If There is a Way


Introduction, the problems                                                                                     1

            AST, Jeff’s Bag of Premises

                        addiction, a personal metaphor                                                                2

                        resilience, a dearth of fear                                                                         3

                        resilience, a lack of understanding                                                           4


                        old, strength                                                                                               5

                        new, everything else                                                                                   6

             domestication                                                                                             7

Introduction, the Problems

It is 2023 by the current measure, since the last great peak we acknowledge, and we’re mostly all plugged in, we know the problems, plague, climate collapse, war, fascism and some mass death wish that comes with it. By and large, we seem helpless; even if we say the climate thing is “unprecedented,” those last few things, we have done these exact things before, and still no-one seems to have any idea why or how to stop them.

The reasons humans do what they do appear to be a mystery to them.

It is clear that the plan is collapse, and to hope to crawl out of the rubble afterwards for another try, “resilience,” don’t you know. Strength and resilience are always and forever the plan for the humans, and this is one of the problems, it’s clear that no-one in power fears the future enough to change it or understands the species they rule over well enough to change anything, for reasons I hope to show. With self knowledge, rather with the lack of it, it’s all one and the same, isn’t it, not knowing yourself and not seeking that knowledge.

If we wanted it, we may have had it long ago, and if we had it, we’d know to want it, but we don’t and we don’t.

This is a problem, we need to learn new desires, which means we somehow have to set our own goals, imagine new desires and then develop the taste for them – it all rings of the psychology of addiction, doesn’t it? This is not a coincidence and we do presently regret our desires, the things we do chase, and we do berate ourselves for it, bemoaning our Natures when we have a moment’s peace to do so. Presently however, it’s illegal to have the desires we need to have, peaceniks are traitors, and we regret any inconvenience, but the awful Nature is the law. This is truly the state of things.

This is a problem today and we need to understand that conflict as a solution was never going to last forever, that the Earth is dying and so are we, if we do not change that law.

That’s my overview, the problems are the huge things we all know about, coupled with some present aversion or inability to rise to them.

And don’t get me wrong, we need to change that. We couldn’t have become this nightmare ape if God hadn’t rather unadvisedly left us to create ourselves, if that weren’t our job and no-one else’s. Imagine you’re alive five or ten million years ago, you’re a wild creature yet to morph into chimpanzees, bonobos, any number of apes living and gone, and our whole group, living and gone – would this sound possible? Of course it wouldn’t, but it clearly was. I guarantee we had different desires then and we changed those, because that’s how evolution works, you are what you want and need to be and it’s never “finished,” while the world is alive and changing. Of course we can change that or we wouldn’t be here.

No creature would.

Or, you know, carry on. Human Nature, whaddayagonnado.

I wish to be remembered for this one if for nothing else, my pinned tweet: If the dinosaurs had made excuses about “Dinosaur Nature,” there would be no birds.

AST, Jeff’s Bag of Premises

addiction, a personal metaphor

An addiction to abuse, that is one way to look at it, I mean, self medicating with the weed all my life, it’s not my favourite choice of metaphor, but there is no denying it has it all, it is clearly one, there is the upside that it makes it possible not to think about the problems, it has the part we are chasing and to the part chasing us, and it’s what I always say, the “strength,” seems worth abusing our babies for, because it has the same “no go,” areas in our thinking, areas that we think are survival. If I’m not high, I’m very depressed and at risk, so it really doesn’t matter what damage weed does to my life, I imagine it would be over without my pain killer.

And if we are not “strong,” some other group of humans will wipe us out and it really doesn’t matter what damage the abuse does to my kids or anyone else if that happens – it’s the same all or nothing sort of thinking, except in my individual case it’s something like delusion and in “society’s” case it’s obviously “reality,” what is wrong with you? Of course in both cases there is an element of choice, and in both cases, we make it real whenever we want. If I ran out of weed and offed myself the next day, it would be both, a choice made real. If we became a more peaceful group of humans and some warlike bunch saw weakness and tried to wipe us out, that would be the same, humans turning that choice into reality.

If I got off the weed and lived, I would be leaving my delusion/bad choice and rejoining society in reality, it would be an addiction success story – and if modern humans encountered a group of humans not engaged in world domination and didn’t wipe them out, we would be leaving our “reality”/bad choice and rejoining the global society of creatures in actual reality.

That would be another addiction success story, if we did that instead of say, mining lithium, or clearing the Amazon for wood pellets.

I’m afraid this description works!

Seems important to note that the “reality,” referenced in this section is only another human group’s addiction to abuse and conflict, that the difference between my delusion and human “reality,” is that “reality” is not mine but some other human’s delusion. Ah, Laing, isn’t it.

If it’s not, it should be.

resilience, a dearth of fear

Counting on your resilience and your strength, this is warrior talk, don’t worry about the pain, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger stuff – a straight up warrior fantasy meme, untrue almost of almost everything that might have killed you, it’s probably only true if you’re like me and think lifting weights might kill you, LOL.

That I’ve said a million times, though and I’m having a secondary thought about it at long last, OK, again at long last, that this meme is the paradigm of punishment at play, not of trauma. It is exactly and maybe only punishment that does that, doesn’t kill you and makes you stronger, isn’t it? Ha – think a thought for thirty years, sometimes it sprouts a second one.

One of my more recurring soundbites: in the Punishment Cult, the path to Good is through the Bad and only through pain is there learning.

The cursed idea of the deterrent is that you make bad things to force people to choose good things, and so every horrible thing you do becomes good, a “deterrent.” It turns good and bad upside down. So it’s not that we’re insufficiently afraid of the disaster, it’s that we only imagine some good from it, ultimately. Bad is good, in the punishment cult, and surely the end of the world will finally teach us a lesson. We’ll figure out a better way after that. Ah, yes, punishment is the war to end all wars myth too, if we cause enough pain, if we finally reach some mad limit, then we’ll learn.

No. Not an endorsement.

We are not in the Solutions section just yet.

resilience, a lack of understanding

In the Punishment Cult, pain “doesn’t hurt,” and it “makes people choose good,” so there is no sense to be made of anything.

We see ideas and thinkers come and go, different political and economic “systems,” and none of them think punishment or oppression or abuse “hurts,” and they all force their “radical new system,” the same way, with soldiers and abuse and indoctrination and none of that “hurts,” so none of them know why nothing ever works out. The police force capitalism, the poor aren’t happy, the police force communism, the proles aren’t happy, they’ve tried everything, and they’re all out of ideas.

One father beats his child Christian, one beats his communist, and no-one notices all are abused, broken, and not in love with “the system,” whichever one it was.

It seems our alien overlords, the modern Illuminati, the G20, whoever has any power to direct society also do not understand that it doesn’t matter in what direction we are pushed, that we are harmed by the pushing whatever the direction, that it is the pushing that forms our unwanted desires. So they keep pushing, talking about their system and their laws and they push until our simple response to abuse finally rears its ugly head in a non-ignorable way, hopefully a revolution, usually a war or an internal one, a pogrom and/or an apartheid, or some combination of them all.

But nobody knows why because our simple response to abuse doesn’t exist, remember, the punishing push doesn’t hurt you. Not in the Cult. This is sort of full circle for me, that was the parenting thought that I first rejected, what the Hell do you mean, “it doesn’t hurt us?” It seems our leaders really believe it, though, and so they are probably as mystified as Dad about it, as I say, they keep pushing, so to repeat, they are not afraid enough of the future – but they also can’t change its direction because they are blind to the obvious driving force behind this repetitive disaster, the social push, the ubiquitous control and abuse of authority in all its forms that we bring to bear upon everyone, starting when they were just little children.

“I push them Left, I push them Right, nothing works.”

Whatever is a Master of the Universe, an Illuminate to do?

Desires, old, strength

Every step along the way, like when we left the trees for the savannah, this involved learning to want to be out there, when previously that had been someplace we didn’t want to be. There was something out there we had learned to want, we didn’t, then we did. We don’t remember what it was exactly, good folks working through all that now, reverse engineering our journey, I saw a new one very recently that brought that example to mind – but we read it like some automatic process of science, like it happened without our knowledge or participation. Of course we adapt because we want to, we want to continue despite losing the old resource or method.

Most people with cars got off their horses and bought a car because they wanted it, not because anyone forced them, generally long before horses got outlawed on city streets or anything. The giraffe wasn’t forced to grow that neck forever, they wanted the high leaves. Sure, some of both, a spectrum. You can be forced to eat gruel despite that you wanted to eat, there is room for manipulation in it. But I live among humans and I know what they want, I know the overarching ubiquitous goal of strength, we are a primate who exists in a state of group conflict and our desires are crude and obvious: all goes for the war effort, all else is a liability.

You want to be “stronger,” and that goal was achieved, a long time ago.

You are strong enough, please stop. It’s an arms race, a Red Queen’s race, an open ended escalation that has run its course and it is time to learn to want something else. Every human group is forever getting stronger and we readily admit any advantages are always temporary leaps in tech, soon available for all and the escalation continues. It may as well have never begun for all it changes regarding our relative positions, but we have all become monsters together chasing it, the monster under our bed is literally Dad, downstairs, drunk and raging out and we know not to let him hear our feet touch the floor.

Ouch, right.

Of course the public response is the exact opposite of that, fascism is something like conscious evolution, where they identify our species’ major malfunction and then run with it, play to your strengths, kind of thing. We have literal They Live messaging, “Be Strong,” everywhere you bloody look. The hashtags, I’ve said before. What used to be a bit of a rite of passage and a grownup secret, the shameful strength, is now hawked on every street corner, on billboards.

And yes, the “conscious evolution,” trend. We are not in this place because we are in denial of some “true,” evolution, we are here because of what we pursue, not because of what we choose not to. From what I understand the expression references a business ideology, teaches pack hunting or something, for competition. I’m just going to put this out there, unfiltered gonzo take –

nothing evolved “for competition,” what possible evolutionary advantage does a species gain competing with itself? What is an ecological niche but an area where there is less competition for a resource, and do all creatures not gravitate towards one? Territoriality, too, evolved so that most creatures don’t have to, didn’t it? Is there “competition for territory,” or is territory freedom from competition? The conflict and competition of primate life has never been the good part, and I’m here to say, chase something else, competition is one of the bad desires, if it had an upside, it’s run its course and more. We could apply some wildlife management and zoo wisdom and arrange to live without it if we wanted. Wouldn’t that be lovely?

Which brings us to –

Desires, new, everything else

Ah, time to dream.

Why not start with the lie? Why don’t we, just for a first test shot, aim at the world we say we have, the one that used to be on television, the one we teach our children about in school?

We know the good things, education, democracy – group rule, that means, consensus rule – health – peace. All these sorts of good things taken together, this is the dream, isn’t it? All those things that get tossed for the war effort. I will say, the dream is a deliberate, conscious world, I mean, we already like those things, we already approve, we even make a great show of creating and maintaining those things as much as possible already.

The dream is just that any of it actually worked, right?

Dreams are the desires we wish we had, right, while we struggle in the chains of the desires we act upon, the ones we were born into. This is conservative “realism,” the desires we are given, while desires of our own are only fantasy – again, human “reality,” consists of other humans’ desires. The point is all these kinds of motivations exist already and things are nonetheless less than optimal, and having the good dream isn’t changing things like we hoped. It has always been the point of AST that adding good isn’t good enough, we need to stop adding bad too.

It hurts us, Dad, and Teacher and Officer, and Plato and Moses, the abuse you say “doesn’t hurt us,” you’re full of it, it does and you need to stop, my goodness, does no grownup ever say that out loud? It creates the bad desires – like magic, out of nothing at all. We decide to add pain consciously and voluntarily, bring pain that didn’t exist previously into the closed system of the world. It is a bad desire and it makes for bad desires and it leaves our hopes and dreams on the back burner forever.

We are shooting our dreams in the foot forever being “strong,” and “competitive.”


You know about the domestication business, right, the fox farm?

Too quickly, there was an experiment with fur foxes where they selected for an even, more manageable temperament (they would reach into a fox’s cage wearing a stout leather glove and the foxes who attacked or cowered were left out of the breeding group, while the calm foxes would be included) and in no time, a few generations, the selected for foxes developed domestic traits, doglike things, spots, floppy ears, barking, affection. I believe they fund the ongoing research by selling foxes as pets that really are pretty well suited as pets. It spawned a whole thing about domestication, and self domestication, and made the point that genes and traits are connected to other traits and genes in many ways. There is talk of human self domestication, and a good case, but today I’m going the other direction.

We select humans on the exact opposite criteria as the fox farm did, I think, if they bite, they’re great soldiers, and if they cower, they make a terrific workforce. Dad wants a fighter, Mom would like a passive one, perhaps.

The calm ones, meh, keep at ‘em, most will bite eventually – Chagnon again, sorry.

The point of invoking the fox farm was that we select for the flight or flight response for ourselves, but also it was that if you select a trait, sometimes you get a whole suite of traits, you shake up the whole spiky ball of traits, and I guarantee that strength, warrior mode, is an entire different ball of traits than the creature who would live our better dreams. I’m saying, the “strong” human doesn’t really correspond with the calm fox, not usually, I think a strong person is more like the biter, and the quietly strong person who doesn’t start any fights is an ideal, the model, more a part of the dream than the current set of actual, functioning, rough desires.

I think, like the foxes, if we stopped selecting the fighters and the flyers, as they did with the foxes, we might see a miraculous transformation, stuff we never dreamed. The fox farm grabs our imaginations for exactly that reason, right?

Though I am failing forever to express it, just hearing of the foxes made my vision seem possible, and I intuited something like, “You can’t think that from here,” meaning you can from just over there somewhere, change yourself and your new brain can have new thoughts – even if you only change one thing, sometimes. Plus again, the speed of the results in the foxes, only a few generations! One is tempted to have hope or something.

And so I advocate for what I do, against the abuse of childhood and against the Red Queen’s Race of conflict, and I wonder, dream really, of what great thoughts a less abused generation might be able to access that we cannot.

I mean, I say, “stop spanking,” but it means so much more. You can’t “stop spanking,” without first completely revolutionizing pretty much everything else about human life. If you’re not going to spank, your kid is not going to do that thing you like, not automatically. You’re going to have to convince them – and that requires some revolution, because that requires living a defensible life, it would require you making that thing you like something worth having in the first place. But I mean, if that happened it would only take one generation.

Do what you can, as much as you can. You are one of the unknown number of generations it would take, it seems obvious we are not a controlled experiment and it would take us longer than it took the foxes, so more than a few. Perhaps we can hope in terms of the Turtle Island meme, seven generations, and new thoughts, better desires awakened in each of them, spurring us on, making it easier with time.

It’s me plan.


June 8th., 2023

Sorts and Purposes

It takes me a very long time to come to the point, in fact, before I bury it again, let’s begin with it: the purpose of the Autist is to explain the Neurotypical to the Neurotypical.

We are a mirror, instructive by contrast. What a neurotype cannot see of itself, it can of another type, and vice versa. The Autist, familiar with their own mind, learns what a Neurotypical mind is by listening to them describe ours, the one we know – by a process like arithmetic we can glean what sort of mind theirs is.

It would seem the reverse is not happening, the Neurotypical, familiar with their own minds, rarely learns what an Autistic mind is by listening to us describe theirs, the one they know, and applying the addition or subtraction of our perceptions – thus my partially tongue in cheek new term for the most common, or dominant type – robust. They are not so easily given to introspection, the implicit reverse logic and the opportunity to audit themselves this way doesn’t seem to occur to them.

I think it’s a neurotypical trait, the darkest side of which is conformism, a sort of a policy that other sorts are not equal and comparable. It’s not an insult, it’s a requirement for their very typicality and dominance, isn’t it?

But it’s exactly my point.

This is exactly the sort of thing that everyone else knowing it doesn’t mean jack. They have to know it, somehow, I mean they have to know it’s only a neurotypical trait, rather than God’s Universal Bloody Will, right?

And that impossible job is ours.

It is not our job to explain to the genetically unconsciously xenophobic about all the different sorts out there, that is obviously impossible, they aren’t even interested.

It is our job to explain to them how their way of life is killing the planet and that they won’t survive it either. Right? I may be new as an Autist who knows it, but I am not new as a human being and the framing is always theirs and it is always wrong, and the abuse is always named after the victim, and the abuser has no name, it’s just . . . typical. Because with names comes shame. They are not going to do it themselves. If you have seen the quality of what they call “research,” regarding Autism, you know, they are never going to classify themselves in their system of faults and treatments.

Our job – and I’m tired of doing it alone, honestly.

Jump in any time, Kids.

Jeff May 26th., 2023

Robusti Non Carborundum

I’ve discovered my Autism at last, and I’m learning all the terminology, and sad contrarian that I am, I’m already arguing and rewriting the new language my way. It is what it is, I guess.

I’ve written three blogs and several Twitter rants complaining that the “neurotypical,” are a type, with plusses and minuses about them, that “neurotype,” has what is called a totality of the concept missing, they way it has been presented to me, it seems everyone has a type, except the “typical,” who apparently are somehow beyond neurotype, and they are the model and we all diverge from them. It’s part of what we call “the medical model,” of pathologizing of the neurodivergent, but it’s insidious.

A personal aside:

By accident of my life, I have long held an idea of what a “normal person’s” neurotype is. I didn’t know that’s what they were and I didn’t know what I was, but I knew they didn’t think like I did, and I wasn’t indoctrinated in the idea that they were right and I was wrong – if you saw the uh, feces folly that I grew up in, you’d understand, perhaps you would think those people had nothing to teach you either. In the end, my family doesn’t look particularly neurotypical, and it was a lot of other people that sold me on their type, their different way of thinking, like, pretty much everyone else I ever met.

So for reasons of arrogance and independence, the idea that anyone was “non-divergent,” didn’t satisfy me, if anyone is “non-divergent,” that by definition, would have to be me because – my initial reason as a young Autistic child – they are beating the crap out of little children. What I think when I hear it is, “That is your perfect form from which we all diverge?”

Back to technical matters:

It doesn’t satisfy me many ways, but the totality of the concept is that all are some type, and all types are evolved and not created, and all will have good and bad traits, depending on context, and that to speak to anyone, you have to have some idea of their type and what it means – and this is not less true if there are more of them. All are some type, and self knowledge regarding this is good for everyone – but due to the incomplete nature of this word today, all the typical type of person has for self-knowledge is that they are numerous, and perhaps if they hear of it, that they are not Autistic or another type.

The other option, stated in the previous entry, is the myth of Human Nature in which all things are possible, any good or any evil – this is my point, neurotypes have Big Data, statistical traits. Yes, “anything is possible,” for anyone, but it’s like the American dream: it’s possible, anyone can, but how many do?

This is what I mean by a partially developed concept, the statistical thing where more of one neurotype think and do more of one sort of thing that the other neurotypes, that’s what neurotype means. This Human Nature business stretches to anything, a person would have to be all neurotypes at once to be this myth. The Robustic (someone likes it!), formerly the Neurotypical, is not all of that, not the universal type with all options included. If they were, they could talk to the rest of us, couldn’t they? No, they are another evolved type like the rest, ostensibly purpose-built by evolution for whatever pressures it faces.

Different types suggest different niches to fill, different evolutionary processes involved in their creation, and different environments they are best adapted to – this is another proof, if there was one neurotype that does it all, why did the rest evolve?

It leads to stereotyping, where individuals are wrongly forced into general perceptions, but always there is more – is it every neurotype that would force every person into their stereotype? Or perhaps, ought there to be one about a certain sort that turns everything natural into a law and calls the cops?

If many Autists that work are in science and medicine, perhaps this can be a stereotype for good reasons, something about the Autistic type is good for that – but my Autistic self wouldn’t be forcing Autists into it! I think that is a Robustic trait, the conformism, I’m sorry. But it’s not me that said it first, it’s easy to see that when they describe Autistic social traits, that this is only the mirror image, that we do not pick up on (and so conform to), social cues. Note the parenthesized bit, the unspoken social cue, the non verbalization of “and conform to,” – of course this is Robustic framing, where conformity is understood, it’s sort of in the air.

Much Autistic confusion may have been avoided if they could only say that out loud, but I guess it’s not really conformity if you have to be reminded of it. Gilbert Gottfried smile.

Autists talk about it, we complain about the toll on ourselves of a conformism we cannot succeed at, and the concept is not full, perhaps we see it as a “trait,” but maybe we think it’s everyone but ourselves, part of the Human Nature deal, maybe we don’t think of it as a type specific trait, meaning both a superpower and a disability, depending on circumstance, of a specific neurotype?

There would seem to be a simple arithmetic to be discovered, we have neurotypes and environments (human made environments, to be sure, some meta stuff), so that if we see the environment, it should be clear what sort of mind has adapted for it/created it, or if we knew our minds, we could guess what sort of a world they are made for/are making, sort of thing. I wish it went without saying – knowing neither you can’t really do anything. Worse still, seeing either of these things clearly is extremely difficult on its own. Those that achieve one tend to specialize in it, and I’m not sure who knows both.

Again, though, if you have one, you can guess the other. Neurotypes, this concept, makes this far more possible. I had intuited my answer here long ago and said many times, with an apology that this was all I had, intuition, that what I was up against in opposing spanking seemed to be a warrior mindset, but it was the Matrix, I was the anomaly in the equation, because I didn’t share this mentality that I was ascribing to all of humanity – learning about Autism, and the bigger idea, neurotypes, solved this. (I mean, thank goodness. I never wanted to be The One, eish. LOL. ) Solved both sides of it, my mind, and “most peoples’” minds. Now it’s pretty much a tautology.

The environment is conflict, if it’s not war, “peacetime,” is competition in our war against the common enemy, Earth and all of its inhabitants – so the dominant neurotype is “warrior.” I’m sorry I have to say this, but that is the job of writing, I am starting to grasp, saying it: that is not the model of neuro-health, I mean it is, but it can’t be. Nothing would be justified in forcing a mindset of conflict on people and the goal of any “cures,” for neurotypes other than the Robustic one, is a bad goal, a goal that maintains a world of war.

Again, I didn’t say it first, it’s their reason for all of it, to be strong, to make the nation strong, so we can fight off “the enemy,” note the forever, content free phrasing. It’s all good in their framing, strength trumps all. We fight off the enemy in this, the best of all possible worlds. This is some of the reverse engineering mentioned in the previous post.

Nothing at all would be justified by this, much less ABA torture.

In fact, we really need to go the other direction entirely and start pacifying our species, and from Autism to Robustism, I say, stop already, you can’t get tough enough for the world you are creating.

That you think you can, this . . . this is not a superpower.

We need to cut down on your red meat. You need help. None of your own people will help you, I’m sorry to say, they all have the same problem. They are much too busy pissing you off to make us all strong to help you solve any aggression or anger problems you may be experiencing. If you wish to ever find peace, you must listen to someone else, another sort of mind.

Have you seen the news?


May 23rd., 2023

Hatching NR People

Written late last night, on Twitter (so all caps for emphasis), with some cleaning up:

The neurorobust, (TM, formerly “neurotypical,”), being the typical and dominant neurotype, cannot be arsed to change the world, as, due to their dominance, the world is already as their brains would have it. It “makes sense,” to them, no matter it is forever sliding into wars and other nightmares, it is doing so in a way they can understand, none of it is unthinkable to them, their brains are made for it.

I’m saying that nothing changes unless we address the common disabilities OF NORMAL (dominant culture) PEOPLE.

It is literally and critically NOT ABOUT FRINGE PEOPLE.

Of course the bad guys are wrong about that, but we’re the good guys in the same losing game, and boosting and saving fringe people, while important and necessary and good, WON’T CHANGE THINGS. It will remain, as it has been, a forever losing battle.

The neurorobust, (TM, formerly “neurotypical,”) don’t get it about their own disabilities, and some of the disenfranchised also do not appreciate the disabilities of the “normal,” and cis, and white, and straight – the neurorobust, (TM, etc.) I believe is the point. It is not the skin colour or the sexuality of these people that makes haters of many of them – it’s their neurology, or social complications arising from their neurology – same as us, right?  I worry we the neurodivergent also are perhaps not entirely free of the medical model, where NR, (TM, etc.,) people are literally the model of neuro-health, for no logically structural reason, only by consensus.

They are not, they shouldn’t be, there shouldn’t be such a thing, it’s another hangover of creationism, that there is some perfect, God-made version of the human being. There are no “Non-Divergent,” types, because there is no manufacturing spec – obvious, for actual materialist atheists. It is a relativistic relation, all types diverge from all others.

NR (TM, etc.,) people are a neurotype, complete with let’s say neuro-common TRAITS, some good, some bad, depending on context. Superpowers or disabilities (or neutral), depending on context – SAME AS US (Autists).


And, late hatchers at least, how much did finally being introduced to what is known about your Autistic neurotype help you? (ADHD folks too, all the “ND?”)

This self knowledge is massive, right?

Don’t we think it would be for everyone? NR (TM, etc.,) people included? It would. Of COARSE it would. 😘

So let’s do that for them, with them – starting with flattery.

The NR are my friend ‘cause they’re so big and strong! 😻

(Wanna getta cat, Spike? That’s dysphemism, the worst possible version, of course, I’m joking, but spoiler alert, it’s all I ever talk about, that will be a big part of it, the strength.)

A great deal of the NR trait list is easily gathered, we have the well known descriptions they make of us, these are easily reverse engineered, we have the ironic lists already, the NT dictionary pages, the @NTtakes  sort of accounts are listing it all – we can just be a little less humorous and sarcastic about it, it’s funny, but let’s not bury that it’s real also.

I know, aren’t I a ton of fun. They laugh because it hurts.

Part of the puzzle as I see it is I think the NRs take “different but equal” wrong. They think they’re perfect, so they think it means we’re perfect too, only different, and so it’s powerless. The NR (TM, formerly “NT,”) need to understand they have disabilities, and if we can get there, what they are.

(because spoiler alert, what those failings are killed the planet.)

All true and a bit obvious, right? 😘 To some, maybe, but this is my superpower, hearing what it is a speaker doesn’t know, and if anyone knows what this blog says, no-one on my feed is saying it.

I feel like the self knowledge thing was too quick, wants an example. What awful traps did you fall into forever before learning you’re Autistic? I guess for me, I thought I could explain anything to people, I thought anyone could learn anything or something, despite my whole life of never succeeding at it. Now I know, telling folks doesn’t mean much at all. Also the so called DEPT, I finally get that they mostly hate me, this has to help, going forward. 🙄

But surely any Autist reading had their traps and some relief – without naming any tonight or speculating, imagine what sorts of traps the NR (TM, formerly “NT,”) folks have, and no-one to tell them there’s a reason for them, no neurotype for them to discover and finally understand. Uh oh, my catchphrase is calling – just evil, broken Human Nature. That’s what they are given to understand. Hey!

That’s the same too, huh.

That’s what we were before we had a neurotype too, innit. That’s what we were given to understand too! But there was more, wasn’t there? 😈❤️ And there is more for the people formerly known as merely “typical,” or the medical sounding merely “neurotypical,’ the Neurorobust, the maybe eighty percenters too, that very sort of life saving, life changing self knowledge exists for them too, we all just need to know the logical structure I’ve given here, and then look where the logic says that knowledge will be.

Plus, if along the way this self knowledge helps anyone else, well, that wouldn’t be bad either, would it? Surely some of our personal Autistic discoveries, our self understanding stopped us hurting someone else too, didn’t they?

This is going very well, but does anybody know whose wheel I’m reinventing? And if not – where’s my money, I mean, I am looking for a hyperlexic author, a partner. I’m just an idea guy, I need someone for, you know, the work.



May 18th., 2023

Neurorobust People

We have discovered a useful sort of a classification system regarding different sorts of thinking coming from different sorts of minds, and named it “neurotype,” clearly just Greek for brain type, perhaps with a connotation of thought type, and it’s good. We count Autism as a neurotype, and ADHD, many things pathologized as “disorders,” in the past work as well or better as entire other brain types than as different problems within a single type – but it is a very difficult concept, akin to the differences between the universe and the multiverse – something of a stretch, honestly, expecting we apes to get our heads around that, at least quickly.

We spend our lives in the zero sum game of trying to psychologize and empathize with other people, and that is impossible enough with infinite variables even if we were all the same between the ears, let alone to multiply the whole deal exponentially upon learning we are not. We’re not there yet, but have faith with me, that no matter how complex reality turns out to be, it is still more workable than a myth or a lie, no matter how simple that is.

It is overwhelming, but it’s where the hope is.

There are the former “disorder,” neurotypes, and there is the former “normal,” type for which mostly they do not generally medicate or lock you up. This seems to have fallen through the cracks as we move from one terminology to another, that a “type,” has more power than a disorder, that “type,” in theory describes all the types, and what it means to be one type or another of that thing – basically that every individual in such a system can be assigned a type, I mean, sometimes you need a “miscellaneous,” type too.

But that’s usually not the majority! The “main,” type of a thing is a type, as much or more than the rest of the types, so it needs a name, and some criteria. “Neurotypical,” tells us the main sort is “typical,” which, this is some criteria for something but it doesn’t apparently reference neurology. What is the average “neurotypical,” person like then?

Hmm. Numerous, you say.

Crowds, then, are neurotypical? We will revisit this non-comedically, I do think so in a way, but for now – China and India must be neurotypical as all get out, huh. Cities in general, LOL.

I think I have a name for that sort that means something about their brains, in the title, Neurorobust. I suppose “neuro,” is redundant, we don’t say, “neuro-Autistic,” do we, it’s a word that references a neurotype already, but “robust,” on its own already is a word – I want to say, “Robustic,” make an adjective of it, match, “Autistic,” call people Autists or Robusts, but it’s a bridge too far – can we carry on with the idea and iron out the word tomorrow, please?

I’ll use that, Neurorobust, today, it’s not perfect, but it does sort of explain itself, it says, “neurotype,” at least, and “robust.”

I’d better explain “robust,” in this context, huh.

The idea is that, starting from my Antisocialization Theory, that what we call the typical neurotype is the human brain in Warrior Mode: strong, aggressive, highly social, meaning, uh, unambivalent in regards to people. Loves ‘em or hates ‘em, to some degree. I mean, “robust,” partially in this group conflict, game theory way, that “strong,” human groups can defend themselves and survive, and also that “strong,” individuals thrive within the group as well, and further that this order of things, that the strong should survive, this attitude is robust and survives attacks from critiques and peaceful social movements.

Being robust is a robust social plan, and so the robust are the typical, or the dominant sort. It works for me many ways, but one of the best is that they will like it, they will agree, it is them, my Neurorobust people for whom this is the highest compliment, “strong and robust.” I think it may fool them into letting it pass. “Robust,” is so positive! It’s Newspeak already; they are going to love it.

More still, every neurorobust brain is tough, and resistant to change.

Like the proverbial Cape Breton man, you can always tell a Neurorobustic – but you can’t tell him much, LOL. The thing I speak of in the previous one, the thing I’m always talking about, the behaviour that ensures the strength, the spanking and the police, these behaviours too – robust AF. Sort of impervious to critique.

So, the form of the word is an issue – but “robust,” is the word, every which way.

And, as I said in a late addition to the previous one, it’s good in its contrast to the former “disorders,” like Autism, in which the many common co-resident health issues show a lack of what we collectively call robustness, of our physiology. That the Autistic mind is not robust, this is a challenging part of the argument, perhaps it is enough to suggest that we have a lot of moving parts, that we require more maintenance, or at least less abuse, because of it. The final piece is Antisocialization Theory, that I don’t think childhood abuse makes at least some Autists more robust, as it would seem to do, by their measures, for most of the Neurorobust.

Again, by their measures, and they see mostly the “strength,” and positively when they do. That’s how their brains seem to work.

Something came up on Twitter, someone saying again, “Nothing about us without us,” because the neurotypical professionals attempts to explain our experience fall dead, and the reason for that is the half baked way we use “neurotype,” again, they speak as though only the former “disorders,” are neurotypes and normal people are not, somehow. Communication will always fail when the speaker is not self-aware, when they think they are some perfectly functional default and not just another weird neurotype. Know thyself – thy neurotype – first. I think it is theoretically possible to speak about others’ neurotype without looking like a fool, but you would have to know you are also a type and what yours is.

Honestly, my hope falters if I think we cannot somehow speak across the gulf. They are too robust, they won’t listen, until they understand it about themselves, that it is a trait of their neurotype, a superpower in some contexts and a disability in others, and that they must factor their own neurotype into their thinking, that we all must disclose what we can of our own minds in order to clearly see the world.


May 17th., 2023

Sapiens Neurorobustus

My tentative name for the modern neurotypical human being, of course it’s far from correct, we are not different species that require different names – sure, it’s a laughable Autistic attempt at clickbait – but hear me out, bear with me, the language is some combination of undeveloped around this stuff still, and just something so new that I haven’t learned it yet. Part of this is to establish the totality of the concept of “neurotype,” and for that the “typical,” type needs a name and a definition.

I propose “robust,” or something like it, to describe what we call “typical,” which presently lacks any sort of description other than the socially understood numerical superiority. That’s all “typical,” means – and it doesn’t really even have to be true, just has to sound right, when there is no description. Popularizing half of a concept is an all too common form of oppression, you must conform, but we don’t write the rules down, so you can never prove you’re compliant, there is never a defense against conformity. Lawyers, arguments don’t help you.

“Type,” is the sort of concept that applies to everything, though, everything is a “type,” of whatever it is – “normal,” people too.

I started my journey by critiquing the core concept of punishment, and this led me to seeing all the ways in which human society makes itself stronger, and that in a world of war, it seems the adults begin training the children to fight at an early age, and all grow up strong, every human group prides itself on its strength and credits its existence to it, against the neighbors, who unfortunately are also rather strong. It is my contention that the stress and beatings of human childhood are intended to, and generally succeed in producing this strength, as well as the suppression of other traits in the process, in order to reach the same goals.

I’m always trying to talk you out of it, I always say that and then quickly add, “not an endorsement!,” but today, my disapproval isn’t the point.

It is what it is today.

And today that’s a neurotype, because I think it works better on some people than others. I escaped the roughest sorts of it, but I got the idea, and I’m not tougher. Just like the rightly critiqued Chagnon said about the children applying this process to one another, it doesn’t work on everyone. He said they would goad the ones it didn’t work on until it either did and they fought, or they let themselves be killed, but he said there were such – surely there are trans kids and gay kids and Autistic kids and perhaps simply non-violent kids everywhere (and if I’m leaving people out, I’m sorry).

It clearly works best on the “typical,” neurotype, clearly more of the Autistic etc. kids are the ones subject to escalations of the process, such as ABA and conversion “therapies,” than the “normal,” type (again, that’s all “typical,” means), because it doesn’t take so readily in some types. Always, the practice has mystified me, while no-one around me understood my confusion. I spent sixty years with no idea why so many people don’t like their childhood beatings but somehow learn to love the process as adults – I didn’t realize there were different neurotypes until very recently, and now I can sort of accept that different things make different sorts of sense to different sorts of minds, and I am simply not of the type that normal human discipline makes any sense to.

Plus, the sort it does make sense to seems like everybody, so I guess it’s a “neurotypical,” sort of sense – but again, numbers are not the point, so let’s name that, it makes sense to the neurorobust (add to dictionary). To the neurorobust, some welts on your ass aren’t going to kill you, you’re fine. To the neurorobust, shutting up and doing as you’re told isn’t so bad, why wouldn’t you? To the neurorobust what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. You want these people with you when the fighting starts, straight up, but of course they probably started it too.

To Chagnon’s probably over-simplified and worse Yanomami neurorobust boys, beating your weird little brother to death isn’t so bad, I guess, while the dead boy had decided that death was better than hitting his brother or something, I assume the pacifist boys didn’t have the robust neurotype – please note, our weird, non-gregarious boys get singled out for “extra,” too, as I said, ABA, conversion ordeals. I don’t know Chagnon, and I’m not defending him, but if he had said, as I am, that he was talking about us when he described the boys’ basic training murders, we may have disliked him even more, or somebody would have.

How do you like me so far?

That’s all I want to do, call the “typical,” a type, say that is has tendencies, identifying cognitive elements, suggest a name for it – and there’s always the next one. Be careful out there.

 Oh, yes –

and to contrast that new name with Autism, say why I like it – because it is the Autists that have all the so-called, “comorbidities,” which add up to frailty, the opposite of robustness, Autistic brains, built from Autistic genes perhaps, with perhaps Autistic bodies and co-resident medical over-variance, that’s us, and Robust brains, built from Robust genes and with more Robust, trouble free meatsuits, that’s the more numerous sort of human being, at least apparently the more common neurotype.


May 15th., 2023

Gonzo Science – Your Fighting Genes

Gawd, the propaganda is so obtuse, so horrifying simple and false. The flighty sounding talk about self-knowledge isn’t always high level, it’s basic as can be too: if you don’t know yourself, you can’t know anything, even your own thoughts, speech, and actions may not be you, how would you know? If the world clearly seems a certain way to you, you have to ask yourself, why is this what my mind looks to see? Why have I evolved the sense of that certain way? If the world is clearly a struggle and a fight to your mind, then you were evolved to see fighting, you have genes for fighting.

It follows that of course we have other genes with other concerns as well, and the current and long time social narrative is that these others have to live around the fighting. The current and long time idea is that you “have the fighting genes,” end of story, it’s static, created Human nature in new words, we are still and forever dealing with them, but of course what is missing from the conversation is the environmental control of genetic expression. If our other genes and other concerns wish to change anything about the fighting, we need to take that argument a level deeper, and undermine the gene, find a way to stop selecting it.

If we could adjust the environment away from abuse, our children would be slightly less under its control, and this would give their children a better chance to do the same. This was my parenting plan – you want to make God laugh? Never mind, it’s still my theory.

Come on, this was easy, it’s obvious. The minute I heard of epigenetics, this was all sitting there, obvious.

There are fighting genes in humans, and there is epigenetics, and there is spanking: the gene, the control mechanism, and us working it like an oar, making sure from approximately birth, that the environment is a fight, ensuring the activation and repeated selection of the war genes. Plain as day, I have had trouble expressing this because I assumed it was obvious and simple and everyone knew, I swear to God. How do we not? Do you not?

I mean, this obvious truth is buried under a ton of flummery.

Freud’s drives are just the static Nature broken down into components, balancing them seems to be all that can be done and I guess most people manage it well enough? Primatology too, just talks about the past, the “making of our Nature,” or something, it looks away from our this-minute evolution too. Any system of human parts and components comes out of the static meme, the meaningful parts are behaviour and genetics, not the structural hardware.

What if your baseline “Human Nature,” was a moving thing, a foundation of shifting mud? (the following I wrote a few days ago on Twitter.)

What if?

What if there were those “warrior genes?”

What if there were? What might the world look like?

Well, you’d expect war – check.

You might expect some rape, warrior genes selecting themselves – check.

You might expect a military sort of social organization, an hierarchy of authority – check.

You might expect that a creature with such genes admires and promotes strength and aggression – check. Ask me if you don’t believe me. It’s most of the blog.

You might expect a development that turns adorable babies into aggressive adults – check. Again, I’m always writing this.

You would expect that individuals lacking the selected for aggression would be pathologized and/or marginalized, perhaps killed – check. (Won’t make you ask: all the “gender critique,” can and should be seen as patriarchy, warrior patriarchy and they don’t really care if boys love boys, but they care terribly if boys love at all and hate insufficiently. This would seem to be the obvious aim of male circumcision, so we do things for this reason.)


Show me something about people that says we DON’T have and live from our warrior genes.

Every argument you have for a nasty Human Nature would support warrior genes, wouldn’t they?

Has this book been written yet?


(back to live on Saturday.)

I suppose if the book existed I would have found it by now. I want to write it, but I’m doing this instead.

I’m jaded; I don’t have the hope that we will do this, see our own making, and I have to say, it means all that nineteenth century talk about consciousness is rubbish, that if we don’t see this first level deep into ourselves, we cannot claim to have it. We remain beasts indeed, as long as we do not take this step.


May 13th., 2023

The Double Masking Problem – no, sorry: The Shadow Empathy Problem

Written on Twitter:

I seem to have had a non-standard experience. I didn’t know, didn’t know to mask, I just got high and went into the breach numbed and otherwise as my weird self. It’s true there wasn’t any social success.

I suppose there were times when small talk seemed easier. Hyperlexic, if I couldn’t produce any small talk, I sometimes said so, talked about that: I’m sorry, I wish I had some small talk for you. I’m here. ❤️

I suppose I’m always wishing I could STFU.

It’s either this or I am just still brutally unaware.

I’m trying to find it, that’s why I’m talking: you know the NT version of “the mask?” That’s the one my people were talking about the whole time, what is not “the shadow,” is “the mask,” the mask is what people allow themselves to see about themselves, our FB selves, while the shadow is our dark side, the things we will not acknowledge, and everyone has one, they say, it is filled with Freud’s dark drives and the seven deadly sins, and aspects of ourselves that we use as insults for others. Basically, your shadow is that bad penny, evil Human Nature’s bad side. Your (NT psychological) mask, is your cherry-picked personality – OMG, hey, it is so good to think in text! #ActuallyAutistic , everyone come in, check this.

NTs have one theory of masking as part of their theory of mind, and Autists have an entirely different one as part of ours, wait for it – so we see them masking, conforming, our theory of mind says: “there’s something more going on underneath, surely they understand more than they’re saying they do.”

But when THEY detect an Autistic  masking, what does THEIR theory of mind tell them?

What is behind a mask in their minds?


Oh my gawd, this is the DEP, they see us masking, and what is behind our mask in their theories is everything they have already decided they hate about themselves.

For real, y’all. This has truthiness from here to Timbuktu, I believe it already. Ouch. (I can bounce this off of someone IRL, one who was and is very into shadow work and such.

I’ll get back. ❤️ )

“Empathy,” was close, that’s part of it, what is buried in our shadow we lack empathy for (repression, per Alice Miller); the shadow is all that is repressed in us, the blind spot.

But these are not two individual versions of the same phenomenon, these masks.

In theory, Autistics have a psychological mask also, of course, repressed things – but it’s not that mask we get caught out at, NT people don’t bust each other or anyone for the shadow’s mask. It is not two psychological masks passing in the night, not a different bunch of micro-empathies from otherwise identical systems like a language problem, but a two theories of what an Autist’s mask is covering problem. The NT only knows the shadow and projects and assumes the worst.

I got Autistic therapists here, right? Surely they know the shadow and the whole world is here before me? The big takeaway, I guess, Autists, get yourself a counsellor that has done their shadow work, one that has the chops to understand their own reactions to people, I’d want to know they had the idea.

Jeff May 4th., 2023

The Brain Science of Not Grokking Evolution

How Thoughts are Formed:

For how things work, how thoughts are formed in the brain, we have some idea of the materials involved, much detail regarding chemical processes – and a lot of analogies.

In some contexts, the brain has pathways, in the context of depression and addiction, we speak of getting caught on a looping path, or of progressively falling into the same patterns of thought, thought to indicate the overuse of a single “pathway.” I have been trying to use this one lately, I have used it a fair bit, and I wanted to for the current blog, but you can’t prove anything starting with a single dubious analogy, can you, I need to at least diversify, if I can’t transcend it.

In Pinker’s brain science tomes, we have modules, or demons, little portions of thought, an addition demon, a subtraction one, one for fighting and one for flight, one for putting a thing on top of another thing, a lot of multipurpose generic thought segments or components that we string together to make a thought or a sentence or a life. He postulates that we also possess a completely unmoored “universal processing” module by which we are able to reason through new situations that our species has never evolved for, citing mathematics and such as evidence of its existence, but this as well as a million other less universal ones, not instead, I think. Perhaps we are born assuming it’s all the universal one, and perhaps we think much of our ideology comes from there, but I’m here to show a major way that this is not the case, that ideology is more basic, made up of simpler demons, using the modules of the brain in the same way everything else does.

I know Freud and other psychologists have their analogies as well, and some folks assign not only identities within the “personality,” as Freud did, but assign them voices too and speak of internal parliaments, but this is a different breakdown, each voice a whole person and we might still be left wondering how each of their thoughts are formed. It doesn’t map onto Pinker’s modules, which are functions, not whole voices. Too, we may wonder how the “ego,” forms its thoughts, etc. the same way.

I’m sorry – only two, modules and pathways?

“Pathways,” has a quirk, an understood one, I don’t think there is a cursor tracing thoughts from point A to point B, away from one ear and towards the other, if it’s a “path,” it’s not spatial but temporal, chemical processes happening over time to take us from one metaphorical “place,” to another. I think I was wrong to use this model so much, “module,” may serve my purposes better after all, but it isn’t a bit temporal, doesn’t seem to move at all!

Perhaps I will change it up, perhaps I’ll be as generic as possible, but you know what is a module of speech or thought that moves is Dawkins’ “meme,” and perhaps the meme is not the module or the pathway, but the product of that structure? The thing I am trying to name in the brain is the collection of cells and processes that produces a meme, say the addition meme, or the flight meme, or the “maybe it’s behind something,” meme – touch the module, it gives you a meme with which to build your thought or your sentence.

It’s difficult, all these things overlap, the modules analogy I’m making mirrors parts of speech, a sentence is a series of components, subjects and objects and verbs, and a thought is a series of modules or pathways mirroring subjects and objects and verbs. We can say, “the dog chased the cat,” and we have modules or some building block or other of thought for each thing, a brain part or process to match each of “dog,” “chased,” and “cat,” and these units can be refitted for wolves and sheep and even Russia and Crimea – analogies prove the point, that there are forms for things, one size fits all memes that we apply to many things and boiler plating these is how sentences and thoughts are created. Ah, here’s a thought, sometimes when a situation does seem new and we have to choose a meme to understand it, apply existing memes to a new thing, we make a poor choice, and that is not the best or most appropriate module for that situation.

This is the point here, however, so before I launch into it, I’d like to produce an example you already know. You know, so you don’t have to take my word for it.

And why stretch it? I’ve already invoked the dreaded wolves and sheep? – nah, no, that’s too fraught. A simple one – ah, “shark infested waters?” I think a lot of us have heard this one lately, that creatures do not “infest,” their own homes! That perhaps “infestation,” is the wrong meme to apply to this situation. Of course it’s  . . . interested. The person calls that an infestation is trying to say the ocean is their home, but the wrong, interested meme gets past us often enough, doesn’t it?

How Thoughts are Protected:

Or, how language maps to thoughts: the word is not the meme.

The word is the label for the meme, in your language, and in your time and place. A rose by any other name. Every culture with a language that knows a rose has a different word, but the rose – and the mental meme – have their own reality beyond the word, and this is the point, if we re-named the rose something else, the flower and the mental meme would not change. Were we to learn that a rose is in fact not a plant but an alarmingly complicated chameleon, then perhaps the thing and the brain unit for “rose,” would have to change, but it doesn’t work the other way about, the word is only a label for the meme in your brain, which is only some bit of brain language for the object.

This is why new, politically correct language is not a meaningful endeavour: labels are not only not the thing, but they are not even the representation of the thing in your brain, only a label for that and changing the word does not, as we hope, change anything inside the brain, indeed, just as saying it in French would not. This argument goes to identities and genders and everything else we try to fix with new language, but I am not going to iterate all that, I am going to go to what I think is the mother of all the PC language failures, “consequences,” in childrearing, followed by perhaps the father, evolution.

This application of  . . . code, I guess, this level of interpretation protects evolved, inherited memes, after all the brain and the person must function in the absence of language too, the  brain couldn’t maintain anything if it could all simply be talked away. I guess where this is heading is if we want to change anything, we don’t change the part of the code everyone sees but leave the new symbols matched to the same old things, meaning use it in all the same places and sentences as the old word, you take control of the mapping – we don’t ask people who may still think of a shark’s existence as an infestation to learn to say “shark inhabited,” if we know they still want to kill them all, we work to educate, remove the fear, and the language follows. We would locate the error by which this person thinks they own the ocean, correct that, and they will stop saying “infested,” when they realize it’s not their kitchen and sharks are not cockroaches and they would apply a more appropriate meme, shark country, or something.

Again, unless someone has an interest in it, then sharks are cockroaches, or ants?

If you felt you had to be in the ocean, though, and had to be exactly where the sharks are hungriest and most numerous, though, perhaps you would say, “infested.” We apply the meme that brings us results, like survival (I don’t mean survival from sharks so directly, it’s not the sharks made this necessary for you, but your employers, I mean to say, “survival of our employment”). The wrong meme is probably not often an accident; you’d think natural selection would either select an accident or weed those out. It’s a form of tech, or engineering, manipulating this layer of thought and existence to our own ends. But it also keeps us at bay when we try to change language for some social improvement, lets us think we’re changing things while the brain keeps everything running to the evolved status quo.

It’s been a long time since I typed this one, about how we stopped saying “punishments” for children after Dr. Spock and started saying “consequences,” instead, and changed almost nothing, punishment already means consequences, it’s only a little more passively voiced this way, and of course, some huge percentage of people still self report spanking, eighty-five or something. Literally the same hands on the same bottoms, different code symbol, same mental meme, same external world and actions. Gentle parenting would have us move from the cause and artificial effect meme both the words reference and to a different function altogether with no contrived “effect,” at all and then neither word would apply.

A teaching meme, perhaps instead. D’ya think?

New words are a dodge, a trick played on us by our species’ memory, by the bureaucracy of biology, where we simply replace the puppet leader figure and none of the machines of state. We live life, thinking the code is the message, blissfully unaware of the formatting beneath, in the evolved memes.

OK, if that was the mother – fitting, I think – then evolution is perhaps not the father, but the great granddaddy of language to meme failures, at least today.

It doesn’t belong among the origin stories at all.

The Human Nature Meme:

The Human Nature idea, with it’s coresident one of creation, is an extension of to quote an archaic term, Man the Maker, or Bob the Builder, using a too-modern one: there isn’t a thing, you make the thing, now there’s a thing, generally with a made-for purpose. This is what we have applied to our species and to the world, we are here, so perhaps something made us, so perhaps we have a purpose (a single, specific purpose, like an axe) and we were made to be this and so we are this. You make an axe, it’s an axe until someone unmakes it. Tools would seem to be the meme for this single purpose, or “Nature,” idea, the Nature of an axe is such and such, and it goes to, “So Grasshopper, what is the Nature of you?”

This is where I get lost, it has this aspect, for sure, the “Natures,” meme, of inferring a single vector, an essence, a single idea like a tool – but on the other hand, people reference if for anything and everything. This “essence,” apparently has the entire gamut of human behaviour in it, from the best to the worst . . . I can’t square it, clearly, “Natures,” are the wrong meme for a living, complex thing like us. Evolution is much better.

But it’s just a word, a symbol. If we just replace “creation,” and “Human Nature,” with “evolution,” we are not changing anything, even in our minds.

And I’m afraid we do. A lot.

For one thing, creation and human nature are old, who knows how old, maybe as old as humans. When we think about those things, existence even, these are the brain paths or modules we engage, when we think about why we are the way we are, we use the “what were we made for” meme and origins are presumed to explain why we are what we are now in this meme (paradigm), as opposed to what is making us this way right now, today.

Evolution answers that last question, not the first two.

Creation is an origins/purpose/Natures meme, the questions and the answers, and it follows the format of that brain module – but these are not the memes for living creatures. For that, we need memes of growth and change and environment and processes functioning right now. An example? Of Using “evolution” words but “creation,” memes – my usual: your “chimpanzee genetic legacy,” is a “Nature.”

We split from them five million years ago – does evolution not include change? History (and more specifically The Dawn of Everything) shows that things change a lot, much faster than that. Whole societies move in and out of “chimpanzee” aggression at merely historical speeds, and suggests, I’m sorry, that the entire primatology as proto-humans meme is nonsense, based in an all too common misunderstanding of deep time.

The Creation and Natures memes are old – but I don’t suppose the chimps have them. That’s probably a human development. Today’s problems have today causes in the meme of reality, of causes and natural effects, that is evolution. For God’s sake, people, humans have human problems. Perhaps you have noticed, no other animal does? Not chimpanzees either?

All is in motion in evolution; if we grokked it, we would stop searching for “initial conditions,” as there are none, or viewed another way, none that are still in effect or relevant. There are only “conditions,” and it matters what they are now, or a minute ago, not what they may have been a very long time ago. In the other meme, if we were created and had some “Nature,’ conditions may not matter at all, and having paved paradise after Darwin and Wallace’s deaths, it would seem that evolution has not revolutionized the world as it probably should. It is clear that we think we are somehow beyond all conditions. Evolution is self-evident in matters of living things, while creation is not evident in any way whatever.

But this fiction, this is the human disorder and the human magic, what makes us tragically different, and it is ingrained in our brains, this obsession with origins and justifying unnatural human practises with it, the denial of the self-evident change that occurs in the human world. It is less about some positive effect of a creationist belief, I’m thinking, and more about displacing the belief in change and growth, I fear, denying the damage we cause. Diverting thought away from evolution, our ongoing self-creation, and any damage we wreak upon one another. Of course it works, “Human Nature,” can be exactly all that damage, and when you show up twisted and broken, this will have always been your “Nature,” – and the innocence of your childhood was a lie: you were always this broken crime looking for a place to happen.

In this way, thoughts are protected, obvious fictions like creation remain in effect despite the truer thing having been discovered, the new idea is reduced to only being a new word for an old brain path, and we still use that circuit when we ponder ourselves. It is partially, hugely perhaps simple inertia, that the new idea’s word has to begin life trying to fit into the same conversations the old one did, but of course, the creation module in your brain evolved for a reason – not saying a “good,” reason, saying a reason we need to check – and it is protecting itself, like any living thing it is trying to grow and live and perhaps propagate.

So maybe it’s taking on more work than it should, or maybe we are diverting too much work there “on purpose,” not to say always consciously. Hey.

We’ve been making tools longer than cultivating, is this still true?

So the toolmaker’s creation myth is a little older than evolution – which I suppose might be the farmer’s “myth?”

As I said, there are better memes with which to understand and explain ourselves, ones of change and growth and environmental interactions, they exist, but which memes we use for what, this is perhaps a way to see the problem. Again, the choice is interested generally, but that way lies the truth, interested for what, why, now we’re chasing some knowledge. An administration problem, perhaps a corrupt administration problem, from a modern, can we stop the end of the world perspective. It’s easy to make the case in text though, hard to effect any real change, how could we hope to give that work, pondering whys and wherefores to the correct department in the brain? Why would the world reward and maintain its going to the wrong one?

Again, I’m sorry, guesses and analogies may be all we have.

My answer to this is Antisocialization Theory, of course, like Chagnon’s warrior society (except that the elite white obviously play too, or how are they winning), or Yellowbeard’s admonishment to his goody two shoes son that you’ll never get any killing done if you go about thinking all the time. That, I’m afraid is the interest we have to expose.

I think I can give up on solving the whole world with this one too, I guess I can stop now. I hope there was something in it for y’all. Be careful out there.


April 28th., 2023

No, YOU Have a Genetic Component

I’m so used to being misunderstood, to being the intellectual black sheep, Jeff against the world, that post hatching and having found a type for myself, I find myself rejecting it and its assumptions like I always have with NT world’s; it’s a habit and a survival mechanism and maybe a whole neurotype and it’s not likely to change anytime soon.

All my life I have been battling a broken neurotype, not mine.

It stresses me out, it’s got me pacing and even hand flapping a little, when I hear the charlatans’ noise about “curing” Autists, but our responses also do not satisfy me, I feel that while we are putting up an argument, that we get dragged into accepting some portion of their premise, and I want to lead you in, but you know what, let’s go straight to it, I’ll name it. More than that Autists are not a thing to repair or to prevent, I need to go further, nothing falls into place for me if “Autism” is a thing, at all. It’s not the monster I have identified and wrestled all my life, that was . . . the other thing.

Here’s my premise.

“Autism,” isn’t a thing, I mean it’s a thing, everything is a word, everything is a thing, a vacuum is a thing, but it’s also nothing: space is a “thing,” that is also nothing, whereas matter, now that’s a thing, a thing that isn’t just the absence of another thing. Autism is a thing like space is a thing; whereas . . . I need a better word, for it, please work with me that these are close, whereas Neurotypicality, Allism, being “normal,” – now these are things. Like matter is a thing.

Being normal is a thing, and it is not also just “nothing,” like the word suggests. That’s just the consensus fallacy, if it’s everywhere, it’s nothing – this is backwards, NTs, if it’s everywhere, that’s more like everything than “nothing,” isn’t it? Not asking, or not asking NTs: it is more like everything. Like we’re having the discussion about air again: if it displaces something else, it’s matter, it’s not “nothing,” even if it is everywhere. Even if it is invisible to you.

When the charlatans go to environmental causes, Tylenol, that’s horrible and stupid, Autists haven’t been poisoned, and poisons don’t create neurotypes, but that’s not my area, plenty of good folks are fighting those folks, thank goodness (and also I have had a run at them recently already). What I think I need to answer today is when they start talking about genes. That’s close to a logic I am already looking at, and I have already been developing a genetic theory about that other thing. “Autism,” “has a genetic component,” they say, and . . . duh?

Doesn’t everything alive and all of behaviour “have a genetic component?”

Of course it does, and to say it about “Autism,” is as obvious as it would be to say it about anything, and to say there is “more than one gene involved,” is also true of everything and equally obvious, and I predict that they cannot even say it is associated with any “group of genes,” not yet, they will say, and none of those statements suggest that “Autism” is a genetic . . . unit of any sort. A single gene might, as in some diseases, a group of them might, I think there are things associated with more than one gene, but these have not been identified for “Autism,” and so they have not ‘yet,’ shown the genes to say that “Autism,” is a genetic . . . phenomenon.

OK – I have seen this idea, a group of genes, and I think they will argue, I think they will say they have identified a “number of genes,” now – I don’t think I’m out of date, I think I’m arguing, I’m saying I don’t believe them. This blog is about how I don’t think “Autism” is thing in itself and that there is no such logical grouping. It’s a dispute, not my ignorance – I think. It does get a little circular, both their argument and mine, and I’m not sure there’s any way around all of that with these sorts of constructs. My point is, that it is less circular when we see it the other way around: I am predicting that we can indeed find a “group of genes,” but for NTness, not Autism. Such puzzles always carry an extra level of difficulty when you’re looking at them upside down, trying to prove the negative rather than the positive in the situation.

Their language is doomed to vagueness and complexity, we see it progress: a gene, no, a group of genes, well, a variable number of genes, along with environmental things (like Tylenol) also, well, environment (like Tylenol) and a variable number of genes and also life history (like a lack of “discipline”) . . .

You know what, here, let me flip that over for you. That’s what we’re here for.

Of course, I can’t show you any genes for anything, so, while proof is lacking for “Autistic genes,” at this date, let’s look at some theory, shall we?

What does a genetic . . . entity look like? How do we recognize genes, what sort of attributes do genetic things have?

I’ve thought of four things that we associate with a genetic . . . effect, and they are, in no particular order,

One, heritability: genes explain heritability, our children inherit our genes and our lives, to some degree. It has been dramatically explained how genetic behaviours appear in separated families, most poisonously in the twin studies. Heritability that survives family and cultural disruption, we know this is a genetic matter.

Two, epigenetics: an epigenetic effect is a sure positive sign, if not not always present, but when we see differences in development with the same genes in different environments, we know some gene is taking a cue from the environment and choosing an option.

Three, sameness: when we share a gene, we share a trait, not one for one necessarily, but species share a whole lot of their genes while all of life share a few, almost. “Species,” means a high level of shared genes, and when we see shared attributes, especially across diverse environments, we know we are seeing shared genes. Accordingly, the more uniform a given group is, a given species, the less variability it displays, this indicates a higher percentage of shared genes than perhaps another, highly variable “species,” has, and the more variable species has more genes that they don’t all share – think perhaps species with mountain and lowland versions – but the more they are all the same, the more we know their genes are too.

To phrase it for use here, I want to say that the more uniform a group is, the more “genetic,” it is, that is to say the more it would be accurately defined by defining the gene, or as I’ve been saying, the genetic . . . something. Genetic overall effect, I suppose. I mean, I don’t only want to say it. I think it’s a fair example of how we use the soft term, “genetic,” in conversation, and I try not to want to say untrue things, of course don’t we all. We will judge for ourselves, I guess, but if you don’t agree, things will look more circular later, I’m afraid. I’m trying to set it up, but with a change of viewpoint, not by dispensing with the truth, I hope.

Inasmuch as ninety-some percent of shared genes makes a species and a hundred percent makes you an identical twin or a clone, more similar means more “genetic,” – ah, there it is. It means more of the “genetic component.”

That ought to do it! It just takes me a bit sometimes.

Four, evolution: when a trait or an effect is growing or shrinking, being selected or deselected over time, when evolution is happening, it happens in your genes, if we see polar bears fading to tan, we know there are grizzly genes, they are converging. When we see species getting bigger or smaller or changing how they use the environment, we know their genes are changing too.

OK. Caveats.

Some of my reasoning will rest upon reasoning that as far as I can see, is only mine; I will be expecting you to accept AST, Antisocialization Theory, my idea that humanity drives itself to more and more antisocial behaviours by way of its attempts at social control, my idea that no-one traumatizes humans except humans, that we are horrible and destroying the world because we treat ourselves horribly and for no other reason. It’s the materialistic ideological opposite of “Human Nature.” It’s all I ever talk about, see the blog.

I will attempt to give you a way around it where possible, but I’m nothing if not holistic, and it won’t really work without it. Nothing works with the Human Nature myth gumming up the science, and cynic that I am, you know I think that’s the point of it.

Alright let’s apply these criteria and find out who’s a genetic . . . whatever and who isn’t, shall we?

One, heritability.

“It runs in families,” sure it does, of course it does, wait – what does? “Autism?” So, “Autism,” “runs in my family?” Again, yes, sure it does – but it’s not the only thing that does. I’m pretty sure my family has a non-Autistic streak too. The rest of them aren’t blank molds, waiting to be coloured in, they’re not “nothing,” if they’re not Autistic, are they? More like everything, if you count them. If we don’t just leave them out of our equations. Hmm.

I’m afraid I’ve just talked myself out of “Allism,” as my term, I’ll go back to my generic, “NTness,” again, because my point is it’s the concrete thing – and Allism is defined as simply “not Autistic,” that’s not a definition for my thesis, obviously they can’t just define each other that way, and I’m going the other direction, where it is “Autism,” whose definition will simply be “not NT.” With a better word some day, I hope. My apologies to the community, that word is not going to work out anymore when I’m finished revamping the entire movement and the world. To say, “Allism runs in families,” instead is merely a grammatical tautology, not my point at all. We should find a way to say NT to mean something more specific, but that’s a bridge too far just now.

NTness it is.

The point of this is that this is not a grammatical tautology, but a real one, there is some real, heritable thing being passed along that isn’t Autism, some genetic . . . structure that is its own thing, and again, isn’t “nothing,” or “Human Nature,” or any sort of a functional default that is necessarily good or “natural,” or just the way God planned it. But either way – if it’s only grammar to you, it’s still clear that both neurotypes “run in families, Autistic and not Autistic.” If it’s only grammar to begin with, it’s still grammatically true. Logically, if “Autism runs in families,” so does the other thing, or there would be nothing but “Autism.” Right?

For me, there are two possible genetic things in this conversation, both possibly actual, heritable things in the world, and perhaps it’s one or the other, or perhaps it’s both. So, that’s One Point each. Both things look genetic, based on their heritability, to me, “Autism,” and “NTness.”

It’s a One-All tie at this point. They could both be genetic . . . forms of order by the first test.

Two, epigenetics.

Now, this is all overview, I am not a biologist, and when I say “genes,” or “alleles,” or even if I name one as I’m about to do, know that the names and the details don’t mean much to me, that this is all theory and someday your details will catch up. I won’t be held to some genetic detail from 2020, this is all made from macro observations, no minutiae is going to invalidate it for me.

This seems to be a feature of some genes, or some genetic effects, that they have options, depending on what they detect about the environment, that affect an organism’s development. I believe some genetic diseases or conditions come on during development as genetic options are settled, isn’t that right? Classic epigenetic effects are things like . . .wow, Google seems useless, nothing but cancer, and it seems confused with mutation. Things like a foetus sensing its mother’s malnutrition and adjusting how the person processes proteins for their life, this is an example, the Dutch Winter Babies – I’m not sure anyone’s proved that this extends beyond the womb, but wouldn’t it?

If a one year-old senses its own famine and had any developing left to do, can we assume some things are adjustable well into development? I would think so, I mean I do think so, I’m quite certain this is the case but that I am not in that business and am having a little trouble finding the proof for you. The idea is central to AST, I must have seen it somewhere. Oh, there it is – identical twins have the same genes to start, and epigenetics, response to environment, is understood to be responsible for any differences between identical twins at all, which clearly exist.

AST has it that the so called warrior alleles operate that way, and I think that’s my example, everyone thinks that – it’s just a poor example because it’s exactly my thesis, AST’s premise that some genetic effect like the warrior alleles happens for people, and that no-one makes the environment one to activate those alleles, I mean set the worse option, but us. This environment is called, “spanking.” It has a special name, it’s not just “hitting,” or “beating,” and it’s only called that when we do it to humans in childhood, during development, because it is epigenetics.

We see the effect, as I said in a recent blog, when children, born sweet and helpless become hard and aggressive as they age to “maturity.” Spanking sets the options of your warrior alleles to “war.” At least it does for most people. I have been trying to make this case for years; if I haven’t convinced anyone yet, it must be impossible. For me, this is the epigenetic effect that rules human life.

We must pause to admit that the “warrior alleles,” have suffered the same process as “Autistic genes,” that at first it was “the psychopath gene,” then the name change and the caveats, depending on other factors, then only in extreme abusive environments, along with or without many other genes, etc., etc., it is difficult to say anything with any power in this complex business. But the less extreme function seems clear and independent of microscopic detail, how people grow up to “be strong,” more reliably than that they grow up getting more sensitive. If you don’t see it, you probably think nothing and no-one is strong enough, which makes my point in an even more powerful way.

To some of us, at least.

It seems that perhaps it fails for some? For many Autists in particular? Can we not be counted upon to get “strong?” This is my AST view, that this is the DEPT, this is what is so wrong with us, we cannot be trusted because we are apparently no damned good in a fight.

Not sure I can continue. This is a controversial point, I’m not sure anyone is going to follow me so far. There is a lot of talk online about Autistic sense of fairness and justice and on the other hand the ones who would “cure” us are quick to say we resist the training. Look, I guess I can’t speak for all Autists, maybe any of them, I am pretty new, and as I said at the start, I’m not a very good follower – but it never changed me. I am as opposed to spanking today as I was when I was one year old.

I don’t think I have that warrior allele thing in nearly the same measure as normal people do, and I suspect a lot of us Autists are like this. Can you see where I’m going? I think NTness displays the epigenetic effect of people growing up strong and mean, and I’m not so sure “Autism,” has that.

I think we’re at Two to One now. In this sense, NTness is a genetic . . . function, and “Autism,” lacking this attribute, may not be, at least is not proved to be by this logic.

Three, sameness.

Which has diversity, which conforms?

Am I done? It’s tempting. More than tempting, why insult you? Maybe in the LSD halcyon days of the sixties I would have had to but . . . you have media, right? Enough said.

Three to One. Next!

Four, evolution.

AST again: I think we’re getting worse, I mean something is. I don’t agree with the existing conversation, I don’t think we’re “better,” than the chimpanzees because I think we have a chance to know better and we never take it. We don’t rule and kill the whole world because we are “better,” than any damn thing, try this – the chimpanzees probably don’t kill as many chimpanzees as we do anyway. We are worse, and getting worse all the time, and we don’t take any responsibility for our horrible selves and talk about “Human Nature,” insisting, promising, to never change. For hundreds of years now, maybe thousands of years, wars keep getting bigger. Standing still in the river of life changes you, and trying not to change only means you are choosing the worse option when the world changes, and suffering a reduction in your viability and quality of life.

It’s not just me and AST that thinks so, it’s the same meme that we are Fallen, that we have gotten worse, perhaps the biologists have a slightly less negative view, they say that we retain the nastiness of the chimpanzee and have only extended their destructive capabilities, not that we are getting worse within ourselves, only that we are not getting better. That’s better, huh.

This is my long held, and long considered from every side that I can imagine worldview, AST, that we keep making ourselves worse, in an act of misguided self-directed evolution, and it’s about the species in general, but:

 . . . but I didn’t know about “Autism,” that my mindset may not be a one-off, but a type, and I wasn’t aware of the Indigenous Critique either. It is amazing to learn that my self-taught understanding of the world that few of my white friends understand or agree with happens to line up with a common Autistic set of traits, but far more amazing that it does with the pre-European North American way of life.

I have been thinking and speaking about an “NT gene suite” for some time now, as opposed to at least my Autistic genes, and honestly, Wengrow’s talk about the Indigenous Critique is an evidence I never dreamed of, too bloody good to be true! You mean there are modern people, whole civilizations, practically within living memory, compared to the long story of evolution I thought I was telling, that didn’t have this problem, at all?!?!?

The Indigenous Critique of “Europeans and their culture,” and my complaints about my life’s difficulties communicating with NT people, they are identical. The Indigenous life the Dawn of Everything describes is exactly the life I pine for, exactly what I would have designed for us all – the life I bloody need. I’m trying not to tell you what it is, this is getting long and I’ve barely begun the book myself, everyone should read that book. And it existed, this life?

Really? Bloody Hell.

Is it really too much to assume some previous state, as those enlightenment pundits did, before all of this? Having watched this toxic thing take over North America, and likely other places, can we not assume it began somewhere and took us over at some point, maybe not so far back as caves and fire? Again, again, if it’s “nothing,” because it’s everywhere or will be soon, you’d say no, but that’s crazy, it’s everywhere, or almost, so it’s something, very, very something. I had been talking about an aggressive gene and genetic drift, and good Lord, if the European Age of Expansion isn’t just that.

Drift counts as “evolution,” doesn’t it? One of evolution’s most powerful vectors, isn’t it? You’re free to disagree, of course, but I think the main thrust of humanity is evolving, not in a positive way, it is adapting to an environment that it makes worse and then it adapts to that – this is a positive feedback loop, thermal runaway, and it is all going to burn. AST suggests that the 21st. century looks exactly like the 20th. century and that this cycle of meltdowns may be the final stage, to be repeated until we do adapt in a different direction, or for as many cycles as this planet can survive it.

Of course I’d love to be wrong about that.

But the other side of the question, this factor – are Autists evolving?

It will be Four to One by me, if not. What do we know?

Not much, to be sure. We’ve only had the word for a hundred years, and we’re still fighting about the definition; I don’t have a lot to work with. We exist, so we are being selected for, somehow, someone is breeding with us, although I expect that nobody knows yet if we are on the wax or the wane or holding steady, and nobody can say we are getting more or less Autistic, for the same reasons. We lack data for evolutionary change happening among Autists at the moment, of course, we haven’t got much of a snapshot yet, but is there anything?

I think maybe I’ll touch genetic similarity after all, not having to make the case for NTness, but just to talk about its relative absence in “Autism.” I won’t be using quotation marks going forward in my life for that, it just helps make the particular point in this blog, that we’re analysing that term.

But there is something about the other health issues, “morbidities” associated with us. There is a word, for illnesses that occur together, “comorbidities,” and technically it’s fine if you have more than one, but I’m seeing an argument that says to use such a term around “Autism,” sounds like “Autism,” is one of them, like “people with EDS often have the comorbidity of being “Autistic,” might pass too, so we’re looking for other terms, less negative, “co-occurrences,” like that.

But, terminology aside for the moment, it’s like, uh . . . it’s a little like “Autism” is a prophylaxis for disorders and problems that at least from an NT, bro-science evo point of view, “should” get people selected out. Again, some talk about “curing,” us for these issues, but somehow we are here, still getting laid and breeding, despite them. No? I mean, on the theory that we aren’t a new thing in the world, and I don’t think any but the most hardline creationist sorts think that.

What I’m suggesting is that the “number of genes along with environmental factors, etc.,” associated with “Autism” seem to be shared with a lot of problem genes, and no force is taking advantage, the leopards aren’t eating us, we are still here despite some liabilities. I have this sense that somehow, our side of the gene pool is un-curated, we are either too small to worry about or too big to fail or something. All this, is my only tiny stab in the dark evidence that perhaps “Autism,” is not presently evolving, that it is not showing that trait that some genetic . . . things do.

With that ephemeral bit of reasoning, and no evidence either for or against to speak of, it seems equally right or wrong to declare one way or the other – but well. This is my blog, and that is the declaration I am here to make: go forth, prove me right, prove me wrong, get us that data, this is science, Laddie, that’s the whole idea.

So, argue, criticize, of course, but I’m at Four to One now, and I expect readers are at Two, Two and a half, maybe Three to One, and I would call that a win.

Conclusion: at this point, I will say that “Autism,” could be something along the lines of a genetic “disorder,” but the data is not in to say so, and it could very well not be a genetic . . . occurrence, while NTness absolutely is one, meeting all the basic criteria.

I will re-iterate, I end most of my stuff with this point, I think, that it is not some small minority of weirdos or their disabilities that are forever at war and driving this planet off three different cliffs simultaneously. That is some typical disability, clearly. Which again, is not “nothing.”

Oh, hey, midnight, so it’s Sunday. Let’s post.


March 19th., 2023