StringJunky

I;m not the only one. From an Aspie:

Quote

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s staff member has stated in the past that Zuckerberg has a “touch of the Asperger’s,” and that he has “zero empathy.” He was talking about the disorder known as Asperger’s Syndrome, and Zuckerberg’s affliction could be contributing to Facebook’s privacy problem. The social network has been under fire in recent days over privacy concerns; specifically over the newest incarnation of its privacy policy, which allows Facebook to use people’s photos, names and other personal information for advertising, with no compensation to the person whose likeness is being used.

Could Mark Zuckerberg’s Asperger’s Syndrome be a contributing factor in his lack of concern for his customers’ privacy? In an online guide entitled “Coping: A Survival Guide for People with Asperger’s Syndrome,” late author Marc Segar, who himself had Asperger’s, lays out some of the most significant problems those with Asperger’s face, and one of those problems, according to him, is poor listening skills.

“To join in a conversation you need to listen to it,” Segar says in his guide. “Listening can be extremely difficult, especially if you have to keep your ears open 24 hours a day, but you can get better with practice. The most important thing to listen to is the plot of the conversation.”

This difficulty in listening may be a driving factor behind the fact that Mark Zuckerberg does not seem to listen to, nor to care about, people’s privacy concerns. Thousands if not millions of Facebook users have weighed in on the issue, asking him to be more mindful of their privacy, and instead of listening, he continually loosens his privacy policy. Now, he basically owns our images and names, and can use them for advertising for his own financial gain.

In another section of the guide, Segar states “To assess a social situation, one needs to pick up on as many clues as possible and swiftly piece them together. The final deduction is often greater than the sum of its parts. Also, a difficult thing for an autistic person is ‘finding a balance’ and this may show its self at all levels of behavior and reasoning. The ability to adapt to the ‘situation continuum’ and conform to the surrounding world is however an extremely ancient survival strategy which is most relevant in the social sector of life.”

This behavior, which manifests itself in not being able to pick up on social clues, could also be a factor in Mark Zuckerberg’s refusal to take his customers’ concerns seriously. Even when the information is not being delivered by subtle clues but rather by very clearly stated desires; Zuckerberg seems to be totally oblivious. https://guardianlv.com/2013/09/facebook-founder-zuckerbergs-aspergers-problem/

This could have portended the future:

Quote

Early after the website was launched, he mocked the 4,000 students who had joined Facebook, bragging to friends in text messages about the vast amount of personal information he had collected thanks to the misplaced trust of his users. Zuckerberg called them “dumb” and punctuated the word with profanity.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/1/why-did-mark-zuckerberg-apologise-at-the-us-senate#:~:text=Early after the website was,punctuated the word with profanity.

Does that inspire confidence that he has safety at the forefront of his mind?

19 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Hey I drive a Jeep, I prefer off road wanker. 

But have you got the obligatory Hunter wellington boots and Barbour jacket in the boot?

44 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s a bit like being deaf to a very specific note, but still hearing the rest of the music. 

Spot on.

58 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

"Empathy deficit" describes most of the big time CEOs I've ever heard of. Personally, I think the whole corporate structure is modeled after the same hierarchy the Abrahamic religions are modeled after. The CEO is God, and everyone else is below them. "Just good business" is synonymous with "empathy deficit". You aren't supposed to take people's feelings into consideration in business, even when it's a social media company.

Can you name any other social media companies where the CEOs are empathetic and care about people's thinking more than profit? 

I  don't get the same sense of dissonance with others, that I can think of, as I do with him. I'll have to try to find out how many people have been harmed on the various platforms as a result of their interactions on them. As iNow puts it, if he can't hear the cries of customers, he shouldn't be doing the job, just as I can't be expected to be an air traffic controller or hifi sound engineer; being deaf. I don't think he has the personal insight to recognize that. One of the GOP senators actually said to his face he has blood on his hands... which he evidently does have.

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Do you place the blame for Facebook on Zuckerberg's neurodivergence? I've seen other CEOs trying to downplay the gravity of their mistakes, so why is Z different?

A few things I've read about him over the years and his presentation suggests to me he probably has less than normal insight into other peoples thinking; empathy deficit. This guy's running a social media company, so it matters.

24 minutes ago, TheVat said:

As  @Phi for All  notes, there is a high functioning end of the autism spectrum, often referred to as Asperger's (many argue that "syndrome" should be dropped), where it can be fairly argued that this is a different cognitive style rather than a disorder.   And that part of the spectrum may be less influenced by genotypic factors.

Mark Zuckerberg is one. Look at the damage his efforts appear to be causing socially on a global scale. He controls Facebook.

22 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I guess "Wanktank" might sound too much like a collection device...

Hedgehog car- the prick's are inside.

3 hours ago, MigL said:

My post was referring to INow's post about aberrations  to the XX and XY chromosonal pairings.
I pointed out that there are many other genetic conditions for which we seek cures.
For example, there are genetic conditions that result in deformities, or altered growth rates or limits, and these conditions can often make life unbearable for these individuals, even though there is no physical 'harm' to them, or those around them.
So we seek a cure, or treatment, for such conditions.
Does that sound similar to any other groups, String Junky ?

Is 'dwarfism' a sickness ?

Dwarfism is a disadvantage under open-air conditions. In forests and subterranean environs it's an advantage; some Amazonian groups tend to be short.

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

This will probably get me in trouble ( with the usual suspects ), but I would add to Joigus' point ...

And there are plenty more genetic conditions and 'abnormalities', which we apparently spend millions of dollars researching ways to cure.
Why do some 'abnormalities' require concentrated efforts to find cures or treatments, but, just mentioning 'cure/treatment' for others gets you labelled  a  '****phobe', or worse ?

Please explain.

First thing to ask is 'Is the behaviour pathological to the subject or to those around them. If not, then in the long term, it probably can be accepted as 'normal' behaviour , or at least looked into for potential recategorisation. A lot of the pathology is a result of how such people are received. The social pathology towards these people is caused by lack of acceptance, rather than anything intrinsically wrong with them. If it's not harmful it is another evolutionary arrow to put in our quiver that can ensure our continuity as a species, and indeed all species.

8 minutes ago, joigus said:

Anyway. Sex is a biological fact that can be settled at cell-level. Behaviour is another matter.

Sexes there are two. Behaviours there are millionfold.

 

Hermaphrodites don't get a look in then; looking under the whole biological umbrella of organisms.

4 hours ago, Sensei said:

Are you living under a rock? People don't "tweet" anymore.. There's an X. Apparently shortcut from "eXcretion".. Once the moderators were fired, it may fit better with the new profile..

I like that: tweeting becomes Xcreting.

No one owns them. Usage trends determine the actual definitions. They don't define the words, they reflect contemporary meanings; how people use them in the aggregate. I find the concept of cultural misappropriation  a bit nebulous and hypocritical, since all cultures borrow some things off each other... same with these social identity  labels.

5 minutes ago, geordief said:

This Smotrich guy?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/12/31/israeli-minister-reiterates-calls-for-palestinians-to-leave-gaza

Not the Defence Minister-the Finance Minister and excluded from the War Cabinet  from my cursory knowledge.

Oops. You are right. Corrected.

57 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Well, for starters we cannot afford lobbyists. One should perhaps also note that price gouging is a bigger issue in the US where prices are mostly unregulated. There are studies out there showing that while the US spends more on prescription drugs, but relative to spending does not provide more development than other countries. Some countries with strong pharmaceutical companies (UK, Switzerland) are more productive in that regard. And I do think that lawmakers and companies are well aware of that. 

Ok. On lobbying: A chap with just nine shares in Tesla has just knocked Musk off his financial perch by having a judge anull his 50-odd billion pay packet. Appeals are on, of course, but I thought "That's interesting". It was ultimately financed  by "no win, no fee" legal help. 

43 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I think Big Pharma will be speaking of innovation in the sense of product development rather than ab initio research. Product development is extremely costly  - and high risk.  

You have to balance that with the cost to the tax payer at research level. How much of that research is taken on by pharmaceutical companies vs not used? This article relates to research access but it mentions the total spend: 

Taxpayers spend $140 billion funding science each year — but can't access many of the results

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I am surprised as it sound fairly low. Travel and accommodations alone would eat a fair chunk of it. Heck, I pay as much if I need get a tech in to do repairs that I cannot do myself.

Not really, the do applied research and especially development. But most fundamental developments are either academic or spun of from there. It is not that they no innovative role, but it is fairly rare that they fundamental research and it has become rarer over time. In the 50s there was quite a bit of overlap, but that has mostly vanished.

One of the most common defences by Big Pharma for price gouging is that it will affect innovation. Not much of a leg to stand on, it seems to me. People on your level should be more vocal and tell them to stop misleading the public and naive politicians.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That may be true, but if I was a Palestinian I'd choose the rock, bc the hardplace just sucks...

You routinely make such statements with no context or explanation. Do you get a kick out of being purposely vague? This is my thread. Please stop. Telepathy is not one of my talents.

On topic: I think the true long term intent of the present administration is clear in the Defence Minister's statement in answer to the US's statement admonishing the settler's current exploitative tactics in the West Bank:

Quote

"The 'settler violence' campaign is an antisemitic lie that enemies of Israel disseminate with the goal of smearing the pioneering settlers and settlement enterprise, and to harm them and thus smear the entire State of Israel," Smotrich said. "

https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-issue-order-targeting-jewish-settler-violence-wbank-politico-2024-02-01/

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

No liability for the manufacturer?  Glad Koopman is shredding this in Olympia.

The level of presumptuous is jaw-dropping.

This flies over my head

If the US puts boots in Gaza, I feel another Vietnam on the horizon.

6 hours ago, iNow said:

This is sadly representative of and ridiculously similar to the meltdown happening across the right in the US ATM regarding Taylor Swift and the super secret democratic master plan to fix the outcome of the NFL playoffs so the deep state can prevent Trump from regaining his rightful place in the oval office. 

We have to watch Taylor and her secret government mission.  I like a description given to these people as Not-Too-Swifties.   The hard RW are becoming quite comedic in their accusations.

14 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Home invasions do happen where I live. 

https://www.wwaytv3.com/news-tags/home-invasion/

I wonder what the relative outcomes are between armed and unarmed homeowners being intruded?

20 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Since that time, citizen militias have become unable to handle modern threats. 

Citizen militias are an obsolete military formation. Like taking a knife to a gun fight... as if it has to be said.

1 hour ago, Janus said:

The argument you so often hear is that gun regulations won't stop gun violence.  It's the all or nothing approach; that if a regulation doesn't prevent all gun deaths of innocents, it shouldn't be enacted.  Saving 10 lives a year isn't worth it, nor is saving 100 or, 1000...

 

'Don't throw away the good in pursuit of perfection' comes to mind.

49 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Every time gun laws are struck down or not passed the law makers or judges throw up their hands and say there is nothing we can do because it would violate the 2nd amendment.  Clearly the second amendment is in need of a rewrite.  How many needless gun deaths are going to happen before we change the amendment, I shudder to think.

Show the consequences as seen by the first responders. Watching drone videos in Ukraine soon takes out the 'fun' of war and playing soldiers. 

22 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I on the other hand become more and more convinced that we will never do anything about it. It's a bit depressing.

I'm not sure either. I think you have intractable problems because you are a nation of states that each have probably too much independence and autonomy to ever really align on major issues like this, and have policies that could be applied consistently across the country.

2 hours ago, OldChemE said:

Well, yes.

Personally, I have long thought that the 2A will get repealed or heavily modified one of these days, and if things keep going as they are I might even vote in favor of the changes.  That, for me is a shame, because I am one of the many, many Americans that own guns as a hobby.  I own old guns and/or unique guns.  Why?  I like to work with my hands and restore/reuse old things.  Old cars are too costly and hard to fit on a work-bench in the winter.  Many old guns are, with all their drawbacks, marvels of engineering.  Ammunition is equally interesting, particularly if you have to search out the brass casings or modify newer casings to fit, and make your own bullets and run the tests to determine which type of gunpowder works best, etc, etc, etc.  And then, when you think you have everything just perfect, you can go out to the shooting range and kill pieces of paper, find out things are not perfect, and go back to the work bench for further improvements.

And I don't carry a gun, and they go to the range unloaded and come home unloaded.  And I don't belong to the NRA either.

I would say, however, that the oft-repeated thing about the huge number of guns owned in the US is a red-herring.  Many of us that own many guns are hobbyists such as myself, and most of those guns are old -- not the ones that are best for the killing.

You and people like you aren't the problem. My ire is directed at those that feel the need to be armed and generally do what they like without regard to human frailty and risk. One is playing with matches next to an open bucket of petrol.