The truth about how love and attraction really work

Post Reply New Topic

Ah, one of those "I cured myself" guys. Are you sure you actually were autistic to begin with?

If I ever get to the point of feeling 40% less autistic I think it would feel like I was dead, and so not something to aspire for. I feel I've become 50% more autistic instead, and I'm quite content with that.

Yes, because results of study mentioned in this article match predictions of my hypothesis. There are no results that contradict it.

"Inner chimp" is idiom, explanatory oversimplified approximation for hypothesis of certain environmental factors and stimuli being a requirement for expression of genes responsible for mechanisms of biological attraction and mate selection.


This is not how scientific method works. This is evidence in support of my hypothesis whether you like it or not.

That's not enough to prove a hypothesis. Not to mention that the study doesn't even study anything relevant for your hypothesis (see below).



The present study has nothing to do with the environment. It measured if genetics in the MHC were similar or dissimilar in married couples. There is not even a remote connection to the environment in the study, at least not one that has been validated.

Besides, your hypothesis is completely incompatible with the theory of evolution, but I suppose you don't believe in evolution either? That's because functions that result in lack of reproduction cannot be retained in the population, and so requiring certain stimuli in order to be able to participate in reproduction is something that cannot evolve, unless it has huge benefits, which is not the case with your hypothesis. You even claim this is part of all mammals and not only humans, and that the stimuli are shared, which makes it even less compatible with evolution.

My guess is that you simply have distorted some more reasonable hypothesis that makes more sense. Like some more reasonable theory from ethology about courtship. After all, courtship has a need for triggers, and in many species, we can assume that in the absence of these triggers there is no interest or attraction. Something that likely applies to humans too. However, as I already pointed out, courtship is species-typical and not something shared between many species. In the context of courtship, it makes a lot of sense that the triggers are required and this is not incompatible with evolution since cross-species mating typically is wasted effort.

Besides, if you really are autistic after all, and not just misdiagnosed as younger, then the thinking that "I got a partner" is only the beginning and not the "we will live happily ever after". For people that fake a lot to appear NT, this is the stage when the real trouble starts, unless they have selected a compatible partner. Given your talk about "I cured myself", the chances of you having selected a compatible partner seem low, so I guess we simply have to hope that you are not autistic after all.

This is not how scientific method works. There is hypothesis, there is prediction, there is scientific data collected. Results either match or contradict prediction. This is evidence is clearly supports this hypothesis. What kind of wannabe "researcher" doesn't understand that?


What kind of wannabe researcher never ever heard of meta-analysis?


This hypothesis is fundamentally part of theory of evolution. This is how human species evolve to thrive in new environment.


I'm well aware of challenges of long-term relationships with NT females. I stopped faking to appear NT after traveling abroad and seeing that people are more accepting to differences in communication when it's clear upfront you are coming from a different culture. And I stopped trying to date with women on the spectrum in hopes it would be easier. People on the spectrum are all different, each person has their own quirks, it is much harder to have a relationship with ASD female when overlap is even smaller than with NT, chances of perfect match are very slim.

Sure, and in this case they contradict and so you added a just-so explanation for why it was contradicted in the African American population.



Wannabe? I have published three papers and I think this makes me a researcher. I also regularly do peer-review for JADD.



Meta-analysis usually uses papers relevant to the hypothesis/research area. In this case, you have not yet presented ANY paper that is relevant to your hypothesis.



Previously you claimed it was something common to all mammals, but now you are talking about human populations. So, which is it?



Good that you have stopped faking, but the cultural argument will cease to work as you get to know people better, like in a relationship.

You are wrong that everybody on the spectrum is different. The correct statement is that people on the spectrum have a random combination of autistic traits (and some NTs have these autistic traits too). There is a well-defined set of relationship traits that are correlated to autism, and these actually are the courtship traits. If you have these, you can both attract & develop a worthwhile relationship with somebody that has them too. A relationship where you can communicate naturally and not through NT emulation.

No there is no contradiction. This is predicted outcome, so this result is evidence in support of hypothesis.


Yes, wannabe. Publishing three papers doesn't mean value of your research is recognized by peers. I have published and co-authored several articles when worked on my post-graduate thesis but don't consider myself a legit researcher.


MHC-dependent mate selection is one of mechanisms affected, so it is relevant. There are papers published on sunlight exposure in African Americans, this is one of the groups in your paper, so it is relevant. Outcome matches prediction. So this is evidence in support of my hypothesis. Stop throwing a tantrum and deal with it.

I don't think wannabe or not is related to how much peers like your research. Particularly not when I'm critical of much of the ASD research done. Citations & reads are more important, and lots of people read my work, both the preprints and the three that actually passed peer-review.



Yeah, and then the "autism epidemic" here in Sweden proposed to be caused by sunlight exposure was published too. Just because something is published doesn't make it right or relevant. You should know about the replication crisis in this kind of research.

Good bye.

Good-bye, bot! Do not let the door hit you on your way out!

We're all one big dysfunctional family here on WP!

Reminds me of my family, come to think of it...

Thanks!

Oh no -- love overdose

I'm DYIN'....

Oh no -- LOVE OVERDOSE ! !!




I'm DYIN'....