>college psychology class described people who are autistic

>Isnt this the same as being self confident?

Not really, self confidence =/= a lack of self awareness

There's a big difference between being secure in the knowledge that people like you and that what you're doing is good and correct and hence acting uninhibitedly, and being completely oblivious/uncaring to the opinions of anyone around and doing the same

>>36499366
No. Autists don't understand, confident people don't care. There's a very large difference.

File: IMG_3439.png (43KB, 602x500px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 602x500px

>>36499434
So basically anyone autistic is people we dont like

What if you're an autist with a high level of awareness?

>>36499777
I thought an inability to gauge the social cues and responses of others was one of the textbook symptoms of autism?

>>36499366
>"in their own little world" and not caring
>Isnt this the same as being self confident?

No, anon, that's called being autistic. Being self-confident is called being self-confident.

>Fucking liberals and their education system, man

oh no it's another "anything that isn't far right wing white supremacy conservative is liberal" meme

>>36499777
It's still nowhere near normalfags.

>>36499840
>these two different things that are exactly the same are different because I said so!

Whos autistic now?

>college psychology class described people who are autistic as being "in their own little world" and not caring

That's wrong though, it's more like being in the world but not having to think out loud by conversing with extroverted normies just to put a thought together.

Yes they're quiet but it's because they're thinking things through on their own and haven't decided they have anything to add to the conversation/experience. Do they not care? Maybe, but it's more like they don't feel the need to blabber on like an extrovert all the time so that EVERYONE ON THE GODDAMN PLANET knows every minor thought that passes through their head.

t. autist

>>36499366

no, being self confident is being "in the real world and not" caring you fucking autist

>muh librulz

go back to /r/pol idiot

>>36499864
see>>36499434
and >>36499437


>ignores two reasonable rebuttals explaining why he's wrong
>instantly replies to a poorer worded post with a sarcastic comment

really activates the almonds

>>36499870
You know that there are introverted people that aren't autistic, right?

>>36499840
>oh no it's another "anything that isn't far right wing white supremacy conservative is liberal" meme

You're not a centrist if you think leftists don't own the education system in the west, you're just ignorant.

>>36499934
He's autistic anon, you shouldn't expect him to understand his deficiencies.

>>36499934
Most people diagnosed with Asperger's or "on the spectrum" are just introverts, not actually autistic. Normie extroverts just marginalize them because they're different and don't understand.

File: 050662ecca45df90269bba9f931f50e4.jpg (39KB, 564x423px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 564x423px

>>36499366
>It pretty much means anyone whos not a complete normie is autistic to some degree

i mean... no? that's not at all what's implied in that description of autism.
you're confusing self-confidence for an inability to socially integrate to "society"

also this might be the first time i've seen someone argue that learning about autism in a psychology class is evidence of the tacit lefty agenda in academia

>>36499870
introversion != autism

The thing is someone you label as autistic could just not care about social interaction or all that other bullshit they make up because theyre thinking about themselves


If some ugly fat kid like Chris Chan did it youd think that they dont know any better

If some good looking normie did it then "they dont care" and deserve the right to because theyre good looking normies

>>36500098
Schizoids aren't autists, anon.

>>36499942
Did I say they didn't own it? Also, leftists are almost never what 4chan considers "liberals"

>>36499942
lol it's the "liberals run the academy" meme again
here's how this breaks down in real life:

"the university" or whatever you want to call it is not a singular ideological unit.
different departments and disciplines tend to lean different ways.
sociology and its derivatives run the closest to whatever /pol/ thinks of when they think of activist SJW professors indoctrinating students with white guilt or whatever.

on the other side of the spectrum, there are whole schools of econ, math, and government professors who basically make careers out of defending capitalism and advocating for conservative philosophy.

other disciplines are a mixed bag.
to wit: i work in (american) southern history, like in an actual university. many historians in this subfield are really into talking about race, reconstruction, etc., in ways that people on this website would probably call liberal shill garbage.
there are also plenty of people who do work on the plight of poor white farmers or whatever. people who get mad about "libcucks" would tend to be sympathetic to this work.

people who really like to get buttfrustrated about the existence of gender studies conveniently forget (or don't realize in the first place?) that things like this exist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Scholars

they also forget (or ignore) the fact that a massive number of colleges in the united states are religious in affiliation. sometimes this doesn't mean much in terms of instruction, but many of them are quite intentional about providing an education that reaffirms "traditional christian values" or something similar.
it is, i guess, easier to get mad about the things adjuncts at underfunded state universities say/do than to pick a place that reaffirms, rather than challenges, your preexisting beliefs

>>36500500

all that said:
if you are really some kind of /pol/ level young conservative dude, you'll almost certainly come away from nearly any american college with the belief that the leftists are out to indoctrinate you. this arises partly from a misunderstanding of what "indoctrinate" really means, but it also arises from the fact that your average professor in a liberal arts class will probably be to your left, politically speaking, and will have no problem advancing his/her stance toward that end.

here's the thing though: by the time you're in college, it's understood that you should have the mental ability to hear someone say something you don't agree with and, rather than respond with autistic rage on the internet, think about what it is they've said and why it is you think they're wrong. if you can figure out a way in which your professor has erred in thinking, it's up to you to contest what they're saying.

every legitimate intellectual pursuit is fundamentally supported by some kind of logic. it's present in history just as it is (believe it or not) present in area/gender studies.

as long as you can logically defend your conflicting belief in an argument, and so long as that argument is sound, you can absolutely disagree with your cuck libtard SJW professor. the trick is that this requires a lot of thinking, and most people with phds don't really respond well to "MULTICULTURALISM IS JEWISH SHILLING, TAKE THE REDPILL YOU FAGGOT"

you can go through college with high marks and be a legitimate conservative.
people do this all the time.
you don't even have to pretend to "liberalism," you just have to be logically coherent in your beliefs

in contrast to the "thin-skinned professor" meme i sometimes see here, the real professors i know and work with would be really interested to have a student care enough about the class/material to put forth a compelling counterargument to some statement/assumption contained within, even if it conflicts with their politics

>>36500733
>should have the mental ability to hear someone say something you don't agree with and, rather than respond with autistic rage on the internet, think about what it is they've said and why it is you think they're wrong
That's good and all but I'd reckon that most people just suck the dick of the authority or whoever is saying what's popular.

>>36500902
if your personal approach to education is to listen to what the teacher says and parrot it back, then whose fault is it that you never developed useful critical thinking skills?

this is actually a legitimate line of debate with people who work in education. student engagement (one of those fancy pedagogy terms) isn't just "are they listening to me," it's "can they think critically about what i'm saying"

i know people who have taught classes where their implicit position was the academic equivalent of "fight me bro." their classes basically consisted of them leading discussions by essentially dropping intellectual bait and trying to get students to argue back with them. when this worked, it was unbelievably effective, and it was the closest thing i've seen to genuine socratic dialogue in a contemporary setting (i've seen this IRL). but most of the time it just unsettled people and made them write negative evaluations.

the unsolved problem here is that students come into college with the implicit assumption that success = saying the right things to the professor, and there's no functional method to get your average student to set that belief aside