What do you do with Autistic Critics?

Frederick Bott
4 min readDec 8, 2023

A question

I took the drastic measure a day or two ago, of blocking a critic, of the product my work of the past seven years.

I don’t know if it was the right decision or not, but for some reason it has bothered me since done.

This particular critic had the infuriating characteristic of obviously learning from our interactions, but painfully slowly, whilst never acknowledging what they were learning, continuously “speaking down” to me, as if they had greater knowledge and experience, but which I could see was the work of someone who had actually very little technical knowledge, maybe a few weeks worth of study on their part, they had written zero stories of their own after years of being in Medium, 7 followers, and no apparent Google-able historical technical background.

Their technique, or thing that obviously rang their bell, is to criticise the work of others as if by an expert, with actually zero knowledge of their own.

I seemed to be their only target, it is as if their sole purpose in Medium was to target my work, with “corrections” which in isolation of the system might have looked to third parties to be correct, but which only served to distract from the systemic truth.

The specific one which was the last straw for me, was their insistence that nothing was being created by the process of hydrogen production from sunlight.

This is a crucial outcome of my work, based also on the mathematical signing of energy, so much of what we are seeing is due to this very fundamental scientific omission, the lack of any distinction between the energy added to the Earth from sun, and the energy taken back out of Earth by us, it is existentially important, something which in my own view looks like we might even be genetically programed to not understand, it seems beyond wierd that I have not found a single ally in Medium to take up this cause, of correcting what looks to me like a programed inability to understand the fundamental difference between creation and destruction, which I might have successfully hacked in myself, but seem unable to hack in anyone else, yet it is very simple unarguable logic at its heart, like 2 and 2 equals 4, the only way it can be argued against, denied, is by repeating the flawed programming, over and over.

In a way, that is what my critic was doing, by looking at every possibility other than the only single truth.

Could I have eventually educated them enough to have them come round?

Maybe.

But did I have the time or the patience, actually the magnaminity, in complete absence of any reciprocal magnaminity to do that?

No.

This is me being a human.

I found the limit to what I can take as a human, from another human.

Should I revise this limit?

On the question of Autism, I ask this because it was something levelled at me by another very popular writer in Medium, one that has more than 30,000 followers, and one who I thought should be amenable to working together with, as we appear to share the same goals.

I should have known better.

Their response as an economist, to me always pointing out their omission to include the energy considerations of money, which would make their case so much stronger if they were to include, is to dismiss my message as being one tracked, and “My autism is legendary”.

I have to take that remark as derogatory, since that is what the mainstream third party will read it as, and I have to conclude it was a very carefully thought out remark, by a very calculated author, designed to completely defuse any thoughts I might have towards collaboration.

Hey ho, let’s say it’s true, I am somewhat autistic. Personally I see it as determination, not autism.

Autism to me is an inability to think systemically —the exact opposite of what I might be, surely, it is me who is lamenting the lack of public ability to think systemically, as we might need to collaborate, to fix what is absolutely a systemic energy problem.

Anyhow I could go on all day fron here, going back through all the seven years of history, nearly 400 stories, 10,000 odd usually lengthy responses, but it would distract me, like the blocked critic, from completing what I see is the final task in the endeavour, to show an implementable technical solution, which will finally put to rest the public misperception that a solar hydrogen ecology is impossible, when actually, it is the only solution to the global energy problem, when all stakeholder interests are taken into acoount, and fully analysed, there is one solution that is dictated to us, it screams at us, this is what nature always intended, confirmed by Ai which is itself a manifestation of nature, our lifeline if we wish to take it.

Part 4 of “Sourcing Hydrogen Components” should be ready today. It’s the last piece in the jigsaw before the implementation model, but I will admit it has contained more curveballs than originally expected, therefore has taken much longer to produce than expected.

For now, distractive critics will stay blocked, until this solution is fully available to demostrate, at least virtually.

--

--

Frederick Bott
Frederick Bott

Responses (3)