Yes, learning about Neurodiversity will solve your Problems lmao

[Cred]

2 hours ago, Lyubov said:

Your writing is very convoluted and unclear. Your recent threads are like a pile of cables all tangled up. I’m happy that this has helped you but I would slow down and try to refine what you are saying and be more concise. I would find that more helpful in understanding your perspective.

 

1 hour ago, LambdaDelta said:

However, looking at some of the responses here and in other threads, a change of delivery style, tone, structure, formatting, etc. would get the message across clearer and therefore serve people better. What the post above mine said. In a world where we communicate through language, even the deepest truths don't count for much without proper articulation.   

Believe it or not I agree 100% with these statements. I am just as much of a detail loving person as the next person here. But I also understand that it's not possible to catch anyone's attention with long technical pamphlets. My plan was to post more level-headedly, precisely about how I think about neurodiversity and how I apply it into my life after this post.

 

[integration journey]

51 minutes ago, Jannes said:

The Audiobook ADHD 2.0 was quite helpful. I gathered a lot of information from different sources though. Youtube, self help groups, Audiobooks and of course your creative intelligence has to put it to good use. 

Will try that book. Thanks. I think I have ADD

[Joseph Maynor]

@Cred  What is this psychology around neurodivergence, and why is it important for you to communicate?  You seem to have a stake in this conversation for some unknown reason?

[Carl-Richard]

The neurotypical-neurodivergence framework could be described as a psychiatric take on Self-Determination Theory: do what you want, act in accordance with your capacities, seek out environments that support you in this.

Edited 23 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Cred]

6 hours ago, Rilles said:

Wish you would write more posts on this topic, four threads about the same thing is rookie numbers.

 

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

I suggest to not make any more new threads on the topic for a while. Please keep your new ideas to existing thread(s).

I feel like I'm getting mixed signals about my posting behavior from this forum. Naturally, I don't want to change my plan. It seems, @Carl-Richard believes I'm just some new guy who is overly enthusiastic about the topic and neither has enough arguments to support the claims, nor has enough of a philosophical basis to understand the nature of concepts, categories etc.

It might be true that I'm overly enthusiastic, but I do know what I'm talking about and I want to hold my basis. Also I want to have freedom over my approach, my brain works very impulsively (I think this might be noticeable).

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Cred said:

I feel like I'm getting mixed signals about my posting behavior from this forum.

Rillies trolled you with subtle sarcasm, not compatible for certain neurodivergents.

 

1 hour ago, Cred said:

Naturally, I don't want to change my plan.

I didn't ask you to stop making posts. I asked you to stop making threads that fill up the sub-forum (for now).

 

1 hour ago, Cred said:

It seems, @Carl-Richard believes I'm just some new guy who is overly enthusiastic about the topic and neither has enough arguments to support the claims, nor has enough of a philosophical basis to understand the nature of concepts, categories etc.

It might be true that I'm overly enthusiastic, but I do know what I'm talking about and I want to hold my basis.

I usually challenge insistence on one frame when others work seemingly just as well.

 

1 hour ago, Cred said:

Also I want to have freedom over my approach, my brain works very impulsively (I think this might be noticeable).

You gotta mask up and power through for this one.

Edited 21 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Cred]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Rillies trolled you with subtle sarcasm, not compatible for certain neurodivergents.

This is honestly hilarious. It's really helpful that you cleared that up. It did absolutely take that literally. This is so ironic. I always believed the not understanding sarcasm thing does not apply to me lol. I'm being gaslit into believing I'm autistic from the people I try to gaslight into believing they're autistic

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I didn't ask you to stop making posts. I asked you to stop making threads that fill up the sub-forum.

Thanks for specifying. I will try to post more rarely, such that my posts about one specific subject don't dominate any one of the sub-forums. Is that okay?

[Hojo]

@Cred The entirety of life is there to gaslight you out of your positions. You cant hold a position in life without  life  gaslighting you out of it. Its like a gaslighting sim.

Edited 22 hours ago by Hojo

[Joseph Maynor]

This is a useful article IMO. 
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-neurodivergence/202509/what-to-do-when-your-neurodivergent-kid-misbehaves

[Joshe]

I just went to Claude AI and said: 

"I've been told I'm neurodivergent. I don't feel any negativity about the topic and it doesn't bother me if I am, but I'd like to know if I am or not, so can you help me figure it out? What are some questions you can ask me to help figure it out? "

After 3 rounds of questions and follow up questions, it said: 

It's kind of like a personality test in that some questions will be difficult to answer, because it's asking why or what makes you behave the way that you do, and the truthful answer isn't always our first instinct. 

Not a foolproof way to find out but it could be useful. 

Edited 21 hours ago by Joshe

[Carl-Richard]

@Joshe Take the eye test 👀

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Joshe Take the eye test 👀

I scored below average: 22

It seems the premise is autistic people have low Theory of Mind, but this isn't true in my experience. I have very high TOM. 

The test seems to measure shallow, fluent social processing, which I think is very different from TOM.

Interesting idea though. 

Another critique is that NT people probably designed the whole test. It's basically asking "do you label this the same way NT people would label it". 

Edited 19 hours ago by Joshe

[Human Mint]

The test isn't quite good. I don't have trouble speaking to people and feeling the rythm of the conversation. Is just that I find more meaning inside me. But I understand very well how people feel when I speak to them.

[Joshe]

2 minutes ago, Human Mint said:

The test isn't quite good. I don't have trouble speaking to people and feeling the rythm of the conversation. Is just that I find more meaning inside me. But I understand very well how people feel when I speak to them.

I agree. I don't think it's a good test. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Cred I do support @Carl-Richard regarding multiple topics created on the same subject.

I think all the nuances you are bringing up can just be additional posts in one master thread.

I say this because you are presenting new terms, arguments and elaborations - and often the threads are looping back to basic definitions. The nuance of each new point you make cannot be delved into without dealing with presuppositions, ironing out misunderstandings & highlighting assumptions or incorrect facts. 

As I read all your threads, there is no cohesion and no clear separate point present. Your topics are being forced to loop back to starting at the basics, clarifying. Through no fault of your own; it seems there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding neurodivergence. It could simply be the manner of your expression. 

I see the flood of new topics bumping other topics down in visibility.

[Miguel1]

I agree with the other mods here. It’s getting out of control with all these new threads.

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, Joshe said:

I scored below average: 22

It seems the premise is autistic people have low Theory of Mind, but this isn't true in my experience. I have very high TOM.

There is no premise. It's what the data says (the test is based on actual data, multiple studies, you can read about them on the very page you took the test). Autistics struggle with reading emotions on average compared to non-autistics. That's the conclusion from the data.

 

7 hours ago, Joshe said:

The test seems to measure shallow, fluent social processing, which I think is very different from TOM.

Reading eyes is quite basic. But on top of basic, a lot of things spring out. It could explain a lot, and it's in line with the general understanding of how autism works.

 

7 hours ago, Joshe said:

Another critique is that NT people probably designed the whole test. It's basically asking "do you label this the same way NT people would label it". 

The page you took the test seems very accommodating for NDs and even has a ranking system for different aspects of the test (ranked by a doctor who is ND). Nevertheless, if the goal is to assess autism, doesn't that kinda "help"? Indeed, if you interpret the words differently than NTs, then you're ND. Job complete.

Edited 12 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, Human Mint said:

The test isn't quite good. I don't have trouble speaking to people and feeling the rythm of the conversation. Is just that I find more meaning inside me. But I understand very well how people feel when I speak to them.

Do people think you're rude sometimes and you have no idea why or you didn't mean to be rude?

[Human Mint]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Do people think you're rude sometimes and you have no idea why or you didn't mean to be rude?

Yes, sometimes.

[Joshe]

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

There is no premise. It's what the data says (the test is based on actual data, multiple studies, you can read about them on the very page you took the test). Autistics struggle with reading emotions on average compared to non-autistics. That's the conclusion from the data.

I’m not arguing against this, and it’s probably true that NTs can more accurately discern emotional reality from very minimal signal. But I thought the test page was talking about TOM and saying it’s low in autistics, which may be true for the majority of autistics but I think there’s a significant minority of level 1 autistics this does not apply to. Give me more than just the eyes and I can read emotions better than NTs. This doesn’t negate the test or the data but it does seem to have implications for their TOM conclusions. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Joshe