Page 3 of 4 [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Cyd
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 95

02 Jul 2012, 8:31 am

Evolution isn't about choosing mates or choosing a characteristic one doesn't like. The evolving system doesn't consciously pick and choose what it wants nature to change about it. Regardless of how smart the system thinks it is. Nature changes the mold, according to need, not the casting.

I think "autism" is much further along than people think. By the time a change would be recognized and named, it would have to have been well underway for quite some time. I think there are some particular "autistic" aspects, present in most of the current world's population, in varying ratios with the "old" mechanism.

We don't exist outside of nature. Our "higher intelligence" and even our emotions are governed by the same laws that govern the rest of the universe. We do not exist outside of this universe - religion not-withstanding.

From what I've observed, it appears that NTs are becoming quite weary of the very "game" autistic individuals are unable to play (without a great deal of effort). I spent 50 years on this planet as "odd" but not known - by myself or any other - to be "defective". The consequence was that I didn't think of myself as "autistic" and, so, it didn't affect how I see people as it would have if I had known that they would have viewed me as "defective". My primary reason to avoid contact, quit jobs and move was that people tend to "cling" to me. Granted, I had the additional oddity of being exceptionally "smart", but I suspect it is because I don't waste "brain time" on "the game" and that it feels good to them to get something done without all of the social rigamarole.

It stands to reason that there would be members of a system that would have varying ratios between the "old" and the "new", at the same time there would be members with aspects of the "old" completely changed, or deactivated or replaced with something new. And it stands to reason that pervasive, "in your face" constructs - like politics and social structure - would have an effect on the mind and a physical effect on the brain.



It is thought that the limbic system - in those with "autism" - is immature. There isn't anything "wrong" with it, everything is where it should be and fires properly, it's just viewed as "immature". But it is ALSO viewed as "primitive", which, in scientific terms, often means "of a lesser value" than other systems.

Both constructs - political and social - have their basis in deception. One must be able to hide what one feels or pretend one feels nothing. In other words, one is taught (and often forced) to do one's best to disregard the processes of a rather significant portion of one's brain.

Now, one might think that "evolution" would simply turn that part of the brain off - but what if it turns off the part that interferes with it, instead? What if the limbic system isn't "primitive" but, rather, "fundamental" and necessary to a specific, evolutionary transformation? What if the perceived "maturity" of that portion of the brain is actually an "aggravation" or "inflammation" created by man's constant attempts to override it?

The general population, as I perceive them, are quite weary of the "pretense" involved in playing "the game". Things are very different, even from when I was a child. "NTs" appear to be more intelligent, less social AND more agitated about the "old ways". And things are moving much, MUCH faster, so when things go "wacky", they go VERY wacky, very quickly and the people grow even MORE weary of the "foot-dragging", old way of "solving" problems with politics and social subterfuge.

I think an evolutionary transformation is well underway. Far too many have cleared the hurdle of killing or locking away those who display flagrant differences and it appears to be speeding up, quite nicely. In other words, I think we passed "the point of no return", long before we stopped killing and/or locking away those who are different. It makes perfect sense - from my point of view - that as the general population gradually changes, it would become less and less likely to destroy those in whom they recognize "something" - even if they can't "name" it, they would almost certainly sense a familiarity and change their approach to the examination of such individuals - seeking similarities rather than differences.

It's like a new world out there and it is becoming more and more recognizable as "our" world rather than "their" world. And by "ours", I don't mean an "autistic" world. I mean mankind's world.



Cyd
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 95

02 Jul 2012, 8:43 am

To clarify - when I say NTs are becoming "less social", I don't mean that they are becoming introverted - I mean they are not as social in the "old" manner of being social. With the internet, people are able to "gather" more naturally, according to one's interests and beliefs and as little or as often as one likes. As opposed to the "unnatural" form of gathering according to "social" rules and for the purpose of socializing, itself.



McAnulty
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 258
Location: Montreal

02 Jul 2012, 8:53 am

Cyd wrote:
To clarify - when I say NTs are becoming "less social", I don't mean that they are becoming introverted - I mean they are not as social in the "old" manner of being social. With the internet, people are able to "gather" more naturally, according to one's interests and beliefs and as little or as often as one likes. As opposed to the "unnatural" form of gathering according to "social" rules and for the purpose of socializing, itself.


The social thing is very culturally influenced. Americans in general are becoming less social, we don't value living in large communities the way we used to, and the way it's done by many other cultures. In a way this is very bad, because there is no one around to help take care of the people who need caring for anymore. We're all so focused on our own selves and our own things that no one is there for each other like before. This is why people end up in nursing homes, alienated from relatives that live far away, quitting their jobs to take care of special needs children. We need to hire strangers to watch our kids because there's no one around who can help out. We're social creatures and in a way becoming less social is causing more problems than it's solving. I think the old social rules were probably better than what we have now. Just my opinion.



Cyd
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 95

02 Jul 2012, 9:36 am

McAnulty wrote:
Cyd wrote:
To clarify - when I say NTs are becoming "less social", I don't mean that they are becoming introverted - I mean they are not as social in the "old" manner of being social. With the internet, people are able to "gather" more naturally, according to one's interests and beliefs and as little or as often as one likes. As opposed to the "unnatural" form of gathering according to "social" rules and for the purpose of socializing, itself.


The social thing is very culturally influenced. Americans in general are becoming less social, we don't value living in large communities the way we used to, and the way it's done by many other cultures. In a way this is very bad, because there is no one around to help take care of the people who need caring for anymore. We're all so focused on our own selves and our own things that no one is there for each other like before. This is why people end up in nursing homes, alienated from relatives that live far away, quitting their jobs to take care of special needs children. We need to hire strangers to watch our kids because there's no one around who can help out. We're social creatures and in a way becoming less social is causing more problems than it's solving. I think the old social rules were probably better than what we have now. Just my opinion.


I can't tell if you want to discuss this, or not, so I will simply say that your perspective is noted. Thank you.



McAnulty
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 258
Location: Montreal

02 Jul 2012, 10:31 am

I'm always open to discussions! Wouldn't share my opinion if I wasn't. :D



Cyd
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 95

02 Jul 2012, 10:42 am

McAnulty wrote:
I'm always open to discussions! Wouldn't share my opinion if I wasn't. :D


Well...I've detected a flaw at the very basis of your perspective. Please tell me how I can address it without offending you?



That's not a question - I edited and forgot to fix the punctuation. At any rate, it is a request.

Perhaps a better word would be "paradox". I detect a "paradox" in what you're saying.



Cyd
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 95

02 Jul 2012, 11:14 am

I love paradoxes!



McAnulty
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 258
Location: Montreal

02 Jul 2012, 11:33 am

Feel free to point it out. I won't be offended.



bernerbrau
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jun 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 73

02 Jul 2012, 11:50 am

Aspergers/autism is likely genetic. This is known (or at least strongly suspected) in the scientific community. It's a gene mutation that expresses itself with increased introspection, extreme introversion, disinterest outside of focus areas, and poor executive function.

Some of us are successful at finding mates because that extreme focus sometimes makes us good at our jobs, which sometimes makes us financially successful, which sometimes increases our appeal to the opposite gender, sometimes enough to make up for our other, severe, shortcomings.

It doesn't make us a new species. There is no "Homo Aspergerus". We are Homo Sapiens, and that's an indisputable fact. Aspergers is just a genetic trait, like skin color, hair/eye color, or hemophilia. It's also a near impossibility that Aspergers will ever overtake NT in the gene pool when the world by and large still favors alpha male NT types. Further, the human gene pool is too homogeneous and the human genome is too self-correcting to ever expect an abrupt transition into a "new species" in human evolution. The most likely outcome is that the human genome will drift over time (this is known as "population drift"), but as a whole, not with an "emergent species".

In case of a cataclysmic event where a majority of humans are wiped out, then and ONLY then will we see a rapid shift in human evolution with new emergent sub-species, and then only if the remanining humans are capable enough not to be driven extinct in the new "post-apocalyptic" world.



Cyd
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 95

02 Jul 2012, 12:57 pm

McAnulty wrote:
Feel free to point it out. I won't be offended.



The idea that everyone should abandon their own course and take the course you want them to take...well...do you see the problem?

The subject matter doesn't change the basis of your argument - whether you are talking about putting elders in nursing homes or one's elbows on the table, it is not "selfless" to want another to be selfless so that you can have what you want. Hence, the paradox.



McAnulty
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 258
Location: Montreal

02 Jul 2012, 1:09 pm

Well I don't really feel everyone should take the course I want. I'm just one individual, with one opinion. I think I was coming more from the point of view that becoming less and less involved with those around us might be satisfying for someone, but as a whole it makes us weaker if everyone is left to fend for themselves. I also was thinking that by being more selective about who we communicate and interact with, like online with communities based around an interest, we shut ourselves off from all the other opinions and experiences people who don't think like us have to offer. It becomes easier to just shut out any aspect of the world we don't want to deal with. This is why I don't completely agree with the idea that present day socializing is more natural than more traditional ones. I don't think my opinions are selfless or anything, I don't think it's possible to be selfless actually, even when we do good things we do them because they feel good. Everything we ever do is motivated by some type of personal reward. And of course my opinion is biased by my own life experiences.



Blownmind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 825
Location: Norway

02 Jul 2012, 1:26 pm

We could all just watch http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ (a movie called "Idiocracy" from 2006), and call it a day.

The morons(Moron is a term once used in psychology to denote mild mental retardation, in 1910) will populate the world, and the many will survive, not the strong nor the smart. Even though this is a comedy of a futuristic world gone wrong, this has been backed up by research. It is the path we are on today, the less educated procreate more, the uneducated procreate less or even postpone it for so long they are unable to when they finally get "time".

The modern humans with personality traits and lifestyle most desirable for mass reproduction will succed in bringing their genes to the next species. I guess that rules out the well educated atleast, unless some scientist invents a biological weapon in the future that only kills those with certain genetic markers indicating low intelligence, or a government intervenes somehow.


_________________
AQ: 42/50 || SQ: 32/80 || IQ(RPM): 138 || IRI-empathytest(PT/EC/FS/PD): 10(-7)/16(-3)/19(+3)/19(+10) || Alexithymia: 148/185 || Aspie-quiz: AS 133/200, NT 56/200


McAnulty
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 258
Location: Montreal

02 Jul 2012, 1:30 pm

I love that movie, I had also read that the average IQ has been steadily decreasing and found it fascinating. Humans are too smart for our own good, lol.



Cyd
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 95

02 Jul 2012, 3:20 pm

McAnulty wrote:
Well I don't really feel everyone should take the course I want. I'm just one individual, with one opinion. I think I was coming more from the point of view that becoming less and less involved with those around us might be satisfying for someone, but as a whole it makes us weaker if everyone is left to fend for themselves. I also was thinking that by being more selective about who we communicate and interact with, like online with communities based around an interest, we shut ourselves off from all the other opinions and experiences people who don't think like us have to offer. It becomes easier to just shut out any aspect of the world we don't want to deal with. This is why I don't completely agree with the idea that present day socializing is more natural than more traditional ones. I don't think my opinions are selfless or anything, I don't think it's possible to be selfless actually, even when we do good things we do them because they feel good. Everything we ever do is motivated by some type of personal reward. And of course my opinion is biased by my own life experiences.


This is where I would have to get "philosophical" with regards to "shutting out" and "shutting off". Obviously, I do both. But the question is, "Why?", and I have never successfully explained my perspective on this particular subject but the way you worded your views gives me an idea -

No one is open to all of the opinions and aspects of the world. Everyone, whether NT or non-NT, is open to aspects and opinions in which they have interest and "shut themselves off" from those in which they have no interest. They cannot do otherwise but most can - and do - pretend. Which is man's chosen form of "socializing". It is taught to people as children, and maintained by increasingly convoluted and desperate measures.

You are not alone in your opinions but I don't think change is a - or "the" - problem. Nature doesn't stand still and she doesn't travel backward. The laws and forces at work in this society are the same laws and forces that eat stars and s**t planets. It seems pretty obvious to me that the very desire to control what cannot be controlled is going to result in some discomfort. Personally, I prefer to trust in the forces of nature. They're bigger, they've been doing it longer PLUS they don't call me "defective". ROFL!!

I don't mean to make light of your opinion. As I said, you are not alone. If "the truth" - whatever that is - were elected, democratically, you would win. Hands down. I am a minority of one. No worries.



McAnulty
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 258
Location: Montreal

02 Jul 2012, 4:00 pm

It is all kind of in the eye of the beholder. It depends what each person perceives to be better or not I guess. But obviously the universe was here before us and will be here after us, and in the end our species isn't as important as we like to think it is. It doesn't really get better or worse, it just keeps existing.