?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous
Rachael
The dessert cafe on the Leisure Park, Creams, has finally opened, after "coming soon" for most of a year. We went there on Friday night.

They have an amazing choice of desserts: all the flavours you could imagine of ice cream sundae, waffles, cookie dough, crepes, freakshakes, and some traditional desserts like cake, pie, sticky toffee pudding, etc. It's fun and exciting just seeing the size of the menu and it's ALL DESSERT.

On the other hand, the service was terrible. When we first went in I asked if there was a gluten-free menu or if GF dishes are marked on the normal menu. The guy said neither, but he'd fetch the allergy sheets. After some time, another guy came to try to take our order. We said we were still waiting for the allergy sheets, and also asked him for some water. He came back with the allergy sheets but not the water. We flagged the first guy down again and managed to get some water.

The allergy sheets were quite confusing, as there were about six loose pages and they weren't numbered, so if a page started with a series of entries like "Chocolate, Strawberry, Toffee" you didn't know if that was following on from a heading of Ice Creams, Milkshakes, Sauces, or what; and some of the dish names were only approximate matches for what they were called on the menu. I think some pages were missing. I also noticed that, for each allergen and each dish, it said either "Contains", "May Contain", or "Not Contain", and for several of the items that I'd already dismissed from the main menu as clearly containing gluten, like Maltesers ice cream or Ferrero Rocher ice cream (both sweets contain biscuit), they said "May Contain" gluten. I decided "May Contain" probably meant "may contain for all I know, and I can't be bothered to look it up". It made me not very confident in the reliability of the other ratings on the allergy sheet. I raised this with the waiter, explaining that I know Maltesers and Ferrero Rocher have biscuit in, and he started talking about how maybe they contain traces of nuts because they're made in a factory with nuts. I clarified that I was talking about gluten, not nuts, and tried to clarify that I was querying "May Contain" not because I thought it didn't contain gluten, but because I thought it obviously did, and mentioned biscuits again. He then started talking about how maybe it contains traces of MILK because it's chocolate. I was like, "no, GLUUU-TENNN - Maltesers are *biscuits* made of *wheat*..." and he said "Well, I don't know anything about nutrition, I just eat everything." Well... lucky you, I guess? It's supposed to be part of his job to know about it. It's a bit like an employee being asked about wheelchair accessibility and saying "I dunno, I just walk everywhere."


Anyway, I ordered a brownie that was supposed to be gluten-free, with ice cream. The guy came back later and said they were out of the brownies, but would I like the Chocolate Dream Cake, which is also gluten-free? I hadn't noticed any other gluten-free chocolate cakey things on the menu or allergy sheets, so I had another look. It was listed as containing gluten. The piece of it in the display cabinet also had a label saying it contained gluten. But the guy insisted it didn't, and fetched me the manufacturer's box from the back which said it was gluten-free. So, with some trepidation, I ordered it; but clearly they write their allergy sheets and labels by rolling a die or something.

Then they brought the Chocolate Dream Cake and it didn't have any ice cream with it (even though all the traditional cake-like desserts were meant to come with your choice of ice cream, cream or custard, and I'd ordered ice cream with my original brownie). Also, there were no napkins in the cutlery-and-napkin holder on our table, so we had to take some from another table; and finally, when we asked for the bill they brought us a different table's bill.
The cake was actually very tasty: soft and chocolatey with rich sweet chocolatey icing. (And I didn't get any gluten symptoms, so it looks like the original manufacturers were right, and Creams' allergy sheets and display cabinet were both wrong.) Alex had a waffle with apple crumble topping, which also looked and smelled delicious.

Because of the various issues with the service I ended up tipping 2p, which I don't think I've ever done before.

So... tentatively recommended for the food, if you don't have any dietary restrictions and have a high tolerance for bad service, I guess.

Tags: , , ,

1 comment or Leave a comment
I was mistaken in my prediction that Bitcoin would finish 2018 higher than 2017.
It could still go up significantly again, though, and I'm still leaning towards thinking it will.

Tags: , ,

Leave a comment
Interesting Brexit vote from a sort-of-game-theretic POV - lots of MPs voted against May's deal, probably half of whom because they wanted something harder and half because they wanted something softer, so they were united in rejecting the deal that was on offer. Each would ideally prefer their own extreme[*], but each would presumably prefer May's deal over the other extreme.

[*]I don't mean "extreme" pejoratively, at least not on one side. An analogy that more closely reflects my own pro-Remain perspective might be: do you vote for flu, or do you vote against, when the alternative is {good health OR cancer}? There's an argument for voting against, in the hope of achieving good health, but there's also an argument for voting in favour of flu, to avoid the risk of cancer.

Or, to go back to a more neutral analogy, if some want it hot and some want it cold, and warm is proposed, do you accept it, or hold out for your own preference in the knowledge that you're also risking the opposite preference?

I'm glad I'm not an MP having to make that decision.

The other thing that worries me is that even if we get a new referendum and end up voting to stay in the EU, which would be my preferred outcome, there will still be a large faction of Leavers who feel they haven't been listened to, and thanks to evaporative cooling they will be the most extreme/committed ones. So there will be instability and probably riots.

Tags: ,

1 comment or Leave a comment
I went to choose new glasses last week, and I found a pair I really liked. They were turquoise and looked really fun and kind of quirky, and I felt uplifted looking at my reflection wearing them. Usually when I choose glasses it's like "OK, if I have to wear glasses, these are about the least unflattering," but this pair I actively liked and could imagine myself wearing even if I didn't need glasses.

A week later I went in to pick them up, and had a disappointing surprise. They were black, not turquoise, and looked very boring and severe compared with what I remembered. They were turquoise on the inside - on the backs of the frames, and the insides of the arms.

I thought there must be some mistake - that they'd made up the glasses with the wrong frames, or with the right style but the wrong colour from a choice of colours. But the lady said they only come in this colour (and I looked on the website later and that concurred). She said that this happens quite often - that people remember the cool colour or pattern from the inside of the frames, and are disappointed when the outside is plainer. (And I did notice that a lot of the frames on display had interesting colours or patterns on the inside only. Seems a very weird trend.) I even wondered if they had been mistakenly put together inside out, but I don't think so - the inside has the nose rests moulded onto it, for example.

I know human memory is very fallible, and I know my own visual memory is particularly bad. But... I really remember them being turquoise. I remember seeing them turquoise in my reflection in the mirror. And, most compellingly, the available frames are all displayed with the fronts facing you, and the arms pointing straight out away from you (so it's not like I could have seen the turquoise insides of the arms when they were folded), and if they'd looked black on the rack, I wouldn't even have picked them up.

When wearing them and looking in the mirror, I can see a faint glint of turquoise coming from the edges of the frame. (And apparently this is the reasoning behind the weird inside-decoration trend - for people who want only a subtle turquoise effect on their black glasses.) It's just about possible that, if I saw them from the inside first and thought they were turquoise, I could have seen them in the mirror and mis-parsed the black as turquoise-in-shadow, like some of those optical illusions where the light blue in shadow is objectively the same colour as the dark blue elsewhere...? But that still doesn't explain why I picked them off the rack in the first place.

I tried to see if I could find the original display frames on the rack, but I couldn't see them, and I didn't want to spend too long looking as I had two bored kids in tow. I'll probably go back once term has started. The lady was very nice and said if I didn't like them I could come back soon and get them changed to a different frame for free (although I think my choice will be very limited because these are among the smallest in terms of frame area, and I wouldn't be able to get these lenses swapped into any bigger frames).

The first image is me wearing the new glasses normally. The second image is me holding them against my face inside-out, and colour-wise they look a lot more like what I remembered.
2018-09-01 16.14.53
2018-09-01 16.15.29

Tags: , ,

3 comments or Leave a comment
Alex and I have been playing The Unavowed, the latest story-driven point-and-click adventure from Wadjet Eye games, about a group of vigilantes who deal with supernatural problems. You play their newest recruit, who they've just freed from demon possession, and you have to figure out and undo the damage your demon did over the last year while you were possessed.

You get to choose the gender of your protagonist, and whether they're an actor, barkeeper or police officer, and you get to make up a name for them. I guess this is for replayability (ours is an actress called Anna, and a lot of the dialogue and flashbacks make heavy use of her acting background, so we're keen to replay it with one of the other professions and see how that turns out). I don't quite see why they let you make up the name, though. They could just pick a name for the male version of the protagonist and a name for the female one and be done with it. Presumably it's just a piece of customisation, to make the player feel more invested or involved, but I'm not sure it's worth it. (I expect most players don't use their own name anyway? And we were playing it together, so we had to make up a name, otherwise it would have seemed like one of us was playing and the other was watching.) The cost of allowing free choice of name is that the name can never be spoken aloud in the voice-acted dialogue. They have various ways to get around this, some of which sound a bit contrived ("This is Eli, this is Mandana, and this is ... oh, never mind, I forgot you can't see any of them.")

Previous Wadjet Eye games we’ve played (the Blackwell series, Primordia, Resonance, and Technobabylon) have all been a bit dark and have all had interesting and difficult moral choices to make. Unavowed cranks both these things up. (Unavowed is also literally dark as well as figuratively: nearly all the scenes take place around sunset with smoggy red skies.) In each of Primordia and Resonance there was one big moral choice and we had to pause playing to have a big debate about it, because we disagreed on which choice the character should make. I think that's a mark of a well-crafted piece of interactive fiction. The publisher obviously noticed that players like this aspect, and so they've put at least one big moral dilemma in every chapter of Unavowed. I'll talk about them in more depth later in the post. Also, though, they make you choose a dialogue option every time your character talks, and this is a bit much, and leads to decision fatigue and me going "meh, whichever." (Sometimes there's a meaningful difference between the dialogue options, like between a comforting answer and a scathing one, but sometimes they're just three different synonyms for "let's go".) It works this way because, although all the NPCs are voiced, the protagonist isn't, so the only way she can "talk" is by you choosing a dialogue option for her (then she doesn't say it out loud, but people reply to her out loud). And I think this, in turn, is at least partly because they let you name her and she has to say her own name sometimes (like when introducing herself), so her dialogue can't be voiced.

Compared with other point-and-click adventures, this game sometimes feels a bit linear and railroaded. There aren't that many puzzles and they mostly aren't very difficult, and you don't have as much free rein as I'd like over where to go and what to do and in what order. If the plot mandates that you should explore location A before location B, then you will - if you try to do B first, someone will say without any justification "I think we should explore over there first" and it will just happen. It’s more like a piece of interactive fiction than a traditional point-and-click game. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Once a couple more people have been recruited into the Unavowed, there's an unspoken rule that only three characters can go on any mission (and it must include Anna, and at least one of Eli and Mandana, the two original members). No one ever explains why this is, but the game enforces it. It would have been nice if they could come up with some in-game justification for it (Alex suggested "we never travel in a group larger than three because the risk of being noticed by mundanes is too high", plus not wanting a mission entirely composed of new recruits), but they don't bother. There was even one mission where a character who wasn't originally on the mission turned up to check everything was OK, and afterwards we/Anna had to choose whether to send her back home again or send one of the others away before we could carry on with the mission.

The three-character rule does have a massively positive impact on replayability, much more effectively than the occupation and gender of the main character. (So I'm not complaining about its existence, just wishing it were explained in-game and didn't seem so arbitrary). We mostly brought Eli and Logan on missions because we like them (and we like Logan's spirit guide, KayKay) - and we mostly found that the missions seemed quite tailored to them, either plot-wise (one of them involved Eli coming to terms with some stuff from his past), or puzzle-wise (they relied heavily on Eli's fire-mage powers and Logan's ability to talk to ghosts, and in one case KayKay's ability to walk through walls). So we're really curious about how the missions will work if we bring the other two characters instead. I don't know whether the things we find will change slightly according to who we bring, or whether we'll need to find clever ways to solve the same puzzles with Mandana's and Vicki's powers instead.

The game is clearly set in the same universe as the Blackwell series. Logan is a Bestower of Eternity, like Rosa or Lauren, with a spirit guide, and the way they deal with ghosts and help them to move on works the same as in Blackwell, except here the player only gets to see it second-hand. There are also a couple of cameo appearances from minor Blackwell characters, which was pleasing.

The moral dilemmas
(Spoiler warning if you intend to play the game, and content warning for various kinds of death and suffering and sadistic choices)
There were several places where the game made you make a difficult moral choice. They were all quite interesting. Some of them Alex and I agreed on, some we disagreed. Some we found relatively easy, some agonisingly hard.
SpoilersCollapse )
Overall
Very good game, very compelling story and characters. Definitely has us thinking about it and talking about it even when we're not playing it. Recommended.

Tags: , ,

5 comments or Leave a comment
Don't Close Your Eyes - Holly Seddon
Enjoyable but very sad family story. The backstory is that there was a family with twins, and the mother ran off with another man, and took her favourite one of the twins with her, separating the twins (the twins and the dad were both very unhappy about this, but the mother gave them an ultimatum that if she can't take one, she'll go to court to get both and probably win, so the dad settled for keeping one). Shortly afterwards the mum's new man gets a job in America, so the twins get separated by a continent rather than just a few streets. Lots of bad things happen over the following years. In the present-day narrative, one of the twins is tracking down the other after not seeing her for years. Although it's a very sad story, there's a hopefulness to it because the twins come through for each other when it matters most, and there are also some enjoyable twists, including a very clever one which had me going back re-reading the opening chapters to admire the ambiguous wordcraft (my favourite kind of twist).

Close to Home - Cara Hunter
Detective thriller about a missing child. It's told from the POV of the detective, which I usually don't enjoy so much, but I quite liked this one. It's very twisty, with lots of reveals. The girl's parents are both really unlikeable. The ending was very good and unexpected.

The Darkest Lies - Barbara Copperthwaite
Teenage Beth goes missing and turns up in a coma. Her mother tries to solve the mystery, but doesn't make much headway because basically the whole village is lying about some illegal business they're nearly all involved in. A random childhood acquaintance has recently returned to the village and is helping her.
I didn't think this was very good.
Spoilers
SpoilersCollapse )


Two Sisters - Kerry Wilkinson
I read this straight after The Darkest Lies, and it's remarkably similar: teenager goes missing, relative (in this case his two sisters) tries to track them down, turns out nearly everyone in the village is lying about something semi-unrelated. Slow-paced and a bit meh.
I preferred the author's other book, The Girl Who Came Back.

The Visitor - KL Slater
Interesting story about neighbours David, a middle-aged shut-in who lives with his mother, and Holly, a lodger recently moved back to her childhood town, rebuilding her life after a mysterious tragedy. They're both quite sympathetic and likeable characters despite both their mysterious dark pasts and David's social oddness, and the story develops enjoyably. The ending is quite shocking, with a double-whammy of twists.
Spoilers
SpoilersCollapse )
The Child - Fiona Barton
This is about a journalist investigating the skeleton of a newborn baby found on a building site, and an older woman and a younger woman who each think it's theirs. It's a pretty good story, with an interesting and clever plot, although I figured out the solution before the end, which was a little bit disappointing.
Spoilers
SpoilersCollapse )

Tags: ,

6 comments or Leave a comment
12 Rules for Life - Jordan Peterson
This seemed unnecessarily verbose and unengaging in style. I think there were nuggets of wisdom buried in the waffle. Apparently the book was expanded from a Quora post which devoted one paragraph to each "rule", and I think I'd prefer to read that instead.
I'd been led to expect a lucid, incisive thinker like CS Lewis or Scott Alexander, but my impression was that it was more like listening to the ramblings of a taxi driver or your great-uncle at Christmas dinner. Most of the message seems to be pretty standard self-help stuff: respect yourself, stand up for yourself, etc; plus some woo, like something very similar to "visualisations" to make good things happen. It uses lots of Bible quotes and Christian context, enough to seriously annoy atheists, but the message is at an angle to Christianity, at best (particularly the bit about resisting corrupt organisations that ask too much of you? Matt 5:39-42)
Bits of it are also irritatingly simplistic, like the advice to "just stop" the bad things you do (howwww?), and the chapter on child-rearing says not to let kids do things that make you dislike them, but has a brief disclaimer saying that that doesn't apply if you're just being overly fussy and demanding yourself (the really big question I've struggled with for the last eight years is how you tell the difference).
He seems obsessed with status, both as a conceptual part of his message, and his own (his Quora ratings; his interactions with kids seem to stem from his need to show kids who's boss).
He caricatures his opponents on child discipline as thinking children are perfect and need no correction (rather than e.g. thinking children need help rather than punishment when they can't do things yet). His actual child-rearing methods miiight be OK for one's own kids, but he boasts about the times he applied them to other people's kids he was caring for. Forcing other people's kids to eat or to sleep, without their parents' knowledge or permission, is not appropriate. He uses unnecessarily emotive language, like describing a 4yo who refused to eat lunch as being starved by neglect - starvation by neglect is when you don't provide them any food, not when you provide food but opt not to force-feed them.
I got bored wading through the waffle and gave up halfway through, but I'd quite like to read all the rules in the original Quora post.

Everybody Lies: Big Data, New Data, and What the Internet Can Tell Us about Who We Really Are - Seth Stevens-Davidowitz
Fantastic pop-sci book about the application of data science, and how analysis of things like Google searches and social media posts can reveal more accurate information than traditional surveys. Really interesting and entertaining, in the same way as Freakonomics or Predictably Irrational. Reminded me of my post about Dataclysm, where I realised that applied data science had the potential to be more interesting to me than traditional psychological research. This book made me feel inspired, like there are lots of really interesting and/or lucrative ideas just beyond my fingertips.

The Learner Parent - Sam Avery
The author was a stand-up comedian who then had twins. I've been following his "Secret Diary of a 3-year-old" posts, which are very funny, and then he published a book. It's very funny. IMO, the first section, about trying to conceive and then pregnancy, was the best and had the most laugh-out-loud moments. Then there's a serious part where one of the newborn babies is dangerously ill, and then there's another funny part about parenting them as babies and toddlers. Recommended if you're a parent or interested in parenting or just enjoy funny books.

Tags: , , ,

2 comments or Leave a comment
andrewducker posted a link to an article about whether people feel they've become more their "true" or "authentic" selves as they've got older. In general, it turns out, they do.

I don't. As I commented on Andrew's post, I feel like I was my truest self between about 16 and 19[*], and have become a more faded or diluted version over the years since then. Most of my feelings and desires have got weaker, and as a busy grown-up with two kids I've become closer to living an "unexamined life", just getting through what needs doing each day without spending much time thinking about the big picture.

Does that sound a bit depressive, or is it just part of getting older? I thought the latter, but the survey of people feeling they've become more authentic with age makes me wonder if there's something wrong, or at least unusual, with me.

(We need to draw a distinction between feeling like your true self on the inside and being able to act like your true self in front of others. Andrew's comment on his post seems to refer to the latter: LGBT people coming out, autistic people receiving and embracing their diagnosis rather than trying to act neurotypical, etc. In that sense, I've been more able to act like my true self since I came to Cambridge, and acquired friends and a husband who are nerdy like me and share similar interests, rather than feeling like I have to dumb down my language and fake interest in fashionable things that don't interest me, which was the case at school. But in the sense of feeling like my true self on the inside, I think that peaked in my late teens or early adulthood and has declined since.)

[*]This range encompasses sixth form, where I was unhappy and didn't fit in, and the first two years of university, where I was happy and did fit in; so I think it's not a function of happiness or of belonging.

How about you - do you feel you've become more, or less, your true self as you've got older, or do you think the question sounds like meaningless psychobabble?

Tags: , , ,

8 comments or Leave a comment
Heist Society - Ally Carter
Very fun story about Kat, a teenage girl from an old crime family. Another crime boss is threatening Kat's father because he mistakenly thinks Kat's father stole some paintings from him. To save her father, Kat takes it upon herself to find out who really stole the paintings and steal them back. It's a glamorous, jet-setting romp with clever, snappy dialogue, and a teenage love-interest who I probably shouldn't find attractive because I'm old enough to be his mother.
Quite looking forward to getting the sequels.

The Bad Mother - Amanda Brooke
I couldn't finish this, because the characters were so unlikeable and spent the whole time arguing and sniping at each other. In the first few chapters that I read, there was a young couple expecting a baby, plus her mother and his mother. All the conversations between any of them were filled with arguing, tension, petty digs, and supposedly friendly jokey comments that were meant to lighten the mood and signal that everything was OK again, but were actually nearly always insulting (like the pregnant woman's husband calling her fat). It also seemed predictable from the first few chapters (plus the tagline on the front) where the story was going, and reading reviews on Amazon afterwards suggests there wasn't much more to it, so I'm glad I gave up on it.

The Foster Child - Jenny Blackhurst
Like The Ice Twins and The Little Stranger, this is another one that walks the line between psychological and supernatural thriller, and was quite effective in its creepiness. The protagonist, Imogen, has just moved back to the village where she spent her unhappy childhood, and is working for a government agency adjacent to social services. There's a girl, Ellie, who lives with a foster family in the village after her own family died in a fire. Imogen becomes over-involved in Ellie's case and tries to protect her from the classmates and even adults who think she's some kind of witch because weird and bad things keep happening around her. It's a bit similar to Carrie (and Imogen's husband makes the comparison), but I thought it was more effective and subtly scary. I found Carrie a bit meh.
As well as her loveless childhood, Imogen is on the run from an incident in her old job where she also got too attached to a child: a boy who was allegedly self-harming, but Imogen thought his parents were the ones hurting him. She won his trust and got him to open up, and he told her that yes, they were; but when he went back home to them and the authorities investigated, he denied it, claimed he'd only told Imogen what he thought she wanted to hear, and the case against his parents collapsed. He then "committed suicide because his parents were falsely accused of abusing him". I found that line absolutely chilling, and confirmation that Imogen had been right all along; but she took it as a further reproach against her and a warning that she shouldn't get too involved and shouldn't pursue her own pet theories, but should learn to accept what she's told by those who know better. I'm confused about whether the author agrees with that, or wants readers to reach the conclusion I did and is showing Imogen to be implausibly naive and oblivious.
(Also, this was very badly proofread. Lots of pieces of dialogue with no punctuation at the end.)
But a very good book overall. Blackhurst also wrote How I Lost You, which was one of the first psych thrillers I read and was also excellent.

Tags: ,

Leave a comment
I don't know whether or not I'm in the autistic spectrum. I have some autistic traits; I have a daughter with an official diagnosis, and AFAIK autism has a genetic component; and some people have asked me, based on their impressions of me, if I'm on the spectrum. But I've never been officially tested.

I'm saying this because some people (and I am not one of them) think you can only be allowed to express an opinion on autism if you're autistic yourself. But what if I don't know whether I am or not; am I allowed to express an opinion then? Think of me as "Schroedinger's autist", if you like. (And of course if I'm not autistic, then I'm a neurotypical parent of an autistic child, a category even more reviled in some circles than regular neurotypicals.)

Anyway. Clearly, the definition of autism has expanded a lot in recent years. This is a good thing in as far as it means more people are having it recognised and getting access to support if they need it. But it's also clearly the cause of all the comments like "you don't look autistic" or "your child doesn't look autistic" that make people so angry. It's not the fault of the people making those comments; it's the fault of the psychological establishment for changing the definition so significantly. People shouldn't jump down people's throats for not having caught up yet. It's important to recognise, diagnose, and support the kind of people who are getting diagnosed now and wouldn't have been a generation ago; but I think dropping the "Asperger's" label and rolling everyone into one category was a mistake, for the reasons described in this paragraph.

There are plenty of autistic activists who would disagree with me there. They actively want to roll it all into one category, and reject the descriptions "high-functioning" and "low-functioning". Autistic people who can read and write and construct an argument argue that they are the same as so-called low-functioning autistics and so the functioning labels should be abolished. But the fact that they can construct and write that argument falsifies it, because a low-functioning person couldn't do that. I've also seen parents arguing against the functioning labels because "low-functioning" is just a way to say "hey, my child faces more challenges than yours" and "high-functioning" is just a way to say "at least my child's not as disabled as that child" and therefore we should abolish the labels and recognise that we're all in the same boat. But by that logic we should abolish the description "autistic" itself, and all other descriptions of neurodiversity or disability; because "autistic" (and so on) is also just a way to say "hey, my child faces more challenges than yours" and "neurotypical" is also just a way to say "at least my child's not as disabled as that child". And I don't think the parents making that argument would want to abolish "autistic". (Just to be clear, I wouldn't either.)

My impression of autism activists is that they say both "I should be represented and listened to, and society benefits from having more people like me" and "There's no valid distinction between me and Bob who never learned to talk or read and who smears his poo over the walls every day and is violent". And I don't see how both those things can be true. (Of course Bob is human and should be treated with dignity and respect, but that's not the point I'm arguing about here.)

Also, if the activists succeed in changing the colloquial, popular definition of autism from someone like "Bob" to someone who shows unusual social interaction and has sensory sensitivities but is otherwise "normal", then the "Bobs" will be forgotten (since they either live in institutions, or in families who rarely go out with them because it's too challenging) and further marginalised. And if someone is told "my son/nephew/neighbour is autistic" and goes in expecting a quirky kid who talks about trains a lot, and gets "Bob", it will be a nasty shock both for them and for Bob.

The other thing I've observed is that some autistic people latch onto their diagnosis and build their whole identity around it, and think that every aspect of them, especially the things that they value about themselves, is part of their autism. (I think this is behind the extreme anger some people feel at any talk of "curing" or genetically screening for autism. They don't imagine relief for their sensory overload; they imagine their ability to think logically, and their love of their favourite fandom, being erased, from their brain or from the whole world. They don't seem to realise that neurotypical people can have those traits too.) For some people, "neurotypical" (or "allistic") means basically "Muggle". They imagine neurotypicals as this undifferentiated horde of sheeple who all like the same manufactured music and commercial fashion and can't think for themselves. Yes, there are a lot of people like that; but you don't have to be autistic to not be like that.

Tags: ,

13 comments or Leave a comment