Wheaton's Law of Subjective Crazy

Yup. Sounds like high functioning Aspergers. High IQ, no patience with other people's little emotional 'sensitivities;' I don't care. We can also be highly focused on one goal. Want to join NASA and go to Mars; how about build a new computer chip or discover a cure for HIV? How about world domination through permaculture? All those guys fit into the mold of high functioning Aspergers. I wouldn't give up my intellect for the emotional intelligence it takes to function in society. "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
I didn't know I had a 'label' until recently (because I don't care.) I'm fine with it---now I know.

In permaculture, the problem is the solution.

Aspergers seems to be viewed as a problem by most of society. Whereas society seems to be viewed as the problem by the rest of us.

I think it may be up to those of us with asperger type traits to use those high IQs and that focus and imagination to pull together and make the world a better place. Or maybe I'm just crazy...

Paul's Law reminds me of Susan Cain's view on introversion and extroversion, we all have some degree of both. When you watch Paul give a presentation it seems he is quite an extrovert, and hosting pancake gatherings also looks like something an extrovert would do, however he himself recognizes that he hates smalltalk and other kinds of gatherings, which is a characteristic many introverts share. Cain has some very relevant and good insights on the matter if you want to read her work.

I have this dear friend whom I've known since we were in kindergarten. She is smart, stylish while being crazy-frugal, has the most amazing original art collection (paintings, pottery, sculpture - you have it!), is an impeccable homemaker and she swears like a truck driver. One of her favorite friends ever was this guy who'd had a stroke or something that damaged a part of his brain. It was the social filter part of the brain. The most honest, even harsh things would pop out of his mouth, and my artful, swearing friend loved it!

I think we all tire of the social conventions that limit the true expressions of ourselves. And we are drawn (pulled?) toward those who eschew them.

I do think many (if not most) people feed or get energy from social exchanges where they feel seen, heard, and appreciated. (Some might say these are extroverts who are energized by others and small talk.) This is such fun to them, that I think they feed into or encourage the social conventions that are perhaps filters, white lies, little feel-good falsehoods.

Then there are the crazy ones without the filters, or who see through the feel-good falsehoods. I've heard that lack of social filters often goes with Asperger's or the autism spectrum, (or brain damage ) so the high numbers of autism spectrum people tolerating this kind of thing, or being computer savvy / using computer forums, or enjoying Paul and permies, makes sense to me.

Just also want to add (similar to the INFJ and other personality type comments), that as an introvert, I am usually drained by the light, happy little interactions with many people, and the strokes from others, no matter how honest (or not) or well-meaning. As so many people have commented here, it's the deeper, more meaningful discussions that feed me.

The extrovert-small-talk "norm" is SO prevalent in our society, that despite knowing since toddlerhood that I'm definitely not that, the way I am has still seemed "wrong" most of my life. The video on the introvert thread does a decent job of explaining a bit about this (recent) cultural phenomenon / judgement.

I like Paul's ideas about getting back to character, integrity, honesty, decency. One can truly be nice, and still tell it like it is.

Cheers to the discussion here, to those who defy convention, and to the permies community!

Speaking of the problem is the solution, someone on FaceBook mentioned that Warren Brush wrote about permaculture attracting or being comprised of "black sheep."

In that article, Brush describes some findings and theories from a rural sociology professor. (What, there is such a professor?)

Following Professor Everett’s bell curve for innovation adoption, innovators make up less than 2.5% of the population while early adopters comprise about 13.5%. As a movement, we need to identify who are potential early adopters and strategize how to leverage our time and energy to reach them with a powerful and well-rooted message of how important Permaculture thinking and action is for the survival of humanity. I believe that if we focus on gaining a critical mass within the early adopters, the masses will surely follow as this is an observable and repeating pattern within humanity.

So do you think we are early adopters?

If that's the case, is Paul the shirtless dancing guy (ala Derek Sivers' theory of leadership?)

Though this is slightly off topic from Paul's original posting, the discussion of adoption is both fascinating and germane. There is a similar discussion over in the thread about broadacre application of permaculture here: https://permies.com/t/42835/large-farm/large-scale-permaculture-system

In that thread I mention Geoffrey Moore's concept of crossing the chasm, a solution to the challenge of getting the early majority to buy into what the early adopters are doing. It's my belief that we do need to move on from the visionaries and innovators to getting early adopters to communicate directly with the early majority for adoption. This means we get informed and practiced in communicating about our approach to living on this planet and focus less on talking to people of similar ilk but get bold (yet not offensive) and start talking to row crop farmers, feedlot ranchers and others in the industrial agriculture system and help them see there is a better way, and yes a better way at scale. This means we invite ag school scientists to come out and conduct their field trails and tests on our regenerative and permaculture systems. It means we have to talk to industrial-style farmers like they are human beings who just want to provide for their families and send their kids to college. As the current motto teaches, let's not be angry at bad guys. Instead, let's encourage them with compassion and demonstrate to them they can make a good living employing alternative agricultural practices.

Under current trends of carbon release into the atmosphere, it's not going to matter how many 10-acre permaculture systems are out there because we won't be at the scale necessary to sequester enough carbon to reverse what we're doing on a global climate basis. As the Rodale Institute white paper announced recently, "Simply put, we could sequester more than 100% of current annual CO2 emissions with a switch to widely available and inexpensive organic management practices, which we term "regenerative organic agriculture."" But, that will require a massive switch at the broadacre level.

Whether we're comfortable in public situations or not, let's leave the dinner party and small talk and get engaged with people who make their living off 500 acres, 1,000 acres or even 5,000 acres. It's really the only way we're going to be able to sustain life on this planet in the long run.

Jocelyn wrote:

So do you think we are early adopters?

I know I'm an early adopter, almost always have been. Not much of an innovator, but I seem to pick up on (some) things ahead of the masses. Used to be silly things, like mini-skirts in 1979 or paisley in 1983, made me some money when I bought shares of HCOW (Horizon Organic Dairy - not a very nice business, but one of my first stock picks based on a good hunch) in 1998. Now I'm looking at how we can repair the planet, even though I'm a pediatrician with almost no spare time and less than one quarter acre to my name. Hopefully my interests are still a harbinger!

Reading quest for land part 3 there's a link to this very thread. I have quoted [paraphrased?] Mr. Wheaton on the matter in the book i'm writing but was kinda surprised not to find what comes to my mind when thinking of 'the relativity of crazy' + "Paul Wheaton". Anyway, so i thought i'd share. Here are the quotes from what i've been writing [book is far from finished]:

I was just looking at a presentation by Paul Wheaton in San Diego to a group interested in permaculture. As a permaculture expert Mr. Wheaton is into a vast array of topics, which is typical of permaculture in principle. Based on his dealings with so many different topics conveyed to people who are generally laymen, he made a few arguments concerning communicating new ideas that were real eye openers to me (though i'm certainly not unfamiliar with talking about things to people who have never heard of them before). I mention his insights because they have bearing on the present situation. He explained that people who argue do so due to conflicting information; hence, people getting along do so simply because their information happens to coincide. (For the moment. For the matter at hand...) He made an astute observation: if someone knows someone who knows more than he does himself, then the person knowing more is cool. If someone knows a whole lot more, then he's super cool. If someone knows even more than that, then he's crazy, and if someone knows even more than that person, he should be institutionalized for the sake of his own safety and those around him... Before that Mr. Wheaton mentioned that anyone knowing less than you is stupid and you feel like bashing their head in.

In my book i go on explaining how The Milgram Experiment shows that (on average) 75% of people are certifiable (and how sane folks [belonging to the 25%] should deal with them and why). So it continues:

So Paul Wheaton is a permaculture expert with an amazing array of knowledge. He states that he experiences great difficulty sharing his information, as [paraphrasing] there are 8 levels of knowledge sharing; people:
- you think are so stupid, ignorant, or stubborn that you'd like to bash their heads in - [who think you're crazy or certifiable]
- you could teach - [who think you're supercool]
- you can talk with - [who think you're cool]
- you can work with - [who are on your own level]
- you think are cool - [who are interested in talking to you]
- you think are supercool - [who are willing to teach you]
- you think are crazy - [who think you're ignorant or stubborn]
- you believe should be locked up to protect both themselves and those around 'm - [who would like to bash your head in because your attitude is so frustrating]

What Paul Wheaton [likely] does not understand is that he's talking about the 75%. It's contradictory anyway that he mentions this observation to a room full of people actually willing to listen to him; considering that he's talking about a vast array of work and insights, that means that most of them would logically regard him as certifiable in regards to many of his topics. The fact is they're probably listening because most of them belong to the 25% and the 8 levels of ignorance do not apply to them.

In other words: a useful tool in illustrating how there's simply no dealing with crazy, especially if you're into many different things,, or a useful tool in understanding how to deal with most people, i.e. by sticking to one topic (and not going on to anything 'outside the box', i.e. interesting).

Hi. Pleased to meet you.....What do I do.....Um....I'm trying to keep a small group from starving or freezing to death during the downfall of western industrial civilisation. Yourself? You sell derivative futures and condo time shares. That's nice. You must be a hit with the ladies....Lets talk about resource depletion, government insolvency, climate chaos and the civil wars that usually follow. No? . How about mass suicides during great depression, the dust bowl and now Greece? Nitrate run off causing dead zones in the oceans and algae blooms in lakes that can kill your children if they soak their feet in it. No? How about the 40 million chickens that just died in the US from avian flue, the economic ramifications, whether it will jump to humans and why the media is barely mentioning it. No?........paisley in 1983. lol. I had a vest. What was I thinking ......I just bought a pig. I named him Mr Wu based on the Deadwood character......

What were we talking about agin?....Autism?...and small talk I think.....

Oh look! Shirtless dancing guy................... LOL

Somebody emailed this to me today. Normally, I don't act as the secretary to people putting stuff up here, but I made an exception.

=) funny =)

dr. suess recommends ---->>>

and anton wilson said ---->




...actually he may be one of the most well known people to talk about similar issues...talking about "reality tunnels" and all the things he talks about...terrence mckenna too...he sometimes talked about similar things, if youve ever listened to him rant...about trusting in your individual experience without external validation and such...

Marianne Cicala wrote:
Best response I ever heard to the horrible "So, what do you do?"  My friend always answered "About what?"  He was one of the few people I loved hanging out with, god I miss him!

This is my answer. It's usually enough to cause people to think I'm crazy.

When people ask me what I am planning for such-and-such future time my thought goes to, “The future? I have no idea what is going to happen tomorrow morning let alone next year!” My plans? To carry out the will of the divine, of course. My job? To be a real human being—what else?

Normally I can be polite and normal but my answers often dissatisfy. I do try to practice self restraint for the sake of others and myself.

I liken it to two people walking in different places on a hill. They both stop and look around, and each sees what appears to be a severed head resting on the rocks. The other person appears to be incomplete but it’s only because there is a rock in the way and they no longer can see the other parts of each other.

As a sort of crazy person myself I’ve decided that yes, what other people think and feel is important to care about if we want to have good relationships with other people. But we needn’t let it weigh on us and define us. I have been on the receiving end (and occasionally the giving too) of the “don’t care what other people think or feel” sort of thing and the results of it can be very difficult. If someone is very polite you may have no idea how hurt or disrespected they feel.

I think I remember hearing a saying from Zen about enlightenment having to do with not being confused by other people. Which I feel is very true. I hope for being together without being confused by each other, sharing an understanding of the true nature of reality and letting it shine through us.  

Who “my people” are is modulated by how much I wish to share. If that is everything, then I can narrow that to a very tiny number of people who I know. But, of such people one may not be especially interested in my milkweed spinning and knitting projects, or someone else may be patient for philosophizing but not really get it or find it useful.