Terra Vance's Very Grand Emotions

[DuckRabbit]

Has anyone come across Terra Vance's ideas on 'Very Grand Emotions'?

Very Grand Emotions: How Autistics and Neurotypicals Experience Emotions Differently

Autistic people experience emotions differently from neurotypicals, and what they experience as emotions others see as ideas. Here’s how.

neuroclastic.com

I've searched this forum and haven't come across it. I've only just read about it online. Some preliminary ideas are that:

1. She is confusing values and emotions. Hence the need to elevate them to "Very Grand Emotions". Why not simply use the word "values"? Many are affinities or aptitudes. I'll list them here in alphabetical order:

Courage
Dissent
Empowering
Equality
Fairness
Greater Good
Justice
Knowledge
Labour/Laboring
Longsuffering
Love
Mercy
Movement
Passion
Pride
Purpose
Reason
Righteous Indignation
Selflessness
Solidarity
Truth
Work
= "those are emotions which serve the Greater Good. Those emotions are the mobilization of Love."

2. Doesn't this label imply that ASC individuals are trying to elevate themselves as superior beings in some way - "I'm above small talk"..."I don't have miniature, ordinary, mundane, self-serving, irrational emotions like you lot, I don't even have GRAND emotions; I have VERY GRAND emotions".

I agree that many of these values she write about may be values/ affinities/aptitudes that ASC individuals have e.g., their truth-focus:

"A neurotypical person is not wired to be rewarded by our brand of interaction and emotional Solidarity. Our method of relatedness doesn’t translate our heart accurately with neurotypicals. Our direct, blunt, and sometimes-brutal honesty is offensive to neurotypicals; and in turn, their roundabout, indirect, suggestive language reads as confusing, manipulative, and patronizing to us."

But to call them emotions seems like a stretch. What do others think?

 

[Gerontius]

I disagree with the author.
If everything is emotions, then every experience only matters in the subjective sense and reality is only experiential, not existent outside the observer (presumably autistic & therefore having Very Grand Emotions.) Essentially you could take the view presented in the article & work up your own form of solipsism based on.

And personally/subjectively I think it's pretentious twaddle.

 

[DuckRabbit]

I disagree with the author.
If everything is emotions, then every experience only matters in the subjective sense and reality is only experiential, not existent outside the observer (presumably autistic & therefore having Very Grand Emotions.) Essentially you could take the view presented in the article & work up your own form of solipsism based on.

And personally/subjectively I think it's pretentious twaddle.

That's a third thing wrong with it that you've identified - subsuming huge swathes of reality, philosophy, and moral values and concerns into the perplexing category of 'ASC emotions'.

Maybe being excluded from the social realm means that many ASC individuals make WORK their focal and all-subsuming activity. Some realm where they can rely mostly on themselves, not on 'unreliable others'.

Not sufficiently soft-soaping one's message, tiptoeing on eggshells, swaddling in cotton-wool, and considering all conceivable angles (particularly political, power-dynamic ones) before delivering it, could just be a "social deficit".

I agree with her impulse to reframe Asperger traits/ behaviours/ aptitudes/ qualities positively, but I think her theory needs more thinking through; it's rather too full of category errors.

 

[Gerontius]

That's a third thing wrong with it that you've identified - subsuming huge swathes of reality, philosophy, and moral values and concerns into the perplexing category of 'ASC emotions'.

Maybe being excluded from the social realm means that many ASC individuals make WORK their focal and all-subsuming activity. Some realm where they can rely mostly on themselves, not on 'unreliable others'.

Not sufficiently soft-soaping one's message, tiptoeing on eggshells, swaddling in cotton-wool, and considering all conceivable angles (particularly political, power-dynamic ones) before delivering it, could just be a "social deficit".

I agree with her impulse to reframe Asperger traits/ behaviours/ aptitudes/ qualities positively, but I think her theory needs more thinking through; it's rather too full of category errors.

As we know on the forum, not all autistic people are the exact same political persuasion as her, but how would someone speak to her when every value is only an emotion? I'm not a Republican but I was raised around them--The difficult thing about speaking with my family is that an attack on culture-war weirdness is taken as an ad hominem attack. Somehow I'm not overly optimistic that Terra Vance is willing to hear people even on her own progressive side, who might not agree with the whole position. Values subjectivized as emotions can no longer be weighed against one another--and it's people like her who are doing great harm to progressive thought; it's polarizing the discussion and removing the ability to think.

The power-play talk sounds a lot like its own form of exclusion; doesn't it sound like a problem to force everyone to consider every act they do in terms of how it plays into theories of power-dynamics? It sounds as intrusive, and as oppressive, as an expression of excess religiosity.

Autistic people & work--but it's written like she does not work, because part of work is getting along well with other people. "Information-sharing is a love language of autistics" my foot. It's a habit.

I am not even going so far as to agree with her positive reframing of accidents in the autistic phenotype: By approaching matters of ethics, she has left psychology & gotten into the field of philosophy, and when you reduce everything down to emotions I really do not know how we can take anything she says seriously.

My advice as an autistic person would be to reconsider the consequences of doing away with the concept of a value ethic or virtue ethic; when things can no longer be done simply because of their excellence we end up slaves to ourselves, and the self is a poor master.

My advice, philosophically speaking, would be shut your face hole and go touch grass, but Vance's articles show that they're really trying hard to make sense of everything in the world around them, and I would be willing to bet you that a lot of this sort of article is similar to the mixed emotions after trauma and in the process of healing.

 

[DuckRabbit]

As we know on the forum, not all autistic people are the exact same political persuasion as her, but how would someone speak to her when every value is only an emotion? I'm not a Republican but I was raised around them--The difficult thing about speaking with my family is that an attack on culture-war weirdness is taken as an ad hominem attack. Somehow I'm not overly optimistic that Terra Vance is willing to hear people even on her own progressive side, who might not agree with the whole position. Values subjectivized as emotions can no longer be weighed against one another--and it's people like her who are doing great harm to progressive thought; it's polarizing the discussion and removing the ability to think.

The power-play talk sounds a lot like its own form of exclusion; doesn't it sound like a problem to force everyone to consider every act they do in terms of how it plays into theories of power-dynamics? It sounds as intrusive, and as oppressive, as an expression of excess religiosity.

Autistic people & work--but it's written like she does not work, because part of work is getting along well with other people. "Information-sharing is a love language of autistics" my foot. It's a habit.

I am not even going so far as to agree with her positive reframing of accidents in the autistic phenotype: By approaching matters of ethics, she has left psychology & gotten into the field of philosophy, and when you reduce everything down to emotions I really do not know how we can take anything she says seriously.

My advice as an autistic person would be to reconsider the consequences of doing away with the concept of a value ethic or virtue ethic; when things can no longer be done simply because of their excellence we end up slaves to ourselves, and the self is a poor master.

My advice, philosophically speaking, would be shut your face hole and go touch grass, but Vance's articles show that they're really trying hard to make sense of everything in the world around them, and I would be willing to bet you that a lot of this sort of article is similar to the mixed emotions after trauma and in the process of healing.

Trying hard to make sense of everything in the world around them, but also trying to fashion a fortress of self-defence around themselves, in that their every psychological whim and twitch can be elevated to something of transcendent moral and metaphysical significance.

I think you are right to detect in Vance a polarising impulse and an impenetrable RIGHTEOUS MIND being constructed. Paradoxically, our strength often comes from having SOME of our defences left open so that we can be receptive to correction and the views of others. This can bestow an attitude of leaning, work-in-progress, open-mindedness, broad-mindedness and humility (we just have to watch that it doesn't tip over into allowing others to 'walk all over us', as if we have NO boundaries). We need some perforated boundaries, not the water-tight one that Vance seems to be trying to create, whereby the ASC phenotype becomes idealised, superior, unassailable etc.

Her 'theory' lacks conceptual clarity - interesting that you link it to possible trauma. Food for thought...

Perhaps no wonder it's not been discussed on this forum before (as far as I know). Keen for feedback, she's probably be thrilled to know that we are discussing it. "All publicity is good publicity"!

Terra Vance

Terra Vance is an industrial and organizational psychology consultant and founder and CEO of NeuroClastic, Inc. Her passions are in the intersections of social justice, equity, literature, Truth, a…

neuroclastic.com

 

[Gerontius]

Yeah, I have no problem with Mx Vance as a person--but I'll fight someone over the "infant circumscision is acceptable" debate. Even some Jews are reconsidering this, which is practically their main sacrament of initiation. That would be like a Catholic saying we're going to quit pouring holy water on people all of a sudden. And I also have some opinions of course on the article.

Trying hard to make sense of everything in the world around them, but also trying to fashion a fortress of self-defence around themselves, in that their every psychological whim and twitch can be elevated to something of transcendent moral and metaphysical significance.

May I steal this passage--not so much in the context of the Vance article, but specifically for an affair of honor? (I challenged one of my professors to a word duel--As one does.) I think there's at least one movement in higher education which is pushing this--Speaking from my own limited experience in undergrad stuff I think a lot of the Catholic colleges are buying into this exact mindset, elevating it past the throne of the deans and professors and turning it into the real spiritual power that works all miracles.

(Did you think I meant God? Oh no. It's Marketing. They have to sell an ersatz education for closed-minded reactionaries to give them a sense of Being Right about Everything, so Everyone Outside the Blessed In-Group can Get the Hell Out of The Way.)

Foucault's Concept of "Power/Knowledge" Explained — Zachary Fruhling

One of Michel Foucault ’s fundamental concepts is power/knowledge . We normally think of power and knowledge as two separate concepts, one political and one epistemological (having to do with truth for its own sake), or perhaps pedagogical (having to do with teaching and education). Foucault

www.zacharyfruhling.com

I'm sorry I'm a little salty about this. Without exaggerating, this closed-mindedness (specifically in conservative religious circles, though I'm sure if I was raised by doctrinaire leftists I'd feel similarly about that) has been one of the forces that drives me to a long-lasting passive suicidality. It comes & goes. So far I've not done it but I noticed it when a bell-tower on a college campus held a fatal attraction. And yes I would certainly agree on lacking conceptual substance and trauma. For myself it's mostly "trauma, but he took Socratic logic which started the breakdowns & has a background in a formal study of classical & medieval philosophy."

Back to something you point out: idealizing the ASC phenotype. Is it safe to assume ASC means Autism Spectrum Conditions? or Comorbidity?
I do not want to break the rules here but isn't it weird that the underdog beautiful people, the "Cinderella" myth, can really push some nasty beliefs? Look at what white supremacists believe compared to what healthy people believe. That myth of the big mean world stamping on the butterflies is the sort of thing that can make people commit atrocities. Autistic people aren't organized or cohesive enough to do that yet but we could commit an ethical genocide in the personality if we decide that some class of Others is not even worth considering.

Sorry if I'm rambling. It's not been a fun weekend and I've spent the morning cleaning the bathroom, practicing the parlor organ (no one else is around & I never play when my father or mother can hear me), and trying to get in touch with interviewers so I can go get a job welding on an assembly line instead of living here.

 

[DuckRabbit]

Yeah, I have no problem with Mx Vance as a person--but I'll fight someone over the "infant circumscision is acceptable" debate. Even some Jews are reconsidering this, which is practically their main sacrament of initiation. That would be like a Catholic saying we're going to quit pouring holy water on people all of a sudden. And I also have some opinions of course on the article.

May I steal this passage--not so much in the context of the Vance article, but specifically for an affair of honor? (I challenged one of my professors to a word duel--As one does.) I think there's at least one movement in higher education which is pushing this--Speaking from my own limited experience in undergrad stuff I think a lot of the Catholic colleges are buying into this exact mindset, elevating it past the throne of the deans and professors and turning it into the real spiritual power that works all miracles.

(Did you think I meant God? Oh no. It's Marketing. They have to sell an ersatz education for closed-minded reactionaries to give them a sense of Being Right about Everything, so Everyone Outside the Blessed In-Group can Get the Hell Out of The Way.)

Foucault's Concept of "Power/Knowledge" Explained — Zachary Fruhling

One of Michel Foucault ’s fundamental concepts is power/knowledge . We normally think of power and knowledge as two separate concepts, one political and one epistemological (having to do with truth for its own sake), or perhaps pedagogical (having to do with teaching and education). Foucault

www.zacharyfruhling.com

I'm sorry I'm a little salty about this. Without exaggerating, this closed-mindedness (specifically in conservative religious circles, though I'm sure if I was raised by doctrinaire leftists I'd feel similarly about that) has been one of the forces that drives me to a long-lasting passive suicidality. It comes & goes. So far I've not done it but I noticed it when a bell-tower on a college campus held a fatal attraction. And yes I would certainly agree on lacking conceptual substance and trauma. For myself it's mostly "trauma, but he took Socratic logic which started the breakdowns & has a background in a formal study of classical & medieval philosophy."

Back to something you point out: idealizing the ASC phenotype. Is it safe to assume ASC means Autism Spectrum Conditions? or Comorbidity?
I do not want to break the rules here but isn't it weird that the underdog beautiful people, the "Cinderella" myth, can really push some nasty beliefs? Look at what white supremacists believe compared to what healthy people believe. That myth of the big mean world stamping on the butterflies is the sort of thing that can make people commit atrocities. Autistic people aren't organized or cohesive enough to do that yet but we could commit an ethical genocide in the personality if we decide that some class of Others is not even worth considering.

Sorry if I'm rambling. It's not been a fun weekend and I've spent the morning cleaning the bathroom, practicing the parlor organ (no one else is around & I never play when my father or mother can hear me), and trying to get in touch with interviewers so I can go get a job welding on an assembly line instead of living here.

Yes, exactly, ASC means Autism Spectrum Conditions. Or Autistic Spectrum Conditions - I'm never sure.

Interesting to hear some of your background. I wish you all the best with your job interviews.

 

[Jordy]

They have to stop making up crap like this.

 

[premiumsockets]

I personally resonated with their article, though I do totally understand y'all's criticisms. I think the way that the article was written has weird undertones of inherent autistic superiority and righteousness, as well as plenty of flaws when viewed objectively as a theory of autistic emotion (as it purports to be). But despite its flaws, it did help me feel seen, validated, and understand myself better.

If everything is emotions, then every experience only matters in the subjective sense and reality is only experiential, not existent outside the observer (presumably autistic & therefore having Very Grand Emotions.) Essentially you could take the view presented in the article & work up your own form of solipsism based on.

Emotions are important and as far as we humans are concerned, everything we know is shaped by them and our experiences. Honestly what you wrote here confuses me, because while I believe that each of our perceptions of reality are experiential, that does not necessarily mean that reality doesn't exist outside of the observer. There's that concept in physics, the observer effect, where the mere act of observing something inherently alters the thing (loosely). It's a little different in this case, but I think of it as our experiences shaping our perception of reality, while reality itself remains. Like, it's still a *thing*. Also, reality would exist outside of the observer, because there is more than one observer! This subjective consensus of the the world is but a patchwork quilt of reality, but it is reality nonetheless.

Values subjectivized as emotions can no longer be weighed against one another--and it's people like her who are doing great harm to progressive thought; it's polarizing the discussion and removing the ability to think.

I'm mostly with you here. It seems dangerous in the same kind of way that neurotypical people tend to identify with their in-group to the point of defending horrible things. Subjectivizing values could allow people to use them to justify whatever views they hold. However, where we diverge is I don't think that emotionalizing values necessarily devalues them. A Truth that I feel may not be an objective truth, but it also doesn't change what is objectively true. If someone thinks something that is factually incorrect in the name of Truth, that is a "them" problem (though I would hope that their commitment to Truth would help sway them when confronted with evidence to the contrary). The idea of Grand Emotions isn't inherently harmful *because* of their closeness to people's values.

Part of this is I don't think calling the "Grand Emotions" *emotions* really fits. For example, I wouldn't say that I feel Honesty, but rather feel very strongly *about* Honesty. When I feel the need to be honest, I'm not feeling Honesty. Perhaps I'm feeling guilty or regretful about withholding the Truth, or even happy or proud about sharing it!

However! I do think that *framing* the concept of differences in the ways we experience emotion AS these Grand Emotions is, in some way, valuable.