XKCD – Aspie Humour

May 6, 2008 — xanthippa

Many people claim that Aspies do not have a sense of humour.  NOT TRUE!!!

We certainly do enjoy humour.  Some of us naturally find some things funny, others need to learn the rules of humour – but we certainly enjoy it.

In my never-humble opinion, teaching kids with Aspergers the rules of humour may be helpful with overall social skill development.  I have done this, and seen the improvement in their ability to interact with their peers and the resultant increased comfort level with themselves.

Here is how I might go about ‘explaining humour’:

There are several things that constitute ‘humour’ and different people will find different things funny – so there is no need to feel bad when you understand a joke, without thinking it is funny.  Some people think that anything to do with bodily functions is funny – and they will laugh when someone farts, or of they burp.  Other people think this is gross and not at all funny.  So, it is normal that not everyone finds every joke funny.

Many poeple laugh when they find themselves in situations which either do not go as expected, or when some danger is lifted.  This is done to release tension which people experience in such situations, and which is unpleasant.  It demonstrates to others that either the danger has passed, or that even though things are unexpected, the new course of actions is acceptable.

Perhaps that is why so many jokes are ‘funny’ because of an ‘unexpected’ or surprising ending.  It might even tie in with why ‘strange’ or ‘different’ or ‘unexpected’ is sometimes called ‘funny – but not as in ha-ha’.  Puns are an excellent example:  the correct (or correctly sounding) word is used, but in with an unexpected meaning.

It is not easy for Aspie kids that many cartoons rely on facial expressions to convey humour.  That is why I was so entertained when I came across this (not aimed at kids) comic, XKCD.  To me, it screams ‘Aspie Humour’!

And since along with a sense of humour, many people incorrectly describe Aspies as lacking feelings or empathy, I have selected, for your viewing pleasure, these few XKCD comics:

We like to spend time with our loved ones.

We love to spend time with our loved ones - XKCD

 

Passion reaches new levels for us!

Sharing thought - XKCD

 

 Of course, we may have a hard time remembering names….  Nothing personal!

forgetting names - XKCD

 

 Yet, we can be very particular in whom we select as potential mates:

xenocide - XKCD

Personally, I could not date someone who did not thing ‘Ender’s Shadow’ was the best book in this series.  Ok, if he were cute, I might settle for ‘Shadow of the Hegemon’.  But ‘Xenocide’??? Really!

And ‘pillow talk’ is much easier if both of you are Aspies….

pillow talk - XKCD

 

And many of us fully appreciate the advantages of online interactions with others (my husband claims this ‘has to be’ taken from one of my online comments….):

venting - XKCD

 

Here is a good example of how not everyone ‘gets’ every joke.  For example, in the following one, I do not understand why the characters are implying this practice is unusual.  Surely, it is the norm!  (See my posts on Old Men in the Bible)

graphs - XKCD

 

But we all enjoy good quality entertainment!  (And no, this is NOT just a cheap ploy to get ‘Papyrus font’ onto my blog!  Though, who could resist the allures or ‘Papyrus Font’???  It’s even better intelic…)

 River Tam - XKCD

 EVERYONE loves River Tam!!!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in Aspergers, human nature, Humour, philosophy, science, society. Tags: , , , , , . 13 Comments »

Obama’s apostasy

May 5, 2008 — xanthippa

It is unusual for me to write about the US presidential race, because, frankly, it is a bit overdone.  We are inundated with the minutest details and the wildest speculations over and over, whether we care or not.

Yet, there is one very important speculation that I have never heard voiced.  Perhaps it is my own fault for shutting out so much of the detail, and it has been covered and dealt with.  If that is the case, then I beg your forgiveness.  But, if it has not been addressed, then I would humbly request that people give this some sober, realistic consideration.

Different people – and nation states – react very differently to identical ‘facts’.  Mundane example: I see a rabbit, I will think ‘pet’.  Another person looks at a rabbit, they may see ‘dinner’.  It would be unreasonable to expect the same reaction from both of us to being served a rabbit-burger.  The same is true of many, many things, not all of them mundane or witout deep impact.

Many supporters of Mr. Obama’s bid for the Democratic nomination, and ultimately the Presidency of the USA, say that he would be well received in the world, and enjoy much more credibililty than either Ms. Clinton or Mr. McCain.  While his lack of experience and specific policies he suggested may have come under attack, his supporters maintain that his multicultural outlook would be great assets giving him (an by extension, the USA) great credibility, especially in Africa.

But are we not overlooking one extremely important point?  Mr. Obama is an apostate to Islam – and much of the Muslim world, including in Africa, consider this to be very bad thing indeed.

This has less to do with the views of Mr. Obama himself.  It does not concern anything a preacher he’d listened to may or may not believe.  All it has to do with is the fact that as a child and young man, Mr. Obama was a Muslim, and now he is not.  He does not deny that – nor has he ever tried to.  By definition, this makes him an Apostate.

The very fact that he has converted from Islam to another faith may make it impossible for many fundamentally Islamic nation-states to accept him.  After all, rightly or wrongly, many of them do interpret The Qur’an, specifically Sura (chapter) 4, verses 89-92: “If they turn away [convert away from Islam], then sieze them and kill them wherever you find them;…”. 

Also, many Muslims use several books in addition to the Qur’an.  These are not given the central importance that Qur’an is, but because they contain the collected sayings of the Prophet Muhammad and strories of his life, these are often used as a guide according to which the Qur’an is supposed to be interpreted.  One of these is often quoted as to the proper interpretation of the above verse: ‘Bukhari’ 4.52.260 – “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.’ ”

In 2006, a man was sentenced to death in Afghanistan for having converted from Islam to Christianity.  This was well after the Taliban were out of power, but even the moderates in Afghanistan did not understand why people in ‘The West’ were upset by this.  Most of us are familiar with the case of Lina Joy, and others like her.

In fact, four of the major Sunni as well as the major Shia schools of Islam all agree that a sane, adult male who converts away from Islam deserves the death penalty. 

I offer this as an entirely pragmatic consideration:  will some people be able to see Mr. Obama, the man, or will they only see an Apostate? 

How will they react if the USA elects an ‘Apostate President’? 

Posted in atheism, debate, freedoms, human nature, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , . 7 Comments »

Aspergers and accurate words

May 1, 2008 — xanthippa

School!  It can be a testing place at the best of times!

For people who need to use ‘precise’ and ‘accurate’ words to describe things as those of us with Aspergers do, it can be baffling.  After all, one becomes used to the vocabulary and expectations at home – but at school, the rules are different.  And people just do not communicate clearly.  In the words of the immortal Inigo Montoya, “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

Let me give you an example.

Schools are filled with many kind and caring people who truly have the best intentions towards our kids.  They are dedicated.  At times, they will even enter ‘uncomfortable’ situations, if they think the ultimate result will help one of ‘their’ kids.  I admire that.

One year, at the beginning of winter – just as it was time to start wearing hats and mits etc. – I got a phone call from one of my kids’ teachers.  Even though I am pretty thick at picking up on such clues, I could tell she was very uncomfortable.  She spoke in a little soft voice and picked her words very carefully.

The school, as it turns out, gets some free ‘stuff’ from the milk people, through the milk program.  Yes.  And it there are some families, which – at some times, and through no fault of their own – needed a little help, they could give these things as ‘prizes’ to their kids.  Since it is a ‘prize’, there is no stigma…

I was really beginning to wonder what this was about.  We were not in any financial difficulties – at least, I thought I would notice if we were.  So I made a non-commital sound, to show I was listening…

The teacher, kindly and gently, continued.  The promotional items they had included hats.  Since the weather was getting kind of cool, it was important that kids should wear hats.  And, today, during recess, my son had told her that he does not own a hat, and that he does not think we’re planning to buy him one.  So, if it would not cause offense, they could give him a hat from the milk programme…

Whatever reaction she was expecting, laughter was not it.  But, I just could not help myself!  I burst our laughing.  You see, my son was absolutely correct!!!  Yet, I owed the teacher an explanation…

The previous weekend, we had indeed gone shopping for a new winter hat.  My son became intrigued by these ‘hat and neckwarmer in one’ contraptions.  It looked just like a winter hat that was attached to the ‘neck’ part of a turtleneck.  It had a nice round opening for the whole face, but covered more skin than a ‘hat’ would.  That is what he chose to get instead of a regular hat.

And what did he wear the previous winter (to be used as a spare)?  A tuque!  If many people think that ‘tuque’ and ‘hat’ are the same, they should be corrected:  if they were the same, they would not have different names!!!

So, with puppy-dog eyes, solemnly and truthfully, my son told his teacher that he does not onw a hat!  And when she asked if we were just slow at getting ready for the winter, he truthfully said that we were not planning to get him one…instead of simply saying he forgot his new headwarmer.

The teacher was amused and greatly relieved! I suspect the story was used as a source of amusement at the teacher’s lounge. 

But this is a very real example of how people with Aspergers do not understand what they are being asked, unless the accurate word is used.  The terms used must be specific, precise and accurate, because Aspies do not ‘make leaps of faith’ or read things into stuff.  If we don’t know, we don’t know – we are not likely to jump to unsupportable conclusions.  The teacher would likely have received a different answer had she asked him if he owned something to wear on his head to keep it warm.

Another example of ‘crossed communications’ occurred when my other son was very, very young – certainly under 2 years old.  He absolutely loved watching ‘Bill Nye the Science Guy’, and absorbed much of his early vocabulary from that show.

One time, my mom was over, and was in the livingroom with my son.  When I came into the room, she was frustrated:  “I told him to stop picking his nose, but he just stares back at me as if I just fell off the moon!  What is wrong with him?!?!?”

I told her he just did not understand what she meant.  He already had a nose, so how could he pick another one?

Turnning to him, I said:  “Stop touching your mucuous membranes.”

He took his finger out of his nose, looked at me and said:  “Ah, spread germs!”  And went to wash his hands…

These may be funny incidents, but they do illustrate the difficulties Aspies have trying to understand people who use language sloppily.  Just imagine how impenetrable the meaning of many test questions is to them!!!  No wonder they often score very poorly on school tests – many questions do not really ask what they think they ask…

(This is ALWAYS the hardest part of writing a post:  how to end it!  I could go on talking about this endlessly…)

Aspies can, and do, learn to search the speech patterns of others for ‘similar concepts’ – this way, many Aspies learn to ‘decipher’ common speech.  And when we do, we are often so delighted, we drive others mad by playing with it!  Yet, this is not an easy skill to acquire, and it would not be realistic to expect young kids to ‘pick it up’.  This will lead to frustration – not just of the child, but also of educators, parents and others who interact with Aspie kids.

And, Aspie kids usually experience very high levels of frustration, even if they do not communicate this (or display the ‘typical’ signs of frustration, until it builds up into uncontrollable anger).  Making all these people aware of the need for accurate, precise and non-ambiguous use of language (and what that actually is – in the mind of an Aspie) would go a long way towards making life easier for everyone involved. 

If we could only teach the rest of the world to communicate accurately!

Posted in Aspergers, education, human nature, language, science, society. Tags: , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Climate Change Tales

April 30, 2008 — xanthippa

The whole ‘Global Warming’ – under whatever name one chooses – issue is a mess.  Unmitigated, tangled up and muddled mess.

So, how can a person make sense of it all?

Frankly, I don’t know.  What I do know, however, is that we are actively being presented with only a very small part of the story through the main stream media (MSM).  And I also know that reasonable points raised by bonafide scientists from the field of climate change are being shouted down or smeared before their ideas are even listened to.

That is not how scientific debate occurs.  It is anathema to science itself!  In true scientific community, people are willing to listen to dissenting points of view – provided these are scientific and  testable hypothesies (using the term in the narrow, scientific sense).  Why?  The reason for this is very simple:  sometimes, even what appear to be ‘crackpot’ ideas may indeed turn out to be better models of reality than the original theories.

Scientists are only human.  Yes, as much as this is contrary to some opinions, they are only human.  Many times in the past, the ‘current scientific consensus’ was just silly in rejecting even the consideration of ‘things’ that we now regard as integral tools of science: 

“… my dear Kepler, what do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope.”

                                                                                        –     Galileo Galilei

Today, most scientists are careful to not have the ‘obstinacy of a glutted adder’, and tend to seriously examine ideas which run contrary to mainstream opinions.  How far are they prepared to go?  Well, consider the case of Dr. Peter Duesberg:  he came out with not just one, but two controversial theories. 

In the first one, he proposed that while there is a co-occurrence of the HIV virus and AIDS, he thought the causality had not been established with sufficient scientific rigour.  (I am not particularly versed in his theory – if I am misrepresenting it, I apologize.  The point is not his theory as such, but the scientific community’s reaction to it.) 

The reaction? 

Scientists actually went and checked his data, looked over his studies, and found where he had made mistakes.  Even so, his views are often referred to in scientific publications on HIV/AIDS, in order to ensure that the scientific basis for refuting them is easily available.

Long after this, he proposed another very controversial scientific hypothesis:  this time on the nature of cancer.  Even though he was one of the researchers to have identified one of the ‘cancer genes’, he now proposed that cancer may be more due to chromosomal abnormalities than to problems within individual genes.  Again, the details of his hypothesis are less important than the reaction it received.

Even though his first hypothesis has been flatly rejected, scientists listened when he proposed this one.  In May 2007, Scientific American published his controversial theory in an article called ‘Chromosomal Chaos and Cancer’.  Earlier in the same issue, the editor’s page was titled ‘When Pariahs Have Good Ideas’, where the editors explain that even though Dr. Duesberg’s ideas on HIV/AIDS have been discredited, he might have a good point here and that scientific ideas ought to be judged on thier merit. 

So, what was my point in bringing up Dr. Duesberg? 

To show how scientists tend to evaluate ideas, even from scientists who have been proven wrong in the past:  they tests them, then – right or wrong – they reference them.  One thing they certainly do not do is try to shut each other up.  That would be unscientific! 

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”

                                                                                       –     Galileo Galilei

Sadly, this is not happening in the field of Climate….

Scientists who do not subscribe to the ‘bad humans making Earth too hot and this will be a disaster’ point of view have systematically been insulted, bullied, their reputations smeared and jobs threatened, and more than one has received threats of bodily harm.  As Dickens might say:  “What the Sheakespeare is going on here?!?!?!?’ 

Oh, but I have made some general accusations here:  I had better support them! 

Here is one article from the Wall Street Journal by Richard Lindzen, a scientist who had been threatened, and who has seen others under similar pressure.  In this April 2006 article, he also charges scientific publications ‘Science’ and ‘Nature’ with bias and underhanded tactics.  He also names several other scientists who have faced threats.

If the Wall Street Journal is not your cup of tea, here is an article from ‘Telegraph’ from the UK about the death threats received by scientists who publicly question the ‘global warming catastrophy’ dogma.  But this is only a small sample of a large body of scientists who are speaking up.

Sadly, most people don’t realy get to hear what these scientists have to say.  Their views are not often published.  Why?  I don’t know.  However, here is an article from ‘The Australian’ about how journalists at ‘The Age’ (an Australian publication) had been ordered to not write anything negative about the ‘Earth Hour’ earlier this month:

“Reporters were pressured not to write negative stories and story topics followed a schedule drafted by Earth Hour organisers.”

All right, ‘Earth Hour’ is just fluff – what about real climate stories?

It seems that we may not be getting the true story there, either.  Earlier this month, BBC (yes, THE BBC) had done a big ‘no-no’:  they totally changed the story, without noting it!!!

When a story is edited or changed, this is supposed to be noted.  However, BBC ran a story on the topic of climate, was bullied by a ‘climate activist’, and changed the whole meaning of the story WITHOUT NOTING THE CHANGE!!!  That is not very nice at all.

Thankfully, wee have access to the full email exchange of the activist’s bullying and the BBC reporter giving in.  It is a little long, but here is a telling phrase the activist used:

“I would ask : please reserve the main BBC Online channel for emerging truth.

Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently
educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically
manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter.”

EMERGING TRUTH???

What about ‘documented truth’?

And ‘PSYCHOLOGICALLY MANIPULATED’? 

I cannot help but feel that we, the ‘unwashed masses’, are being manipulated here…  It seems certain that we are not getting an accurate picture of what scientists are truly finding out about these processes which might significantly impact us all.

 

Posted in debate, human nature, politics, religion, science, society. Tags: , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Aspergers and writing

April 29, 2008 — xanthippa

Writing is one of the major woes for people with Aspergers. 

It is difficult to describe the depth of despair most Aspies suffer when trying to put pen to paper.  And it starts very, very early on.  There appear (to me) to be at least three different ‘subsystems’ in the brain that are conspiring to make writing next to impossible for young Aspies.

The first one to be encountered is the ‘mechanics of writing’.  Many Aspies have less ‘sidedness‘ differentiation, so their ‘writing hand’ is less ‘dominant’ – and thus has less fine motor control – than most peoples.  This is often encountered early on in childhood – as a result, the kids may not enjoy drawing, or they may draw with both hands.  Regardless of drawing, however, Aspie kids usually display severe difficulties when learning the mechanics of writing.  This is more pronounced in cursive writing, where forming letters needs to be combined with smoothly moving the hand along the page, so many Aspies end up printing instead.  

I suspect this is a motor issue, and could be overcome by ‘overdoing’ the practice.  This has, to a degree, been my case:  where I went to school, we started out learning cursive, and we were marked on our handwriting.  I totally sucked at it, for the longest time.  Then, I saw what handwritings the teachers marked as the best, and shamelessly immitated them.  And yes, I spent endless hours practicing, because I was going to be *%$#*^# if those air-headed girls with ‘pretty’ handwriting got better marks than I did.  The result?  I am told I have extremely beautiful, though almost completely illegible, handwrititng!

Another problem which Aspies encounter when writing is – and this is based on my observations, not an expert assertion – a problem with short term memory.  At least six different kids with Aspergers have described it as ‘the ideas going by so fast, by the time I’m done the first letter, I don’t know what word I am writing’.  Now, this is very interesting, but worthy of a post of its own (soon, I hope).

The third major problem I have observed is a little more complicated.  I do not know how frequent it is, but again, I have observed it in very many Aspie kids.  It has to do with language, its use and the very words that make it up.  Also, many Aspies perceive there to be a big difference between what is spoken and written.   Perhaps a little explanation is needed…

Asperger Syndrome is often described as ‘verbally expressive form of Autism‘.  Now,  it is important to make a distiction here:  just because Aspergers falls under the same spectrum of disorders as Autism does, or that the spectrum itself may have the word ‘Autism’ in it, does not mean that it is nearly as crippling as Autism can be.  Comparing Aspergers to Autism (as the Ontario Government recently did, in order to deny Autistic children proper treatment) is about as accurate as comparing a sinus infection to pneumonia – both are respiratory system infections, but they are not the same in severety or affect.  It would be an inappropriate comparison.

While Aspies are usually able to speak extensively on a topic, most have a difficult time writing on a topic.  This is very curious and puzzling to many parents and educators:  it can appear as defiance! So, what is it that makes it OK to say things, but not to write them down?  Perhaps an unusual form of perfectionism could be at play here.

It is my observation that Aspeis, especially children, consider anything that is written down to be much, much more serious, important and permanent than what is spoken.  Even when practicing forming letters, some of these kids will be extremely anxious about not being able to get the shape just perfect.  Not Aspies are this extreme, but I certainly was, and so was one of my sons.  He was so terrified to commit an imperfect letter onto paper, we ended up getting him to practice writing onto clear plastic sheets (of the type you can put through the printer, to use for overhead presentations) with easy-wipe-off markers.  And even thought he could wipe off any letter he did not like, before anyone else could see it (and at first, he wiped off all of them), it was still hard for him.

It is my suspicion that in a similar way, it is difficult for Aspies to write ideas down because they are not sure if their idea is good enough to be commited to paper.  And even if they get over that, and judge the idea worthy – and this is the key here – it is next to impossible to express their idea accurately, using everyday language.

I have often wondered – and would appreciate feedback from those who have observed this – if something similar could be at play with Autism…  Many (not tall) autistic children are said to begin learning language relatively normally, but then at some point, they revert and begin to use language less and less.  Could it be possible that as they learned language, words attained ‘colouring’ – secondary, or implied meanings – unrelated to their ‘object or action definition’…. and that these words became perceived as no longer accuratley describing its original meaning, and therefore discarded?  I don’t know, but I would be curious what others think about this.

It is often asserted that Aspies use language somewhat rigidly, or sound very pedantic.  Could it be that a similar perfectionism in expressing an idea, a similar subconscious frustration with the inaccuracy of language, is at play when Aspies try to put ideas onto paper?

I love debating, and do it online.  And, people have noted, that whenever I get into a serious debate, I spend most of my time defining the specific and narrow meanings of every word I intend to use (plus a few others, that I exressly will not use).  Many people find it redundant, annoying and boring.  Some think it is a ploy to manipulate the debate.  But I do not intend it as any of these:  before I can express what I mean, I need to ensure that there is no ambiguity in the language I use to express my point.  General language simply cannot do the job!

There is no simple answer to overcoming this.  

Each Aspie may require a completely different approach, what works for one may not work for another.  It will take years.  And it will always take much more time and effort for an Aspie to write something than it would take most people.  (It usually takes me 2-6 hours to write any single post – and some, I have spent 14+ hours composing.)

Yet, Aspies can learn to write.  And when they do, the documents they produce are usually very well researched and accurately expressed!

Posted in Aspergers, debate, education, human nature, language, philosophy, science, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 138 Comments »

“say, doesn’t co2 kill plants??????”

April 26, 2008 — xanthippa

While I have been taking a look at Aspergers, and describing some of my experiences and coping methods that worked for me, I have neglected a number of other very important topics. 

For example, I have promised to post on the topic of the climate.  And I promised that I would provide some solid information about why I hold the views I do.  Thus, I was preparing something on this. 

Alas, it is difficult to assess the information one is provided if one is not familiar with the underlying science behind the words.  More and more of what I have been reading from non-scientific (that is, MSM (main stream media) and many blogs, debating sites etc. – you know, all them places that have replaced the ‘watercooler chat’) has convinced me that before I can hope to provide useful information, it will be necessary to log in some explanations first.

As if to convince me that I ought to do this, in a coment on this post on a dime a dozen blog , somebody asked the following question: 

“say, doesn’t co2 kill plants??????”

I thought this question needed to be addressed, the sooner the better.  Here is my (somewhat expanded) answer:

No.  CO2 does NOT kill plants.  Nor is it pollution!  It is plant food, and what plants use to make food for us.

There are 2 basic ‘gas exchange’ processes that occur in plants:  breathing (respiration) and photosynthesis.

RESPIRATION

Why breathe?  What is the purpose? ENERGY!!! 

To carry out the process of living, all cells need energy.  That is why we – and plants – need to breathe 24 hours a day.  So how do we get energy by breathing in oxygen?

An oxygen molecule is made up of two oxygen atoms  (hence O2 – the 2 means the molecule is made up of 2 oxygen atoms).  These two atoms are held together by a ‘bond’ – breaking this bond releases energy.  But an oxygen atom by itself has a strong ‘need’ to bond to something (we rate it a level 2 need).  If left in this state, it would harm the surrounding cells (it is called a ‘free radical’). 

Organisms ‘solve’ the problem by taking a carbon atom (C) which has an even higher ‘need’ to bond (level 4).  Two oxygen atoms (with a ‘2’ each) are bonded to the one carbon atom (to add up to the carbon’s ‘4’).  (Yes, this is a major simplification – but the underlying principles are accurately described).  The resulting molecule is CO2 – or one carbon and two oxygen atoms.  All of its ‘needs’ for ‘bonds’ are met, so it is not harmful to the surrounding tissues.

Yes, it does require energy to bind the oxygen atoms to the carbon one.  However, because carbon has such a high ‘need’ for bonds, it takes less enegry to bind the oxygen atoms to it than was released by breaking the bonds between the two oxygen atoms.  In other words, when one breaks the molecular bonds between the two oxygen atoms in O2, then take a part of that energy and uses it to bind the two oxygen atoms to a carbon atom, one has some energy left over.  I stress again, this is a major simplification – there are many steps and other ‘bits’ (like glucose, which is where the carbon molecules for the reaction come from) are essential!!!  However, the underlying principle is correct.  If you would like to read more about this, here and here and here are good starting spots.

This energy difference is what cells use to carry out ‘living’.  We call this process aerobic respiration, both in plants and animals.  And though other molecules may be used in its place, oxygen is by far the most efficient one.  (Respiration in the absence of oxygen is called anaerobic respiration.)

PHOTOSYNTHESIS

During respiration, living cells get energy by breaking ‘bond’ betwen two oxygen atoms in an oxygen molecule (O2), and then use carbon atoms from glucose (simple sugar, made up of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms) molecules to stop the resulting oxygen atoms (free radicals) from harming the cell itself.  So, where does the glucose come from?

Glucose is produced by photosynthesis.

Plants have special organelles called chloroplasts.  These are specialized organelles (sub-section of a cell with a specialized function) in the plant cells which contain the green pigment chlorophyl.  Their function is to take IN carbon dioxide (CO2) form the air, and combine it with hydrous oxyde (H2O – water). 

The C (carbon) from the CO2 is combined with the OH group from H2O.  OK, I am simplifying again:  you need several molecules of CO2 and H2O to make it work, because the result of combining the carbons and oxygens and hydrogens together is the simple sugar, glucose:  and it has 6 carbon atoms in it. 

It is, in fact, pretty much the reverse of the chemical reaction during respiration.  But the reason for respiration is to release energy.  So, this process of photosynthesis needs energy from the outside to happen – and this is the reason why it occurs in the chloroplasts, which contain the green pigment chlorophyll, which is very good at absorbing light energy from the sun.  It then uses this energy to drive the chemical reaction of binding carbon atoms (from CO2 in the air) to water molecules to produce the simple carbohydrate, glucose.

This process is called photosynthesis because it uses the enegy from light (photo) to build (synthesise) glucose, a simple sugar.  Glucos molecules can, in turn, be joined up into long chains so they can be stored efficiently.  The end product, the carbohydrate chain, is called starch.

Plants can then use the stored up starch in order to breathe.  And animals, unable to make starch themselves, eat plants in order to get it.  Thus, energy from sun gets stored by plants (using carbon dioxide and water) as carbohydrates. The byproduct of this process in the oxygen molecule. Plants and animals use these carbohydrates and oxygen from the air to use this stored solar energy to ‘drive’ their cells.  The byproduct of this is carbon dioxide.  This is the basic energy cycle of our current lifeforms.

The more complex the plant, the more CO2 it requires to grow and thrive.  For example, the ‘Great Plains’ in the US used to be mostly covered by trees – until the carbon dioxide levels became too low to support them.  Then, they reverted to grassplains, because grass is a less complex plant and requires (and uses)less CO2 in the air.

If you love trees, as I do, you cannot but object to anything that will reduce the CO2 levels available for them to grow.  I am a self-admitted tree hugger – and a scientist.  I thought the ‘global warming’ thing sounded good when it was first proposed, so I have ‘looked into’ it (extensively – though this is NOT my field of expertise!!!  I do not wish to mislead!).  The evidence has convinced me that this is not dangerous.  To the contrary.  Incerases in CO2 levels are higly advantageous to lifeforms on Earth because historically, they raise food availability and are accompanied by greater species differentiation and increase in overall lifeforms supported.  And despite some claims, hard datea shows that we are nowhere near historically high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So, why the hype?

I don’t know.  In situations where things get as murky as this is, I like to use a very simple ‘rule of thumb’:  “cui bono?” 

Or, in other words, ‘Follow the money, honey!’ 

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in debate, education, human nature, language, politics, science, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

If you can’t laugh at yourself, someone will make a sitcom…

April 24, 2008 — xanthippa

On Monday, I posted ‘Pitfalls’ – a glimpse into the process that an ‘Aspie’ uses to write something up.  Yes, it has a lot to do with my recent posts on Aspergers – I think I have it ready, then read something else and have to hit the re-start button… 

I’m afraid I modeled it on my experience…only.  And while that may be a typical ‘Aspie’ thing to do, it is (I am told) more applicable to female Aspies…who are in minority.  Aside:  As ‘ADifferentVoice’ aticulated, I also wish there were a better terms for ‘a person with Asperger Syndrome’ and ‘Neurotypical’ (NT)- if you know of one, or would like to suggest one, please, let me know.

In the interests of accuracy and entertainment, I have re-thought the post…and come up with a conclusion more indicative of the ‘Aspie-typical’ person.  (How’s that for a convoluted term???  It makes me proud!)  ;0)

Most of the post would remain unchanged:  the bits where excessive research is done, 2-3 major studies are read and their raw data reassessed, several books, a stack of periodicals, and numerous online sources, cross-referenced and indexed (physically or mentally), you start thinking about the actual write up.  Except that somebody mentions something related, so now you have to research that, or risk inacuracy!  So, more research is required…and then you go for 3 days without posting!!!

Now, here is where the difference comes in.  When I start to ‘write’ the actual post/write-up/article/assignment, my most difficult task is cutting the 80-odd pages down to a managable bite.  So much stuff to be stuffed in!  And it has to be phrased carefully, so as not to mislead or misrepresent – not intentionally, anyway!

 Well, I do need to correct the misconception that all Aspies are like that.  The vast majority would be much more efficient at analyzing the salient and essential points, and expressing them in a highly efficient manner.  The long, painful hours I would spend ‘cutting down’ my notes, they spend in expanding their resultant 3 sentences into a full paragraph.

No kidding.

But then again, if you can’t laugh at yourself, somebody will make a sitcom … and the world will laugh at you!  My family insists that when I forget to keep a tight control over my ‘inner voice’, it reveals itself to be a bit of a ‘Sheldon’… or perhaps a little bit of ‘Leslie’….hope you enjoy the clips below! 

 

Posted in Aspergers, education, human nature, language, science, society. Tags: , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Aspergers and ‘hearing dyslexia’

April 21, 2008 — xanthippa

This is another one of my very personal looks at living with Aspergers – both as an Aspie, and as a parent of Aspie kids.  While doctors and psychologists can tell us a lot about Asperger Syndrome, it seems to affect different people differently – even siblings can have incredibly different ways in which they are affected.  Not only does each person’s underlying personality determine the best (and worst) ways of handling it, there are often many physiological conditions which occur along with it and affect the skill-set available to be drawn upon.

One of the conditions that often occurs along with Aspergers and/or ADD is dyslexia – I know that when I was learning to read and write, I had a lot of trouble with it (and, to a very small degree, I still do).  What surprised me, however, was that just like people with dyslexia see letters either reversed, or in the wrong order, some people hear sounds ‘jumbled up’ in much the same way!  The technical term for this is Auditory Processing Disorder (APD), but I find it easier to think of it as ‘sound dyslexia’ or ‘hearing dyslexia’.  Apparently, this condition is not easy to test for, and many doctors do not even think of testing for it….yet it can have very major impact on the development of a child learning language for the very first time – whether neurotypical or Aspergers or Autistic.

Just like people with dyslexia can see letters reversed, or in the wrong order, people with APD can hear sound within words ‘reversed’, or lasting the wrong length of time so several sounds become superimposed over top of each other and very, very difficult to ‘separate out’ and understand….especially when one is just learning that different sequences of sounds can actually carry different meanings. 

Please, imagine that you have this – not correctible by a hearing aid, because the problem is not mechanical, but by the way sound is processed in the brain.  Because you cannot effectively (or reliably – the problem is notoriously intermittent) differentiate between words or phrases, it is very difficult to ‘catalogue’ or ‘make sense of’ sounds and their associated meanings.  Now add to it the Aspies’ inability to comprehend facial expressions, tone of voice or body language.  Frankly, I do not know how these young children can make any sense of the world about them at all!

How to overcome this?

One has to work within the child’s interests and strengths.  It is my hope that sharing what worked for our younger son may help you develop strategies which may work for yours.

When our younger son had problems learning to speak, it did not look to us like a problem.  Instead, it looked as a willful behaviour:  we were told he was refusing to use language in order to manipulate us, the parents.  It was a call for attention, we were told. 

But, that just did not ring true to me.  While we would read him every evening, and while he had our full focus and attention, he would still be unable to follow even the sipmlest stories.  He loved counting picture books with a number and that ‘count’ of objects.  That he could follow, and would lift the correct number of fingers – even try to say the numbers.  Sometimes, he even liked ‘word’ books – ones that showed a picture of an object and had the word for it written beneath the object.

But the moment we tried to read him even very simple stories, we lost him.  He would fidget, climb, jump, and generally do anything to demonstrate his complete lack of interest.  Thinking he wanted more of the attention focused on him (as we were told this was attention-getting behaviour), I would start telling him stories.  This way, there was no book and he was my sole focus.  Same reaction.

Eventually, he got interested – but on a very different level.  Accepting the ‘book routine’, he started picking out letters, one at a time.  The joy on his face as he would yell over top of my voice (as I was reading):  “A!!!  A!!!  A!!!”  I would confirm that yes, that was indeed ‘A’, and tell him how clever he was to have recognized it.

He’s settle down and look interested.  But he was not interested in the story.  No, because I would barely read another paragraph when he woud get excited again:  “D!!! D!!! D!!!”  Again, I would praise him, and try to resume reading.  But, it was not a ‘relaxing time’ that would get one ready for bedtime…

Eventually, I gave up reading him stories and broke out the ‘Alphabet books’.  I had thought he was too young for them, but if he loved reading the letters, I whas happy to oblige him.  For the first time, he was making ‘human’ sounds, one letter at a time!  And at this point, I saw that as a reason to celebrate.

We also added ‘bathtime’ to the fun.  He loved his letters, so I got soap crayons and we had great fun using the white ceramic tiles on the wall by the tub as our canvas!  I would let him pick a letter and then write every three-letter word which started with that letter.  As I would write them, I would read the letter, then the word!  And, surely enough, my son would read each letter with me.  B-A-T.  BA-. BAT.

Miracle of miracles:  he learned to speak!

Of course, he would NOT EVER repeat a word until he had learned what letters it was made up of, how it broke down to syllables, and how it fit together.  I suppose he was the only toddler I had ever encountered who had learned to READ before he learned to SPEAK!!!

Now, he has a little lisp when he speaks, but he has an above-average vocabulary.  

Another factor, which was happening at this time, and which I think was incredibly beneficial to our son as he tried to decode the mystery of communications, was his interaction with our dog.  Good natured and well trained, he was also very intelligent – and showed incredible patience with both the boys.  And while any pet will be beneficial, a well trained dog in the home can be very valuable in a situation like this. 

Why? 

Because the communication lines are so very clear.  Our dog was trained to obey a limited number very distinct-sounding commands, accompanied by hand signals.  In addition, the dog’s response to these commands was consistent and predictable.  His overall body language was also a much ‘simpler’ communication than the ‘human’ type.  To a young person who is having trouble understanding the underlying rules of communication, this can just be the key to unlock the mystery. 

We did not ‘get’ what was happening, and thought he was just ‘playing pretend’ when our son began to immitate the dog’s actions when we would give the dog a command.  And since the dog loved to ‘practice’ his commands for treats every day, I switched the ‘treat’ from a dog bicuit to an animal cracker….and let them both practice together. 

It may seem silly to people who are not ‘dog lovers’, but many kids love pretending to be ‘the dog’.  It is partly a game, and partly to see what reaction this would get.  And since I thought it was fun, and I was happy that he was interacting, I was delighted.  I would say ‘Sit!’ – and both boy and dog would sit!  I would give them a cracker each, they would happily eat them up, and look to me for the next command!  And he was happy – he finally understood some ‘stuff’!

Perhaps not every child would respond in this way, but then again, my guy is one of a kind!  Yet, I do hope that his story might help people understand that kids who ‘seem’ to be ‘manipulative’ or ‘acting out’ might not be doing that at all.  They may simply not understand what is going or around them, and be trying ‘weird’ ways to make sense of them.  And they may also be very frustrated….

But if you can find the key that will unlock the mystery, they will learn!  And they will be much, much happier – it is rewarding for everyone!  Even the dog…     ;o)

Posted in Aspergers, education, human nature, language, science, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 28 Comments »

Pitfalls

April 20, 2008 — xanthippa

The following is a painfully accurate description of one painful ‘creative’ process  people with Aspergers Syndrome undergo when ‘writing stuff up’:

You have found the perect topic – or perhaps it has been assigned to you.  Either way, you spend weeks figuring out the best angle from which to approach it, because that will determine what you need to read up on and how you organize your thought.  You read anything and everythig related to it, until you find just the most perfect way to present the main idea.

The brain engages, and does not let go!  Not for a little bit.  You even dream about it – if you can sleep at all!  You find yourself reading tons of stuff you realize you should have read long ago, because it added important data that needs to be included in the analysis of whatever it is you are thinking about – and you had already started thingking about it!

OK, re-organize the data in your brain and push the re-start button on the analysis process!  Oh, and all that stuff you wrote up yesterday – well, might as well re-read it before tossing it out….but wait!  This bit – let me ‘Google’ it, it needs to be expanded on so the reader does not become confused!  Oh, you’d better read that, too!

Then you realize that five or six years ago, you read a book or an article on an unrelated topic, but which could be used as an effective parallel – so you spend several hours hunting it down.  Better to also read a few of the underlying studies – to get a feel for the raw data, and thus better understand the reasoning underlying the analysis.  Right.  More data to add, re-start the analysis thinking bit again.

You think you have it:  and tell a friend about it.  It helps to bounce ideas back and forth – not just for the plausibility of your conclusions, but – and perhaps most importantly – to see if there are whole huge chunks of ‘stuff’ you did not explain, because it seemed ‘obvious’ or ‘common knowledge’ to you – yet which do not appear so to people who have not obsessively immersed in this topic for several weeks/months/years.  It is surprising to you how all these people could live happily without intimate knowledge of ‘whatever the topic topic happens to be’!

Your friend has no idea what you’re talking about – so you make a mental note to read up on ‘lay terms’ used to express ‘your stuff’.  More reading, learning how to dumb-down perfectly clear and precise phrases into common words which have layers of meanings, and so can never accurately describe anything exactly and unequivocally.  You’ll just have to compensate by expanding the section where you explain in detail how the words are used in your article.  It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s the best that can be hoped for.  Better add a paragraph or two to each sub-section, with more detailed explanations, or the whole point will have been lost.

Right.  Your deadline was a week ago – so even though you know you have a lot more to read up on to make an truly accurate analysis, you’d better get stuff down on paper.  Better include a paragraph or two to explain what you did not get to read up on, so people know and can compensate for it.  Sloppy…  But better than being misleading!

So, you write it up.  It is there, it took days of writing.  It is still terrible, even though you re-wrote each sentence four or five times, re-edited each paragraph to accomodate each sentence re-write, then adjusted the whole document to the changes in the paragraph. But, the basic ideas are there.  Good!

Almost ready.  Now, you just need to edit it down to under 2 pages….which is going to be a little hard.  You now have 78 of them, and that is in very small font in an effort to shrink it.  That will NEVER work!

Perhaps, you decide, you will pick a different topic…

Posted in Aspergers, education, human nature, language, science. Tags: , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Astronomical Arrogance in Journalism

April 17, 2008 — xanthippa

Over the last few days, there have been gleeful reports of the ‘big brains’ at NASA having really goofed up – again – only to have a 13-year-old kid fix the mistake in their math.  The arrogant reports also touted a tantilizing tidbit of ‘secret’ information:  ‘someone from NASA confirmed to someone from the European Space Agency that the kid is right!’

Ooooh!  That must have sent shivers of schadenfreude up some journalistic spines!  After all, everyone keeps using the term ‘rocket scientist’ as the ‘smartest possible thing ever’ – and here, we have proof the silly eggheads are not so smart, after all!  Even a kid can wipe the floor with them! 

Except, of course, that the news reports were WRONG!

So, was this a simple case of journalists attempting to inflate their own egoes by taking the scientists down a peg?  Or is there something more at play here…like ‘credibility’.

As Bill Nye the Science Guy used to repeat over and over and over:  extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!  But these reports went out all over the world – many papers which like to consider themselves ‘respectable’ have reported this as FACT!  The only pretense at ‘proof’ was the ‘uncofirmable gossip’ bit:  done deal, no doubt, NASA is wrong and a 13-year-old is right!   Our source is so very high up in NASA, we cannot even reveal their name!  So, we know and you should trust us.  It’s a fact.

Lubos Motl, one of the world’s leading physicists, has a bit to say about this on his blog, The Reference Frame.  He gives an excellent analysis (both in the main post, and in the comment section where he responds to specific questions) from a scientists’ point of view.  I could not have done it better, and so I will not go into the reasons why Nico Marquadt is not likely to have found an error the NASA dudes missed.  If you’d like, you can read his post here.

My question is a little different:  HOW did this story ever make it into ‘the News’?  And, perhaps more interestingly, WHY?  And why did we hear so much about the original story, but hardly a whisper about the fact that we were fed unverified, unchecked, unreliable and downright wrong information as ‘established facts’?

I can only guess:  it was fun and juicy, looked like it would take down a peg someone who is seen as smarter than most journalists, and – let’s face it – most members of the MSM (main stream media) just do not posses the math skills to check the calculations for themselves.  And they could not be bothered to email the nearest scientist/mathematician for comment.  And they wanted to get that juicy story out right away.  Ok, that might cover the ‘HOW’. 

But WHY?

Again, this is just a guess from an outside observer:  nothing more.  But, could there be some deep resentment between the MSM/journalists and (almost) ALL scientists?  Is there any benefit the MSM could derive from attacking the credibility of scientists in general?  If so, that might signal a sinister bias could be creeping into our news coverage…

No, don’t worry – I’m not turning into a ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ – pointing out who owns what percentage of which paper or magazine…  I cannot really be, because I have not done my homework on this.  However, I do understand a little bit about human nature… Hopefully, I am wrong on this one.

It brings me to the tired old topic of ‘Anthropogenic Climat Change’ (ACC) in its many incarnations.  In the very beginning, I, too, bought into it.  It sounded plausible.  So, I went and learned about the underlying science of it.  Being somewhat obsessive, I read quite a bit about it.  And I learned it was not plausible, after all – and that what was used to tout it was ‘junk science’ and bits of legitimately good science, just taken out of context and twisted.  Oh, and it was all anchored in a study which has been shown to be not just wrong, but actually fraudulent.  So, egg on my face, I had to stand up and say I was wrong to have thought ACC was right.  Yes, I felt a fool…but I deserved it for buying into something before I really checked it out!

The MSM also bought into it.  It sounded good, and they did not bother to look too deeply into the ‘scientific mumb0-jumbo’.  Byt the time the MSM had figured out that the ACC movement was – from its inception – driven by policymakers and not scientists, that the very first studies were commissioned to be one sided only (and by Margaret Thatcher, no less), they had invested themselves WAY too deeply into propagating it.  They bought into it, and sef-righteously attacked any lone scientists who dared to stand up and speak about scientific rigour, actual data, the underlying science….you know, the basis for it!

But now, more and more scientists are speaking out.  More and more data is showing there has not been any ‘Global Warming’ in the last decade.  More and more scandals are coming out about the IPCC report.  Yet the media does very little to cover these new developments.  Unless you go out of your way to look for this information (or regularly check the science websites/scientists’ blogs), it is unlikely that you will have heard about this.  Coincidence?  I think not.

Perhaps because of the explosion of information available on the internet, perhaps because fewer and fewer people trust that the MSM is a trustworthy source of information – the fact is that the MSM is slowly dying.  And they know it.  But instead of examining their lack on impartial and or informed reporting, they blame the loss of their credibility on ‘scientists’….for uncovering the magnitude of the fraud they allowed themselves to be suckered into.

So, whether it is an attempt to regain some relative credibility for themselves by taking some away from ‘the scientists’, or whether it is a punch of an industry that’s going down kicking and screeching – should we be surprised that the MSM reported this falsehood the way they did?

Posted in education, freedoms, human nature, politics, science, society. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »