The caveman theory may be correct

Post Reply New Topic

Not impossible, but you are working just like the other bunch of people that are into autism research.

1. Select some random autism-trait
2. Create some speculation around it without regards to consistence with other traits
3. Goto 1.

If you didn't know, the scientific method builds on creating hypothesis and testing these against unknown data. Science also builds on the notion that you first formulate your theory / hypothesis and then check it and try to make it more general. Using the above method simply is not science.



Yeah, you can shove your brain-damage ideas up your ass.

And divergence in thread topics is lost... later griff.

Your theory is full of s**t by the way. And I actually wasn't referring to your main point at all, which is complete bollocks and not really worth discussion. I'll be reading rdos' stuff though. It is refreshing in the fact that he doesn't just make stuff up about our ancestors.

No. I've generally found my thinking quite divergent from most people.

No, I'm trying to form an idea as to how these various traits interact. I don't do random. I actually can't. I have a paranoid streak, and I tend to be good at sorting relevant data from the irrelevant. My thinking is structured and ordered to a fault.

I'm not sure how you'd test against unknown data, actually.

No, what you do is test the part against the whole and look for inconsistencies. When you spot an inconsistency, you analyze it and try to gain an understanding of what is causing it. You demand order. You demand consistency.

That's been the problem with your attitude since the beginning. You're small-minded and anti-intellectual. I don't want to know you, and I don't want to hear from you. You're a troll.

It's that attitude that's got my nerves in a bunch.

I'm not sure what you're claiming I made up.

You don't form ideas to how things interact. You RESEARCH it. The data about how traits interact is already there. It can be found in the evaluation of Aspie-quiz.

And, note, I invented the Neanderthal theory in 2001, and started verifying it in 2004 with Aspie-quiz.

Here is how you do real science in autism research:

1. You read all you can about current research
2. You (re)formulate a theory / hypothesis
3. You gather data based on the predictions of your hypothesis
4. If the data conflict with predictions, goto 2, otherwise continue with 3



That's fine, then do real science and not ad-hoc speculation!



I've done that for over 3 years now. With Aspie-quiz. I predicted things like correlations with physical traits and sexuality, gender-ratio, prevalence in blacks, profile of motor problems, profile of sensory-differences and the Aspie-communication group (high correlations between stims, tics and non verbal communication differences).

I dont think Rdos is a troll. Just because someone is wrong, or you think he is wrong, doesnt make him a troll. If anything Griff displays more trollish behaviour, if only for the fact his threads all seem to start with something along the lines of: autistics are all monkeypeople, or throwbacks to cavemen (sic) or should be treated like puppies or children etc etc. (yes i'm paraphrasing.) Also, calling people vermin just because they think a neanderthal link more likely than the original suggestion is f*cking rude.

Phrasing alert: I think whoever said it meant "autism is simply a brain disorder", as opposed to some throwback or other, rather than meant it was actually simple. I dont think anyone thinks its actually simple.

On topic: I still think that given most of this "caveman behaviour" is conjecture and hypothesis, assumably based on similar behaviour in modern equivalents, that trying to determine complex neurobehaviour is pushing it a bit. Given that all we have to work on is bones, tools, and cave painting (archaeology basically being a study of the crap people throw away) its too far a conjectural leap to make.

(I'm pretty sure that my first post questioned the viability of Griffs statements about how "cavemen" would have acted, given that he listed these behavioural traits with a very definite tone, as if they were known fact, when in fact they seem to be mostly suppositions, and curiously incorrect ones at that.)

He sure strikes me as one. He's even got a yes-man who probably defends and supports him everywhere he goes (the one with the rubber duck avatar).

Excuse me, but some of my thinking tends to be very radical. If you can't handle it, go and bother someone else. I don't mean it rudely. I've protested on numerous occassions that autism, if anything, arises from genes that are involved in humanity's genetic superiority over most animals. It's probably an overexpression of these genes that causes some of the more dysfunctional traits found in autism.

It was an off-subject discussion. Someone decided that the Neanderthal-link theorists were a convenient straw man, and it threw the thread so off-topic I had to create a whole new thread just to continue addressing the subject matter I wanted to discuss.

No, the person who said this is probably a devotee of pathological theories of autism in which it and Asperger is treated strictly as a mental illness that needs correcting. These people tend to ridicule any suggestion that AS or autism can occassionally be accompanied by beneficial traits. Sometimes, their ridicule can become outright vicious. I've had experience with this sort of person before. They'll desperately rail against any theory that doesn't fit into their narrow-minded view.

The ones who are blaming it on mercury poisoning and like foolishness do. That's as simple-minded as you can get: plain, old brain damage from mercury poisoning. How do you like that, huh?

It was something of an analogy, actually.

I don't really care what cavemen were suited to, though. I was only using it as a rough analogy for what Aspies and auties MIGHT be suited to if they lived under primitive conditions.

Yes, and you were wrong because you were not actually addressing my point. You were addressing someone else's views, which you assumed from your egregious lack of reading that I would hold, myself. If you find my views so offensive that you can't be bothered to fully and comprehensively read what I have to say, then go buzz in someone else's ear. Sorry, dude, but I don't have any tolerance for people who refuse to contemplate an idea just because it's offensive to their delicate sensibilities.

I'm too much for most people. I'm too much for you. I don't want to discuss anything with you because your mindset makes you unsuitable for the level of discussion that I am seeking. I'm looking for a much more in-depth approach to the topic than most people are willing to pursue, and I'm looking for a higher level of creativity than most people have the guts for. It's not something that I think you're capable of. Leave yourself out of my threads.

Er .. no. My first post was definitely asking you to explain your opening post more. It had f*ck all to do with other peoples posts. Hence asking you to explain where you were getting your suppositions from about caveman (sic) behaviour. Your post appeared to be making assumptions, I asked you to clarify it some.

As for your issue with the neanderthal discussions.. what exactly is your problem with it? It covers broadly similar points using much the same baseline of information, and was suggested as a (possibly slightly more) viable alternative to your initial concept. Not that i neccesarily agree with either view, but theres no call to be calling people "vermin" about it.

you're STILL confusing use of the term simple, only this time in the way I used it. You seem to assume I was citing simplicity in CAUSE. Nope. I was suggesting that people dont think it is simple in EFFECT. assuming for a moment it was caused as simplistically as mercury levels. That does not imply or mean that autism ITSELF is simple at all.

Dont see how it can be an effective analogy if its based on spurious guesswork about primitive behaviour. It might work better if it was based on accurate knowledge rather than assumption. Try looking at actual primitive behaviour and comparing it to autism.

You also seem to vbe given to very arrogant assumptions about your "higher thinking" and its superiority. It ever occur to you that someone might disagree with you, not because you "offend their delicate sensibilities" but because they actually think you're wrong? Might be an idea to not say "I don't mean it rudely" and then proceed to be rude and supercilious to people as well. At least be consistent.

And finally.. how about you DONT tell me where I can or cant post on an OPEN FORUM? Or is your definition of "open" too radical for me to understand?

The information in my opening post was actually remarkably well-researched. I've been researching the chemicals at work here for months, and I put my understanding together in the most unified way that I could at the time.

It's called extrapolation, which I was basing upon a great wealth of knowledge regarding the subject matter. If you're curious, see my other thread.

No thank you. I'm not basing my ideas on the supposed behavior of actual primitives. I was basing it upon how I project an autist would behave under certain conditions.

I'm Aspergian and shizotypal. It's my prerogative to be arrogant, thank you.

Yes, this actually occurs to me quite often. In fact, I'm better than most people about either retracting or modifying a hypothesis if an error is pointed out in it. However, I don't think that this happens to be so in your case. In light of your complaints about views that I've expressed elsewhere, I think that your objections are based more on personal vendetta than enlightened disagreement. You and several other participants in this thread seemed determined to shoot down what I had to say at any cost. I saw no enlightened discussion or criticism whatsoever.

Telling the truth to your face isn't being rude. The truth is only offensive to those too cowardly to face themselves in the mirror.

Alright, but, if you're going to play in my threads, expect to feel either offended or left in the dust most of the time. Most of what I go for is probably significantly beyond your level.

Not at all. I understand that it's an open forum. As the saying goes, however, "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch." It's not my problem if you're a masochist.

My original post: "Where on earth are you getting all this supposition about "cavemen" from?

Dietary information is available from certain sources, such as tooth-wear etc, but I fail to see how you draw the conclusion that early man would be a "lecturer." exacty what is this based on?

If information is sparse or non-existent on say, post-roman european society (ie the dark ages), a relatively recent period following long periods of language and record keeping, how do you come to such complex conclusions about a pre-literate society, and how do you determine that "cavemen" were effectively autistic (an entirely neurobiological issue)? Complex neurological examination is hardly possible from bones, fragmentary tools, and some cavepaintings. There simply isnt enough evidence to support these suppositions of mental behaviour. I also note you do not mention the meat content of the average hunter-gatherers diet, but dwell on "nuts and berries." You also suggest that the only way to communicate with a caveman (and autistic) is in easily understood and clear imperatives. Where did you come across that? California man?

In addition.. how do you get from cavemen to park rangers? Park rangers dont live in the woods like wildmen. They have cars, houses, TV's, wives, familes, and all the rest of it. They dont live on twigs or berries. They are essentially security men with a working knowledge of woodlands. In all likelihood most of them shop at walmart and take a packed lunch to work prepared by their wife, with a thermos of coffee. I see no reason to assume that they are any more likely to have been exposed to corporal punishment either. You also seem to be making the assumption that autism is dietary in nature, or that corporal punishment is somehow involved."

Note how I didnt actually mention your chemically based suggestions. I was referring almost wholly to your "suppositions" about cavemen and park rangers, and requesting some degree of clarification on them. Maybe a link or two from sites where i could see this information for myself. that sort of thing. Mayhaps it was simply unfortunate use of phraseology on your part, or maybe its just spouting crap you made up. I dont know. Thats why i asked... Also, I was waiting for a response to that before i started "shooting down" things (or not as the case may be.)

As for personal vendettas.. nope, sorry. Merely a passing observation on a couple of threads you started, which gave the impression of trolling. nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps you might consider it an object lesson in how you present your material? Some of it does rather give certain impressions that are not favourable, and you might get more insightful commentary that way.

Oh, and being an aspie isnt an excuse for being a supercilious arse. We can all get arrogant. It is after all in our nature. Doesnt give you a right to talk down to people, or insult them. Assuming you are more intelligent than them doesnt help either. (It will also make you look like a pillock if it turns out they ARE smarter than you.)

As for projecting how autists might behave under certain conditions.. would it not be advisable to study how autists DO behave under certain conditions? Incidences of autism amongst Masai tribesmen perhaps.. that sort of thing. If you apply a working knowledge of how autists behave under actual primitive conditions, surely it would lend more credence to your theory?

You also seem to shift from a behavioural and conditional theory to a dietary one. Care to explain how you make that leap, or how they are linked?

Please examine the data in my other thread. My hypothesis has been updated, and I think that I might have finally managed to zero in on the roots of this disorder. I still need further reading, however, before the deeper complexities of the matter have come to some clarity. Please try to appreciate the extensive thought that I put into these ideas.

No. You only took offense to it because you didn't understand it. If you had taken time to understand the concepts that I was trying to communicate, you wouldn't have been so offended.

I have a very raw, intense personality. The way that I present my ideas is going to be reflected in this. I will not vanilla down my ideas just to keep from offending people like yourself. I don't need your commentary. You aren't sophisticated enough to interest me. I'm not saying that to be insulting. I'm saying it because I sincerely believe that it is the case. This doesn't mean that I think you're a bad person. It doesn't mean that I think there's anything wrong with you. I'm working with very arcane information, though, and most people tend to find it very confusing. Some people are going to look at it and see nothing but gibberish, much like Rdos seems to. It's extremely complicated material. Most people just can't handle it.

Take my other thread as an opportunity to prove yourself. If you can handle yourself well there, I will change my opinion on this matter. Point out any particulars that just don't seem to match up for you. I'm constantly correcting errors in my understanding of this chemistry, and I appreciate any real help that I can get.