I'm all excited today because I found out that Abby and Norma was mentioned on ITworld.com! In fact, it was the Geek Comic of the Week! Still is, as of the time of this writing. Awesome! I had put a few Project Wonderful ads for it on Dinosaur Comics and Dr. McNinja... and I guess the publicity is paying off.
By the way, I highly recommend Project Wonderful to any ordinary person trying to get visitors to a website. I got three days of ads on Dinosaur Comics and one day of ads on Dr. McNinja for less than ten dollars. The genius of their system is that they charge by the day, not by clicks or page impressions, so you can't get screwed by someone who decides to click on your ad eighty times. If you've decided you don't want to get charged more than ten bucks, you won't get charged more than ten bucks. (Not so great if you're the person selling ad space... but actually, in my case, it would be better than Google Ads, which have gotten me only 5 clicks and $3.34 in the several months and thousands of page views that they've been on my website.)
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
No faith in the existence of faith
If "faith" is defined as "believing something without evidence," then there is no such thing as faith.
Now, when I say "evidence," I don't mean "absolute proof." It's impossible to have absolute proof of anything. Even if you see something with your own eyes, you could just be hallucinating. Even if the answer to a mathematical problem makes perfect sense to you, that might be because of some deformity in your brain. There are plenty of things that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is nothing that can be proven beyond all doubt.
So if someone says that we don't have absolute proof of the theory of evolution, for example... well, that's technically true, but meaningless, since we also don't have absolute proof that there are any planets besides Earth, or that light comes from the sun, or that fairies don't exist.
It's pointless to define evidence as absolute proof. The most that evidence can be is "a piece of information that convinces you that something is likely to be true." And nobody can believe something without any evidence at all. It's just that some people need more evidence than others.
For example, I believe that evolution happened-- because there is a lot of scientific evidence that convinces me that evolution is more likely than the alternative (since the alternative is either "Thousands of scientists are conspiring to fake their results" or "God faked all the fossil evidence just to mess with our minds.")
But some people hold their beliefs based on lines of reasoning like the following:
A) "My parents taught this to me, and I believe my parents are always right about things like this, therefore I will believe it."
Or:
B) "I believe that God is good, and I like X and dislike Y, therefore I believe that God also likes X and dislikes Y, because otherwise God wouldn't be good in my opinion."
Most religious beliefs are held based on these two logical processes. They are not very strong lines of reasoning, but they are also not faith. They are evidence, in the sense of "a piece of information that convinces a person that something is likely to be true." Starting with pieces of information like "My parents believe this" or "God is good and I think that these things are good," people draw a line of logical reasoning and reach a religious belief.
The reason it's impossible to have blind faith is because there are thousands of religions in the world. If people could have faith in a religion without any concrete proof or logical argument in favor of it, then they would believe every religion that exists... and since religions contradict each other, this would necessitate a lot of doublethink.
So it doesn't happen that way. In reality, people believe in their religions either because they've been brought up in those religions, or because the teachings of those religions make sense to them... in other words, arguments A and B as described above.
Which are a form of evidence, as I've shown. So it makes no sense for a proselytizer to tell me that I just need to have faith and believe what he says without evidence of any kind. A dozen other proselytizers for different religions are telling me the same thing-- so if I didn't need any evidence in order to believe something, then how could I choose which one to listen to? Obviously, when multiple people are trying to convince me of different things, I have to choose who to believe based on who has the best evidence. And right now, the theory of evolution has the best evidence for me.
Now, when I say "evidence," I don't mean "absolute proof." It's impossible to have absolute proof of anything. Even if you see something with your own eyes, you could just be hallucinating. Even if the answer to a mathematical problem makes perfect sense to you, that might be because of some deformity in your brain. There are plenty of things that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is nothing that can be proven beyond all doubt.
So if someone says that we don't have absolute proof of the theory of evolution, for example... well, that's technically true, but meaningless, since we also don't have absolute proof that there are any planets besides Earth, or that light comes from the sun, or that fairies don't exist.
It's pointless to define evidence as absolute proof. The most that evidence can be is "a piece of information that convinces you that something is likely to be true." And nobody can believe something without any evidence at all. It's just that some people need more evidence than others.
For example, I believe that evolution happened-- because there is a lot of scientific evidence that convinces me that evolution is more likely than the alternative (since the alternative is either "Thousands of scientists are conspiring to fake their results" or "God faked all the fossil evidence just to mess with our minds.")
But some people hold their beliefs based on lines of reasoning like the following:
A) "My parents taught this to me, and I believe my parents are always right about things like this, therefore I will believe it."
Or:
B) "I believe that God is good, and I like X and dislike Y, therefore I believe that God also likes X and dislikes Y, because otherwise God wouldn't be good in my opinion."
Most religious beliefs are held based on these two logical processes. They are not very strong lines of reasoning, but they are also not faith. They are evidence, in the sense of "a piece of information that convinces a person that something is likely to be true." Starting with pieces of information like "My parents believe this" or "God is good and I think that these things are good," people draw a line of logical reasoning and reach a religious belief.
The reason it's impossible to have blind faith is because there are thousands of religions in the world. If people could have faith in a religion without any concrete proof or logical argument in favor of it, then they would believe every religion that exists... and since religions contradict each other, this would necessitate a lot of doublethink.
So it doesn't happen that way. In reality, people believe in their religions either because they've been brought up in those religions, or because the teachings of those religions make sense to them... in other words, arguments A and B as described above.
Which are a form of evidence, as I've shown. So it makes no sense for a proselytizer to tell me that I just need to have faith and believe what he says without evidence of any kind. A dozen other proselytizers for different religions are telling me the same thing-- so if I didn't need any evidence in order to believe something, then how could I choose which one to listen to? Obviously, when multiple people are trying to convince me of different things, I have to choose who to believe based on who has the best evidence. And right now, the theory of evolution has the best evidence for me.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
There's always a reason... but not in real life
Have you ever noticed that everything always happens for a reason in fiction?
I don't mean that everything has a cause, or that everything is connected to everything else in small, hard-to-detect ways-- those things are true in real life, too. What I mean is that whenever something, no matter how small, happens in a work of fiction, it always seems to be connected to the main events of the story in an important, "meaningful" way.
For example, if a fictional character has a slip of the tongue, saying something other than what he or she meant to say, it can mean one of three things:
1. It's a Freudian slip, and it gives us a glimpse into what was on the character's mind.
Or:
2. It shows that the character is nervous or stressed, and therefore making mistakes in speech because of distraction.
Or:
3. It's part of character development, indicating that the character is "the type of person" who would make such a mistake-- which, in stories, always seems to mean a clumsy, bumbling type of character.
Of course, in real life, we frequently see dexterous, alert individuals in relaxed, non-stressful situations having little slips of the tongue that cannot possibly be interpreted as windows into their psyches. But those mistakes are completely irrelevant to the "important" events of these people's lives-- and so, if the events of their lives were made into a fictionalized story, those slips of the tongue would undoubtedly be left out. Everything in a novel or short story has to be relevant to the plot, or else readers start asking, "Why is this even in here?"
This is one of the things that annoy me about fiction. In real life, not every tiny little event is relevant to the things we consider important. Connected, yes, in some tiny way-- but not connected in the overt ways we always seem to see in fiction. Which means that fiction-- or at least the vast majority of fiction-- is unrealistic.
I'm guilty of doing this in my own fiction, too, if only because I'm afraid of readers getting confused about why I put some particular detail into the story. There always has to be a "why." If any author ever wrote a realistic story-- a story in which at least 70% of the events were unrelated to the plot in any vital way-- people would not understand it. They would look at 70% of the paragraphs and ask, "Why is this even here? It's not relevant." In fact, the same would happen with a story where only 10% of the paragraphs were irrelevant. If there's even one sentence in a story that's not connected to the plot, then someone, somewhere, is going to criticize it.
So all the characters have to speak perfectly, unless they are nervous, clumsy, or thinking about another subject. No sight, sound or event can be described unless it is useful in building character, setting or plot. How can people say that this is the right way to write a story, and yet still say that fiction should be realistic?
I don't mean that everything has a cause, or that everything is connected to everything else in small, hard-to-detect ways-- those things are true in real life, too. What I mean is that whenever something, no matter how small, happens in a work of fiction, it always seems to be connected to the main events of the story in an important, "meaningful" way.
For example, if a fictional character has a slip of the tongue, saying something other than what he or she meant to say, it can mean one of three things:
1. It's a Freudian slip, and it gives us a glimpse into what was on the character's mind.
Or:
2. It shows that the character is nervous or stressed, and therefore making mistakes in speech because of distraction.
Or:
3. It's part of character development, indicating that the character is "the type of person" who would make such a mistake-- which, in stories, always seems to mean a clumsy, bumbling type of character.
Of course, in real life, we frequently see dexterous, alert individuals in relaxed, non-stressful situations having little slips of the tongue that cannot possibly be interpreted as windows into their psyches. But those mistakes are completely irrelevant to the "important" events of these people's lives-- and so, if the events of their lives were made into a fictionalized story, those slips of the tongue would undoubtedly be left out. Everything in a novel or short story has to be relevant to the plot, or else readers start asking, "Why is this even in here?"
This is one of the things that annoy me about fiction. In real life, not every tiny little event is relevant to the things we consider important. Connected, yes, in some tiny way-- but not connected in the overt ways we always seem to see in fiction. Which means that fiction-- or at least the vast majority of fiction-- is unrealistic.
I'm guilty of doing this in my own fiction, too, if only because I'm afraid of readers getting confused about why I put some particular detail into the story. There always has to be a "why." If any author ever wrote a realistic story-- a story in which at least 70% of the events were unrelated to the plot in any vital way-- people would not understand it. They would look at 70% of the paragraphs and ask, "Why is this even here? It's not relevant." In fact, the same would happen with a story where only 10% of the paragraphs were irrelevant. If there's even one sentence in a story that's not connected to the plot, then someone, somewhere, is going to criticize it.
So all the characters have to speak perfectly, unless they are nervous, clumsy, or thinking about another subject. No sight, sound or event can be described unless it is useful in building character, setting or plot. How can people say that this is the right way to write a story, and yet still say that fiction should be realistic?
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
The insane conversations that my brain has with itself...
"Hi, my name is Roe. I am a salmon egg."
"Hi. My name is Wade. I am a guy wading into the water to take you out and cook you and eat you."
"But I don't want to be eaten! I want to hatch into a salmon and grow up."
"Sorry, that's not your choice. Life begins at hatching, it doesn't begin at spawning. Right now, it's your mother's choice."
"But my mother is dead. All salmon die right after they spawn."
"Oh. Well, then, I believe that this situation does not fall under the legislation established by the Supreme Court."
"Then this conversation has been meaningless. We have not reached any conclusion on any controversial topic. We have only established that salmon are different from humans."
"Well, then I guess it also pointless for me to eat you. Goodbye, Roe."
"Goodbye, Wade."
... goodbye, sanity...
"Hi. My name is Wade. I am a guy wading into the water to take you out and cook you and eat you."
"But I don't want to be eaten! I want to hatch into a salmon and grow up."
"Sorry, that's not your choice. Life begins at hatching, it doesn't begin at spawning. Right now, it's your mother's choice."
"But my mother is dead. All salmon die right after they spawn."
"Oh. Well, then, I believe that this situation does not fall under the legislation established by the Supreme Court."
"Then this conversation has been meaningless. We have not reached any conclusion on any controversial topic. We have only established that salmon are different from humans."
"Well, then I guess it also pointless for me to eat you. Goodbye, Roe."
"Goodbye, Wade."
... goodbye, sanity...
Monday, July 16, 2007
Spiders on potatoes are better than fruit flies
Sorry that Abby and Norma is late today. I was out late last night and had to work early this morning.
There is a Spider-Man/Mr. Potato Head crossover toy called Spider Spud. I am not even kidding. He shoots webs... what are they, a mutant version of those white tendrils that potatoes send out when you leave them in the drawer too long? And who does he fight? Doctor Okra and the Green Gherkin? Nobody knows. There is no comic book, no story, not even the usual plethora of accessories... just the potato and the web.
I got heat stroke today on the way home. Didn't pass out or anything, but I started feeling very sleepy as I approached my apartment building. Once inside, I drank ice water and put a cold cloth over my head, and now I'm a little shivery, but awake.
We bought Guitar Hero! It's bizarre that I enjoy it, seeing that I'm usually rather indifferent to both music and video games-- but I really do enjoy it. I guess there's no accounting for taste, even one's own.
There is a Spider-Man/Mr. Potato Head crossover toy called Spider Spud. I am not even kidding. He shoots webs... what are they, a mutant version of those white tendrils that potatoes send out when you leave them in the drawer too long? And who does he fight? Doctor Okra and the Green Gherkin? Nobody knows. There is no comic book, no story, not even the usual plethora of accessories... just the potato and the web.
I got heat stroke today on the way home. Didn't pass out or anything, but I started feeling very sleepy as I approached my apartment building. Once inside, I drank ice water and put a cold cloth over my head, and now I'm a little shivery, but awake.
We bought Guitar Hero! It's bizarre that I enjoy it, seeing that I'm usually rather indifferent to both music and video games-- but I really do enjoy it. I guess there's no accounting for taste, even one's own.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
IKEA bot again
I've managed to get my IKEA bot video to upload to YouTube with a better screencap picture showing up in Youtube search results. You basically just have to make sure the frame you want them to use is right in the middle of your video.
I improved a few other things too, but basically it's the same.
I improved a few other things too, but basically it's the same.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Random robotic reflections
Have you heard of the "Uncanny Valley"? It's a theory about people's reactions to robots. People can't relate to robots if they look nothing like humans, and we find them cute if they look slightly like humans... but the closer they get to looking exactly like humans, the more disturbing they will seem. They stop seeming like cartoonish representations of people, and start seeming like very strange-looking, creepy real people. It's a "valley" because we can theoretically come back out of it on the other side, when we get good enough at making humanoid robots that they can't be distinguished from humans at all.
I personally apply the same theory to animals. Humans tend to find animals very unattractive if they look completely and utterly unlike humans (for example, centipedes and worms and squids). We begin to find animals attractive when they look a little more like us (lions, gazelles, eagles). We admire their beauty, and compare beautiful people to them. Yet when animals get too close to looking like humans (monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas) we suddenly don't find them beautiful at all.
However, there is one important difference: Animals that look very much like humans do not disturb us in the same way as robots that look very much like humans. Most people do not get "creeped out" when they see a monkey or ape. We have a certain affection for them, even though we would never look at our spouses and say "You're so beautiful, you look like a gorilla." We might very well look at our children and say "You're so cute, you look like a monkey." The difference between "cute" and "beautiful" is important here; we might compare a monkey to a child, someone toward whom we feel parental affection-- but we do not compare it to someone with whom we could be "in love." This may be because monkeys and apes remind us of human children instead of human adults, with their more playful and simple nature.
And speaking of children, this is where I first found out about the "Uncanny Valley." It is graphic proof that a robot that looks like a human child is definitely not endearing in the same way as an animal that looks like a human child. Prepare to be creeped out.
I personally apply the same theory to animals. Humans tend to find animals very unattractive if they look completely and utterly unlike humans (for example, centipedes and worms and squids). We begin to find animals attractive when they look a little more like us (lions, gazelles, eagles). We admire their beauty, and compare beautiful people to them. Yet when animals get too close to looking like humans (monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas) we suddenly don't find them beautiful at all.
However, there is one important difference: Animals that look very much like humans do not disturb us in the same way as robots that look very much like humans. Most people do not get "creeped out" when they see a monkey or ape. We have a certain affection for them, even though we would never look at our spouses and say "You're so beautiful, you look like a gorilla." We might very well look at our children and say "You're so cute, you look like a monkey." The difference between "cute" and "beautiful" is important here; we might compare a monkey to a child, someone toward whom we feel parental affection-- but we do not compare it to someone with whom we could be "in love." This may be because monkeys and apes remind us of human children instead of human adults, with their more playful and simple nature.
And speaking of children, this is where I first found out about the "Uncanny Valley." It is graphic proof that a robot that looks like a human child is definitely not endearing in the same way as an animal that looks like a human child. Prepare to be creeped out.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
New logo!
After posting about the updates to my jewelry page, I started thinking about the logo a bit more, and realized it was awfully amateurish (I made it when I was in high school, for crying out loud).
And after thinking about it for a few minutes, I got inspired and made a new one. Take a look!
That's all for tonight. Really.
And after thinking about it for a few minutes, I got inspired and made a new one. Take a look!
That's all for tonight. Really.
Propaganda for me!
My Abby and Norma comic recently had a little three-strip story arc that I'm pretty proud of. It started here.
But there's bigger news: My jewelry page is now fully functional! It's undergone various changes, including the addition of Lake Superior jewelry with real silver wire, and geometric tube bead jewelry with real silver beads and freshwater pearls. Go take a look!
(Oh, and see if you can find the hidden "Enterprises" in the "Erika's Enterprises" logo. I made the logo years and years ago, and incorporated it into my jewelry page back when I first put it up on Geocities... but as far as I know, nobody's ever noticed the Enterprises. Probably only I would recognize a Constitution-class vessel seen from the front. I am such a Star Trek nerd...)
But there's bigger news: My jewelry page is now fully functional! It's undergone various changes, including the addition of Lake Superior jewelry with real silver wire, and geometric tube bead jewelry with real silver beads and freshwater pearls. Go take a look!
(Oh, and see if you can find the hidden "Enterprises" in the "Erika's Enterprises" logo. I made the logo years and years ago, and incorporated it into my jewelry page back when I first put it up on Geocities... but as far as I know, nobody's ever noticed the Enterprises. Probably only I would recognize a Constitution-class vessel seen from the front. I am such a Star Trek nerd...)
"Nice" signals
And here's my deep thoughtful post for the week. I posted a version of this as a comment on someone's LJ, and thought it would make a good post of its own.
Basically, there's a very fascinating and informative blog post here, by a person on the autism spectrum who talks about being misunderstood because of an inability to give off "I-am-nice signals." While the post is mainly talking about signals that can be given over the internet (nuances in the wording of a sentence, for example) it's also very much of an issue with signals in body language.
As a person with Asperger's Syndrome, I can certainly relate... but my problems are a bit different. Personally, I'm the kind of Aspie who only has mild difficulty with giving off and perceiving "nice" signals, and I guess I have actually become kind of dependent on perceiving them when dealing with non-autistics.
What I mean is that non-autistics (and many autistics) often say things they don't mean (like "I want to kill him")... but when non-autistics say these things, they will give off fewer "nice" signals depending on how angry they are. So, you often can't tell what people mean by their words (usually the person who says "I want to kill him" doesn't really want to kill anyone)... but when people say words that seem angry, you can usually tell how angry they are by noticing how much or how little they laugh, smile, etc. while saying it.
If a coworker says something like "You brought peanut butter cookies in to work on a day I wasn't there, and you know how much I love your peanut butter cookies! You're so awful!"... there will probably be a lot of smiles and laughs along with those words, and I'll understand that the coworker is not really mad at me. But if a coworker says something like "Why did you go on break while there was still work to do? We didn't get the work done on time!" ...then there will be an overall absence of "nice" signals, and I will know the person's mad at me for real. This is the way the system usually goes, in theory.
Interestingly, there are both "friendly" signals (smiles, laughs, raised eyebrows) and "angry" signals (frowns, bared teeth, lowered eyebrows)... but while an absence of "friendly" signals is often a sign of anger, an absence of "angry" signals is often not a sign of friendliness. Angry people often hide their anger signals, but people who are being friendly usually do not hide their friendly signals. So, in non-autistics, a total absence of facial expression is usually a sign of anger, not friendliness.
So I'm somewhat guilty of making the kind of assumptions that "Ballastexistenz" complains about: When I'm talking to a stranger who doesn't give off many "nice" signals, I tend to assume that they're angry at me, because that's what is usually true for non-autistics. But then, sometimes, I observe this person for a long time, and notice that I'm seeing the same absence of "nice" signals whether we're talking about something serious like a badly-timed break or something silly like a badly-timed batch of peanut butter cookies. Then I realize that there are two possibilities: Either I have offended this person in the past without realizing it, and so they're mad at me all the time... or they're the kind of person who just doesn't use much body language.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty paranoid about making social mistakes and causing people to have grudges against me, and so usually my first assumption is that the person is mad at me all the time because of some unwitting wrong I have committed against them in the past. And I'm really scared of conflict, so I will tend to be afraid of such people for a long time.
There are a few cases, currently, in which I am just beginning to realize that the people in question probably don't really have anything against me, they're probably just not very expressive people. I'm working on getting over my fear of them. It's hard.
Interestingly, I don't differentiate much between men and women on this subject. There are people of both sexes who scare me because their facial expressions don't change while talking to me. It's true that, in our society, men can get away with an absence of friendly body language more than women can-- but as a matter of fact, I tend to get along better with men who do give off a lot of friendly body language (my husband is an Aspie whose mannerisms have often been called "feminine").
So, even though I do have some mild difficulties of my own in figuring out body language, I have become somewhat reliant on it when dealing with non-autistics, because the words they speak often don't say anything at all about what they're really feeling, and body language is the only way to figure out what they are feeling. And when I meet someone who seems otherwise normal but doesn't use much body language, I'm usually out of my depth for a while.
(ETA: I used the word "autistics" in the above paragraph when I meant "non-autistics." I've changed it now. Sorry if it confused you.)
Basically, there's a very fascinating and informative blog post here, by a person on the autism spectrum who talks about being misunderstood because of an inability to give off "I-am-nice signals." While the post is mainly talking about signals that can be given over the internet (nuances in the wording of a sentence, for example) it's also very much of an issue with signals in body language.
As a person with Asperger's Syndrome, I can certainly relate... but my problems are a bit different. Personally, I'm the kind of Aspie who only has mild difficulty with giving off and perceiving "nice" signals, and I guess I have actually become kind of dependent on perceiving them when dealing with non-autistics.
What I mean is that non-autistics (and many autistics) often say things they don't mean (like "I want to kill him")... but when non-autistics say these things, they will give off fewer "nice" signals depending on how angry they are. So, you often can't tell what people mean by their words (usually the person who says "I want to kill him" doesn't really want to kill anyone)... but when people say words that seem angry, you can usually tell how angry they are by noticing how much or how little they laugh, smile, etc. while saying it.
If a coworker says something like "You brought peanut butter cookies in to work on a day I wasn't there, and you know how much I love your peanut butter cookies! You're so awful!"... there will probably be a lot of smiles and laughs along with those words, and I'll understand that the coworker is not really mad at me. But if a coworker says something like "Why did you go on break while there was still work to do? We didn't get the work done on time!" ...then there will be an overall absence of "nice" signals, and I will know the person's mad at me for real. This is the way the system usually goes, in theory.
Interestingly, there are both "friendly" signals (smiles, laughs, raised eyebrows) and "angry" signals (frowns, bared teeth, lowered eyebrows)... but while an absence of "friendly" signals is often a sign of anger, an absence of "angry" signals is often not a sign of friendliness. Angry people often hide their anger signals, but people who are being friendly usually do not hide their friendly signals. So, in non-autistics, a total absence of facial expression is usually a sign of anger, not friendliness.
So I'm somewhat guilty of making the kind of assumptions that "Ballastexistenz" complains about: When I'm talking to a stranger who doesn't give off many "nice" signals, I tend to assume that they're angry at me, because that's what is usually true for non-autistics. But then, sometimes, I observe this person for a long time, and notice that I'm seeing the same absence of "nice" signals whether we're talking about something serious like a badly-timed break or something silly like a badly-timed batch of peanut butter cookies. Then I realize that there are two possibilities: Either I have offended this person in the past without realizing it, and so they're mad at me all the time... or they're the kind of person who just doesn't use much body language.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty paranoid about making social mistakes and causing people to have grudges against me, and so usually my first assumption is that the person is mad at me all the time because of some unwitting wrong I have committed against them in the past. And I'm really scared of conflict, so I will tend to be afraid of such people for a long time.
There are a few cases, currently, in which I am just beginning to realize that the people in question probably don't really have anything against me, they're probably just not very expressive people. I'm working on getting over my fear of them. It's hard.
Interestingly, I don't differentiate much between men and women on this subject. There are people of both sexes who scare me because their facial expressions don't change while talking to me. It's true that, in our society, men can get away with an absence of friendly body language more than women can-- but as a matter of fact, I tend to get along better with men who do give off a lot of friendly body language (my husband is an Aspie whose mannerisms have often been called "feminine").
So, even though I do have some mild difficulties of my own in figuring out body language, I have become somewhat reliant on it when dealing with non-autistics, because the words they speak often don't say anything at all about what they're really feeling, and body language is the only way to figure out what they are feeling. And when I meet someone who seems otherwise normal but doesn't use much body language, I'm usually out of my depth for a while.
(ETA: I used the word "autistics" in the above paragraph when I meant "non-autistics." I've changed it now. Sorry if it confused you.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)