s-shellfish

Of course it's a big deal. I never disagreed with that to begin with. Some people understand ostracism. That's why they don't do the things that cause ostracism.

This is very a good depiction of a Markov chain. However, it's always a coin flip on your emotions to anthropomorphize math.

Pronouns.

I imagine people are just trying to help.

This is very good advice. However, healing will always take time and experience.

Maybe just trying to attract a certain type of person who wants to get out of a job they find crushing.

A job can be seen as crushing or a team effort. Einstein wasn't an island.

Mitch Hedberg is much more similar to programmer/hacker humor IMO. Puns, jargon, word play, grammatical structure, lots of modification to simple statements for comedy. That creates a different kind of overarching structural complexity. I find that much more funny than traditional comedy, because it's my flavor of clever. Many elements of Shakespeare minus the explicit narrative.

It's easier to see it as 'if I attack you, you attack me'. Because if not now, eventually.

Just write them down if you consider them of great importance. Cite. History repeats itself.

Can't control how every system gets managed.

Deleting or not deleting, I dunno.

I started talking on the internet when I was 9. I've always had to live with the paranoia of my data following me around everywhere. Because it does, it could exist somewhere, even if I delete it. Who sees it? The people that matter (other technology folks, since that's where I've directed my career towards), or the rest of the world?

At the end of the day, my feelings are this. Everyone has issues. Everyone looks brilliant sometimes, and dumb other times. Everyone makes mistakes, some are better at hiding them than others, but that doesn't mean anyone is perfect.

It's easier to just not judge. Don't let others past drag behind them, don't use their past against them. Because, it's a mental prison you either force yourself in, or force others in. The way you treat the world either is the way you see the world, or it becomes the way you see the world.

Also, all those mistakes can add up to something great. Error seeking mentality can turn into error prone mentality. It's important to have tolerance for yourself, and others.

This is the direction everything went in. Collect as much data as possible. Inferences can be blinding. Of course it's going to affect people.

> I like the focus on loneliness, I hate the focus on disorders.

Again though, that's you, your understanding. This is always the problem with psychology. Projecting all the information you've ever encountered through your understanding of yourself and through your understanding of others, onto others.

Disorders suck, yes. It's not always just loneliness in a physical presence sense. Sometimes it's intellectual/emotional loneliness.

> I don't think half of the people who think they're on the autism spectrum are anywhere close to it.

We are what we make of ourselves. You might not know the reason someone would prefer identifying with autism. But again, that comes down to how you observe information on the outside, versus an how an individual has understood their own self internally, in a stable sense, their entire life.

Intellectual loneliness, only seeing a singular connection between sets of information people externalize. One singular one that matches with everything. And then, trying to have one's own sense of self, instead of having to perpetually match with every person intellectually, to keep their own perspective maintained, validated.

> All of this ignores, of course, the entire neuroscience literature on this topic, which identified e.g. differences in synaptic density in people with ASD; though perhaps the increased value of non-social things comes from more circuits doing epistemic computation, but I'm just shooting in the dark really…

Do you have any links to any articles?

From the research I've read, PhD students in the field (was lucky to meet and talk to a few at other mental health care centers), a lot of the research on mental health care is focused on GABA.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1471-4159....

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/343/6171/675

https://academic.oup.com/ijnp/article/16/6/1309/753308

This seems relevant, but likewise, shooting in the dark:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2013.0005...

I also used to be an artist (am planning phase from art theory / music theory / mental abstractions / code influences / painting) to computer, mind, code, pure computational proof, etc.

I have to have my mind organised very precisely for this, that's something I have to accept as fact for stable mental trends.

But I am putting my email address in my profile if you want someone to get in touch with about art. I have been identified by others as an artist for much of my life, I have put a ton of work into it and I have created a lot of art. I have a lot of beliefs about art. Bounce ideas, etc.

Replying too frequently puts a timer on your reply. This can either be good to learn impulse control with explaining or to control heated argumentation.

For problems that lead to identification of other problems, taking notes is useful. Mentally imagine setting aside each problem to maintain focus on one at a time.

I understand the compulsive mentality where it feels like you created a problem and you need to fix it, where the steps leading to the solution of the problem lead to identification of other problems.

Any way of recording each one to maintain focus on solving one at a time is useful.

Finding connections, patterns. Decision problems.

I understand sort of the transition word, but more like, 'trend' or 'direction' or 'flow'. I tend to analyze my own behavior to meticulous detail, and correct, over and over.

I don't know. I went to school for engineering for 4 years, I did some engineering design courses, but I identify as a computer scientist and software developer.

Software engineering is where you do 80% now assuming that 20% will turn into another 80% for yourself or someone else in the future. I talked to my stepdad today about 80/20 philosophy.

Always trying to solve your problems mostly yourself.

Shortcut is trust others, but be selective. Of critical importance.

I don't know what you mean by transitions, but that's fine. I have my own words too.

My former PhD advisor said lots of exercise, adequate sleep, and good eating are of supreme importance.

Otherwise, whatever you want to do, bind yourself to that.

Sleep deficits add up. Think conservatively about your mind.

Last I checked (DSM), BPD is borderline personality disorder. Bipolar is manic depression. These are two different diagnosis.

Borderline is characterized by the chaotic trends of emotional disregulation. Manic depression goes in predictable cycles.

Ability to create stable mental framework.

I read something about autism being processing information removed from 'self'.

I have interest in some people I trust. But 'mind' and 'thought' are generally very fluid. That's just a fact from seeing connections in how minds think - being able to see the connection that creates their connection.

Always have to be delicate with it.

Epistomology is interesting. Predictive, I'm always more comfortable relegating this to machines - is the problem decidable or not. Obviously computer programs implicitly affect people. Cognitive overload because, chaos. Can't predict everything beyond the predefined context.

Math is always perfect. Contained system with rules that define it's behavior.

I understand you are saying things in an overly mutually exclusive way, but for me, if I deeply identify with something, it's hard to understand where you are coming from, because I don't know.

From what I recall, Ramanujan considered math a compulsion. Obsession, it's something that binds everything together. I believe math is discovered, not invented. It has to be, implicitly. Models come from reality.

I can't imagine enjoyment of social systemization. I imagine life long positive experiences would lead to enjoyment. If it's an illness (BPD), suggesting there's enjoyment indicates belief that the intent of the sufferer is malicious. I don't believe this is the case. A disorder comes from negative experiences. BPD is then, always trying to find the right rules to solve the problem. The problem becomes recurrent when the sufferer is identified as the source of the problem, or the sufferer believes they are both cause (and supposed solution) to the problem, but both cause and solution are fundamentally defined in a way the sufferer does not have any control over defining. Therefore, issues predicting, mapping traumatic experiences onto present stable environments.

Problem solving mentality for growth, escape from the negative. It's a compulsion, not an enjoyment to obsess. It's a compulsion to correct everything so everything is stable.

Talking...

I've personally had both since birth. Obsession with machines and computation, that understanding maps over to understanding social systems.

I don't like it when it maps over to social systems. Everything gets shifted. Easier to be a coder, focus on machines, focus on words, symbols, patterns in symbols.

Math, math is the bridge between both. Isomorphic. Systems are mental graphs of static points of observation anticipated to be stable/ predictable and arrows indicating direction and flow.

As a female I really don't like gender binaries. Women generally, sure, but that's culture - cultural expectations.

That makes sense. More social stability, monotony.

That's a comforting thing.

IT systems are just systems that are predictable within some range of expected behavior without extreme variation, or if there is extreme variation, it's fun (usually).

This isn't strange at all (at least to me). I've been misdiagnosed as bpd in facilities that were socially chaotic. People who diagnosed me were also selectively biased to what information about me was indicative of past, present and expected behavior. It was a very traumatizing experience and the sad thing is this happens frequently in mental health care across the US to autistic individuals.

I can understand emotions in a systemized way but it requires watching patterns of every individual I interact with to learn. It also is very scary because I don't want to get to know anyone so well I accidentally mistake deep insecurities for topics to attempt polite conversation over. Thus, highly selective with individuals and how many (too many is cognitively overloading, but I've adapted fairly well on my own (somehow)) at my job, which - I'm a software developer, so although I'm not surrounded by people who have autism, I am surrounded by people who have a greater tolerance and higher sensitivity to neourological diversity.

I'm female. My mom dresses me mostly (most of my clothes are her old clothes). She's a beautician. I'm 32. Mental health care is annoying because of course BPD diagnosis has historically been highly likely, due to superficial snap judgements based on appearance. I had a coworker tell me flatly that appearances don't matter and this was very liberating. I continue to work on managing to communicate myself perfectly - great irony anticipating peculiar usage of language. Pedantry, always want to make sure the words I use are internally definitely correctly therefore used correctly (but I've been able to simplify the importance of this down to business logic definitions and computer science / programming languages / software definitions).

I am hoping I find an autism therapist that can actually help me in real life. At least with venturing out outside of working hours to create some semblance of a social life.

Systemizing is pattern matching. It's always hard when 2 people's patterns don't match perfectly. Calling it a willingness to work together or understand one another is so oversimplified with respect to the delicate balance process of developing relationships, it's not even funny.

Preference, socializing. I would say I have high preference to socialize where I have trust for both my expected pattern of behavior and people I trust - that their pattern of behavior will be relatively stable and neither myself nor they will be hurtful in any way. It never matters if it's one person or a group. Emotions run through people in groups in the same systematic way they do in individuals. Being perfectly calm all the time or just flat affect to stabilize groups that have related themselves to me in some unknown variant is really hard, and looping group behavior of 'i have an emotional outburst' - implies -> the group does generally, this drives me crazy because I can always relate it to myself therefore blame myself internally.

BPD is the same pattern mentality assuming that diagnosis was correct at one point of me (again, relative to social environment), no ability to communicate self because people have their theories they depend on for their survival (hostile healthcare centers) or control it (this is taken as hostile behavior in such places, even though the control element is really only intended to control myself and my emotions, not anyone else). Stuck in between contradictory social environments with established rules (that may contradict or conflict), either deeply ingrained behavior from the past with new context, or multiple conflicting social environments. It's a stigmatized illness. BPD is not being able to keep up with all of them, or not being able to generate/interpret rules quickly enough to manage self behavior in all, possibily unchosen social environments.

I would never want to go back into the hell that gets me labeled as BPD because it's one of the worst labels to carry. There's always the expectation that "I'm the bad one" that gets carried with the diagnosis. But mental illness labels in general, always seem pointless to me in the long term. Can always explain them all (except ASPD, that's intent to cause harm) in terms of individual behavior relative to social environmental expectations and judgements. This can all be systemized. This is probably why I get labeled as a hostile element in so called 'cattle mental health centers' (phrase comes from a PsyD I saw). Intent is never to cause harm. Everything just often turns into patterns, or systems, to me, I'd prefer to see it as a gift, not a curse. Hard rules to not systemize individuals are of supreme importance.

Most men aren't psychopaths, but a small fraction are. Perceiving all men as such even if there's a low chance of it actually happening...

> I literally cannot understand the point you are making.

You kept insulting me. Why would I try to make a clear point?

First, this is hypothetical.

> What will you do with this information?

If I was in the position of a researcher, I would talk to people it affects directly or try to communicate my awareness to people who are in a similar interdisciplinary dilemma who can then communicate their awareness to people who are 'on the ground' such that the problems both researchers have awareness of can be identified and then resolved in real life. The point is progress, one direction that moves forwards, not backwards or cycles. Obviously this can be a state of mind one can choose to see or ignore - see the cycles only or notice the differences with positive improvement universally in mind. But I'm one person, stuff like this will always be is a group effort.

> So at best its useless, and at worst it serves to fuel the imaginations of those who would use it for evil.

Group effort, squish evil. Evil is not something I know how to identify though, that's always been the dilemma. The real evil seems to be the thing that actually completely extinguishes your existence entirely, death(?).

> How would this change the course of innovation? The only way I can see is if its used to censor.

I don't think the intent is to censor, I think the intent is to alleviate existing censoring of problems people are aware of but have no way of speaking about.

> Why is a specialist in a specific technology qualified to determine negative societal outcomes of it? Human societies are extremely complex systems and even those specialized in it have poor predictive track records.

Maybe they have some first hand experience that they feel they would be embarrassed, ashamed, or rejected from disclosing that information because the association of being personally identified with a given experience is just something not accepted, presently, professionally. Relegated to therapy, even though, there might be actual problems people have some awareness of. Fear of being implicated as being the cause rather than the solution.

> Why would the press have this power? They've never had such substantial control before. Governments have been able to suppress independent nuclear research in the most extreme case but the laws surrounding that are not exactly proven. If we barely allow our government this power why should we give it wholesale to an unelected press?

It's not power. It's trust. It's saying, researcher talking to reporter, 'hey if we make mistakes, point them out, because we won't always be able to see every error we make, especially when we must work in a system that requires minimal error to be seen as a function of our own approval mechanic.'. Errors in knowledge systems that function off of principles that are resonant of their own structure - that leads to destabilization of structure. There has to be some tolerance for making error, that's give and take, you see me make errors, I don't see myself making them, point them out. That's the trust given to the press. Speak up.

> If we barely allow our government this power why should we give it wholesale to an unelected press?

Bodies that self regulate must regulate one another. Checks and balances.

I don't think I would ever have argued with that.

Mechanical languages though, mechanical systems. Not particularly interested in quantum physics. That breaks things down so much to the point that everything can unfold into a somewhat distorted method of processing your own knowledge. Like trying to understand something from both yourself, and what is not yourself.

Mathematics. Logic. Those things can be accepted at face value. I think that's the closest one can get to complete knowledge. That's my opinion though.

You don't need drugs to have an independent understanding that seems to be nonsensical to others. Just think a lot, mostly alone, think about what everyone says, think about everything you can read and find anywhere, and try to grasp some crystal clear understanding, but by the time you think you have it - gone - trying to explain the process to someone.

Actual studying. I'd say it's next to impossible to have a complete understanding about anything. You can always think you have the full understanding, but that's just very specific to whatever test or goal post designed for you, or you design for yourself.

Bertrand Russell wrote 370 pages of a book to prove 1 + 1 = 2.

Is that coherent enough?

Might want to develop some sensitivity and awareness to never being able to tell the difference between too much studying or not enough studying.

"Real studying". Figure out what it means when you don't have anyone to design tests to check your own knowledge for you.

Bongs. Is it fun to insult people for thinking?

Real studying only means something when you have a teacher and an educational institution. Real world is much harder. You can watch your own understanding loop around itself hundreds of thousands of times. And still not know, do I know anything at all?

How many times do you have to observe something before you accept it as fact. 1 time? 2 times, perhaps once indirectly? 3? Infinite? How many ways can a truth be conveyed, and how many ways can you be made to interpret it so you know the difference between being entrusted with an awareness, or whether you've been manipulated into accepting it.

Socrates, aka "I know that I know nothing", had 3 books written about him. Aristophanes, The Clouds - he was a bumbling fool. Ever think about why he appeared that way to different sets of people?

How is natural philosophy different from moral philosophy?

I'm sure that comes across as a dumb question, but, modernity - technology.

The irony of mathematics being naturally built in, reinforced into all of us, over and over. Computer science.

From wikipedia:

> From the ancient world, starting with Aristotle, to the 19th century, the term "natural philosophy" was the common term used to describe the practice of studying nature. It was in the 19th century that the concept of "science" received its modern shape with new titles emerging such as "biology" and "biologist", "physics" and "physicist" among other technical fields and titles; institutions and communities were founded, and unprecedented applications to and interactions with other aspects of society and culture occurred.[1] Isaac Newton's book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), whose title translates to "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", reflects the then-current use of the words "natural philosophy", akin to "systematic study of nature". Even in the 19th century, a treatise by Lord Kelvin and Peter Guthrie Tait, which helped define much of modern physics, was titled Treatise on Natural Philosophy (1867).

> "systematic study of nature"

And what do we do? What is nature to study? What is life to study?

Our own puzzled face, staring back at us.

That's absolutely not what I was taught it meant, or learned, or came to discover.

It literally looks like anyone can change knowledge, override it, mutate it, destroy it, falsify it.

I don't know why most people get PhDs these days, you are correct. But I know what it used to mean, and I hope it means that one day again, soon.

In the real world you have to jump through hoops no matter what you do. Ignorance to them is stupid.

We live in society, that doesn't make everyone a sociologist. It just means everyone who lives in society should at least devote some portion of their thinking to the contemplation of society, including institutions of education. People in academia are not omnipotently protected from the forces of society. If society doesn't value these institutions, they go away.

The Ph in PhD is important. It really is, and it's idiotic to let that distinction be viewed as something that's just, obsessed with a pedantic, tiny niche of no real consequence.

I've considered myself an autodidact for much of my life. I've also had a great education (MSc, only worked on PhD for one year and left school due to health complications). Comparing these two worlds is hard, but teaching yourself when you can be taught by others is the hard, long, and painful way to learn stuff. And you never know what you know when you only have your own knowledge to trust, checking against everything else, with no real stable, structured, foundational, 'stand on the shoulders of giants' mechanic for the discovery, pursuit, and application of truth / knowledge.

You can have some idea that the individual mind independently can be related to the entire body of academia like it's some metaphor for their functioning as an organizational entity, a super colony of minds that function like one - tested against the rest of the world - but that's oversimplified. Our own puzzled face, staring back at us. We are all part of one big system, but some stuff, distinction really does matter. I don't talk to many people who have PhDs that I know of in real life, just one. He's the only person who seems to really understand the absolute delicate fragility of, and the consequential burden - that comes with the discovery, creation, pursuit, and retention of knowledge, at least that I know of, in real life.

How does that relate to having an extra understanding of sociology, or philosophy? I honestly think my point is built into the experience I am relating, or at least I have to hope I can still convey that much, correctly.

Philosophy should be important to society, and it's a shame when it's not.