Posts
I think there's been some muddled thinking, over the last several years, around offensive forms of expression. Obviously, like anyone with a heart, I agree that it's unethical to deliberately offend someone. Obviously referring to a black person by the N word or deliberately insulting someone is unethical.
The problem comes in when someone expresses a sincere opinion and people respond that they find it "offensive". I don't mean just any opinion, either. I mean, obviously, expressing male supremacy at a take back the night march, or something like that, is offensive however straight-forward the expression is, because, unless we're dealing with someone with very poor social skills, we can probably assume that such a speaker intended their comments to offend by the situation in which they spoke them. And I'm not particularly sympathetic to Neo-fascists or Neo-nazis expressing anything, because they're authoritarian creeps and I don't particularly think they care very much about my freedom of expression.[1]
What I'm getting at is ordinary expression of opinion that does not have an ulterior motive and is not being made by authoritarians who want their right to speak, but won't extend that same right to others.
In a democracy, it's critical that people be able to share their opinions. We all need to be able to say what we think, without fear of retaliation, even social retaliation, because that's what makes democracy work. Unless we can all express ourselves freely, whoever controls our expression controls the nation. The ethics, here, is that people shouldn't express things with the goal of offending. Also, people should be careful not to make prejudicial or ignorant statements about a group. But, just because you don't like what somebody else has said doesn't mean that they've offended you. We all need to feel free to say what we think without people accusing us of offense.
Also, there are certain forms of expression, like satire, that need to stand, in spite of being offensive. Satire is offensive by nature. If it's not offensive, it's arguably bad satire. Satire is an art form that has a moral dimension to it. It pokes fun at society with the goal of making us see ourselves in a different way. This is an important part of any society. In fact, I'd say that satire is a canary in a coal mine for a free society. When we start oppressing our satirists, we know we're going in an authoritarian direction. The best satirists offend everybody equally, because their goal is not to hurt or to pick on any particular group or person, but rather to create a dark reflection of society in its totality so that we can learn something about our society that we otherwise wouldn't see (or at least see society through someone else's eyes). So, satire is a special case. Society needs to give satirists a special pass to offend. In return, satirists can work hard to offend everybody by showing us all our dark sides that we don't like to see. So, they hold a special place in a free society.
So, in short, it's unethical to express something, if your purpose with it is to offend. We should also be careful to avoid prejudice. Satirists have a solemn duty to offend everybody. Apart from that, we should feel free to share our opinions and stop whining when someone expresses an opinion we don't like.
---
[1] Though, as a liberal, I keep falling back on that quote, usually attributed to Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Thursday, May 7, 2020
Saturday, May 2, 2020
Lay Diagnoses of Asperger Syndrome
One thing that's been distressing me for awhile is that I'm concerned we, as a society, may be overdoing it with lay- or self-diagnoses of Asperger or ASD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome). I'll hear these gaggles of gossipers talking about someone who they seem to think is awkward or struggling socially or someone they find annoying and, rather than doing what people did before we were all talking about Autistism like saying "what a nerd," "...dork," "...weirdo," or whatever, they'll now say, "I wonder if that person has Asperger Syndrome." After a few days of more gossip this will quickly morph into, "yeah, I'm sure of it, X has Asperger's".
While there may be cases in which people guess right, unless we're experts on the subject (and parents of Aspies, however "up" they may be on it, are not experts in terms of who can diagnose), lay diagnoses are a bad thing to engage in. In this case, it's rude at best and nasty at worst. Even if it's done with the best of intentions, it's still taking the person being considered out of the realm of social individuals and into the realm of psychological disorder.[1]
Instead of just saying that someone's annoying, or that you like them okay, but they seem to annoy others, or whatever, all of which is a normal part of being human, it reduces someone from a human agent with all their foibles, to someone with a disorder. If we lay-diagnose, we go from griping about how we don't like someone to saying that there's something objectively wrong and dysfunctional with the person, and that's an evil thing to do. Even if it's meant with the best of intentions, it's still reducing a human being, with all the personality, history, and emotional baggage that we all have, to a syndrome.
There are lots of different types of people and a huge spectrum of human normal. Human beings can be introverts, ambiverts, and extroverts, we can be thinkers or feelers, intuitives and sensates, judgers and perceivers, and that's just Meyers / Briggs. We can have different ideas about how to behave with one another, different manners, different attitudes toward when we think we should do things like give moral support vs helpful advice, when we think we owe it to someone else to listen compassionately to them, and when we don't think we need to care, when to roll with it and when and how to stand up for ourselves, different ways of setting boundaries, different forms of communication, different thoughts, values, and philosophies etc., etc. When we assume that someone has Asperger's, we reduce the person by substituting a mental disorder for all of those things.
Take, for example, a nerd. What is a nerd? Since it's slang, it's never had a precise definition, but thinkers (in the Meyer's / Briggs sense) who are highly intelligent seem about right. Throw in introversion, and you've nailed it (though I know extroverted nerds). Superficially, we nerds can easily seem like Aspies. Thinkers are likely to react differently to other people's emotions than feelers. They might want to offer advice on the problem that's making the other personal emotional, rather than give moral support, for example. They may have lower emotional intelligence than many feelers, just because they're less cued into what's going on with others, emotionally. They may miss social cues for the same reason. To a socially adept, emotionally intelligent, feeler extrovert, this may appear like social awkwardness, which is also a symptom of Asperger's.
Introverts may very well be interested in talking about certain topics that interest them, but not be particularly keen on small talk. This could look like an Asperger's symptom in which people become fascinated with a particular subject or of wanting to walk to strangers at a social event and tell them about a subject that fascinates you. We introverts may well respond negatively to an extrovert yelling with joy at us from across the room, because we find it overwhelming, and this might sound like the Asperger symptom of finding sounds or bright lights overstimulating, though, with us introverts, it's being socially overwhelmed, rather than perceptually overloaded.
Some people just operate according to a different set of manners than we do. For example, I've noticed that Southerners seem to have a whole pile of manners that nobody else gets taught, whereas they do things that I, as a non-Southerner, find rude. Differences in etiquette can cause one person to think the other person is being rude, while the other person is satisfied that they are perfectly well mannered (and may be according to their culture, family, or what have you). If we think that someone is rude, we may assume that there's something wrong with their social skills.
And, just because there's something wrong with someone's social skills, doesn't mean they have Asperger Syndrome. There's all sorts of reasons they may have trouble. Introverts probably go to fewer social functions than extroverts and, therefore, acquire less practice. Thinkers may never have really gotten that some things they do are annoying to feelers (though they might be fine with the other thinkers).
Also, some people are better at reading others. These same people tend to expect others to read them. People who are good at taking hints are more likely to get annoyed when others don't take hints. The truth is that, middle of the bell curve, humans are hit and miss with reading others and taking hints. Hints can very by culture. We may use a canned hint in our culture, like asking a date if she wants to come back to our place for coffee to mean sex, but someone from a different culture might not get it. And some people strongly dislike the whole notion of hints on ethical grounds, preferring to communicate in a direct way. Just because someone's not so great at these talents, doesn't automatically mean they have Asperger's.
And there's no absolute right or wrong when it comes to social interactions anyway. There are plenty of things extroverts do that I think are rude or abrasive that they just think of as friendly. Different people like different things. Just because you find someone annoying, doesn't mean everyone does. As an introvert / thinker, I like people who talk about their interests as long as they don't go into more detail than I can handle (I love to learn new things), whereas I find small talk boring. On the other hand, extrovert / feelers often seem to be the opposite.
And, so what if someone doesn't have good social skills? If they're neuro-typical, it's still a problem to label them as Asperperger's when they're not. And... sometimes people aren't always nice. So what? None of us are nice all the time.
Human social normal is very broad. Not everyone is a sensitive, empathetic, extrovert, social butterfly who's always the life of the party. Just because they're not, doesn't mean they have a mental disorder. [2]
The bottom line is that, unless the person is objectively socially dysfunctional, it's a matter of opinion how they should act. Introverts, thinkers, and lots of other people, are perfectly normal. If you think they're socially awkward, maybe you just don't like them, but that doesn't make them socially dysfunctional. And, even if they are socially awkward, so what? Lots of people are socially awkward for lots of reasons. If you see nothing wrong with assuming they have Asperger's maybe you don't have the best manners yourself. How would you feel, extrovert / feelers, if there was some psychological disorder in which people bored everybody with small talk and all us nerds were whispering about you, "X probably has that small talk disorder; they're always trying to make small-talk?"
I'm not saying that you should never suggest to anyone that they have Asperger's. Nothing wrong with broaching the subject directly with the person, as long as you treat them like an adult, and back off if they don't think they have it. And, if someone tells you they do, it's probably good for us to be concerned about their needs. All I'm saying is that, the next time you feel the urge to label someone "Asperger's", think twice about what it means about your own social skills and ask yourself whether you're just saying that because they're different from you.
---
[1] I don't mean to in any way disparage people who actually have Aspergers, by the way. I know that that's a serious condition, but also one that can be managed and that many people with Aspergers (or ASD) manager, heroically, to live fairly functional lives.
[2] And, even if they do have Asperger's, that's not such a big deal. I know plenty of people with Asperger's whom I like real well. And, even if they do have, they still shouldn't get lay-diagnosed.
While there may be cases in which people guess right, unless we're experts on the subject (and parents of Aspies, however "up" they may be on it, are not experts in terms of who can diagnose), lay diagnoses are a bad thing to engage in. In this case, it's rude at best and nasty at worst. Even if it's done with the best of intentions, it's still taking the person being considered out of the realm of social individuals and into the realm of psychological disorder.[1]
Instead of just saying that someone's annoying, or that you like them okay, but they seem to annoy others, or whatever, all of which is a normal part of being human, it reduces someone from a human agent with all their foibles, to someone with a disorder. If we lay-diagnose, we go from griping about how we don't like someone to saying that there's something objectively wrong and dysfunctional with the person, and that's an evil thing to do. Even if it's meant with the best of intentions, it's still reducing a human being, with all the personality, history, and emotional baggage that we all have, to a syndrome.
There are lots of different types of people and a huge spectrum of human normal. Human beings can be introverts, ambiverts, and extroverts, we can be thinkers or feelers, intuitives and sensates, judgers and perceivers, and that's just Meyers / Briggs. We can have different ideas about how to behave with one another, different manners, different attitudes toward when we think we should do things like give moral support vs helpful advice, when we think we owe it to someone else to listen compassionately to them, and when we don't think we need to care, when to roll with it and when and how to stand up for ourselves, different ways of setting boundaries, different forms of communication, different thoughts, values, and philosophies etc., etc. When we assume that someone has Asperger's, we reduce the person by substituting a mental disorder for all of those things.
Take, for example, a nerd. What is a nerd? Since it's slang, it's never had a precise definition, but thinkers (in the Meyer's / Briggs sense) who are highly intelligent seem about right. Throw in introversion, and you've nailed it (though I know extroverted nerds). Superficially, we nerds can easily seem like Aspies. Thinkers are likely to react differently to other people's emotions than feelers. They might want to offer advice on the problem that's making the other personal emotional, rather than give moral support, for example. They may have lower emotional intelligence than many feelers, just because they're less cued into what's going on with others, emotionally. They may miss social cues for the same reason. To a socially adept, emotionally intelligent, feeler extrovert, this may appear like social awkwardness, which is also a symptom of Asperger's.
Introverts may very well be interested in talking about certain topics that interest them, but not be particularly keen on small talk. This could look like an Asperger's symptom in which people become fascinated with a particular subject or of wanting to walk to strangers at a social event and tell them about a subject that fascinates you. We introverts may well respond negatively to an extrovert yelling with joy at us from across the room, because we find it overwhelming, and this might sound like the Asperger symptom of finding sounds or bright lights overstimulating, though, with us introverts, it's being socially overwhelmed, rather than perceptually overloaded.
Some people just operate according to a different set of manners than we do. For example, I've noticed that Southerners seem to have a whole pile of manners that nobody else gets taught, whereas they do things that I, as a non-Southerner, find rude. Differences in etiquette can cause one person to think the other person is being rude, while the other person is satisfied that they are perfectly well mannered (and may be according to their culture, family, or what have you). If we think that someone is rude, we may assume that there's something wrong with their social skills.
And, just because there's something wrong with someone's social skills, doesn't mean they have Asperger Syndrome. There's all sorts of reasons they may have trouble. Introverts probably go to fewer social functions than extroverts and, therefore, acquire less practice. Thinkers may never have really gotten that some things they do are annoying to feelers (though they might be fine with the other thinkers).
Also, some people are better at reading others. These same people tend to expect others to read them. People who are good at taking hints are more likely to get annoyed when others don't take hints. The truth is that, middle of the bell curve, humans are hit and miss with reading others and taking hints. Hints can very by culture. We may use a canned hint in our culture, like asking a date if she wants to come back to our place for coffee to mean sex, but someone from a different culture might not get it. And some people strongly dislike the whole notion of hints on ethical grounds, preferring to communicate in a direct way. Just because someone's not so great at these talents, doesn't automatically mean they have Asperger's.
And there's no absolute right or wrong when it comes to social interactions anyway. There are plenty of things extroverts do that I think are rude or abrasive that they just think of as friendly. Different people like different things. Just because you find someone annoying, doesn't mean everyone does. As an introvert / thinker, I like people who talk about their interests as long as they don't go into more detail than I can handle (I love to learn new things), whereas I find small talk boring. On the other hand, extrovert / feelers often seem to be the opposite.
And, so what if someone doesn't have good social skills? If they're neuro-typical, it's still a problem to label them as Asperperger's when they're not. And... sometimes people aren't always nice. So what? None of us are nice all the time.
Human social normal is very broad. Not everyone is a sensitive, empathetic, extrovert, social butterfly who's always the life of the party. Just because they're not, doesn't mean they have a mental disorder. [2]
The bottom line is that, unless the person is objectively socially dysfunctional, it's a matter of opinion how they should act. Introverts, thinkers, and lots of other people, are perfectly normal. If you think they're socially awkward, maybe you just don't like them, but that doesn't make them socially dysfunctional. And, even if they are socially awkward, so what? Lots of people are socially awkward for lots of reasons. If you see nothing wrong with assuming they have Asperger's maybe you don't have the best manners yourself. How would you feel, extrovert / feelers, if there was some psychological disorder in which people bored everybody with small talk and all us nerds were whispering about you, "X probably has that small talk disorder; they're always trying to make small-talk?"
I'm not saying that you should never suggest to anyone that they have Asperger's. Nothing wrong with broaching the subject directly with the person, as long as you treat them like an adult, and back off if they don't think they have it. And, if someone tells you they do, it's probably good for us to be concerned about their needs. All I'm saying is that, the next time you feel the urge to label someone "Asperger's", think twice about what it means about your own social skills and ask yourself whether you're just saying that because they're different from you.
---
[1] I don't mean to in any way disparage people who actually have Aspergers, by the way. I know that that's a serious condition, but also one that can be managed and that many people with Aspergers (or ASD) manager, heroically, to live fairly functional lives.
[2] And, even if they do have Asperger's, that's not such a big deal. I know plenty of people with Asperger's whom I like real well. And, even if they do have, they still shouldn't get lay-diagnosed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)