The Importance of Neurodiversity in Permaculture

Reading through everyone's thoughtful posts, including experts, former experts, and more humble laypeople...

The communication, and indeed understanding, between experts and laypeople seems like a vital, weak link in our society.

We have technical experts designing gadgets, chemicals, physical structures, and processes (such as international banking) on which the rest of us place our dependence for our daily lives.
If those technical experts don't understand how laypeople think, to the point where they/we can't communicate, it becomes near-impossible for experts to design safely for use by laypeople.

If the average person is prone to respond emotionally to "data," rather than rationally, this itself is an important data point. A lot of the political, regulatory, and legal discussions that affect building practices are informed by gut-level, emotional decisions about what is "safer" or "better for our economy".
One example is building code writers deciding that since they did not feel comfortable using the centuries-old standard of building brick chimneys out to 8" thick for safe contact with wood, they would apply the "safer" number of 12" thickness, which is already in the code for the high-temperature situation around the fireplace itself. This is only "safer" if you are considering heat transfer - if you are considering the structural stability of a 4" chimney wall being built out to a greater thickness where it passes through the roof, that 12" represents a big doggone bulge way up in the sky, over my head. You can only justify it as an emotional, CYA decision - not a product of holistic logic. (This story was originally from one of the code discussions at www.rumford.com, if you want to check the details.)

Experts in a particular field are often highly specialized; the "heat clearances" guy might not be an expert in structural or seismic or masonry practices. So there is a need for communication, not only with laypeople, but across expert disciplines where a "technical term" may have two different meanings in those two different fields. Like "organic" farming and "organic" chemistry.
I'm forgetting other examples, but I've noticed them in the past between fields as close as physics and engineering, let alone lay pursuits like sales, web design, or gardening.
Even within trades, there are differences like "fire brick" and "kiln brick," which get swapped regionally; and "fire clay" meaning either raw clay or metakaolin (fired clay powder/grog), a critical difference for mortars and natural building alike.

When we assume that there is only one, technically correct, meaning of any word in this magnificently complex English language, we may be missing key information that our conversation partner is trying to convey.

And if you think someone's insistence on simple words is "childish," then please consider the "parental" responsibility that experts must bear who offer products that require "adult" care and handling, on the open market for mis-use at the hands of such "children." The fact that other people don't understand, or feel qualified to disagree with, your expert opinion should be a cautionary lesson about the audience and end-users for whom you are designing.

Laypeople do build things. Even expert-built structures are generally occupied, maintained, and occasionally destroyed, by laypeople.
Specifying reinforced-concrete floors for a building in a seismic or tsunami zone, that will be built by workmen who don't understand the chemistry by which concrete achieves its full strength, is arguably a grossly negligent decision - regardless of whether you can shift the blame by saying "they didn't follow my specifications," or "but pouring within X hours of mixing, and keeping the formwork in place for X time, is standard practice." The book "Construction Failure" is salutory (if slightly dry) reading for experts and laypeople alike.

In evolutionary terms, there is something to be said for letting people take full responsibility for the level of technology they are able to understand and implement themselves. Unfortunately, the consequences of both hubris and ignorance tend to fall on someone other than the original perpetrator. And I freely admit that I'm in no hurry to give up my automobile, computer, or other technology that I could never re-create from scratch - though I do make an effort to incrementally improve my understanding and maintenance habits.

As a fire fighter, the sheer quantity of potentially-lethal chemicals in all these modern conveniences is simply terrifying. I no longer have the luxury of assuming that someone "should" understand the proper methods of disposal, or the implications of listening to rodents filling their crawl space all winter with damp nesting material, and gnawing on anything in the way.

The building codes are well worth understanding. They fall short of perfection, and in many cases contribute to larger global problems (deforestation, carbon load, high embodied energy and toxicity of materials, water shortages).
But at least 1/3 of the material is vital, "common-sense" practices worked out over centuries of trial and error. Many cob builders have come to the building codes late in the project, and discovered really useful guidelines like stair-rail heights or roof load calculations, that they wish they had known earlier.

If you want to take credit not just for knowiing this stuff and being "worth your hire" in a professional market, but for serving others with vital information in the markets that can't always afford to hire experts, then that service is only complete when actual understanding is achieved.

Diverse ways of thinking about the situation often lead to diverse insights, too. One of my favorite things is being part of a creative team that thinks of things I would never have done on my own.

-Erica

One example is building code writers deciding that since they did not feel comfortable using the centuries-old standard of building brick chimneys out to 8" thick for safe contact with wood, they would apply the "safer" number of 12" thickness, which is already in the code for the high-temperature situation around the fireplace itself. This is only "safer" if you are considering heat transfer - if you are considering the structural stability of a 4" chimney wall being built out to a greater thickness where it passes through the roof, that 12" represents a big doggone bulge way up in the sky, over my head. . (This story was originally from one of the code discussions at www.rumford.com, if you want to check the details.)

These are the kind of statements that do not register with me at all since they lack technical foundation originating from the OP. Normally I would not even bother, but for the sake of topic of discussions lets take a closer look.

1. Since there are literally 1000s of codes across the globe, local, international, and combinations, please state the code you are referring to?

2.

if you are considering the structural stability of a 4" chimney wall being built out to a greater thickness where it passes through the roof, that 12" represents a big doggone bulge way up in the sky, over my head

The 12" will be more structurally stable due to the aspect ratio at the ground and weight depending on soil type. I do not have all the dimensions and material properties as you must have to prove the structures is unsafe and inadequate....Please post your static and dynamic analysis for review?

You can only justify it as an emotional, CYA decision - not a product of holistic logic

Because to correct your statement I cannot justify it as an "emotionally based" decision at all yet based on the lack of info you provided which is an issue in itself. Code is for the most part is correct and has been tested and proven for centuries (much of what is being referred to as historic evidence is in code). Like anything including human opinions, misinterpretations, it has errors, many of which are due to people that cannot understand or not qualified to understand. Ch 3 and much of code also points to it being a "minimum requirement" and many are forced to hire professionals otherwise. Some areas of code one of which you are referring to heat transfer and "braced walls" gets VERY complex and the average "layman" does not understand it or allowed to by law, that is why Architects/PE spec it out on drawing's.

Code also allows I did not see you mention to hire a PE to override it. I assume here you did not know that since it was not in your statements. Both are not a requirement in many rural areas of the world you did not mention either and this could all be a moot point to many. Many can do as they please and no legal or political jurisdictions would take the blame if the structures or heat transfers fail due to their inadequate designs.

If you want to refer to some other building as a design path you should know as a designer to once again post the specifics of that building.

If you disagree and "feel" that code is mainly incorrect please provide specific examples for review.

Disclamer: Please do not respond with any information but a pic or link to the code you are referring to and your analysis that shows your conclusions as:

A lot of the political, regulatory, and legal discussions that affect building practices are informed by gut-level, emotional decisions about what is "safer" or "better for our economy".

"A Lot" Please post all the specifics showing this and I think we should take your data to ICC and/or the local jurisdictions since this is a matter of public safety that needs to be documented and made public immediately! What shocks me here is knowing peoples lives are at risk why have you not reported your findings to homeowners, etc, and are only stating them on forums? Or perhaps you have written a letter of intent to ICC, the jurisdictions, public you are referring to?

I think your post here makes a good example of how different neurotypes would interpret the same writing.

Terry Ruth wrote:

One example is building code writers deciding that since they did not feel comfortable using the centuries-old standard of building brick chimneys out to 8" thick for safe contact with wood, they would apply the "safer" number of 12" thickness, which is already in the code for the high-temperature situation around the fireplace itself. This is only "safer" if you are considering heat transfer - if you are considering the structural stability of a 4" chimney wall being built out to a greater thickness where it passes through the roof, that 12" represents a big doggone bulge way up in the sky, over my head. . (This story was originally from one of the code discussions at www.rumford.com, if you want to check the details.)

These are the kind of statements that do not register with me at all since they lack technical foundation originating from the OP. Normally I would not even bother, but for the sake of topic of discussions lets take a closer look.

1. Since there are literally 1000s of codes across the globe, local, international, and combinations, please state the code you are referring to?

2.

if you are considering the structural stability of a 4" chimney wall being built out to a greater thickness where it passes through the roof, that 12" represents a big doggone bulge way up in the sky, over my head

The 12" will be more structurally stable due to the aspect ratio at the ground and weight depending on soil type. I do not have all the dimension and material properties as you must have to prove the structures is unsafe and inadequate....Please post your static and dynamic analysis for review?

You can only justify it as an emotional, CYA decision - not a product of holistic logic

Because to correct your statement I cannot justify it as an emotionally based decision at all yet based on the lack of info you provided which is an issue in itself. Code is for the most part correct and proven for centuries (much of what is being referred to as historic evidence is in code) like anything it has errors, many of which are due to people that cannot understand or not qualified to understand. Ch 3 and much of code also points to it being a "minimum requirement" and many are forced to hire professionals otherwise. Some areas of code one of which you are referring to heat transfer and "braced walls" gets VERY complex and the average "layman" does not understand it or allowed to by law, that is why Architects/PE spec it out on drawing's.

Code also allows I did not see you mention to hire a PE to override it. I assume here you did not know that since it was not in your statements. Both are not a requirement in many rural areas of the world you did not mention either and this could all be a moot point to many. Many can do as they please and no legal or political jurisdictions would take the blame if the structures or heat transfers fail due to their inadequate designs.

If you want to refer to some other building as a design path you should know as a designer to once again post the specifics of that building.

If you disagree and "feel" that code is mainly incorrect please provide specific examples for review.

Disclamer: Please do not respond with any information but a pic or link to the code you are referring to and your analysis that shows your conclusions as:

A lot of the political, regulatory, and legal discussions that affect building practices are informed by gut-level, emotional decisions about what is "safer" or "better for our economy".

"A Lot" Please post all the specifics showing this and I think we should take your data to ICC and/or the local jurisdictions since this is a matter of public safety that needs to be documented and made public immediately! What shocks me here is knowing peoples lives are at risk why have you not reported your findings to homeowners, etc, and are only stating them on forums? Or perhaps you have written a letter of intent to ICC, the jurisdictions, public you are referring to?

My guess (because I don't know the minds of others, I can only interpret from what you've written) is that for your style of communication and neurotype, your post is one that both seeks information and provides an opportunity to correct any inaccuracy that might have been mistakenly expressed.

My (limited) understanding of the topic is that the information in your post adds to the discussion. But perhaps there are a ways to include that information and appeal to a broader audience. Keep in mind a forum like this is a public setting. There are people from all walks of life and background reading these posts. Surely there is a way to express these ideas that can make them understandable to the majority of the readers without being untrue to oneself?

There are a couple of suggestions I could make that may help this post more welcoming to a larger number of neurotypes - but I don't want you to feel like I'm picking on you. I'm not, it just this specific post made a good example.

I'm going to take the inspiration this post has given me and try to word my thoughts as generalizations rather than specifics about one post or the other. This may take some time.

R- Before you do bear in mind I asked for specific code, dimensions, materials, properties, and further I will need to see how the chimney is tied to the roof. I'd like to see a way around that since without that info in the OP there is no need to waste anymore time....you can't even talk to it or make a recommendation without the facts. There are times that the only way to communicate is by stating the facts as in this case analysis, drawings, etc, and showing exactly where the errors are. Then a peer review can occur. Some people will not be qualified to participate in the peer review unless they understand the facts. Yes that is a period!

I'm still shocked here that all these building errors that are supposedly in code are not being made aware to the jurisdictions. When people lives are at stake we should not even be discussing it on a forum. Especially when it comes to fire and structures that are deadly!

Terry
I think you may be missing the point or object of R Ransons comment and that itself is an example of what this whole thread is looking at ie Communication issues.
The poster, if I have read her correctly, is talking about a problem of communication whist you look at the actual communication its self as the issue . The poster talks method while you look at detail .

David

Terry Ruth wrote:R- Before you do bear in mind I asked for specific code, dimensions, materials, properties, and further I will need to see how the chimney is tied to the roof. I'd like to see a way around that since without that info in the OP there is no need to waste anymore time....you can't even talk to it or make a recommendation without the facts. There are times that the only way to communicate is by stating the facts as in this case analysis, drawings, etc, and showing exactly where the errors are. Then a peer review can occur. Some people will not be qualified to participate in the peer review unless they understand the facts. Yes that is a period!

I'm still shocked here that all these building errors that are supposedly in code are not being made aware to the jurisdictions. When people lives are at stake we should not even be discussing it on a forum. Especially when it comes to fire and structures that are deadly!

I wouldn't imagine talking about facts when it comes to building. The best I've made was a hen house, and that was unders supervision. I've read exactly one book about building, cover to cover, and it told me nothing about codes. I've looked through other books, but to be honest, it isn't my area of interest. Yes, I do plan to make a yurt soon (again, under supervision) but that doesn't qualify as a building (in my opinion), it's more of fancy tent structure.

What I want to talk about isn't the facts. I'm confident in your knowledge base and skills set. I'm confident that you have the information accurate.

What I'm interested in is the style of presenting this information.

There are many ways of presenting the same information. There is the way we are trained when we learn our area of expertise. This is usually very straight forward and to the point, using words that convey the most amount of meaning as quickly and accurately as possible. That way works great in a professional setting, but here we are in a public setting. Some ways appeal to a narrow range of neurotypes, and other ways of presenting information appeal to a broader range of neurotypes.

The information and intent of the post remains the same, but the method of presenting that information can drastically alter how well it is accepted.




I'm calling this style of communication a lingua franca because I don't know what else to call it. The style of writing that most people can understand and accept as a gentle way of communicating ideas.

What I don't know how to do is to communicate in this lingua franca without being untrue to our natural selves. Dose anyone naturally speak this way or is it something we all have to learn?

R- I think I mentioned this long ago. If I want to discuss subjective material it would not be math and or building science since it usually only has one form. For example, I should say though glad my calculus teachers gave partial credit for getting to the point where the calculations fell apart and the correct answer was never found. It can be that black and white. Thank goodness for curve grading.

In this case, I already know where the answer will lie and I have not stated it since I been through this design process a billion times and read much of code. A prerequisite here before making or challenging code would be to read it that does not appear to be the case here is it would be properly quoted. So I'd like to see the code and the analysis. Fire is based on UL and ASTM flame spread indexes, tested publications proven for centuries that appear to be being challenged, not just heat transfer. There are different requirements for different assemblies not defined in the OP. We need to see the loads analysis on the chimney to roof and ground tie, and the soils test to determine if the 12" in unsafe. That data has to be looked at legally. Yes that is another period

I'm all ears on how to communicate this lack of data and misunderstanding differently but VERY accurately? I think you will find as most of the world already knows and practices, it has to peer reviewed in the mode of communication that has been proven for decades. In this case, that is an Engineering drawing showing all the loads on structure, fire rates. To do that one has to detach themselves personally from the data and not take it personally when they are wrong or called out, especially when it is a matter of public safety.

To suggest a different mode of communication here, or reinvent the wheel, would take even more experience in the subject matter. We do not want to get to the point we are jeopardizing accuracy by trying to communicate it to satisfy a large group of people. If that is case, I suggest staying away from technical content where public safety is at risk since just as there are those that will throw some statements out there without much factual basis, there are those that can produce facts (or challenge and/or ask for them) that proves in this case not code as a safety hazard but the person or persons interpreting it or the wording wrong. I personally will not subject myself to error, the most I even done that is on forums since I am aware of my audience.

There's an important point to be made about language, which is that there is often no way to express specialist concepts without specialist language (or sometimes mathematics). When the language for my specialised field was being developed it was intended to be inclusionary, because the only people who "mattered" in the sense of being in a position to study the field in the first place (wealthy, European mostly males) all spoke Greek and Latin, whether they were English, French, German or Swedish. With the decline in Classical education and the broadening of the scientific class it's become exclusionary, because you have to learn the language in order to participate. I don't see a way around that. My own recent attempts make the system theoretically open, but very unwieldy (and the only way I can think of to fix the problems are only going to make it more so - based on a deliberate attempt to retain specificity while making it as accessible as possible). If you are going to communicate concepts in botany or ecology you need to speak the language. I imagine the same applies to engineering (but will defer to the engineers on that subject).

Terry Ruth wrote:I suggest staying away from technical content where public safety is at risk since just as there are those that will throw some statements out there without much factual basis, there are those that can produce facts (or challenge and/or ask for them) that proves in this case not code as a safety hazard but the person or persons interpreting it or the wording wrong.

If I understand what Terry is getting at here, is the danger of casually discussing facts in an inaccurate manner on a forum where there is a large audience, especially an audience of laypeople desperate for information, who may hang on every word, especially if the words come from someone like Erica who is a "name" in her own areas of expertise. I'm not sure how to address this problem - how do we point out inaccurate or incomplete information in a permies-acceptable manner?

This is related in part to what Neil alludes to - the difficulty of presenting specialist information to a lay audience, when discussing the specialist topic practically requires the use of specialist language which by its nature excludes the layperson.

So to me we seem to have two related problems; the problem of discussing specialist topics amongst a lay audience, and the problem of that lay audience being confused or perhaps endangered by inaccurate information or misunderstandings.

Sorry if this seems obvious to everyone, I'm just trying in my own feeble way to keep track of what's being discussed in this thread.

I been talking to some peers. R, Neil, I'm all ears since in this world we live in it is not always black and white. On paper or forums that is easier for me to do. In general public where there is not as much time to think or the discussions are not with qualified people I am learning here on how to better commincate. So do not take my last post as closing a door, it is not always about being technically correct many times we have to be politically and socially correct. I can do that in general and my now approach is just to agree with inaccuracy until in my case I am asked to sell a design_build to a client. I have legal document, a release of liability by my attorney, they must sign after I get to the point of showing why my designs/drawings are safer chemically and structurally with much higher burn rates than code allows, for example, if they want to change that. Earth, lime, far exceeds code 1-2 hour burn rates for example depending on location that drive the code rate. I have to take those materials to a local fire marshal for approval and they are ecstatic to put it in local code even.

Here is an example where I have taken ownership and opened a dialog with the right people in charge of public safety, not a forum. The fire marchal wants to see UL or ASTM testing showing third party flame and smoke indexes, drawings showing location, etc, not my opinion.

I'm not expressing my point of view accurately enough. This is my view and experience:

We can communicate complicated ideas, accurately and in ways that the general public can understand. It's not easy, especially if our training and/or neurotype doesn't understand that kind of communication style. It's useful to remember that there was a time we didn't understand these complicated ideas, yet we learned them.

This doesn't mean dumbing down the ideas, or taking down to people.

A communication style that works in one setting causes offence in another.

The post I quoted above is a good example of a communication style that works for some settings, but can be taken the wrong way when posted in a public setting. It's not the information, nor the intent of the writer. It's the style that some readers have trouble with.

It's not anyone's fault this happens. But it does happen.

We can tilt at windmills and try to change everyone else, or we can self reflect and see if there is something we can do to improve our communication style.

I wish I had a simple solution. In my case I'm trying to develop a system that is both specific enough to ensure nobody is poisoned, at the very least, yet open enough that it can be used by someone who may be semi-literate and only know the names of plants in vernacular (for example) Telegu.

Spoiler: I think it can't be done without reference to a specialist intermediary. Even an excellent source such as the Encyclopedia of Life may not contain the Telegu name of a crop, even assuming a farmer in rural Yanam has electricity and internet access, knows to look for it and speaks enough English to read it, but that farmer may have incredibly valuable expertise, and we may have expertise valuable to that farmer.

That is not about neurotypes, but it is about diversity and inclusion.

but that farmer may have incredibly valuable expertise, and we may have expertise valuable to that farmer.

And not just the farmer. In my case much of what I have learned has been learned from trades such as farmer. They review my drawing's, and if I am able I incorporate their inputs to cut building cost, and to satisfy code or engineering analysis, or, for example fire code. Some of these farmers and trades are far more experienced than I working with soils, etc....

Most of my time is spent looking at and proving for my own business well being that their inputs satisfy loads, the build plan, etc, since many only see their piece of the pie and not the bic picture, that is where I come in with drawings of all systems at the job site. In a "Design Build" Environment Engineers should listen to and solicit trades, but many do not which is a big issue in the home building industry. There are some boundaries here one should realize, I would never say I am an electrician for example, but I can do wire diagrams with the input from the trade as long as a circuit is not over loaded and a fire starts. Much of those loads are accurately depicted in code, no need for a EE, IF, one knows how to read code, which is a task in itself there are many courses on it. No it is not always accurate or even fits the jurisdiction so they modify, omit, create their own. If you believe that errors exist please do not make a general statement that says it is for the most part wrong unless you can provide the specifics. I would think that applies to any subject matter. If you do it becomes a waste of time to me and many others I think it is safe to say, anyway, I will normally not participate. It waste too much time of a wide body of readers, I would focus on that, not satisfying a lack of info by people that have obviously will not even take time to educate themselves on the subject matter no matter what you do, say, or write.

Read this thread. I supported Dustin by providing Engineering knowledge some of which was an educated guess that proved to work. I don't have the build experience he does but together we worked to find a solution. https://permies.com/t/54149/cob/Earth-Plaster-sand

Notice he asked alot of questions rather than making statements he was not sure about. Although the results are not completed tested we are at least making progress. I think we both learned from one another here, one of the best threads I have ever seen on permies of a well orchestrated design build teaming effort.

Terry, i think you're taking all of this too seriously.

It's almost like you are on a crusade, to reform all wrongs and inacuracies in the whole world. Just by yourself. Easy on yourself, or you will do an ulcer! Chill out, calm down.

And may be a trick for you, play the dumbass. Sometimes people won't see the forrest for the trees. Often i do this, "you know, i'm not very clever", and then ask a very precise question behind.

An example, of simple but snarky. I work in the winter, for a chairlift company. Been doing that for 23 years. I've done engineering long time ago, at school. I still have some information left in my tiny brain. I run a 4 man detachable chairlift. And there's the hexagonal belts of the movement take off, which make a lot of noise. I asked all the maintenance crew what is the deflection of the belts, supposed to be. I even asked their second big boss. None of thoses morrons can answer. Like pretty much all the belts, 1cm/meter, between two contact points. Can you immagine how mad it gets me. Even worse, when the belts turn on themselves. And the worse bit is when they tell me that it is normal that these flap over 8cm, and that i understand fuck all! Just the word deflection got them confused! I started my week this morning, and they have put a brand new belt, with two old ones! When three belts working together, should be paired, with strict metrology controls.

So, yes, i can relate to what you are saying. But i still think you are taking this all too seriously.

Satamax Antone wrote:Terry, i think you're taking all of this too seriously.

It's almost like you are on a crusade, to reform all wrongs and inacuracies in the whole world. Just by yourself. Easy on yourself, or you will do an ulcer! Chill out, calm down.

And may be a trick for you, play the dumbass. Sometimes people won't see the forrest for the trees. Often i do this, "you know, i'm not very clever", and then ask a very precise question behind.

An example, of simple but snarky. I work in the winter, for a chairlift company. Been doing that for 23 years. I've done engineering long time ago, at school. I still have some information left in my tiny brain. I run a 4 man detachable chairlift. And there's the hexagonal belts of the movement take off, which make a lot of noise. I asked all the maintenance crew what is the deflection of the belts, supposed to be. I even asked their second big boss. None of thoses morrons can answer. Like pretty much all the belts, 1cm/meter, between two contact points. Can you immagine how mad it gets me. Even worse, when the belts turn on themselves. And the worse bit is when they tell me that it is normal that these flap over 8cm, and that i understand fuck all! Just the word deflection got them confused! I started my week this morning, and they have put a brand new belt, with two old ones! When three belts working together, should be paired, with strict metrology controls.

So, yes, i can relate to what you are saying. But i still think you are taking this all too seriously.

Made me laugh! Thanks! We are trained, you and I to think in detail then one day someone says that is wrong when we know it is critical, if we didn't people would die or get injured, people would loose hands, fingers, etc, from not understanding belt deflection or the belts won't last. Same with buildings that can collapse, people can die. I also do Aerospace Engineering people WILL die if we don't look at only facts. So yes I am trained to take it seriously or I can loose my job and licenses too.

Why I care on a forums now that is a good question I have been asking myself. My only answer is I care about people and their safety.

One thing I will say speaking of processes, is in my professional structure I work with "laymen and women" daily, sometimes 6-12 times/day no issues great communications. Tomorrow that will be the case. When I work in my non-structured construction business I have to be VERY careful whom I have on my team.

Forums I got no idea! I normally do not participate on subjects like this and stick to tech, but at times that does not even work the way I want. I'm interested here though in learning how to communicate although I don't see how to get around sticking to fact in the design_build world or lets be more accurate and say they are communication processes that have been defined for centuries, work for the most part. To revamp the way the world has successfully done that across the globe I'd like to see, but my guess is that person will need ALOT of experience in the technical world.

If you look at Dustins thread I just provided some precautions in case of fire. Why? Because I care and take it seriously.

May I suggest we could get back to Burra' s intent in starting this thread in looking at the value and importance of looking at different things in different ways . I think this is vital as we , my self included can gain much from those who see the world differently than ourselves. We often hold views that are shaped by history chance or even spirituality and don't even realize it . I will give a couple of examples .
The seven colours of the rain bow and carrots are good for people with poor eyesight .

The seven colours of the rainbow

When I was a child this always puzzled me as I was sure I could see more colours . Richard Of York Gave Battle in Vain - Red , orange, yellow , green , indigo , violet. Was what I was taught . It was only later I found out that these were the colours given by
Newton as a result of his experiments with prisms . Newton is widely regarded as one of the earliest and greatest scientists . So why seven colours ? Modern techniques show and can separate millions of different colours from the spectrum the only limit is our ability to name them . The answer is that Newton was also the last great alchemist and he believed in the mystic realm and the power of numbers so splitting light into 7 was ordainly devined and so it happened

David Livingston wrote:The seven colours of the rainbow

And of course, that's only the ones we can see.



If suitably prompted, I start singing this song. Just as badly as this.



I even wrote a story about it, but that's for another day, and probably another forum...

Carrots are good for your eyesight
Now while it is true that if you have a deficiency of Vitamine A you can have eyesight problems once you have enough you will not get better eyesight .
So where did this story come from ?
The answer is from British WWII propaganda. At the start of WWII radar was a very new technology and a radar station was about the size of a medium sized barn and an arial the size of a football pitch . The British managed to shrink the size first so they could be put on ships and then later so they could be placed on planes , specifically night fighters . Now the Germans could not fail to notice when with these new fighter many more of their bombers failed to return home . So the Britsh in an attempt to hide there new radar planes came up with the story of a new type of carrot with extra vitamin D that was improving the night vision of the fighter pilots . Story's in the press the BBC , double agents reporting back to Germany the whole works . This story was and is so successful that it continues to the present day .

That's why I agree with Burra we need and should welcome different views insights and ways of seeing things to cut though the history and flawed logic to find new ways of seeing the amazing world around us for ourselves.

David

David L.: " ....we need and should welcome different views insights and ways of seeing things to cut though the history and flawed logic to find new ways of seeing the amazing world around us for ourselves."

At the risk of cultural appropriation, I'll just offer that some aspect of being able to embrace diverse views may be offered here by those from cultures that historically were less reactively fearful and unwelcoming to change and diversity. It seems that basic concepts of personal and cultural insecurity/security are important here, since insecurity seems to be associated with a need for homogeneity, rigidity, and predictability, where as the opposite seems to be true for inviduals and cultures that might be characterized as secure.

John
I am slightly unclear what you are trying to say . Could you give an example .

David

@David L.: "unclear what you are trying to say . Could you give an example . "

I'm not First Nations/Native American so I can't speak for them and it would be too broad a swath probably anyway. But the impression is that their cultural viewpoint (again, lumping too broadly probably) was, generally speaking, to welcome and allow for the influx of a new people onto the continent. As those new people, mostly of (again, broadly speaking) European cultural descent, participated in that migration, they brought with them a viewpoint that was less than accepting of different ways, different lifestyles, and different views. In other words, the cultures being met....here in the Americas (but possibly as well in Australia, Africa, and elsewhere??) already possessed greater acceptance of diverse views and respected the validity of those views within those cultures. But the incoming population was not so interested in sharing nor in diversity, and confusion by many of the indigenous people was noted in the journal records over the disrespectful myopia, insatiable land-grab, and ethical corruption of politician and proselytizer alike. This is why I just suggested that in "welcom(ing) different views insights and ways of seeing things" that may allow for greater acceptance of diverse views, members of those cultures that already had this 'welcoming' as a general feature of their world-view would offer much to the discussion.

Now, I'm not an engineer, I'm just a simple pediatrician, although I am the child of two engineers and the sister of two more.

if you are considering the structural stability of a 4" chimney wall being built out to a greater thickness where it passes through the roof, that 12" represents a big doggone bulge way up in the sky, over my head

{response}
The 12" will be more structurally stable due to the aspect ratio at the ground and weight depending on soil type. I do not have all the dimension and material properties as you must have to prove the structures is unsafe and inadequate....Please post your static and dynamic analysis for review?

When I read the first part, I envisioned a chimney that starts out down in the building at 4" thick, and then gets "built out" to 12" thick where it passes through the roof (in order to satisfy code). This is why I figured it was described as a bulge. Then, when I read Terry's reply, he seems to be envisioning a chimney that is 12" thick from bottom to top, because he's saying it will be more stable. I'd love to know more about "aspect ratio at the ground." From my moderate googling skills, it seems that aspect ratio refers to the relationship between height and width, but I'm thinking there may be a building definition that is somewhat different.

So, there's a big difference there. Building your chimney super thick from bottom to top might be expensive, but I don't think there would be much argument with it. Having a code that encourages the top of the chimney to be three times thicker (and more than three times as massive) as the bottom of the chimney seems a little cray-cray - less stable rather than more stable.

I think this whole exchange exemplifies some of the communication breakdowns that this thread has been trying to address. Terry cares strongly about safety (as he has stated above) and when he reads something that seems to be disparaging codes (whose raison d'etre could be said to be safety) then this pushes his buttons (OK, now I'm guessing about the buttons). This leads to a somewhat heated reply (again, I'm guessing - it "sounds" heated to me when I read it) and the original point kind of gets lost.

When I read the first part, I envisioned a chimney that starts out down in the building at 4" thick, and then gets "built out" to 12" thick where it passes through the roof (in order to satisfy code). This is why I figured it was described as a bulge. Then, when I read Terry's reply, he seems to be envisioning a chimney that is 12" thick from bottom to top, because he's saying it will be more stable. I'd love to know more about "aspect ratio at the ground." From my moderate googling skills, it seems that aspect ratio refers to the relationship between height and width, but I'm thinking there may be a building definition that is somewhat different.

I think this illustrates Paul Wheaton’s point and mine that due to the OP not providing the proper communication style (drawing’s, analysis, code quote) this topic is now in a communication mode of total confusions and lots of time has been spent trying to understand “the point”. I fail to see how making a point with a lack of or inaccurate technical info in this case is making the point any clearer. If you want to make a point stick to the point and examples one knows how to communicate well to illustrate your point. Since we have at least three different interpretations of the OP (perhaps more on the ref thread) it is probably not the receiving end that is an issue, especially when someone such as myself with lots of experience in this topic is struggling to understand, and I normally do not.
I believe what was trying to be conveyed here is the difference between thermal conductance and heat bridging of 8” traditional vs. 12” “thickness” brick being towards wood or “in contact with wood”. Our code for example requires an 8” min air gap to a fire 2- hour burn approved wall behind a fireplace, no “contact”. I not aware of ANY code that calls for changing thicknesses.

There are many types of engineers, the ones that could provide the analysis are “structures” the people that would relate to my comment about “aspect ratio” would be the same that have done bending moment or inertia calculations and understand mass distributions around a centroid, for starters. You proved my point further that words can mislead people with no experience in the topic at hand to perform goggle searches not fully understood that could put people’s lives at risk. Further, you missed my main point that being if building safety codes are in error the proper local authorities should be notified but, that is usually not the case, the code is accurate people that are not qualified misinterpreting them. We just got done with our 2015 code adoption public meeting of local codes where the permies, professionals, have a voice, as most jurisdictions are required to do by law. So there is plenty of opportunity to have a voice but, in most cases it is easier on the internet to voice concerns to people that do nothing for the most part.

Having a code that encourages the top of the chimney to be three times thicker (and more than three times as massive) as the bottom of the chimney seems a little cray-cray - less stable rather than more stable.

Not at all, there are many parameters one could design to here where any brick thickness could be shown good statically and dynamically. The point is, again, I did not read that it is being suggested to change thicknesses like you did, not that it matters. I fail to see how all this code and brick discussions illustrates “the point” of thread, to most readers it should be clear it has not it, on the contrary it is in a “state of confusion” as Paul puts it, which happens often on the internet due to not communicating in proper language. That has Paul says has done an injustice to the readers.

I think this whole exchange exemplifies some of the communication breakdowns that this thread has been trying to address. Terry cares strongly about safety (as he has stated above) and when he reads something that seems to be disparaging codes (whose raison d'etre could be said to be safety) then this pushes his buttons (OK, now I'm guessing about the buttons). This leads to a somewhat heated reply (again, I'm guessing - it "sounds" heated to me when I read it) and the original point kind of gets lost.

Again, as seen by the differences of opinion of eg: “4,8,12” inches not being clearly defined by a drawing and code the point was lost in the OP. I just used it to illustrate an example, not start a topic on chimney’s that is another thread. If you want to learn more start another thread I’d glad to answer your questions but, the first thing one has to realize is they should be asking questions not giving unsafe advise or making confusing statements. I’d ask before you do the other term you need for goggle is moments of inertia. If you want to illustrate a point by example, do so in a context that you fully understand and define. I fail to see how a request for information (known by most as and RFI) is “heated” or heating a technical discussion, rather, I find it entirely appropriate….It happens all the time. In this case, it should be clear more info is needed. Without it could be a matter of life of death since silly people that are not fire & smoke or structures code enforced could read something on the internet, a misunderstanding or interpretation, and use it rather than code. 9’s out of 10 code will be more accurate than a person’s opinion or experience. That could be easily proven to oneself if you have read and understand it.

Yesterday I had a design drawing go to peer review. Some qualified to do the review felt some of my drawing views (not personal ones) needed more clarity so lay people would understand. I was wrong in some things I missed so I had nothing to say but you are correct and I will fix the drawing to improve the build communications and inspections. An emotionally based person may take that peer input personally as “heating or baiting” I have seen on forums. Even if the data is shown completely accurate they will read emotion into the data and take it personally. I’m not sure that is an Austie or non reaction, I have seen that with genders or simple personality types. Some personality types do better than other in different disciplines, perhaps why I work around predominately men for over three decades around the USA since much of the requirements to integrate the laymen skill sets now requires engineers with hands on experience as builders. For the most part however, it is concluded that accurate data will not take a back seat to personality issues. When that does occur it is VERY clear what the issues re and it is usually not the data.

My take aways are, I will demo as if I were to ever start a forum in the “Design-Build” topics….

1. Realize people have different languages and skill sets of the trades – Develop sections for high tech discussions or designing (ie: Building Science, Permaculture Science, etc). This is proven successful on most forums other than when certain people try and act as designers that have no direct experience – As a moderator I would give the person with experience and states credentials the benefit of the doubt. I would want to verify their credentials before I did that.

2. I’d put a sticky up requesting that if you want to improve the accuracy of responses submit drawing’s, pictures, code quotes, maintenance records, cad models, hyperlinks, etc) in the OP, and to please refrain from responding without similar supporting information. Also, the content of this section could be of a high tech nature and wording, if you do not understand the wording or language research it and ask questions.

3. I’d create an ignore list so people that do not want to abide by these simple rules can be block by people that do not want to waste time reading their post.

If there are anymore take aways where it appears a consensus has been drawn by the majority of contributors please inform. Another one I am working on is writing and talking in a manner that is more inviting to a wide group of backgrounds which is challenge to not jeopardize tech accuracy of my communcations. However, I think another is if I do not feel I can do that keep my mouth shut or do not post. Just not worth my time to debate matters with people that obvious by their post do not have the credentials to debate.

I had never actively considered neurodiversity in permaculture or society. I have been told I am the poster child for ADD and I have a 17 year old son who is somewhere on the ADD/Ausbergers scale. He really enjoys working with me around the place and gets really attached to the animals. He's a truly gentle, beautiful soul (which I think is ironic considering his fascination with military history). He's sharp as a tack on most things, not quite as good in reading people. He wants to be a homesteader and I've steered him towards a job in welding (more opportunities in remote areas, lots of swap possibilities, the average age for certified welders is about 60 with few trainees in the pipeline).

I think that for him, permaculture is THE answer (OK, I'll admit I think it's the answer for everyone, but especially him). I think it speaks to his soul in a way other things don't. It also allows him to process things in his own time and way and spares him the discordant jangling of much of societal interaction.

One basic, general problem I've seen is that communities are organized by the most socially adept people. Unless they conciously avoid it, the 'incrowd' will set it up to favor their way of doing things. Because of this, anything based on communal living (eating together each meal from a communal kitchen, no private property) requires a LOT of interaction and will always be controlled and dominated by the most socially adept. As such, I think it isn't suited for neurodiversity. The only examples I know of such societies being stable was when there was a deeply held, common religious base, even then there were often problems.

When I was growing up my family moved to Alaska a couple of years after they closed federal homesteading and most of my friends lived on their family homesteads. I lived with a couple of families that homesteaded the area early on for several months. If I had to pick a single characteristic for the homesteaders I knew I would say that, while they were willing and even anxious to help each other, they were independant, expected others to be independant and were pretty impatient with anyone trying to tell them what they had to do. There was a community, but it was a community of people who freely chose to cooperate. It seemed to me at that time and place, that the isolation/ interaction level was whatever the individuals wanted to make it, given the distances. I had always assumed that a permaculture village would be the same. (Example: I come over and visit if I want to, or need a hand with something. You do the same. Most interactions being one on one or at least family to family). I had assumed most of the time would bve spent on your own place. Some community events, but whether you show up is up to you. The assumption many people have that we need a place to gather often (a pub, a diner, or church) to renew our sense of community is a little odd to me. I enjoy people, but I enjoy them in small numbers and I enjoy my own people most. I spend almost all my free time with my wife and kids. I have a hard time understanding people who don't (just my personal limitation, not judging). My wife needs to talk to other women a fair amount, I understand, some folks need to visit back and forth more, some don't.

Reading between the lines in some of the replies I see that some permaculture communities are a lot tighter (that means, to me, controlled), with a lot more interaction, and that might not be what my son or I might want. Much of that may just be due to the difference between 160 acres and 5 acres. The permaculture crowd seems a bit more into social cooperation and a little more theoretical. Of course, that's just my limited point of view and a very broad generality.

I think a permaculture community, with it's smaller property sizes and more shared resources could still work well for someone with challenges interacting socially, but it may need to be planned that way. Making community discussion more internet based would help. As was noted earlier. It's a more level playing field. It wouldn't get decisions made as fast, but it would allow a more thoughtful, reasoned discussion. If it were set up right it would also even things out a little between the few who usually control the discussion and the ones who will end up on the fringes of the community. Minimizing common resources also helps. When Palmer, AK was settled in the 30's the settlers worked communally initially to get buildings up, land cleared, etc, but they knew who was going to get what land and rapidly transitioned into private ownership. I would forsee something like that for a new community. Some things are just too big for the individuals to buy or maybe maintain (expensive equipment, a central meeting room, a big pond, maybe a wild commons) and will probably need to remain shared, but the rules controlling them need to be clearly understood and agreed to up front, limiting single person control as much as possible. I believe this kind of community, coupled with a cooperative general attitude would allow for the greatest level of diversity in the people of the community and have a good chance of becoming a stable society.

I was commenting on the article on neurodiversity (read a thread, signed in and commented and now see I somehow posted on the wrong thread. I am slightly embarrassed.

Burra Maluca wrote:
It's becoming apparent to me as I attempt to moderate these forums and keep discussion flowing between all kinds of people, that aspies and 'techie types', many of whom may be undiagnosed aspies, often tend to have a very different style of communication, one which many people find off-putting. There is a tendency to use complex sentence structures, longer words, sound rather too authoritative for many tastes, and write in a way that gets interpreted as 'always being right', even when the writer has no idea that their words are being interpreted like that and certainly wouldn't wish that to be the case.

As a Canadian... visiting the US (not America) I found the people sounded to me "authoritative" about everything. Even though we watch the same TV and do other things with each other, a Canadian will sound more questioning than the cousin from south of the border. I have always found differences in the way people speak interesting (dialect? Accent?) and will tend to pick up an accent of the people I am with quickly.

Some years ago when I ran a BBS before internet was a thing and net working meant fidonet style of things (messages exchanged once a day over phone lines) I was involved in some forums (Famliynet as happens) that were world wide and included people from South Africa, Cypress, UK, US, Canada, etc. Maybe not quite as wide spread as the Internet is today, but pretty good all things considered. Anyway, the point of all that was that there were various comments about how "arrogant" people from the US were from those who had never been exposed to the culture before (and some who had). Those on the forums from the US were shocked and surprised that the rest of the world saw them this way, but found no one from outside the country who had not noticed the difference.

Certainly this is not the only difference in the way things are done and even within Canada there are differences galore. I had a mild cultural shock when I moved from Calgary to Vancouver in the early 80s and can tell you that my mother who lived in Toronto for only a few years after moving there from Ireland, still has a Toronto accent after living in Calgary almost 60 years. I had another shock when moving from Vancouver to Courtenay (a ferry ride away) 9 years ago. None of this compares with the number of times I insulted someone as the token white guy in a groups of Filipino people or the mistakes I have made with my Filipina wife. We use the same words, but they do not always mean the same thing. I know this is true with any married couple, men think with one side of the brain at a time and women with both... having a cultural difference as well has actually been a blessing as it has put up front that we need to be careful what we say and what we hear. We expect differences and this has allowed us to remember to back off and re-explain ourselves.

As for brain differences, I am dealing with more than one person who is "on the spectrum" (ASD). After finally getting to retirement age, I have found out that I was diagnosed as a child as dyslexic. In the past two years this has helped me to understand many tings about myself (parents please let your children know about conditions they have even if they seem to have gone away). I can read generally quicker than most people, but I am very slow with numbers and even though I am a musician, I can read a score only one note at a time, I can not follow a score in real time. Chord charts are fine

My son, who at 16 years old has trouble adding and subtracting, has been cooking all his own meals for 6 or 7 years and can deal with some people better than most. He is legally disabled, but can do just about everything on his own. Yet some of his peers who are A++ students rely totally on their parents for every meal. In an off grid situation he is more dependable in my judgment.

People who think different than me can teach me things I could never learn from those who think in the same patterns.

Mick Fisch wrote:I was commenting on the article on neurodiversity (read a thread, signed in and commented and now see I somehow posted on the wrong thread. I am slightly embarrassed.

Don't be. Your post was relevant to the discussion. Thank you.

You have actually touched on the reason I, as an Aspie, ruled out joining a community. As these communities stand, without much better understanding of neurodiversity, I would be a very bad fit. At one level it's instinctively very appealing. More realistically, I'm very much aware that I'd end up in another uncomfortable situation, with too many humans making too many demands, either explicitly or implicitly, until I left.

An eco-village of two or three, made up of people who either understood each other's neurotypes or who were willing to make the effort - that might well work. A larger community, in which too many of the members see their way as the only way, with no personal incentive to make it work - that would not. I think that with broader understanding (not awareness - understanding) that might change, and that's why I wrote the article.

Right now, for me, a situation where I (and a hypothetical partner) can have some control over levels of interaction with other humans is probably the best I can hope for. Being a recluse wouldn't work (I'm not a natural recluse, although some Aspies are and some Aspies become so), but I do need to be able to manage the contact.

R Ranson wrote: ....

It's not nice being excluded because my vocabulary is different than these specialist groups. Even if I don't think correctly - whatever that is - I feel I can understand many of these complicated ideas.

I deliberately choose not to use specialist speak and this seems to make some people feel prejudice towards me. They seem to think that I don't know the right words, therefore I don't belong to the proper club and cannot possibly understand what's going on. When in fact I do actually know the word, I just won't use them because it's exclusionary. Or at least I try not to use them in permies.

If I start talking about the coefficient of friction and the way it affects twist ratios while applying kinetic energy to scaled keratin structures, it comes across as pompous and rude (or so I'm told). But if I say string drive bands are more slippery than the rubbery ones so they require different tensions - it only sounds a little bit specialized. Perfectly fine when talking with people who share my passion. If I'm talking in a public space, like on a forum, where the reader might never have seen a spinning wheel before, level on thought about how it works - I would word it differently.

Likewise we could talk about anaerobic and aerobic bacteria or we can talk about invisible beasties - the latter is actually more accurate - when talking about making sauerkraut.

These different levels of communication don't dumb down the idea at all. Nor does it dumb down the persons involved in the conversation. We may not share the same specialist vocabulary, but we can still communicate complicated ideas with each other.


There are so many different ways of thinking, that I suspect, it's difficult for people of drastically different thought styles to find a common way to communicate with each other. I like this forum because there is so much instant feedback. I can see quickly if I've failed to get my idea across and I can learn how to improve for next time.

Thank you for these words R Ranson! It's a problem I know for almost as long as I live . or at least since I went to school. Both my parents were educated people, my father was an electrotechnical engineer (Ir. TU Delft), my mother stopped her Chemistry study when she became a 'housewife' (as was ususal in those days). So I was used to their 'educated' language. But at 'kindergarten' I soon found out the other children did not understand that language. Though I was a little child, I understood I had to change my way of speaking. But it was difficult: I had to 'translate' my thoughts into an easier language, I had to search for words and sentences the others would understand.
I think that's why I am not a fast speaker, and often I do not say much at all. This is sometimes frustrating. People who are 'ad rem', or just say something without properly thinking ... they have the impression I am 'dumb', because I don't reply quickly. They start explaining me things, while often I understand it better than they do.
So I prefer writing over speaking. First that was writing letters (when the internet was not yet common), and essays at school, and now I am glad there are fora (sorry, forums) and FB-groups, so I can communicate with people who have the same interests I have, worldwide. The English language I learned at school (Shakespeare English ) might look a little strange, but it's sufficient. I can take my time to formulate sentences I think the readers will understand. And when they dont', they can think it's because I am not a 'native speaker'
In Dutch groups I write in Dutch. I do my best to use words everyone can understand ( and edit my phrases until they are easy to read). When I am misunderstood I try to explain it again in other words ... But when I write on my own page, or in my blog, I now use my own words. I stopped trying to adjust my language. If they don't understand ... OK, they don't understand

I don't know where I fit in the neurodiverse spectrum ... I don't want to be diagnosed, I don't want to be 'put in a box'. I am who I am. I don't have 'asperger', but I know some people who have it and I like them, I do understand their way of reacting. In some ways I am the contrary ... they can be totally focused at a certain subject or object ... I can only concentrate on one thing for about half an hour (if I like it very much maybe an hour), then I have to change, do something else, only to go on with that same thing the next day (for again half an hour). So I do many different things during a day, not finishing most of them the same day There are so many interesting things in life! So much I like to try out. I don't have ADHD either, I do many different things, but I do them in a 'relaxed' way. I can go on the next day, and again the other day, until it's finished. It's like 'chaos in order'

Mick Fisch wrote:I was commenting on the article on neurodiversity (read a thread, signed in and commented and now see I somehow posted on the wrong thread. I am slightly embarrassed.

No worries, I see it as relating to the topic just fine. The main point is that we need all of these points of view. I also feel that a more separate permaculture makes sense. Ownership of land is good. I understand that because of the projects on the "lab" it seems that working closely with others is being championed, but I do not see that happening. The idea of the lab is to try out many things so that those on their own can make wiser choices. At the same time it gives those with less resources a chance to try out things on real land while not paying a whole lot of rent requiring all their energy be spent making money. If you look you will find great examples of personal, family projects.

Probably some of you'll like this article:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whats-largest-number-you-can-represent-3-digits-nope-its-ed-trice?trk=eml-b2_content_ecosystem_digest-recommended_articles-49-null&midToken=AQFJIWq7uS1-fg&fromEmail=fromEmail&ut=09gChGtALc17c1

I test on the "Aspie" scale and learned, as best as I can, to communicate with psych-normal people; communication is a 2 way street. I've I smile, make small talk, look in the eyes, ask pertinent personal questions and respond with empathy. On first meeting, people like me-----problem is, I really don't relate to them internally----I never learn their name----I don't recall the last conversation. To me, what sticks are ideas, principles, patterns, and solutions to problems. Try as I can to attach the people to the abstract, my brain doesn't care! I don't reciprocate gifts or phone calls; I get in trouble when I see person again and I have no idea what went on before. I'm the person in the photo with his back to the others, I'm happy by myself! I work alone just fine--sorry if it makes you uncomfortable. But if you ask for help to fix something and I'll be right beside you; so please don't hesitate to ask.

Why do people like to be looked in the eye?

Most animals, mammals especially, it's a sign of aggression.

I've noticed not all neurotype enjoy eye contact. Some find it down right frightening. Is it a cultural adaptation?

As a Canadian... visiting the US (not America) I found the people sounded to me "authoritative" about everything. Even though we watch the same TV and do other things with each other, a Canadian will sound more questioning than the cousin from south of the border. I have always found differences in the way people speak interesting (dialect? Accent?) and will tend to pick up an accent of the people I am with quickly.

I've noticed a pretty major variation within the US. To someone from the western part of the country, people from New York and Boston generally sound like rude, arrogant SOBs. After I spent some time on Manhatten I realized it was simply a different style of communication with different standards of what is acceptable. It still grates on my nerves and I have to remind myself about the cultural differences when I deal with someone from there. My sister lived on Long Island for several years and loved it, but then she's always been kind of rude by western standards. As a general rule I've noticed that people from small towns are often more polite than people from really big cities.

I have a question. I've noticed that people from the more rural areas of the northeast seem more in line with my 'normal'. Maybe someone from the Northeast can tell me if my observations about New York and Boston are in line with what they've seen. I'm curious how far out of the cities it extends.

As a general rule I've noticed that people from small towns are often more polite than people from big cities. When I worked in Anchorage, AK I would find myself talking to tourists from all over the world every summer. Most were polite.

I've also noticed that every group has subjects you have to approach carefully, sidling up to it figuratively and using 'coded' words, while other terms can be addressed up front. I've had discussions with europeans and asians where they have accidently stepped on my sacred cows or I stepped on theirs. It's always interesting to talk to someone from a different culture because it sometimes reveals to me the inconsistancies, or at least apparent inconsistancies, in one of our cultures (often the inconsistancies actually make sense once you understand the history or more complicated interactions that aren't apparent to an outsider viewing the world from 50,000 feet). Within my own culture I tend to be like a fish in the water, taking things for granted. If someone doesn't point it out does the fish even know he's wet?

Why do people like to be looked in the eye?

Most animals, mammals especially, it's a sign of aggression.

I've noticed not all neurotype enjoy eye contact. Some find it down right frightening. Is it a cultural adaptation?

I think it's part of the universal body language. We are constantly assessing, unconciously, and the eye contact is part of what we use to assess. Not making eye contact is essentially withholding information. It appears to me from my limited contacts with people from lots of places, that the eye contact thing is pretty universal. Aggessive intentions are often read pretty well by eye contact. I have six very attractive daughters (no brag, just fact) and I've often heard them, their friends or even their mom say something like "There was something in his eye (or a more general term like, "about him") that made me nervous" after they've been around some guy trying to pick them up. Women may be better at reading body language because they have to be better at it.

I read a while back about a study where the researchers found that the women in all the cultures they looked at use the same body language to flirt. (I'm sure there are variations later in the process as it becomes more concious, but the basic, automatic moves are the same). We like to think that we are logical, thinking creatures, far different than the animals, when in fact, we are to at least some degree, just shaved monkeys. A lot of our behaviors are programmed. We aren't even aware of them normally. One of my daughters had two roommates in college who sent off for some "pheremone loaded perfume" as part of a class project. The wore a similar smelling perfume somedays and the loaded stuff the others and went to the same places each day, recording the male reaction. They both said that the amount of male attention they recieved was dramatically greater on the days they were wearing the pheremones. One of my sons had a roommate who reported similar results in his barhopping while wearing the male equivelant scent. (He wasn't doing a study, just trying desperately to pick up women). A lady I knew had twin daughters. One was a gorgeous baby with big eyes and the other was more normal. She said they finally had to start hiring two baby sitters when they went out because otherwise they would come home to find the pretty baby happy, well fed, being played with while the other baby sat in a dirty diaper hungry and ignored. She said it's automatic, instinctive behavior to focus on the pretty one and they simply had to adjust to reality. None of these things are meant to be conclusive, merely illustrate my point. We often do things 'automatically' and that it may be part of our programming and has to addressed as such. What 'should' may still be a goal, but it has to take into account what unavoidably IS.

It seems strange to me that some people don't seem to have all of the 'pre-programming' on body language, or just don't pick it up. There are such obvious disadvantages to it that I want to think that it is because there is some cominsurate advantage somewhere. I had an engineer friend of mine (married to a doctor) tell me that if any of a childs grandparents were engineers, the likelihood of Ausbergers in the child went way up. That may indicate that a certain percentage of neurodiversity might be good for a society. While everyone else is off gabbing away, some guy who sees the world a little differently is figuring how to chip flint, inventing an atlatl, inventing the bow and arrow, figuring out how to build a better shelter, doing stuff that may benefit the group. It makes sense to me.

I think we have several issues here, and I think it might help if they were disentangled.

1) Neurodiversity as mutual benefit. This is where this started: one definable (more or less) group of people where each can be of mutual benefit to the other. To me, as an Aspie, it's pretty clear to me how Aspie differences could be of mutual benefit in a Permaculture-based society. The same applies to a lot of other groups (ADHD, schizophrenia, and so on: one of the most capable people I know on a smallholding-type situation is registered blind - the fact that she's blind has little to do with it, but I'd want her skill set).

2) The communication question. Different neurotypes don't just think differently: we also often communicate differently. This is Burra's problem, and I see where she's coming from.
2a) Where we distinguish this from culture. The fact people think and communicate differently as a result of culture is also a feature of diversity, which is a clear asset all round, even though it will result in conflict that must be resolved. I find many people from the US utterly incomprehensible from a cultural perspective.

3) This is something that has been barely touched on, but we need to resolve, which is the question of relationships where either a less well adapted member of the community has few or no obvious assets but needs to be supported through disability (the inability of the community to accommodate), illness, injury, age or inability to adjust (and the fact it can be difficult to tell the difference: see https://permies.com/t/45522/labs/story-jerry-real-permaculture-exercise - I was one of the few people arguing for accommodation) and the related
3a) which is the question of exploitative relationships, where better adapted members of the community use less well adapted ones for their own purposes.

Modern societies are pretty much predicated on exploitation. Capitalist ones assume a ~7% unemployment rate in order to keep wages and inflation down, and often scapegoat those without work as the cause of the problem, or find fringe outgroups to treat the same way (migrants and refugees are a favourite target at the moment but, as an Aspie, I have been, and remain, on the wrong side of this). Morally, my view is that this has to stop, and is utterly inappropriate in a Permaculture society. I know how it feels to have to argue for my own right to exist and have some standard of living (for which read not die in a doorway) but the point is that this shouldn't happen to anyone. Nobody should be treated as "dead weight"/"lebensunwertes leben" regardless of whether they have something to "contribute". This is the thing that bothers me most about my own article - that it implies that places should only be found where there is a niche, and I'm wondering whether I should offer Cassie a follow-up.

Does that cover it? Am I missing something?

Should these have separate threads?

Neil Layton wrote:
3) This is something that has been barely touched on, but we need to resolve, which is the question of relationships where either a less well adapted member of the community has few or no obvious assets but needs to be supported

This is very important to me as a member of an extended family in which many of the members are disabled to a greater or lesser degree. In my regional extended family, only my husband could be considered truly "able" as he is the only one without a diagnosed illness, though he has several physical challenges. The rest of us have various diagnosed liabilities (two with mental illness - one very severe- one with Type 2 diabetes, one very old). If we have to band together to support one another, it will be a tremendous challenge. Communication will be the most important hurdle - in my opinion, clear communication is the single most important aspect of community, far beyond any skills, knowledge, etc. If we can't communicate, it will be very difficult to know how to effectively support each other.

I would say all of the people in my regional family are above average in intelligence and/or skills, but that won't really help us if we can't communicate and manage interpersonal conflicts.

I should mention that I have been mentally and emotionally preparing to take in the regional family if need be, for years. It frightens me terribly, but I feel I should be prepared to do so if necessary. We are the ones with land and the ability to grow food, and have room for everyone if necessary in an emergency situation. This is unlikely, but I'm a bit of a doomer, so I do think about it.

Whoa! This conversation went way off the rails! To be honest, I just skimmed it because it seemed a little too fraught to examine closely.

I've been an unlicensed architect for almost 20 years and I now no longer give a damn about what people want to do with their buildings, even though it's my job to get designs to code and get them permitted. I've learned to let some things go. And let people be responsible for their own health, happiness, and safety. I've totally lost interest in arguing a position on anything as well. I think age has something to do with that, and I love it. I'm also an Aspie. Quite similar to Bonnie:

I smile, make small talk, look in the eyes, ask pertinent personal questions and respond with empathy. On first meeting, people like me-----problem is, I really don't relate to them internally----I never learn their name----I don't recall the last conversation. To me, what sticks are ideas, principles, patterns, and solutions to problems. Try as I can to attach the people to the abstract, my brain doesn't care! I don't reciprocate gifts or phone calls; I get in trouble when I see person again and I have no idea what went on before. I'm the person in the photo with his back to the others, I'm happy by myself! I work alone just fine--sorry if it makes you uncomfortable. But if you ask for help to fix something and I'll be right beside you; so please don't hesitate to ask.

Well, except for the smiling, small talk, and looking in the eyes part Bonnie and I could be twins.

Anyway, it's been my experience that I get along okay in communities. It's not the community I butt heads with. In fact, be it job or intentional community or co-workers or social groups, people usually like me because my observations just.make.sense and I clearly care a great deal and they appreciate my perspective and different approach to things. I come value-added and I have something to offer. It's typically whoever is in charge and - despite the structure, no matter how egalitarian or anarchic or progressive or whatever they say they are - there is ALWAYS someone in charge, who has more of a share, or more power, or more money, or thinks they have more knowledge, that is the problem; that I butt heads with. I tend to look at systems. I notice when things aren't running smoothly and how they could be improved. I never claim to know it all, but I can identify problems and suggest group brainstorms of fixes. This is appreciated by everyone oppressed by the problems, but not by whoever set up the flawed system to begin with, because it doesn't reflect well on them. I seem to be able to get along with other neurotypes, just not narcissists/egoists and sociopaths. They regard me as a threat.

You know, the world is often discussing how to deal with autistic people but not realizing that, outnumbered, we have to deal with "normal" people to a greater degree just as a function of math! We are stretching to meet social norms each and every day. And it is not easy. But nobody stretches to meet us. What would that require? Maybe slowing down a second and listening? Maybe being a little patient? Maybe looking for positives instead of flaws?

I also don't know how power-hungry controlling ego-centric narcissistic exploitative people came to be thought of us "normal" (and yes, those types exist in the alternative and activist and ecological and organic and permaculture world as well) and we on the autism spectrum came to be thought of us lesser. The world is often an upside-down place.

I have found recently, meeting other autistics regularly - ones all over the spectrum, from severely disabled to so high-functioning you might question their being different at all - and I find them VERY easy to get along with. Thoughtful, tolerant, intelligent, respectful, gentle, kind.

I worked with another Aspie one time - and he was overbearing and everyone was annoyed by his superior air. He was making the slightly dense guy who worked under him's life miserable. I finally pointed out that the guy really needed some thoughtful training and that he would be good at training him since he had such a wealth of knowledge, and maybe he could find a way to explain some common sense to the guy as well as the more technical knowledge he needed to learn - to give him a strong foundation. The Aspie was inspired. He became a really good teacher. It was rewarding. He started just giving away helpful tips to people and smiling more. He was still a little overbearing, but everyone was benefiting from it and nobody minded anymore. Like all people, autistic people just need to have a role that utilizes their talents and then society recognizes their value more. And then we have a reason to communicate as well.

I would ask, does the larger "normal" (neurotypical) world bother to try to understand the autistic world? Can they learn to respect private space, and listen more? The phrase, "still waters run deep" comes to mind. It is easy to rush past and miss something beautiful.

Me personally, I find the neurotypical world far too political and stressful and exhausting. Reaching consensus with more aggressive types might be the death of me - both figuratively and literally. I'm attracted to homesteading primarily to get away from social stress and wouldn't want to recreate it on a smaller scale. I feel like the world could learn a lot from us and needs us more than we need it, actually.