Peanutbjelly

the issue is that this is a lot of assumption on the comment's intention in their response to OP. i feel the emphasis keeps moving back to how they misinterpreted OP, and their failing in doing so. i'm both recognizing their 'failing,' but also suggesting that it is more of an issue on how people are interpreting it as invalid via their own biases and preferences.

not projecting the same preference becomes seen as 'misreading the room,' rather than a valid response for a different type of person. it becomes assumed as intentionally, or definitively 'rude' rather than just a different, and still valid way of responding to the information provided for some people.

i assume nothing negative was meant by it, even if it wasn't the implied commiseration op was looking for, this does not make it suddenly antagonistic. the issue is that so many view it immediately as antagonistic or 'wrong,' where it could have been entirely valid were i OP, and saying the same thing as OP. we all have many blindspots, and some things aren't always salient.

if you experience this reaction every time society sees that you interpreted things differently, you get a bunch of autistic people (or other groups in preference/experiential minority) hating life. this is also indicative of many other communication failures due to excess fitting towards homogeneity and unconsciously creating social rules to keep things simple and energy free. if you are a surprising element, you get chastised for making others expend energy interpreting your model, because you haven't successfully been beaten into being less noticeable, even if it completely denies your lived reality. see gay conversion therapy/ABA (same source) for how that tactic is often applied.

not to escalate, but a constant barrage of these experiences, often without such context being given, leads to many otherwise well-adjusted autistic people hating life, and opting out enitrely. this is why i feel compelled to promote understanding of the different styles of interpretation. i don't want to lose any more friends.

many autistic people are already trying, but the communication failure isn't just on their side of the interaction. but it's easier to tar and feather the person as an easy pariah than to try and consider how the perspective may have had intention less as a slight, and more as a valid recommendation for those who have a different dialect for interpretating "...see a movie."

i suggest looking up any autistic experiences, because a lot boil down to trauma of escalated antagonism just for existing and not already having the exact preferences of others, which makes predicting them impossible without a doctorate in non-autistic preference modelling, and writing that over your whole existence any time you interact with the public.

also understanding the double empathy problem can help with many other communication difficulties in non homogeneous groups

makes sense. i'm coming to see how people do this, but it's still baffling to me. by 'this' i mean socially affirming each-other, rather than trying to interact with the issue in any way. not just as preferred, but as a forced exclusive.

~~also legitimately sorry that i can't compress the whole picture to a quick quip.~~

but what i meant by my comment was as much asserting that the comment being downvoted to oblivion was possibly more misinterpreted in intent and meaning than their own interaction with OP's meme.

~~i see it as low dimensional communication exacerbating the size of blindspots for the whole of what is being communicated,, because everyone is trying to reduce the energy consumption of language by socially affirming heuristics built on salient preference. this can be mapped to first principles from friston's free energy principle, into active inference. MITpress has a good textbook for it, although there's been a lot of new work since then. those who don't naturally share that preference become 'wrong' for communicating what they could interpret without having that same importance given tothings they might not think about, like social ego stroking over just interacting with the concept sans ego.~~

more commonly, people are becoming familiar with the 'double empathy problem' basically a context and language equivalent to yelling at the autistic kid for not making levels of eye contact that they find painfully intimate and uncomfortable. yes, the local community can think eye contact is 'just having basic manners' or 'just being a decent person,' but forcing them to do it, and creating a majority salient confirmation bubble chastising them for not doing it constantly and confidently is salt in the wound.

again, thank you for reading this far if you has. none of this is accusatory towards anyone, just an honest attempt at noting current popular communication failures and how to frame them.

the double empathy problem also applies to most predictive models projecting in differently socialized spaces. it's good for people to comprehend.

As an autistic person who sees information sharing as more valid and respectable than affirming possible ignorant perspectives for the sake of obtuse social saliency, all I see is a fact and a valid question.

Also valid advice for those with money. If you can save money from a theater ticket to another Disney slop live action remake, and donate that money to independent artists trying to survive and simultaneously have a voice despite the Disney/warner types stranglehold over sellable cinema for most public spaces.

People get so upset when anything questions their current trajectory, rather than saying "oh yeah, that's a valid perspective to avoid the issue in context."

And gets a lot of autistic people yelled at for doing their job or trying to help, IMO.

Is there a reason the advice and question aren't valid? To me the only rudeness here is in the framing of the rebuke.

This isn't trying to one up anyone, this is an attempt to communicate, and improve people's ability to communicate.

I've even seen doctors excuse bullying of autistic children because the child joined discussion of test scores without pandering to the ego of people that were socially affirming how terrible the test must be, due to their performance.

At this point people need to start trying to understand the double empathy problem, because it's valid for more cases of communication differences than just autism.

Thank you for reading!

Autistic gay man here. You are absolutely right about certain important issues being neglected, especially now, although there's a few important general complications about common narratives on the subject.

Part of it is how hard guys have been shut down when trying to help those in need.

A big part is intentionally divisive propaganda, which is more commonplace than people realize. How BLM and antifa got quickly painted as antagonistic and evil. valid attempts to deal with men's issues also got slandered until all the progressives left the space, or killed themselves, like the guy who was trying to create Canada's first men's shelter after surviving abuse.

Those trying to address the division and promote cooperation with feminism were met with incredulity, and images of severed penises, because of the narrative was that there could be no valid men's issues.

Many years and dead friends later, I'm still getting banned from most spaces for just trying to talk about communication issues and how minority groups are affected by social constructs of reciprocal division.

Keep in mind, no group is perfectly homogenous. TERFS exist and are a problem, but we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and renounce all of feminism due to the anti trans idiots. If feminism was younger and smaller, I'm sure propagandists would try that to increase hate for feminism, freeing abandoned feminist spaces for bad actors, like how incels took over completely once the good actors and progressives gave up on men's spaces due to slander and demoralization. Note that much of the aggression experienced by both sides is fabricated via third party. I've seen entire media groups come and go, doing nothing but spreading misinformation about anything divisive, up to and including the hillary emails, the science surrounding the reality of trans people, and there are articles about how the black community is propaganda target #1.

Weirdly, atheists also got a lot of targeted heat back then from these same propagandists, usually for actively fighting the growing cults that fed what MAGA became. the same christo fascists are now using lies about furries as an excuse to defund schools and keep the cycle of ignorance going. Heritage foundations and other well funded anti progressive establishments have been working hard keeping progressives attacking each other, and not finding solidarity in any capacity. Even just general anti circumcision sentiment got turned into "us vs them." because you can't be generally against baby genial mutilation without also being an incel equivalent, etc. Because the religious right to cut babies somehow became necessary for protecting feminism? This is what happens when social vibes take over actual communication, fueled by oligarch funded targeted aggression, snowballing into recursive justified grievances dissolving any pretense of solidarity between progressives.

Personally I just want everyone free from suffering, and for humanity to find solidarity and compassion, and to learn how to communicate.

This continues to be extremely unpopular.

Bayesian analysis of complex intelligent systems via friston's free energy principle and active inference? Or machine learning?

Personally love the stuff circling Michael Levin at tufts university. I could also imagine there's a lot of unique model building in different biological/ecological niches.

read it more as a commentary on passive learning over hands on and thought provoking methods. although this rhetoric is likely often included in the anti academic opinions that seek to damage rather than improve schools, which you refer to.

I wish the Conservatives all understood that their more progressive values are progressive, and when right wing parties will say they are going to 'change' things, they just mean regress and destroy in abject ignorance of any actual thought.

The former interpretation of the comic is definitely important, as learning is actually tied to turning your brain on and interacting with the concept, more than no context single fact retrievals, where most of the question is set up, and your actual interaction with it is minimal.

Although I don't doubt a lack of teachers, schools, or general funding are to blame for the simpler methods. Not that I haven't had a couple teachers who didn't care two cents past the booklets they handed you.

So, your point is valid and important, but there is an important "style" of education issues that is also valid.

Be wary of divisive rhetoric. They drum up legitimate grievance on every side and then, pretending to be every side, start pointing fingers.

Like a reverberating snowball that prevents actual communication and gets their enemies working for them, usually due to a semantic or experiential difference between groups. This creates targets who in defending themselves are confused with the actual enemies using defensive or questioning rhetoric to obfuscate.

Wish there were proper places to cooperatively map and respond to these divisive manipulations.

Most attempts get astroturfed using semantic drift to drum up more division, preventing any development.

Same thing happened to discredit BLM, which was the largest target for Russian propaganda. Etc

i think it's a framing issue, and AI development is catching a lot of flak for the general failures of our current socio-economic hierarchy. also people having been shouting "super intelligence or bust" for decades now. i just keep watching it get better much more quickly than most people's estimates, and understand the implications of it. i do appreciate discouraging idiot business people from shunting AI into everything that doesn't need it, because buzzword or they can use it to exploit something. some likely just used it as an excuse to fire people, but again, that's not actually the AI's fault. that is this shitty system. i guess my issue is people keep framing this as "AI bad" instead of "corpos bad"

if the loom was never invented, we would still live in an oppressive society sliding towards fascism. people tend to miss the forest for the trees when looking at tech tools politically. also people are blind to the environment, which is often more important than the thing itself. and the loom is still useful.

compression and polysemy growing your dimensions of understanding in a high dimensional environment, which is also changing shape, comprehension growing with the erasure of your blindspots. collective intelligence (and how diversity helps cover more blindspots) predictive processing (and how we should embrace lack of confidence, but understand the strength of proper weighting for predictions, even when a single blindspot can shift the entire landscape, making no framework flawless or perfectly reliable.) and understanding how everything we know is just the best map of the territory we've figured out so far. if you want to know judge how subtle but in our face blindspots can be, look up how to test your literal blindspot, you just need 30 seconds a paper with two small dots to see how blind we are to our blindspots. etc.

more than fighting the new tools we can use, we need to claim them, and the rest of the world, away from those who ensure that all tools will only exist to exploit us.

am i shouting to the void? wasting the breath of my digits? will humanity ever learn to stop acting like dumb angry monkeys?

let's make another article completely misrepresenting opinions/trajectories and the general state of things, because we know it'll sell and it will get the ignorant fighting with those who actually have an idea of what's going on, because they saw in an article that AI was eating the pets.

please seek media sources that actually seek to inform rather than provoke or instigate confusion or division through misrepresentation and disinformation.

these days you can't even try to fix a category error introduced by the media without getting cussed out and blocked from congregate sites because you 'support the evil thing' that the article said was evil, and everyone in the group hates, without even an attempt to understand the context, or what part of the thing is even being discussed.

also, can we talk more about breaking up the big companies so they don't have a hold on the technology, rather than getting mad at everyone who interacts with modern technology?

legit ss bad feels like fighting rightwing misinformation about migrant workers and trans people.

just make people mad, and teach them that communication is a waste of energy.
we need to learn how to tell who is informing rather than obfuscating, through historicity of accuracy, and consensus with other experts from diverse perspectives. not building tribes upon who agrees with us. and don't blame experts for not also learning how to apply a novel and virtually impossible level of compression when explaining their complex expertise, when you don't even want to learn a word or concept. it's like being asked to describe how cameras work, and then getting called an idiot when some analogy used can be imagined in a less useful context that doesn't apply 1:1 with the complex subject being summarized.

outside of that, find better sources of information. fuck this communication disabling ragebait.

cause now just having a history of rebuking this garbage gets you dismissed, because a history of interacting with the topic on this platform is a good enough vibe check to just not attempt understanding and interaction.

TLDR: the quality of the articles and conversation on this subject are so generally ill-informed that it hurts, and obviously trying to craft environments of angry engagement rather than informing.

also i wonder if anyone will actually engage with this topic rather than get angry, cuss me out, and not hear a single thing being communicated.