Carl-Richard

Do not some of the chemicals in the sticks and potentially in herbs in general freak you out? There are should we say many "herbal ways" to die.

The thing about Poker is it's one setting which you can practice and specialize in. But social games include many different settings where specialization might not be possible and all you can rely on is fast-and-frugal heuristics. It is right, because affective attuning is a central means by which you come to access soneone's mind. The thing you're doing is you're expecting a fully comprehensive measure of ToM. You won't ever get that in a test. Science is almost always "by proxy", especially in psychology. You create a measure and then it is used to point to an idea or variable. Very rarely do you get an essentially 100% 1-to-1 relationship between the measure and the variable, and it's basically not a thing when dealing with complex concepts like ToM.

Jan is a teacher who can talk about love (bhakti), integrate it with I-ness and emptiness (jhana), and surrendering (neo-advaita), in the same 3 minutes, without getting stuck in either, combining it into a cohesive framework. Stage Yellow enlightened person 😎 Sorry, I like Jan very much :,)

I'm sorry to interrupt this serious exchange with WHAT the fuck is this?: I was searching up a Jan Esmann video on love and I got this abomination 😭

Look up at the stars and imagine that you're looking at something below you, or that you're hanging by your feet rather than standing on the ground, or that you're looking at something infront of you rather than above you. It creates the sense that you are floating in space and it creates a 3D effect between the stars. I have memories of this as a child (or it was a literal visionary experience), and it felt like I was travelling through space. Space is a great representation of God, because you can see the infinity in the blackness and expansiveness of the void.

@Joshe The test seems like a good way to indicate whether somebody has autism. Whether or not it captures all aspects of theory of mind is a different story. Different aspects of ToM is interesting. Autistics may be good at stacking up past experiences (concrete things) and using them to predict responses (a spectrumy friend of mine has essentially photographic memory and probably does the same). But the high-paced, highly contextual and subtle momentary changes in states, that may require indeed affective attunement and inference based on emotional expressions, that's what autistic people struggle with. And if you're meeting for example a new person, that might be all you have. Like if you had met a friend of mine from high school, what would you have to go by to understand their mind? What if they don't talk?

👀

I have experience with autistics giving me a thorough in-depth intellectual account of how people work and how their own mind works, which is theoretically insightful and empirically plausible, but which in practice doesn't apply to themselves at all. The theory doesn't meet the reality as claimed. It might or might not be the case for you, and we can't really test that except through interactions. But that's a concept I believe also applies to autistics; not just a lack of TOM with respect to others but with respect to themselves. Because just like concrete rules and inferences based on those might be inefficient for understand other people's minds, it might be inefficient for understanding your own. But that's essentially gaslighting so take it with a grain of salt.

Or you can use different labels not constructed in a frame of "mental disorder". There is a reason why it's "ND" and not "mentally ill".

This I again see as a limited version of ND that is confined to a certain pathologic-psychological (psychiatric) frame, essentially Western ideas of mental disorders (DSM-5, ICD-11). There are more psychological concepts to use, from East and West, and religious, spiritual tendencies, personality, temperaments; anything under the sun for describing a person. And that is a part of the problem I feel with the framework in that it plays on an underlying theme and explicit concepts made to describe dysfunction, which creates a certain frame and focus in the mind of the person indentifying with ND, pushing their behavior in a certain direction of "snow-flaking" and "dysfunctionalizing" themselves and perhaps promoting dysfunctional coping strategies like isolation, avoidance, lack of challenge and growth mindset, lack of resilience-building, responsibility-adopting. Even if the ND concept itself is an attempt to not treat the conditions as a dysfunction but merely a difference in function, the cultural environment it is situated in, and the terminology it uses, is still one of pathological psychology. And because some ND people (autistics particularly) can get very fixated about any particular frame they're working with, this effect can unfortunately be excacerbated for them. Like when you use the word "passion oriented people" and then put "executive dysfunction" in parentheses afterwards, I feel existentially offended. Why are you labelling such an immense strength as a bad thing? My MSc advisor (professor with Harvard background) is probably the most idealistic and passion-oriented person I've met, and he is also one of the most socially, occupationally and spiritually established people I've met. That you place any label like that next to a source of divine intelligence, that's straight up a sin, a slight against God. And I believe Dr. K himself has said something along the lines of if you align yourself with your passion, that is where executive function is found. That is when you can act, dictate, control, shape your behavior along what you're aiming at, because the goal is that valueable and it is in line with what and who you are. Executive dysfunction comes when you're out of alignment, when you're in a state of severe stress and conflict, with yourself. Once you act within your own imperative, you are by definition functional.

Like for example?

What will be the next in AI and machine-human interactions before AGI and before Neuralinks is generalized AI agents. They will capture data from your daily life, like a smartwatch does for your physiological data, but for your everyday interactions and your online footprint (as well as physiological data). These will be fed into a system where the AI analyzes the data and gives structured insights and feedback on how you can improve things you are working on, your personality type/traits, your movement patterns, your sleeping habits, your eating habits. Everything you can imagine that can be recorded, your AI will use it to enhance your life. Currently, the problem with AI moving to AGI is of course the problem of agency, autonomous behavior, perception, generally relevance realization (how to solve ill-defined problems, how to pick out relevant information from an essentially infinite sea of information, how to move through an environment unaccompanied by human nannying or hand-holding). And of course the problem with Neuralinks is we're not anywhere near the sufficient scale for the machine-human interactions to bypass machine-human interfaces like screens, smartphones, personal computers. So for now, we will utilize the generalized data processor that is the smartphone, and use AI's current capabilities through that. And as AI is not autonomous, it has to have structures and softwares built in place to do the data collection. Big companies like Meta will eventually take care of this, but in the meantime, startups might have a market for a while (I've toyed with the idea and have the potential means to start it, but I'm split between other paths). This is essentially about introducing a second brain to your life, which is platinum content for your personal development. The amount of checking mechanisms you can have (for personal epistemology, bias, self-deception), the routine-refinement, it's all made more dense and powerful by not just AI's computational ability but the opponent processing (two minds, and the relationship between two minds, are better than one).

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

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. 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. 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.

@Ramasta9 You can argue from a place of hurt, or suffering, or you can argue from a place of engagement, involvement. Arguing in the former is a shit throwing session. The latter is a sharing and mutual exploration. I'm academically brain damaged, so when I see "argument", I see "position". The emotional tone is supposed to be neutral. "The argument for x position is such and such and the evidence is in decent to moderate support of it". My brother said once (sort of misogynistically when taken generally and obviously not my position, but it was in response to a certain context) "women can't argue without being calm and not taking it seriously, they think it's a big deal to express disagreement". He expressed that exact distinction between exploration, openness, sharing, vs being hurt, avoidance of painful emotions.

I'm a privileged white boy. The only violence I did to myself. But this is argumentation. Prove me wrong (Google search) You're probably more in favor of the second definition.

I've ordered this one (my earlier one, Dr. Collins Biomin Restore, contained titanium dioxide, which has been banned in the EU for concerns about genotoxicity). Very few ingredients (full list below image): Full ingredients: Water, Sorbitol, Glycerin, Hydrated Silica, Xylitol, Hydroxyapatite, Calcium Carbonate, Propanediol, Xanthan Gum, Cellulose Gum, Stevia Rebaudiana Extract, Erythritol, Sodium Gluconate. As for "natty status", water is natty; sorbitol, xylitol, erythritol are natural sugar alcohols found in fruits (Stevia extract is also used for its sugar alcohols), glycerin is in your skin, silica is everywhere (in your food, in your body), calcium is in your body (carbonate too), propanediol and xantan gum are fermentation products of natural starches, cellulose gum is derived from natural starches through a simple chemical process using e.g. acetic acid (but usually monochloroacetic acid which is highly toxic, but yeah, they try to wash it out, but microscopic amounts may remain), the gluconate in sodium gluconate naturally occurs in fruits, sodium is in your body.

Why you arguing about his arguing?

@LoneWonderer I'm on that 50% sodium, 40% potassium, 9% magnesium, 1% iodine salt. Made me more mellow compared to pure sodium (-chloride).

I was about to use that very word in the very last post I made (and I haven't taken the test in forever ).

You know when somebody says something ironic or off the wall or slightly off-putting and you like peel your eyes with this creepy and even smirky expression? That's more around the ballpark of what I intended it to mean.

Haaah good one.

In the model above, the autistic person would have to construct or learn concrete rules and then make inferences based on those. For non-autistic people, the inference machinery is built-in. The test and the science around it is based on averages, as science generally is. On average, the ND/autistic strategy seems to be less efficient/effective. If you want to make a scientific study on the extremes, you can do that. Or if you consider yourself a high TOM ND, you can take the test and show us that it's wrong (score higher than @Natasha Tori Maru).

👀

@Natasha Tori Maru There is this model that places autism and psychosis on a continuum. Autism in this model is more concrete, less able to make inferences, while psychosis is abstract and makes loose inferences. And this inference-making process is thought to be grounded in picking up on social cues and using them to derive conclusions about a person's internal state (that's where it comes from, and it makes sense phylogenetically, as the cortex grows out of the limbic system). It's not necessarily that the autistic person is blind to the facial expressions, but it's that their brain doesn't connect it to an inference about an internal state. In other words, according to the model, you're psychotic 🙂 Like me 😀 Here's the article: https://cnl.psy.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Thakkar-Matthews-Park-2008-A-complete-theory-of-psychosis.pdf