Oof, yeah, that whole "everyone treats me like I'm a monster for engaging with this subject matter in terms of research ethics rather than morality" opener is not... particularly self-aware, in terms of working out how people will perceive that (and I can see plenty of people, allistic and autistic, reacting pretty badly to a focus on research ethics without carefully noting that genital mutilation is bad).
(And of course, I am sitting here, with my own crabby emotional impatience for her framing, thinking "Well, your focus on Reason is actually counterproductive, because we use our emotional impulses to make decisions rather than logical processes, and by failing to consider your emotional reasoning and elevating Emotion-Free Logic above all, you leave yourself open to flaws in your thought process and errors of imagination..." which is, ah. Perhaps not as much of a counter-argument as I would like it to be.)
*squints* There definitely is Something there, though. Part of it I think is probably the focus on... outcomes rather than intentions? Like... I wonder if some of this comes down to learning, at a very basic level, that other people won't share your own emotional responses (very strong responses to video stimuli, for example) and learning, very early, to keep those emotional responses to yourself as much as humanly possible in service of making the good outcome happen, at least; if everyone else's emotions are unpredictably strong and anemic by turns, why would you bother developing habits about sharing them? Particularly when sharing your own emotional responses to the things in your life are likely to get you dismissed or ridiculed, like "why are you in almost-physical writhing pain because someone is embarrassed on a television show?"
So you find people who want the same outcomes as you, or at least are interested in developing those, and you approach life trying to execute those good outcomes as best as you can. Sometimes that involves devaluing emotion completely in favor of rational process, because that's easy to understand; sometimes it involves rapidly processing emotionality as a tool for communication and for achieving goals, as in use of emotional appeals in rhetoric. (I don't know, is that just me? I'm extremely conscious of my use of emotional description as a form of rhetoric and feel vaguely uneasy, sometimes, about doing so... even though I am pretty much always being completely honest about what I do share.)
There's maybe something there about trusting my emotional responses. Don't know. Not sure.
And then these "very grand emotions," well, they're grand enough that you can generally explain feeling very strongly about them and find plenty of people willing to agree that yes, very strong feelings for those, that makes sense, of course you would feel like that about them!
(no subject)
Date: 2019-04-06 05:09 am (UTC)(And of course, I am sitting here, with my own crabby emotional impatience for her framing, thinking "Well, your focus on Reason is actually counterproductive, because we use our emotional impulses to make decisions rather than logical processes, and by failing to consider your emotional reasoning and elevating Emotion-Free Logic above all, you leave yourself open to flaws in your thought process and errors of imagination..." which is, ah. Perhaps not as much of a counter-argument as I would like it to be.)
*squints* There definitely is Something there, though. Part of it I think is probably the focus on... outcomes rather than intentions? Like... I wonder if some of this comes down to learning, at a very basic level, that other people won't share your own emotional responses (very strong responses to video stimuli, for example) and learning, very early, to keep those emotional responses to yourself as much as humanly possible in service of making the good outcome happen, at least; if everyone else's emotions are unpredictably strong and anemic by turns, why would you bother developing habits about sharing them? Particularly when sharing your own emotional responses to the things in your life are likely to get you dismissed or ridiculed, like "why are you in almost-physical writhing pain because someone is embarrassed on a television show?"
So you find people who want the same outcomes as you, or at least are interested in developing those, and you approach life trying to execute those good outcomes as best as you can. Sometimes that involves devaluing emotion completely in favor of rational process, because that's easy to understand; sometimes it involves rapidly processing emotionality as a tool for communication and for achieving goals, as in use of emotional appeals in rhetoric. (I don't know, is that just me? I'm extremely conscious of my use of emotional description as a form of rhetoric and feel vaguely uneasy, sometimes, about doing so... even though I am pretty much always being completely honest about what I do share.)
There's maybe something there about trusting my emotional responses. Don't know. Not sure.
And then these "very grand emotions," well, they're grand enough that you can generally explain feeling very strongly about them and find plenty of people willing to agree that yes, very strong feelings for those, that makes sense, of course you would feel like that about them!