Elite 11+ shopping and chat thread part 2½

Savvybuyer

TrulyMadly wrote: »

How's the yoghurt situation in your house Savvy?

Is there any left?:eek:

No. They all went last week, the day or two after I tried to prohibit them from having any more for over a week, when they consumed another four out the remaining five whilst I was out again:(. On that, without a fair share, I consumed the remaining one and that was that. So, instead of lasting to early July, when their dates were due up, they finished a couple of weeks before.

Never mind - nearly got there (even if I probably should have bought ten more at a time when I seemed to have quite enough). It's a complex situation and not that they are greedy - that they just take and consume and consume without limit as there's mental illness that enters into this and clearly they don't know when to stop as they don't realise what they are doing. I suspect I will now see outpourings of sympathy for this situation, which I - to be truthful as I cannot be anything but, I didn't want to reveal but I've now done so and the cat now out of the bag cannot be put back. But we are fine with this, how we cope, and it does just highlight there are often, or sometimes, other things in the background that people won't realise (unless, as now, I have stated them). It's more of a trivial thing that yoghurts go (or maybe it isn't:think:?), as it's also one of those things that people just deal with - and people generally do have situations in which others in their family consume things they've wanted so it's a situation to some extent we all deal with, illness or no, but the consuming I have and not stopping (they fill kittles to the brim as well if only requiring a single cup and could save us lots of money if they did not do so as a kettle of an inch or so water will take a lot less to boil - it takes a lot of electricity and therefore costs a lot of money to have a kettle boiling much longer because it is full) - same as putting veg. into the saucepan - they empty out nearly the entire bag (of 1Kg if I'm not careful!) or do things that no-one in their right mind would do such as, if it's the final bag of sprouts, even if using things more reasonably, if we have only a few (enough for one meal!) sprouts left they will pour them out and leave just two sprouts in the bag!* [EDIT: But don't try to read the footnote until the end as I've now noticed I waffled on again and it is very long. So, please just continue with the rest straight below and then read the footnote below that - linking it back up to sprouts as soon as you start reading it.] What point - at that stage, may as well use them all! I get the situation of just one sprout in the bag though:rotfl:.

It's not funny really, we shouldn't laugh (so I therefore do, at least now rather than at times at which it happens) - it's things like that that no-one who knew what they were doing would do - I do care for them as well and I'm left doing these things in vain when I try to catch them and asking them to stop but it's not possible always to do it as they've got their own independence too but would not survive without my help and it's just one of those things that I will encounter from time to time when I couldn't always get in and stop them taking all the satsumas for example.

(The only reason we had those was that they were 79p:eek: in Aldi whereas the apples were over 80p, so were cheaper fruit. The good news is that, after they consumed the lot, I managed to find some in Lidl at 49p - on this occasion, unlike the Bitesize Shredded Wheat, I do pick the one that looks better price in the store which is the 500g Satsumas (styled as "Easy Peelers" or Easy Peelers that are Satsumas) and not the 600g Satsumas that, therefore, in my right mind, I can't imagine how anyone would ever buy them when the 500g Easy Peelers, which are Satsumas, right next to them in my store, work out cheaper. However I suspect people don't notice:rotfl: Might be slightly more likely to do so because the cheaper ones are called "Easy Peelers" and they were looking for Satsumas, so pick the more expensive by weight 600g Satsumas and don't realise the cheaper "Easy Peelers" are Satsumas.

I think the 600g "Satsumas" are exact same price as Aldi - what a surprise! However, my ones from Aldi, that looked good or okay earlier, that were snaffled, that were 79p were an overpayment:( as the 500g Easy Peelers in Lidl were quite a bit cheaper.)

*When it happens, I just think it's silly and I tell them it's pointless to leave a single sprout like that - again, as they are an adult, this is the sort of thing you would not normally have to tell people but obviously don't realise and I can only tell them and by doing that try to stop them doing again, although it doesn't work as they don't remember next time and I'm there left in vain trying to catch it before or whilst it's about to happen and can only do what I can do. There's only so much you can do and I try my best (they're always at a special activities group whilst I am out at M in the day and I'm also in contact with them having sorted them out or provided them things to do if I'm out at other times or they're out with someone else during those times). I'm managing everything quite well and I have autism as well so am probably doing much better. It's everything planned and timetabled and all worked out well in advance that helps as I like to make sure I know what I am doing that way - and then on the day they'll consume all the yoghurts and the next day all the satsumas leaving me trying to have to schedule in trying to replace them...!

They had the coffee too - when it was the earlier supply in refills - of the same weight interestingly - it seemed fine and they didn't seem to consume it very fast. Now I've got it in a jar, they seemed to have consumed nearly half of it already!:mad: So, I'm now left having to replace that again, and the coffee is generally expensive, much sooner than I expect. It seems to be the same with the sugar - I had a 5Kg bag, bought from T a few years ago, that seemed to last ages and ages. When it finally did go, I had 2Kg bags (originally I thought just one of them would be fine and would last - well, two fifths of the time that it took to use up the 5Kg bag I thought! - but had to buy another, and now another). Whilst I have still got the two extra ones intact, the first one seems to have gone down very quickly and somehow being used far more than the 5Kg bag was. Maybe a smaller bag, they just keep going but an absolutely huge one, they have to stop? I don't know - if I try that, doubtless the whole huge one will go straight away:rotfl:.

(Perhaps I'm now thinking too deeply about things again - but wondering if there is something psychological and if, generally for people, not just my household, different pack sizes somehow, although they amount to the same quantity, encourage people to consume whilst others don't? Maybe that 500g Bitesize Shredded Wheat will go much sooner than a 750g would have done:eek: - and sooner than the absent 250g would have been. If you have a smaller pack, do you tend to dig deeper and take more as it is smaller and therefore less to go down to the bottom of the bag? I don't know but I now wonder (in the way that I always wonder about lots of other things at other moments:rotfl:).)

TrulyMadly

Oh savvy:grouphug::grouphug:

Have a dodgy hug.

We all have mental health as well as physical health. Some good, some poor and most of us somewhere in between.
So although you have a particular set of circumstances, I'm sure it's nothing that most of us haven't encountered at some point in our lives.....to some degree......with friends and family members ( apologies for the double negative)

And because of that, we understand, empathize, sympathise.....call it whatever you will.

I wonder if it makes it worse that you can have a stockpile of stuff.....when there's a glitch.....as it's sat there in the fridge tempting fate. I struggle with a near empty fridge but I wonder if it would be right for you....just a thought.

Savvybuyer

As we have all this good weather (people on the Shetland Islands must be really annoyed), I've not done anything with the M list today. Perhaps best to leave it off for a while and update whenever I update to my last Wednesday information, may miss out next week? If so, possibly much of it can be kept in date with anything whose expiry date has come up being taken away and deal with it that way (except I have quite a number of items that have gone to full price online last week that still seem to be maintaining their offers instore according to multiple numbers of stores).

I'll update in whatever time I will and go to M whenever I decide to do so. As far as I'm aware (I've endeavoured to remove expired items, but possibly some may remain until I reach them to take them away), the list currently is up-to-date as far as it goes. It's usually quite in date as I try to keep it that way and take most things off as soon as they have gone back up in price - it's a painting the Forth Bridge that never gets completed though (in the sense that I will currently keep going again in the future and updating it again at some point). I'm sure my Forth Bridge sentence is probably technically inaccurate but never mind - the gist is there (for everyone else, even if I cannot see it straight out:rotfl:).

Unless there's a handful of items still around because I haven't got round to deleting them, the list (or vast vast majority of it barring that handful) is up-to-date as usual - it's just all those numerous new items to add. (I was more than a third of the way and on course to finish this set tomorrow, but that will probably go on now and we'll just see how it goes - I won't add anything obviously already expired before the time I get to it if I carry this over beyond Monday again, and most things should be okay from last information as it's things that have only just gone on offer or appeared now (Wednesday 20th) so should still be good next week as will last a few weeks yet.

Savvybuyer

TrulyMadly wrote: »

Oh savvy:grouphug::grouphug:

Have a dodgy hug.

We all have mental health as well as physical health. Some good, some poor and most of us somewhere in between.
So although you have a particular set of circumstances, I'm sure it's nothing that most of us haven't encountered at some point in our lives.....to some degree......with friends and family members ( apologies for the double negative)

And because of that, we understand, empathize, sympathise.....call it whatever you will.

I wonder if it makes it worse that you can have a stockpile of stuff.....when there's a glitch.....as it's sat there in the fridge tempting fate. I struggle with a near empty fridge but I wonder if it would be right for you....just a thought.

Thanks for diverting me now, as I attempt to try to summon up getting to the M list. We often or sometimes have a near empty fridge ourselves in fact, for example if there has not been any glitch on and I sometimes run it down (depends on when I've planned my next shopping visit for which sometimes may come just in time to replace the milk). So, you might not have expected this, near empty fridges are fine for me as I can deal with those - even though it feels like I am going to the shops every other day having to replace things again and again. (It's actually not - it's sometimes another week away, as the milk lasts until then and we don't need anything else in the meantime as got enough to last. But days just seem to fly by so it feels like it's every other day!) If there's been a glitch on, we just have yoghurts and everything else. The yoghurts planned or supposed to last for a while, whilst the other stuff either gets replaced a few days before needed or sometimes my next shop is another day away from that and it's nearly gone and then replaced before it goes. That's how it's supposed to work - I tend to get things before they are almost gone though (as it can put pressure on having to go out shopping again soon or they sometimes go quicker than expected and then you don't want to risk them running completely out). And then they'll spring something on me only when it has been completely used and not see that it's about to run low and could do with replacing before it's fully gone. Ideally, I need to know well in advance! I am forever keeping tabs every other day just to check things they are not mentioning are not nearly out of supply - and then find I've left it a day late and it's going to be fully gone tomorrow.

I don't know whether people ever do fully understand - although people will say they understand, everyone's situation is different and no-one ever can fully understand what someone else is going through (that sounds a bit worse than it actually means - but you know what I meant!) and we can only fully understand what we have encountered (or maybe I am wrong as people generally can get intuitive experience - maybe only myself or others with autism have to have the exact, or near-exact, experience to understand, as I'm supposedly unable to put the experience from one thing onto something totally different as opposed to dealing with the same, or an extremely extremely similar, situation again). Generally I think we all make it up as we go along - that's how I deal with it:rotfl:. There is no plan - you just deal with the situations as they arise.

I don't know about empathise (it's said by some that autistic people don't but it's possibly more than it isn't expressed on the outside and therefore isn't seen by others that therefore think you don't empathise - instead, I probably do far far more than others do, it's just that I cut myself up inside) - most other people don't seem to care face to face or, more probably, don't realise and don't understand therefore or more they just don't see things and therefore don't know what others deal with - I think it's communication problems both ways and, face to face, people won't see if I am doing badly or fine as I don't give any body language for them to pick anything up or they misunderstand (which I in turn don't even know about, don't know that they have done when in fact they have) as some different body language is being given that is unintended. I've no idea how other people think from what I'm doing that I am unaware that I am doing, if indeed I am, which I don't know at all whether I am or I am not, and that people face to face might well be making incorrect assumptions that are never known about and therefore never corrected as people do not tell me what they are thinking from what I am doing and they and I therefore never know.

None of this empathy/lack of empathy thing would ever have occurred to me - before a few years ago when I was diagnosed as having an autistic spectrum condition (probably a few years ago plus some now, as time goes by with a few years more since I joined this thread). Now it's something I sometimes go onto about in detail as it's something that interests me a great deal (for probably obvious reasons).

Face to face I think there is probably a lot of unintended lack of empathy from non-autistic people who are unable to realise what I am thinking because they don't pick this up from my total lack of body language (or else unintended body language that is saying something different to them and what it is or might be saying I am completely unaware of). Autistic people seem to be able to empathise with autistic people and non-autistic people with non-autistic. However, I think people can understand (albeit never fully understand exactly how something is for someone, anyone) when reading words from a website and therefore people here do understand something from that.

As for empathise, face to face, or sympathise I don't know. I think it's just being friends, being human and showing appropriate concern. That's what it is. (On sympathise, people sometimes say they don't want your sympathy! Perhaps you're not able to do anything to change the situation for them, so sympathy is therefore useless, or in my case on this it doesn't matter sympathy or none since there is no real problem that it causes me - I just get on with things and do what I do in situations as they arise and no real problem - therefore sympathy isn't needed although it's also not unwelcome if it is offered even if it's not necessary but there's also no problem about that.)

I will have to get some fruit again soon (although the new satsumas are fine and won't yet need replacing - I hope! - as I now have more of those) - the apples don't quite need replacing and are okay at the moment but another couple of days and they will need buying again. I will also need some potatoes again although not nearly as soon as the apples or other alternative fruit if I can't find any reasonable prices on them again or have to swallow the prices of everywhere around currently like I do now on every other occasion, trying to limit those as prices now higher than what they were and trying to find an equivalent where I can.

Savvybuyer

No-one's here at the moment - it's just everyone waiting for me and whatever I post.

Which is nothing at the moment - or technically this post is something but really amounts to nothing much as it's not really giving you any useful information folks, as anyway I'm just saying goodnight for now at this point:wave: and doubtless back again soon or at some other time not that soon but not distant away if not! Waffling:rotfl:. :wave::wave:

Savvybuyer

Whilst I have just been editing my last post but one (currently 39014 - for clarity begins "Thanks for diverting me now..." in case anyone deletes anything earlier), the satsumas are now threatening to go again:eek:!

They've just taken one, so I will have to keep a watch on them for the next at least few minutes now.

(They've now literally just heard me "Don't have any more of them!" They've just finished one and now into the kitchen. Fridge open. Now I've asked them what they're doing:rotfl::rotfl:. I'm trying to make sure they don't go now. Now they've grabbed some cookies! No! No! No!:rotfl::rotfl:)

We also seem to have a moth or something flying around at the moment, so I'm going to have to try to get rid of that. Anyway, will try, and I'll see you soon possibly (but not literally meant:rotfl:):wave:.

Savvybuyer

Lord's sake - only three satsumas now:eek:! And they've left them on the side and not in the fridge, but never mind! They must have had some earlier, when I was not looking. Or maybe I had one and then they had one later (I'm sure there were far more even after I had my one though) and therefore now only three. So - apples and satsumas again soon!:rotfl::rotfl: (Oh well, never mind.)

(I'm now going to be naughty, as I feel like one again myself now they've had one and made me feel hungry, at least for a satsuma. Will have to buy some again now. I think I'll try Lidl again tomorrow (later today!:eek:) - so, nearly £1 now for buying 1Kg rather than leaving it at 500g - not very MSE:rotfl:!) (Assuming price is still on in Lidl, as it was a few days ago. If it's not, I won't buy any more so will save money that way! However something else fruitwise will then be needed. It's always a going around trying to replace things, constantly having to do so as or before things run out and all these things to consider all the time!)
:wave:

EDIT: I've now decided to have some Fruit & Fibre cereal instead, which we have more of, as my wanting a satsuma has now managed to go in the time that it took me to write out this post above, before I added this edit. However, having Fruit & Fibre will mean the milk will go sooner:eek:. Not to worry on that, as I've only just bought some and it's a full 6 pint (before I have any cereal) but, nonetheless, if I have that cereal now, it will mean the milk will go sooner than if I did not.

Fruit & Fibre though - it's supposed to be healthy or, probably, marketed as if it is healthy and for people to believe that it is but the fruit is hardly proper fresh fruit and although there's bran in it (and therefore some fibre) the cereal is probably packed with sugar and therefore far from healthy!

Milk is arguably (according to some) no good if you have too much - the lactose breaks down again into sugars and may not be good. We're arguably not supposed to be drinking milk as adult humans - a majority of the world's population are in fact lactose intolerant so milk isn't actually intended for the human population (and I believe the lactose doesn't break down or doesn't break down correctly (if it is indeed correct - may be incorrect that it does so, depending on your view) in those that are lactose intolerance) but only those humans that have a deviant mutation, as people in this country generally have, are ones that drink milk and therefore from our society's point of view it's tended to be seen as good - for example the NHS Choices website seems to look at it from this perspective and doesn't consider it from the other perspective that it's not intended for humans. It seems to view the people that are lactose intolerant as having the problem; however, most of the people in the world are that as that is how humans (who generally don't have mutations that make them different from the norm) generally are, so maybe it's the other perspective, that lactose tolerance is the problem, and actually humans drinking milk has problems (full stop, regardless of whether some populations within the world have mutated to allow them to do so) and the NHS Choices website, because it's written from the perspective of the society in this country, doesn't seem to consider those potential problems (or what may be problems, or presented as problems, from the other perspective) at all. Meanwhile, lactose intolerance is arguably presented as being a problem by NHS Choices but may not be a problem if it is the way humans actually are intended to be (and we therefore shouldn't be drinking milk - I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't be eating or drinking other things instead that are healthy).

Maybe I should contact NHS Choices to make these points so that they may change their website to reflect both perspectives:rotfl:.

NHS Choices website claims: "Lactose intolerance is a common digestive problem..." https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/lactose-intolerance/

It therefore sees it, and expressly describes it, as a "problem". However, it is not a problem (according to my opposing argument) as it is in fact the way humans are intended to be. Far from it being a "common digestive problem", even though it is true to describe it as "common" since most of the human population have it, whether it is a "problem" or is not, instead it is the minority that have lactose tolerance that have a "problem" as it leads to them being able to consume milk without ill effects immediately from it, which they should not be able to do because it is not intended for humans generally to consume. The vast majority of the UK population, as with much of Europe, are part of the minority that has mutated to be able to take lactose, certainly in much greater quantities that can be managed by the majority of people worldwide who are lactose intolerant. This is a mutation, the argument is, that is not the norm and is not what humans should therefore be taking. Nowhere on the NHS Choices pages does it mention that it is a mutation or does it mention the other perspective at all. It therefore seems to be biased and written from a perspective that purely reflects the society in which it is written and is based on what people in this society have generally learnt or been told and doesn't reflect the other way of looking at it at all.

However, despite this I will still be drinking milk, but cognisant of problems that some people claim may exist if you drink it too much.

Something is a problem if you see it as such. Lactose intolerance may be a problem to those that see it as that (though arguably an official website ought not to give a particular approach and ought not to claim it as being such and without also giving the alternative, to us generally in this country, approach and therefore the full picture). Drinking too much milk may be a problem to those that see lactose tolerance (by most of ourselves in the UK) as the problem instead.

I suppose, off on a tangent, here we see lactose intolerance called a "common... problem" on the basis that most of the human population have it - and maybe seen as a "disability" (of sorts) in this country as you are disabled if you do not have what the vast majority of the population has - the greater number of human beings in the world are described as having a "problem" (that may even, of sorts, be a disability in this country as it means they cannot really drink milk - I suppose like allergies but not really disabilities are they? Maybe they are, of sorts even if, depending on what it is to, it may not be of a great impact if you can easily avoid the thing you are allergic to - someone allergic to low sugar drinks... is that a problem though if you do have to take greater efforts out of your life to deal with that?). My point, that I am finally getting to, having rambled around allergies, is that if lactose intolerance is described as a "problem" on the basis that the majority of the human population have it (and may be a disability of sorts) then people who don't have autism have a common problem and non-autism is now a disability if the majority of a population can now be seen as having a disability. Disability is usually, prior to this intervention by the NHS that ascribes a problem to what most people in the world have, something that is not the norm and a minority of people have.

However, if lactose intolerance, which most people in the world have, is a problem (may be a disability of sorts) then non-autism, which most people have, is a problem (may be a disability) too, on this logic. I am sure that I am missing something (from my "problem" of having autism) as, in this world, things do not work out logically like this and somehow, according to the majority of the world that doesn't have autism, it will be decided or deemed for no rational or logical reason, or anything knowable to me or explained in advance, that it doesn't work like this and the same approach cannot be applied to the second situation, autism, when it is plain logical and absolutely consistent that it completely can (but of course cannot as the majority who are non-autistic deem it not to be). Why? Why doesn't it work this way?, says the person who has Asperger's syndrome:rotfl:

The answer doubtless is that it doesn't work this way, or, allegedly, can't work like this, because there is some unknowable to me and unwritten rule that is as if invented on the spot to say that it doesn't. From this perspective, most people seem to make things up and be capable of inventing something to say that it does not "when it suits". It's a case of "when it suits" - they will create a rule to say that it does not, as that is convenient. Higher truth, rationality, logic - they are Asperger's and don't count:rotfl:. (There is a tad cynicism sprinkled in this - my actual view is more complicated that this post states.)

If we can have majorities of populations having "disabilities", despite being in the majority, as much as minorities that have opposing conditions also can be said to have "disabilities", then almost everyone in the world - and all men - can be described as having a disability of being colour-blind in relation to those much fewer number of women that are truly tetrachromatic. Maybe all humans are "disabled" as we are all "impaired" by our inability to see what some butterflies can see or hear as high in the range of sound as bats hear.

Whilst I've suggested that non-autism is a disability because now majority populations can be disabled (as per the NHS over lactose intolerance, slightly extrapolated - taking its description of "problem" as being a disability (of sorts)), for me autism is correctly described as a disability (though to some extent may provide abilities too, in relation to which non-autistic people may arguably be described as "disabled", although, however, it doesn't really disable you that you can't memorise PI to lots of digits - instead it's potentially disabling that someone concentrates on PI and fails to get household tasks done instead, not saying this is me as it's not accurate but it's possibly an example of how some autism may potentially present itself - I'm not an expert so I can't say whether that's true or not). In my view, Asperger's, which is (some sources think was) a form of autism, means for me that I can't see anything other than really really overt body language (which means literally crying your eyes out means you are unhappy; although some people cry from happiness sometimes and I can see that so not straightforward like that; and smiling means you are happy - beyond that, I have no real idea of what anything really means and certainly the subtle stuff I don't see - even when pointed out to me and a video replayed, I still don't know what it means until expressly told and even then could not detect it in future in other situations).

Clearly, inability to see body language (or nearly all body language) is an "impairment", just like blindness or deafness (and both of those come in different degrees in different people) is, and therefore that aspect at least is a "disability". So I'm not saying that Asperger's is not a disability, even though some people think or say they think it really is not - it clearly and blatantly is to me when inability to see body language, at least, is an impairment of an ability and therefore a disability. Sorry, yet again, there is no way of arguing with the facts (without being factually wrong on the matter) as those (probably few?) people that believe or say they believe it doesn't exist or isn't a disability are therefore factually wrong on the matter according to generally accepted ideas of the meaning of the word "disability" and no amount of opinion that is factually wrong, or not based on the facts, can change those facts or make them incorrect.

I think it is a disability, on the basis at least that I've given, and don't object to it being described as such. However, arguably the real "disabling" aspect is from the way people treat you or from what perceptions of you they have and they may exist without the person that has them even being aware that they do so. In that way, the "disabling" arguably comes from having to fit into a society that operates in a slightly different way, because it's not autistic and the non-autistic people would be "disabled" if it were the other way and if my way of doing things (God forbid maybe:rotfl:!) was the general way.

I suppose quite why doing incomplete jobs on things is not a disability when it does cause problems for me (in that jobs are not done correctly or have to be done again or has me filling in and doing the bits that someone else failed to do) is a good question. Also people can make mistakes that lead to someone else being killed that, it is suggested, a non-autistic people, who would tend to the job completely and with near-total, if not total, accuracy over writing the correct dosage of a medicine for example, would never have made. This does not mean that pharmacists (whom like most people in every area of life would tend not to be autistic) are not diligent and that they do not try to attain accuracy or that they do not do so on the vast majority of occasions, just merely that incomplete or inaccurate jobs can lead to people dying - I'm sure in those areas the non-autistic person would aim to do a complete and correct job, although maybe I'm not so sure when I see how regularly incomplete (and also at times inaccurate) people generally are in all areas of different jobs. I suppose it is because, instead, the majority way is to be incomplete or do a "top-slicing" job that sees no task within it done completely and doing something completely slows me down and is therefore potentially seen as the impairment and disability (even though I have, in fact, I think, adapted very well and manage to do jobs without much difficulty even if being required to operate in a different way and not ideally the way that is best for me - in other words it feels to me more hectic to have to do all the things, across a job, that other people manage to do (only because they are leaving every one of them, to some extent, incomplete) but I manage to cope with it even if it puts me under a little more pressure than it does most people and that's probably the extra effort of dealing with the disability, which I have always had and always had to exert and never been aware of how less it would be without my disability so exerting that effort is actually normal to me and sometimes doesn't feel like I am pushing my back out even though I am (merely in order to meet the same level as everyone else easily can, that does it by missing out things that they don't notice and thus blatantly doing an incomplete job the moment I see it that they somehow seem unaware of). Actually, it does feel like I am pushing my back out nearly all the time although that is normal for me and therefore I don't know life without it. The "disability" there arises from having to try to fit in with how the rest of society does things, which is obviously the wrong way and a completely inefficient way that wastes everyone's time or wastes my time in having to complete the bits that were failed to be done that should have been done correctly and fully in the first place and absolutely no excuse why not in the that place, except arguably the non-autistic "disability".

I don't think people generally are disabled in this way, but that's due to not being disabled due to being the way the vast majority of society do things. I feel that society doesn't quite know how to deal with us Asperger's people and hasn't yet quite worked it out. We do some "strange" things, strange to you, sometimes - that are generally nothing really wrong or criminal (and that's the problem for you) but because it's not actually anything that is seriously wrong, even though it may, sometimes, be a little "odd", from your view, you don't quite know how to deal with it. I think you generally shun us and ignore us, from your own lack of intention to do so, as much as you probably feel I ignore you or don't quite do the expected thing. In fact, it's your expectations that are wrong: you see, we operate in a perfectly logical way and are therefore, unfortunately as you'll tend to misuse me from it, are very predictable - I operate like a calculator (or do sometimes or a lot of the time) so you should know what answer to a sum we're going to give. 2+2=4. Once you already know that, everytime I am going to give you four if you give me 2+2 to work out. With non-autistic people, giving 2+2 will give any unpredictable answer that is impossible to know in advance as non-autistic people do not function in a logical and consistent way. Sometimes Asperger's people do not function consistently, but it seems to me on the limitations of my knowledge that I have at the moment it is not the general rule (and I think I am always, or almost always, aware of any occasion on which I am not doing so - and then there's usually, or always, a logical reason why that occasion was not consistent). With most people, consistency seems rare and as for logic, forget it!:rotfl:

Anyway, I'll have my Fruit & Fibre now:rotfl:, having got diverted by myself into all of this. I could delete it all as it is not convenient to have threads with long posts like this, although it's also easy to skip and ignore if wished so not vastly too inconvenient from that POV. However I will leave it all up, as the entire of life and understanding probably lies here within.

Nowt will change as the vast majority of the country does not read this thread:rotfl:, and as this thread is a tiny minority of the population, you're most unlikely to bump into me in RL. Even if you did, you wouldn't necessarily know it was me you'd seen and, even if you've got information about autism (and it's so complicated as it's a spectrum and doesn't affect people in the same way), you wouldn't know (unless you were at an autism group where it was openly disclosed or obvious from being in that situation) that the person you were dealing with is autistic. Besides, even if you did or could, I think you could not, despite knowing this, alter your subconscious perceptions that would exist without you even being aware of them. Heavy ending I know:rotfl::rotfl:. It's those complex words: "subconscious perceptions"... zzzz:rotfl:.

Actually not ending as I've gone on with more:eek::

It's the situation that "reasonable adjustments" are to be made, but the person required to make them is unaware of even when they need to be made. I think in application to Asperger's/autism, possibly uniquely (although I don't know about any other disability) it poses a conundrum in this way, that society doesn't know how to deal with, there's supposed to be reasonable adjustments but it's impossible to make them (therefore no adjustment is "reasonable"?!?) as it's impossible to alter your subconscious and make the adjustments I'd require. Again, we're talking normal life, face to face, where people all the time make assumptions that are automatic and sometimes not conscious and automatically change in a potentially (or possibly usually) adverse way (to myself) because just seeing how someone is behaving leads to assumptions to be made, that are most probably correct if the person is non-autistic but probably totally wrong if they are autistic, and I am therefore unable to change wrong perceptions, as I don't know that people have those perceptions when they do and they don't realise that they even have them themselves. That's a nice conundrum to have to deal with:rotfl:. I therefore don't see how it can be done, or can fully be done, even though the society claims to have to make "reasonable adjustments". It seems reasonable to me as it treats me fairly; however it is unreasonable as it is impossible to make when you're not even aware that you're assuming some thing and, if you were, it would be impossible to get it out of your mind and act in the same way that you would if you didn't even assume it in the first place. It's always therefore going to be treating me differently, even though you may (indeed probably almost always are) unaware of it (and therefore unable not to do it and no fault of yours therefore that you can't, as I'm asking you to do the impossible).

It's probably that you get an impression, or just a feeling, that there's something a bit strange - nothing too serious but just something about me (whom you don't know face to face to have autism) that seems a little odd. But, even by thinking something seems a little odd, you've already changed your thoughts and by doing so are not treating me in the same way as you would do with the vast majority of other people (those that don't have autism). Trying to counteract them, when you're often not even thinking actively about them, merely changing your behaviour to be acting in an inadvertently less favourable way, is itself not treating me the same as, to do that, the thought would not ever have crossed your mind, even briefly, in the first place. A thought then discounted (in an attempt to treat me the same) is not the same as one that never arises and never can be exactly the same thing as, even if for a nanosecond, something that was done or thought would have been changed. From my point, it may seem that the "reasonable adjustments" is then something that is stated but, as usual, is never really believed and is something that people just say - people generally often don't mean what they say (in their words without their body language) - to you it may be more obvious as their body language contradicts. However, this may be not a case of not meaning what is said, instead just that society doesn't yet quite know how to deal with us.

From my POV, it can be sometimes fun ('enjoying' society not knowing how to deal with me, whilst simultaneously being unable to punish me as I haven't done anything wrong against the law - indeed I'm probably about the only person that would be found fully compliant with all rules on every occasion) and sometimes it can instead tear me up as it's a lot of effort trying to deal with a society that doesn't quite know what to do about me and impose restrictions which it imposes on everyone but people generally just get on with their lives and either just do the things they do (that aren't wrong anyway) or ignore them and technically break the law all the time whilst it puts a huge burden on me, tearing myself up inside, at having to comply with every restriction it imposes as I am the only one trying seriously to comply with them. On occasions when it's not law, there are misunderstandings that I am unable to correct but even so I tear myself up inside through way too much empathy at having done the wrong thing that I didn't intend at all to do but no-one else, even if explained, and impossible to explain face to face as the words will come out wrong and compound the situation, will ever realise and has assumed or already treated me with bad impression and I'm unable to correct it (and if I tried would be such a long explanation in order for someone else ever to understand it fully that they would, I feel, never be able to comprehend). I know why the misunderstanding happened and know what went wrong (and tear myself up at having unintentionally done something wrong, which I suspect no-one else can see and, possibly even, can see something that wrongly suggests I meant what I did wrong) - but no-one else will ever understand why as to do so would require such a long explanation of autism first and then to explain the logical process that went on, that either I would not be believed that what I am saying is true, or there would be further misunderstanding or the person would be unable to comprehend such a full explanation and would thus never understand it as it is impossible to understand it completely if it is not entirely full on every detail, and even a gist which I would not know what that was and which parts were relevant and which were not, would never convey it fully and would always be to some extent a misunderstanding as something necessary (absolutely everything is necessary, essential and relevant) would be missing. From my POV, it's not possible to convey a full understanding...

Savvybuyer

- this being face to face RL rather than understanding from what someone has written on a thread - without mentioning absolutely everything but, by doing that, people have lost interest as they find such detail boring and therefore will lose interest before I complete what I was going to say and will itself have them forming incorrect impressions and they won't have heard everything so not possible ever to explain to them (and in any event people probably don't want to hear explanation and want something that I can't give but not being able to give explanation, which they don't want, or if they get it, lose interest, still tears me up).

See you later, if you dread what I might post when I come back:rotfl::wave:




EDIT: This website's a beggar too, but I knew this would happen. Now gone into over 25,000 characters long as I've just added the final bit and completed the thing.

:rotfl::rotfl:

[Referrng to myself:] Not...quite...sure...how...to deal with him:rotfl:!
(Probably itself proves my point - even the website itself doesn't want to listen to me in entirely as restricts to character limit. Clearly, I'm not making the point that there is a character limit but shouldn't be, because I know (really) why one exists but rather the point that full explanation, as here, is obviously too much!)

Savvybuyer

I know I have an unusual way of looking at things sometimes, but perhaps potentially an interesting way (to those that find it interesting) as potentially reveals new insights blah blah blah... but here we go:

Interesting:
https://www.livescience.com/42797-mantis-shrimp-sees-color.html

So, humans are "disabled" compared to mantis shrimp as we can't see all the colours from 12 colour receptors.
However, mantis shrimp are "disabled" compared to us as they are unable to see colour in as much detail as us.

I would love to be able to see what both humans and shrimps can see and therefore not be disabled in some way on this matter. On this, every living thing on the planet is "disabled" in some way. Some would now add "Clearly that cannot be right", which then makes my definition of "disability" way too wide.

Can over half the population (we are back to humans here) be disabled though? I think it's possibly the case that over half of us have some disability of one kind or another, so that people who are completely non-disabled (and we are at least referring to trichromats*) are a minority. Of course, the people with each particular kind of disability are in a minority too. But - everyone with any disability, or disabilities, at all - are they now over 50%? I think it's possibility getting that way - and anyone interested in this can do their own research.

Anyway, that's it - I don't think there's any money-saving in this (and I'm not talking about potentially claiming benefits to which you are entitled - in fact, my own story on this: of course with Asperger's I have "always" had this condition, or at least since the age of 3 or whatever age it is recognised at - I actually missed out on a lot of benefits, as I get Personal Independence Payment as a result of having my condition but have always had the condition so ought to have claimed it and been getting it even during times when I was working for many years, but of course I didn't know about it at the time and obviously we can't go back through years when claims were not made. I actually didn't need it as was adequately getting money during my employment which provided me with ample to live on, but, even so, I was very probably still entitled to the disability benefit even though no-one knew that I could claim it. So, that's a money-saving lesson there - claim what you are entitled to, and it's possible you don't even know that you are (and how can you have the evidence to support a claim if you are undiagnosed?)).

I don't think there's money-saving in not being able to see certain colours or seeing millions more colours than most people do but we never know how our perceptions are influenced and how store layouts with colours may affect us and influence us to purchase against our better judgement (hopefully we do all our shopping list at home in advance and aren't subject to any impulse buying beyond that as knowing it could cut our APG, for example, if we buy something we haven't already fully looked at and considered properly might act to help us avoid being tempted:money:). Perhaps the rare women that see millions more colours are less likely to be influenced as the displays can't include any colours that none of us considered to be non-colour blind trichromats can see:rotfl:.


*We're not considering trichromats to be disabled through their inability to see the 'fourth' colour receptor and only tetrachromats as therefore capable of being non-disabled. (Explanation as to single quotes around "fourth": it's probably not accurate to say there is a fourth receptor, rather it's that there are normally one of three, that may be altered in some way, and the "fourth" is a variant of that that is altered in a different way, therefore enables "four" to be seen - but as this varies and is different in different tetrachromats, it's not that there are four as such, more like one of the three has another version, that provides a "fourth" but could be a different of the three colours that has a second version in another truly tetrachromatic person, so the second tetrachromatic can't see the variant of the colour that has two versions that the other can see but instead has can see variations from the receptor for the different version of the other colour that they have a second version of - so, maybe they are all disabled as neither of them sees everything:rotfl: - and none of us sees the (potentially different) millions that they do.) I've just made up all of what I've written in the explanation part of this paragraph:rotfl::rotfl: - but it will actually possibly turn out to be correct. Scientists are still not sure of this condition but, when they go into it and in many years time, maybe one will even stumble across this post on the net, I wouldn't be surprised if it did turn out to be discovered to work the way I have just set out. You could say there are probably six receptors - actually there are more as the shrimp has twelve but let's pretend six possible in humans - so one truly tetrachromatic person may have 1, 2, 3 and 4, but the other have 1, 2, 3 and 5 (and another 1, 2, 3 and 6) - each of them therefore four each. 1, 2 and 3 are red, green and blue respectively. 4 is a variant of red, 5 a variant of green and 6 a variant of blue (hence why I set on 6 possible for humans). Might not work quite this way - not sure offhand if all three can have variants. Means tetrachromat with 1, 2, 3 and 4 can't see 5 or 6, but the one with 1, 2, 3, 5 can see the 5 that they can't but not the 6 that neither can and not see the 4 that the first one can (so 'disabled' in respect of not being able to see the first one's 4 but first one 'disabled' as can't see 5 or 6 and all of us trichromats, including apparently all men, disabled as can't see anything that any of the tetrachromat humans can - we're not going down that road).

I suppose for disability, certainly for law, it depends on how an impairment affects you and how substantial or long lasting it is in whether it affects your daily activities. Whilst I can't see millions of tetrachromat colours, it doesn't really have any impact on my daily activities - though you could say, unknown to me or anyone that like the vast majority of people isn't tetrachromat, we are not experiencing something that we never see (and have never seen) (but if so where is the line to be drawn? I can't see body language, and yet that is a disability aspect but that is because not being able to do that is an impairment that affects my daily life but only because the vast majority of people can see body language and that is therefore how the world operates or is based on)). The world is built and set up for trichromacy and therefore not being able to see a tetrachromat range (which may be different for different true tetrachromatic people) does not give rise to an impairment that affects everyday living. Meanwhile, who knows if it is an advantage (in money-saving terms) to see something none of us can see, as things will look different to a tetrachromatic person that advertisers can't target! Doubtful - if that were true, presumably some things may look unappealing to some people considered to be colour-blind I don't know? Or, if you have always seen bananas as completely yellow rather than yellow and green (if not ripe), you won't know when they are ripe, presumably - I don't know, colour blind people you may help me out! - and unripe bananas that would otherwise look unappetising don't look that way. I was thinking something that has a lot of colour in it (for me and most people, that are not colour blind or not generally considered to be such) because, although it's not naturally that colour, manufacturers add food colourings to it and we 'all' therefore think peas are green when in fact they are rather grey, but to some colour blind person who doesn't see green, could look grey (despite the colouring added that only most of us can see) and be unappetising or don't look that way, because they have always seen them (and that, to us, green colour) as grey and therefore don't know what green looks like to see them in what non-colour blind people might think was a "better" way (looking nice and... tempting yourself to buy them:(:rotfl:).

How would I know if a colour fitted a brand or not? I have no view or any idea as to what is appropriate or what would fit at all. In that way, perhaps I should love my autism as it allows me to be this detached from things like this that are totally irrelevant to me and to make rational, unbiased and non-emotional decisions that really do pick the best option of all and save the money!:rotfl: If anyone really wants to save money (and who doesn't, certainly here?) perhaps one way, or even the way if I be so presumptious, to do so is to get into my mindset and that's what may be needed to do it!

Savvybuyer

Interesting.

https://www.helpscout.net/blog/psychology-of-color/

So, we need to be aware of the colours that cause us to make snap judgements about products and then avoid buying products that are those colours:money::rotfl:. They are trying to influence us, so that anything that avoids them doing so must therefore surely save money.

Probably won't work - they've got some other form of persuasion under their sleeve for those of us who might now actively try not to be influenced:rotfl:.

Snap judgements (as I've obviously made a snap judgement about there, from just seeing that phrase on the webpage) are, it would seem common sense, the types of judgements that are probably usually the worst ones to make. Far better, it would seem, is a considered and rational judgement that takes all factors into account. Indeed, generally I don't think it's wise to make snap judgements and certainly not impulse purchases:eek: (which are snap judgements of a kind themselves).

I don't do common sense, and I don't know whether what I am told is "common sense" actually is. I think people often make incorrect assumptions that things are common sense. It seems instead it often, but not always, makes more sense to do what is supposed not to be common sense.

EDIT: Anyway, looking at that illustration on there, with the various brands shown. I have never associated, certainly not consciously (although that's maybe the problem), any of these things to the brands that have certain colours. I may therefore already be well on the way...:money: It seems to me - but it's dangerous to make it as an assumption - that I may be protected from this sort of influence by me having autism and therefore maybe these emotional things that people tend to associate with certain colours are a non-autistic thing. Hopefully brands can't influence me as their target marketing has to be directed at the way the majority of people see things and therefore thankfully can't cater for my unusual perception and means I hope I am less able to being influenced by things such as this. However, I should still keep my guard!

Colour does have some influence on me - I've actually avoided wearing a red top when I go to M as red is generally perceived as hostile and might mean I am noticed more. Instead I sometimes wear a nice warm blue that hopefully won't readily stand out. (I'm wrong on that however - as according to the diagram, it's orange that sends out warmth and blue is trust and strength. Glad I seem to be on a different wavelength on this to most people:rotfl:.)

In fact, looking at the colours of those brands... I now think "what a load of rubbish..."! I have never thought any of those things for the colours when I see the brand logos. I literally think nothing in that area. I don't even remember such associations as I don't find it interesting. It seems to me that I may therefore be totally logical and attempting to be rational (I know, like most people, I am not - if I spend a lot of time looking for a certain special item and then can't find which is the cheapest place - eventually I throw the towel in and just buy the next store I see) - however, on not associating anything with colours, I take a step back away from it and instead view everything more neutrally without being drawn to any particular brand, when, if I was, that would probably cost me a lot of money.

"...would want to buy a Harley Davidson motorcycle if they didn't get the feeling that Harleys were rugged and cool?"

Probably me actually, as the only person that would:rotfl:. I don't get, and never have had, any feeling that Harley Davidsons, or anything else for that matter, are rugged and cool or any feeling that they are not. I literally have no view on the matter and can't understand how it matters at all. I would buy one, even with no feeling of rugged or cool, if I felt it was the best thing to buy, in other words if I needed an item of its type and it was good value for money (in theory - or it was poor value for money but I had spent ages looking elsewhere and eventually thrown the towel in). The lack of feeling either way about them is probably why I've never bought one in my life:money:. I just have never needed one and thus never bought one, or anything much else that I haven't needed. I hope I don't start associating rugged or cool - of all things, heaven forfend! - with these things now, after I have been told that's what I should feel:rotfl:.

It's probably why I wear bland T-shirts that no-one else likes. To me, it does not matter at all - and they are not bland to me - I'm just not concerned about status and don't really pay much attention to what impressions others may get or take the steps I should to avoid unfavourable impressions of me being given - instead, to me, if a T-shirt does its job of being something that I can wear and it fits me, then I will buy one if I need one, regardless of the lack of logo on it. I usually buy things that don't have branded logos on them, as such things mean nowt to me. I would usually, if I needed a T-shirt (I have enough that are wearable at the moment so won't currently be doing so) buy the cheapest one and be totally unconcerned with how it looked. That said, I've got to at least like it in the first place - I do have some sort of taste - and wouldn't buy something if I didn't like it or thought it didn't look nice and certainly would exclude something that itched. But my criteria for "nice" probably include a lot more that would pass that level and the cheapest one of all will do. I've no idea whether anything is in style or fashion - I don't follow those trends at all and being in fashion and, supposedly, "trendy" (bet that's an old unfashionable word that shows my age:rotfl:) means nothing to me and I usually don't know what to wear to any function or event at all.

(It seems illuminating that this is about the "personality" of brands. To me, brands or any other products don't have any "personality" at all, as only people ever have that - and maybe your cat or something if it acts in a particular way. An inanimate object such as a product has no personality to me - but the lacking of any personality doesn't mean I don't like it and that it isn't something of a type of product that I would consume - it's just that most things are the type of item they are and it being branded makes no difference. If they are food, they've all got the same basic ingredients in them - it's basically the same thing and I'm not going to be convinced that it is different and to pay more for it being a brand as it's the brands that try to differentiate themselves and make out that they are different in order to try to convince us to part with more money than sense for them being branded I think.)