Don Piano

Landmilch im Morgenkaffee

Gibts die denn auch in nicht peinlich?

Oh fuck, mein Beileid. <3

That’s a more realistic analogy, but my point here isn’t that autism is not a multidimensional and continuously distributed trait. My point is only that a spectrum and dichotomized group membership are technically conceivable, even if substantively absurd.

There’s a conceivable reality where you have a spectrum of autistic traits, but whether someone is autistic is a strict binary. Imagine a lamp that can have any color, but that is either turned on or off. This would be quite funky, because there’d have to be some sort of mechanism that causes strict grouping - something you see in psychology maybe sometimes in sequence learning research and some types of reasoning research, but otherwise is quite rare.

However, this is obviously not reality.

There’s people with more pronounced autistic traits and those with less pronounced ones. There isn’t half an autist, but there can be someone whose autistic traits’ intensities are near the middle of those of a person who clearly is autistic and those of a person who clearly isn’t.

The categorical nature of diagnoses does not reflect the underlying phenomena, it reflects arguments about healthcare resource allocation. The actual phenomena are more nuanced

Narcissism is a somewhat multidimensional trait with gradients of intensity. Who told you that it’s a binary classification?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346546680_Untangling_the_associations_that_narcissistic_admiration_and_narcissistic_rivalry_have_with_agency_communion_and_romantic_commitment/figures?lo=1

24 km/h, give or take

Yup

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber–Fechner_law

DAS

Ja.

Nimm halt nen bleistift zur hand statt den mist

L loss Y ymca i assume

Crocodilia, like birds, are archosaurs.

… Wieso?

Usually more of a logarithmic relationship though

Either way, keeping at it is essential

I won’t quote and statistics here.

Weird. Wonder why

Of course it would be D&D. Playing something more interesting would require commitment to a perspective.

Paranoia would be more thematically appropriate, of course.

Ah. It’s somewhat odd for me, as my love for and of nature, as well as (and in the same vein) my ideas about human potential and dignity come from a specifically un- if not anti-spiritual place.

Something like: The material world is not only beautiful (in a fundamental way, I don’t merely mean pretty like a forest on a hill, but also beautiful like all the interconnected systems that make it a forest), but also all there is, and that is part of the reason why caring about feeling beings is important.

But yeah, we always gotta make some judgement calls on who and what we exclude and include with the terms we use.

Note: I include a love of nature, humanism, etc. under the ‘spiritual’ label, as well as traditionally religiously spiritual.

Huh. Why?