I am on the autism spectrum. I never actually tried to imitate the voice of another specific person. I always considered that cringe.
Though, on some occassions I did in some way. In school with my friends I tried to rap Eminem lyrics.
There was a time I imitated David Foster Wallace in real life. I think though many people perceived me as very weird to that time. I was really in a dark spot. With psychosis and asperger it is difficult to act not strange. I think I do a better job than most people with this combination. But I have to do a lot of calculations how social interactions work. And which thoughts and interpretations are actually deceiving or not. I noticed it is not ideal to imitate the quirks of someone else. When you try to do that it will be reinforced by your own awkwardness. You have to observe other people. And memorize small details. But all of that doesn't work intuitively. it is a lot of theory of mind.
There is something funny I did yesterday. I broke with the not imitating rule. I tried to imitate how Italian or Spanish people talk. Or at least how it sounds to a German. And no matter how much it hurt I put a lot of emphasis on the accentuations. My friends had to laugh a lot. Some of them even actually spoke these languages. We joked to each other that I can now work as interpreter in foreign countries. Or that they must be really surprised that I am as good as a native speaker. I like to watch the American Youtuber Secular Talk. And I think my Spanish/Italian imitation is on a similar level to his German imitation. I know where he is coming from when he imitates German. This isn't how German actually sounds though. But it is probably the way German sounds to Americans. And I think internationally many people think all Germans would pronounce German like Hitler did. Very aggressive, staccato, very strong emphasis on every syllable. It is sad that German is perceived that way but also in some way funny.
I think I am not good at imitating. When I try to be self-conscious I try to imitate the thinking of David Foster Wallace. Very clinical, ruthless against oneself, self-hatred (I internalized it before that though), honesty about being vulnerable, eloquent, ironical humor, trying to be witty and on point, being sharp and fast in conversation and thinking, large vocabulary. Someone on here complimented me once that one notices that I read his books. I think this compliment is too kind. As an experiment I tried to let AI chatbot write texts like DFW and the outcome was so fucking bad.
I studied politics though. In this instance at college for my analyses I rather tried to understand how the German intellectual Albrecht von Lucke thinks. He is publicist of my favorite journal and he is very poignant about the mistakes of our politicians. Slavoj Zizek is also always fascinating to listen to. The way he thinks if very interesting/dialectial/full of paradoxes/changing the cognitive map fundamentally/surprising with contrarian takes that question mainstream narratives and logic used in its usual way. Zizek has a lot of quirks. I realized though abstaining from imiataing gestures and facial expressions is way better. It is preferable to imitate the logic of their thinking by understand their arguments in-depth. And breaking the expectations of other people in debates. I think in debates (as a consequence of autism) I am anticipating what my opponent will say. And I always try to be one or two steps ahead and anticipate the counterargument relativizing it or incorporating the weaknesses of my argument already in my argument by taking the opponent the chance to use it against me. I think in debates there is a need for nuance and one should be honest about uncertainty of different arguments. Always being open to change ones mind if the opponent says something is important too. I think though most debates don't really work this way. I also have doubts whether truth can be sought in debates. Studying texts and empirical evidence, exchanging thoughts in written form with time to evaluate claims and evidence is better to find the truth. Debates are often deceiving with the use of rhethorics and the biggest intellectual frauds do have advantages. Real exchanges that have dedication for seeking the truth tend to be for most listener boring and tiresome. Whereas controversial debates are considered sexy.
Though, on some occassions I did in some way. In school with my friends I tried to rap Eminem lyrics.
There was a time I imitated David Foster Wallace in real life. I think though many people perceived me as very weird to that time. I was really in a dark spot. With psychosis and asperger it is difficult to act not strange. I think I do a better job than most people with this combination. But I have to do a lot of calculations how social interactions work. And which thoughts and interpretations are actually deceiving or not. I noticed it is not ideal to imitate the quirks of someone else. When you try to do that it will be reinforced by your own awkwardness. You have to observe other people. And memorize small details. But all of that doesn't work intuitively. it is a lot of theory of mind.
There is something funny I did yesterday. I broke with the not imitating rule. I tried to imitate how Italian or Spanish people talk. Or at least how it sounds to a German. And no matter how much it hurt I put a lot of emphasis on the accentuations. My friends had to laugh a lot. Some of them even actually spoke these languages. We joked to each other that I can now work as interpreter in foreign countries. Or that they must be really surprised that I am as good as a native speaker. I like to watch the American Youtuber Secular Talk. And I think my Spanish/Italian imitation is on a similar level to his German imitation. I know where he is coming from when he imitates German. This isn't how German actually sounds though. But it is probably the way German sounds to Americans. And I think internationally many people think all Germans would pronounce German like Hitler did. Very aggressive, staccato, very strong emphasis on every syllable. It is sad that German is perceived that way but also in some way funny.
I think I am not good at imitating. When I try to be self-conscious I try to imitate the thinking of David Foster Wallace. Very clinical, ruthless against oneself, self-hatred (I internalized it before that though), honesty about being vulnerable, eloquent, ironical humor, trying to be witty and on point, being sharp and fast in conversation and thinking, large vocabulary. Someone on here complimented me once that one notices that I read his books. I think this compliment is too kind. As an experiment I tried to let AI chatbot write texts like DFW and the outcome was so fucking bad.
I studied politics though. In this instance at college for my analyses I rather tried to understand how the German intellectual Albrecht von Lucke thinks. He is publicist of my favorite journal and he is very poignant about the mistakes of our politicians. Slavoj Zizek is also always fascinating to listen to. The way he thinks if very interesting/dialectial/full of paradoxes/changing the cognitive map fundamentally/surprising with contrarian takes that question mainstream narratives and logic used in its usual way. Zizek has a lot of quirks. I realized though abstaining from imiataing gestures and facial expressions is way better. It is preferable to imitate the logic of their thinking by understand their arguments in-depth. And breaking the expectations of other people in debates. I think in debates (as a consequence of autism) I am anticipating what my opponent will say. And I always try to be one or two steps ahead and anticipate the counterargument relativizing it or incorporating the weaknesses of my argument already in my argument by taking the opponent the chance to use it against me. I think in debates there is a need for nuance and one should be honest about uncertainty of different arguments. Always being open to change ones mind if the opponent says something is important too. I think though most debates don't really work this way. I also have doubts whether truth can be sought in debates. Studying texts and empirical evidence, exchanging thoughts in written form with time to evaluate claims and evidence is better to find the truth. Debates are often deceiving with the use of rhethorics and the biggest intellectual frauds do have advantages. Real exchanges that have dedication for seeking the truth tend to be for most listener boring and tiresome. Whereas controversial debates are considered sexy.
