@MolemanPeter @NicoleCRust

Do we agree that this use of autism *as a slur* is unacceptable?

Are you trivialising it's use here (within a scientific "call to arms", no-less) because only problematic individuals would raise the matter, having failed to "extract the scientific information"?

If the scientific information here is so extractable, then what from exactly? And why resist the suggestion that (post extraction) any 'unacceptable remainder' be called out? What function does it serve you?

@MolemanPeter

Peter, is this deep thinking?

@NicoleCRust

Nicole if i remember, you found this piece difficult to read, but defended Yogi at the time — is this just "salty language", or a "strong opinion"? Deep thinking? Necessary?

http://www.johannesjaeger.eu/blog/the-thing-about-epistemic-humility

@yoginho @MolemanPeter

Yogi, the attached isn't "salty language", or a "strong opinion" – this is offensive, in language and intent. It is hateful

For those on the receiving end, "idiot savant" is used to dismiss, manipulate, undermine, gaslight and bully: for severe cases, this demonstrates indecency; for others, malicious misrepresentation

Seriously yogi, I've read your words for years chap – you followed this account until, what earlier today?!

Anyway, I hope this clarifies somewhat

@MolemanPeter @yoginho

https://www.psychiatrymargins.com/p/practicing-psychiatry-in-the-third?post_id=146088836&r=16nd63

Wow, what a remarkable article (brave, what a staggering admission re mockery...); & very useful reference for lived experience "reporting" also. Thanks

Personally, I think psychiatry (in present form) is an abomination. I get that drugs are medical/ mechanistic – but the captured circumstances and judgements of the dsm are definitely not

I'm still feeling the effect of reading that article. It's strong

@MolemanPeter @yoginho

> he writes the same as you do here. So you are offset by his wording?

Hofstadter, or yogi?

@MolemanPeter @yoginho

We use similar methods in software, logic based on type signatures of interfaces – which are like essences, distinct-from though inherently related to implementation (surfaces); whereby an interface might match plural implementations, as an essence does surfaces

(Really any heuristic-based constituent/partial/fragment pattern-matching)

Any stand-out points you might share on Hofs later treatment of analogy?

2.

@MolemanPeter @yoginho

Thanks, I'll read shortly. But to be clear "some mechanistic models aren't good" isn't a good argument against all; any more than "some abstractions aren't good ones" ought to render abstraction off limits

I love surfaces & essences – Hof couldn't fit more in, but he falls short around the edges

Analogy is "the logic of composed/ composable forms". Arguments like fuzzy-matching isn't mechanistic/ logic/ computational are odd

1.

@MolemanPeter @yoginho

Yogi, can you share what you are working toward with your book (for those of us who have read the hate in your words before?)

I'd like to engage on points specifically; but as it stands, I don't feel like editing your book for you

Nor putting up with the subtext creeping throughout, if I'm honest

Moving forward, I hope to better describe my position -- if I am wrong about yours, perhaps we might find common ground, which improves both