#Autism Speaks commercial except it's autistic people saying “I AM AUTISM” to mean people as a threat

[lunathewafflelord]

apparently in Corporate Clash you can say "autism" but not "autistic"

I was trying to tell someone I'm autistic (they're in a club called Autism Creatures) and I ended up saying "I am autism"

and "I am autism" sounds very menacing compared to "I am autistic"

[juliabohemian]

Nostalgia Bias

I recently came across a meme on Facebook, posted by a friend. The meme consisted of a reactionary joke about how Millennials don't know how to drive stick shifts or read in cursive, and that if we want to keep them quarantined, we should put them in cars with manual transmissions and give them the directions in cursive.

Ordinarily, I would keep scrolling past something as inane as this. Actually, that's not true. Ordinarily, there wouldn't be anyone on my friend's list, on any social media platform, who would post reactionary humor. I was truly surprised to see it at all, especially coming from this person, who has always seemed reasonably intelligent.

The first thing wrong with that joke is that it suggests that the generation struggling the most with staying quarantined are the Millennials. Which we know is not true. It is the Baby Boomers. Though Gen-X appears to be adapting best to the whole mess. Go team.

The second thing wrong with that joke is that we still teach children to write in cursive, in elementary school, as of 2020. The third thing wrong with that joke is that there are plenty of Millennials who know how to drive a stick shift.

One could just as easily say the best way to keep Boomers quarantined would be to lock them inside and hook up everything in their homes to smart devices. Ha ha. Isn’t that hilarious? Because old people can’t use technology, right. Yeah, except for all the ones who do. Betty White and Patrick Stewart, for instance.

I couldn't help myself, of course. I had to make a comment. Why? Because I genuinely thought that the person who posted the meme would realize that it was bullshit and be willing to acknowledge that. Needless to say, that's not how it went. I got the answer that I have gotten so many times in the past "yeah, I mean, that's TRUE I guess...but that doesn’t matter because it was rude of you to point it out.”

Was it, though? Ruder than the joke itself? Is politeness to a single individual more important than the feelings of an entire generation of people being maligned by a bad joke? I believe it was Dr. House who posed the question:

"What would you prefer, a doctor who holds your hand while you die or one who ignores you while you get better? I suppose it would particularly suck to have a doctor who ignores you while you die."

Now, I would like to point out that, as someone on the autism spectrum, I don’t socialize in the traditional sense. I relate to people by exchanging information. For me, that takes the place of socializing. That's probably why I am an educator. I like to teach people things. When I see something that I know is absolute bullshit, and I think there's a chance that it can turn into a valuable teaching moment, I cannot resist. Because it isn't just the person who posted it that is going to see my comment, but many other people as well.

Social media is wrought with misinformation. It’s pretty hard to avoid it. I cringe whenever I hear people using words like autistic or schizophrenic to describe the behavior of an ordinary, neurotypical person. Those are conditions for which there are specific diagnostic criteria. The same goes for diabetes, which you definitely cannot get from eating a bag of candy. 

So, what is it that makes people behave this way? Why would perfectly NICE, well meaning people willfully and knowingly spread misinformation? The simple answer is, they don't know it's misinformation. Which is the result of something called bias. 

Bias affects our critical thinking skills. It allows us to hold views that are completely incorrect and even harmful to others. And as we share misinformation that is based upon our bias, even via a format as harmless as a meme, it spreads. And it affects other people's views and behavior. 

The primary source of reactionary humor, such as that which I referenced above, is something called nostalgia bias.

Nostalgia is basically the belief that things from a previous era are superior to their modern counterparts, without the benefit of any objective analysis. Why are they better? Because they're old, obviously. No further analysis is required.

There are two types of nostalgia, historical and personal. The simplest way to differentiate between the two would be to consider historical nostalgia to be the product of anything that happens outside of yourself and to the larger group, such as your community, state or country. Personal nostalgia refers to that which affects you personally, your immediate family, your extended family unit, your school or workplace.

Psychologists have found that personal nostalgia (as opposed to historical nostalgia) can be a stabilizing force that anchors people emotionally and helps them to overcome trauma and loss. But on the flip side, historical nostalgia is likely to prevent people from being open to change by making them dependent on the memories of an idealized past.

I can't even count the number of times I have found myself on YouTube, watching a music video for a song that is (at least) 20 years old or more, and I made the mistake of scrolling down to read the comments. Because, inevitably, there will always be someone in there saying something to the effect of "they don't make music like THIS anymore" and/or "the music they make these days is crap!" And I roll my eyes because such a declaration is purely nostalgic and pretty much the antithesis of critical thinking. 

I am 42 years old. I remember hearing people say that “new music sucks” in 1984. Which is a relatively long time ago for me. But comparatively speaking, a mere hiccup for mankind. I suspect that people have been making such sweeping statements since long before I came into existence. They were bullshit then and they’re bullshit now.

There has always been bad music. Always. Just as there has always been good music. But what does it mean for music to be good or bad? Well, unless you’ve been academically trained in music theory or have acquired decades of performance experience, not a whole lot. For the average person it means that you either like it or you don’t. If you like it, it’s good. If you don’t, it’s bad. Really it’s only a valid measurement for the individual in question. Even if you manage to find 500 people who agree with your opinion, it's still not an objective measurement. Because art cannot be objectively measured.

It's important to consider the fact that genuinely bad music rarely survives to be appreciated by future generations. Meaning that the music that does survive represents the most popular, most commercially successful, most critically acclaimed work of that era. There's a reason why you aren't hearing Milli Vanilli on the oldie's station. Although, I suspect that is more likely related to the whole lip syncing scandal, but I digress.

It's also important to consider why people like or dislike things. Is it actually because they’re good or bad? Unfortunately, no. It's entirely a matter of personal taste. There are things that I like that I know are probably bad. Low budget, found footage horror films, for instance. No award winners among them. Some of them are comprised of video taken with a cell phone. But I love them all the same.

Like all art, music is very personal. We can hear a song and are immediately transported back to a specific time or place. For many of us, music is an escape from reality, or a window to another world. Thus, music is very much connected to our memory of events and the feelings that we attach to those memories. This is what contributes to our skewed perception that something is better because it is old. In actuality, it is better for us, personally, because it represents memories and feelings that we enjoyed or that we still enjoy. As more and more time passes, those memories become increasingly idealized in our minds. So much so that nothing new could possibly compare.

The arts are important to society. It is not logical to suggest that newer generations are producing inferior art, simply because their art does not appeal to older people. New art doesn’t need to appeal to older people, because it’s not really FOR them. They aren’t the intended audience. It’s not a reflection of their generation's interests, values or struggles. 

For some older people, new art is a reminder of mortality. It is a reminder that they are aging, or that they are no longer as relevant to society as they once were. And they deal with the discomfort of that by rejecting or invalidating new things. Which is a miserable way to live.

So, think critically, my friends. Even when you’re assessing something as harmless as a meme. Look for bias and when you see it, don’t be afraid to call it out. And as you get older, try to stay as open minded as possible. Or else, someday, someone might lock you inside a car with a manual transmission and give you an instruction manual written only in cursive.