How autistic are you?

[AverageJoe]

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.

[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.

[Kylyssa]

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.

[Voter]

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.

[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?

[Ultima22689]

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.

[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.

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.

[Kylyssa]

@ 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?

   

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.

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.

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?    

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?

 

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.

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.

[Voter]

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.

   

What is atheistic evolution?

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

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.

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"

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

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?

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

I 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.

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.

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.

[Kylyssa]

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?

[Voter]

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.

Why 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.

Why 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.  

Or 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.  

Since 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."

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?

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

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?

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.

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?

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

[Cecilie]

I got 26.

[Whitney]

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.

[Sophus]

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.

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.

Even if there were.... so what?

[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.

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.

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