Author |
Topic |
|
|
cevans  Administrator
United States
557 Posts |
|
|
piratecat
 Forum Newbie
United Kingdom
7 Posts |
 Posted - 04/16/2012 : 19:28:46 
|
Well it seems like you discussed just about every question posted here except mine. In the intro, you say: "He'd like to tackle common (widely found) issues affecting folks with autism that are generally not covered in his texts. You've got nothing to lose and possible insights to gain. Ask away!"
I asked about something that other people obviously also experience (because they said so in the thread); and is not covered in the other videos or in Dr. Attwell's books (I've watched and read them). And yet you did not deal with it. So if there is some other criterion for selecting or not selecting questions, why don't you tell us what it is? Then I wouldn't waste my time asking for help when it is clearly not going to be forthcoming.
I would understand if you said you can't discuss everything, except that you obviously make exceptions, because your intro says that you will deal with 4-5 each month, and you dealt with many more than that. More lies.
I am used to being ignored and laughed at and lied to and not having my questions answered in real life. I thought this was supposed to be a place where people could get support and help, not somewhere where there are yet more unwritten rules and in-crowds.
You say there is nothing to lose by asking; well, I have lost plenty - now I feel stupid for posting, and for trusting this forum. If you want people to "thrive," why don't you start by being honest with them?
|
 |
|
|
Inkspot
 Forum Newbie
Canada
42 Posts |
|
|
cevans
Administrator
United States
557 Posts |
|
|
Ivo
 Forum Newbie
45 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2012 : 00:55:36
|
I would have replied by private message but you have that function disabled. I wondered if I should post this at all but I think I should. I do not intend this harshly and if you want to discuss this further with me feel free to do it either by personal message (I have it enabled) or publicly here.
For the record I'd like to state that I think your question was an interesting question and am looking forward for an eventual answer to it. Please don't take my reply personally (as I believe you took the fact your question wasn't answered personally and you shouldn't have) and I think it would be great if your outlook on this forum improves, and you post many good questions in the future.
quote:
Well it seems like you discussed just about every question posted here except mine.
I am not disputing it may seem that way to you, but this is quite incorrect.
In addition to yours there were questions about:
selective mutism
over-apologising
a problem Aspie / Aspie relationship (I was very surprised this wasn't addressed)
Aspies discussing with others (my question)
a more detailed definition of the condition regarding IQ etc.
about substance abuse
re-testing kids
self therapy
sterilization and birth control
domestic abuse (great question that I think is being saved for the relationships special)
disclosure
found out late in life
That is just counting since the December session, if you go back you can find several unanswered questions. I'm not saying all of those should have been addressed (some of them are repeat questions etc.) but there are at least some in there that one can really wonder why they were not answered. So it really is not like you are being specially discriminated against even if it feels that way.
quote:
and is not covered in the other videos or in Dr. Attwood's books (I've watched and read them).
But your question IS indeed covered and in particular the reply to "Is this a typical Aspie thing?" is simply "yes".
Also, I'm making an educated guess that your answer will/would be something like try to rely on some routine and/or previously having a check-list of what you need to do before getting out.
Even though as I wrote I do consider your question to be good and I expect Dr. T. to give a great answer to it, it is somewhat of a common issue - you can look for information on executive functioning. Check for example page 234 (what a nice number) of the English version of "The Complete Guide (...)" by Dr. T.
This does not mean that a very specific reply to your question of what to do to help wouldn't be welcomed and it does not preclude it from being answered, as I've seen answers that I believe can be found in the books or even previous videos (if you want I can give examples).
quote:
So if there is some other criterion for selecting or not selecting questions, why don't you tell us what it is? Then I wouldn't waste my time asking for help when it is clearly not going to be forthcoming.
I think I can relate as I often wonder (and in fact once privately asked Craig, as he knows) about why some questions aren't addressed, and conversely as I write above I do see repeat topics getting answered occasionally.
But as you mention waste of time, I would rather Craig and Dr. T. use their limited time answering extra questions over explaining why they didn't answer the others or why they tackled a new variation on one I've seen before. Given the alternative, wouldn't you also prefer that more questions are answered?
quote:
I would understand if you said you can't discuss everything, except that you obviously make exceptions, because your intro says that you will deal with 4-5 each month, and you dealt with many more than that. More lies.
Now up to here I think you had a good post (and you did well to ask about it, as apparently it was a clerical error by Craig according to his post).
But you are taking things way too personally and in my opinion crossed a line here, in particular with your accusation that they are lying. I consider those to be very harsh words.
It is apparent that they can't discuss everything, and they even stated that in the video of the December session (which you must have watched from what you wrote?). I don't think they should state that every single video.
You wrote they obviously make exceptions - I'm not sure what you mean here? I believe they haven't answered all questions for several sessions now (I don't remember if the early ones from 2009 or so they managed, but they may have).
If you are referring to whenever they deal with more questions than say 5 per month, I think one should feel thankful when that actually happens - they are doing this in their free time and not getting that much out of it for themselves (you can point out they get some publicity), and as far as I know Craig funds the equipment used out of his own money without external support.
You should also note that in this session they addressed a total of 10 posts - I'll be generous and count the ones with multiple questions: one of the posts had 2 related questions and another as 3 (correct me if I am wrong). So I would say 13 questions tops. Now, since the previous session was December and this session is April, that is four months. 4*4=16. So if anything they are UNDER their claim, not OVER it. Which is understandable as Dr. T. is very busy and I'm very thankful that they do this in the first place.
I also think that Craig doesn't intend that tag line as a factual, 100% accurate benchmark, but I understand how it can be misleading (so Craig, given the target audience, consider editing it perhaps).
Most importantly, they make no promises of answering every single question so they certainly aren't lying!
quote:
I am used to being ignored and laughed at and lied to and not having my questions answered in real life. I thought this was supposed to be a place where people could get support and help, not somewhere where there are yet more unwritten rules and in-crowds.
People are getting support and help. You mentioned that you've seen previous videos. I would hope that at least somewhere in those many minutes you've found something helpful as well. If not, it is too bad that you apparently did not so far, but I suggest you don't give up.
Also, I would like to ask just who do you feel is the in-crowd here, if any?
There are regular posters, but I don't think regular posters get much (if any) preference in getting their questions answered. There are some posters who had more than one question answered in total, but I believe this is because they tend to post good questions rather than because they are the "in-crowd". I can also provide some examples of unanswered questions of regular posters, if you want me to (or look at the unanswered list above and you can find some yourself just for this session).
quote:
You say there is nothing to lose by asking; well, I have lost plenty - now I feel stupid for posting, and for trusting this forum. If you want people to "thrive," why don't you start by being honest with them?
I agree that you lose at least time by posting, but this is perhaps a typical example of literalness in your interpretation of "nothing to lose" (but Craig, given the target audience I do suggest altering that tag line - then again Dr. T.'s book is also named "Complete" which can't be 100% literal and must annoy some Aspies as well).
If you are being literal then you should be consistent in doing so - in the rest of the sentence there is "and possible insights to gain". "Possible" is not the same as "guaranteed". I really don't see how you can blame anyone for feeling stupid for posting, even if your question was not answered. Incidentally, you shouldn't feel stupid for asking questions, particularly when they are good questions as yours was (note that others even posted on your thread).
I haven't seen any mockery of you or your question at all and for some reason you feel you lost plenty (more than time) and reached for accusations of dishonesty!
Finally, Craig was kind in explaining what may have happened in this case and even apologised, even though I feel you had quite harsh words for him in your own post.
A tricky part of the forum system being used is that you can't sort by the time stamp of the original post - so edits or the last post on the thread move things around. I can imagine with this system, keeping track of a question thread that got replies (such as yours did) also when the thread of the previous session is receiving posts and getting a new time stamp can lead to errors.
So please consider sticking around and asking other good questions in the future!
Regards,
Ivo. |
Edited by - Ivo on 04/22/2012 02:59:17 |
|
|
|
cevans
Administrator
United States
557 Posts |
|
|
cevans
Administrator
United States
557 Posts |
|
|
piratecat
Forum Newbie
United Kingdom
7 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2012 : 18:55:29
|
It seems as if my post has caused some offence or anger or something; that wasn't the intention, so I am sorry if it has been the result.
I wasn't trying to criticise anyone or suggest some kind of conspiracy or malice, I was simply asking for the criteria to be clarified. I was trying to make sense of what happened, because the outcome was not what I expected, nor what (I think) I could reasonably have expected, given what the site says.
Perhaps I am living on some other planet from everybody else, but I think that when somebody says one thing then does something different, that makes their statement untrue, and an untrue statement is called a lie. That is not me being "harsh" or making "accusations" - it is simply a statement of fact. There was no value judgement implied.
I don't see how it is relevant if the number of questions answered is under or over the claim; the point is that the claim is untrue. I am not arguing for more or for less than 4-5 answers a month (we can have one a year or five hundred a minute, I'm not fussed), I am simply saying that if we are told there will be 4-5 answers a month, then there should be 4-5 answers a month. If not, then the statement is a lie, and people are being misled in their expectations.
I simply do not understand what it means when people say that I should not "take things personally." I am a person, and the only way I can experience anything or be affected by anything is, therefore, personally. I am not stupid, naive or arrogant enough to believe that whenever things don't go my way, there must be an intentional conspiracy to hurt me; but if I am upset by something, I cannot do anything other than experience it personally.
It's slightly galling to be told on this forum that I am being "too literal" or that I "need to read between the lines." Funnily enough, I am a literal thinker, and I am not very good at reading between the lines. It kind of goes with the territory.
Having said all of that, I should probably add - to my own shame and condemnation - that when I wrote the post, I was one step away from meltdown, and maybe I didn't express myself as cogently as I might have done. I suppose I just hoped somebody here might understand how that feels, but I guess not.
|
|
|
|
cevans
Administrator
United States
557 Posts |
|
|
Ivo
Forum Newbie
45 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2012 : 02:04:44
|
Hi piratecat. I was concerned my own post might be taken as harsh, which wasn't my intention.
It was nice that Craig explained criteria that make some questions not be addressed, which I think would be good to put on a "Ask Dr. Tony FAQ" and kept at the top so new members are more aware of them.
quote:
(...) an untrue statement is called a lie. That is not me being "harsh" or making "accusations" - it is simply a statement of fact.
I particularly appreciate this clarification, from which I identify that we have a semantic disagreement. To me, an untrue statement may or may not be a lie. I understand the definition of "lie" to imply intention to deceive (I think this is the most common definition used, but I don't think the definition you use is incorrect). When you labelled the incorrect statements as lies, I interpreted this as accusations of intention to deceive and felt you were being unjust as I believe there was no such intention by Craig. This was mostly what compelled me to post a response.
In case you are interested, here is some philosophy on definitions:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/l...n/#AltDefLyi
Beyond the issue with semantic definitions, I think I partially understood you as I too wonder about some questions not getting addressed.
You really appeared to be taking things really personal and had several factual errors I felt could be pointed out (which I did), but I basically agreed with you: as I wrote originally, given a significant amount of the target audience will be similarly literal I really think that Craig should revise the description used to avoid misunderstandings.
quote:
It's slightly galling to be told on this forum that I am being "too literal" or that I "need to read between the lines." Funnily enough, I am a literal thinker, and I am not very good at reading between the lines. It kind of goes with the territory.
1. I think you are misinterpreting something, as I did not write you were too literal. I spotted you were being literal and stated that I doubted Craig had meant it that way. I personally think being literal is a quality, not a flaw.
My actual criticism was that you were not being consistent as you had apparently not applied the same literalness to "possible" in the statement, so you could even say my criticism was that you were not being literal enough!
2. On "needing" to read between the lines, this is not limited to Ask Dr. Tony: if you read books on the topic they will very rarely apply directly to your specific personal circumstances, yet they probably contain useful knowledge - but some amount of generalisation is a requirement for effectively using previous knowledge, in some cases more than others.
In any case, this is probably a reason for why they revisit certain important topics (a recent example is grieving, which was about half of a question in this 2012_04 session and explicitly covered in both the 2011_12 and the 2011_07 sessions).
Do you have any suggestions on how to help make this type of knowledge easier to access without generalisation?
Ivo.
|
|
|
|
POCX100
 Forum Newbie
3 Posts |
|
|
POCX100
Forum Newbie
3 Posts |
|
|
cevans
Administrator
United States
557 Posts |
|
|
cevans
Administrator
United States
557 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
Ask Dr. Tony - April 2012
