Falling for Distractors

In testing parlance, a distractor is a possible answer that is intended to distract the testee's attention away from the central idea of the question or the central goal of the task. It is intended to give information on the ability of the subject to identify the main idea or goal, and as well, to maintain focus to completion.

In a focused debate, distractors are frowned upon, and those trained well in both logic and argumentation, become skillful at identifying them in order to avoid using them, and in order to parry them in a debate. However, those of us with "different minds" (as Temple Grandin so charmingly calls Aspies, etc.), no matter how well trained in logic, usually fumble the on-your-feet thinking part of such discussion, and can be distracted in to latching onto the distractor. This is why training and practice are mandatory for us.

And it gets worse when dealing with what passes for political debate currently, which is usually driven by partisan loyalties rather than full understanding of issues, and is focused on "talking points." Here, the object of the discussion is not to get to the bottom of an idea--in fact, ideas are assiduously ignored--rather, the goal is to score fictitious points for your team.
And since many Aspies do not get that, and we continue believing that the discussion is really to get to the bottom of an idea, and some of us like to argue, we often fall for the distractors in a political argument.

A perfect example happened in a series of exchanges between three libertarians and a partisan progressive on my Facebook Wall. I had posted a link to yesterday's blog entry--The Janus Face of Tyranny--there yesterday. The first comment was by Mark--who on the blog itself used to comment as 'Anonymous'--whose comment was a distractor intended to shift the discussion toward the administration and Democratic Party's talking points about the healthcare bill. In fact, it was such a distractor from the actual ideas outlined in the blog entry that I believe that Mark never got the point of the blog, or else he didn't bother to read it, so this morning I helpfully pointed it out for him. But not before I, too, succumbed to the almost irresistable urge to distraction.

Instead of addressing the historical comparison being made in the blog entry, Mark's first comment was a demand that since I don't like the so-called "healthcare bill", what would I do to "fix the system."

There were fourteen or fifteen comments already answering his question, which took the whole discussion into the simplified and somewhat unreal realm of talking points. "Fixing the system" was not what the blog entry was even about. Rather the point of the blog was that Pelosi's gambit to pretend not to vote on the bill by "deeming" it passed would awaken the anger of even more Americans at the incipient tyranny of such an action. The tyranny is not only in the legislation--which is about far more than healthcare; it is in how the Congress Critters intend to avoid responsibility for it, and at the same time consolidate their power.

You can read the whole blog to explore the other point I introduced: That the anger of the people at this kind of corruption is not partisan, and that the division between the political elite and the ordinary people who are expected to pay for their blindness, is rapidly assuming powder-keg proportions. There is indeed tyranny afoot here, and this is not the first time in the history of the world a government has become so blind to reality with severe and lasting consequences.

In any case I foolishly courteously but briefly answered Mark's question well into the comment thread, stating mostly that I thought that the answers provided by the two other bloggers were reasonably close to what I would have said with a few exceptions that I proceeded to outline. as far as I was concerned, the discussion was over.

But then I got another demand from Mark that I should come up with a solution to "fix the system", and the assertion that "we need to" stop a race to the bottom among insurance companies. These are talking points straight off of Moveon.org's playlist. And I finally cottoned on to the fact that this was no discussion to get to the bottom of a problem or an idea, at least not from Mark's perspective. In fact, strictly from reading his comments it's hard for me to tell whether or not he knows much about health insurance or healthcare at all.

In any case, these demands that I should come up with a solution to "fix the system" are in fact distractors. For I have never expressed a desire to have one centralized "system" for health care, nor am I unhappy with my insurance plan, which is the proximal target of this bill.

The distal target is for the federal government to take control of healthcare in this country, and to destroy any private insurance, as well as for it to gain control over the medical and financial records of the citizenry of the United States. The structure for this is in the bill, as well as much more having to do with education, the regulation of our diets, and other such that we do not even know about. And there will be more to come, because Obama, Pelosi and Reid have also stated that by "deeming the bill passed", they will then be able to change things in the bill afterwards. (!)

So I answered the second demand that I provide a solution this way:


1) I am not sure who this WE is that you keep talking about. Please define your terms. In a free country, WE don't have to do anything. Each individual determines who she will associate with (free association) and what she will do with her life. The obligation of the individual extend only to respecting the natural rights of others. Otherwise, it is a matter of choice.

2) Are you getting yourself and your family prepared for those economic hard times? 'Cause the "government" is really the people who pay taxes, and at a certain point they won't have any more wealth for the bureaucracy to take from them and it won't be worth it for them to work hard. Then a real race to the bottom will begin.


3) I think you misunderstand my courtesy in discussing your demand to be a concession to your premise that there ought to be one healthcare system controlled by the government. So let me clarify: I do not have to present any ideas for how to "fix the system" because:

a) I do not agree that there ought to BE one system controlled politically; and

b) I believe that the bill before Congress now is a monstrosity that is being "shoved through" for other purposes--(and that is, since you missed it, the main point of my blog post).This bill will not fix anything; and

c) It is you who want to create a system. You are free to do so. Just count me and any others who have other plans for our lives out of it. This is not a democracy. There should be no mob rule. If you want to make a system, go ahead and do it, and recruit others who want to participate. And determine how you will pay for it without forcing those who do not like it to do so.

I concluded by making a demand of my own--that on my Facebook page and my blog page, Mark should respond to the ideas in my blog post or to the three statements I made above.

I find talking points to be extremely boring. As a libertarian, my preference is that everything I do is for fun or profit. Or both. Talking points are neither.

AS and the Problem with Language: Response to a Great Comment

I was going to get on and do a quick blog about something else, but I will save that topic for another day. I got and excellent and detailed comment from Rebecca on my post, Writing for Visual Thinkers, that I want to discuss further here because my response will need some elaboration. For the entire comment, check out the post and comments.



In my original post, I spent a few sentences discussing generalizations. Rebecca wrote this about my short discussion.



First she quotes what I wrote.

"In the auditory-sequential world, generalizations are understood as shorthand, but in the visual world they are seen as incomplete at best, and at worst, they are lies."



Rebecca then wrote:

"I was going to quote Ayn Rand, but we sold the book. This is an interesting point, though -- that is what the study of linguistics is about, how we use words -- not just generalizations, but all words -- as symbols for concrete and abstract realities and manipulate words as a means to categorize, analyze, and express thoughts about those realities. What I don't understand is, if generalizations are inferior and inaccurate, why the use of so much jargon? Jargon is merely specialized language. Jargon, more than generalizations, IS shorthand, a means of saying with one word an idea, process, or concept which would otherwise require a lengthy explanation."



And here is what I want to say about generalizations and jargon.



First, I don't think that generalizations are inferior and inaccurate. What I did say is that to a certain part of the population they come across that way. Generalizations are a good way to organize and categorize knowledge. In much of Gifted Education, we focus on increasing the ability of our students to make meaningful generalizations because this develops a person's ability to think about complex issues.



However, people with Autism Spectrum Disorders have a great deal of difficulty with generalizations. Remember that all the ASD share the characteristic of being, in part, a social-communication disorder. Part of the challenge for people with ASD is that they do not easily understand figurative language and they do not perceive the body language that would help with this. There are several areas of the brain that may be involved with this, such as the superior temporal sulcus in the temporal lobe, and possibly visual-motor centers in the superior colliculus. But wherever the problem may manifest in the brain (and it is likely that it involves different areas and the communication between them), but upshot of it is a lack of sophistication with language, which is processed by the brain through the auditory sensory processing systems downstream of the primary auditory system, even when it is written.



For example, when N. was younger, I used to say things to him like:

"Would you like to put that dirty plate by the sink?" Although posed as a question, intonation and body language, as well as an understanding of my role as the mother, would give most children the idea that this was a command disguised as a question for politeness. But N. would not see the body language, hear the intonation, or take not of my social role in the situation. He would take the question absolutely literally and respond with his actual desire, thus: "No, I don't want to do that." Now, I quickly figured out, using all the skills that N. did not have, that he was taking my question literally, and I learned to pose my commands directly and concisely in order to get the desired behavior. It worked quite well if I merely said; "Please put the dirty plate by the sink." N. was not being oppositional, he was merely being literal. The problem is that many adults jump immediately to the conclusion that literal children are, in fact, oppositional--and this is where many kids with Aspergers (AS) get into trouble in the wide world beyond the family.



Generalizations are a sophisticated juxtoposition of concepts with reality. They do not directly map onto reality, and when we use them, most of us are aware of the difference. For example, I can make the following generalization: "Christians believe in orignial sin, and therefore..." using the generalization to get on to the actual idea about Christians that I want to present. But beware if you are dealing with someone with AS (or even someone with the broader autistic phenotype). Such a person will immediately call up every counter-example of your statement and derail the conversation into a discussion of the branches of Christianity that do not accept the doctrine of original sin. People with AS and other ASD must be taught directly to understand use of language that goes beyond the literal, such as figures of speech, metaphors, and generalizations.



Another fascinating and wonderful characteristic of the ASD, is that of detail orientation. One area that we see this is in the visual thinking skills that so many people on the spectrum have. Certain kinds of visual tests show that people with ASD are able to process and remember the details of visual input whereas neurotypical people forget the details and retain the gestalt, which is the big picture. There are several ideas currently being investigated about the origins of this skill. But one thing that we do know, people on the spectrum tend to pay attention to the parts rather than the whole. They can perseverate on the parts endlessly, and miss the "big picture."



Generalizations are the verbal counterpart to the big picture. A person making a generalization is doing so in order to get past each detail and present an overall concept for consideration. But to the person with AS, and to those who think almost exclusively in pictures, the generalization seems woefully undetailed and therefore incomplete or even untrue. They have great difficulty with generalizations and can perseverate on the problems they pose, thus missing what comes next. When it comes to writing this is a real problem, since we must make generalizations in order to write concisely about ideas.



Think about all of the generalizations I have made thus far about people with AS, ASD and neurotypicals. I did not do it because I believe that in each individual case what I am talking about applies in exactly the same way, but in order to get across to you an idea about communication and AS.



And now, a word about jargon.



I do understand that in any field, jargon, or technical language is necessary to convey concepts concisely. When I, as a scientist, use certain terms with other scientists, they do not mean the same thing as when I use them in general company. For example, when I taught genetics, I used the term evolution to mean "a change in gene frequencies over time within a population." Any biologist hearing me in context knew exactly what I was saying. Our educations provide us with an agreed upon meaning for the use of the term. But in the general population, the word evolution means something very different. As it is often used, it means change over time leading to some kind of improvement. Directionality (a teleological concept) is not part of what biologists mean. Thus, we get all sorts of amusing (at least to me) controversy over the term.



But as we become more and more specialized, jargon quickly becomes a problem. When scientists within different branches of the same field cannot communicate because they do not understand the technical differences in meaning, well...to quote the warden in Cool Hand Luke: "What we have here is a failure to communicate."



Although I do think that jargon is sometimes used to obfuscate, I do not think that it is always so. To make a generalization (:)), I think that many scientists, especially those who are primarily visual thinkers, overuse jargon because they have not developed the ability to use ordinary language in a sophisticated enough manner to communicate to the general public or even to scientists outside their fields. And in my experience with reading and writing as a scientist, I believe that the way we teach or do not teach writing in graduate schools of science has weakened such skills further. Many times, the use of an apt figure or speech, a metaphor, a generalization, or a homely example would clarify a point and make it more understandable to the reader.



Please do not misunderstand my generalizations here to mean that scientists are all autistic. Only some of us are. And some of the rest of us do have the broader autistic phenotype showing in how we communicate. And neither are all scientists visual thinkers. But a lot of us are. And for some of us, so much so that communicating in words is a difficulty we'd rather forgo.



And as for our students with ASD, I believe it is important to understand their difficulties with the use of generalizations. For if we can understand what the problem is then we are much more likely to be able to teach them how get beyond it. It is so much better than throwing our hands up in the air and calling these kids lazy and intransigent.



Oh, and one more idea: I just realized that generalizations are so useful in writing because language is auditory in nature. Since our auditory working memory can hold, on average, only about seven bits, we generally resort to chunking. For example, if I want to remember a four digit number, such as 1,492, I am very likely to repeat it as "fourteen ninety-two." I have chunked it into two numbers instead of four. Generalizations are a way of chunking a lot of detail into an overall concept, freeing up processing space for manipulating the concept intead of spending an inordinate and impossible amount of energy sorting out every detail.



Anyway, thanks for the comment, Rebecca!

As you can see, it was a very fruitful source of thinking for me!

Oh! And I'd love to know what the quote by Ayn Rand was. I read every one of her books several times as a teenager.