goDel
-
Posts
13,202 -
Joined
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by goDel
-
-
*ignores*
;D
-
*promptly adds joyrex and beerwolf to the ignore list*
-
In the autechre universe, this is as close to coming out of the closet with respect to having a leak as humanly possible.
Hey master J., what's your warn status?
-
So......are you saying that it sucks?
/sarcasm
-
To the people not feeling that track: go f*ck yourself! It's f-ing brilliant! H*O*L*Y S*H*I*T
*starts to pick nose compulsively*
-
*agrees and posts letter to the graveyard of watmm threads*
-
No, it wasn't.
*reopens thread*
-
LOL
OK, he can pick his nose all he wants. If that's the thing which comes with the territory of being godlike at the IDMz, so be it. But not on TV, goddammit! Think of what his mom must feel like when her artistically awkward son finally gets his nose on TV.
Don't forget that this godlike 'son of a bitch' is made by a brilliant mommy.
-
Join the club. Although I think I can be way more compulsive than the test shows.
Your Aspie score: 49 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 161 of 200
You are very likely neurotypical -
-
For the record: picking your nose during a televised interview is NOT acceptable. Even for IDM standards! (And that bar is already incredibly low, tbh.)
Caveman Sean, pls.
-
EQ: 45
SQ: 18
AS: 10
-
I'm actually surprised it doesn't even matter if you slightly or definitely agree. WTF? This has probably to do with the acceptance for the test (people not accepting only a black/white test and feeling more secure when they don't have to answer in extremes).
-
I'd love to answer your questions, but at this point I'll be running in circles.
Why? Because of research, research, research.
....
Research
...
And as a consequence, an implied "because by the current definition, people scoring high on the AS generally don't give answers like in your example. And one might even argue, those aren't typical mistakes for people scoring high in the AS." And here you get to a point where everything may implode on itself. (What is AS? Is the researched AS the actual AS? Why? Why? Why?... to infinity and beyond)
-
i understand that, i just don't understand the point of inclusion of some questions which are problematic to begin with, the mere number of questions doesn't add validity obviously.I'm not sure wether Baron-Cohen's point is clear, but the point he was trying to make, is that this test isn't perfect (which is pretty much a given for any test) in the sense that even "normal" people could get a high score. The only thing which this test does well, according to Baron-Cohen, is distinguishing the "autists" from the "normals" in the sense that "autists" in general don't get scores below 30. Of course there's always the monkey-out (give a million monkeys a typewriter and one of them might type the text of Hamlet - by coincidence).
So in a way, if you're able to "honestly" get your score below 30, you're safe. And "honestly" meaning you can imagine yourself in situations agreeing with the outcome which does not stack in the "autistic"-spectrum. Even though you might "currently" feel different. (Everyone can feel socially awkward. It's a normal feeling...)
It's the research behind the test which validate the (number of) questions. I'm not saying there aren't "problematic questions" or not. The only point is that for tests like these, there's always research validating the outcomes. Because like you and other mentioned, people, in other words, are "weird" creatures. They make mistakes. They can lie to others. They can lie to themselves. They can be moody. ... And there's a ton more which you could put here. So given these weird things, the point is there's an implied statistic relevance for this set of questions.
But I'm afraid I still don't understand your misunderstanding. Perhaps I'm autistic after all. (Actually, I'm a monkey with a typewriter!! :D)
-
It reminds me of my last visit to the toilet.
I felt relieved afterwards, btw.
-
I'm not sure wether Baron-Cohen's point is clear, but the point he was trying to make, is that this test isn't perfect (which is pretty much a given for any test) in the sense that even "normal" people could get a high score. The only thing which this test does well, according to Baron-Cohen, is distinguishing the "autists" from the "normals" in the sense that "autists" in general don't get scores below 30. Of course there's always the monkey-out (give a million monkeys a typewriter and one of them might type the text of Hamlet - by coincidence).
So in a way, if you're able to "honestly" get your score below 30, you're safe. And "honestly" meaning you can imagine yourself in situations agreeing with the outcome which does not stack in the "autistic"-spectrum. Even though you might "currently" feel different. (Everyone can feel socially awkward. It's a normal feeling...)
-
I'm not sure what you mean with "self report questions".( Because all of them are? And not just the ones you picked?) And besides the semantics, the principle stays the same: by having more questions, the outcome will be less influenced by "mistakes". Another example of fallacies might be someone who didn't read a question properly and ignored a negation. Ever wondered how many people fast read, past a "not" inside a sentence? You'd be amazed.
-
The funny thing might be that most people understand the questions in the sense which answer would add to the "autistic"-stack and which doesn't. They're pretty obvious, and so are the answers. But normal people can be really critical towards themselves and have a high score, even though in reality they're normal. (call it "true self-awareness, if you will. i'd argue there is none, btw. but that's another story)
And that's basically what baron-cohen said, I guess. Autistic people cannot have a low score - because they do not understand the principles behind the questions.
I can only think of those normal people with a high score as either being way too critical towards themselves, or they're in a pretty rough spot in their lives.
I bet most of you know damn well which answers give you more "autistic" points and which don't. Shame on you!! ;-p
if they don't understand the principle they might not be able to answer the questions in a way that will indicate autism, i think. an autistic person might think that he understands facial expressions and undertones but in reality he doesn't..so how can this test test for autism properly ?
Well, one obvious answer is that it's about all the questions together. Instead of a single question (about facial expressions). Anyone could give an honest/sincere answer to one or more answers which he/she shouldn't - given that the "real" outcome is already known (eg. a non-autistic person who answers he/she can't read facial expressions (perhaps because he/she believes everyone is playing a game of poker!?).
By having more questions, the idea is these fallacies will become insignificant.
-
The funny thing might be that most people understand the questions in the sense which answer would add to the "autistic"-stack and which doesn't. They're pretty obvious, and so are the answers. But normal people can be really critical towards themselves and have a high score, even though in reality they're normal. (call it "true self-awareness, if you will. i'd argue there is none, btw. but that's another story)
And that's basically what baron-cohen said, I guess. Autistic people cannot have a low score - because they do not understand the principles behind the questions.
I can only think of those normal people with a high score as either being way too critical towards themselves, or they're in a pretty rough spot in their lives.
I bet most of you know damn well which answers give you more "autistic" points and which don't. Shame on you!! ;-p
-
Are you serious? People in general are bad multitaskers. No matter what they think of themselves.
(This is why the whole autism thing is so full of shit, imo. When having a good memory and being able to focus on one activity for a longer period of time can become "potential indicators of autism", something's very wrong. Perhaps it's society inability to teach younger generations what social behavior is? Or the amount if chemical crap that's been stuffed in our food?)
-
i'm pretty sure someone with bi-polar would make good music
Lol
What about having a healthy imagination accompanied by a "rich and distinguished" emotional perspective? I'd almost start to think, being an artist requires one to be completely fuck up emotionally. Well, fuck that. What about being an emotionally healthy artist? Sure, normal happy people might tend to create normal happy art. But if all the people on the planet would be normal happy, that would be the kind of art they'd be aching for.
Ehm, i'm sure i've lost the point here. And ironically i wasn't even trying to make a point, but instead i'm in the process towards making one anyway. And worse, it's a completely redundant point. But fuck you. I'm posting it anyways
-
Nice one
And that would be a 6/10 if you'd like to satisfy the mathemagicians ;)
-
If you'd stare long enough at one single point, you'd see all kinds of shit happening. Even though it isn't there.
*flips coin into the wishing well*
XI year old Autechre Album Released: Exai (WARP234)
in Autechre
Posted
That magic wand of yours seems to malfunction. Do you have any other types of tools?