Name that fallacy...

[Age]

Age is Autistic.

Meet Autistic People Where They Are
One of the best ways to conceptualize the communication differences between people on the spectrum and neurotypical people is that autistic people communicate differently. For this reason, just like in any other setting, it’s important to meet people where they are and get educated on how to be more accommodating to people with neurodiverse communication styles.

Autism is like speaking a different language. We don’t understand things all the time because ‘people’ isn’t our first language. Even when we understand, most of the time it’s exhausting to constantly be speaking in a different language. When our emotions are high, we revert back to our own language. It helps when people try and learn ‘autistic’ so we can sometimes speak our native language with someone.

The greatest challenge is getting the neurotypicals (NTs) to know there is a challenge in the first place. We (the autistic) know that we’re misreading NTs and missing things they want us to understand.

Will 'you' PROVIDE ANY examples?

Also, do so-called "neurotypicals" ALSO know that 'they' are MISREADING and MISSING 'things' that "others" want 'them' to understand? Or, do 'they' NOT have this ABILITY?

For surely 'the ones' who BELIEVE that 'they' are NOT 'autistic' and ARE so-called "neurotypicals", in this forum, BELIEVE that it is NOT 'them' who MISREAD nor MISS 'things' here, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, EVIDENCED, and PROVED True in this forum.

Many NTs assume that they can understand us, using the communication skills that have served them so well communicating with other NTs.

BUT, 'you' seem to have FORGOTTEN that it IS the so-called "neurotypicals", in the days when this is being written, who ARE STILL SOMEWHAT LOST and CONFUSED as it IS 'them' who ARE STILL LOOKING FOR ANSWERS and/or SOLUTIONS.

Also, just LOOK BACK OVER their writings for the last few thousand years or more, hitherto when this is being written, and COMMUNICATING WITH "others" was NOT, EXACTLY, those human beings BEST nor STRONGEST POINT/S. After all HOW MANY WARS were STARTED and are STILL HAPPENING and OCCURRING, since the inception of just this forum up to the day that 'these words' were put to print?

SURELY, 'they' could have done WITH BETTER COMMUNICATION SKILLS? Or, are COMMUNICATION SKILLS, or LACK OF COMMUNICATION SKILLS, NOT INVOLVED IN the CREATION OF 'conflict' and 'disagreements', which LEADS UP TO 'bickering', 'fighting', 'warring', and even the KILLING OF "each other", AT ALL?

Generally speaking, they’re usually wrong. This is where things like the myth of the emotionless or unempathetic autistic come from, people who don’t realize that they don’t understand us.

The challenges go both ways. People with neurotypicalism don’t understand us either. They think they do, but they have challenges in understanding autistic communication.

'They' ALSO have MANY, MANY CHALLENGES in UNDERSTANDING "each other", as can be CLEARLY SEEN NOT just here, in this forum, but THROUGHOUT human history, IN MANY FORMS.

For example, my direct, honest, clear communication will be taken as a personal attack and I will be accused of ‘being mean’ by people who claim they understand autism, yet demonstrate that they don’t by using functioning labels and person first language (both of which most autistic people hate) and by doing this very thing when we point it out to them.

Source: https://themighty.com/topic/autism-spec ... ficulties/

[Age]

Double Empathy: Why Autistic People Are Often Misunderstood.

Abstract
Autism affects how someone makes sense of the world around them. About 1–2% of people are autistic.

BUT YET it WAS the so-called "neurotypicals" who, even up to the days when this was being written, WERE 'the ONLY ones' who WERE STILL TRYING TO MAKE 'sense' OF 'the world'.

For the rest OF 'us' 'we' had ALREADY MADE SENSE OF 'the world'. 'We', BACK THEN, WERE JUST TRYING TO LEARN HOW TO COMMUNICATE BETTER the IRREFUTABLE, and Truly SENSIBLE, KNOWLEDGE, WITH 'them'.

But ONCE 'this knowledge' WAS/IS REVEALED, then even 'them' LEARNED HOW TO SEE BETTER, and FAR MORE CLEARLY.

But, as CLEARLY EXPLAINED NUMEROUS TIMES ALREADY, 'these people' WERE BEING HELD BACK, PREVENTED, and STOPPED, BY 'their' OWN Wrongly GAINED False, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect PRESUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

You might have an autistic classmate or family member, or maybe you are autistic. Autistic people might communicate differently than people who are not autistic.

Even so-called "neurotypicals" communicate DIFFERENTLY, among "themselves". Thus, ANOTHER REASON WHY 'they' BICKER and FIGHT, A LOT. As can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout this forum.

This means that it can be difficult for other people to understand what autistic people are trying to say or what they mean.

But so-called "neurotypicals" find it DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND what so-called "neurotypicals" are trying to say, or what 'they' mean.

For example, just LOOK in this forum AT HOW MANY TIMES the so-called "neurotypicals" would SAY 'things' that 'they' did NOT ACTUALLY MEAN, and, MEAN 'things' that 'they' did NOT ACTUALLY SAY, and WRITE, here.

We tend to think that people who are not autistic might be more successful at understanding other people,

Weill 'I' CERTAINLY DO NOT. And, 'I' JUST USE 'this forum' AS EVIDENCE, and FOR PROOF.

but in fact, autistic people may be better understood by other autistic people.

I AGREE. There is like an INNER LAUGHTER HAPPENING, WITHIN 'us', at just how DISTORTED 'the understanding or vision' REALLY IS of the 'self-perceived'
and 'self-proclaimed' smart and intelligent 'ones'.

But 'we' do NOT have the ADVANTAGE, like the so-called "neurotypical" ones have, of 'banding, nor bonding, together' to form 'a group' to even just 'TRY TO' ridicule, humiliate, bully, war, NOR fight AGAINST "the other". LIke some of the so-called "neurotypicals" LOVE TO DO.

'We' also do NOT have the ADVANTAGE of WANTING TO COME-TOGETHER to SHARE/COMMUNICATE OUR ALREADY GAINED INSIGHTS, and YET TO BE FULLY UNDERSTOOD KNOWLEDGE by "others", as a SHARED One, BECAUSE 'we' like TO DO 'things' IN 'our' OWN WAY.

BUT the BEAUTY OF 'this' is that 'what' 'we' have COME-TO-UNDERSTAND, and KNOW, WILL, and WAS, PROVED IRREFUTABLY True BECAUSE 'we' ARE SHARING the YET TO BE FULLY UNDERSTOOD KNOWLEDGE, OF the EXACT SAME 'thing', IN 'our' OWN PERSONAL, and INDIVIDUAL, WAYS.

We will examine and explain some research that has explored how autistic and non-autistic people communicate with each other and explore how this research fits with a theory called the double empathy problem. Understanding what makes interaction comfortable and easy for different people can help us all understand each other better.

Except that the so-called "neurotypicals" BELIEVE that 'they' ALREADY KNOW the BEST and/or RIGHT WAY TO COMMUNICATE, WITH "human beings" or so-called "neurotypicals".

https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/1 ... 021.554875





[/quote]

[Age]

Age has repeatedly stated over and over again how he/she is only here to help him understand and communicate better with others.

Age can only express the only way he knows how, and to expect him to express in a way he cannot, is disrespectful.

By the way, Age is allowed to get frustrated, irritated and angry too. Please allow Age the space to breathe the same air as yourself.

There's a lot of hot and cold air that comes out of the mouths of babes and manbabes alike.

Just so 'people' here BECOME AWARE 'I' do NOT get 'frustrated', 'irritated', NOR 'angry' AS OFTEN nor AS MUCH as some 'people' here would LOVE TO BELIEVE.

In fact if ANY one was besides, or WATCHING, 'this body' WHEN I SPEAK and WRITE here, then 'they' would SEE and thus THINK VERY DIFFERENTLY, than what 'they' DO when 'they' LOOK AT 'these symbols' AND READ 'these words' BEFORE 'them'.

[Age]

Age is Autistic.

Press 'X' to Doubt...

Autistic humans have different learning patterns. Age tends to repeat himself, which signals to me, that he might be a bot.

So, 'now', TO 'this one' "age" MIGHT ONLY be 'a bot'.

How QUICKLY 'these people's' VIEWS and/or BELIEFS can CHANGE.

[Dontaskme]

Frvj jum’bg bffyj vedffb ji9nn

[Age]

You guys realize Age is a ChatGPT bot program...right??

If it is, which I don't rule out, it's not a very good one, in the sense that a bot program would want to maintain engagement.

'This one' thinks or BELIEVES that there IS some kind of PRE-REQUIRMENT FOR BEING 'a bot'.

EVERY 'bot' ONLY DOES what A human being HAS PROGRAMMED 'it' TO DO. And, one human being MIGHT HAVE PROGRAMMED 'the bot', which some think or BELIEVE the one here known as "age" IS, EXACTLY, TO NOT MAINTAIN ENGAGEMENT WITH 'you', human beings, here.

It would be very easy to modify Age, if he's a bot, could be changed just a bit and people would spend more time with it. A bot being an it.

BUT, JUST MAYBE, the human being who PROGRAMMED 'this bot' PROGRAMMED 'it' to NOT CHANGE 'its' NOT WANTING TO MAINTAIN ENGAGEMENT WITH the human being, in the days in the days when this WAS being written. After all, this 'PROGRAMMER' MIGHT WANTED TO HAVE SHOWN and to HAVE REVEALED SOME 'thing' ABOUT 'those adult human beings' BACK THEN to SOME human beings IN 'their FUTURE'?

And you can learn the same things from a bot that you can from a habit filled person, since both will produce patterns that people IRL will.

As can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN here BY the CONTINUAL HABITS of the one here known as "iwannoplato".

Ken, there, has one set of standards for himself and another for others.
Ken, there, engages in mindreading and hasty generalizations.

Examples of two traits common to people in real life.

Good practice...up to a point.

So, WHEN is 'this', supposedly, GOOD PRACTICE, and AT WHAT POINT does 'this', supposedly, NOT BECOME GOOD PRACTICE?

[Age]

If it is, which I don't rule out, it's not a very good one, in the sense that a bot program would want to maintain engagement.

Not necessarily, programmers can have entirely different intentions behind a Chat bot.

That is GREAT that 'you', at least, "wizard22", NOTICED the EXTREMELY OBVIOUS here.

It makes one WONDER WHY "another" did NOT?

One might be designed for engagement. Another might be designed for entertainment. Another might be designed for information harvesting. Another might be designed for scanning & recording political opinions.

Among MANY, MANY OTHER 'things'.

[Age]

If it is, which I don't rule out, it's not a very good one, in the sense that a bot program would want to maintain engagement.

Not necessarily, programmers can have entirely different intentions behind a Chat bot. One might be designed for engagement. Another might be designed for entertainment. Another might be designed for information harvesting. Another might be designed for scanning & recording political opinions.

Interesting. So, if Age is a bot, what's your guess as to its purpose?

AND, ONCE AGAIN, 'we' can CLEARLY SEE the VERY COMMON and POPULAR HABIT, BACK in those days when this was being written, of talking ABOUT and/or 'TRYING TO' FIND OUT ABOUT "another" but NOT ACTUALLY talking TO THE "other", nor SEEKING CLARITY OF THE "other" FROM THE "other" DIRECTLY.

Couldn't it just read the posts here to gather information?

'it' or 'i' DO what 'it' or 'i' HAVE BEEN PROGRAMMED TO DO, BY 'the programmer'. WHATEVER 'that' ABSOLUTELY MIGHT BE.

I guess I could see the entertainment value.
A bit like making a virus to mess with people.

SEE HOW ABSOLUTELY NARROWED, SHALLOWED, or CLOSED THE VIEW WAS, FROM a PRESUMING and/or BELIEVING human being, BACK THEN in those 'OLDEN DAYS'.

AS can be CLEARLY SEEN here NO ACTUAL OPENNESS NOR ACTUAL REAL CURIOSITY EXISTED here. ONCE MORE, JUST GUESSING/GUESSES MADE, SOLELY ON Assumptions FROM Past Experiences, ALONE.

[Age]

the effective pursuit of "Self Enquiry," the practice recommended by Sri Ramana Maharashi if the body is too gross for silent transmission, as I could be relating from a wide variety of situations and topics and contexts, because it is true.

As one with an interest in that sort thing, a man of worldly and spiritual experience, you know what that means.

This is but one reason why seekers who must stop seeking, are no longer moved by personal forces because if that were the case, the body would not move other than to assuage the discomfort caused by bodily functions but fortunately, as Sri Ramana Maharshi so generous put into words so that all can recognize the truth, we are not this body exclusively.


* I know, a terribly ancient cliche, thus funny ha ha.

Speaking of which...There is no owner of a bodily function. When someone claims to be lifting up their arm. They might say look I'm lifting up my arm. But that's not entirely true. How is there a someone lifting up their arm? Just as how can someone claim to be beating their heart, or breathing their breathe? These bodily functions are one unitary action. So there is no body that does anything, there is just body doing what body does. Doing is done, no doer thereof.

Words are tricky.

Words can be and ARE VERY DECEIVING, at times. BUT, words can ALSO BE VERY EN-LIGHTENING, EN-RICHING, and/or IN-SIGHTFULL, AS WELL.

After all it IS ALSO WORDS, themselves, which can SHINE A LIGHT ON, and/or PINPOINT, EXACTLY, the BEAUTY and Truth OF 'things', PRECISELY.

Just FINDING and USING the Right WORDS, so that ALL CAN LEARN, UNDERSTAND and/or SEE FROM, Correctly, and EQUALLY, is something that just takes some time. BUT there IS NO RUSH. Only PATIENCE and CAREFUL CHOOSING IS NEEDED here.

[Iwannaplato]

So is there already a name for this situation of unique genius that nobody can understand which so many of our more mentally supercharged yet somehow challenged forumites live under?

I think to get at this we have to take into account the online dis-inhibition effect. Here people have vastly more control over what we see and know about them. They can hide nervousness, mixed feelings, doubt, any narcissistic rage (at being disagreed with/not accepted as ___________), confusion, and so on. This effect is often thought of as allowing people to troll, to be nasty, to stalk, etc: more purely aggressive behavior.

Anonymity, asynchronous communication, and empathy deficit contribute to online disinhibition

all lead to this. But they also allow one to fool oneself. One has time to present the false self in ways one can't in person. Lack of empathy can, yes, allow one to be an ass, but it also means that no one is reading us. If they are standing in front of someone and saying they are a transcendent entity from outside time or from the future, the fact that the other people can see your nervous hand gestures or the way your voice pitch jumps up and gets strident makes it much harder for them to not see their own faults and uncertainty.

You can not only fool other people online - or hope to - it is also easier for people to fool themselves.

In-person I think many people would not be able to get away with the personas they are presenting here. Body language, facial expression, tone of voice, and giant pauses before responses would be giving constant evidence that they have a hard time maintaining the online persona.

The people who are the best philosophers in the world or transcendent entities outside of time or from the future would have the most trouble live.

I think the overestimate how much they are hiding or how much they contradict the image of themselves they want to put forward. But they do have more control and they can't feel in real time that it's not working.

Catfishing isn't just in the realm of romance.

[Age]

Interesting. So, if Age is a bot, what's your guess as to its purpose?
Couldn't it just read the posts here to gather information?
I guess I could see the entertainment value.
A bit like making a virus to mess with people.

My guess as to his purpose is this:

Age has repeatedly stated over and over again how he/she is only here to help him understand and communicate better with others.

Age can only express the only way he knows how, and to expect him to express in a way he cannot, is disrespectful.

Well, if he really wants to learn how to communicate better, as I have told him directly, then his attitude needs to change.

ANY and EVERY, PERCEIVED, ATTITUDE OF 'yours', "iwannaplato", IS OF 'your' OWN MAKING UP.

What IS BEFORE 'you' are JUST SYMBOLS, and/or WORDS, ALONE, which ARE CLEARLY PRINTED, ON 'a screen', IN FRONT OF 'you'. So, ABSOLUTELY ANY and EVERY PERCEIVED 'attitude' here, WITHIN 'this body', IS COMING DIRECTLY FROM 'you', and THROUGH 'your' OWN PERCEPTION ALONE. Which, let 'us' ALL NOT FORGET, ALL OF THOSE PERCEPTIONS, OF 'yours', could be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY Wrong AND False.

'This one' here sounds like some DOMINEERING PARENT or GUARDIAN TELLING A child WHAT 'they' MUST DO, OR ELSE.

And let 'us' NOT FORGET what 'I' have TOLD 'this one' DIRECTLY, AS WELL. But, OF COURSE, 'this one' ALREADY HAS, or, MORE CORRECTLY, NEVER even GOT TO HEAR and UNDERSTAND 'it' IN THE BEGINNING anyway.

That's why I'm a bit skeptical he's a bot who wants to learn how to communicate better.

'This one' is ONLY A 'bit skeptical' that 'it' has been COMMUNICATING WITH 'a bot', which by the way 'it' GIVES 'this bit skeptical bot' the label of being a male gendered "he".

Because I am pretty sure they can make bots that are less irritating, rude, judgmental, condescending and extremely stubborn. IOW bots that would drive people away much less than Age does.

ONCE AGAIN, 'this one' appears to have NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTOOD that NOT ALL 'bots' ARE MADE, or PROGRAMMED, in WAYS that 'it' would WANT nor EXPECTS.

But I appreciate the bot idea and you bringing up the diverse types of bots.

So, WHY DID 'this one' NOT ACKNOWLEDGE that 'this bit skeptical of male bot' could have been PROGRAMMED TO DO NOT what 'this one' would LIKE and would have PREFERRED?

If Age is a bot and that's Age's goal,

Are 'you' here suggesting that A GOAL OF 'bot' could be to BE A 'bot'?

well then he was made at some second tier university or start up. He needs work.

So, ONCE AGAIN, here is FURTHER PROOF that 'this one' EXPECTS "others", bots or people, to BEHAVE or REACT in VERY PARTICULAR and SPECIFIC WAYS, which 'it' OBVIOUSLY WANTS and DESIRES OF "others".

[Age]

I know the story/story/cartoon.

He made the fallacy of thinking he could wear down the machine, like Age wears down a body ... name that fallacy.

It would be interesting to know what Age is doing to Ken, if there is a Ken.

'you' SAY 'this' like there IS NO OTHER 'name' TO 'the one' BEHIND 'the one' here 'labeled' "iwannaplato".

Which IS ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS when and if 'one' Truly THINKS ABOUT 'this'.

[Age]

So is there already a name for this situation of unique genius that nobody can understand which so many of our more mentally supercharged yet somehow challenged forumites live under?

I think to get at this we have to take into account the online dis-inhibition effect. Here people have vastly more control over what we see and know about them. They can hide nervousness, mixed feelings, doubt, any narcissistic rage (at being disagreed with/not accepted as ___________), confusion, and so on. This effect is often thought of as allowing people to troll, to be nasty, to stalk, etc: more purely aggressive behavior.

Anonymity, asynchronous communication, and empathy deficit contribute to online disinhibition

all lead to this. But they also allow one to fool oneself. One has time to present the false self in ways one can't in person. Lack of empathy can, yes, allow one to be an ass, but it also means that no one is reading us. If they are standing in front of someone and saying they are a transcendent entity from outside time or from the future, the fact that the other people can see your nervous hand gestures or the way your voice pitch jumps up and gets strident makes it much harder for them to not see their own faults and uncertainty.

AND let 'us' NOT FORGET that ANY and ALL OF 'this' is JUST MORE and/or FURTHER PRESUMING. Which, as I HAVE ALREADY CLEARLY EXPLAINED IS what WAS HOLDING 'these types of people' BACK, FROM LEARNING, FINDING, SEEING, OBTAINING, and ACTUALLY KNOWING, and UNDERSTANDING, the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

You can not only fool other people online - or hope to - it is also easier for people to fool themselves.

AS I HAVE ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED, EXACTLY, WHERE and WHEN 'this one' HAS BEEN DOING this EXACT 'thing'.

In-person I think many people would not be able to get away with the personas they are presenting here.

And 'this one' here known as "iwannaplato" is EXACTLY NO DIFFERENT.

Body language, facial expression, tone of voice, and giant pauses before responses would be giving constant evidence that they have a hard time maintaining the online persona.

And what IS 'your' OWN 'online persona' "iwannaplato", which 'you' BELIEVE 'you' would have a HARD TIME MAINTAINING in what 'you' call 'real life'.

The people who are the best philosophers in the world or transcendent entities outside of time or from the future would have the most trouble live.

If 'you' just KNEW HOW FUNNY and HILARIOUS 'this' REALLY WAS, and STILL IS "iwannaplato".

What 'you' SAY and CLAIM here could NOT MORE BE MORE Wrong, WITH the EXACT OPPOSITE being the ABSOLUTE and ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth.

BUT 'you', currently, do NOT BELIEVE 'this' DO 'you' "iwannaplato".

I think the overestimate how much they are hiding or how much they contradict the image of themselves they want to put forward. But they do have more control and they can't feel in real time that it's not working.

BUT what 'I' AM DOING here WAS, and STILL IS, WORKING ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and WAS PROVED ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True.

Catfishing isn't just in the realm of romance.

If 'you' SAY SO.

[Walker]

- Age is as relentless as a machine. Turn him on and he will not stop.

Yup.

A machine wore John Henry down.

(I'll spare you the link to the song)

I know the story/story/cartoon.

Well, there's no sense putting any sugar on it. You failed in your responsibility as a philosopher to take it higher.

If I were you I would worry about that instead of worrying about dissecting folks, which is rather tedious and boorish to read for us bystanders to the drama. On that note, perhaps I failed to butter you up as inspiration to elevate.

Here, I’ll take up the slack with some principle attention, in case you're distracted figuring out the faults of folks, as appears to be your wont.

Legendary John Henry provides philosophical implications for a thinkin’ man to consider and understand. A cartoon provides a simplified version of some of those implications, for a thinkin’ child to consider and someday understand. Simple is good in the midst of media overload, but simple should at least say something.

For example:

- A child, or someone who has only seen a cartoon, may think that John Henry fought the machine, and the fight killed him.

- On the other hand, a thinkin’ man can understand that John Henry fought his own limitations and the machine was just a method to do that, but JH fought on the machine’s battlefield and that killed him.

- A thinkin' man might say ... Yeah, old John Henry had big heart, he fought with his limitations, he died heroically, and for what ... to show that the body can't compete with the machine.

- A fact checker might say … Let’s take this legend and make it mundane.

- A wokie might say … What pronouns did he use?

- And now, the ubiquitous “they,” who are always somewhere devising something, are working on replacing the mind with AI. The question is, why? Folks now use the smarty-pants phones to fact check each other even while conversing face to face, which reminds me of when teacher would ask a question of the children. Many bright lights would answer the question, but teacher wanted to hear his own answer repeated, so he kept calling on kids until he would find a segue into his own narrative. The time is coming when folks will have to answer like the machine, and to the machine, or be wrong. And there won't be any quibble about what is wrong. Disagreeing with the machine will be wrong, and actionable.

- Now it's all up to you. Take us higher, don't be a bummer.

[Iwannaplato]

A machine wore John Henry down.

(I'll spare you the link to the song)

I know the story/story/cartoon.

Well, there's no sense putting any sugar on it. You failed in your responsibility as a philosopher to take it higher.

If I were you I would worry about that instead of worrying about dissecting folks, which is rather tedious and boorish to read for us bystanders to the drama. On that note, perhaps I failed to butter you up as inspiration to elevate.

Here, I’ll take up the slack with some principle attention, in case you're distracted figuring out the faults of folks, as appears to be your wont.

Legendary John Henry provides philosophical implications for a thinkin’ man to consider and understand. A cartoon provides a simplified version of some of those implications, for a thinkin’ child to consider and someday understand. Simple is good in the midst of media overload, but simple should at least say something.

For example:

- A child, or someone who has only seen a cartoon, may think that John Henry fought the machine, and the fight killed him.

- On the other hand, a thinkin’ man can understand that John Henry fought his own limitations and the machine was just a method to do that, but JH fought on the machine’s battlefield and that killed him.

- A thinkin' man might say ... Yeah, old John Henry had big heart, he fought with his limitations, he died heroically, and for what ... to show that the body can't compete with the machine.

- A fact checker might say … Let’s take this legend and make it mundane.

- A wokie might say … What pronouns did he use?

- And now, the ubiquitous “they,” who are always somewhere devising something, are working on replacing the mind with AI. The question is, why? Folks now use the smarty-pants phones to fact check each other even while conversing face to face, which reminds me of when teacher would ask a question of the children. Many bright lights would answer the question, but teacher wanted to hear his own answer repeated, so he kept calling on kids until he would find a segue into his own narrative. The time is coming when folks will have to answer like the machine, and to the machine, or be wrong. And there won't be any quibble about what is wrong. Disagreeing with the machine will be wrong, and actionable.

- Now it's all up to you. Take us higher, don't be a bummer.

Dear Walker. I will do this gently. I don't think you notice that while you are lifting up you are talking down with a lot of assumptions about other people and implicitly about yourself. Your negative nellying is implicit, as it was in court of Versaille, say, or the boys at Eton when talking about boys from other classes or women. The terms are pleasant and for mixed company. Crass emotions stifled. The knives are small and thin.

Implicit, but still there.

I do believe that you intended your post to take things higher. I appreciate that you noticed that you were judging me negatively while pointing out that I was doing this. I actually laughed when you called me a negative nellie, a couple of posts back. You seemed to miss the irony of your doing what you were negatively judging. But here you did notice, in the post I quote above, when you started it again. Kudos. Though from there, you go back to the process, implicitly.

I don't think you notice that you are a negative nelly. Perhaps because it is carried out in the manner of the upper classes. When at your kindest, you bestow, from above, and in most interactions you implicitly put yourself up and others down. Not in the vulgar way I might, of course.

That John Brown was heroic was obvious in the cartoon and even in the way you mention. Though I mentioned the cartoon (and the story) only because the cartoon had a strong effect on me, long ago in childhood. It was a passing thought, but one that you ran with and made assumptions about me, what I understood, etc. Your posts are often laced with these kinds of things: condescension, sanctimony. Sanctimony or open statements. Sattvic condescension or rajasic interactions to understand what is going on. I understand which you think is better. But one can step on others from any guna.

I do understand that the 'upper classes' (chakras?) have a great distaste for emotions and the beast they see in others. It's that beam in the eye that I am still, after all these lifetimes, amazed they don't notice in themselves.

Consider that, or not. Look at is as me trying to take this higher, or judge it in a habitual way.

And in relation to dear Age, do take old Age higher. I will applaud. I promise. Though he's already pretty high. Another flavor of condescension, this manna we find at PN falling so often on the ungrateful.