Introvert that pretends to be an extrovert here, I have a love hate thing with smalltalk. When it comes to people I know, usually its just a way to grease social wheels to get onto something real so smalltalk is quite pleasant, wheras with more outer circle people, it can get exhausting and if not done while charged can lead to socially awkward moments. Usually the only times I have trouble with this is when people try to persist with social interactions I'm not interested in and eventually it burns me out or when trying to maintain relations with people that arent necessarily inner circle.

>> ^hpqp:

Very interesting commentary, but there is a significant problem with the conclusion, in that it excludes one of schools' essential functions, namely learning to be a functional part of a human society. A good teacher not only imparts factual knowledge, but provides (in conjunction with the school) a model of social interaction, with its unspoken rules, its ethics, etc etc, all things no amount of Digital Aristotling will ever be able to provide. This model is not always good (see for example the "shut up and listen/follow" model, creating mindless drones incapable of critical thought), and that of course needs to be improved. But children will always need adult humans to show how one (inter)acts in society, and that cannot be done with 50-100 students to one teacher. There has to be the possibility for personal interaction.


School isn't the only place for those things to happen.

Very interesting commentary, but there is a significant problem with the conclusion, in that it excludes one of schools' essential functions, namely learning to be a functional part of a human society. A good teacher not only imparts factual knowledge, but provides (in conjunction with the school) a model of social interaction, with its unspoken rules, its ethics, etc etc, all things no amount of Digital Aristotling will ever be able to provide. This model is not always good (see for example the "shut up and listen/follow" model, creating mindless drones incapable of critical thought), and that of course needs to be improved. But children will always need adult humans to show how one (inter)acts in society, and that cannot be done with 50-100 students to one teacher. There has to be the possibility for personal interaction.

>> ^Reefie:

>> ^schlub:
Ok, I'm ignorant. Can someone explain Asperger, clearly? Everything I've read (which is like, two things) makes it sound like it's just someone who is socially inept... Honestly, the guy in this video is like several people I've encountered in my lifetime... so, I don't get it. What differentiates someone with Asperger from someone who just sucks at talking to people and has what some consider weird hobbies/interests (like 'Bronies')?

I'd recommend looking up "Theory of Mind" because generally autistic people have an impaired theory of mind. A basic explanation of this is summed up by a difficulty to guage/recognise other people's emotional responses to given situations - it's very difficult to perceive what it's like for other people. This can make social interaction very awkward, since conversation is hard to follow unless there is some first-hand experience of the topic being discussed. Think of a lack of empathy except in situations where prior experience allows the autistic person to recall how it affected them. This is a very rudimentary explanation and there is much more to theory of mind and I'd definitely encourage reading a bit more about it since it affects everyone, NT and aspie alike.
There's lots more to Asperger's Syndrome than just an impaired theory of mind. The way the brain files information is another example of a significant difference. Recollection of prior events is a very different process when comparing NT people to aspies. Another difference is the way a lot of background processing of information for most people is actually foreground processing for aspies (i.e. direct awareness of the information being absorbed and how it relates to existing knowledge). An example of this could be the observation of body language - most people absorb that info subconsciously whereas an autistic person has to be trained or train themselves to be aware of the signals and then actively calculate what those signals can potentially mean about the person exhibiting the behaviour.
Hope that offers some insight, just bear in mind that there's no single diagnosis for Asperger's. It's a collection of symptoms that are considered and when enough boxes are ticked the diagnosis can be confirmed. Not all criteria are essential for the diagnosis and it's entirely possible for two aspies to have a number of different symptoms out of the overall list of criteria. That's the way of it, and justifies the use of the word "spectrum" when referring to autism in general.
Good question BTW


This is fantastic, thank you!

>> ^schlub:

Ok, I'm ignorant. Can someone explain Asperger, clearly? Everything I've read (which is like, two things) makes it sound like it's just someone who is socially inept... Honestly, the guy in this video is like several people I've encountered in my lifetime... so, I don't get it. What differentiates someone with Asperger from someone who just sucks at talking to people and has what some consider weird hobbies/interests (like 'Bronies')?


I'd recommend looking up "Theory of Mind" because generally autistic people have an impaired theory of mind. A basic explanation of this is summed up by a difficulty to guage/recognise other people's emotional responses to given situations - it's very difficult to perceive what it's like for other people. This can make social interaction very awkward, since conversation is hard to follow unless there is some first-hand experience of the topic being discussed. Think of a lack of empathy except in situations where prior experience allows the autistic person to recall how it affected them. This is a very rudimentary explanation and there is much more to theory of mind and I'd definitely encourage reading a bit more about it since it affects everyone, NT and aspie alike.

There's lots more to Asperger's Syndrome than just an impaired theory of mind. The way the brain files information is another example of a significant difference. Recollection of prior events is a very different process when comparing NT people to aspies. Another difference is the way a lot of background processing of information for most people is actually foreground processing for aspies (i.e. direct awareness of the information being absorbed and how it relates to existing knowledge). An example of this could be the observation of body language - most people absorb that info subconsciously whereas an autistic person has to be trained or train themselves to be aware of the signals and then actively calculate what those signals can potentially mean about the person exhibiting the behaviour.

Hope that offers some insight, just bear in mind that there's no single diagnosis for Asperger's. It's a collection of symptoms that are considered and when enough boxes are ticked the diagnosis can be confirmed. Not all criteria are essential for the diagnosis and it's entirely possible for two aspies to have a number of different symptoms out of the overall list of criteria. That's the way of it, and justifies the use of the word "spectrum" when referring to autism in general.

Good question BTW

I guess you didn't research before you opened your mouth. Owlbert has owlburgers syndrome, he's severely owltistic and is unable to socially interact with other nocturnal predators.

Facebook is no substitute for face-to-face flesh-and-blood social interaction. Agreed. Thank you for wasting 13 minutes of my life with this obvious and unremarkable observation.

>> ^shinyblurry:
I've read that children around the age of 12-14 are getting counseling on how to interact face to face with people because they've lived in a world of texting their whole lives. Our wired world is creating profound dysfunction in the minds and hearts of the people:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/08/is-the-internet-making-us-crazy-what-the-new-research-says.html


People have an inherent desire to feel needed or worthwhile. That desire can be managed through social interaction, being part of a group helps act as a conduit allowing the interaction to have a basis to proceed. Most group interactions have obvious positive benefits for the individuals involved, with the negative impacts being dismissed because the good supposedly outweighs the bad.

You raise a good point that face to face interaction has declined due to the impact of the internet, and it definitely helps the individuals affected if they can learn multiple ways to interact with others. Take letter writing for example, everyone loves to receive a personal letter but very few people actually take the time to put pen to paper anymore. Maybe we should also be encouraging people to write more instead of cramming what they're trying to say into a small bite-size chunk of communication.

If these modern forms of interaction are providing benefits to the individuals who utilise them then all that is required is ensuring that people are aware and well-informed of the negative consequences so they can make adjustments to their lifestyle if they see fit.

Or is it that people who listen to loud music also tend to be exposed to smokers which influences them to smoke as a social interaction. (bars and concerts come to mind)

>> ^Boise_Lib:

This brings up an interesting point of science--correlation does not equal causation. Does smoking tobacco cause hearing loss--or, do more people who smoke listen to more loud music than those who do not smoke.

Music and arts are probably more important than math or history when it comes to developing critical and creative thinking skills. Healthy sex is as important as eating and sleeping and are all very important to memory function, logic, problem-solving, etc. You seem to think sex is so different from other human activities but it isn't. Categorizing things into social and non-social doesn't apply here since a major function of schools is to teach kids social skills so that they can be productive members of society.

99% of success in life depends on social skills. Right now the best and the brightest are not accomplishing anything because they are too shy or messed up by their history to use their abilities to the fullest.

Oh and condoms are a tool used in forging the mind. Sex is one of the most powerful forces that drives our beings so of course tools and knowledge regarding this major part of our lives is important.

Your version of schooling has never been and hopefully never will be. Please check out some of the research that is out there. There has been much talk the last few years about the serious problems caused by removing music and art programs from schools for example.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sex isn't something that is happening in school

Translation: I NEVER HAD SEX IN SCHOOL! ...or since

Blah, way to be a jerk and not stay on topic.
I shall be a little more clear with what I am saying as I think my message got lost in peoples spin on doing the hibbidy dibidy all the live long day.
Books, teachers, science labs, paper, pens, are part of the education process provided by the state. Having sex in the middle of the class is not. While sex education is a must, having sex in school is not on the curiculum as far as the state should be involved in. IE, condoms are not a pen, a book or any other tool used in forging the mind.
Like some have pointed out (tackfully unlike the nice person above), sex is part of the natural social evolution of a person. Right, but that isn't the focus of the classroom. Schools are for classes and expanding your mind, that is what the state is supposed to be providing. I have problem no problem with my taxes going to books and pens and things that are developing the young minds of tomorrow. But I have a problem with my tax dollars sponcering another childs sex life and/or other social, non-education things (recreational sex is not educational sex . I would be just as against schools providing some sort of free music program on the government dime on the logic that music is needed for a well devolped social mind.
I also don't preach ignorance or being unprepaired, I am just against paying for it on the government ticket. Schools shouldn't be in the business of providing anything but education. If someone can show me how a condom is an education device, besides maybe just learning how to put one on, then I will be convinced, otherwise, it is the school system trying to be more than it is roled to be. This isn't a night club, this is a school. Sex may happen on campus, that is not what I was saying at all, what I am saying is that is the subject of social interaction and not the domain of the school to provide materials for out of our tax budget. Once again, if someone can show how a condom is like a pen (hahaha don't go there), then I'll be more adpt to listen, but so far it seems like "ehh why not" kinda arguments? Perhaps I misunderstood yall as much as yall did me
And if they are just giving them away, then it should be avalible for all citizens everywhere, not just kids...and I would be against funding my fellow americans sex needs in the same way I am against this
Thanks everyone for your respectful comments...minus one

edit: And did no one else think that the video was totally biased? The lady arguing for the side of schools not providing for that thing had some very unconvincing speaking methodology

As an introvert also, one way that I've tried to explain it to some of my friends and acquaintances who are extroverts is to say that I'd draw a distinction between anti-social and asocial. Certainly some introverts can be anti-social -- they generally dislike social situations, usually because they feel uncomfortable in them.

In contrast, I'd say that my definition of asocial is someone who is essentially neutral on social situations; they feel no compulsion to go seek out social interaction, but they aren't necessarily opposed to it when it does happen.

I have been asocial as long as I can remember. I was always perfectly happy doing my own thing by myself when I was a kid. Only child, living in the country, no neighbors in walking distance. In grade school, I had lots of friends and was fairly "popular", but I didn't feel any specific need to hang out with other kids all the time; I'd still run off and do my own thing. Around grade 7-8, I was still the same me, but I started to notice that the things I was and had been interested in weren't popular or acceptable anymore.

That didn't initially bother me, until the cliques and pressure cooker that is High School kicked in. The standard High School struggles pushed me way further into the realms of being anti-social. I basically decided that 95% of people were scum, and that figuring out who the 5% of people who weren't scum wasn't worth the effort.

I think that a chunk of that gets better in the senior year of High School, and then the difference between HS and going to college is night and day. I could have been comfortable returning to socializing right away in college, but I was still pretty shell-shocked. I still had a pretty grim outlook on humanity, which is a shame because I now realize that I should/could have been quicker to adjust my attitude.

By now, I'm still fully asocial in that I feel essentially no need to seek out social interaction, but I do enjoy meeting and getting to know new people and find that there are very few people that I dislike -- almost the exact opposite of my old 95%/5% evaluation. I'll never be the type that wants to go out and hob-nob with friends or random people every day, but I certainly wouldn't describe myself as anti-social anymore.

Hi everyone. I just wanted to introduce myself. My name is Jennifer and I have had an account on youtube since July where I post videos of my cats Pum'kin, Storm and Beauty. I recently found out about this great site and since you were all so supportive and welcoming, I passed the word along to some of my other youtube friends that it would be a cool site to join. That's probably why you've noticed a few extra cat people on here recently. We are all very active members on youtube and really enjoy social interaction. I believe we have all posted our youtube sites on our profiles if you would like to find out more about us. You will see that we are all very active on youtube and are friends. My sincerest apologies if we have offended anyone. I can vouch for all of these people that they are a very sweet bunch of girls that are VERY supportive and would never harass anyone or downvote a video. I was just being friendly and trying to get to know people here just as I do on youtube. If I see a cat profile pic, I automatically go out of my way to get to know that person. I certainly didn't mean to "harass" anyone and I have no idea who this sock puppet person is. We have been enjoying all of your videos very much and have been excited to discover this wonderful site. If you have any questions about my account, or that of the other girls please feel free to ask us. I have contact lock on my youtube account to control spam but if you want to get in touch with me there, write to me on my youtube channel wall, I can add you as a contact and send you a note.
Sincerely, Jennifer

>> ^renatojj:

This pervasive apathy is what we get when we make people less responsible for their choices by taking away their freedoms. They also tend to behave badly when they're not held responsible for their actions. The more people are free, the more they're driven to organize, mobilize and regulate each other on their own.


To get back on the subject, I think renatojj has hit on something here. Western societies have gone through a major restructuring in the last century or a bit more. We've created systems to regulate social interactions and to ensure a better quality of life for all citizens, with relatively good results. To limit abuses of power, we've created bureaucratic states that function relatively independently of the people running them. Protocol is king now, at least ideally, and politics must function within its confines.

This is a remarkable feat, but there are side-effects: We discuss less and less the right or wrong of things - instead we ask "is it legal?" Also, in creating a process-based system of government, we've essentially decided it's best if people don't need to care too much about politics. Protocol will keep politicians in line and prevent any massive abuses. Furthermore, since western representative democracies strive to be, essentially, meritocracies, where we choose the best minds to lead us, the citizen is left to wonder: "If I don't understand the issues well enough to decide what to do about them, how can I judge the actions of those who do understand?"

There is little incentive for people to understand politics, as it has become withdrawn and abstracted. This is a sign of good times as well, of course - people mind their own business when they experience little interference in their lives. Now, of course, many feel threatened by economic turmoil and we are indeed seeing more activism. It will be interesting to see how things go from here.

@longde

As long as Whites are being underrepresented relative to their proportion of the population, and Asians and Indians are being overrepresented, that sounds like the most heavenly type of 'discrimination' in the world.

In practice, most startups find much greater access to capital and connections in Silicon Valley than anywhere else, and in any social interaction, we have about 15 seconds to convince someone we're an interesting person.

There are plenty of startups that have reasons to go abroad, but saying discrimination is one of them doesn't seem consistent with the numbers.

Alas for the field of rational science - it has been hijacked by biased politically motivated cretins. Climate science has been utterly lost, and not content with besmirching that branch alone, the trogs are moving into neurology?

A slightly larger amygdala has been associated with complex social interaction and the ability to move more information into long term memory. Whoopeedoo. The anterior cingulate cortex is associated with error detection, which is nothing more than a simple cognitive function. Again - whoopeedoo. A person with a huge anygdala can have excellent error detection, and just because someone has a bigger ACC doesn't necessarily mean they can perform higher thought for squat.

To imply from this study that Democrats are all complex thinkers and that Republicans don't think at all is in and of itself proof of quite the opposite. Only someone being driven by their basest, most fearful emotions could possibly believe such Gobbelesque tripe. Whatever brains believe that sort of flawed interpretation are certainly NOT being driven by complex thought.