think you are autistic.  But if there's any effort beyond the norm required, then the diagnosis makes sense.

Ask yourself if your child would do well if abandoned in his teen years to fend for himself.  Really think about your son and how well he'd do if you and any other guardians, suddenly disappeared without a trace and all other relatives and family friends either rejected him or were unable to be contacted.  If you think he'd do great, then, by all means, consider me to be mid-functioning autistic.  That's what happened to me.  I did exceptionally well in school and have a high IQ so my parents figured I'd be fine if they just left one day and never came back.  

People with Aspergers can seem completely normal but when faced with a novel crisis, they may have a meltdown no one could anticipate if they had previously led lives in an orderly environment such as in a home with a parent and in school.  Parents do their best to make a child's life organized but the real world is a big, heaving, chaotic mess.  Even neurotypical kids need preparation for it, though, quite often, they can hit the ground running.

I don't really consider myself to be any sort of autistic, or to have asperger's.

I'm just really not good at socialising, for the past year or so I've only really gone out of my house to go to the store... I'd like to be Mr. Goodtime Party Boy with friends and all that, I just hate talking with people. I can't even go to the bank, or deal with tellers at the stores... I even have trouble answering on the phone.

I'd guess I have some sort of social phobia, or something...

I've found that I can really only properly articulate myself in writing, mostly because I can think about what I'm going to say and delete/rewrite when I do something wrong.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"I'd guess I have some sort of social phobia, or something...

Some of those are at the most functional tip of the autism spectrum.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"...I just realised I pronouce autistic the same way I pronounce artistic. Exactly the same way...  

What, like, "aaatistic"?

More like aah-tiss-tick, I grew up in a very Canadian area, and my grandfather (Who basically raised me) is swedish and my grandmother is native american... So I have a few odd things in my accent. For some reason I can't say huckleberry "properly," at least by local standards.

They say it more like HUCKle BEARies, I go more toward huggleburras. Of course that might have more to do with the fact that I'm an epic mumbler.

Agree: 2,4,5,6,7,12,16,18,19,22,23,26,43,45,46: 1 point
Disagree: 1,11,15,25,29,30,36,38,48,50: 1 point
Score: 25

I'm just not that fond of spending lots of time with other people whch probably pushed my score up.

An online survey is not enough to accurately determine whether one is autistic or not.  There is a difference between being anti-social and being autistic.  Autistic people are neurally engineered differently from nuerotypicals and cannot socialize well, even if they tried very hard.  There are some autistic people who truly want to be social, but are depressed because they are unable to socialize well.  Personally, I was born very autistic, though I recovered over time.  I am very social, though I have difficulties at times.  That's probably why I only scored a 24.

Quote from: "jduster"An online survey is not enough to accurately determine whether one is autistic or not.  There is a difference between being anti-social and being autistic.  Autistic people are neurally engineered differently from nuerotypicals and cannot socialize well, even if they tried very hard.  There are some autistic people who truly want to be social, but are depressed because they are unable to socialize well.

Absolutely! Much of a diagnosis of autism depends on the psychologist's or psychiatrist's observations of the person.  I was also questioned a great deal about my childhood and my therapist saw a lot there indicating autism/Aspergers.  People who knew me in childhood and have reconnected on the Internet (or, more accurately, connected with me for the first time) have said that the diagnosis is apt.  They just thought I was intensely odd but since I did exceptionally well in school, no one thought I was autistic.  

I have also known plenty of "normal" people who loved numbers and patterns.  There's nothing pathological about being great with math or loving it.

Quote from: "jduster"There are some autistic people who truly want to be social, but are depressed because they are unable to socialize well.

About a eighteen months ago, I was doing pretty well in making friends with a new person.  Or so I thought.  But about eight months later I found out that she no longer considered me a friend and she said I was a bad person.  She said I never contacted her after our last conversation.  I thought I had.  It turns out, she doesn't count interaction online as contact.  I also had some massive lupus flares in that time period and I tend to withdraw even more than usual when I'm sick.  It was a horrible spiral of mis-communication which left her thinking I'm a horrible person.  After all - if I have time to write my "stupid little blogs" (which provide much of my income) I had time to call her on the phone.

It's almost taboo to admit that friendships have rules and it is taboo to ask what the rules for a particular friendship are.  People will answer such requests with, "Just be yourself" which is honestly not what they want.  Had I known the woman I was trying to befriend didn't count online communications, I would have stayed cordial but not tried to become a friend.  She wanted a friend who would take a very active role in calling her up on the phone, for one thing.  (I'd rather get beaten up than make a phone call, phone calls that are not business related are pure misery, I have no fucking clue what I'm supposed to say or when I'm supposed to talk.)  

I've found that some neurotypicals react viciously and defensively if you start to point out or dig for the rules for friendship with them.

Quote from: "jduster"An online survey is not enough to accurately determine whether one is autistic or not.  There is a difference between being anti-social and being autistic.  Autistic people are neurally engineered differently from nuerotypicals and cannot socialize well, even if they tried very hard.  There are some autistic people who truly want to be social, but are depressed because they are unable to socialize well.  Personally, I was born very autistic, though I recovered over time.  I am very social, though I have difficulties at times.  That's probably why I only scored a 24.

Wow I scored 25.

I scored 4.

Twenty years ago it probably would have been forty.

I've seen similar threads on other atheist forums and the posters are generally well toward the Asperger's side, as in this thread. Not sure what inferences, if any, to draw from that.

Quote from: "Voter"I scored 4.

Twenty years ago it probably would have been forty.

I've seen similar threads on other atheist forums and the posters are generally well toward the Asperger's side, as in this thread. Not sure what inferences, if any, to draw from that.

Be careful where you go with this.  I've had several folks tell me that I'm an atheist because I'm autistic for several reasons.  Several folks said it was that, being autistic, I lack a soul.  I "unfriended" those folks.  Several others have suggested that autistic people are too mentally retarded to "get" "deep" concepts like God.  And ditto, only one was a "friend" irl.  I "unfriended" him, too.

I have a theory of one possible relationship to autism and atheism.  Many autistic people, myself included, live very reality-based lives.  We take things literally.  I had to learn to enjoy watching movies other than as art forms because, even as a child, I saw actors and clever special effects, I didn't fall into the story, I still seldom feel suspension of disbelief while watching a movie.  I'd ask my parents such questions as, "How did they get that car to blow up like that?" or "Was that monster a puppet or a man in a monster suit?" when I was five.  It never occurred to me that any of it was real.  I even said things like, "That lady did a real good job screaming" or "That guy was too clean after crawling through the dirt, why didn't they rub more dirt on him?"

I don't think autistic people do well with compartmentalizing or cognitive dissonance, either.  I suck at compartmentalizing and cognitive dissonance forces me to investigate the opposing pieces of information.  OK, no evidence* on the Gods and magic side, plenty of evidence on the reality side of things.  I've never been able to figure out how people can believe in magic (Gods, Goddesses, angels, demons, etc.) when nothing suggests that magic exists.  Why would they pretend to see The Emperor's New Clothes when he's clearly naked?  



*Emotions aren't evidence, they are emotions.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"I don't think autistic people do well with compartmentalizing or cognitive dissonance, either.  I suck at compartmentalizing and cognitive dissonance forces me to investigate the opposing pieces of information.  OK, no evidence* on the Gods and magic side, plenty of evidence on the reality side of things.  I've never been able to figure out how people can believe in magic (Gods, Goddesses, angels, demons, etc.) when nothing suggests that magic exists.  Why would they pretend to see The Emperor's New Clothes when he's clearly naked?  



*Emotions aren't evidence, they are emotions.

It seems to me that you're bringing emotions into play yourself. You can't figure out how people believe in gods. You're admittedly not good with compartmentalizing or cognitive dissonance. So, you resort to an extreme - that nothing suggests that such things exist.

It's very obvious that some things suggest that such things exist. It's not coincidence that a majority of the population follow a handful of religions.

However, I've noticed that atheists on forums are going to your extreme position more frequently. Now you give a reason why an autistic person might view it that way, and I've noticed that posting atheists tend to score towards atheism on these tests. That's given me something interesting to think about. Thanks.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Kylyssa"I don't think autistic people do well with compartmentalizing or cognitive dissonance, either.  I suck at compartmentalizing and cognitive dissonance forces me to investigate the opposing pieces of information.  OK, no evidence* on the Gods and magic side, plenty of evidence on the reality side of things.  I've never been able to figure out how people can believe in magic (Gods, Goddesses, angels, demons, etc.) when nothing suggests that magic exists.  Why would they pretend to see The Emperor's New Clothes when he's clearly naked?  



*Emotions aren't evidence, they are emotions.

It seems to me that you're bringing emotions into play yourself. You can't figure out how people believe in gods. You're admittedly not good with compartmentalizing or cognitive dissonance. So, you resort to an extreme - that nothing suggests that such things exist.

It's very obvious that some things suggest that such things exist. It's not coincidence that a majority of the population follow a handful of religions.

However, I've noticed that atheists on forums are going to your extreme position more frequently. Now you give a reason why an autistic person might view it that way, and I've noticed that posting atheists tend to score towards atheism on these tests. That's given me something interesting to think about. Thanks.

So you admit to the cognitive dissonance created by having a belief that conflicts with reality, correct?  Your belief requires acceptance of cognitive dissonance.  You have to be able to believe conflicting things.  Why is that healthier than investigating and going with the assertion supported by evidence?  What is healthier about compartmentalizing and believing in two conflicting things?  From your comments, I assume you fall into the "autistic people are too mentally limited to believe in God camp."  

So what is your reasoning as to why you think that being able to believe in conflicting assertions is superior to being troubled by conflicting, mutually exclusive assertions?  So you could honestly believe that two opposing things such as "the earth is flat" and "the earth is a globe" and find that to be healthier than seeking the evidence and choosing the one aligned with reality?  Like, do you believe that pi is actually both 3 (as in the Bible) and 3.14159265358979326..... as found in reality?  Do you believe both that the moon creates its own light (as written in the Bible) and that it doesn't but reflects the sun's light as determined by reality?   Is that why contradictions and accounts that don't agree in the Bible are not a problem for Christians?  Like how you probably think slavery is evil but the Bible says it isn't.  So you can both believe the Bible is accurate and people must live their lives by it but you are also too ethical to live your life by it because individual elements inside it are clearly unethical?

This is why I made sure my mother kept that Asperger's thing a secret, last thing I need is people pitying me thinking I can't comprehend sky daddy.

@ kylyssa:

Before replying I'd like to explore cognitive dissonance a little further.

On another forum, someone posted descriptions of parasites that had really bizarre life cycles, often involving several different species of hosts over several generations. Being the skeptic, I asked if someone could explain how such life cycles could have evolved. Not how they actually evolved, just a plausible chain of steps using currently accepted evolutionary mechanisms.

I was trying to induce some cognitive dissonance in the evolutionists. Under atheistic evolution, evolutionary mechanisms produced all features of all species. If features of a species can't be explained by evolutionary mechanisms, there should therefore be cognitive dissonance in the evolutionist.

Some of my opponents conceded that they couldn't personally devise an answer and couldn't find an established answer. They avoided cognitive dissonance with the following arguments:
1. maybe someone has given an adequate explanation, but we just hadn't found it
2a. maybe no adequate explanation has been given, but one eventually will be
2b. considering that evolution gives adequate explanations of other species, it's reasonable to believe it will also explain this one

Are these reasonable ways to deal with cognitive dissonance? If not, why not. If so, are you saying that, while you understand how other peopledeal with it, you're personally incapable of it?

As a matter of terminology, would you say that these people are experiencing cognitive dissonance, but living with it as noted? Or, do their arguments effectively remove the cognitive dissonance?

I'm guessing you would think along the same lines as they did, and so you're not as bothered by cognitive dissonance as you think. But I know very little about you, so I'm interested in your answer.

BTW the creator of the parasite thread on the other forum was a mod and he banned me for my posts, despite the fact that I broke no forum rules. Maybe that is his way of dealing with cognitive dissonance. Or, maybe he's just a bully. I think it's the latter.

Quote from: "Voter"@ kylyssa:

Before replying I'd like to explore cognitive dissonance a little further.

On another forum, someone posted descriptions of parasites that had really bizarre life cycles, often involving several different species of hosts over several generations. Being the skeptic, I asked if someone could explain how such life cycles could have evolved. Not how they actually evolved, just a plausible chain of steps using currently accepted evolutionary mechanisms.

You need to explain what is so strange about that.  Many animals have more than one food source.  What's so unusual about parasites that eat more than one type of creature's blood or whatever?  Being able to eat a variety of things is a survival trait.  Where's the cognitive dissonance in things that, like you and I, are capable of eating more than one thing?

   

Quote from: "Voter"I was trying to induce some cognitive dissonance in the evolutionists. Under atheistic evolution, evolutionary mechanisms produced all features of all species. If features of a species can't be explained by evolutionary mechanisms, there should therefore be cognitive dissonance in the evolutionist.

What is atheistic evolution?  I've only heard of evolution and Christian evolution which is called Intelligent Design, not Christian evolution.  Evolution is science and has no particular religion associated with it.  Most Christians in the world (not in America but the world) think evolution happened.  It's the official position of the Catholic church (the religion from which yours sprung) that evolution happened.  Science doesn't require any religious beliefs, it is an examination and reflection of reality.  By reality, I mean things with physical evidence.

Quote from: "Voter"Some of my opponents conceded that they couldn't personally devise an answer and couldn't find an established answer. They avoided cognitive dissonance with the following arguments:
1. maybe someone has given an adequate explanation, but we just hadn't found it
2a. maybe no adequate explanation has been given, but one eventually will be
2b. considering that evolution gives adequate explanations of other species, it's reasonable to believe it will also explain this one

This makes more sense than dealing with cognitive dissonance the way you appear to.  For instance, you completely ignored my questions about how you deal with the cognitive dissonance your religion creates.  So I can tentatively infer that you deal with cognitive dissonance by pretending it doesn't exist.  Making up an answer that uses magic to deal with the cognitive dissonance doesn't make sense, either.

Quote from: "Voter"Are these reasonable ways to deal with cognitive dissonance? If not, why not. If so, are you saying that, while you understand how other peopledeal with it, you're personally incapable of it?

You seem to see whatever you want to see to support your beliefs.  In this instance you see "aha, look, her cognitive shortcomings don't allow her to understand things" instead of what I said, which is that I am not able to ignore cognitive dissonance, I investigate the opposing claims and choose the one with the most physical evidence in existence.  For instance, Creation stories vs. evolution.  For creation stories there is no evidence other than oral traditions and religious texts.  Pretend we are talking about a different mythology from yours here, say, the Hindu creation story.  Weigh the oral traditions and religious texts of of the Hindu religion against hundreds of thousands of pieces of physical evidence and DNA evidence for evolution.  Which seems more likely?    

Quote from: "Voter"As a matter of terminology, would you say that these people are experiencing cognitive dissonance, but living with it as noted? Or, do their arguments effectively remove the cognitive dissonance?

I don't think that there's a lot of cognitive dissonance in not understanding all of the biological details of an animal.  You probably have very little understanding of how your body works but you probably don't feel any cognitive dissonance over it.  But, when you get seriously ill, do you go to a faith healer or to a doctor?  A doctor studies the human body.  Fifty years ago, doctors knew less about the human body than they do now.  Did they study the Bible or human bodies to get that knowledge?  Doesn't it make more sense for them to study the part of the natural world they need to know about rather than to make something up or try to understand it by praying or reading the Bible?  Would you rather your doctor went to medical school where he learned about the human body as understood via science or that he just prayed a lot and believes he can heal you?

 

Quote from: "Voter"I'm guessing you would think along the same lines as they did, and so you're not as bothered by cognitive dissonance as you think. But I know very little about you, so I'm interested in your answer.

I explained why there's little cognitive dissonance in not knowing every detail about every animal on the planet.  And since there are millions of creatures that live on varied food sources, I'm not sure where the cognitive dissonance comes from for you.

Quote from: "Voter"BTW the creator of the parasite thread on the other forum was a mod and he banned me for my posts, despite the fact that I broke no forum rules. Maybe that is his way of dealing with cognitive dissonance. Or, maybe he's just a bully. I think it's the latter.

It may be because you completely ignore the questions asked of you and push on.  It may be because you pretend to see that people say something different from what they actually wrote as you do in this thread.  This forum has a no proselytizing rule and maybe they do there, too.  For instance, you decided to turn a discussion on autism and Asperger's into a thread where you can suggest atheists have mental deficiencies, more-so than the general populace.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"You need to explain what is so strange about that.  Many animals have more than one food source.  What's so unusual about parasites that eat more than one type of creature's blood or whatever?  Being able to eat a variety of things is a survival trait.  Where's the cognitive dissonance in things that, like you and I, are capable of eating more than one thing?

It was way more complex than eating more than one type of food. I can post something specific in another thread if you're interested. For this thread it's really their explanation/justification for not being bothered by a lack of explanation that's important.

   

QuoteWhat is atheistic evolution?

As opposed to theistic evolution. If you agree to rule that out, I'll simply say evolution in the future.

Quote from: "Voter"Some of my opponents conceded that they couldn't personally devise an answer and couldn't find an established answer. They avoided cognitive dissonance with the following arguments:
1. maybe someone has given an adequate explanation, but we just hadn't found it
2a. maybe no adequate explanation has been given, but one eventually will be
2b. considering that evolution gives adequate explanations of other species, it's reasonable to believe it will also explain this one

This makes more sense than dealing with cognitive dissonance the way you appear to.  For instance, you completely ignored my questions about how you deal with the cognitive dissonance your religion creates.  So I can tentatively infer that you deal with cognitive dissonance by pretending it doesn't exist.  Making up an answer that uses magic to deal with the cognitive dissonance doesn't make sense, either. [/quote]
Actually I deal with it in the same way that they do. Twenty years ago I had fewer explanations for alleged problems with the Bible/Christianity. Today I have more. Considering that I've been finding answers over the years, it's reasonable to believe that answers for others exist.

QuoteYou seem to see whatever you want to see to support your beliefs.  In this instance you see "aha, look, her cognitive shortcomings don't allow her to understand things"

I'd appreciate it if you'd keep paraphrases out of quotation marks.

Quoteinstead of what I said, which is that I am not able to ignore cognitive dissonance, I investigate the opposing claims and choose the one with the most physical evidence in existence.  For instance, Creation stories vs. evolution.  For creation stories there is no evidence other than oral traditions and religious texts.  Pretend we are talking about a different mythology from yours here, say, the Hindu creation story.  Weigh the oral traditions and religious texts of of the Hindu religion against hundreds of thousands of pieces of physical evidence and DNA evidence for evolution.  Which seems more likely?

I doubt you've examined hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence. No one has.      

QuoteI don't think that there's a lot of cognitive dissonance in not understanding all of the biological details of an animal.

I don't think there's a lot of cognitive dissonance in not understanding all of the details of the Bible.

QuoteIt may be because you completely ignore the questions asked of you and push on.  It may be because you pretend to see that people say something different from what they actually wrote as you do in this thread.  This forum has a no proselytizing rule and maybe they do there, too.  For instance, you decided to turn a discussion on autism and Asperger's into a thread where you can suggest atheists have mental deficiencies, more-so than the general populace.

The only discussion in the past 6 weeks was "Wow I scored 25," so I'm not exactly hijacking the thread, but we can move to another if you prefer.

Quote from: "Voter"I doubt you've examined hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence. No one has.

No individual has but they are there for me to examine in many cases.  I've only personally examined a few hundred in person.  But how does one book count as overwhelming evidence when weighed against actual things that can be examined?  Why does so much evidence point to evolution if it isn't true?  Why is there evidence of evolution in the very genetic material of every living creature if it isn't true?  Or are you a conspiracy theorist who thinks that scientists got together to attack your beliefs so they made it all up?  Is it all Photoshop?  

Since you don't bother answering my questions, why should I bother answering yours?  You never explained how you are OK with the assertions in the Bible which are counter to reality.  The moon for example, do you believe the Biblical version in which it creates its own light or in the evidence based assertion that it reflects the sun's light?  Or maybe you'd prefer, please explain how you believe in the story of Noah's Ark yet you know there are too many millions of creatures on the planet to have fit two of each kind on the Ark plus the fact that there's no evidence that there has ever been a worldwide flood?

Using this thread suggests you are playing some superiority card you feel you have based on the afflictions of others.  Perhaps you could start your own thread about how your feelings are better than physical evidence?  Then you won't come off as nasty as the ex "friends" of mine who asserted autistic people who are also atheists are atheists because they are too retarded to understand God.  In my opinion, you are saying the same thing in nicer words.  Hmmm, so then why would God make people have cognitive dysfunctions that wouldn't allow them to understand Him?

Quote from: "Kylyssa"No individual has but they are there for me to examine in many cases.  I've only personally examined a few hundred in person.  But how does one book count as overwhelming evidence when weighed against actual things that can be examined?

I didn't claim the bible is overwhelming evidence. Personally I haven't seen overwhelming evidence of any position on origins.

QuoteWhy does so much evidence point to evolution if it isn't true?

I don't think there is a lot of evidence for evolution. Not scientific evidence, anyway.

QuoteWhy is there evidence of evolution in the very genetic material of every living creature if it isn't true?

Why do phylogenies based on different genes of the same creatures frequently differ from each other if evolution is true? People frequently say there's mountains of evidence for evolution (you say hundreds of thousands, but same idea). If you count as evidence any fact that is compatibel with evolution, then sure, there is a mountain of evidence. There's also a mountain of evidence for any brand of creationism by that standard.  

QuoteOr are you a conspiracy theorist who thinks that scientists got together to attack your beliefs so they made it all up?

I think there's a bunch of scientists with a vested interest in seeing evolution continue.  

QuoteSince you don't bother answering my questions, why should I bother answering yours?

There's no gun to your head. Also note that your last post was in response to two sentences of mine, yet had ten question marks in it. At some point, no, I'm not going to answer every question.

Further, I explained that I needed clarification before answering your previous questions: "Before replying I'd like to explore cognitive dissonance a little further."

QuoteYou never explained how you are OK with the assertions in the Bible which are counter to reality.  The moon for example, do you believe the Biblical version in which it creates its own light or in the evidence based assertion that it reflects the sun's light?

I think that your interpretation is not the only reasonable interpretation.

QuoteOr maybe you'd prefer, please explain how you believe in the story of Noah's Ark yet you know there are too many millions of creatures on the planet to have fit two of each kind on the Ark plus the fact that there's no evidence that there has ever been a worldwide flood?

First, if God can create a worldwide flood, he can fit whatever he wants into an ark. I've never understood this charge, or Christians who try to give a physical explanation.

Second, sure there's evidence for a flood, you just prefer interpretations of no flood.

QuoteUsing this thread suggests you are playing some superiority card you feel you have based on the afflictions of others.  Perhaps you could start your own thread about how your feelings are better than physical evidence?  Then you won't come off as nasty as the ex "friends" of mine who asserted autistic people who are also atheists are atheists because they are too retarded to understand God.  In my opinion, you are saying the same thing in nicer words.  Hmmm, so then why would God make people have cognitive dysfunctions that wouldn't allow them to understand Him?

I think if anyone should be concerned with being perceived as nasty in this thread, it should be you.

I got 26.

Quote from: "Voter"I've seen similar threads on other atheist forums and the posters are generally well toward the Asperger's side, as in this thread. Not sure what inferences, if any, to draw from that.

You could infer that since there is a correlation between intelligence and atheism that intelligent people tend to score higher on online autism tests.

Which wouldn't be far from the truth, the reason there are a lot of Aspes in the freethought community is that math minded people have a statistically significant higher chance of having a child somewhere on the spectrum.  People who are math minded are very analytical and less prone to think with their emotions and therefore are more likely to not be religious.

If there were a direct connection between being an atheist and being autistic you would expect almost all atheists to be on the spectrum and that isn't the case; most are not (I have a higher sampling to pull from than just this thread and not just from the internet).  It's not surprising that people on the spectrum would be more likely to hang out on forums, it offers a place to express themselves without having to worry about body language etc...so that can skew accuracy of any polls you may have seen on forums (plus online polls generally aren't reflective of any 'real life' population).  In this particular thread I thought it looked like most were not on the spectrum.

My experience with large samplings of atheists in real life is no more than 10% are on the spectrum and of those 10% only about 1 in 10 are far enough along to be obvious.

Quote from: "Voter"I doubt you've examined hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence. No one has.

 I think this is a bit off topic but I couldn't resist commenting on the irony of claiming there's no scientific evidence and then remark that there is too much evidence for one person to even get through.

QuoteI've seen similar threads on other atheist forums and the posters are generally well toward the Asperger's side, as in this thread. Not sure what inferences, if any, to draw from that.

Even if there were.... so what?

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Voter"I doubt you've examined hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence. No one has.

 I think this is a bit off topic but I couldn't resist commenting on the irony of claiming there's no scientific evidence and then remark that there is too much evidence for one person to even get through.

The point of the remark is that she can't know that there are hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence.

QuoteI've seen similar threads on other atheist forums and the posters are generally well toward the Asperger's side, as in this thread. Not sure what inferences, if any, to draw from that.

Even if there were.... so what?[/quote]
So we'd discuss them. This is a discussion forum, isn't it?

Back to the topic... Just read this news item:

QuoteSafe drug touted as able to cure "Rain Man"-
like mice:
Researchers have announced a possible major advance
in treating autism spectrum disorders.

... so, if you're a mouse, you're in luck!

Full story at:
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/101209_autism

on topic:  would be great if they found a cure for those that need it (Would those who are high functioning want a cure?...wondering if it could affect self identity since a 'cure' would change how they saw the world)

off topic:  cringe. . .while I may not be the best at website design when I see a site like that I want to fix it for them.

As a "high functioning" autistic, I wouldn't want a cure at this time in my life, I had already spent pretty much my entire life learning how to adapt to what I am and how to interact with people... if I was "cured" I'd have to spend a great deal of time learning how to adapt again. I honestly can't say if I would have wanted it at an earlier time in my life, as I never saw it as a big problem with me, just that others had relied too heavily on emotions instead of something solid and consistent. But I think it would be good for those that are having difficulty adapting or even functioning independently.

Quote from: "Whitney"off topic:  cringe. . .while I may not be the best at website design when I see a site like that I want to fix it for them.

Yeah, proof positive that Science and/or High IQ does not make you a good web designer...
(but I like the posts)