Comments on: The Internets Never Forgets

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:06:50 +0000

Spam and its effects would be worth a whole book in itself. Is there one? A feature of it that strikes me is the apparent unwillingness of legislators, but even more of courts, to take serious action against spam, even though it relies heavily on the serious criminality required to create botnets.

By: Michelle Dawson

Michelle Dawson — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:26:08 +0000

In response to Henry, that Tyler uses the word “parable” (you give an example), and that he writes about existing and popular stories, does not mean that he turns autism into a story (parable). In fact he warns against this, which does not mean his book is free of stories. His book is in part about stories, how stories can be used and what stories can do, good and bad.

Tyler gives examples of ways in which stories can be harmful, including with respect to autism. This makes your decision to see autism as a story, and what happens in consequences, all the more fascinating (at least, to me).

A theory should take into account all relevant information, and this is what you seem to be looking for. But you’ve also reduced autism in Tyler’s book to a story (“parable”) which—while it is simple, popular, expected, familiar, etc.—does not resemble, as you’ve noted, what Tyler actually wrote. On the other hand, according to what Tyler in fact wrote, what you’ve done with respect to autism is predictable.

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:52:20 +0000

Where is the space for people of ordinary intelligence who want to raise their kids and not work their brains until they cry in this future?

By: Henry

Henry — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:15:40 +0000

Michelle – my use of the term ‘parable’ is actually a play on Tyler’s use of the same word. What I am looking for is not a story, but a theory (maybe you could argue that the two are the same – but it seems to me that they are substantially different).

By: Michelle Dawson

Michelle Dawson — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:16:57 +0000

What I think Henry has (unintentionally) done is demonstrate a point Tyler makes in his book.

Tyler writes about the limitations and shallowness of stories and the problems they cause. Turning everything into stories has drawbacks, and demanding or expecting or adhering to certain kinds of stories can have harmful consequences. Nonautistics are especially prone to demanding information in story form. They are especially likely to reduce or edit all information into familiar stories and in doing so, can create persistent and harmful distortions.

Even after reading such a strong warning, Henry reduces autism in Tyler’s book to a story (“parable”), and this invariably results in a striking distortion of what actually was written. It is as though Henry, having a nonautistic brain, just can’t help it, a problem which Tyler in fact predicts. When I read Henry’s fascinating (for me, anyway…) review, I can practically see his non-autistic brain at work—those rigidly mandatory cognitive editors that Tyler writes so well about.

By: Henry

Henry — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:24:09 +0000

Just to say that Socrates’ take is neither stated nor implied in Tyler’s book – which indeed takes considerable pains to make exactly the opposite case – if I have implied otherwise by over-simplifying Tyler’s argument, it is entirely my fault …

By: Socrates

Socrates — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:43:48 +0000

Eric, I recently listened to Dr Happé from I think the IoP/Kings College in London, saying how she always had to make a point of emphasising to the doctors she trains, that we aren’t chillingly detached psychopaths…

If Henry does write the book, I hope he does plenty of research…

By: Eric H

Eric H — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:19:41 +0000

Socrates, that’s a good point. I think the quoted phrase is Henry’s take on what Tyler is saying rather than what Tyler is actually saying, but also Tyler comes at the autism issue from many different angles, and I think Henry is in this sentence focusing on but one of those. In other words, I don’t think either of them mean it in the way you have indicated. I think Tyler spent a good deal of one of the early chapters dispelling exactly that myth, and at least some of the book discusses ways in which autistics are better able to participate in the human community through the internet because it serves as a self-directed filter. In other words, the ‘tubes let them control social experiences to their liking.

My Aspie wife has made this same point to me. I don’t know if I have ever met another human being with as palpable a feel for “community” and “humanity”. At the same time, she needs to maintain some control over her environment to avoid overstimulation. The internet allows her to do that while making a living on her area of expertise.

By: Socrates

Socrates — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:44:27 +0000

But it also suggests to me that what Tyler is doing is to use autism as a parable of the benefits of a society where individuals focus their attentions and energies on their own goals and in particular on their own internal orderings.

This is a gross mis-characterisation of a significant proportion of those people on the Autism Spectrum. For example:

... often describing children with autism who are atypical in their presentation and who frequently initiate social interactions (albeit lacking in reciprocity) as opposed to those who are more avoidant or aloof.

From Asperger’s Syndrome: Diagnosis and Treatment, Dr Karen Toth.

And it continues in the long tradition of describing our Being as ‘apart’ and ‘separate’ and not truly of the human community.