The Importance of Neurodiversity in Permaculture

Neil Layton wrote: I'm saying that some people know more than others.

I'm trying to understand Chadwick's point of view, which to me seems to be that nobody knows more than others, because there are no facts, simply opinions, and everyone's opinion has equal validity.

Just really trying to wrap my mind around this point of view, since this thread is about different ways of experiencing the world.

I may be misunderstanding the point of view, because it is so different from my own.

Ok, I'll elaborate, you are really close with one misunderstanding, I am not a vocal person so I probably didn't explain well.

Some people do in fact know more, of a given train of thought or a given reality, or discipline.....

this person may be an expert in conventional grain farming.

Another person may be an expert in permaculture

But neither are better or more expert than the other, the disciplines are while similar diametrically opposed, ones truth is the others lie....

If you had two folks of the exact same cultivar than one could be in theory "smarter" than another, but to what end? The less enlightened in a given tutelage are often the bringers of big change and enlightenment in the whole discipline. So one could say often they are "smarter", just as the youth prevail over the aged 100% of the time.

Traditional builders say seal the building and let machines do the ventilation, natural folks say let nature ventilate and stop the air conditioning madness choosing instead a breathable home that is only heated not cooled.

Neither is "better" because both are "better" for a given section of the population. A seal person says it is better to seal and let the electric ventilate, a breathing person knows that you cannot trust the electric or the machine to always work, and you can trust that heat rises ( the driving force on natural ventilation)....

So be what I am saying Terry is a sealer, and I am a breathable, no matter how much school he has taken that teaches sealing, the fact remains that neither has bested the other......sealing is best for some, breathable is best for some

Neither can be fact until all parties agree, and all science and methods are exhausted, so that is impossible on the thought that methods and science is ever changing.

Does this make sense, it is a very Asian type thinking that is sort of my religion.....sort of

This thread started off by saying "One of the great strengths of Permaculture is its emphasis on diversity." Then, a conversation started about the diversity in personality types - specifically focusing on "aspies and 'techie types'". There was some wonderful conversation & information from many different perspectives that felt really helpful in forging understanding among different types of people. For me, it was very enlightening to learn about R Ranson's experiences what she learned from them.

Some time after that, the conversation seemed to disintegrate. I know many posts were removed and changed.

It seems to me that we should go back to the original focus of this thread. We need to find the strengths in our diversity, not keep highlighting that diversity in a way that puts another person down.

Whether a person uses too many technical words, or another doesn't use enough, that doesn't give us the right to JUDGE them.

@Robyn: Let's take this back to niche analysis. It's an imperfect metaphor, but it will have to do.

There are plenty of areas where experience, off-the-wall ideas, unfocused creativity and so on are perfectly valid, if not to be actively encouraged. There are other areas where matters can be brought down to opinion. Then there are those where we need facts and/or good research, or specific expertise. The problem is that many people can't tell the difference, and it can be tricky.

It's not about judgement: it's about using the right intellectual tools or modes of thinking for the job. Not all modes of thinking fit all jobs. Different modes of thinking for different niches. My mode of thinking suits design, but much less so the creative arts of food preservation.

There are areas where different modes of thinking can feed into a more creative result, where the modes of thinking interact, in a way analagous to interaction in an ecosystem, but that's also where you can end up with derailing as a result of incomplete or inadequate comprehension of specialist details, and that's an important aspect of what we need to fix.

Neil, the whole point of my post was to try and bring the focus back to the original point of this whole thread, not to continue an argumentative conversation. I will be happy to respond to you using Purple Mooseages as to not distract from the purpose of this thread, if you like.

All I would like to say is that we have NO RIGHT TO JUDGE OTHER PEOPLE. Let alone judge, as good or bad, those we do not know.

Neil said "t's not about judgement: it's about using the right intellectual tools or modes of thinking for the job. Not all modes of thinking fit all jobs"

I also don't accept this Who decides what is right ?
Right and wrong are both judgement calls . This discussion reminds me of the discussions regarding evolution where people suggest the right animal survives. Survival it's self is the only measure. For the problems permiculture seeks to over come then the only necessity surly is that they succeed ( how to measure sucsess another good question ) That is why we need as many different nodes of thought looking at
each problem .

David

Robyn Holmes wrote:Neil, the whole point of my post was to try and bring the focus back to the original point of this whole thread, not to continue an argumentative conversation.

What is the point of this thread if not discussion of different modes of thinking?

Neil Layton wrote:
It's not about judgement: it's about using the right intellectual tools or modes of thinking for the job. Not all modes of thinking fit all jobs. Different modes of thinking for different niches. My mode of thinking suits design, but much less so the creative arts of food preservation.

Now I'm confused about what its about...

I will rephrase.

I think we need to make a distinction between a mode of thinking that emphasises feeling over linear reason or over systems thinking and anti-intellectualism: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201407/anti-intellectualism-and-the-dumbing-down-america

Sometimes what Burra is dealing with is variant thought and communication modes, which is fine, if hard work for the mods. Sometimes it's something else. One is potentially helpful and constructive. The other is simple derailing.

Your feeling is as valid as my systems thinking. Someone's ignorance is not as valid as someone else's knowledge.

Is it possible, in the hectic period yesterday, there was a confusion between neurotypes and training? Mode of thinking and skillset?

If a mechanic works on a car, are we bothered about what his/her neurotype is, or do we care more that he can repair the breaks?

R Ranson wrote:Is it possible, in the hectic period yesterday, there was a confusion between neurotypes and training? Mode of thinking and skillset?

If a mechanic works on a car, are we bothered about what his/her neurotype is, or do we care more that he can repair the breaks?

Possibly. The trouble is, I think there's an overlap. Certain neurotypes take to that kind of training better than others (it's not a case of simple intelligence, although it's probably also correlated). It's not that simple though: I'm rarely accused of being stupid, but calculus is beyond me. I've met Aspies for whom calculus comes as naturally as breathing. Most Aspies are notoriously clumsy, and so struggle to develop any skillset that requires certain kinds of motor control. I suspect there are some modes of thinking where the development of certain types of skillsets are simply going to be intellectually alien, just as, say, human nonverbal communication is to me.

With all of this discussion on how "Aspies" communicate, I think there has been something overlooked. It is not just the "Aspies" who have difficulties in communicating. There are many different types of challenges that many people deal with on a daily basis that hinder their ability to effectively translate their thoughts and wisdom into the written word.

What I have seen on this forum is those who can and do speak in technical terms look down upon and dismiss those who can't or won't speak in their "technical" language. Then, it seems that when some are being told they are inferior because of this, they react to that personal attack, and this does nothing to help anyone.

Neil Layton wrote:
Your feeling is as valid as my systems thinking. Someone's ignorance is not as valid as someone else's knowledge.

A problem I see in this is that some people experience a reality in which feeling is as valid as knowledge, that is, to them feeling is knowledge. If they have a feeling something will work, that is as good as knowing it will work.

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Neil Layton wrote:
Your feeling is as valid as my systems thinking. Someone's ignorance is not as valid as someone else's knowledge.

A problem I see in this is that some people experience a reality in which feeling is as valid as knowledge, that is, to them feeling is knowledge. If they have a feeling something will work, that is as good as knowing it will work.

Soooooo, if I have a feeling that if I kick the Palace of Westminster it will fall down, then I can just go down there and wipe out the government just using my boot?

I don't personally subscribe to that reality, but I think it is what some people in this thread might be expressing, though I might be misunderstanding them.

My husband had a boss who liked to "see this work." He would ask the guys to use chemically incompatible materials because "I want to see this work." He had a feeling it would work. (It didn't)

This feeling that things will work is, what I think Terry was complaining about earlier, as derailing conversations about building construction, where there are real consequences to things not working.

Tyler Ludens wrote:I don't personally subscribe to that reality, but I think it is what some people in this thread might be expressing, though I might be misunderstanding them.

My husband had a boss who liked to "see this work." He would ask the guys to use chemically incompatible materials because "I want to see this work." He had a feeling it would work. (It didn't)

This feeling that things will work is, what I think Terry was complaining about earlier, as derailing conversations about building construction, where there are real consequences to things not working.

Surely that's not neurology, but something else?

Say, "prayer" or "magical thinking" or (notion redacted because it will get me into trouble)?

Neil Layton wrote:
Surely that's not neurology, but something else?

I can't say, but it seems to be there are fact-based people and feelings-based people, and perhaps some with a little of both but tending more one way or the other. Is this nature or nurture or both? I don't know.

Maybe the conflict comes not from making emotional based decisions, but rather from the need many people have to feel listened to and respected?

Maybe different people express this in different ways? One neurotype might be great sticking to the data. Maybe this is what they feel is aknowlages their contribution to the discussion?

Other neurotype might need a preamble that aknowlages their idea before being presented the data. Without this, they feel belittle?

Maybe this is where the miscommunication starts? Maybe it's nothing to do with the data, or how sound the judgement is?

R Ranson wrote:Maybe the conflict comes not from making emotional based decisions, but rather from the need many people have to feel listened to and respected?

Maybe different people express this in different ways? One neurotype might be great sticking to the data. Maybe this is what they feel is aknowlages their contribution to the discussion?

Other neurotype might need a preamble that aknowlages their idea before being presented the data. Without this, they feel belittle?

Maybe this is where the miscommunication starts? Maybe it's nothing to do with the data, or how sound the judgement is?

You know, that's a really interesting point, and comes back to something I've thought about elsewhere.

Most Aspies I know don't have a clue why some people are so obsessed about outfits, hairstyles and so on. Somebody (I can probably find the link, but there is a limit to my engagement levels today) suggested that it's not about the haircut or the outfit, but about validation. By this model, if I tell my friend that her new haircut makes her look like a shaved poodle, I think she needs a new hairdresser, which is at least honest. She hears that I hate her until the end of time, which wasn't what I meant. She feels belittled as a person because I think she has an inept hairdresser, which makes no sense to me.

I'd much rather validate a good idea or a good point (and this is a good point that I hadn't thought through properly), and likewise feel validated when someone validates my ideas.

Duly validated?

The problem I've found is when the ideas are falsely validated this just leads to bigger problems later (when you go out looking like a shaved poodle, or present an idea generally that could have been better with more honest feedback).

I'm not doing this here: my first impression is that it's a good point.

So, how do we feed this back in to a solution?

EDIT: I don't think this is necessarily the place to validate magical thinking, especially when it means they're going to go hungry or their house is going to fall down.

Neil Layton wrote:

EDIT: I don't think this is necessarily the place to validate magical thinking, especially when it means they're going to go hungry or their house is going to fall down.

The thing I am trying to understand today is - is magical thinking a mode of thinking associated with a different neurotype, or is it learned, or is it a choice? As far as I can tell, some people do not distinguish between their subjective experience of the world and the world itself. That is, as far as I can tell, there is no such thing as objective reality to these people. There are no facts, there are only opinions, personalities, beliefs, politics, etc. I'm trying hard to understand this idea - is this the way they actually experience the world, or am I simply and totally misunderstanding what they are saying? Because they seem to be experiencing a completely different reality to the one I experience. What you call "magical thinking" is to them just "thinking" or even "knowing." What I would call a belief they call knowing. Their subjective experience of something is the same to them as objective reality. I would use religious examples here except we're not supposed to do so outside of the Cider Press.

Is there a permies-appropriate way to respond to what we perceive as magical thinking but the other person perceives as rational thought? Is there a permies-appropriate way of saying "I think you are in error and here is my evidence that your decision is going to cause your house to fall down"?

Neil
You just said something I find very scary .
I was worried about some one who is always needing validation , being listened too, does not want possible solutions and gets upset when I try as it shows I don't care . She also says I am not like everyone else.
Now I wonder is it me?

David

Tyler Ludens wrote:

The thing I am trying to understand today is - is magical thinking a mode of thinking associated with a different neurotype, or is it learned, or is it a choice? As far as I can tell, some people do not distinguish between their subjective experience of the world and the world itself. That is, as far as I can tell, there is no such thing as objective reality to these people. There are no facts, there are only opinions, personalities, beliefs, politics, etc. I'm trying hard to understand this idea - is this the way they actually experience the world, or am I simply and totally misunderstanding what they are saying? Because they seem to be experiencing a completely different reality to the one I experience. What you call "magical thinking" is to them just "thinking" or even "knowing." What I would call a belief they call knowing. Their subjective experience of something is the same to them as objective reality. I would use religious examples here except we're not supposed to do so outside of the Cider Press.

I think it must be at least partially culturally mediated. Different cultures have different rates at which they will suggest that "climate change is just a theory", which equates "belief" in anthropogenic climate change with "belief" in what was written in some book a couple of thousand years ago. You probably can't break it down to an ethnic group, because at least one of those countries was largely (if selectively) populated from areas where they don't share that mentality to such a degree, and a contiguous country, with similarly lower prevalence of such thinking, was predominantly colonised by a similar group. That's not neurodiversity: that has to be enculturation. See the link I posted earlier.

I think a discussion of cultural relativism is a linked but separate thread, but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

David Livingston wrote:Neil
You just said something I find very scary .
I was worried about some one who is always needing validation , being listened too, does not want possible solutions and gets upset when I try as it shows I don't care . She also says I am not like everyone else.
Now I wonder is it me?

David

We all need validation. David. We're a social species. I think it's proper to provide it, at least to a point, to partners, friends and our communities. I think that only goes so far, but goes further with a loved one, and some of our loved ones are more hurt than others, especially when they have been socially marginalised.

My suspicion is that what you have is failure to understand each other's neurotype. There are books on relationships with people of neurotypes not your own, but they need to be read together, because what applies to one individual won't apply to all of them. I've read books about Aspies in relationships, but only recognise myself partially in any of them.

In terms of how that's applied here: that's complicated. I don't mind validating other neurotypes, especially if we claim to be a community. I have a problem with unsupported ideas presented as facts but that, as we've seen, may be nurture, not nature. If your "someone" has been hurt, that's also nurture, not nature, but that doesn't make the person any less hurt and I would hope would not make you care any less.

I learned this thing recently:

Apparently telling people that their 'arse makes those jeans look bad, and it's not the jeans making their arse look big' is not appropriate. It's also not appropriate even if they ask for my HONEST feedback. I don't understand why it isn't appropriate because they did take the effort to ask me for my HONEST opinion about it.

Instead, what seems to work is to say nothing. Or at least to say something noncommittal and slightly twist the topic of conversation to something else. This works especially well if that something is related to what the other person thinks is important. The colour of those jeans goes well with your coat.

By not commenting on the jeans vs arse situation, the person doesn't receive any feedback (positive or negative) - But they do feel like I'm paying attention to them because I talked about something of theirs. It gives them validation that they are respected and important as an individual (which seems to be what a lot of people want from social interactions). Or at least I'm interpreting it that way.

IF I say nothing at all, this seems to be stronger feedback than saying (what I perceive to be) the truth.


I'm still learning how to apply this to communication with people, especially on forums. Maybe not engaging with the person with the unusual idea offers feedback just as much as replying? I don't know.

I'm just posting this as something I've observed and learned... I don't know how accurate it is.



Another thought is, in a setting like a forum, it may not be the other writer who is really the focus of our words? Maybe the hundreds or thousands of readers are our real audience? Maybe the other writer(s) feel passionate and strong about the subject, so it wouldn't be possible to convince them of the 'truth'... but maybe by being calm and writing in a respectful way, the readers can benefit from what we have to share?

Neil Layton wrote:I have a problem with unsupported ideas presented as facts but that, as we've seen, may be nurture, not nature.

Your problem with them may be due to your nature. And it seems to me that if unsupported ideas presented as facts are perfectly acceptable everywhere on permies, then there can be no space here in which those of us who are fact-based can exist without distress, it seems to me. And on the other hand, even one space set aside for fact-based discussion would potentially be judging other people's ideas as unsupported, non-facts, or perhaps even judging the other people as "ignorant." This seems to me to be what Robyn is expressing here:

Robyn Holmes wrote:

It seems to me that we should go back to the original focus of this thread. We need to find the strengths in our diversity, not keep highlighting that diversity in a way that puts another person down.

Whether a person uses too many technical words, or another doesn't use enough, that doesn't give us the right to JUDGE them.

How can we communicate facts and the desire for facts in a way which does not judge other people?

Just adding one other notion to the discussion of validation/invalidation and what Tyler L. brought up as 'magical thinking'. The psychological notions of 'projection' and 'transference' are often more active and powerful in peoples lives than they tend to realize or admit. Once this is understood, how this affects communication becomes quite clear. Because a writing forum is devoid of voice inflection and body gesture, it can nonetheless come down to choice and organization of words. For instance, a responder may say something that they think is quite logical, matter-of-fact and to the point......and can't understand why the recipient is bristling with injury and offense. Very often this can be attributed to 'projection' by the recipient of some past, injurious care-giver on to the person who posted the response. Why might this happen to this particular responder instead of the others? Because of the words and word order that is used triggers a visceral response and recall of interactions with someone who was hostile or injurious to them in their past, usually their childhood. The injured one will feel that it's about the comments from the responder, but in fact the emotional response is more about triggering of the buried subconscious injuries from long ago. This plays out in day-to-day interactions....at work, in social settings...when someone just "gets under your skin", but you can't exactly say why. Often you will come up with some reason why they are irritating to you, but know deep down that this reason is not commensurate with the degree of hostility being raised inside of you.

Where this understanding can aid in communication is for each to begin to recognize what their own triggers are and when they are activated, to take a minute to separate this visceral, often false response (with respect to the immediate target of the response) from the situation, and compose and more thoughtful response or inquiry to the person who wrote the original triggering comment. Sometimes can be used to avoid a lot of unnecessary anxiety in interpersonal communication.