I am an "indigo child" (Try and prove me wrong!)

Post Reply New Topic

I can't recall you ever saying that everyone was equal. My comment was merely based on what I had already heard about "indigo children" either being evolutionarily advanced or of improved form than others and on your own insinuations. I apologise for my previous comment, I was just rather offended by your tone. However, I believe there is no excuse to suggest that my reading comprehension is in any way "low" when you hardly know me at all. I'll admit that I was perhaps a little prejudiced and didn't take my time to carefully analyse every word you wrote, but my reading comprehension and ability has always been above average. It's not the best idea to go around calling people dyslexic as an insult, especially as dyslexia has no correlation with intelligence at all.
Anyway, the initial point of my previous post was to point out my opinion that this theory cannot be classed as science yet and you have even backed this up yourself with the link to the Wikipedia page, which stated that: "There is no scientific support for these claims".
If you want any support on this topic, I suggest that you should stop calling us "uneducated" or "lazy", as generally insults won't make you any friends.

I bet you also can't recall where I said I was better than anyone else, but you just automatically assumed I would like all the un-self-actualized individuals here. Because they/you haven't met certain criteria in life to transcend into the next level you lack an ability to understand other peoples "theory of mind."

I've concluded form many observations that it is almost impossible to engage in rational and logical debate when emotions get in the way. The only loop hole around it is to be further up on Marlow's hierarchy of needs (where, I'm not sure yet.)

I often confuse many people by summing up "complex" conceptual information in simple words. The logic is infallible, but none the less most people fail to see the point.

Dsylexia does have correlation with (emotional) intelligence depending on how you measure what is intelligent and I think it would be absurd to assume that someone would be able to process proper emotinal response with an inability to comprehend what they are reading. The difference between Dyslexia and Hyperlexia is that Hyperlexics understand/comprehend what they read where as Dyslexic individuals do not. Oh the flip side, hyperlexics have more troubles learning words (unless learned auditorily), pronouncing words, verbosity, and other forms of verbal language.

You use the "you don't know me" defense mechanism, but you just can't seem to apply it to me, not true. Now that you have thought about it and it has been brought from your subconscious mind to your conscious mind you can relate our emotional responses. Because I'm more aware of mine I do not allow my emotions to cloud my logic. I'm more aware because my brain is wired differently and this has to do with synthesia (and example would be seeing numbers as colors.)

I posted articles with various authors claiming a link between ADD/ADHD and recently Asperger's Syndrome. Certainly you trust what the experts think as you limit your autonomy because of an ability to process large pieces of information over short periods of times. If you understood this was all genetic you would understand that I am not criticize you or myself for that matter. I'm only seeking to better understand so that the knowledge can be shared with others.

I have some more science links and I'll only address further individuals who portray they've watched the videos and/or have other relevant topics of interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl2LwnaUA-k

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... l=en&dur=3

I have this form of synesthesia. I can feel kinetic motion as pain, but who will believe me unless I can prove it with science. If I had the correct tools I would do the work myself, but alas I can not.

I think you just don't know how evolution works. There no "rule to develop higher". There is a rule of surviving to have offspring. Let explain this on an example:

Think about a virus deadly for humans as HIV and easily transmittable as the common cold (there is no reason why such a virus could not involve). The likely consequence for human evolution would be not a more clever kind of humans, but a human race of those which, by accident have a natural immunity against this virus (as today a minority of humans have a natural immunity against HIV). When we would stop today, to go the example HIV, all treatments and prevention regarding HIV/AIDS the likely outcome would be a human race with a high percentage of humans with a natural immunity. Not because they are more clever, but because they survive and have children, sharing their natural immunity.

There no reason to see why Autist or the supposedly "Indigo" shall have a better change of spreading their genome around.

---

Evolution is a very brutal game.

A bit ironic you accused me of misunderstanding of evolution.. I hope you feel the need to reverse that statement after consider this.

I visualize evolution as a tree of different outcomes. Some branches are longer than others and some may or may not be better suited to their environment.

A simple observation of how animals have evolved into different subspecies is a good analogy for me to explain your fallacy of logic.

Different species of birds that had developed from the same origin of species are not necessarily more or less valuable than each other in the sense that they are best suited for their environment. We still could understand which birds have the latest evolutionary traits could we not? And why would there traits be changing faster than any other traits? They would be evolving quicker if their environment was changing quicker through natural selection. Simply put, the slow evolving die. These newly evolved birds certainly can be said to be more evolved, but that does not mean that the other birds in different environments would be any more or less suited for their environment. They can peacefully coexist and can form synergy if they can work together. Nature does this naturally within species and a good example is the Worker Bee who evolved to create synergy despite not being able to survive on its own.

Now, if I can prove to the people with tin foil hats on that I am the latest in evolution through modern genetics than I can move into further detail.

If your convinced that I am the latest, but still think its blasphemy for me to proclaim I'm more evolved, you need to correct my story of the birds and the bees I just told. You will need to do this with a consistent logic where you conclude the bird with the faster changing environment who is evolving faster, is NOT more evolved. If this is not the cause than consider the following..

What are some of the traits associated with all "indigos?" The symptom would obviously be classified as insomnia.
-They simply can not fall into a 24 hour sleep schedule
--Research suggests that no one else really does either, but some are more adaptable to it.

Why would this have happened?
-Indoor lighting
--We've adapted for longer days because of indoor lighting.

I got some more traits as a result of evolution theories, but we'll take this slow.

The hypocrisy here manifests itself within the areas of self-actualization that have yet to be over come. People out lash and chose not to accept another because they are different, but at the same time wish others would accept them for being different.
I understand why someone would feel emotional over being called "less evolved", but on the same token, its hypocrisy for them to be prejudice against people who have been evolved quicker. If you understand the science you can conclude we where born with this conditions and what is the point of dwelling over something that can not be changed. This will give new hope to those who question whether or not they have a disorder because they are different.

Autism, Aspergerg's syndrome, "indigo children", or whatever you want to call it.. the spectrum gene pool is entering Western Society and I believe the scientific explanation of what happens with "self-idigoism" would be explained thanks to research in the autistic spectrum. After all, I've learned a wealth of information from nuerotypicals, it's about time they learned something from me/we.

I'm quite certain you are thinking of 'Village of the Damned'

I'm not going to join in the debate over the rights or wrongs of the 'Indigo concept' as presented by the OP, but I will say this; About 5 years before I got my AS diagnosis, my mother was sent on a course on understanding autism as part of the training she had to do as a foster carer.
After the presentation, my mother took the course leader aside to tell her that everything she had said about autistic behaviour fitted exactly with how I had behaved as I grew up.

The course leader's reply?

That I must be an indigo child and to look it up and that my mother was very lucky.

My mum is very gullible to metaphysical stuff, but I am not, but it did leave me having to convince my mother for several months that the indigo concept was utter tripe and that I haven't been sent to usher in some X-Men-ish evolution of humanity.

And low and behold, I was diagnosed AS several years later, and I'm left feeling a bit of anger at this woman for saying such contrary rubbish while at the same time supposedly being able to lecture on autism, and for the mess she left me to clean up convincing my mother that this was more like a religious belief than sound scientific principle.
Perhaps if she had been honest with my mother I could have know about AS sooner and been spared the extra 5 years of always trying to work out what's so wrong with me to others.

I think Dussel thinks correctly.

If Dussel were not absolutely correct in accusing you of having a less than comprehensive understanding of the most rudimentary basics of evolution and evolutionary processes, it is highly unlikely you would make such absurd statements.

None the less, I invite you to entertain us all by explaining what you imagine the reproductive advantage of being adapted to longer days because of indoor lighting is.


I see no reason to not accept you. I find your assertions absurd, your apparent conceptualization of evolution laughable, and your remonstrations overly melodramatic and emotional, but that does not mean I do not accept you.

You're more aware of ... because you feel kinetic motion as pain?

And uh, I'll save you the trouble devaluing my comprehension by saying that I don't know anything about synesthesia - by saying that as a matter of fact I am a synesthete, seeing sound as shape.

I have watched these two videos. They are about synesthesia and do not once mention indigo children. No one disputes the existence of synesthesia. I must say that the two videos together ran for 62 minutes and 42 seconds. I don't think it is fair to try to exclude those who don't watch them from debate, especially considering the videos were of little relevance to the science of 'indigo' children. Indeed, were I of a suspicious nature, I would assume you posted those videos in an attempt to give you an excuse to ignore some who are sceptical of your claim. But I'm totally not a suspicious person.

Now, would you be willing to post something that supports 'indigoness' with science please?

From what I have read of Indigos or Indigo children they seem to be a personality type with good and bad features.

This topic has been discussed here several times, such as here - http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt53089.html . Because of my strong interest in personality types, I find this topic very interesting.

There is information about Indigos here: http://www.allaboutindigos.com . According to that website Barack Obama and Rafael Correa, the President of Ecuador, are Indigos.

The indigo child website: http://www.indigochild.com .

Anything associated with New Age is automatically suspect. The term "Indigo Child" is used to describe autistic children by mothers who refuse to accept the cold, had truth that their children are no perfect. So instead of learning how to deal with their child's condition, they delude themselves into believing that their children are somehow "special."

Indigo children have no special powers, simply because there are no special powers to have. There is no such thing as "magic" and "psychic" abilities do not exist, either.

Anyone who claims otherwise is either a deluded fool, or a deliberate liar. If it were otherwise, there would be an abundance of valid scientific evidence. Instead, all that is available involves testimonials from uneducated, ignorant sources; and so-called "documentaries" from people who have a hidden agenda or a promotional concept to make money for themselves.

It's all a scam.

Chuang Tzu told the story of a frog that lived in a well. The frog was absolutely certain that the well was the entire universe and nothing else existed.

I also know a few stories. One of them - by Aesop - has to do with an emperor who thought that his new clothes could only be seen by the most enlightened individuals. Everyone supported the emperor's delusion simply because they did not wish to look like a fool. Then one day, a little boy pointed out to everyone that the emperor was really naked - he had no clothes at all.

The moral of the story is that one should not believe everything they are told, especially if the evidence does not support the claims.

There is absolutely no valid evidence to support the claim that indigo children are anything more than ordinary children with autism.

Korn child topic

OK. I remember reading a biography of Hitler and in it he described himself as such with the first ten characteristics.

People can define themselves in what ever way they wish. Anyone could do the same.

I would neither prove you wrong or right. I would simply ask: Now what?

(If I was that curious, which, at this point, I am not.)

I can in fact recall statements in which that opinion was expressed. For instance: "Humans evolve and I'm one of the latest in evolution." - what part of that sentence portrays any view that all humans are equal or that you do not believe you are of more value than non-"indigo children"? Yes, I do lack an ability to understand other people's theory of mind but that is due to my autism and I personally don't think there's any way to fully change that. We Aspie's can adapt and learn to cope with our differences, sure, but underneath we'll always be autistic, there's no cure or miraculous understanding.

The "logic" will, of course, seem infallible to you, as it is your logic. That doesn't mean everyone will have to agree with it and it also doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong. If you can't see our points of view then you obviously haven't reached understanding of "theory of mind", despite what you claim.

Just because someone is dyslexic it doesn't mean they can't comprehend what they read, it just means they have difficulty reading it. My cousin is autistic and dyslexic and he has done incredibly well in school, college and university. He still has difficulty reading and writing individual words but he can understand what the context perfectly fine. I also have a friend who is dyslexic and she loves reading. She can comprehend everything she reads, obviously, otherwise why would she enjoy reading it? Dyslexia is not to do with the individual's ability to comprehend, it is their ability to read and write, you should really get your facts straight before you start claiming such things, as you could really offend some people here.

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I'm sure you will do) but I wasn't under the impression that synaesthesia had anything to do with logic or control of emotions. I am curious to hear how it does affect these things. I'm sure you do have synaesthesia, I'm not claiming in any way that you don't have it. I'm also not claiming that I know more about these subjects than you do, as it is obvious that I don't. Please bear in mind, though, that I am only 16 and am merely expressing my opinions, which, considering the title of this topic, I assumed you were asking for.

(I really don't feel like waiting for my slow internet to stream just under 63 minutes of video and I gather from others' responses that the videos are not entirely relevant either, so I hope you can understand why I don't feel like watching them.)

You could just be a throwback of evolution like the other "Indigo Children."

Don't get me wrong, I don't see no point in believing this indigo children stuff.

Especially when they start talking about "Native American beliefs," unless they're Native American themselves or they spent quite a bit of time on a reservation hanging out with the elders.

Kinda like Madonna claiming to understand the esoteric traditions of Judaism.

On this thread, right here, right now, what cultural bias is everybody supporting, insisting anybody thinking outside that cultural bias is a fool?




No, the moral of the story is recognizing that the traditions of one culture are not necessarily the sole and absolute definition of universal truth, which I personally believe is beyond human comprehension.