Nature VS Nurture

The Law VS Evolution: Taking the Courts to Court

Jeff/neighsayerLeave a comment

No single Creator made this world. Nothing has an eternal Nature, and no-one needs to be controlled for it. The human world is made by humans, if we’re evil or broken, that’s on us and us alone, and to a great degree we are those things and it is on us, something we’re doing. Something we are, most of us say, the Nature thing again, but no, I’m sorry, that’s off the table, at least it is in my kitchen and that’s where you are right now, it’s something we do.

.

In evolution, otherwise known as life, what we do and what we are travel together. What you do is what you are, what you do is what you are becoming.

.

What we do is a lot of abuse to control the assumed Nature, and that eternal Nature isn’t really there, so what’s left? A lot of abuse to be what we are, to be what we are becoming, which, too obvious, but saying two plus two is a writer’s job, so: abuse victims and abusers. It’s on us, and no-one else. And again, always, it’s evolution, this isn’t something that happens to some eternal model of human in every life, all this is cumulative. In theory, and surely in an invisible reality, in the potful of water and frogs, every generation in a world of controlling abuse gets more so, more abusive, more abused.

Also, sorry to say, this doesn’t happen in the wild, and education won’t do it. I’m very much a privileged person, I don’t know anyone who didn’t go to school, but they all believe in the Nature. This happens at the top of our society, in the institutions. It is precisely the institutions of control that are at the centre of it. Who is rioting? The police, right? The peacekeepers, leading the charge for abuse in general.

.

I mean, Law is based in the Natures, and as such is against natural law, meaning evolution. Law makes crime and criminals, and always, life is evolution, so it makes them cumulatively. It is amazing to watch police budgets take over everything, and they cannot imagine that it’s just stupid and misguided. They say: the people are getting worse, we need more money, as though the change happened in their absence, as if they have only been trying their way for a month.

.

The simple logic, police are here, and people are getting worse, that’s two plus two in evolution, otherwise known as real life, but there is this matter of neurotype. Two plus two isn’t simple for everyone.

Jeff

May 7th., 2024

The Last Blog, the Puzzle

Jeff/neighsayerLeave a comment

I’m finished. I’m done, said it all or said enough for the world for a few centuries anyway. But I will confess, it’s not very clear, the blog’s a mess of divergent thinking and divergent grammar to boot and I personally could never suffer through enough of it to get the point, and I don’t expect anyone else to.

I’ve been fantasizing about auditing it for quality and relevance, see which ones were downright embarrassing and would turn you away and harm the cause and so need to be deleted, but honestly that thought centres around only a few entries, and any expansion of the criteria may wipe the hole thing out. Why bother.

Just know this: it was a journey, so the focus . . . evolves, probably from trying to express myself within the parameters of the NT science and psychology I began with to combat spanking, to evo sort of theories about why we spank, and then to neurodiversity based ideas about it, about how spanking pretty much defines and directs the majority neurotype.

It’s been a few years since I’ve boasted, but the kernel of the idea I began with has not changed and it has survived and evolved through all challenges, absorbing or simply refuting all challenges, but this only means that I am corroborating myself, it only means that within my view, I can make it all fit in a way that doesn’t offend my neurology. Not to minimize it completely, the whole world of human beings offends my neurology. It wasn’t easy finding my own mind. The whole world seemed to fight me.

On a personal level, this has been horribly, fantastically true.

I’ve learned something very recently, so it’s still hot, but . . . yeah.

Back to the blog, what I say here probably has its whole development in the blog somewhere, not that me saying it is a citation, but it’s an attempt to pre-emptively stop you thinking there isn’t a whole lot of thought behind this rather short iteration, the puzzle.

Spanking makes for authoritarianism.

No-one gets “better,” as in nicer from punitive abuse, all that is just words, and lies to boot. An environment of threat and abuse in childhood changes people, maybe just Allistic people. It sets an epigenetic option for authoritarianism, for violence.

Because evolution is how the world works, not how your stupid Dad said it works, by threats and deterrents. We evolve, we do not avoid.

But they won’t stop, this is the puzzle.

Either they are “nice,” people who believe the words or they are less nice people who believe in the result, the aggression, and call it strength. Neither sort will stop, the last statistic I heard, surely a decade or two old by now, said that eighty-five percent of Americans self reported spanking (doing it to children, not getting spanked. This clarification is necessary on social media). The rise of fascism would seem to suggest that it has not lessened more recently.

It makes them aggressive, spanking, and they won’t stop, because they are aggressive and aggressive is good, when you’ve been spanked. It is the most vicious of vicious circles, and it is the puzzle of the age, the one that because it hasn’t been solved, we cannot stop the rich from burning the oil, because the authoritarianism of money is to be expected when you’ve been spanked, because toxic madness is not something a spanked population can imagine life without. Spanking blots out the real world for the human social world of control, we are all forced to a choice by spanking, believe my mind and the reality I see, or believe Mom and Dad and survive?

Spanking pushes them over the edge into purely social. The violence in the environment sets them up to learn violence and hate, this is adaptation, learn it or fade away. The world is coming to a bad end, and we created an environment of threat and violence . . . weird to say: on purpose. I mean, spanking and cops, this is intentional, right? They certainly own it when they spank, it’s all You will do it My Way. They don’t seem to think it’s an accident when they do it.

The puzzle is to make them see it, to stop the spanking and watch their stupid “Natures,” miraculously change for the better, to convince an angry, aggressive creature that life would be better without it, that they themselves need to want to evolve in the other direction and it’s already too late, but like the old saying, the best time is generations ago, but second best is now.

Jeff

April 10th., 2024

The Wall

Jeff/neighsayerLeave a comment

So, there are five blind men, trying to identify an elephant.

Why is this the job of blind men? Well, for the purposes of the story, let’s say this is the whole town, everyone is blind, and hey, why not the whole world? It will still work, as long as you and I, Dear Reader, are still in this world and not in the story. It is a blind world and a blind little town, and these are the scientists among this blind population, these five. Why five? Well the elephant is an unknown, no-one knew which to call and simply called them all, I assume they must all have their own areas of expertise.

These five have lives and do not live together, so when they are called and come to inspect the new thing, they come from all around, and each approaches the thing from a different direction. The nearest and first to arrive encounters the tail of the beast and proposes that someone has hung a rope here but is no longer about to claim or explain it. The next one comes up beside the first, touches the elephant’s leg and says, Rope, what rope, this is a tree, while another meets the animal head on and declares that the town has been invaded by a huge snake.

A fourth scholar upon arrival finds an ear and has a theory, it is a great fan for some reason, I’m sorry, I only repeat the story, I wasn’t there. I don’t know how trees or fans just walk into town or suddenly appear – look, it’s not the point, OK?

Anyway, the last of the five appears with some pomp – apparently he was waiting in order to show up last – and broadsides the beast at full walking speed. Embarrassed and rubbing his nose, he bellows, What are you all talking about, it’s a bloody wall!

By now, a crowd has gathered and there is some quiet laughter and chatter going on. The other four examiners double checked and reiterated themselves, Sorry, no, it’s a rope, a fan, a tree, a snake.

Run, you fools! Shouted the one at the front. A snake this thick and standing this tall can surely eat people! But the other four were unmoved, assured of their own perceptions, and honest with himself, that scholar had to admit that the snake had not grabbed him, or demonstrated any aggression and all remained debating the situation, but the latest arrival, Mr. Wall, let us say, turned to address the crowd.

The wall broke my nose! It’s a hazard! He declared. No-one has been eaten by any snake, and ropes don’t break your nose by just hanging, and trees and giant fans don’t simply appear out of no-where, someone has built a wall!

He waved off the objections of his peers, still addressing the people hanging about. Are you going to wait until you break your noses too? He waded into the crowd, taking people’s hands and having them feel his swollen nose.

Ouch! said some empath, No, we don’t want that! What are those other guys thinking? At this, Mr. Wall grew serious. That’s a good question, he said, and honestly, I can’t explain it. They seem to have taken leave of their senses, don’t they? What sort of perversion turns a wall into a snake?

The buzz of the onlookers dropped an octave as well. Was there something wrong about the other scholars? Were they lying? Someone wondered, was this the first time? What other things have these four been telling us about? As these noises increased, the erroneous four melted into the background and made an escape, saying to one another, I may not know from walls, but I know from angry crowds, I’m out.

It happened that soon after the event that the wall disappeared, along with a great quantity of produce from the stalls along the town’s main street, and so with further study impossible, the wall incident passed into history. Mr. Wall made great hay and fame off of it, he would be the Father of Wallology, while three of the other four saw their reputations suffer and their departments’ budgets shrink, and they faded into retirement.

Mr. Snake published a somewhat successful book about the missing produce, which phenomenon happened a few more times, although no-one felt a wall during those events, so no-one paid much attention.

It would be the Age of Walls now, and dissenters would find themselves on the wrong side of it.

Jeff

March 7th., 2024

The Hard Pill

Jeff/neighsayer3 Comments

It’s not easy hearing about neurotype, hearing about it and that it means you. I’m sorry. I’ve been trying to bludgeon people with it, I so ought to know better.

It’s not easy for anybody, is it, and of course, it means everybody.

It’s not easy for “normal people,” either.

I think in normal people’s normal paradigm, in the world of “Human Nature,” everyone is all things, at least we all have the potential for all things, like the individual is a molecule of the human element, made of what all of humanity is made of, a fractal sort of idea, as for one is for all, sort of a thing, but the existence of neurodiversity annihilates all that.

Perhaps we are atoms instead, and combine to make only neurotype molecules instead, and humanity is not one element but several, a compound element. From containing the possibilities of all of humanity within oneself to containing only some of them, this can only be a downgrade, a sad bit of learning for us all, but many folks on the divergent side learned it young and have lived with it already. For the Neurotypical, learning it must be comparable to the experience of a late hatching Autistic, what the Hell do you mean I am missing some big pieces and no-one cared to notice?

Except how many are forced to see it, not so many.

The force, ha – the Force – is on their side, and works against their self examination, to their own detriment. To know thyself is critical, but somehow we have evolved in such a way that not to has somehow become even more critical, we are a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, etc., insoluble and so unbeatable or something. There is something about your organizing principles can’t be disturbed if you don’t know what they are, or something.

That’s an intuition, too difficult to express. Don’t worry, it won’t be on the test.

But I have been screaming, “YOU are a neurotype too!,” at people online and getting predictable responses, it’s not going great. I need a real plan.

I need a way to soften it, present it as a positive, somehow.

I’ve considered something like, “Spike’s my friend, ‘cause he’s so big and strong,” and really, I can’t let the idea go, it sort of is the point for me, and that’s a compliment for them . . . but of course that will be the end of it, Thanks Kid, I know.

Sigh.

I’m open to suggestions.

Jeff

March 6th., 2024

False Legacies, Autism and Origin Stories

Jeff/neighsayerLeave a comment

My extrapolated, speculative theory of neurodiversity ought to turn the existing human origin story on its head.

It’s difficult, maybe impossible to express it, but I cannot stop trying.

First, the existing view is new, since Wallace and Darwin, kind of thing – and in the sense that the existing origin story isn’t that, but the same as since we started keeping any sort of history – that’s new too, in this conversation, in deep time where our species is hundreds of thousands or millions of years old.

The current view, looking back, is new, in terms of our species’ existence. Stretch it to the neolithic revolution, still new, relatively.

You would have to convince me that this present view of a progressive trajectory existed before then, during the tens of thousands of years when we were all sort of Indigenous the world over and not building big permanent cities, and I can’t imagine how you would. Perhaps it existed intermittently, during the empire parts of the cycle the Davids identified in The Dawn of Everything, but it didn’t rule always and forever. I don’t suppose we know how far into the past that pattern extends either.

But that’s step one, everything we think about the deep past is new, coming from modern minds.

New thought:

in creation stories, we arrive fully formed, human-hairless, and this suggests what I’m getting at: that the current origin stories tell of the creation of the new human, fully formed, suggesting that the story is recent, not an ape man story, that this mythical creation takes place in literal modern times, while upright, hairless, story telling people already inhabit the Earth.

For me, it is as easy to imagine these stories as describing the arrival of a type of person, the modern sort, rather than all people. Saying it is “the people,” like all the people – this is one thing this modern sort continues to do ever since also.

This idea, that creation stories take place during literal times, is borne out by the fact that every human group has its own, and generally does not credit their creator with making all the other peoples. They have their own, so this must be the case, that these stories all somehow acknowledge a creation event while acknowledging the existence of other peoples at the same time?

Ah, like Adam and Eve’s kids finding wives from somewhere, right?

I’m sorry, it’s a stretch.

But if anyone does build an Autistic origin story, it isn’t going to be compatible with the existing framework, a good version of this attempt is going to be a leap too.

But for me, the Allistic origin story, with the patriarchy and the rough Nature, has always been too much of a stretch, a leap this Autistic mind has never been able to make.

But whether their origin stories acknowledge creation as a neurotype event or not, the point is, the origin stories (and so the law and the philosophy and the science) are new and Allistic, our origin stories are only the Allistics’ origin stories.

This is a sliver, a thin slice of the logic from the other side here, but it’s long enough to pretend to draw a conclusion, at least, and then we can argue about that.

It ought to turn the human story on its head because it makes everything they claim as the way of the world forever not that at all, and it makes the mad human lifestyle not at all sustainable over three million years but rather as having destroyed the world in no time, since the neolithic revolution.

It ought to make clear what the problems are and stop burying them in an invented eternity.

Allistic “forever,” is NO TIME AT ALL, and if we were allowed to see it , we would see a new thing that isn’t working, at ALL.

I am about one beer from saying that spanking hails back to the neolithic revolution, and that seems radical as fuck, but farming changed lifestyles massively, didn’t it, and . . . and it sort of has to be that way, everything dates to then.

If not then, even earlier.

OK, not yet. There isn’t much about spanking in the Dawn of Everything, and a great sense that it wasn’t a thing on Turtle Island.

Twelve thousand years old in the Euro’s “Old world,” but hardly thought of here, is a little difficult, but . . . maybe? There are big differences. Speculation, to be sure.

That’s a new one, I think there’s an idea that spanking and childhood generally are far newer than that, even as recent as the enlightenment, this is the reachiest reach I will have made yet, how could it possibly be?

Ah, The Dawn of Everything again – what if it wasn’t a thing for the Turtle Islanders and what if the enlightenment they started meant that for the first time anyone in Europe bothered to NAME children and childrearing, and abuse?

Not proof, obviously.

But maybe?

I could be like a TV producer sort about it, like Ancient Aliens, refer you to “many legends,” that suggest something happened suddenly around twelve thousand years ago, of course there was a great leap in global warming and floods, inundation of any possible coastal cities, and there was the agricultural revolution and people have theorized many things to explain something sudden, from creation stories, to alien visitors to the far more reasonable and common weird magic that happened, “due to increased population/city size,” with no agreed upon mechanism for that.

I have seen talk of another sort of mind in or before ancient times, the “bicameral mind,” and this is closer to saying “a neurotype event,” like I’m trying to make happen.

It would seem self evident that if the common sort of mind changes, that the world would change subsequently, so perhaps, rather than thinking some Autistic savant created the agricultural revolution, it makes more sense to think that the population of Allistics passed some tipping point then, and people gave up their freedoms for something else – security from one another, they’ve always said this was it forever, maybe more so this recently – and started building fences and whatnot.

I suppose I’m talking about the same event the Chalice and the Blade was about too. Of course some of these things are more recent than that twelve thousand years. Was a long time ago, reading that one, I don’t remember the timeline.

Jeff

Feb. 28th., 2024

Role Swapping

Jeff/neighsayerLeave a comment

My idea is equal and opposite, in every way.

I think Allism is a modernish, growing problem, like they thought/think about us.

I think Allism can’t really be cured, but a treatment, assiduously applied as early as possible in life may mitigate the worst kind of onset and allow them to live something closer to what we Autists might call a normal life – just like they thought/think about us.

The treatment is equal and opposite too: NO spanking, NO “aversives.” Gentleness and reason applied scrupulously through early life may head off onset – of course, research needs to be done – same as they say about us, equal and opposite.

Equal and opposite, they are sure everyone needs the epigenetic push of spanking and discipline, and they think we must need it harder to make us employable – while I am sure the world needs them NOT to keep pushing themselves that way.

Difference is, they can add punitive abuse when they like, a certain amount is “normal,” to them, and also they can bend and break their own laws like Lovaas did – but we can’t simply lock them up and make them stop, applying the equal and opposite fix of not spanking, I don’t know how we create the will to do it.

Placing neurodiversity under NT medicine is clearly an error of structure, a neurodiverse population requires neurodiverse oversight. An error or something like a coup, a power grab with no across the board justification.

I think the parable of the five blind men and the elephant is about this, about neurodiversity, and clearly none of the five blind men should have veto power over the rest, obviously identifying the elephant requires them all.

So equal and opposite, in theory, should apply to pathologizing too. The Autist should see their pathologization as not just wrong, but backwards. It should be obvious and understood that they look pathological to us too, equal and opposite. Anything less and we’re self-censoring, giving the field away.

And there’s an irony that paragraph dances around, that I won’t touch, it will only confuse things further.

Jeff

Feb. 28th., 2024

The Everybody Pascal’s Wager

Jeff/neighsayerLeave a comment

Pascal’s Wager, you know, it’s like risk/reward in golf, the odds get worse as the rewards or the punishment gets greater, how does it go again, “Sure, the odds of the Christian salvation story are not good, but the price, should it be true and you didn’t choose it, is terrible, eternal,” something like that?

It is predicated on the idea that it is highly unlikely that what you believe can make you live forever, but what if? You don’t want to be the only one sitting at home in your urn on the mantle when everyone else is flying around enjoying their lute lessons, do you? Ha – it’s social, conforming stuff about the afterlife.

Well not really, of course.

But people do appear to make the choice, I suppose some need the reward, or fear the punishment more than others?

I would like to adapt that, from Christianity to everyone, exactly like I have adapted their Original Sin for everyone as the Human Nature myth.

Most people take the long shot in a version of Pascal’s Wager.

You know what I’m going to say, if you’ve read one of my rants, you’ve read them all. We take it every time we provide a deterrent, every time we solve our problems with abuse. Most people bet the world that their deterrents are “virtual,” and not really hurting anybody, not really affecting anything, but it’s a landscape of fear. It changes everything.

If you haven’t heard that term, it’s worth a look.

Short and sweet, when Yellowstone Park was all herbivores, the herbage didn’t have a chance, and much smaller life dependent of the sweetest of it was not thriving, not coming back, but the re-introduction of wolves and grizzly bears changed the herbivores’ lifestyle, they weren’t free to be out in the open eating the only the best stuff  and balance was restored. Landscape of Fear. I think it’s an episode of Nature or some such. National Geographic, maybe.

It makes, vast, forever changes to your lifestyle. From diet to habitat to everything. It is the furthest thing from virtual because reality is not virtual and reality doesn’t have buttons that don’t do anything, nothing is virtual. What you lose are the same things the elk lost in Yellowstone: free, open spaces, and the best food, the sun on your hide. The freedom to go where you like. Security for your children.

I don’t really know, or at least it is not my place to talk about what the Christians lose betting on Pascal, but they don’t win the prize that is offered, I don’t take that bet so I don’t see the reward, so I say this, that they do not win the prize for making the gamble. If they live well, I hope they win the prizes we get for that. But I assure you, we win no prizes in the everyone version of the game. OK, stupid prizes, as they say, war is not much of a prize, is it? From yesterday’s blog, about Nature and Nurture being a dodge:

The creation of deterrents is like some kind of rebellion against evolution, the plan of deterrents is that we make people and things better, by intentionally adding stress and fear to the environment everywhere they turn. “Deterrent,” is literally another word for environmental danger. A world of deterrents is a world of predators and a life based in terror, in the fight or flight response, in our amygdalae.

Morally, developmentally, every way, this is evolution in reverse, to simpler forms, to a life, “rough in tooth and claw.”

I suppose under the duress of the grizzlies and the wolves, the elk are never going to have enough leisure time to develop written language and pottery and under the iron rule of ourselves we are never going to have our utopias and reach the stars. It’s not balance when you do it yourself, apparently, the humans living from their amygdalae has not produced balance or the restoration of the environment, oh, gawd, did I have to say that? I’m sorry, I usually err on the side of brevity, I usually try not to waste your time.

Obviously, the fact that humans live in the fear while simultaneously dishing it out is different than it is for the elk and the bison. Like Sapolsky says, there is never a stress free time for us when we know the predator has just eaten or something. But, getting back to simpler matters, how is the deterrent of an actual spanking or an actual prison sentence any more virtual than the deterrent of an actual pack of wolves?

It is not, or the way it can be is a matter of your neurotype, a matter of how you process that information, maybe. Evolution, for good or ill, operates with or without your understanding though, and none of these things are virtual, and so the odds of winning the Punishment Cult’s version of Pascal’s Wager – wait, what is the tease, what is the reward? What is it in lieu of eternal life in this analogy?

If we believe in Human Nature, that we are born flawed and need to be controlled and directed and so we are controlled through the deterrents and then, what?

Civilization?

Don’t tell me it’s supposed to be peace? Because that isn’t working out.

I know, mere survival. Not peace so much as strength and victory.

About that, I’m sorry to tell you, that isn’t working out either.

Also from yesterday’s exploration:

It means everything, whether we see life as evolution or deterrents and punishments, if you believe in the latter, you make the environment worse, and the reality of evolution changes you to match. If you believed in evolution, you would see rewards instead, and that good things make good people.

In theory, you would build good things, make the environment better, easier for people, remove the fear wherever possible – certainly stop creating it all day every day your bloody self – and watch people adapt to be better, kinder, and smarter instead. Or, you know, gamble it all for a shitty life during wartime, why not.

You do you.

Jeff

Jan. 10th., 2024

Nature Plus Nurture is Pseudoscience

Jeff/neighsayerLeave a comment

I think evolution means Nurture becomes Nature, isn’t that right?

It’s not “You have a Nature – plus there’s some nurture,” – this is more of the Human Nature in new words I’m always on about, creationism in new words. You do  not simply “have,” a Nature, in the real world of evolution. We make our Natures in the real world of evolution, always, every day.

That’s new. I didn’t think the Nature and Nurture meme was going to be so easily busted, so wrong, so much more of the same – but it is. That’s what it means with the current cast of characters, they who have ears, etc. They can be generous and add a little Nurture , as long as the Nature is still in there, because they aren’t losing an inch of ground. And so, zero change.

Big day, busting that one! I need to mark it on my calendar.

Evolution says no static Nature and so the scientific community responds with, OK, you can have a little Nurture too? That was not the question, was it? We said, “no Natures, things change.” Natures plus, is “yes Natures,” again, it’s just a bloody bait and switch.

It gives up the whole principle.

“Natures,” preclude evolution, it’s not even a compromise. Nature and Nurture doesn’t mean anything, does it, it’s like no air “and” no water, the second part is meaningless – it’s total capitulation. Majority type communication, yes, but no, and no we’re not changing anything.

I think they thought that one was unassailable. I mean, they do, “Natures,” are a feature of the normal mind, the same way Kant showed space and time to be. Evolution isn’t displacing it as it ought to if life and knowledge were a free meritocracy of accuracy. There is more to it, there is neurotype, and evolution just doesn’t seem to be part of the majority sort of human.

I’m not name-calling, I’m not happy about it, and I won’t be happy simply being able to say it and feel superior about it. It’s just a fact of the world, one we really ought to consider. There are several neurotypes, but “omniscient,” isn’t one of them, we all have more-abilities and less-abilities, superpowers and built in deficiencies. Normal folks don’t mind talking about the minority neurotype’s deficiencies right in front of us, and frankly, ours aren’t as important as theirs, just by numbers.

Hey – the Kant analogy – so I suppose since time and space are properties of “the mind,” I suppose it is possible to speculate about a neurotype that doesn’t have those too? Ahem. Never mind. This is not the place to imagine a real scientific basis for all manner of paranormal stuff, eye on the prize, Lad. Ha. Moving on.

If I thought this was the end of the conversation, normal people just can’t get it, I wouldn’t bother, I would be slack jawed, fixed on the television, which happens often enough, right now. If I was stuck on “Natures,” that might be the end of it, but I am not, I am making a real effort to apply evolution to my thinking, and so something must be making it so, there is a selective pressure to create the attitude we see as believing in Human Nature, it is a thing humans have evolved into, and so it is a thing we could evolve away from, and that thing, that pressure is punishment.

The creation of deterrents is like some kind of rebellion against evolution, the plan of deterrents is that we make people and things better, by intentionally adding stress and fear to the environment everywhere they turn. “Deterrent,” is literally another word for environmental danger. A world of deterrents is a world of predators and a life based in terror, in the fight or flight response, in our amygdalae.

Morally, developmentally, every way, this is evolution in reverse, to simpler forms, to a life, “rough in tooth and claw.”

We are actively evolving ourselves right now. It doesn’t stop just because you don’t grok it, and I don’t know if you noticed, we are not evolving ourselves to the stars and the utopia, it is to what we see, to history as it is.

So based on the facts of the world, it is as I say, we mostly do not apply evolution consciously, consciously we say “Human nature,” every ten minutes, even when we are alone. Less consciously, we are forever creating hazards where there are none, driving us to conflict in the supposed effort to drive us away from it. It means everything.

It means everything, whether we see life as evolution or deterrents and punishments, if you believe in the latter, you make the environment worse, and the reality of evolution changes you to match. If you believed in evolution, you would see rewards instead, and that good things make good people. I know, it doesn’t look like a choice, same as time and space.

The difference is our early experience. The difference is whether Mom and Dad are hazards or safety. The difference is spanking. I think most people would get evolution if they weren’t spanked, I think that deficiency gets reinforced, and cemented in place through epigenetics, by spanking. Evolution is not to be found in your amygdala. I have always thought that we could start to change things if we changed that one thing.

There is resistance, don’t get me started.

Jeff

Jan. 9th., 2024

In Search of a Word

Jeff/neighsayerLeave a comment

In Search of a Word

“Antisocialization.” I am trying to make a word that makes sense in a field where all the words have been repurposed already, and I suspect sabotage.

LOL. Good Lord, what a mess!

I mean, the word “socialization,” is taken, I suppose that would have been the first, most obvious word for my purpose too? Literally, “ize,” is to “make like,” to cause to conform, and “ation,” is the process of doing a thing, so socialization means being made to conform to the social environment.

Of course, that’s fine, we’ll leave that be.

But I certainly don’t intend “antisocialization,” to mean the process of forgetting the social rules, tuning in, turning on and dropping out, it’s not, “anti,” that way.

I pray I’m just a fool with the wrong prefix or suffix, or both, but I fear not.

I think I’ve talked until I forgot my original context, that being “social,” is composed of being some portions of prosocial, neutral, and antisocial, that there are things you are to be for and things you are to be against and things where maybe you can take your pick, or somethings where we need to simply think and be reasonable about, that liking them or not isn’t the point. These three can be said as prosocial, asocial and antisocial, and what about this?

Can we say that if everything is in the neutral zone for you, all simply things with relatively little emotional content for you, that you are relatively asocial, and that the fewer things that are in your neutral zone, the more things that you must love or hate, that you are more social? With the caveat that lacking social pressure, the things in the asocial/neutral zone can be dealt with other ways, one of which would be rationally and logically. Where the society allows, we can think, if we wish.

We are perhaps talking about another spectrum, from asocial, to hypo-social, to something like “normal,” or simply social, to hyper-social.

I am well outside that acceptable social zone here, I think, Autistic. I don’t think any of this is really allowed, that’s why the language is such a problem. Unfortunately all that is allowed is the end of the world, so I am conflicted. Which of these?

The less socially oriented one is, the more things fall into the neutral zone and perhaps we deal with them more coldly, more rationally, and the more socially oriented we are, the fewer things are neutral and get the rational treatment and more things are seen through the social lens, and are either with us or against us, or rather we are pro- or anti- about more things for social reasons, group reasons.

So my antisocialization can serve, mostly because it is not in the dictionary and available, and also because an increase in social behaviour means an increase in antisocial behaviour, I mean perhaps it means both, an increase in prosocial behaviour as well. I don’t think so, but if so, both still means more antisocial behaviour – which in theory is highly visible and a problem and what we ought to be tracking? Honestly, this will be my first try at expressing this, but . . . it is through antisocial behaviour and our responses that we are oriented towards the antisocial and the social. I don’t think an excess of prosocial treatment makes anyone more socially discriminatory. It’s all sort of a Dark Side matter. It’s the Bad Wolf that makes us socially discriminating, love doesn’t do that, the social and antisocial travel together, a package deal . . .

hey, maybe the Good Wolf doesn’t make you good, he just turns down the volume on your social, flattens you out.

Good Lord, do not tell me it’s hyper-socialization I wanted all along. Maybe. Oh my Gawd, it is, isn’t it, that’s what I’m trying to say: abuse makes you hyper-social, makes you define an out-group and want to hurt it. Speaking too soon, I haven’t even googled the word yet. And also – this new one isn’t exactly slogan material, is it, Mommas don’t make your babies too social, isn’t exactly a call to arms.

I’ll find the logic if it’s not all here yet, but the ol’ right brain is already satisfied. Antisocialization is the process of becoming more intensely social. It sounds backwards but doesn’t it all. Just remember that the more social we are, the more antisocial we are also, that it’s all one, not opposites – the very error of group dynamics again, to confuse the same as opposites, somehow.

New on Jan 28th., 2024:

Maybe solving this question, or at least reinforcing the rationale:

Hyper-socialization is right. Still a harder sell, but I’ve figured out that it is indeed a push to both ends of social, I’ve found the prosocial part.

It’s a thing I say in a different rant quite often, that you can overdo empathy, that in fact, racism is a matter of too much empathy for our “own people,” so that we forgive our own people for crimes that destroy the world.

So hyper-sociality in the extreme is Nazism and the like, supremacy movements and pogroms, with little neutrality in evidence and too much antisocial behaviour going on, violence and such, accompanied with too much empathy for the people committing those crimes from their own communities.

Sound familiar now?

Like why TF America cannot hang its violently racist traitors?

So yes, I’m afraid, technically, it’s creating hyper-sociality I rant about – but still doesn’t sound alarm bells – and they still add up to anti, like multiplying positive and negative numbers, the product is negative.

I suspect all terminology has these issues, but I’m hurting, feeling weak.

I must say I have been wondering what the Hell group dynamics was talking about with their suggestions of prosocial behaviour within the group for a very long time.

Jeff

Jan. 26th., 2024

Everything is Backwards

Jeff/neighsayer6 Comments

The “progressives,” want things to stay the same, like things don’t and the institutionalists (conservatives) want the change to continue, like it does. I’m serious. Why? Have you solved it your away around or something?

ADR – All due respect – but Dr. King, like most people, didn’t know from evolution and the Dream Speech is creationist. I do not “have a dream,” of a better life, I have a dream of ANY life, because the choices are not a good life or a bad life, the “bad life,” isn’t stable. It is not some ideological BS where we have a choice between a better future forever or a worse future forever. A worse future is death.

A future in that direction isn’t any future.

It’s evolution, so the choices are not static states, the choice is to get better or get worse, it is how to change. The status quo is not static, it is an endless cycle of change and collapse.

The status quo is in motion, it is the Overton window, it is the march to war.

The voices for war speak as if progressives want change, and the progressives talk of “old boys and old ways,” as though the status quo were stable and not forever cycling into chaos. They speak as though nothing ever changes and we are in the middle of eternity with the fascists, but that the forever natural communism we had for tens or hundreds of thousands of years were some future dream, that it is the progressives who want to “change things.”

No.

Surprise: it is the bad guys who change, who evolve, who live the constant change of antisocialization. It is “progress,” to slow them down, because the abuse of law and order and “spanking,” is an environment and we adapt to it and then write more laws: this is evolution. The enshittification is evolution. The bad guys are very into evolution, just not the good kind.

Everything is backwards in AST, in Autistic science.

Rather, they are.

I love this. This is what I call the good thinkin’.

I accuse the Parental Rights people of Evolution, of believing in evolution, and of using and abusing it for purposes of crime.

If the Ds don’t fight Parental Rights hard enough – and they won’t, same as CRT – it’s because the Ds don’t understand evolution and they fantasize about a static, created world. They don’t realize that every spanking costs the good guys a vote by pissing someone off. It’s sort of too late in the world for AST to have made the predictions, but it made them all and  this is one, already in the past as it is, that the Ds won’t fight the Parental Rights shit.

I bet it took me writing three million words to get to this: evolution is reality – so the status quo is evolution, not the agreed upon state of things, but the agreed upon rate and direction of change of things.

The institutions are protecting the change, protecting the rate and direction of change – so no, they do not “hold.”

They move.

They force the change, the degradation, the descent into conflict, if that’s the direction things go, it is the institutions taking us there. Force seems to have its own direction, so generally that’s the direction human things go.

Again, the whole public Allistic narrative is backwards to my mind, so I had to throw out my Allistic education, ignore all the grownups and professors and rebuild it properly, for me.

❤️

And then I hatched.

So I hope it’s for us now.

So Wallace and Darwin weren’t discoverers – they were whistleblowers, because of course society always ran on evolution. It’s just that the silverbacks don’t want you to know about it.

Wallace and Darwent and me (perhaps it was the enshittification that tipped them off too). Autistic joke, never mind, it’s a long, dumb walk. Don’t let it erase the lesson.

Jeff

Jan. 27th., 2024