Asperggers: The next step in evolution:

Post Reply New Topic

I agree, the world's population is expanding so much, and globalism etc. The most import attribute it seems like to have any measure of success in life is "networking" and " being sociable/charisma" skills.

The way I see it:

1. Either we have always existed (more are identified now because of mental health professionals)
2: We are a failed step in evolution ( i.e. if we are having such a hard time reproducing, then we might die out......just look at the L & D forum)
3. We are a step in evolution, and this generation is rough "first step"

Who else will teach us if not an authority on the subject at hand?

And this is coming from an anarcho-syndicalist.

Here we have a question of definition: At one time in the not to distant past, being gay was a neurological disorder. As I discuss in my paper, a major component of the problems we have in our society is calling things bad, just because we do not like them, and imagining that there are actual standards when their are none. Really, which is better, being obedient to authority, being able to lie and accept lies as an everyday practice (what you call social skills) or being able to learn from the physical world? Sometimes the answer that you get depends on how you frame the question.

When I wrote my paper I was not thinking of autism. It was only after I had completed several months work and the paper was finished that it occured to me that humans who connect better with the physical world and learn from that rather than taking orders from their superiors and schmoozing their way up the social network may be a better fit for our more complex world which is very different than the one in which humans evolved. It was people with good social skills who destroyed oil platforms, space shuttles, and the banking system. It was not engineers, or accountants who looked at your shoes when they spoke.

I do not know how exactly you define "social skills", but I would bet that successful psychopaths have a lot of them. Othrwise, they would not be in office, or running corporations.

It means not all people with aspergers have the same political views, therefore making an "aspergers political party" is a silly idea.

The concepts of "superiority" and "inferiority" are "value judgements," meaning they derive from opinions, emotions, and personal/cultural bias. They are not objective or scientific in nature.



Emotions are a vital part of the decision making process of human beings and allow us, as social animals, to live together.



I eagerly await concrete scientific evidence that human thinking can be "divided" in such a fashion. Otherwise, you're just looking at an aspect of the physical world (human behavior) and interpreting it in light of your own personal biases.



I'm an Aspie and an English major. I find nothing "non-sensible" in any of the things you mentioned. If you think studying the physical world is more "important" than studying the non-physical world, that is you making a value judgement based on your personal biases, opinions, and perceptions.



Humans are social creatures. If "fitting in" is prevalent, it is because it aided our early survival. In fact, the evidence suggests that all of human "intelligence" has been derived from the need for "social skills" among our ancestors. It's not an accident that creatures with the biggest brains also have the most complex social relationships. Social = stupid doesn't work.



Certainly not true for me.



What things am I not supposed to learn from my "elders?" If a scientist tells me that the change of seasons is caused by the Earth's axial tilt, can I believe him, or should I reject his "authority?"



Am I to understand that we should give up the "religions" of sports, politics and art in favor of your personal biases, beliefs, and opinions on the basis that you imagine your personal biases, beliefs, and opinions are "logical?"

No thanks.

Oh alright, that makes more sense......I would say that is true about many people, so maybe you are onto something.

i thought u was talkin about me because i don't like authority and authority doesn't like me. lol i could understand the jist but the physical learning has an impact in the end :)

First I want to thank you for taking the time to read my article, and then to make some rational coherent arguments.

I agree for the most part. I should have made a statement like this: Our culture has changed in the last 200 years and is substantially different from what it was when NT behavior came into existence. Now that kind of mental behavior at least the part that is authoritarian, and that causes us to not learn from experience and the physical, but causes us to almost always defer to authority is leading our culture to become self destructive.
I confess to taking an intellectually lazy, and not entirely accurate short cut by saying that a small set of humans who do not socialize well, are probably not well suited to an authoritarian structure, and prefer to interact with the physical world are more likely to behave in ways that benefit society. That is, they are a better fit / more likely to survive along with their culture / are superior.
I did not touch on emotion much in my paper. I do not disagree with you. I did not state that emotions are bad. You read into my statement something that is not there. The phrase I used "emote so much" This has nothing to do with science. Any person is free to logically slice up abstractions into any categories that they please. The question then becomes, how useful is this slicing. If you do not find it useful, then you can just state that. I do not see the need to bring in a red herring argument like science which does not, as far as I can tell, apply. I do not see that I used the word important. Again, you are reading into this a lot of ideas that are not there. Other than quotes, I used that word in only one place when referring to the commonly accepted idea that energy is important in our current culture. I was referring only to the difference between things that can be sensed by our five senses, and those that can not.

Was there some part of this that you did not understand? If so, please elaborate, and I will try and describe it better. It is my job as a creator of ideas to get my ideas across. If spirit, or like or dislike or morals are sensible to you, then please tell me which of the five senses you use. I agree that social = stupid does not work. I was not arguing that. I am arguing that psychopath / authoritarian = stupid also does not work, and one version of social is psychopath / authoritarian. Apparently you missed this from my article: There almost always are exceptions when dealing with generalizations about something as complex as humans and their mental processes. I thought that it would be self evident that teachers are different from authority. Learning from authority means that there is no appeal except possibly to other authorities. There is little if any logic or evidence from the physical world. I may spell that out more explicitely. Would you like to contribute since you are, after all, an English Major? And I am NOT being sarcastic.

No. Anybody can keep their fandom, religions etc. All I ask is that decisions about the physical world be made on the basis of the physical world, and things that can be measured and verified, not on likes, dislikes, and such fantasies as "morals", as in "queers, atheists, and (your own favorite here) are immoral and bad"

Again, let me say thank you for reading my article. There were comments that you made that will lead me to change some wording. I would like you to re-read what I wrote, but with a more open mind. That is, do not see what you expect or want to see, but only what is there. I suspect that you may be able to contribute to this in a more positive way since your disagreements were with things that were either not there, or in the case of authority, not well stated by me.

I basically ignored the whole thread. I believe the explanation was that this superior species of highly evolved human tends to make a lot of spelling mistakes? No?

I really don't care about this subject at all so I'm leaving.

You bring up good questions, but might be going about the questions the wrong way. I support you in saying that emotions are a hassle, as i think the world might be better with more controlled emotional outbursts. Someone earlier stated it wasn't possible to choose based outside emotion, but without emotion you choose from direct efficiency. "Which will perform greater gains, for lower cost, and work the best in the situation." It's the popularity contests of today's voting that has slowed our entire species down for hundreds of years, without such stupidities we would have been space faring by now. The authority of "NT" as you call it, is their rash response to anything they don't understand, and so in misunderstanding they crush what is different for fear of it's spreading. Examples: witch trials, Burning of "heretics", burning of red heads as "devils children" spanish inquisition, capitalist assault of communism, Hitlers attack of the jews, Democracy's attack on socialism, Ect. All emotional outbursts brought out by the misunderstanding of certain situations. Continueing with your post, I've also thought of the "evolved species" part of your post and have concluded that it could be possible, given a continued advance away from communication, for a more open and usable telepathic or bodily reading system. I've always thought of it as primitive that we havn't gone past verbal communications, even though they are uncovering a past that goes further then 15,000 yeasr back of our building monolithes worldwide, yet when in need of getting something done collectively, we need to rely on shouting and hand signals? I've made a political party that's still running small time campaigns, not one for any one type of person obviously, but to let others know exactly why, things are how they are by the best ways mankind can explain it themselves. Hope I brought out a few good ideas or thoughts.

How would you define ''social skills'' ? I don't really have the ability or desire to make idle chit chat but when I do express myself I am very honest.My social contacts are limited but they are genuine .Many people with AS often don't seem to say that much but when they do ,they do it in a sincere way.I didn't read the OP 's article and don't have any intention of doing so but it does seem like he seems to be hinting at this particular general theme as to why we[Aspies] may be the next step in evolution,maybe I am wrong,not sure .

I wanted to think on this:

Actually, they were entirely correct. Some people who have experienced what are called cardiovascular accidents and have lost the emotional response, also are unable to choose. Choice --- what you want --- is based on emotion. There are different levels of emotion. There are primitative emotions that even psychopaths have, and there are more complex emotions. Of course, people have them to different degrees. As nearly as I can tell, most people with AS have a smaller range of emotions, and as I posted earlier, experiments seem to confirm this view. Greater gains for who? This is based on opinion/ likes dislikes, and these are connected to emotionsFrear of the unknown has a definite survival value for primitative tribes. It is almost always safer to do what has always been done. There is a reason that tradition is so entrenched in almost all societies. You may not like how evolution works, but you will never address the problems that nature / evolution cause if you do not understand them I do not see a problem. How exactly would telepathy differ from cell phones except droping the ability to conceal ones thoughts ?, some of which we wish to keep hidden, and are often a jumble anyway.

I would like to hear more. Feel free to pm me. You have obviously thought about this, and are open to new ideas and criticism, thus sharing traits that I like to think that I have.

Thank you for your time

Perhaps you would have fewer issues with my paper if you actually read it carefully. I have been engaged with other stuff and decided to revisit this site, having come across numerous papers about how evolution probably is the next step in evolution. I am afraid that most people will not understand what I am saying, but seeing the next step does not mean that evolution is teleological. It means that you can see patterns. For example if the climate is becoming drier, then species will evolve in a direction of being able to survive with less water. Either that or they will die. I would think that anybody with a triple digit IQ could understand that.

As to the quality of my paper. When you have actually read and paid attention to it, then perhaps re-read it, you will be in a better position to critique it.

here is what I actually said:

Almost without exception the men (and it is almost always men) who have won nobel prizes in the sciences, or a fields metal in mathematics, did their work for which they won the prize before they reached 30, and usually before they were married. Of the 472 prizes given in sciences, only 16 have been given to women or about 3.5%.
http://xfoolnature.org/?p=10

And this on ASD being the next step:


http://www.neoteny.org/download-evoluti ... al-change/

http://www.shiftjournal.com

He ties evolution, feminism and neoteny together. At least I think that he does. There is recent archeological findings to support some of this. Not so sure how autism figures in.