4 ms·

Why are you calling someone "problematic" for not being neurotypical? Do you really think that's helpful? As far as I can tell, the person you're responding to

by cname 11y ago

Why are you calling someone "problematic" for not being neurotypical? Do you really think that's helpful? As far as I can tell, the person you're responding to hasn't said anything offensive nor criticized anyone, so I can't understand why you're responding with insults and criticism. And further, it sounds like they understand the situation pretty well, and I doubt your "explanation" is going to help anyone negotiate social interactions more easily by "getting with the program" or whatever.

aninhumer 11y ago
I think you're overreacting quite substantially here. They used the word "problematic" once, and you're calling that "responding with insults and criticism". Also no one mentioned anything about anyone being non-neurotypical before you.
- gkya 11y ago
  Well, I may have used that word mistakenly. I meant "source of the problem". If that's an insult, then there are no other in my comments, I do actively refrain from insulting both online and in person. As for criticism, yes, my comment is a criticism, and tries to be a constructive one. I spot the problem, I suggest a solution, I may well be mistaken, but there are no insults. And I comment on the situation, not ad hominem.
moistgorilla 11y ago
>Why are you calling someone "problematic" for not being neurotypical? Do you really think that's helpful? I'm sorry but this is a huge overreaction. The op clearly stated he had a problem with talking to people because of their vagueness implying that the other person was "problematic". By stating the op is problematic instead of the "normal" person he is just stating that he is the source of the problem, not the normal person. Anyway, there's a slight irony considering we are talking about people taking words to literally.
ianamartin 11y ago
@moistgorilla: nothing I said came anywhere close to implying that I think other people are problematic. Read the words. Especially the ones where I specifically indicated that I come from many backgrounds that value specificity so highly. I said that communication is a problem between me and people who have different backgrounds. Not one single thing about that statement implies that I think it's other people who are problematic. In fact, a two-sided situation can be problematic without either individual side actually being problematic. And in realistic terms, sometimes situations arise that are completely okay, even though both sides are equally problematic. @aninhumer, it was an insulting use of the word, and I took it as both a misreading of my words and and intentions as well as a personal attack. So I don't think cname was overreacting. @gkya, I think you are putting some very severe and artificial constraints on the purpose and definition of language. In my opinion language is quite a lot more than a tool for communication. It is, for some examples, a means of mis-communication (sarcasm), a way to communicate nothing (some types of modern abstract poetry), or even a way to talk about itself in ways that no one can possibly understand, i.e. anti-communication (literary criticism comes to minds here.) But in all seriousness, language can be a lot of different things at different time, just the same way that sometimes paint is just a tool to protect your house from the weather but other times paint is used to creat a work of art. Music works the same way. Sometimes music is just there as a tool the department store is using to psychologically induce you to buy more things and get out faster. Sometimes music is used to create some of the greatest and most meaningful works of art mankind has ever seen. Any medium that can be used as "a tool for communication" can be used as something else entirely. And it doesn't necessarily involve communication. In my opinion, your comment was the least likely interpretation of what I said about my ability to interact with other people. You might want to try reading what I wrote again because, as I mention in my post, I tend to be quite specific about what I say. In case I need to clarify that, when either speaking or writing, I do my best to make sure that no one needs to try to infer anything from what I say. This is the last I will say on this thread. I didn't mean for it to be about me. I meant to affirm the thoughts and fears of the original article and to add my own thoughts and perspective because the article resonated with me. That's all.
- gkya 11y ago
  On your responses to @moistgorilla and @aninhumer: You refer o a problem between you and some others, and I say in my comment that you are the source of such problem. I did not have an intent of insult or personal attack, I'm sorry. Follows a refutation of your response to me. Firstly, you drew a profile, publically, of someone who is so pedantic that they couldn't interact with other people, and I commented on such profile, which incidentally happened to be yours. If you do not want comments on your character, why write about it on HN? And by answering you, I answered you and other people like you, thus commented on the situation itself, rather than your personal phenomenon. I don't know you, I wouldn't bother to attack your personality. You opened it to discussion, and I stated my ideas about it. Now, on language, the purpose of the language is to communicate some meaning. Sarcasm is used to communicate some meaning to, but the meaning happens to be the opposite of the literal meaning of the words. Even abstract poetry does communicate something. Whether the message is coherent and comprehensible is another discussion. But language _cannot_ be used in a non-communicating manner. You stated that you avoid social interaction because of others' ambiguous use of language. And I answered you mistake contexts and registers of language. I may have used the word problematic mistakenly--and I'm sorry if I did. English is my L2. But I do support my stance on the situation that you share with many others. I had severe social interaction problems, including those like yours, and one needs to admit them and understand that he is the source of the problem to be able to fix oneself. You may want to continue to be asocial, in which case it's your decision, I have no say, I'm not your psychiatrist. I comment on the situation that you described, that's all.

by cname 11y ago

aninhumer 11y ago

I think you're overreacting quite substantially here. They used the word "problematic" once, and you're calling that "responding with insults and criticism". Also no one mentioned anything about anyone being non-neurotypical before you.

gkya 11y ago
Well, I may have used that word mistakenly. I meant "source of the problem". If that's an insult, then there are no other in my comments, I do actively refrain from insulting both online and in person. As for criticism, yes, my comment is a criticism, and tries to be a constructive one. I spot the problem, I suggest a solution, I may well be mistaken, but there are no insults. And I comment on the situation, not ad hominem.

moistgorilla 11y ago

>Why are you calling someone "problematic" for not being neurotypical? Do you really think that's helpful? I'm sorry but this is a huge overreaction. The op clearly stated he had a problem with talking to people because of their vagueness implying that the other person was "problematic". By stating the op is problematic instead of the "normal" person he is just stating that he is the source of the problem, not the normal person. Anyway, there's a slight irony considering we are talking about people taking words to literally.

ianamartin 11y ago

@moistgorilla: nothing I said came anywhere close to implying that I think other people are problematic. Read the words. Especially the ones where I specifically indicated that I come from many backgrounds that value specificity so highly. I said that communication is a problem between me and people who have different backgrounds. Not one single thing about that statement implies that I think it's other people who are problematic. In fact, a two-sided situation can be problematic without either individual side actually being problematic. And in realistic terms, sometimes situations arise that are completely okay, even though both sides are equally problematic. @aninhumer, it was an insulting use of the word, and I took it as both a misreading of my words and and intentions as well as a personal attack. So I don't think cname was overreacting. @gkya, I think you are putting some very severe and artificial constraints on the purpose and definition of language. In my opinion language is quite a lot more than a tool for communication. It is, for some examples, a means of mis-communication (sarcasm), a way to communicate nothing (some types of modern abstract poetry), or even a way to talk about itself in ways that no one can possibly understand, i.e. anti-communication (literary criticism comes to minds here.) But in all seriousness, language can be a lot of different things at different time, just the same way that sometimes paint is just a tool to protect your house from the weather but other times paint is used to creat a work of art. Music works the same way. Sometimes music is just there as a tool the department store is using to psychologically induce you to buy more things and get out faster. Sometimes music is used to create some of the greatest and most meaningful works of art mankind has ever seen. Any medium that can be used as "a tool for communication" can be used as something else entirely. And it doesn't necessarily involve communication. In my opinion, your comment was the least likely interpretation of what I said about my ability to interact with other people. You might want to try reading what I wrote again because, as I mention in my post, I tend to be quite specific about what I say. In case I need to clarify that, when either speaking or writing, I do my best to make sure that no one needs to try to infer anything from what I say. This is the last I will say on this thread. I didn't mean for it to be about me. I meant to affirm the thoughts and fears of the original article and to add my own thoughts and perspective because the article resonated with me. That's all.

gkya 11y ago
On your responses to @moistgorilla and @aninhumer: You refer o a problem between you and some others, and I say in my comment that you are the source of such problem. I did not have an intent of insult or personal attack, I'm sorry. Follows a refutation of your response to me. Firstly, you drew a profile, publically, of someone who is so pedantic that they couldn't interact with other people, and I commented on such profile, which incidentally happened to be yours. If you do not want comments on your character, why write about it on HN? And by answering you, I answered you and other people like you, thus commented on the situation itself, rather than your personal phenomenon. I don't know you, I wouldn't bother to attack your personality. You opened it to discussion, and I stated my ideas about it. Now, on language, the purpose of the language is to communicate some meaning. Sarcasm is used to communicate some meaning to, but the meaning happens to be the opposite of the literal meaning of the words. Even abstract poetry does communicate something. Whether the message is coherent and comprehensible is another discussion. But language _cannot_ be used in a non-communicating manner. You stated that you avoid social interaction because of others' ambiguous use of language. And I answered you mistake contexts and registers of language. I may have used the word problematic mistakenly--and I'm sorry if I did. English is my L2. But I do support my stance on the situation that you share with many others. I had severe social interaction problems, including those like yours, and one needs to admit them and understand that he is the source of the problem to be able to fix oneself. You may want to continue to be asocial, in which case it's your decision, I have no say, I'm not your psychiatrist. I comment on the situation that you described, that's all.