The Brunch Table

So the other day, in class, somebody whistled incredibly loudly right next to my ear. This class happens in a solid-concrete basement room, and the whistler actually provided the foley whistles for the crowds in Eight Mile. (And if you’re imagining a burly dude from Detroit, she’s about half that size, which makes it extra funny.) But, of course, I could only appreciate that later, ’cause the hyperacusis kicked in and I sort of fainted for a second.

After class, somebody asked me, out of nowhere, did you know that’s a sign that you might have had Asperger’s as a kid? (I already knew that there’s a strong correlation between hyperacusis and Asperger’s.) And she–qualified, as it happens, by being the offspring of a pair of psychiatrists–proceeds to ask a couple questions about my social navigation. I answer with logical propositions, like, “He stopped when he passed me in the hall, so that means he must want to talk to me.” But, apparently, the vast majority of folks, when asked similar questions, will answer with straightforward perceptions: “I noticed she wanted to talk to me.” They don’t have to consciously process the non-verbal cues.

So the social commentary track is an alternative strategy for getting the same results with different brain hardware–sort of a Nintendo emulator for your mind?

What do y’all out there think?