Stupid Rules Normal people follow – Part 1 of 5

normal [Note: I’m using the word “normal” in this post. Those who are not normal—myself included—should not take offense; I am using this term in the mathematical sense of “near the mean of a normal distribution,” as in within one standard deviation of the mean; in the context of cognition another word is “neurotypical,” but this is less common and less general, and many people are unfamiliar with its meaning. In the vast majority of possible systems, most will be normal and some will not. It’s nearly inevitable. See also Stupid Rule 4, for our fear of being “abnormal” is very much a Stupid Rule.]

Introduction

A major part of what makes life difficult for those who are rational, especially those on the autism spectrum, (in the interests of full disclosure: I’m on the near end, just shy of Asperger’s Syndrome) is the fact that normal people follow certain rules on most occasions, rules that don’t really make sense—but that we all are expected to follow, because otherwise it forces us to confront issues that we feel more comfortable avoiding. They are all stupid rules, rules that are rationally difficult or impossible to justify; but they are universally present and strongly enforced, and we ignore them only at our own peril. Perhaps we ought to challenge them, find the places to attack them that will most weaken their grip upon humanity—but we cannot be sure to win such a fight, and we certainly cannot simply pretend it is already won.

Stupid Rule 1: Animals and their bodies are dirty—especially when it comes to humans. 

This covers a wide variety of behaviors, from the universal prohibition on nose-picking to the fact that men aren’t supposed to talk at urinals. It’s also why people don’t like to be looked at in the shower, why masturbation is not to be performed in public, why one is expected to chew with the lips closed, and why blood is not an appropriate topic for dinner conversation. Anything that reminds us of our animal nature—bodily substances such as blood, saliva, mucus, entrails, urine, feces, skin, hair; and especially the fundamental forces of animality itself, sex, disease, and death—makes people uncomfortable. Eating is less troublesome, but not completely immune, and hence there are many strange taboos about eating that vary across cultures. (Consider “Don’t put ketchup on your ice cream.” It’s actually more nutritious that way, so if you like the taste, why not? Because that’s not how you do it. It’s a taboo.) Sleeping and breathing appear to be exceptions, perhaps because breathing must be done literally constantly and sleeping is similar enough to “clean,” non-animal phenomena like nightfall and machine shutdown. Sex, disease, and death are also somewhat appealing to us, especially sex, for two reasons: We are, in fact, animals, and we have animal drives built into our brains; and most people find things that are forbidden appealing simply because they are forbidden. These may in fact be mutually-reinforcing phenomena: If sex weren’t forbidden, would the forbidden still be sexy? Even if it would, would it be as sexy as it is now?

The normal behavior is therefore to avoid these topics whenever possible, but when they do come up—usually in private, or with close friends—to laugh and joke about them in order to defuse the tension. If you ever wondered why everyone giggles during sex education, this is why. It’s also why most of the really funny jokes are so-called “dirty jokes,” about sex, disease, and death.

Plants and fungi appear to be largely exempt, which is why it’s “animals” and not “lifeforms.” No one is disgusted or scandalized when we talk about sap, seeds, or spores, but nearly all are when we talk about blood or sperm, even insect blood or horse sperm. Bacteria may also count as “animals” under this rule, or, since people react so strongly to bacteria even when they wouldn’t react to animals, they may be a separate Stupid Rule 1A: Bacteria are really, really dirty. And lest you think this latter is rational: Roughly 99% of all bacteria are harmless to humans, and the dominant species of bacteria on Earth is a strain of E. coli that we and most other mammals absolutely need for survival.

 

Do you think this rule is true?

 

Guest Submitted Post

Guest Submitted Post

Join Autisable and Share Your Story!

0 thoughts on “Stupid Rules Normal people follow – Part 1 of 5

  • July 2, 2010 at 1:09 pm
    Permalink

    @heatherbabes – Nah, it wasn’t boredom. I was just in a phase where I went through the featured weblogs and felt like making comments…usually, I don’t post because I find that it’s a waste of time. I really don’t have a problem with people who have autism or websites about autism. Cancer and autism are, of course, both serious diseases that should be treated with equal importance. I really am sorry that you have both, and I hope you’ll still make the best of it and live a fulfilling life ^^.

    Reply
  • July 1, 2010 at 5:38 pm
    Permalink

    @deadlyelixir@xanga – I took it both with a sense of humor and seriousness (for those that didn’t realize you were just being trollish).

    But I really do wonder what made you want to go trolling in the first place. Where you just bored?

    Reply
  • July 1, 2010 at 1:36 pm
    Permalink

    @heatherbabes – o_O Omg, this is from forever ago. I hope you didn’t take my replies on here seriously, because I was having a bad day and decided to troll on here. Lol. And uhm, I don’t want kids, so…

    Reply
  • July 1, 2010 at 3:38 am
    Permalink

    By the by, I meant to write this about the OP.. great job thinking through these social rules. I like the series. I was thinking of doing something similar but you beat me to it so I’ll just share this instead.

    I’m not sure I agree with your use of the word “stupid” for some of them; but the most of them? Yeah. I think they’re stupid simply because they are not so *obvious* to me as they are to “normal” people as you have it defined here.

    Why do *normal* people engage in intellectual urinary competitions on comment sections anyway? That’s a question I’d love an answer to 🙂

    Reply
  • July 1, 2010 at 3:20 am
    Permalink

    @deadlyelixir@xanga – Well, I have cancer AND autism. So there. LOL

    Seriously, now, you asked “So what?” I’ll let you answer that for yourself when it actually affects you. As the rates of autism climb past the rates of those with cancer, you will be eventually affected by it too. Lord help you if it’s your child someday 🙂

    God bless!

    Reply
  • August 15, 2009 at 3:05 am
    Permalink

    Lmao, sure, if you can determine how fat I am based on a picture less than 100×100 pixels, half of it not even consisting of a portion of my upper body. You just kind of make yourself look dumb.

    Oh but, since I’m so “fat” I can just lose weight, right? 🙂 Ugliness is permanent. Even with plastic surgery.

    Reply
  • August 14, 2009 at 4:42 pm
    Permalink

    @BunnyParfait@xanga – Okay? What am I supposed to insert here o_O “zomg wtf ppl i dun know are laughing at me. oh. noez.”? I dunno if you’re referring to yourself, people on xanga, or if I’m so awesome that you decided to share the entire thing with everyone you know, including your distant relatives :].

    I feel slightly disgusted that we live on the same planet, lol. Then again, your existence does serve as a contrast to intelligent people.

    Oh and no, I’m not trying to do anything. Again, your imagination misleads you 🙂

    Btw, what happened to “I’m not reading any more of your comments lulz dun wanna talk to you”? You’re still wasting your oh so precious time replying to me. You shouldn’t exert yourself too much, since your brain has handled *so* much thinking today.

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 11:43 pm
    Permalink

    You try too hard. 

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 11:39 pm
    Permalink

    @BunnyParfait@xanga – I’m using “black” as a convenience term, lul. Of course it’s not a race, and I never said anything about your race. In case you didn’t know, “black” is an adjective, and I was using it as just that- an adjective. I don’t try to resort to anything to try and make myself appear more intelligent. LOL. You’re imagining that. I couldn’t care less about what you, or anyone else thought of me. The color of your skin had nothing to do with how attractive I think you are. It was an observation I made and I pointed it out, that’s all 🙂 Anything else is your imagination. I’m not sure how your modeling career or how your “love” thinks of you is supposed to matter to me in any way. Adding on to what I said, I also couldn’t care less about other people’s preferences. So you saying anything about your modeling career or what your “love” thinks of you doesn’t change what I think- I still think you’re ugly. Just like clothing. I don’t care if it’s the hottest trend or somewhat unseen around where I live- whether I like it or not has nothing to do with other people’s opinions. Heh :). Jealousy? What a dichotomous thought. If I say you’re ugly, it must mean I’m jealous right? Fun fact: There’s nothing you’ve presented that I’m jealous of.

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 11:29 pm
    Permalink

    @deadlyelixir@xanga – Resorting to ad hominems won’t make you appear any more intellectual.

    Besides, I’m Arab/Russian/Japanese, not black. And if you weren’t racist my race would be irrelevant to your judgment of my appearance. Though I can’t say your judgment matters, considering I had a modeling career and my love finds me gorgeous.

    You should learn to hide your jealousy better, it’s awfully unbecoming.

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 11:20 pm
    Permalink

    @BunnyParfait@xanga – Oh yes, I’m sobbing with tears because some ugly black woman on the internet decided not to discuss anything more with me. What. will. I. do?! Oh and btw, I’m not being racist. I’m just pointing out that I think you’re ugly, and you happen to look like a black woman. Although who knows, maybe you’re a very ugly man with black skin who happens to look like a very ugly black woman. I don’t like jumping to conclusions ;] Actually, I should simply say that I think that way about the “person in your picture.” Lol.

    It fills me with joy to know there are such close minded people people like you x] who lacks critical thinking. Ones such as yourself, Mrs./Mr./Ms. I-can’t-really-explain-what-I’m-saying-but-I’ll-just-blame-the-other-person-and-pretend-like-I-still-know-what-I’m-talking-about-and-say-I-dun-feel-like-explaining

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 11:11 pm
    Permalink

    @deadlyelixir@xanga – You must be a slow child if you don’t get that I’m not reading anything you’re saying anymore. I’m sure you’ll keep replying, let all your desperation out just realize that I’ve already lost interest in discussing anything with you.

    =]

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 11:08 pm
    Permalink

    @BunnyParfait@xanga – You should understand two things then. Firstly, I didn’t even write anything directly concerning autism in my last comment. And secondly, just because you don’t want to talk to me, doesn’t mean I’m not going to post a comment to you. I’m not sure why you think what you want or don’t want is of ANY concern to me. Lol.

    Indeed, you’re not very intelligent if you’re unable to comprehend what I’m trying to say. Oh yeah, you didn’t read the entire comment, lulz! If you had, you would’ve realized that a word isn’t “too big for me to understand” and the dictionary provides definitions, not explanations, and if we were to discuss something, then we would need to agree on an explanation of a word. Not sure what refutin’ you’re talking about, but if you’re not going to explain something, then I’m going to assume you can’t explain it and whether or not you “feel like it” is not of my concern either :).

    While you’re at it, define “educate.” So is a person who has read more textbooks more “educated” and therefore will provide a better argument because he’s read more words? Lawl.

    If you’re going to tell me I have many “logical fallacies” then point them out and explain them, otherwise your words mean nothing. “I dun feel like it” has no meaning to me. ‘I’m just lazy” Oh? Too bad. Same with everything else, if you’re just going to ignore everything, then it just seems like you can’t think of anything to say that will support your opinions, one of them being that I have many logical fallacies. 🙂

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 10:58 pm
    Permalink

    @deadlyelixir@xanga – If the word is too big for you to understand look it up in a dictionary. Your inability to refute a topic does not equate to me being illiterate. That would be another one of the many logical fallacies.

    And once again, you’re making long comments that I’m not going to read. I already stated that I’m not interested in speaking on the subject matter with you because you refuse to educate yourself before speaking. I don’t get what’s so hard to understand?

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 10:55 pm
    Permalink

    @BunnyParfait@xanga – Lol, what? No matter how much you’re trying to tell me how dumb I am, you’re just avoiding the subject completely. If you can’t define and describe the word “intelligence” and then tell me I’m dumb for “not understanding what it is” then it just seems like you can’t explain what intelligence is because well, you AREN’T.

    You keep using the word “intelligent” without telling me what exactly you mean when you say it, so how are we supposed to discuss properly? Communication is a huge part of discussion, hell if not all of it, and if you’re throwing out words that you and I may have different “ideas” of what it is, then how exactly are we supposed to talk about anything?

    It’s like saying the word “apple.” Now, what “apple” is, is something that most people can agree on. If I pulled out an “apple,” then I’m sure most people would be able to identify what it is, regardless of what language they speak. If I were somehow able to pull out “love” then people would have no idea what the hell that is. Why? Because we all have different ideas of what the consequences of love is.

    I’m not asking you to define and describe certain words because I don’t have the slightest clue as to what they are, but because if we’re going to discuss about something, then we need to agree on what certain terms represent.

    I’m not asking you to define and describe every single word you use. I’m only asking you to do that on words and phrases which I feel we may have different ideas of what they are.

    I’m not sure exactly what parts of this entire thing depended on “proper research skillz” and “familiarity of the topic.” I’m not writing a report for school, nor am I claiming to say I’m a master of the topic of autism. However, that’s not what I’m arguing with you about, is it? o_O I’m not saying I know all the details of autism. I’ve used a couple of basic facts on illnesses, and so? I don’t see why I would need to read an encyclopedia on autism to be able to “properly discuss.” Would you care to tell me why?

    Also, I’ve been pretty consistent with what I say, so I’m not sure why you feel that I’m incapable of “any logical paths for formulating arguments.” I still dunno what you mean by all these generalizations, since you keep repeating that word, so you should also explain what you mean by that. You see, it’s not that I’m not intelligent for not being able to read your mind, but because what you say can be interpreted in many ways, and you should try to be as clear as possible when discussing something.

    “I imagine the rest of the comment is just a
    repeat of everything you’ve said in an attempt to claim I don’t
    “understand” what you’re saying however I do understand what you are
    saying and it just happens to be inaccurate.” Hahaha. “I *imagine*.” Okay kiddo, imagine all you want. You haven’t read my entire comment and you’re assuming what I had written is what you imagined it to be? LOL, good job. Again, lol@ how you’re saying that you understand what I’m saying and it’s not inaccurate. Unless you’re actually going to explain how and what exactly you think isn’t inaccurate about what I said, then what you say is basically meaningless.

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 10:34 pm
    Permalink

    @deadlyelixir@xanga – Just so you know, I’m not going to read this entire comment. I am only going to read and answer this section, and hopefully you’ll understand why I’m not going to read the rest of it.

    “Oh really, I don’t seem very intelligent to
    you? Why do you feel this way? Also, what is intelligence? Define and
    describe intelligence. If you use a term, then you should be able to
    explain it in full detail to another person, right?”

    This is the very reason that I don’t find you intelligent enough to discuss the topic with. I should not have to define every single polysyllabic word when having a proper discussion. I feel like I have to teach you basic concepts to get you to even understand what you’re saying. And that’s something I absolutely refuse to do.

    You’ve shown that you’re not familiar with the topic, how to do proper research, or any logical paths for formulating arguments. The rest of your comment was written within the same day as you demonstrated that which is not enough time for you to take the time to educate yourself on sociological concepts and this specific topic. You made a sweeping generalization and I refuted that. Generalizations are always logical fallacies. I imagine the rest of the comment is just a repeat of everything you’ve said in an attempt to claim I don’t “understand” what you’re saying however I do understand what you are saying and it just happens to be inaccurate.

    Therefore I do not feel like discussing any scientific topic with you.

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 10:00 pm
    Permalink

    @BunnyParfait@xanga – Oh really, I don’t seem very intelligent to you? Why do you feel this way? Also, what is intelligence? Define and describe intelligence. If you use a term, then you should be able to explain it in full detail to another person, right?

    Let me try to explain this again. You can ask questions if you need to :).

    -Facts are only facts until they are proven wrong. Science is discovering new things all the time. Technology is advanced. These “new things” people discover may contradict something that was claimed to be a “fact” in the past. Lots of people thought the earth was flat. Then science provided an argument, saying that earth is not flat. And? That’s only what we think right now. Who knows what may be learned about the shape and structure of the earth in the future.

    -Everything is your opinion- even facts because you have to think they’re a fact. However, people agree on certain things or else no one could ever argue about anything. We agree on things such as math axioms and dictionary definitions so we have a foundation to work on. Language was most likely created for convenience, so people can use it to “work together” and discuss things using terms they agree on [which comes from the dictionary] to try and explain more complex ideas.

    Psychology is the science of the mind. “The mind” consists of thoughts/feelings- I think we can agree on this? Thoughts and feelings are not tangible things. Can you touch and see your thoughts/feelings? Feelings and emotions are like electric signals, and we try and create and use words to describe them. For ex, is “love” tangible? No.

    It doesn’t matter to me what DSM IV TR stands for. It’s simply a label. How am I “highly sheltered?” What does it mean to be “highly sheltered?” If I don’t know about something, then am I “highly sheltered?” I’ve never even heard of this thing before you mentioned it. And? What does the equate to? How is it that I’m ‘highly sheltered’ ’cause I don’t know about that book? Also, why *should* I know about anything? What determines what a person “should” know?

    I use the dictionary to find out the meaning of words. Perhaps we should’ve defined what incidence and prevalence means before we started talking about any of this. That would’ve helped to put us on some common ground.

    I don’t really care if people die from the side effects of autism. I’m not talking about side effects, I’m talking about the solid disease itself. Cancer could cause someone depression by making them bald, so what? That’s not what I’m talking about.

    You’re so generous to write out/pull up the “diagnostic criteria” for me :). And do the reasons behind any of the symptoms/traits mean anything? So basically, people who have a certain number of these qualities from certain sections of the criteria are labeled as “autistic?” That doesn’t seem very accurate to me. Does it look at the MANY POSSIBILITIES behind why someone could have those traits? That’s like saying, regardless of the reasons behind what led you to kill someone, killing a human=you’re a heartless piece of shit. Lol. Then again, if your idea of an accurate diagnosis of a mental disorder means simply seeing which traits they match up with in the criteria, then sure, its very “accurate”

    What exactly do you mean by “social observation?” Is it based on what you’ve observed? What is it based on? o.O If it’s based on what you observe, then that’s not very credible since the number of people you observe aren’t that many, considering how many people live in the U.S. alone and what everyone does everyday. Are there actually plausible statistics somewhere showing that more people go see medical docs? And even if there are, so? What does that really mean, even if there are plausible statistics showing more people visit medical docs than psychologists? It just means…that, which doesn’t really mean anything beyond the fact that more people visit medical docs than psychologists o_O

    And uh, no. Psychology doesn’t translate feelings/emotions/brain waves to plain words. So what am I supposed to do? Talk to someone who knows a lot about psychology, and s/he’s supposed to “describe” my feelings/emotions/brain waves? That’s not what I mean. I mean literally translate the stuff from your mind to words.

    <table class=”luna-Ent”><tbody><tr><td class=”dnindex” width=”35″>
    <td>
    <table class=”luna-Ent”> <tbody><tr> <td class=”dnindex” width=”35″>
    <td>
    <table class=”luna-Ent”> <tbody><tr> <td class=”dnindex” width=”35″>
    <td>
    <table class=”luna-Ent”><tbody><tr><td class=”dnindex” width=”35″>
    <td>

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 9:14 pm
    Permalink

    @deadlyelixir@xanga – “What do you mean by my “sweeping
    generalization?” Nothing’s for sure in the world, facts are only facts
    until they’re proven wrong, etc. Everything is your opinion. Even facts
    are, because you have to think they are facts. However, people agree on
    certain things or else no one could ever argue about anything. We agree
    on things such as math axioms and dictionary definitions so we have a
    foundation to work on.”

    None of that makes sense whatsoever. It’s a grand paragraph of contradictions. So I’m just going to ignore that.

    “Did I say cancer is only just “cells stuff?”
    No. I don’t expect myself or anyone else to know the complete science
    behind it either, and I’m not trying to explain things I don’t
    understand. Lol. I said “tangible things with cells and such.””

    Psychology is also tangible and completely scientific, so I once again don’t understand your point…

    “And I have no idea what you mean by DSM IV
    TR. It’s just a label/name to me. Unless you can elaborate and explain
    how exactly someone can tell a person is autistic. What is autism,
    exactly. What does it consist of. How do you label someone as autistic.
    Through tests? o_O”

    So I’m guessing you didn’t catch on that DSM IV TR stands for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the fourth edition in revision. In other words it is THE book determining diagnostic criteria for a wide range of disorders. And that’s pretty much all I have to say. If you don’t understand just how significant it is you’re highly sheltered.

    “The definition of “prevalent” is
    “widespread; of wide extent or occurrence; in general use or
    acceptance.” Why exactly don’t dead people count? Incidence is directly
    related to prevalence o_O.”

    I’m guessing I need to define some terms for you. Incidence is how many times a disorder or disease has come up, ever. In the past and the present. Prevalence is how many times a disorder or disease has popped up in a specific time span, as in recently. As in right now at this moment how many people have cancer. Dead people don’t count because once they die they don’t have cancer because the cancer dies, and also because they are not subjects to be polled.

    “I’m saying you can’t accurately compare the
    two based on how many people are alive with autism, and how many are
    alive with cancer, because some people die from cancer itself.”

    And some people also die from side effects of autism such as depression caused from an inability to integrate properly into society. There’s still no point here.

    “Uh, how is the diagnosis for autism “pretty
    accurate” based on the criteria? Supporting evidence plz. Also, how do
    you know more people are more willing to go to a medical doc than a
    psychologist? Isn’t that stereotyping?”

    The following is the diagnostic criteria taken from the DSM IV TR which is something you should know about by now:

    A. A total of six (or more) items from (1), (2), and (3), with at least two from (1), and one each from (2) and (3)

    (1) qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

    (a)
    marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as
    eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to
    regulate social interaction

    (b) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level

    (c) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or
    achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing,
    or pointing out objects of interest)

    (d) lack of social or emotional reciprocity

    (2) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:

    (a)
    delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not
    accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of
    communication such as gesture or mime)
    (b) in individuals with
    adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or
    sustain a conversation with others

    (c) stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language

    (d) lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level

    (3)
    restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests
    and activities, as manifested by at least two of the following:

    (a)
    encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted
    patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus

    (b) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals

    (c) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger
    flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)

    (d) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

    B.
    Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas,
    with onset prior to age 3 years: (1) social interaction, (2) language
    as used in social communication, or (3) symbolic or imaginative play

    C. The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett’s Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder.”

    As you can see it is very specific. If someone meets the criteria on this level of specificity then they can be diagnosed with the disorder. As you should be able to see if you’re actually going to read it very few people get misdiagnosed as having disorders that require very specific symptoms.

    And no, saying that people are more willing to go to a medical doctor than a psychologist is a social observation not a stereotype. A stereotype would imply that a certain type of people are more willing to go and I’m speaking in general based on polls and general social stigma in the US. 

    “Psychology doesn’t translate feelings/emotions/brain waves to plain words.”

    Yeah, it does actually. That’s how the DSM IV TR was created. – – /facepalm.

    I don’t even think I would appreciate you replying because you don’t seem to be that intelligent and I find it would be a waste of time for me to read anything you wrote. Sorry, you’re just not smart enough.

    Have a nice night.

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 8:47 pm
    Permalink

    @BunnyParfait@xanga – What do you mean by my “sweeping generalization?” Nothing’s for sure in the world, facts are only facts until they’re proven wrong, etc. Everything is your opinion. Even facts are, because you have to think they are facts. However, people agree on certain things or else no one could ever argue about anything. We agree on things such as math axioms and dictionary definitions so we have a foundation to work on.

    Did I say cancer is only just “cells stuff?” No. I don’t expect myself or anyone else to know the complete science behind it either, and I’m not trying to explain things I don’t understand. Lol. I said “tangible things with cells and such.” I didn’t say “with cells. only.” -_- And I have no idea what you mean by DSM IV TR. It’s just a label/name to me. Unless you can elaborate and explain how exactly someone can tell a person is autistic. What is autism, exactly. What does it consist of. How do you label someone as autistic. Through tests? o_O

    Yes, there is a point in saying that autism doesn’t physically kill people like cancer does. How have I made the generalization that there are more people in the world with cancer than there are with autism? The definition of “prevalent” is “widespread; of wide extent or occurrence; in general use or acceptance.” Why exactly don’t dead people count? Incidence is directly related to prevalence o_O. I’m saying you can’t accurately compare the two based on how many people are alive with autism, and how many are alive with cancer, because some people die from cancer itself.

    Uh, how is the diagnosis for autism “pretty accurate” based on the criteria? Supporting evidence plz. Also, how do you know more people are more willing to go to a medical doc than a psychologist? Isn’t that stereotyping?

    Incorrect
    – the diagnosis for autism is pretty accurate based on the criteria.
    What I was saying was that more people are willing to go to a medical
    doctor than they are to go to a psychologist. A little thing called
    “social stigma” hinders that.

    Psychology doesn’t translate feelings/emotions/brain waves to plain words.

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 7:55 pm
    Permalink

    Fascinating and well written. I’m subbing for part II-V. Thanks.

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 6:22 pm
    Permalink

    Did anyone notice…? “Due you think this rule is true?” Hmm..

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 4:47 pm
    Permalink

    @deadlyelixir@xanga – “In fact, nothing’s even for sure in the universe.”

    So in short your sweeping generalization was just that, a generalization. Not a fact like you were attempting to portray it as.

    “I don’t know that much about autism, but is
    there any actual evidence that determines whether or not someone has
    autism? At least with cancer, there’s actual tangible things with cells
    and such, but autism is a mental thing, right? What defines autism
    exactly? Are there a list of traits, that, if someone has a few of,
    makes them “autistic?” Is it determined through psychological tests?”

    Yes it is in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV TR). And cancer is more than just “cells.” I don’t expect you to know the science of it but please refrain from trying to explain things you don’t understand.

    “Also, you should know that a lot more people
    die FROM cancer than autism. It’s not life threatening, putting things
    that may result from autism, such as awkwardness, aside. I’m talking
    about directly from the disease. Cancer itself kills a lot of people.
    Autism itself doesn’t. It would be inaccurate to try and compare the
    number of people who have it while living if cancer is more life
    threatening.”

    I really don’t see the point in saying autism doesn’t physically kill people like a disease does. For one you made the generalization that there are more people in the world with cancer than there are autism. Dead people don’t count sweet heart. That’s like saying there are still millions of people suffering from the black plague. Were talking about prevalence, not incidence.

    “That’s a very important factor too. You even
    say so yourself that autism is diagnosed psychologically, and these
    “mental” things are very sketchy compared to things you can have solid
    evidence on.”

    Incorrect – the diagnosis for autism is pretty accurate based on the criteria. What I was saying was that more people are willing to go to a medical doctor than they are to go to a psychologist. A little thing called “social stigma” hinders that.

    “It’s like feelings/emotions…they aren’t
    words, but we try to describe them with words. Perhaps in the future
    there will be developements that can translate feelings/emotions/brain
    waves into things we can understand.”

    It’s called psychology.

    “Like I said again, no information in the
    world is 100% reliable and nothing is for sure. I could get a textbook
    from Germany, a textbook from the U.S., read both concerning World War
    II, and get a very different perspective of “what happened.””

    That is…completely irrelevant.

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 4:03 pm
    Permalink

    Some of those who commented are ill-mannered, but this article poses interesting questions. I have often wondered where I fit on the scale that includes Asperger’s, because I have a rather odd view of reality. I consider similar questions.

    As an engineering student, I saw a video about the making of a Samurai sword. The priest or holy man followed sound, metallurgical principles to make the ideal steel for both power and flexibility. The process was shrouded in mystery and religious accoutrements.There seems to be no better way of preserving science than to by turning it into religion. When the mysterious ‘germs’ were discovered a couple of hundred years ago, people were told to wash their hands. To reinforce it to those who didn’t understand, I suppose it was made into a kind of social religion. Thus, society learned about the ‘yuckies’.

    BTW, isn’t Autisible supposed to be about autism? Why were people asking why you mentioned it?

    You sound like a thoughful individual, and I’m glad you posted.

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 4:01 pm
    Permalink

    @BunnyParfait@xanga – Below the “clock” thing, there are a list of sources. Of course, like ANY data, on the internet, textbooks, etc, nothing is 100% reliable. In fact, nothing’s even for sure in the universe. I don’t know whether it takes into consideration misdiagnoses, but if you’re going to argue about that, it can go for autism misdiagnoses too. People could mistake other things for autism. I don’t know that much about autism, but is there any actual evidence that determines whether or not someone has autism? At least with cancer, there’s actual tangible things with cells and such, but autism is a mental thing, right? What defines autism exactly? Are there a list of traits, that, if someone has a few of, makes them “autistic?” Is it determined through psychological tests?

    Also, you should know that a lot more people die FROM cancer than autism. It’s not life threatening, putting things that may result from autism, such as awkwardness, aside. I’m talking about directly from the disease. Cancer itself kills a lot of people. Autism itself doesn’t. It would be inaccurate to try and compare the number of people who have it while living if cancer is more life threatening. That’s a very important factor too. You even say so yourself that autism is diagnosed psychologically, and these “mental” things are very sketchy compared to things you can have solid evidence on. It’s like feelings/emotions…they aren’t words, but we try to describe them with words. Perhaps in the future there will be developements that can translate feelings/emotions/brain waves into things we can understand.

    Like I said again, no information in the world is 100% reliable and nothing is for sure. I could get a textbook from Germany, a textbook from the U.S., read both concerning World War II, and get a very different perspective of “what happened.”

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 3:51 pm
    Permalink

    @deadlyelixir@xanga – Also as I’m looking at this this only records the incidence, not the prevalence. Which means the number of people who were said to have it, not how many people have it while living. That’s a very important factor, seeing as how autism is something that is diagnosed psychologically and seeing a psychologist isn’t as embraced as seeing a doctor for cancer.

    The statistics are extremely biased and you either misread or misinterpreted. I’d much rather get info from the CDC and the AMA.

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 3:48 pm
    Permalink

    @deadlyelixir@xanga – My browser is a little slow so while it loads let me ask if it takes into consideration biases such as misdiagnosis especially in cancer patients? It’s not exactly a rare case where people get misdiagnosed for cancer when other problems occur; machines scan bodies for cancer, not physical therapists. Machines make lots of mistakes. 

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 3:44 pm
    Permalink

    @BunnyParfait@xanga – I don’t feel like actually writing out an essay for you, with citations and references and all that fancy shiz, but check this out.

    http://www.poodwaddle.com/clocks2.htm

    Click on illnesses. “Population living with autism” doesn’t change whether you click on yr/month/week or whatever, since it seems to be the total accumulation over time, so I’m going to look at “autism diagnosis” instead. I’m looking at the yr chart btw, although if you click on wk/month or whatever cancer numbers still outweigh ‘autism diagnosis.’

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 3:31 pm
    Permalink

    @BunnyParfait@xanga –  Okay, does “ALMOST everyone” sound better to you? You’re probably part of the very small population of people who has had not cancer/known someone who has had cancer/known someone who knew someone who had cancer. It’s not that much of an exaggeration, and definitely a lot more “prevalent” than autism. Lol.

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 3:28 pm
    Permalink

    And I disagree with the whole not expressing our animal parts; I’d much rather not get a disease from someone masturbating in a public place I have to be in. As well as other things. It’s more of a health issue than it is a social rule. 

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 3:26 pm
    Permalink

    @deadlyelixir@xanga – Actually I don’t know anyone with cancer and I’ve never had cancer. So it is quite an exaggeration. It’s not as prevalent as you think. 

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 1:04 pm
    Permalink

    I think I agree with you. While cleanliness is important to avoiding the worst diseases, I think people are a bit too preoccupied with cleanliness, and censor a bit too much as taboo subjects. As a result, our immune systems are churning out allergic reactions instead. Kids are denied open access to fundamentally important information. I find your series very interesting. Looking forward to reading Stupid Rule 4.

    Peace,
    109

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 10:52 am
    Permalink

    I definitely agree.  Wow, this is very well thought out and written for a random blog.  I can’t wait to read the rest.

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 10:49 am
    Permalink

    yeah, my cat is the cleanest creature ever. he bathes himself 23.5 hours out of the day

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 9:13 am
    Permalink

    This rule doesn’t exist in my family. We talk about whatever happens to come up, including all those lovely bodily functions. Even at the dinner table. Although my brother will sometimes get up and walk away if my mom, sister, and I start talking about sex or menstruation. Haha.

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 1:40 am
    Permalink

    @NewMommie101@xanga – Oh really? Why do you feel that I’m such a “dumb cunt?” What have I said to make you feel this way? Elaborate and give supporting evidence plz. It just restores my faith in humanity so much when someone thinks another person is dumb because they disagree with them or because they’ve been insulted. Haha, if there’s a “dumb cunt” between the two of us, it’s you, Fat Chick. I think you’re fat and ugly; I’ve also given my opinions on this topic. And? What does that equate to? What you’re saying about me is based on assumptions. Also, I’m not the person who’s using a bunch of “insult words” in badly structured sentences. I can only think that you feel this way because you don’t like what I say, and that’s very amusing. LOL

    I couldn’t care less about the state of your womb. It makes no difference to me, you still appear to be fat to me. And ugly. 🙂

    “and before you go off into a tangent about i’m the whore ladida like the dumb bitch you are would do”- Oh really, you can predict what someone would say? Dang, I didn’t know you had such supernatural powers. Why haven’t you been all over the news? It saddens me [lol not rly] to think that your pathetic genes will be passed on and added to the cess pool part of society. If you want the world to be a “better place,” then you should hope your fetus dies before it would otherwise pop out of your fish cunt. Or come out covered in blood from the cuts of your pudgy stomach. Lol.

    Reply
  • August 13, 2009 at 1:00 am
    Permalink

    @deadlyelixir@xanga – you are such a dumb cunt its not even funny, get a life, bitch and im not fat im pregnant. and before you go off into a tangent about i’m the whore ladida like the dumb bitch you are would do, no im not im married and having a baby, so take your dumb skank ass and jump off a building the world would be a better place with out people like you in it.

    Reply
  • August 12, 2009 at 11:40 pm
    Permalink

    Rules about masturbating in public and chewing with your mouth closed don’t exist to allow us to avoid our nature as animals. I’m perfectly comfortable with my nature as a primate and I still don’t want to see most people naked. They’re just not that easy on the eyes.
    Some things just are not pleasant to view, according to the majority, period. So we have these rules.
    If you don’t agree with the social mores of a culture you can always distance yourself from it.

    Reply
  • August 12, 2009 at 11:40 pm
    Permalink

    @NewMommie101@xanga – The hell you talking about, Fat Chick? Fuck you. I’ll say what I want, and I’ll tell the truth. I think you’re fat and ugly, for example, with offense. I’ll voice my opinion on whatever I want, things I like and don’t like, if I feel like it. I’m a skank? LOL. I don’t see how you’ve determined from a few comments from me on a public blog that I’m a skank. Makeup? Does wearing makeup make someone a “skank?” Hmm a lot of people in the world, both females and males, must be skanks then, based on your logic! :D. You just sound so smart. I don’t study the history of makeup so I have no idea what you mean by “taboo” LOL. You mean it was looked down upon or something? Caring about what other people think about you is overrated and for the weak. I don’t care about what your fat ass or anyone else thinks about me, so I will do as I want. I have no idea what you mean by “sex its becoming public” or how it’s relevant to this. Do you mean people having sex in public? Do you mean the content of sex showing up in the media? I don’t really care about either one of these things though. Maybe you do, lol, but I don’t care about anything concerning you either. If someone is having sex in public and it bothers you so much, report them for public indecency? If it’s the second one, then I’d just like to say sex is a natural thing, although I have no particular interest in sex. I don’t see the logic behind being so “embarrassed” to talk about anything relating to sex. It’s a process that has kept the human species from going extinct. Penis, vagina, testicles, uterus, and? What’s the big deal? Not sure what you mean by “good thing” either. Good or bad is a matter of opinion anyways, it’s not a fact. Think all you want, and see how many people actually care. Lol.

    Reply
  • August 12, 2009 at 11:01 pm
    Permalink

    @deadlyelixir@xanga – your a bitch if you dont like it dont comment on it, damn and i dont give a fuck about skanks but they seem to be everywhere too.. i honestly think hes right. humans carry more bacteria on them they we realize and so many topics are considered taboo. just like the makeup your skankass is wearing used to be taboo but so many people wear it it is no longer, just like sex its becoming public so no one really considers it too much taboo, but is this a good thing?

    Reply
  • August 12, 2009 at 10:37 pm
    Permalink

    @deadlyelixir@xanga – no i know what you’re sayin.  it’s not just xanga.  autism seems to have just become a hot topic in the world today.  not that i don’t care about people who are affected by it.  but i also don’t think it warrants the attention i see paid to it.

    of course, what do i know?  i work with non-primates all day.

    Reply
  • August 12, 2009 at 10:09 pm
    Permalink

    @TheMANinTHEyellowHAT@xanga –

    @pnrj@xanga – 

    Uh…what? A lot of people die from cancer, but a lot of people also survive with it. I don’t think it would be an exaggeration to say that everyone has been affected by cancer in some way…either  they’ve had it, someone they know have had it, or someone who knows someone they know has had it. I’ve never known anyone autistic. The chance of discovering the cure to cancer is probably very small on xanga, but a “Cancerish” website would be much more helpful and I’m sure a lot more people could relate.

    It’s simply annoying when I see at least one blog about autism as I look through the featured weblogs. Oh well, whatever. Autism/you are nothing of my concern. I’m more shocked at how much people care about the topic. A kid has autism..so what?

    Reply
  • August 12, 2009 at 9:42 pm
    Permalink

    @TheMANinTHEyellowHAT@xanga – One thing you should understand about the Xanga universe: What exists on Xanga is what people put on Xanga. If you want to start Cancerish, or whatever else, you are entirely free to do so. It turns out that enough people on Xanga were concerned about autism to create Autisable; there was no coercion involved in this process.

    Reply
  • August 12, 2009 at 9:36 pm
    Permalink

    @deadlyelixir@xanga – right.  where’s the cancerish website?  cancer is a way bigger problem.  of course, most of them die off, so i guess there’s no point in giving them a site they’ll barely get to use.

    Reply
  • August 12, 2009 at 9:34 pm
    Permalink

    i wouldn’t call this a stupid rule since it can affect peoples’ health.  for example:  if dogs held the same regard for feces we humans hold, a dog with intestinal parasites wouldn’t be such a threat to the animal community.  but since they go around sticking their noses in it and chewing it up, one dog can spread parasites all over the place without even trying.  and while most bacteria is harmless, i don’t think it’s irrational to take precautions to avoid the few that are.

    as for sex, i would prefer it be kept private.  if for no other reason than the fact that i wouldn’t want to be that desensitized to it.  i wouldn’t want it to be less enjoyable than it is now.

    some people take these things to extreme levels.  but not most.  and these certainly aren’t stupid concepts.

    Reply
  • August 12, 2009 at 8:08 pm
    Permalink

    Okay see now, catsup on ice cream just sounds horrifically gross, but then I hate the stuff anyway (not ice cream, that’s just delicious!).  I personally dunno why you’d put catsup on… anything!  I’ve never heard of any food combinations being “taboo” though.  If you like it, then eat it.  Whatever.  No big.  Hell,  I eat fish, pizza and random slices of bread dipped in a bit of ranch dressing.  They’re also delicious with honey BBQ sauce.  OM NOM.

    And, as it is, most animals are far cleaner than human beings any day.  They don’t eat preservatives, chemicals, and other junk on a daily basis.  And have you seen how often cats clean themselves?!  If it was showering, they’d be doing it about 5 times a day!  Bet a lot of people here can’t even hold to one shower a day…  😛

    Reply
  • August 12, 2009 at 4:34 pm
    Permalink

    It’s true, but some of the grosser bodily functions are avoided because if everyone was burping, farting, picking their noses, touching their own feces or bleeding whenever it would be chaotic, not healthy and yes, gross.

    Reply
  • August 12, 2009 at 3:50 pm
    Permalink

    Also, why do I keep seeing autism topics on xanga o_O There are other problems in the world too. I don’t give a fuck about autism or autistic people more or less than anyone else

    Reply
  • August 12, 2009 at 2:09 pm
    Permalink

    Humans can’t possibly be dirty!  We have so many organisms that stay with us at all times to keep us clean!!!  Which also includes mites and bacteria =). 

    Reply
  • August 12, 2009 at 1:38 pm
    Permalink

    My cat isn’t dirty. Well, i mean she fell in the toilet but I cleaned her up and bathed her. Even before then, she wasn’t really dirty. She sits on my dinner table, I don’t have a problem with it. She seems to keep herself quite clean. My dog, well, he plays rough outside and gets dirty but I always groom him so he’s more clean than a usual dog would be.

    Reply
  • August 12, 2009 at 12:15 am
    Permalink

    this post made me giggle especially the fungi sex part.  I don’t think I will ever be able to talk about plant or fungal reprodcution again without wanting to laugh.

    I readily admit that some of my rules are irrational, but they are my personal rules not normal rules.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.