As an autistic person who sees information sharing as more valid and respectable than affirming possible ignorant perspectives for the sake of obtuse social saliency, all I see is a fact and a valid question.
Also valid advice for those with money.
If you can save money from a theater ticket to another Disney slop live action remake, and donate that money to independent artists trying to survive and simultaneously have a voice despite the Disney/warner types stranglehold over sellable cinema for most public spaces.
People get so upset when anything questions their current trajectory, rather than saying “oh yeah, that’s a valid perspective to avoid the issue in context.”
And gets a lot of autistic people yelled at for doing their job or trying to help, IMO.
Is there a reason the advice and question aren’t valid? To me the only rudeness here is in the framing of the rebuke.
This isn’t trying to one up anyone, this is an attempt to communicate, and improve people’s ability to communicate.
I’ve even seen doctors excuse bullying of autistic children because the child joined discussion of test scores without pandering to the ego of people that were socially affirming how terrible the test must be, due to their performance.
At this point people need to start trying to understand the double empathy problem, because it’s valid for more cases of communication differences than just autism.
There’s an older joke about being able to afford things that might put this into light for you; “I wish I had the money to afford an expensive Italian sports car. I don’t want to buy one, I just want to be able to afford it.”
makes sense. i’m coming to see how people do this, but it’s still baffling to me.
by ‘this’ i mean socially affirming each-other, rather than trying to interact with the issue in any way. not just as preferred, but as a forced exclusive.
also legitimately sorry that i can’t compress the whole picture to a quick quip.
but what i meant by my comment was as much asserting that the comment being downvoted to oblivion was possibly more misinterpreted in intent and meaning than their own interaction with OP’s meme.
i see it as low dimensional communication exacerbating the size of blindspots for the whole of what is being communicated, because everyone is trying to reduce the energy consumption of language by socially affirming heuristics built on salient preference. this can be mapped to first principles from friston’s free energy principle, into active inference. MITpress has a good textbook for it, although there’s been a lot of new work since then. those who don’t naturally share that preference become ‘wrong’ for communicating what they could interpret without having that same importance given tothings they might not think about, like social ego stroking over just interacting with the concept sans ego.
more commonly, people are becoming familiar with the ‘double empathy problem’
basically a context and language equivalent to yelling at the autistic kid for not making levels of eye contact that they find painfully intimate and uncomfortable. yes, the local community can think eye contact is ‘just having basic manners’ or ‘just being a decent person,’ but forcing them to do it, and creating a majority salient confirmation bubble chastising them for not doing it constantly and confidently is salt in the wound.
again, thank you for reading this far if you has. none of this is accusatory towards anyone, just an honest attempt at noting current popular communication failures and how to frame them.
the double empathy problem also applies to most predictive models projecting in differently socialized spaces. it’s good for people to comprehend.
And I do see the points that you’re making and I do agree with them on the whole. The problem is that you’re stating those facts in a instance of someone just looking for commiseration about not being able to do something that helps alleviate some of the stress of day-to-day life. For lack of a more accurate phrase, You misread the room.
And you are correct if you’re looking at a purely economic standpoint finding some way of streaming a movie is usually more cost-effective than going to a movie theater. But that discredits the event that going to see a movie is going to see a movie usually entails going with someone be that friends or significant other (sometimes you go alone), possibly getting you know some popcorn and a soda or a slushie, and experiencing it on a massive screen with a sound system and the event of it.
the issue is that this is a lot of assumption on the comment’s intention in their response to OP.
i feel the emphasis keeps moving back to how they misinterpreted OP, and their failing in doing so.
i’m both recognizing their ‘failing,’ but also suggesting that it is more of an issue on how people are interpreting it as invalid via their own biases and preferences.
not projecting the same preference becomes seen as ‘misreading the room,’ rather than a valid response for a different type of person. it becomes assumed as intentionally, or definitively ‘rude’ rather than just a different, and still valid way of responding to the information provided for some people.
i assume nothing negative was meant by it, even if it wasn’t the implied commiseration op was looking for, this does not make it suddenly antagonistic.
the issue is that so many view it immediately as antagonistic or ‘wrong,’ where it could have been entirely valid were i OP, and saying the same thing as OP. we all have many blindspots, and some things aren’t always salient.
if you experience this reaction every time society sees that you interpreted things differently, you get a bunch of autistic people (or other groups in preference/experiential minority) hating life.
this is also indicative of many other communication failures due to excess fitting towards homogeneity and unconsciously creating social rules to keep things simple and energy free. if you are a surprising element, you get chastised for making others expend energy interpreting your model, because you haven’t successfully been beaten into being less noticeable, even if it completely denies your lived reality. see gay conversion therapy/ABA (same source) for how that tactic is often applied.
not to escalate, but a constant barrage of these experiences, often without such context being given, leads to many otherwise well-adjusted autistic people hating life, and opting out enitrely. this is why i feel compelled to promote understanding of the different styles of interpretation. i don’t want to lose any more friends.
many autistic people are already trying, but the communication failure isn’t just on their side of the interaction.
but it’s easier to tar and feather the person as an easy pariah than to try and consider how the perspective may have had intention less as a slight, and more as a valid recommendation for those who have a different dialect for interpretating “…see a movie.”
i suggest looking up any autistic experiences, because a lot boil down to trauma of escalated antagonism just for existing and not already having the exact preferences of others, which makes predicting them impossible without a doctorate in non-autistic preference modelling, and writing that over your whole existence any time you interact with the public.
also understanding the double empathy problem can help with many other communication difficulties in non homogeneous groups
You’re right that its the framing here that reads as very rude - if someone is expressing their desire to do something, coming in and presenting something else as a clearly morally superior choice and denigrating the thing they wanted to do is considered quite rude; both because it assumes they’re somehow ignorant of the alternative choices and thus couldn’t have made an informed decision, and because it comes across like you’re asserting your own preferences as “more valid” than theirs.
Much as with all other forms of encoding (limerick, haiku, .mp4, web packets, semaphore, all written languages, etc) the format in which a lemmy comment is left is as critical to the communication of it’s idea as the actual content of the words themselves.
Needlessly judgemental, wow.
I’m talking about sailing the high seas. I guess that didn’t come across.
“Going to see a movie” or “see a movie” is pretty universally understood as meaning “to go to the movie theater.”
deleted by creator
As an autistic person who sees information sharing as more valid and respectable than affirming possible ignorant perspectives for the sake of obtuse social saliency, all I see is a fact and a valid question.
Also valid advice for those with money. If you can save money from a theater ticket to another Disney slop live action remake, and donate that money to independent artists trying to survive and simultaneously have a voice despite the Disney/warner types stranglehold over sellable cinema for most public spaces.
People get so upset when anything questions their current trajectory, rather than saying “oh yeah, that’s a valid perspective to avoid the issue in context.”
And gets a lot of autistic people yelled at for doing their job or trying to help, IMO.
Is there a reason the advice and question aren’t valid? To me the only rudeness here is in the framing of the rebuke.
This isn’t trying to one up anyone, this is an attempt to communicate, and improve people’s ability to communicate.
I’ve even seen doctors excuse bullying of autistic children because the child joined discussion of test scores without pandering to the ego of people that were socially affirming how terrible the test must be, due to their performance.
At this point people need to start trying to understand the double empathy problem, because it’s valid for more cases of communication differences than just autism.
Thank you for reading!
There’s an older joke about being able to afford things that might put this into light for you; “I wish I had the money to afford an expensive Italian sports car. I don’t want to buy one, I just want to be able to afford it.”
makes sense. i’m coming to see how people do this, but it’s still baffling to me. by ‘this’ i mean socially affirming each-other, rather than trying to interact with the issue in any way. not just as preferred, but as a forced exclusive.
also legitimately sorry that i can’t compress the whole picture to a quick quip.but what i meant by my comment was as much asserting that the comment being downvoted to oblivion was possibly more misinterpreted in intent and meaning than their own interaction with OP’s meme.
i see it as low dimensional communication exacerbating the size of blindspots for the whole of what is being communicated, because everyone is trying to reduce the energy consumption of language by socially affirming heuristics built on salient preference. this can be mapped to first principles from friston’s free energy principle, into active inference. MITpress has a good textbook for it, although there’s been a lot of new work since then. those who don’t naturally share that preference become ‘wrong’ for communicating what they could interpret without having that same importance given tothings they might not think about, like social ego stroking over just interacting with the concept sans ego.more commonly, people are becoming familiar with the ‘double empathy problem’ basically a context and language equivalent to yelling at the autistic kid for not making levels of eye contact that they find painfully intimate and uncomfortable. yes, the local community can think eye contact is ‘just having basic manners’ or ‘just being a decent person,’ but forcing them to do it, and creating a majority salient confirmation bubble chastising them for not doing it constantly and confidently is salt in the wound.
again, thank you for reading this far if you has. none of this is accusatory towards anyone, just an honest attempt at noting current popular communication failures and how to frame them.
the double empathy problem also applies to most predictive models projecting in differently socialized spaces. it’s good for people to comprehend.
And I do see the points that you’re making and I do agree with them on the whole. The problem is that you’re stating those facts in a instance of someone just looking for commiseration about not being able to do something that helps alleviate some of the stress of day-to-day life. For lack of a more accurate phrase, You misread the room.
And you are correct if you’re looking at a purely economic standpoint finding some way of streaming a movie is usually more cost-effective than going to a movie theater. But that discredits the event that going to see a movie is going to see a movie usually entails going with someone be that friends or significant other (sometimes you go alone), possibly getting you know some popcorn and a soda or a slushie, and experiencing it on a massive screen with a sound system and the event of it.
the issue is that this is a lot of assumption on the comment’s intention in their response to OP. i feel the emphasis keeps moving back to how they misinterpreted OP, and their failing in doing so. i’m both recognizing their ‘failing,’ but also suggesting that it is more of an issue on how people are interpreting it as invalid via their own biases and preferences.
not projecting the same preference becomes seen as ‘misreading the room,’ rather than a valid response for a different type of person. it becomes assumed as intentionally, or definitively ‘rude’ rather than just a different, and still valid way of responding to the information provided for some people.
i assume nothing negative was meant by it, even if it wasn’t the implied commiseration op was looking for, this does not make it suddenly antagonistic. the issue is that so many view it immediately as antagonistic or ‘wrong,’ where it could have been entirely valid were i OP, and saying the same thing as OP. we all have many blindspots, and some things aren’t always salient.
if you experience this reaction every time society sees that you interpreted things differently, you get a bunch of autistic people (or other groups in preference/experiential minority) hating life. this is also indicative of many other communication failures due to excess fitting towards homogeneity and unconsciously creating social rules to keep things simple and energy free. if you are a surprising element, you get chastised for making others expend energy interpreting your model, because you haven’t successfully been beaten into being less noticeable, even if it completely denies your lived reality. see gay conversion therapy/ABA (same source) for how that tactic is often applied.
not to escalate, but a constant barrage of these experiences, often without such context being given, leads to many otherwise well-adjusted autistic people hating life, and opting out enitrely. this is why i feel compelled to promote understanding of the different styles of interpretation. i don’t want to lose any more friends.
many autistic people are already trying, but the communication failure isn’t just on their side of the interaction. but it’s easier to tar and feather the person as an easy pariah than to try and consider how the perspective may have had intention less as a slight, and more as a valid recommendation for those who have a different dialect for interpretating “…see a movie.”
i suggest looking up any autistic experiences, because a lot boil down to trauma of escalated antagonism just for existing and not already having the exact preferences of others, which makes predicting them impossible without a doctorate in non-autistic preference modelling, and writing that over your whole existence any time you interact with the public.
also understanding the double empathy problem can help with many other communication difficulties in non homogeneous groups
It is the framing, yes. The second half reads as telling OP that it’s bad to want to go to the theatre in a conscensing way.
So you say you’re autistic… <3You’re right that its the framing here that reads as very rude - if someone is expressing their desire to do something, coming in and presenting something else as a clearly morally superior choice and denigrating the thing they wanted to do is considered quite rude; both because it assumes they’re somehow ignorant of the alternative choices and thus couldn’t have made an informed decision, and because it comes across like you’re asserting your own preferences as “more valid” than theirs.
Much as with all other forms of encoding (limerick, haiku, .mp4, web packets, semaphore, all written languages, etc) the format in which a lemmy comment is left is as critical to the communication of it’s idea as the actual content of the words themselves.