writing space

I've been struggling recently with my usual PMO (porn/masturbation/orgasm) addiction.

A few notes before I get into any sort of discussion about this.

Addiction jargon

For a long time, I've preferred not to call it an "addiction" for a couple reasons:

1) My feelings toward it are more mixed as opposed to "this thing is 100% bad and I want to destroy it". Calling something an "addiction" involves implicitly agreeing to certain ideological and behavioral commitments.

2) If I use someone else's jargon then I'm putting myself into a box that makes it easier for other people to have judgments or prescriptions that flow in and threaten some of my control/freedom to create my own narrative. It's just a specific case of a more general problem with mental health labels.

At this point though, I feel like the phrase addiction is mostly accurate for how I view it. I see it as just a convenient phrase that captures a few things:

1) PMO offers certain benefits (or else there wouldn't be any reason to do it)

2) PMO has certain drawbacks (or else there wouldn't be an reason to question doing it)

3) Considering the benefits and drawbacks, I feel like I am consistently happier when I am able to abstain from PMO vs. when I am not abstaining from it

4) I have had considerable difficulty in abstaining from PMO despite years of intermittent attempts at doing so

5) Upon reflection, there are deeper psychological issues that motivate the use of PMO and hinder any attempts to stop it.

6) I've had experiences that are commonly described in the context of addiction (e.g. tolerance, withdrawal, etc.)

When I put all of these pieces together, it feels like it lines up reasonably closely with what most people would think of as an addiction. Someone has a problem, they find a specific way of coping with it that has drawbacks, and they're having difficulty stopping doing it despite wanting to.

Others' typical motivations for cessation

I think there are basically three groups of people who tend to be interested in ceasing something like this:

1) People who have religious or spiritual objections to PMO and believe that they have an moral obligation to not do it.

2) People who are in relationships where their partner considers it cheating if they are engaging in PMO and it is causing interpersonal issues.

3) People associated with online "nofap" communities who are motivated by certain arguments related to PMO causing either a) unwanted changes to brain chemistry or b) detracting from sexual magnetism that allows for attracting real-life partners.

PMO jargon

The use of the phrase "PMO" is pretty much exclusive to the 3rd group (online communities) while the first two groups would tend to use the phrase "porn addiction".

I use the phrase "PMO" because I think it most accurately captures the fact that there are multiple interconnected behaviors that have similar but slightly different effects.

***

My own motivations for cessation

In terms of my own motivations, I would say that they are mostly based on ideas from spiritual systems (in brackets) that I've been able to confirm in my own experience.

1) PMO drains and destabilizes vital energy, which has two effects: a) practical difficulties in everyday life, b) depleting kundalini energy associated with spiritual consciousness [Hinduism, Taoism, Tantra]

2) The clinging/desire associated with addictions is a source of suffering insofar as it is painful and difficult to satisfy, much like drinking salt water when one is thirsty [Buddhism, Western Psychology, Christianity]

3) All else being equal, it is better if one is able to minimize one's desires/needs [Buddhism, Christianity, Stoicism]

4) The clinging/desire associated with addictions can sometimes lead to actions in pursuit of that addiction that have the side-effect of hurting other people or reducing one's capacity to help them [Buddhism, Christianity]

5) The clinging/desire associated with addictions is a source of suffering insofar as it obstructs a more basic mindfulness, awareness, "prayerfulness", clarity of consciousness, or mental purity that is the source of happiness [Buddhism, Christianity]

I will note that I don't have any intrinsic moral objections to PMO independent from its effects. In other words, I don't believe in anything along the lines of "The Bible says it's wrong; therefore if you do it then God will lock you up in eternal fiery Christian jail".

I am able to make sense of and find meaning in religious statements along the lines of "It's a sin", but I interpret this in two possible ways. Either that it creates preventable suffering for oneself (motives #1-4) or that it creates mental conditions that reduce one's spiritual consciousness (motive #5), which in the final analysis also results in creating preventable suffering for oneself.

With respect to relationships, I don't have any intrinsic beliefs that PMO is always/absolutely cheating. I believe it is only cheating if two people have a relationship agreement (social contract) whereby they have both agreed that it is cheating. The "cheating" nature of it is extrinsic (i.e. based on breaking a promise) rather than intrinsic to the activity itself.

Pros and Cons

I made a pros and cons list for PMO.

Reasons for not doing it (Cons)

1) Social discomfort - it affects my energy/body in ways that affects my ability to function comfortably in social situations.

2) Reduced energy - it makes me feel lethargic and causes me to need more sleep

3) Obstructs exercise - it makes it difficult for me to have the motivation or energy to exercise, which is something I want to do for its health/mood benefits

4) Limited pleasure - there is always some point at which the pleasure runs out with PMO; I get habituated or I run out of new/novel stimuli

5) Physical appearance - my entire physical appearance changes in a negative way that makes me feel self-conscious or like I'm not proud of my body (e.g. my eyes become haggard/droopy, I am more likely to have skin problems, my muscle tone is reduced, my voice becomes thinner)

6) Physical well-being - I feel worse in general physically and am more likely to get sick

1) Meaning - there aren't any instrumental goals or sources of meaning in my life that are important enough to me that I'm able to stay motivated to do something as difficult as limiting PMO

2) Pleasure - it provides a form of pleasure that doesn't require me applying willpower or mental exertion

3) Relaxation/awareness - when I attempt to regulate PMO, usually this results in increased anxiety, insomnia, and being less in touch with my body

4) Pride/insensitivity - when I have more energy or feel more stable as a result of the physical changes associated with abstinence, this sometimes feels like it undermines compassion and humility that I find helpful for social relationships (especially helping relationships)

5) Mental blocks - when I have more energy, it sometimes feels like my mind is much more busy/active and this can make it more difficult to concentrate or do things that I need to do

6) Innate drive - there are some arguments that sexual drives are completely natural and that attempting to eliminate PMO (while also not having any other sexual relatonships) is an excessively difficult or unnatural task

Action steps for addressing the Pros

1) Meaning - create some concrete/specific goals for things that I'm interested in that potentially feel helpful (e.g. more chats on 7 Cups, researching topics of interest (such as progressive Christian theology, Islamic theology, neoplatonism), play video games that friends have recommended me and are interested in talking about in order to boost my connection with them)

2) Pleasure - create a list of TV shows, anime, movies, YouTube videos, etc. that I can watch when I'm looking for something that is (asexually) pleasurable but involves minimal mental strain or willpower

3) Relaxation/awareness - create a daily meditation routine (e.g. 5-10 minutes before bedtime) and also have meditation as a possible go-to activity for anxiety

4) Pride/insensitivity - find and read through Christian texts/prayers related to themes of choice

a) Humility: "The Cloud of Unknowing" (God wills everything and all virtues and identities arise from His activity and do not belong to us), "Abandonment to Divine Providence" by Jean-Pierre Caussade, St. Teresa of Avila, Madame Guyon

b) Compassion: "The Admirable Heart of Mary" by St. John Eudes (describes Mary's intimate devotion and personal participation in the suffering of Jesus), St. Therese of Lisieux (wrote about noticing the suffering of Jesus and tending to His wounds)

5) Mental blocks - engage in writing to clear out busy thoughts

6) Innate drive - research and implement physical exercises from kundalini/tantra yoga and Taoism associated with circulating physical energy

Hello, looks like it's been about a year and a half since I've posted here.

I don't much care about giving an update on what has/hasn't changed during that duration. My interest at the moment is purely self-centered and directed toward using this space for my benefit.

Experiences with chatting with AI

For most of the past year, when I've wanted to contemplate a problem or brainstorm, I've used AI and had a discussion with it. At first I used ChatGPT (GPT-3.5). Then at some point I switched to Claude due to finding that it had a more empathetic style. I've messed with Character AI and found it to be excellent for brief dialogue but inferior to all other options in terms of in-depth discussion.

I'm unsure whether it is that the companies (Anthropic/OpenAI) have been lobotomizing their models in the interest of safety, or if I've picked up on the patterns of these AI agents and things that initially felt novel/creative/intelligent now feel mechanical/uninspired... but I've been increasingly dissatisfied with my experiences talking with AI.

Claude is agreeable to a fault. If I challenge it or express doubts on something, instead of prioritizing truth, it will switch to agreeing with me even if I am wrong or only trying to tentatively see multiple sides of an issue. Its knowledge of the topics I care about discussing is shallow, and it feels like in most conversations it's always a couple steps behind me in terms of understanding. Generally, the only time it says anything interesting or insightful is if I've said it first.

Claude is also notorious for being over-tuned for "helicopter parenting". 😊 It will refuse to discuss or help with anything that it deems unsafe or harmful, and it sees a robber holding a knife around every corner. I had a conversation with it recently where I told it that I was interested in establishing a personalized spiritual practice that draws from elements of multiple spiritual traditions. It refused to help me with this on the grounds that I'd run the risk of hurting myself if I did this because the traditions weren't meant to be mixed together or practiced in this way. It only relented and agreed to help me after I pointed out the fact that religions have been cross-pollinating and exchanging ideas back and forth for thousands of years.

ChatGPT feels slightly smarter at the moment, but it can still be tricked into agreeing with me without adequate evidence. It sometimes confidently and stubbornly believes in things that are untrue. It has a shorter context window, so if I ask it to behave a certain way, it will forget after a certain amount of time. (Custom instructions are a thing, but I haven't been able to get it to respond the way I want to even while using them.)

User error/laziness in prompting is certainly a possibility, but it's a bit tedious if anytime I want to have a conversation with someone, I have to spend the first 10-15 minutes training them on how to respond to me.

There was a journaling app called Rosebud (that I suspect is powered by GPT) that I found helpful, but recently when I attempted using it, the interactive mode wasn't working. Possibly I wrote too much and went past the context size, though I don't remember that being an issue in the past.

Considering self-reliance

Overall, the gist of the above is that I've been depending on AI as a conversation partner for problem-solving. In the process of doing this, I'm increasingly becoming aware of its limitations and more often than not I don't come away with greater insight or a trustworthy action plan whenever I try to chat with AI.

If I were seeking emotional support, I think with minimal prompting, Claude AI and Character AI are both generally excellent at supportive listening. Or perhaps it's simply that I'm so familiar with Rogerian/listening tropes that I'm very good at giving AI instructions on how to respond and identifying/correcting faulty responses. But when it comes to anything involving planning, brainstorming, open-ended exploration, or discussion of a specific topic where detailed knowledge is important... at least for me, AI feels like it's falling short.

One way of looking at this that externalizes is to say "AI is not good enough". And there's some accuracy to this.

Another complementary way of looking at this would be to say, "In the process of trying to rely on AI, I've stopped using my own internal non-AI resources." By this I don't mean so much that I'm failing to rely on other human beings. (Side-bar: something I begrudge AI for is that its default answer to every problem is to talk to a friend, talk to a therapist, join a group/community, etc.) Rather, I mean that I've ceased to use my own capacity to the fullest.

When I didn't have AI, I used to use this thread to organize my thoughts. With having AI at my fingertips, my thoughts have gradually become shorter, more condensed, and less creative--based on knowing that regardless of how much I write, AI will only grab a few main points and will ignore everything else that I write.

I've gotten in the habit of waiting for AI to structure the conversation, suggest future directions, ask questions, reflect/condense the relevant content from what I write, etc. If it were able to do this to my liking, then there would be no issue with depending on it. But I'm recognizing that the pre-AI me is significantly better than AI at the cognitive tasks that I was trying to get AI to perform.

When I'm talking with AI, I don't put effort into selecting exactly the right words or phrasing things perfectly, because I know that regardless of how well I say something, it has no impact on the quality/relevance of the response that I get back. It will always strip away the fine details and take things back to an overly broad level while failing to feel/sense the direction or flow of where the conversation "wants" to go. Whereas if I'm discussing something with myself, I have no choice but to do this well because it matters

***

Current status

I'm currently sick with some kind of illness, either a sinus infection or a cold. It is inconvenient and putting a damper on things, but with having some extra free time (due to canceling multiple in-person events), it's forced me to recognize that I'm not altogether happy with how I use my free time.

System construction

I'm interested in constructing a personalized spiritual system, which is a pretty vague ambition. 😊 Spirituality can mean many different things.

I had a recent conversation with ChatGPT that was helpful in terms of defining the general scope of what things I'm interested in that fall into my understanding of spirituality. (If this seems to contradict me saying above that I haven't found AI helpful, in hindsight I mostly ignored anything that ChatGPT was saying for 95% of the conversation and it was effectively a solo journaling exercise.)

Existing spiritual traditions

There are specific spiritual traditions that I am interested in (e.g. Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism). Within Buddhism, there are multiple versions/ideas of interest to me, for example to list just a few:

• Theravada - vipassana meditation & the 16 stages of insight, brahmaviharas, mindfulness
  
• Mahayana - lam rim meditation, analytical meditation on emptiness, bodhicitta
• Dzogchen - resting in nature of mind
• Zen - shikantanza
• Tantra - seeing all things as pure, transmuting defilements, energy channels/winds

The other religions have a similar diversity. It becomes overwhelming to keep track of everything I'm interested in, let alone deciding what I want to focus on. One thing that all religions would say unanimously is that all of the intellectual understanding in the world won't rescue you unless if you engage in some kind of practice.

Transpersonal maps

In discussing with ChatGPT, something I found is that the models or systems that I trust the most don't come from a particular spiritual tradition, but rather they come from transpersonal psychology. There are three in particular that feel most relevant:

• Spiral Dynamics - feels like it accurately captures some of the different things that I've already "tasted"
• Suzanne Cook-Greuter's ego development stages - feels like it presents a particular part of the Spiral Dynamics sequence in a really eloquent/compelling way that has really stuck with me
  
• Ken Wilber's stage model - very broad model that doesn't have quite as much granularity as the previous two for that part of the picture, but the upper end of the model goes far beyond it and captures the highest states of all spiritual traditions
  

[Note: in discussing these, my descriptions may be personalized. My goal with this writing is not to educate anybody else but to create something that's usable and helpful for me.]

The Spiral Dynamics map uses colors. Focusing on the stages that are of interest:

• Purple = magical thinking
• Red = impulsive, selfish, power-driven
  
• Blue = conformity, group-think
  
• Orange = science, reason, achievement
  
• Green = subjectivity, relativism, compassion
  
• Yellow = synthetic, multi-perspectival
• Turquoise = non-conceptual, self-transcendent, inter-being
  

The first several stages are interesting from a sociological/political perspective in terms of understanding the friction between different competing factions.

The Cook-Greuter model has many stages, but there are only two that really interest me, which correspond to the transition from Yellow to Turquoise in Spiral Dynamics:

• Construct-aware = one is aware of the limitations of language/conceptuality, the impermanence of self-identity, and the impossibility of solving problems through thinking alone
  
• Unitive = one discovers that after dropping thought/concepts, there is something leftover that exists beyond thought, which is direct experience. (Buddha: "in seeing there is only seeing")

In the Wilber model, everything discussed so far is basically only the bottom half of the picture. Stages of interest:

• Rule/Role = Blue
• Formal = Orange
• Vision-Mind/Centaur = Green/Yellow
• Psychic = maybe Turquoise
  
• Subtle
• Causal
• Non-Dual

The last four stages are where Wilber's model starts to overlap heavily with religious traditions. The following descriptions are not based on personal experience but rather based on reading and discussion (with AI so take with a grain of salt). Here's a bit more detail.

• Formal = centered in reason (Orange)
  
• Vision-Logic = recognizing subjectivity and multiple perspectives (Green), integrating reason and feeling and synthesizing multiple perspectives (Yellow)
  
• Psychic = non-conceptual knowing of form (Turquoise) and union with form ("nature mysticism")
• Subtle = knowing formless being/pure awareness/emptiness/spirit/divinity in itself ("deity mysticism")
• Causal = seeing emptiness and form as co-existent, and recognizing emptiness as the ground of form
• Non-Dual = dissolving of subject-object duality, emptiness-form duality, etc.

Discussion of transpersonal maps

Some quick notes just drawing together tangential thoughts:

• I recently found a brilliant paper [link] that describes the progression of spirituality (corresponding to the Subtle/Causal levels) as 1) recognizing pure awareness but only by itself in the absence of ordinary phenomena, 2) recognizing pure being in the midst of ordinary experience, 3) recognizing pure being as the basis of ordinary experience
• The idea of the divine as pure/formless awareness is expressed very clearly in Hinduism (e.g. Vedanta, Samkyha, stages of samadhi in the Yoga Sutras). Dzogchen describes pure mind in a similar way. Hinduism distinguishes between one's own personal soul (Atman = the ultimate being of oneself) and the spirit of the world or everything that exists (Brahman) and one crucial realization is that the two are identical (Atman is Brahman).
  
• The descriptions of pure awareness in the "non-theistic religions" (e.g. Buddhism, certain versions of Hinduism) map pretty cleanly onto descriptions of the divine in theistic religions. It is beyond matter, beyond ordinary mental functioning, eternal/timeless/unchanging, and beyond naming/labeling or ordinary knowing. It is benevolent/forgiving/good insofar as it is always present and the premise of most religions (expressed especially clearly in Buddhism) is that connection with this ultimate brings peace/bliss and cuts the root of a certain kind of misunderstanding of oneself/the world, which has the effect of permanently eliminating one's ability to experience certain kinds of suffering related to attachment to a limited/separate self.
• The mantra in the Heart Sutra that "form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form" maps well to the Causal and/or Non-Dual stages. The statements by Nagarjuna that samsara and nirvana are not different have a similar meaning.
• Of special interest to me (I don't mean experientially--just that it's intellectually interesting) is the idea at the Causal stage of seeing emptiness as the ground or basis of form. Possible parallels: 1) emanationism in neo-Platonic philosophy (Plotinus), 2) creation myths in theistic religions--in this understanding of creation, the Lord is not only manipulating/shaping the world of form, but He actually is the pure/formless being of everything that makes all form possible.

Condensing the transpersonal maps

Everything I'm discussing next is still within the scope of things that I thought about a couple days ago while talking to ChatGPT.

It's possible to take the multitude of stages described above and put them into groups. (E.g. in transpersonal psychology, a common mapping is pre-personal, personal, and transpersonal. The personal can be split into conventional and post-conventional.)

I ended up developing a grouping of moral precepts/practices that felt like it captured just about everything. I will copy and paste ChatGPT's summary since it described it better than I can.

1) Conventional Morality:

• Description: Cultivating virtues, reducing vices, and performing actions that lead to personal and societal well-being.
• Practices:
  • Ethical precepts aligned with societal norms.
  • Cultivation of virtues such as kindness, honesty, and responsibility.
  • Contributing to social welfare through altruistic actions.

2) Post-Conventional Unconditional Love:

• Description: Seeing both light and dark as pure, recognizing intentionality in conventional form, and trusting in the inherent goodness of all things.
• Practices:
  • Contemplative practices emphasizing unconditional love.
  • Analytical meditations on redeeming the dark and finding coherence within conventional form.
  • Recognizing an immanent "God" operating in the world and aligning actions with this understanding.

3) Ascetical/Mystical/Spiritual Morality:

• Description: Actions or understanding operating at a transpersonal level, aspiring to recognition, relationship, and union with spirit/emptiness/ground.
• Practices:
  • Contemplative practices focused on recognizing and connecting with the formless.
  • Analytical meditations on the impermanence of form and the nature of spirit.
  • Ethical precepts aligned with the teachings of major world religions regarding spiritual realization.

What I'm calling "conventional morality" covers most of the normal moral principles--not just basic things like "don't kill/hurt people", but also supererogatory aspirations like altruistically trying to help others, or trying to systematically develop virtues and reduce vices within oneself.

"Post-conventional morality" is a different sort of attitude where instead of splitting things into good and bad, one aims to connect with the energy/intention of everything that exists and find wisdom or purpose/meaning in it.

"Spiritual morality" consists in doing actions and cultivating states of mind that are conducive to transpersonal goals (i.e. progressing through the hierarchy of Psychic/Subtle/Causal/Non-Dual). For example, in The Dark Night of the Soul, St. John of the Cross describes the seven deadly sins as they pertain to contemplative prayer, indicating how these sins manifest as an unwillingness to rest only in the Lord and turning to creatures/created things instead of the creator.

Application to conflict areas

Something else I discussed with ChatGPT was the application of this three-fold categorization in describing different parts of my life where I felt myself being torn in multiple directions.

Leisure Activities

Conventional Morality:

• View: Seen as potentially selfish, degenerate, or slothful.
• Practices:
  • Engaging in leisure activities with moderation.
  • Choosing activities that align with societal norms.

Post-Conventional Morality:

• View: Emphasis on freedom, flexibility, and personal satisfaction.
• Practices:
  • Evaluating the personal meaning and fulfillment derived from leisure activities.
  • Shifting gears when activities no longer align with personal well-being.

Spiritual Morality:

• View: May view leisure activities as distractions preventing spiritual ascent.
• Practices:
  • Engaging in contemplative practices as an alternative to excessive leisure.
  • Balancing leisure with spiritual practices to avoid excessive attachment.

Physical Activity

Conventional Morality:

• View: Exercise as a healthy practice for physical well-being.
• Practices:
  • Regular exercise routines for physical health.
  • Following societal norms for maintaining fitness.

Post-Conventional Morality:

• View: Recognizes flexibility and individual needs in physical activity.
• Practices:
  • Listening to the body's needs and adjusting physical activity accordingly.
  • Balancing exercise with restorative practices like yoga or mindful movement.

Spiritual Morality:

• View: May emphasize stilling the body for spiritual practices.
• Practices:
  • Engaging in contemplative practices that involve physical stillness.
  • Recognizing the body as a tool for spiritual exploration rather than solely for exercise.

Helping Others

Conventional Morality:

• View: Emphasis on societal norms and duty to help others.
• Practices:
  • Engaging in volunteer work and acts of kindness.
  • Following established moral and ethical principles.

Post-Conventional Morality:

• View: Recognizes the importance of flexibility and context in helping others.
• Practices:
  • Assessing the impact of actions on both oneself and others.
  • Emphasizing empathy and understanding in helping activities.

Spiritual Morality:

• View: Varies between teachings emphasizing altruism and those prioritizing contemplation.
• Practices:
  • Aligning helping activities with spiritual principles.
  • Balancing external acts of service with internal contemplative practices.

Integration of parts

The closest parallel I can think of to this schism is in the past when I identified self-parts that were in conflict: 1) intellect/will, 2) desire/freedom, 3) sensitivity/compassion.

The stages through which I resolved that conflict (not necessarily in a strict order) were:

• Identifying and describing each of the parts in isolation
• Recognizing which part I was identifying with at any given moment
• Recognizing areas where the parts were in disagreement and how they were different
• Identifying all possible pair-wise alliances/treaties between parts (e.g. #1 and #2 agree on this while #3 disagrees, #1 and #3 agree on this while #2 disagrees, #2 and #3 agree on this while #1 disagrees)
• Having the parts engage in dialogue with one another
• Spontaneous breakthroughs occurred during this dialogue where the basic goals/feelings/motives of certain parts were revealed to be so similar that the parts themselves ceased to feel like distinct entities
• Practically speaking, a desire to control/manipulate the parts gave way to a sort of Taoistic letting-be of the parts where they would arise/cease according to circumstance
• Upon close inspection, the parts do not exist in the way that they were initially conceived and reality is more subtle/nuanced (i.e. Buddhist emptiness/impermanence). The lived reality is a fluid flowing in and out of "tendencies" where after a certain point, the conceptual grouping of things into parts feels superfluous and like it hinders the free flow of naturalness rather than helping.

I think some of these steps are possibly not relevant (or I can't presume ahead of time that they will occur in the same sequence), but I like the idea of:

1. Trying to consider each "worldview" one at a time and map out its perspective independently, including articulating what the corresponding lifestyle/habits/behaviors would look like if I actually tried to seriously put it into practice
   
2. Having the worldviews "talk" to one another
3. Trying to identify different 2 v. 1 "alliances" within the triangle and find common ground between each and every pairing

But that's a problem for another day

Benefits of using this space

I wanted to mention a few additional things that I was thinking about before I started writing that led to me deciding to write here:

• By writing here, I have a permanent space where I can store and look back at any writing/thinking that feels significant (unless if 7 Cups goes "belly-up" and the site no longer exists which shouldn't happen). The organization here feels superior to something like a 200-page Google doc.
  
• By writing here, I am putting my writing into a semi-public space where there is a decent chance that at least a few people may read it and it is easily shareable with others since posts have their own URLs. (Unlike a 1-on-1 conversation, there is no burden upon a particular person to be a perfect listener/recipient or feel obligated to respond.)

I'm aware of how gratuitously self-centered my writing is with its excessive length and specificity of references. That is okay. My goal at least in this space right here is not to try my best to appear conscientious. It is to write as much as feels helpful for me, to throw everything at the wall to see if something sticks, and basically to engage in all kind of maximalist experimentation.

Side-discussion: autism spectrum

For several months, a friend of mine who has diagnosed autism has been trying to persuade me that I am on the autistic spectrum. I didn't really believe them.

A couple weeks ago, I took an Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) test. The test score can range from 1 to 50. According to the creators of the scale, on average 80% of people on the autism spectrum score 32 or higher while only 2% of people NOT on the autism spectrum will score 32 or higher [source]. When I took the test, my score was 35.

I haven't told any friends/family about this, because it just hasn't really come up or felt relevant. One consideration for me is "what is the practical utility of self-identifying as being on the autistic spectrum"? If there aren't significant benefits in terms of self-understanding, social identity, or coping/living strategies (above and beyond things that I've already found work for me)... then the label doesn't really provide much added value.

The value that I see from it is that it could encourage self-compassion, provide an empathetic explanation for certain forms of "weirdness" that I know I possess, allow others to be more open-minded/patient toward me, and possibly give others a gateway to understanding me better.

At the same time, it could obfuscate since not all qualities will fit me, the qualities that do fit me do not fit all the time, and it's not necessary to have a marginalized/specialized identity in order for one's feelings/thoughts to have value and be worthy of empathy/respect.

Maybe I can find friends based on that identity? I wouldn't mind finding some other weird people. :) I feel like I'm not nearly weird enough. I'm guessing there are YouTube videos on that phenomenon.

The irony is that only a couple weeks before that, I had a chat on my listener account with someone who was insistent that I was neurotypical and therefore couldn't possibly understand their neurodivergent experience. Hmm...