Stimming vs. fidgeting?

[Fortune]

Originally Posted by Assumption

I've always thought that if anything, I'm a 6 on Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning. Before I get too self-congratulatory though, maybe that's because I have trouble even comprehending stages 1-5? I actually think I've been a 6 since I was a small child (hence my mother telling me that I always had an overdeveloped sense of justice).

I tend to look at things in terms of 5-6, I think. 5-level stuff is why I get frustated with people who show up here and basically harass other members when the point of being here is to be on a support forum. It's one thing to be blunt and perhaps harsh to someone who might need something bluntly stated, but it's another thing to pick random threads to tell people they can't possibly have ADHD, for example.

[Assumption]

I think you're allowed to integrate the lower levels into the higher levels. For instance, let's say you're a utilitarian. You might justify the social contract in terms of the expected benefits for people's welfare (or go for something like rule utilitarianism).

Although I guess maybe you'd still get scored as a 5 if you chose to use the social contract to explain why something was wrong... in spite of the fact that for you, 5 is given its normativity by virtue of its relationship to 6 (so really, you're a 6, you just use 5 sometimes, which is understandable - it's like: why use physics to explain something better explained by chemistry?).

I'm not sure how much I use 5. I'll have to think about it some more. I do tend to be mostly in favour of civil disobedience wherever I think the government is wrong. Internet piracy being one example.

[CheekyMonkey]

Originally Posted by Assumption

One thing I wonder about the social thing. I've read Baron-Cohen's "the science of evil," one of his books about the zero degrees of empathy hypothesis. He seems to think that people on the autism spectrum are impaired both in terms of their ability to recognize emotion and in their motivation to respond appropriately. I wonder if I'm just impaired in the latter? I hope that doesn't mean I'm a psychopath.

Many in the autistic community think his theories on autism and empathy are wrong, and I tend to agree.

[angora]

Originally Posted by Fortune

I can't speak for everyone, but I hate devil's advocate style arguments. My instinct is that it's manipulative and deceitful, and it really frustrates me. I realize that people who do it are not trying to be manipulative or deceitful automatically (although I think some who do it really are both of those things). It's sort of like finding out I was arguing with someone who turned out to be lying for the sake of creating the argument in the first place

I can take any side in most arguments.

It's not an attempt to manipulate or be deceitful for me - I generally can see both sides.

Sometimes I do it because it's stimulating. Sometimes I do it because I can't decide which side I'm on.

And sometimes, in a group, I do it to support the side that seems to be losing an argument if it does not seem like a "fair fight" to me.

[ana futura]

Originally Posted by angora

I can take any side in most arguments.

It's not an attempt to manipulate or be deceitful for me - I generally can see both sides.

Sometimes I do it because it's stimulating. Sometimes I do it because I can't decide which side I'm on.

And sometimes, in a group, I do it to support the side that seems to be losing an argument if it does not seem like a "fair fight" to me.

Yeah, this sounds like me. I'm not so much a devil's advocate as I can usually see all the possibilities. Whichever side I pick, I go for it with gusto, because I'm a little bit ODD.

Sometimes I don't see both sides, but once I've have had a chance to digest new information I can come around and see how I was "wrong" but this takes days, or months.

There is stuff I've argued with my partner over that I now agree with her on. But when I disagreed, my ODD type tendencies just made me a full on irrational basket of rage. I'm not measured or calm when I argue. I've gotten better, but I still would never argue with someone for any reason other than to insist that I'm right.

I think what's going on with me is that I notice the Pica and sensory stuff, which not many people with ADHD have, and then start looking for ASD symptoms elsewhere. I'll look at my emotional dysregulation and ODD symptoms, and start trying to frame them as aspergers, but I think they are really just ADHD.

As far as empathy I can be very empathetic, but I have trouble connecting to that feeling. It's not that I don't understand it, but my emotions tend to be so loud that the softer ones are harder for me to connect to and notice.

I will say something inconsiderate about someone, for instance I will drive past a homeless person and say something about how they shouldn't panhandle cause I know they'll only spend it on drugs, and the city is going to hell. Then a few minutes later I'll feel really bad about my initial reaction, and I get very sad for them. I start seeing how that could be me, if circumstances were different. Then I just get this overwhelming feeling of bleh, both because poverty exists, and because I was a jerk. My more caring emotions always seem tinged with regret.

My number one issue with empathy seems to be that I'm on a time delay.

[ana futura]

Also, in addition to the "time delay" I experience, sometimes I think my initial negative reaction to something blocks the development of positive emotions like empathy.

In certain situations empathy and sympathy don't get a chance develop because my negative emotions override them.

[Drewbacca]

Originally Posted by Assumption

Well, if that's what it is.... I DO do that from time to time. For instance, I shift around a lot in bed. But pretty much none of the stuff above falls into that category (that is, unless you use a really broad definition of 'comfortable,' and then, maybe).

I was never aware of how much I fidget until I started taking Adderall. Once I took the medication for a few weeks and then took a week long break, I started to notice my behavior. It was at it's worst during a college class, but you could see it throughout the day in my interactions.

[MikhailTal]

I used to think I had aspergers. Because I have ADD-I and have some symptoms that are like ASD symptoms (ADD-I and ASD lead to similar behavior sometimes, although with different causes mostly). But most of all, because I stim. Not a lot, and I can hide it pretty well. When I get excited, I sometimes jump a little when I'm alone, and pull funny faces in the mirror. When I get very angry, I bite my finger or shake my hands. I've read that it could be an hypo/hypersensitivity issue, so I need to regulate my nervous system with a physical movement.

So in my opinion the difference between stimming and fidgetting, is that stimming is used to regulate emotion and thoughts (pacing while thinking is stimming too), fidgetting is an urge to move because of restlessness. I do however fidget a lot, and I know it's different from my stimming.

The stimming soothes my emotions when they get too extreme. I'm pretty sure it's a sensory issue, and since most autistic people have such issues, I used to think I was one of them. But then again, I understand facial expressions, irony, sarcasm, and have a neurotypical sense of humor (is there such a thing?), and I have no problems with change or obsessive hobbies. My only social problem is recurring motivation problems to socialize, but it's more an ADD-I issue I guess.

[Assumption]

Originally Posted by ana futura

Yeah, this sounds like me. I'm not so much a devil's advocate as I can usually see all the possibilities. Whichever side I pick, I go for it with gusto, because I'm a little bit ODD.

I seem to come down on the underdog's side fairly often. I'm not sure if I'm biased to do so or whether I just tend to think a bit differently to many people? Whatever the cause, and whatever side I come down on, I tend to argue about it passionately.

Actually, scratch that. I often just disagree with BOTH sides and come up with my own third option, which just HAS to be right. Haha!

Yeah, I'm not sure what's with my slowness. I think it might be inattentiveness, but I'm not sure. I notice it when people are talking fast (I just lose track of what they're saying) and also when unexpected stuff happens - if someone greets me in a hallway I get surprised, grimace (I'm practically incapable of a social, non-genuine smile) and mutter hello quietly (why do I do it quietly? It's not like that's more polite - much of the time I actually WHISPER).

[Fortune]

Originally Posted by angora

I can take any side in most arguments.

It's not an attempt to manipulate or be deceitful for me - I generally can see both sides.

Sometimes I do it because it's stimulating. Sometimes I do it because I can't decide which side I'm on.

And sometimes, in a group, I do it to support the side that seems to be losing an argument if it does not seem like a "fair fight" to me.

I tried to explain that I realize that people don't always do this for manipulative or deceitful reasons. However, when I put effort into an argument it really does frustrate to learn that the person I was arguing with didn't actually believe what they were saying.

[Assumption]

Out of interest Fortune, what is the specific issue that you have with Baron-Cohen's account? My understanding of it is more or less:

1) There are 2 ways you can fail to empathise: by not recognizing others' emotional states, or by not being motivated by those emotional states you do recognize.
2) People on the AS have impairments in both.

Do you disagree with this? Or just think that it's an overly simplistic summary of what's going on (and/or take exception with some of the other things he's said such as his account of what systematizing is all about)

If the latter, do you think all people with Asperger's are impaired with both? Or are some impaired with just one and not the other? I suspect the latter (both times), based on our conversations elsewhere, but just wanted to clarify what your position is. :P

[Fortune]

Originally Posted by Assumption

Out of interest Fortune, what is the specific issue that you have with Baron-Cohen's account? My understanding of it is more or less:

1) There are 2 ways you can fail to empathise: by not recognizing others' emotional states, or by not being motivated by those emotional states you do recognize.
2) People on the AS have impairments in both.

This itself is factually incorrect. There are two kinds of empathy - cognitive empathy, which is the ability to model what other people are thinking, and affective empathy, which is the ability to perceive others' emotions.

Most people have typical levels of both. Psychopathy tends to lead to a lack of affective empathy with normal levels of cognitive empathy. Autism tends to lead to a lack of cognitive empathy with typical levels of affective empathy.

For that matter, using Cohen's own tools, people with borderline personality disorder (another so-called "zero empathy" condition) demonstrate high levels of affective empathy, to the point that it impairs cognitive empathy. This is why dialectical behavioral therapy works to treat BPD - it teaches people who have it to work through those excessive attributions.

Also, Cohen's reading the mind in the eyes test? It turns out in other studies, that autistic people and NTs score approximately the same range of scores.

Cohen's EQ doesn't measure empathy very well. It's a confused morass of questions that tend to result in autistic people scoring low and NTs scoring higher, but some of the questions deal with cognitive empathy, some with affective empathy, and some have nothing to do with empathy at all.

Also, Cohen's much-vaunted "extreme male brain" theory is probably not true:

http://www.ajnr.org/content/33/1/83.short

You can read the full article for free, but what it says is that autistic brains tend to develop more like "halfway" between what is typical for male and what is typical for female brains, that sex differences are attenuated.

Do you disagree with this? Or just think that it's an overly simplistic summary of what's going on (and/or take exception with some of the other things he's said such as his account of what systematizing is all about)

I think it's overly simplistic, factually wrong, and serves his pet theories about what autism is (so-called "mindblindness"). I also disagree with his explanation of what systemizing is all about.

If the latter, do you think all people with Asperger's are impaired with both? Or are some impaired with just one and not the other? I suspect the latter (both times), based on our conversations elsewhere, but just wanted to clarify what your position is. :P

My position is that as far as expertise goes, Simon Baron-Cohen seems more influenced by his theories of what autism is and not so much by empirical research that shows he's not really correct.

I have a lot of trouble working out what other people might be thinking or how people will react to things (I lose friends easily this way). I have developed compensatory strategies over time - I know that certain kinds of subjects are likely to get negative reactions. But my motivation to react to someone else's emotions varies based on many circumstances and is not simply absent. I am also capable of sympathizing with people, if I have an experience I can relate to what they say they're experiencing.

Also, many people mistake empathy as a capacity for compassion, and that is itself simply not true. One does not require cognitive empathy to be capable of compassion, and I think compassion is one of the drives that many autistic people have that pushes many toward making a set of rules about such things. I do care if I hurt someone, but I might not notice. If it's pointed out, however, I try to make amends. Several social rituals are important for this sort of thing.

Another issue that makes it difficult to react to someone else's emotions, however, is alexithymia - an inability to identify with one's own emotions. If I do not identify an emotional reaction to something, I will have to work out how to react - like when my mother told me my stepfather had cancer, and was crying, I had to consciously connect the crying to what she said, and then work through a decision tree to determine if a hug was appropriate. But I was still motivated to respond, I just didn't immediately know how.

[fracturedstory]

Three pages? EEEH URR C'mon give me a...
OK, I'll answer.

Stimming is what people on the autistic spectrum do to calm anxiety. It is usually a very specific repetitive behaviour. For example when I walk into town I shake my hand. I also flap my hands when I exercise, but stimming can also come about when I'm excited. Sometimes I lose complete control of this body of mine (not in a messy way) when mixing music with physical movement.

My staring at clouds, tops of buildings and tiny little objects with a lot of detail and running my fingers over them because I like the different textures - can be counted as stimming.

Some people think listening to music over and over again is stimming but it's not really.

Er what else? I do thick tongue flick thing which I usually stop when it hurts my teefies.

Stimming is communicating really. Communicating with your body. In the most severest form when people can't feel their limbs properly. I do that when I feel numb. Physically numb, not the emotional kind.

There is also sensation seeking but that's not the same as stimming, though people think it is. But if I said any more I think I would continue to confuse people.

Oh yes, and when I'm nervous at the dinner table or in a restaurant I line things up. Anyone who calls it OCD will get a big slap from me. OCD requires me to care about people dying when I do these rituals. At the moment I'm lining things up I want to be as far away from people as possible, and suddenly everything looks lopsided.

[fracturedstory]

Also, I dislike Simon Baron Cohen because he makes it out like people with autism are a bunch of psychopaths.

[Assumption]

Originally Posted by fracturedstory

Stimming is communicating really. Communicating with your body.

Hmm, I think I get that sometimes. I think the face stroking might be that. (Ugh! I just went to stroke my face after typing that, and I'd forgotten that I had shaved my beard off today [It was an unintentional 2 week beard]. That was very surprising and weird.) Anyway, face stroking. Yeah, it's hard to describe what I do but it's like, if you have a short hair between two surfaces, and exert just the right amount of pressure, and then move those surfaces parallel to each other, the way the hair moves is quite interesting.

Actually, I'm not sure if that's communicating. More like interacting. I don't know.

Also, the foot wiggling, possibly.

Oh yes, and when I'm nervous at the dinner table or in a restaurant I line things up. Anyone who calls it OCD will get a big slap from me. OCD requires me to care about people dying when I do these rituals. At the moment I'm lining things up I want to be as far away from people as possible, and suddenly everything looks lopsided.

I also like to line things up - e.g. my D&D books, my warhammer models (my wife calls them 'little men'). We bought my 1 year old some mega blocks... I think I've spent longer playing with them than he has!

What about walking in patterns? For instance, if there's checkerboard tiles, I feel quite a strong urge to just walk the black squares, or to step in the pattern that a knight would take in chess. I don't HAVE to do it, but often I will. I'm not sure if I do it specifically when nervous or excited though. I mean, I've never thought about that.

As a kid, there used to be something about the roof of my mouth (the texture? The way it felt? Tickly or itchy?) that motivated me to do this strange sucky, grunty thing with my throat (repetitively). I'm not sure what it was. It sounded like a demonic pig! And it tended to weird people out. Luckily I've stopped doing that :P