A girlfriend is not a lost puppy.

Post Reply New Topic

All the articles I posted links to previously comes with full raw data, so I'm sure you (or anybody else) can easily prove I faked it. So, just get working at proving they are fake or keep your mouth shut.



Leif Ekblad & Lluis Oviedo (2017). Religious cognition among subjects with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): Defective or different? Clinical Neuropsychiatry 14(4):287-296
link: http://www.clinicalneuropsychiatry.org/ ... adetal.pdf (yes, it is peer-reviewed and published).

Clearly, the study relates to Theory of Mind, and not mint-to-mind communication. Their use of the phrase "reading the minds of other people" relates back to this Theory of Mind, and postulates a connection between lack of ToM due to a strongly religious background. The conclusion of the study is very clear on the topic of religious cognition among people with autism. That you tried to pass this study off as "proof" of your crackpot theory is one of the most laughable claims I've read so far this year!

The entire paper, by the way, is on: "Religious cognition among subjects with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): Defective or different?", and NOT on "The Latest Crackpot Theory on Telepathy by an Untrained and Under-Educated Aspie".

Again, we are not as ignorant -- nor as gullible -- as you seem to want us to be!

I’m not saying there’s no such thing as non-verbal communication or humans sensing wavelengths beyond visible light and audible sound. But advanced telepathy as an ND trait? Nope!

I used to work at a storefront of a "Psychic Counselor (For Entertainment Purposes Only!)". The owner taught me the basics of performing a reading (and "performing" is the operative word) in just a few hours. By the end of the week, I was handling clients solo. Within a few months, I had my own following.

The thing to remember is that everyone is subject to his or her own confirmation bias, whereby they will tend to forget the misses and near-misses, as long as when you are correct, you are spot-on. It was easy to convince people who wanted to believe that I had telepathic and E.S.P. abilities.

Thus, I know first-hand that there is no such thing as mind-to-mind communications, communications with dead spirits, or perceiving real-life events and situations without using the physical senses. I also know how gullible people can be. There were people who would desperately try to get in touch with me (this was before cellular phones and the Internet) to tell them if the person they'd just met was "The One", if the house they wanted to buy had any traumatic spiritual history, or to advise them on any decision that they had to make right now.

My point is that there are no real "psychic" abilities, only people who are easily fooled into believing in them.

(@goldfish21: With that said, I think we've gone WAY off-topic in the last couple of pages. How do you want to handle it?)

If I prance around my living room pretending to be a horse, that doesn't mean no real horses exist in the world.

...it also doesn't not mean that no real horses don't exist.

Not every individual in a population will have only adaptive traits and not every phenotype that persists needs to be beneficial but only the genes that cause the phenotype need to be stable in the population.

For example, in some regions sickle cell anemia occurs and is relatively stable from one generation to the next. It's a severe illness. The reason why it persists (albeit it's not extremely common) is not that people with sickle cell anemia reproduce as well as the general population but that people heterozygous for the gene that causes it when you are homozygous for the sickle cell allele, have an advantage via being relatively immune to malaria.

Autism or any other condition that could be seen as ND is not a monogenic trait. It is likely at least partly genetic but caused by a combination of many genes and likely no single one of them has an allele that's necessary for being ND. Some alleles that may contribute to autism could be advantageous in combination with some gene-variants and disadvantageous in combination with others. That would make them persist in a population at a rate where the rate between advantageous to disadvantageous combinations that occur will be good (unless recent changes in environment make them maladaptive). But in that case there will be individuals that get a combination that's less favorable for their biological fitness and in some cases that could cause asexuality.

I'm fairly sure people with type 3 autism reproduce at a much lower rate than the average. I won't guess about type 1 autism and it may be hard to get exact numbers as the ones who cope best will be the ones least likely to be diagnosed. Either way people with any sort of condition don't necessarily need to reproduce as much as the general population for the condition to be stable within the population if individuals without that condition can pass on the relevant gene-variants.

Therefore severe genetic diseases that are monogenic and dominant traits are extremely rare, because they're rarely passed on and mainly occur by de-novo mutation.
Monogenic recessive diseases will be rare, but not necessarily extremely rare if heterozygosity is an advantage.
If a trait is polygenic it gets messy because there can be selection against some combinations and selection for others.
I'm not saying that every condition that's neurodiverse has to be maladaptive, but that a condition exists and persists doesn't prove that it isn't.


Yes, some people on here are at a risk of entering a suboptimal relationship, some might even be willing to stay in an abusive one. I'm not saying that they have to stick to dating only, but even among NTs that's not the only way people can form relationships. Some people get to know each other and can't tell at what point they transitioned to being in a relationship.
But if they want the kind of relationship that's closer to 'normal' relationships, they'll still need to get to know the person and interact with them.


Sure, like anything else that can be used for surveillance it'd come with a risk. My point about making it measurable, if it existed, was purely about what would need to be done to make it subject to scientific research, not about what would be desirable for society as a whole.

thank you

I suppose you didn't realize that I'm one of the authors of it. I'm very well aware that it was about Theory of Mind, and how religion doesn't seem to relate to it.

I answered your claim that belief in the supernatural was not linked to ASD. From the abstract: Furthermore, a spiritual factor with items like belief in ghosts, the supernatural and the paranormal had higher prevalence in autism and neurodiversity



Sure.

So, you once was one of those people that sabotage the field. You should be ashamed.



I never believed or wanted to believe in psychic abilities. I assumed it wouldn't work but got convinced that it did work.



And you claim to be a smart Aspie using science? Above you clearly violate simple logic. Just because you once was a fraud doesn't mean the field you fooled around in must be a fraud.

If asexuality was only common in diagnosed ASD, then your reasoning might be valid. That is not the case. Asexuality is just as high in NDs that are not diagnosable, and those contribute some 15% of the population.

I think a better explanation is that not liking one-night-stands and disliking having sex with many people outside of relationships, has never been a problem. For much of human evolution, it was illegal or morally wrong to have sex outside of a marriage/relationship, and contraceptives were not available. Thus, I would even claim that being able to plan reproduction was an advantage during much of our evolution, so asexuality never was a problem until fairly recently.



I think a "side-effect" of mind-to-mind communication, detecting direction, would be a better candidate for scientific research. I already did some "measurements" based on this that has resulted in two places that I wouldn't know of otherwise. I also have detected when she leaves with the train in the morning, and I could pin-point this to a very specific one. Not to mention that we now end our morning walk at this specific train, and she tells me when it is time to head for the station (I don't have a watch with me).

I'm not very intuitive---so this method wouldn't work for me.

Something doesn't need to be diagnosable or even relevant for ones own well-being to be beneficial or detrimental to one's reproduction and the argument that one gene-variant can be beneficial in one combination but detrimental in another doesn't change. (By the way, homosexuality should have a similar effect on one's likelihood of reproduction as asexuality and it's not very rare either.)
I'm not sure what you even mean by ND. There doesn't seem to be only one definition of the word. The only definition I've ever seen related to having some sort of disorder/condition that affected ones brain wiring. By that definition, while not every ND person would be autistic, they all would have some condition that is diagnosable. But obviously your definition is a different one.
Asexuality also is defined very broadly. Some people who identify as asexual have just as much sex as anyone else but don't feel sexual attraction. With a broad definition of asexuality not every kind of asexuality would be detrimental to reproduction. Some who meet your criterion of not liking one-night-stands or sex outside of a relationship would not self-identify as asexual, because they're aware that they do like sex within a relationship - and even nowadays that's not a mayor problem for reproduction as relationships still exist and it's still perfectly okay to reproduce with a romantic partner rather than a stranger.

But it's true that contraceptives and that, at least in Western societies, nowadays most people can choose not to have sex if they don't want to, change selection factors.


As it's no direct measurement of the phenomenon itself it is difficult to verify that it is actually due to mind-to-mind communication.
As you said you don't have a watch with you, I'd assume that it is always the same time (if it's a completely random time a watch wouldn't help you). But you have an inner-watch. It's not failproof, but time of the day is perceptible with your actual senses that are proven to exist as well as your day and night rhythm. For about half a year I almost always woke up 7 to 1 minutes before my alarm-clock would ring at 7 am. For another person to tell me via some mind-to-mind connection there'd need to be another person who knows when I need to wake up, is awake at that time (if they can determine the time in their sleep then so can I) and cares to wake me up. But it seems more likely that it was just my day and night rhythm that woke me up, because I hated the sound of the alarm clock or that something perceptible happened at around 7 am that was too subtle for me to be consciously aware of.

For the other two examples you didn't specify anything that'd tell me what's going on and therefore I wouldn't know if it'd sound like a normal phenomenon that doesn't require mind-to-mind communication too. But the problem remains that, if you can't measure something, you need to make sure you find a phenomenon that can not be explained otherwise.

Wrong. Marriage/monogamy are relatively new man made constructs. Humans have evolved to have multiple sexual partners to the point that males have a variety of different sperm cells that perform different functions, much like a football team. There are sperm that block other’s sperm, others that attack other’s sperm, and others yet that make a sprint for the egg - as the strongest, fastest, swimmer gets to procreate. Humans have evolved to bang away and have multiple sexual partners just like many animals & then it’s survival of the fittest when the best man’s sperm impreganates the egg while the others get blocked or killed off.



What I’m seeing here over and over is that you have wild guesses about how things work in relationships and biology and then you write a “report,” or post in order to give yourself the confirmation bias you need to argue an incorrect point.

We're on to you, rdos! It's gonna take some really fancy back-pedaling for you to get outta this one, for sure!