I get rather annoyed that pointing out watching out for ones own personal safety is somehow victim blaming and typically the people who do this usually make unjustified claims about any danger to others. There are men who fantasize about sexually assaulting younger, smaller men while claiming to be straight but don't try to point that out if the conversation gets weird. Training martial arts for decades now and occasionally training people about personal safety I've had a lot of those sorts of conversations.
I agree, there is this bizarre notion that expecting people to pay attention to their surroundings and not place themselves in dangerous situations is unreasonable. That in my mind is ridiculous. People should be expected to be responsible for themselves. I get very tired of hearing the argument, "Well, people should be taught not to (insert rape, rob, murder, or whatever else here).
Should people be taught that?
Sure.
Does the belief that this lesson should be taught have any effect on crime or people that have bad intentions?
No, of course it doesn't, and the idea that it would is so... I would say idiotic, but I will be kind and go with naive... though I think that is underplaying it.
I just read a book called The Anatomy of Violence which pretty much blows the nature/nurture debate out the water, and details hundreds of studies showing that the causes of violent crime are around 50% genetic and biological, and only around 50% social and learned. There is some mind-blowing research described in there, showing how violence levels go through the roof with certain risk factors like head injuries, poor nutrition, genetic mutations, brain structure abnormalities (not necessarily psychopathy!), hormonal abnormalities, even seemingly random things like omega-3 deficiency - and how they can often be almost normalised by addressing those underlying issues.
For some people with alot of biological risk factors for violence, you could teach them whatever the hell you like and it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference.
Yeah, that's interesting. I have wondered a few times if a good section of the problems that come with abuse and such are from vitamin deficiencies. Because a kid that is being beaten is hardly being fed well are they?
I am skeptical though of someone that gives such an easy politically correct answer as 50/50. There is a lot of politics involved in the interpretation. In that Democrats entire political platform is that some groups are disenfranchised and thus commit violence. If it were proven and gained widespread acceptance that it is not poverty that causes violence, but violence that causes poverty. Then they could not justify the redistribution of wealth based on the idea some have been historically disenfranchised.
A potential example is one I have already given. Japan is now a kind of futuristic city and it was destroyed to a far greater extent with two nuclear weapons than Iraq or Afganistan. But those places have Islam.
The sweet spot for violent behaviour is an IQ of about 85 - 100 where people can't reason out the long term effects of their behaviour - they can't use hypotheticals at all. IQ is almost entirely genetic to the extent that an adopted child will have it's birth parents IQ and not it's foster parents IQ.
Completely agree with what you said, and the author himself (Adrian Raine) is painfully aware of the potential moral and political implications of this kind of research, and the minefield it could open up for society - he devotes whole chapters to discussing where these scientific conclusions could lead us in the future, and how societies might respond to them.
He emphasizes throughout the book that the worst outcomes when it comes to violence are almost always due to a complex interplay between biological and social factors - biological risk factors on their own are rarely enough to lead to extreme violence, and even social risk factors on their own don't necessarily lead to violence. But when you find both types of risk factor in the same person, that's when you usually see the most extreme forms of violence, and the more risk factors the greater the chance of violence, and the more severe it's likely to be. He makes the same point you did about the fact that social and biological risk factors can also affect each other - he gives the example of convicted rapist and murderer Donta Page, who was severely abused and neglected as a child, and talks about the fact that while his childhood obviously affected him emotionally and socially, it also resulted in several significant head injuries and severe malnutrition, which interacted with the emotional and social damage to eventually produce the tragedy that unfolded.
He also has a long discussion on the concept of free will, and to what degree it really exists, which is pretty interesting.
The author's conclusion is that it's still worth pursuing this kind of research because 1) he's a scientist and has that scientific mindset of truth first, implications second. But also, and more importantly, 2) he believes that having a full understanding of the science could lead to us being able to treat and prevent almost all forms of violent crime in the future, so the lure of that holy grail keeps him and other scientists going despite their reservations.
I agree that the 50/50 split does seem a bit too neat and tidy to be believed, but it does seem to be coming from the science, rather than just a rough guesstimate plucked out the air. He describes some fairly sophisticated sounding research study designs and statistical analysis techniques, which I can't claim to fully understand, that give us an idea of the level of heritability of certain traits for example. But I have no idea how reliable those kinds of analysis really are. He definitely understands the difference between correlation and causation though, and describes some studies that do seem to suggest causation, not just correlation.
I can honestly say it's one of the most fascinating books I've ever read - and the implications are immense!
Well, you have sold it well, there is no- one quite like an obsessive intellectual white guy to get to the bottom of something and go by data rather than emotion, affectionately called in some circles an "autist". I think this is the general leaning anyway wasn't it James Fallon that said something like this? That if he had grown up with bad conditions he had the potential to be a real piece of work.
The free will argument is an interesting one. There is a lot that can be said for us not having that much free will in my opinion. I would say quite definitely that once people are sufficiently positive and have gotten rid of their mental issues and arrogance/ hubris there is not a great deal of free will in play. Because the person is then stuck only doing the things that are best for them to do.
It's like some authors get absolutely obsessed with writing. It is described as something that consumes the soul.
As someone that is very involved in health and has experienced quite a lot of change in health due to poor health. I would say that times when I have taken a multi vitamin and anger that I thought I was stuck with has just dissolved have been very enlightening. Like I said I really think the health side of mental health issues in general is criminally under promoted. Every so often you see an article or something that say, a B vitamin is responsible for depression in some people. That means that there was someone out there, at least one but probably several hundred thousand, that lived day in and day out with depression for years, probably scouring different therapies and such. Then took a B vitamin and the problem disappeared. That is just nuts! Daily misery because of the lack of a B vitamin.
But, it seems pretty obvious to me that the dysfunction in our society in general is not a problem of a lack of understanding or knowledge of the problem. It is a case of individuals with power profiting from the problem. If someone did not profit the world would not be what it was because there would be no reason to create the problems. Someone wants genocides, child trafficking and broken brainwashed people. There are people out there that think paedophilia is all the rage!
There are a certain number of guys that get off with the idea of raping a man. There is this sort of strain of unusual guys that do a bit of homosexuality on the side of a marriage or something, and don't see this as an issue.
Then just by pure numbers most of us have probably engaged with someone that has been with a prepubescent trafficked child. But that's another conversation altogether.
I had a friend that was raped by a guy and then, when his other friend came over to his place once he left that friend alone with the rapist.
I remember when I used to go around to my super delicate little half sister. Who was about 12- 14 at the time. I always felt strongly that even though I am her brother, she and the family know nothing about me and I didn't really want to be with her unsupervised. I didn't want to deal with the fear even if she wouldn't acknowledge it I would rather just a public place or something, I remember distinctly one time she flinched when I hugged her. Her mother was raped by a family member when she was younger.
But people don't get this perspective in general I find. That they don't owe me trust and I don't owe them trust, trust I often can't give because it's a purely emotional thought and that's simply not how I make decisions. If they are hurt I don't trust them at some point, they should know the trade is I don't expect them to trust me., and that that is a gift. I had this at other times like not wanting to be in a workplace with a female staff member alone with no cameras. People really don't get it. They say things like: "Haven't you seen her socially outside work?" and such... Is that the bar for trust now?
I can't imagine expecting trust from someone that you don't know well. Someone asked me recently , "Why shouldn't people be given the benefit of the doubt," and to me, that is the wrong question. The question is, and should always be, "Why SHOULD people be given the benefit of the doubt... ever?"
They shouldn't be. It isn't an insult, it's simply a reasonable perspective. Giving away that power is completely unreasonable to me.
The neurotypical worldview has a great many emotional assumptions though. Like, I have started to make peace with the idea that neurotypicals will assume things about me. I theorise they have a kind of emotional agreement between themselves that is partly accurate emotional instinct, and partly just guesswork that is usually wrong.
So I can see how such a flawed decision making process might lead to them trusting for no reason. It also is why they can't lie detect I theorise. (I've been notoriously good at casually lie detecting).
But my question then is... Assuming I was a RATIONAL THINKER what is my basis for trusting xyz person in relation to abc situation? Like, assuming for instance that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, and persons past behaviour is x, and you are now saying their present behaviour is y. As a person that has to logically work things out can people understand that I can't commit to that? Like, can they do me the solid of understanding I can't think like that?
This is one of those areas that there is a significant divide between those that can feel trust, and those that cannot. I wondered for years why people seemed to give trust to people that have no business in gaining it. When I figured out that this was actually an emotional process that they aren't actively participating in but rather were passengers in that situation, I would try to have conversations with people about not giving that trust away so easily, and many would defend their behavior vehemently.
To them, not trusting someone is insulting, and not being trusted is also insulting. They aren't deciding who to trust, it is being decided by oxytocin. Because they aren't actively participating in this process, and because it is a passive one, when trust is not granted to them, they only have their own perspective to gauge that action by.
In their perspective, only an untrustworthy person isn't granted trust. That is the only time they don't grant it, and it could be because they know that person isn't trustworthy, or their instincts tell them so. Therefore, if you don't grant them trust, it must be because they are considered unworthy of it by you for those very reasons. They take that personally. It isn't something that many people can understand the logical perspective on, they haven't considered it in any other way than their hardwiring. When you try to get them to do so it has a couple of effects on them.
1. You are questioning something that they do not understand. As much as I didn't know that trust was a chemical emotional process for neurotypicals, they don't know it either. They think it is simply normal and that all people are like them. Questioning that makes them feel abnormal which makes them defensive.
2. It identifies you as different than them which makes them very aware that many of the assumptions that are in place when it comes to human interactions may not apply, and now they don't know how to deal with you. They can't articulate why their reaction to a lack of trust affects them so much because they have never even considered that it isn't a universal response. You are putting them on the spot and because most other people agree with them, you are the one in the wrong. They don't want to have to evaluate why they feel that way so it is easier to rely on the mentality that the group feels X way, therefore X way must be correct.
Getting them to come around to reconsidering their stance on this is not an easy task, and many people will see your attempt at doing so threatening to them.
Like you I don't really get it. But, I do think that NT's emotional senses do give them valuable correct information quite often and that is perhaps why they are unwilling to question them. Quite often a group of neurotypicals will just know someone experienced something in a certain way. It is just understood, an agreement, and they will be right, and I won't have any clue how they got there.
But yeah, I would not try and convince anyone of anything. I will only ever offer my opinion and they can take it or leave it. I was listening to a philosopher the other day, and he said that we try and change others behaviour but we think this is doable, when in fact it's more like trying to get someone to change their height or eye colour. Or trying to get a lazy person to exercise. Real psychological change usually takes more than a decade.
The girl I mentioned previously on here. The close friend who killed herself. I said to her I think my cousin is being deceptive about xyz. I had questions about his "suicide attempts". She got absolutely nuts at me. Very angry. A full borderline split. But he is an abusive and manipulative person. I think that's as close to the bone as it cuts for me because had she have listened, and not engaged with him or engaged with him differently, not seeing him as a sweet little lamb to save, it might have literally saved her life but it just wasn't an option.
Having to question what is believed to be true is apparently physically painful. Most people do whatever they can to avoid pain, so I suppose it makes some sense logically.
It's interesting though that almost all mechanisms for self improvement such as Meditation, Astrology, Christianity, Philosophy and Psychotherapy. All involve not being right all the time. All involve in some manner giving over or questioning of the individuals power, in the face of a larger world.
Honestly, I don’t think we even need to go as far as life threatening situations in order to justify “rudeness”. Miscommunication happens all the time and just because someone is “rude” that doesn’t mean that that was the intent.
I’ve taken a few lessons in American Sign Language (ASL) and a few things that are considered rude generally, are extensively used in ASL. For instance it’s considered rude to point; in ASL pointing is extensively used to refer to people and places.
I’ve also taken toastmasters years ago to learn public speaking and one of the things they teach is to avoid moving your hands too much since it’s a distraction to the audience. I don’t think I need to explain why moving your hands is important for a sign language.
I find navigating the social landscape of politeness to be tricky to say the least. My natural inclination towards the matter is that if you’re not harming anyone, then what you’re doing is nobody else’s business, but that’s not way the world is. For some reason old people can’t be called old people, but they can call anyone younger than them kids. For some reason ignoring people is rude but demanding attention is not. Then there are the people who think disagreeing with them is rude or people who think it’s rude for someone they see as lower status to not obey them.
How much are the rules of politeness there just to enforce certain power structures? How much is it there to actually prevent people from being offended?
This system is absolutely ridiculous and honestly thinking about it makes me angry, because I know there is absolutely nothing I can do about it.
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what?"
While I do agree with the spirit of this quote, often I have found that people who make this statement commonly are easily offended themselves. Honestly, if I didn’t know you were a psychopath, I would’ve rolled my eyes at that quote. I would’ve said something along the lines of “oh SURE you believe this 🙄. Let’s see how much you subscribe to this belief when it’s something YOU care about that’s being offended.”
It’s one of those beliefs that’s socially acceptable to have. While that doesn’t automatically make it false, I do recognize how people don’t think through the implications and end up becoming hypocrites when it’s applied to them.
A lot of guys I find in their mid thirties just don't know how to act. It is very unclear for guys there is no "apology" ritual - it's subtly considered a girly thing. Because it cannot be stated directly that something emotional is needed from the other, despite the fact that among neurotypicals this is explicitly the case, there is a bit of a dance around what can or can't be arranged. You also get some guys that are so intelligent they read through the lines very well, but then most guys don't understand what exactly those people are doing to create a positive effect.
For me personally, I like to look at philosophy and I state as clearly as possible the relevant emotional themes in a situation. I am doing well I think with a cognitive based rendition of a lot of these things. But I am observing patterns that are very dysfunctional in my view.
A lot of things that are said to women by guys are patently untrue and this is one of those NT things that I don't quite get, it's like guys had a secret meeting to tell xyz lies to women and I never had it. I also don't feel like the women in the mens lives are educating them about these areas, if they do in fact have the social skills to do so.
I prefer relationships, of all kinds, with people who are at least somewhat similar to me, particularly in their thinking.
I find it easier to engage socially with brains that work more similarly to mine. We can easily speak and debate for seven hours about a topic we find interesting, but we can just as easily have time to ourselves. Sometimes I will disappear from a room immediately following a conversation with someone I am close to, and they know why I do this; I want to be alone at the moment. They know that I am not upset, as I would communicate that directly. They know that when I hold the remote tightly the times when I actually do watch television with others, it is not because I am being selfish, but because I have to be able to turn the volume down quickly when the sound is loud, lest I experience sensory overload. It is better for everybody involved. Some cannot fathom why I behave the way I do, only what I am doing, and they will misinterpret my behaviours as rude or selfish.
There are a few things I cannot tolerate in relationships, and one is indirectness. It confuses me, I don't understand it, and it makes things very difficult.
If our values differ so greatly that every opinion that leaves their lips makes me raise an eyebrow with concern, it isn't a relationship I am interested in either. The few people that I choose to keep in my life are in my life for a very long time, and I put a great deal of effort into those relationships. Debating differing views is one thing, but values guide how I live my life and treat others. If our values clash too greatly, neither of us are understanding or benefiting from each other much, and the relationship seems pointless. I suppose something that I prize greatly in people is an ability to step into the shoes of others: see things from different perspectives, even if they disagree with them. I enjoy debates where the both of us can play devil's advocate, it encourages us to step outside of the bounds of our own typical thinking.
I find people who are extremely emotive and extroverted to be tiring to be around, for example. They 'balance out' my personality in the sense that I am calmer/less emotive, and introverted, but I find them overwhelming. Easily angered people make terrible company in particular. When I mask less, I seem uninterested and do not give certain people the reactions they are looking for, and this can be messy. Furthermore something as simple as a loud voice with a great deal of inflection is not pleasant for me to listen to for long periods of time either. This might be a sensory issue of mine, though. I have the urge to tell them to calm down and be quiet.
I enjoy swimming and going on runs, but I will not enjoy participating in marathon events.
I enjoy drinking a little bit of alcohol and watching something with a close person, but I do not enjoy getting drunk and I loathe clubs and bars.
I *do* enjoy learning skills from others that possess ones I do not, if they are happy to teach me.
I enjoy people who are different to me, but I don't enjoy all differences. I can see what your friend is meaning. Once or twice in life I have met someone who was so similar to me that we struggled to find things we did not have in common. It can be tiring when there is very little to explore or learn about somebody. In a way it was interesting though, seeing myself reflected in someone else beyond mere social mimicry. Even a person with the same traits and a similar background is different to me in the way that these affect each other, how their traits are expressed and what influences that. Sometimes those who seem very much like oneself on a surface level undergo a completely different process internally, but merely with a similar external result.
When it comes to seeming rude, I am a polite person, both when masking and not, but I do not trust others first and foremost. I think first about protecting myself, and I think this should come first for all people, especially vulnerable people. I very much agree with you about putting safety before politeness. I think us females are often taught to put politeness first, but that seems to be an easy way of getting yourself hurt or killed in many situations, like the unfortunate woman you mentioned. I do think many women use politeness as a means of avoiding male anger and violence, but when somebody is determined to hurt you, they are not going to care if you were polite or not.
I live in a capital, where a woman can go home from a club in the middle of a night in fishnets and a see through top, somehow leaving shorts out of the picture, while simultaneously flirts and shouts at coincident passersby. And she makes it home in one peace, well and unharmed.
Watching ID and alikes already gives some indication that reality in the states is somehow different but it still leaves me baffled to what extent. It isn't just a precaution, right? The threat must be all-present if behavior is so innate?
If a woman does that where you are from, she might appear to be safe, but she isn't. The idea that she is an illusion, not reality. One of the most common things to hear in a true crime story is, "it was somewhere that no one bothered to lock their doors at night because nothing ever happened there". Yeah, except this triple homicide that the true crime story is about. The people might "think" that they are safe, but they weren't. They were naive. There is a difference.
I knew you were gonna go there and I have no intent to disagree with your point.
I am trying to understand the difference between crime rate/severity here and there. The feeling is that here they'd have a problem to scrape up cases for one decent season of ID.
One thing I hate about the clothing narrative, is that it implies that you’re safe if you wear modest clothing. That’s not true.
I’ve had a close encounter in a pub a few months ago, and I was wearing jeans and a jacket. Literally the most generic outfit you’ll see on most people who live here.
The only reason I can see as to why I was harassed was because the guy was drunk and I was girl alone at a hotel bar, and I can’t fake confidence to save my life.
Observing the world through that lens for a while, you're spot on, why on earth would we trust in anything/anyone?
All of the sudden everything started to click together and the illusion of a system started to melt. Sure enough, we have a system in place that raised people into somewhat more tamed beings, which in turn protects us better. But that's just another (few) layers to our animal core and there's no guarantee, that this layer won't fail for whatever reason. I can now see the darkness we all posses, you were talking about. Could you write more about the darkness?
The realization has also an interesting but not surprising effect. Now, I'm afraid driving with a bike through a dark park and evaluating options in case of an attack. On point. Why I wasn't afraid before is an easy one, but why would I keep on doing it, if there's a slightest option of something happen to me? There's a strength in overcoming the fear and then comes pride. Nothing happens and you start to trust, that world is a safe place and you forget about that fear.
I see that I should rather leave that risk for something that actually benefits me. Doing a ride around the park won't cost much. Curious what will happen with the fear in a long run.
Something in terms of what's in the core of it, what all it entails. Not so much in term of a function but rather characteristics.
Are there different types of darkness? Is it unique to every individual or is it universal? Which signs should one pay attention to when observing individuals? Is it something that is appealing or appalling to neurotypicals?
It's difficult to say what exactly, when I don't know what all is there. I just recently became aware of it and you seem to be a professional on the topic. It's always interesting to get your angle.
I will definitely write a post about that, as it is something that I have paid attention to throughout my life, but it is the type of post that will absolutely need a content warning.
OK, well, Japan is an interesting case. They have not only a very non violent society. But one that is in some places more technically advanced than ours like a Disney movie. They have enchanting castles and futuristic train systems.
The reason this is is because they are a homogenous people. There is no immigration in Japan. There are no contrasting groups to fall into conflict with each other, and no outwardly aggressive groups being imported (A lot of immigrants actually come out of the prison system of Islamic countries since they want to get rid of them!)
This might be an element of whatever capital you are in.
While I can understand the interesting part of diversity in thought processes, the truth is that it's normally annoying to me most of the time because it normally involves non practical notions. Normally there is a very general line on how most things should or could be conducted, for the most positive outcomes. I get told by one of my friends that I am very stubborn because I believe my way to see things is the correct one, and that I refuse to consider I might be wrong... but he's wrong, and he's the arrogant one. I am more than open to admit it, more than open to learn, but if you are gonna propose a different thought process then you must be able to argumentate it in an intelligent manner so you can aim to have your perspective considered.
As you have said, just because you say something does not make it so.
BACK IT UP boyos! Back it up...
In that sense I love someone agreeing with me. Having someone challenge you with interesting thoughts would be fun and make you grow personally. I am all down for that.
I get rather annoyed that pointing out watching out for ones own personal safety is somehow victim blaming and typically the people who do this usually make unjustified claims about any danger to others. There are men who fantasize about sexually assaulting younger, smaller men while claiming to be straight but don't try to point that out if the conversation gets weird. Training martial arts for decades now and occasionally training people about personal safety I've had a lot of those sorts of conversations.
Anyway, great post Athena!
I agree, there is this bizarre notion that expecting people to pay attention to their surroundings and not place themselves in dangerous situations is unreasonable. That in my mind is ridiculous. People should be expected to be responsible for themselves. I get very tired of hearing the argument, "Well, people should be taught not to (insert rape, rob, murder, or whatever else here).
Should people be taught that?
Sure.
Does the belief that this lesson should be taught have any effect on crime or people that have bad intentions?
No, of course it doesn't, and the idea that it would is so... I would say idiotic, but I will be kind and go with naive... though I think that is underplaying it.
I'm pretty sure people that rape and murder know that it is wrong to rape and murder. I don't think teaching them again is going to change anything.
I liken it to walking through a jungle known to be filled with tigers. There are predators in nature.
Exactly true
I just read a book called The Anatomy of Violence which pretty much blows the nature/nurture debate out the water, and details hundreds of studies showing that the causes of violent crime are around 50% genetic and biological, and only around 50% social and learned. There is some mind-blowing research described in there, showing how violence levels go through the roof with certain risk factors like head injuries, poor nutrition, genetic mutations, brain structure abnormalities (not necessarily psychopathy!), hormonal abnormalities, even seemingly random things like omega-3 deficiency - and how they can often be almost normalised by addressing those underlying issues.
For some people with alot of biological risk factors for violence, you could teach them whatever the hell you like and it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference.
Yeah, that's interesting. I have wondered a few times if a good section of the problems that come with abuse and such are from vitamin deficiencies. Because a kid that is being beaten is hardly being fed well are they?
I am skeptical though of someone that gives such an easy politically correct answer as 50/50. There is a lot of politics involved in the interpretation. In that Democrats entire political platform is that some groups are disenfranchised and thus commit violence. If it were proven and gained widespread acceptance that it is not poverty that causes violence, but violence that causes poverty. Then they could not justify the redistribution of wealth based on the idea some have been historically disenfranchised.
A potential example is one I have already given. Japan is now a kind of futuristic city and it was destroyed to a far greater extent with two nuclear weapons than Iraq or Afganistan. But those places have Islam.
The sweet spot for violent behaviour is an IQ of about 85 - 100 where people can't reason out the long term effects of their behaviour - they can't use hypotheticals at all. IQ is almost entirely genetic to the extent that an adopted child will have it's birth parents IQ and not it's foster parents IQ.
Completely agree with what you said, and the author himself (Adrian Raine) is painfully aware of the potential moral and political implications of this kind of research, and the minefield it could open up for society - he devotes whole chapters to discussing where these scientific conclusions could lead us in the future, and how societies might respond to them.
He emphasizes throughout the book that the worst outcomes when it comes to violence are almost always due to a complex interplay between biological and social factors - biological risk factors on their own are rarely enough to lead to extreme violence, and even social risk factors on their own don't necessarily lead to violence. But when you find both types of risk factor in the same person, that's when you usually see the most extreme forms of violence, and the more risk factors the greater the chance of violence, and the more severe it's likely to be. He makes the same point you did about the fact that social and biological risk factors can also affect each other - he gives the example of convicted rapist and murderer Donta Page, who was severely abused and neglected as a child, and talks about the fact that while his childhood obviously affected him emotionally and socially, it also resulted in several significant head injuries and severe malnutrition, which interacted with the emotional and social damage to eventually produce the tragedy that unfolded.
He also has a long discussion on the concept of free will, and to what degree it really exists, which is pretty interesting.
The author's conclusion is that it's still worth pursuing this kind of research because 1) he's a scientist and has that scientific mindset of truth first, implications second. But also, and more importantly, 2) he believes that having a full understanding of the science could lead to us being able to treat and prevent almost all forms of violent crime in the future, so the lure of that holy grail keeps him and other scientists going despite their reservations.
I agree that the 50/50 split does seem a bit too neat and tidy to be believed, but it does seem to be coming from the science, rather than just a rough guesstimate plucked out the air. He describes some fairly sophisticated sounding research study designs and statistical analysis techniques, which I can't claim to fully understand, that give us an idea of the level of heritability of certain traits for example. But I have no idea how reliable those kinds of analysis really are. He definitely understands the difference between correlation and causation though, and describes some studies that do seem to suggest causation, not just correlation.
I can honestly say it's one of the most fascinating books I've ever read - and the implications are immense!
Well, you have sold it well, there is no- one quite like an obsessive intellectual white guy to get to the bottom of something and go by data rather than emotion, affectionately called in some circles an "autist". I think this is the general leaning anyway wasn't it James Fallon that said something like this? That if he had grown up with bad conditions he had the potential to be a real piece of work.
The free will argument is an interesting one. There is a lot that can be said for us not having that much free will in my opinion. I would say quite definitely that once people are sufficiently positive and have gotten rid of their mental issues and arrogance/ hubris there is not a great deal of free will in play. Because the person is then stuck only doing the things that are best for them to do.
It's like some authors get absolutely obsessed with writing. It is described as something that consumes the soul.
As someone that is very involved in health and has experienced quite a lot of change in health due to poor health. I would say that times when I have taken a multi vitamin and anger that I thought I was stuck with has just dissolved have been very enlightening. Like I said I really think the health side of mental health issues in general is criminally under promoted. Every so often you see an article or something that say, a B vitamin is responsible for depression in some people. That means that there was someone out there, at least one but probably several hundred thousand, that lived day in and day out with depression for years, probably scouring different therapies and such. Then took a B vitamin and the problem disappeared. That is just nuts! Daily misery because of the lack of a B vitamin.
But, it seems pretty obvious to me that the dysfunction in our society in general is not a problem of a lack of understanding or knowledge of the problem. It is a case of individuals with power profiting from the problem. If someone did not profit the world would not be what it was because there would be no reason to create the problems. Someone wants genocides, child trafficking and broken brainwashed people. There are people out there that think paedophilia is all the rage!
There are a certain number of guys that get off with the idea of raping a man. There is this sort of strain of unusual guys that do a bit of homosexuality on the side of a marriage or something, and don't see this as an issue.
Then just by pure numbers most of us have probably engaged with someone that has been with a prepubescent trafficked child. But that's another conversation altogether.
I had a friend that was raped by a guy and then, when his other friend came over to his place once he left that friend alone with the rapist.
I remember when I used to go around to my super delicate little half sister. Who was about 12- 14 at the time. I always felt strongly that even though I am her brother, she and the family know nothing about me and I didn't really want to be with her unsupervised. I didn't want to deal with the fear even if she wouldn't acknowledge it I would rather just a public place or something, I remember distinctly one time she flinched when I hugged her. Her mother was raped by a family member when she was younger.
But people don't get this perspective in general I find. That they don't owe me trust and I don't owe them trust, trust I often can't give because it's a purely emotional thought and that's simply not how I make decisions. If they are hurt I don't trust them at some point, they should know the trade is I don't expect them to trust me., and that that is a gift. I had this at other times like not wanting to be in a workplace with a female staff member alone with no cameras. People really don't get it. They say things like: "Haven't you seen her socially outside work?" and such... Is that the bar for trust now?
I can't imagine expecting trust from someone that you don't know well. Someone asked me recently , "Why shouldn't people be given the benefit of the doubt," and to me, that is the wrong question. The question is, and should always be, "Why SHOULD people be given the benefit of the doubt... ever?"
They shouldn't be. It isn't an insult, it's simply a reasonable perspective. Giving away that power is completely unreasonable to me.
The neurotypical worldview has a great many emotional assumptions though. Like, I have started to make peace with the idea that neurotypicals will assume things about me. I theorise they have a kind of emotional agreement between themselves that is partly accurate emotional instinct, and partly just guesswork that is usually wrong.
So I can see how such a flawed decision making process might lead to them trusting for no reason. It also is why they can't lie detect I theorise. (I've been notoriously good at casually lie detecting).
But my question then is... Assuming I was a RATIONAL THINKER what is my basis for trusting xyz person in relation to abc situation? Like, assuming for instance that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, and persons past behaviour is x, and you are now saying their present behaviour is y. As a person that has to logically work things out can people understand that I can't commit to that? Like, can they do me the solid of understanding I can't think like that?
This is one of those areas that there is a significant divide between those that can feel trust, and those that cannot. I wondered for years why people seemed to give trust to people that have no business in gaining it. When I figured out that this was actually an emotional process that they aren't actively participating in but rather were passengers in that situation, I would try to have conversations with people about not giving that trust away so easily, and many would defend their behavior vehemently.
To them, not trusting someone is insulting, and not being trusted is also insulting. They aren't deciding who to trust, it is being decided by oxytocin. Because they aren't actively participating in this process, and because it is a passive one, when trust is not granted to them, they only have their own perspective to gauge that action by.
In their perspective, only an untrustworthy person isn't granted trust. That is the only time they don't grant it, and it could be because they know that person isn't trustworthy, or their instincts tell them so. Therefore, if you don't grant them trust, it must be because they are considered unworthy of it by you for those very reasons. They take that personally. It isn't something that many people can understand the logical perspective on, they haven't considered it in any other way than their hardwiring. When you try to get them to do so it has a couple of effects on them.
1. You are questioning something that they do not understand. As much as I didn't know that trust was a chemical emotional process for neurotypicals, they don't know it either. They think it is simply normal and that all people are like them. Questioning that makes them feel abnormal which makes them defensive.
2. It identifies you as different than them which makes them very aware that many of the assumptions that are in place when it comes to human interactions may not apply, and now they don't know how to deal with you. They can't articulate why their reaction to a lack of trust affects them so much because they have never even considered that it isn't a universal response. You are putting them on the spot and because most other people agree with them, you are the one in the wrong. They don't want to have to evaluate why they feel that way so it is easier to rely on the mentality that the group feels X way, therefore X way must be correct.
Getting them to come around to reconsidering their stance on this is not an easy task, and many people will see your attempt at doing so threatening to them.
Like you I don't really get it. But, I do think that NT's emotional senses do give them valuable correct information quite often and that is perhaps why they are unwilling to question them. Quite often a group of neurotypicals will just know someone experienced something in a certain way. It is just understood, an agreement, and they will be right, and I won't have any clue how they got there.
But yeah, I would not try and convince anyone of anything. I will only ever offer my opinion and they can take it or leave it. I was listening to a philosopher the other day, and he said that we try and change others behaviour but we think this is doable, when in fact it's more like trying to get someone to change their height or eye colour. Or trying to get a lazy person to exercise. Real psychological change usually takes more than a decade.
The girl I mentioned previously on here. The close friend who killed herself. I said to her I think my cousin is being deceptive about xyz. I had questions about his "suicide attempts". She got absolutely nuts at me. Very angry. A full borderline split. But he is an abusive and manipulative person. I think that's as close to the bone as it cuts for me because had she have listened, and not engaged with him or engaged with him differently, not seeing him as a sweet little lamb to save, it might have literally saved her life but it just wasn't an option.
Having to question what is believed to be true is apparently physically painful. Most people do whatever they can to avoid pain, so I suppose it makes some sense logically.
It's interesting though that almost all mechanisms for self improvement such as Meditation, Astrology, Christianity, Philosophy and Psychotherapy. All involve not being right all the time. All involve in some manner giving over or questioning of the individuals power, in the face of a larger world.
Honestly, I don’t think we even need to go as far as life threatening situations in order to justify “rudeness”. Miscommunication happens all the time and just because someone is “rude” that doesn’t mean that that was the intent.
I’ve taken a few lessons in American Sign Language (ASL) and a few things that are considered rude generally, are extensively used in ASL. For instance it’s considered rude to point; in ASL pointing is extensively used to refer to people and places.
I’ve also taken toastmasters years ago to learn public speaking and one of the things they teach is to avoid moving your hands too much since it’s a distraction to the audience. I don’t think I need to explain why moving your hands is important for a sign language.
I find navigating the social landscape of politeness to be tricky to say the least. My natural inclination towards the matter is that if you’re not harming anyone, then what you’re doing is nobody else’s business, but that’s not way the world is. For some reason old people can’t be called old people, but they can call anyone younger than them kids. For some reason ignoring people is rude but demanding attention is not. Then there are the people who think disagreeing with them is rude or people who think it’s rude for someone they see as lower status to not obey them.
How much are the rules of politeness there just to enforce certain power structures? How much is it there to actually prevent people from being offended?
This system is absolutely ridiculous and honestly thinking about it makes me angry, because I know there is absolutely nothing I can do about it.
Reminds me of this quote:
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what?"
~Stephen Fry~
While I do agree with the spirit of this quote, often I have found that people who make this statement commonly are easily offended themselves. Honestly, if I didn’t know you were a psychopath, I would’ve rolled my eyes at that quote. I would’ve said something along the lines of “oh SURE you believe this 🙄. Let’s see how much you subscribe to this belief when it’s something YOU care about that’s being offended.”
It’s one of those beliefs that’s socially acceptable to have. While that doesn’t automatically make it false, I do recognize how people don’t think through the implications and end up becoming hypocrites when it’s applied to them.
That is a perspective that is difficult for me to imagine. I took the quote at face value. I really didn't consider that there was way more it.
A very interesting point (no pun intended) when it comes to sign language. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
A lot of guys I find in their mid thirties just don't know how to act. It is very unclear for guys there is no "apology" ritual - it's subtly considered a girly thing. Because it cannot be stated directly that something emotional is needed from the other, despite the fact that among neurotypicals this is explicitly the case, there is a bit of a dance around what can or can't be arranged. You also get some guys that are so intelligent they read through the lines very well, but then most guys don't understand what exactly those people are doing to create a positive effect.
For me personally, I like to look at philosophy and I state as clearly as possible the relevant emotional themes in a situation. I am doing well I think with a cognitive based rendition of a lot of these things. But I am observing patterns that are very dysfunctional in my view.
A lot of things that are said to women by guys are patently untrue and this is one of those NT things that I don't quite get, it's like guys had a secret meeting to tell xyz lies to women and I never had it. I also don't feel like the women in the mens lives are educating them about these areas, if they do in fact have the social skills to do so.
I prefer relationships, of all kinds, with people who are at least somewhat similar to me, particularly in their thinking.
I find it easier to engage socially with brains that work more similarly to mine. We can easily speak and debate for seven hours about a topic we find interesting, but we can just as easily have time to ourselves. Sometimes I will disappear from a room immediately following a conversation with someone I am close to, and they know why I do this; I want to be alone at the moment. They know that I am not upset, as I would communicate that directly. They know that when I hold the remote tightly the times when I actually do watch television with others, it is not because I am being selfish, but because I have to be able to turn the volume down quickly when the sound is loud, lest I experience sensory overload. It is better for everybody involved. Some cannot fathom why I behave the way I do, only what I am doing, and they will misinterpret my behaviours as rude or selfish.
There are a few things I cannot tolerate in relationships, and one is indirectness. It confuses me, I don't understand it, and it makes things very difficult.
If our values differ so greatly that every opinion that leaves their lips makes me raise an eyebrow with concern, it isn't a relationship I am interested in either. The few people that I choose to keep in my life are in my life for a very long time, and I put a great deal of effort into those relationships. Debating differing views is one thing, but values guide how I live my life and treat others. If our values clash too greatly, neither of us are understanding or benefiting from each other much, and the relationship seems pointless. I suppose something that I prize greatly in people is an ability to step into the shoes of others: see things from different perspectives, even if they disagree with them. I enjoy debates where the both of us can play devil's advocate, it encourages us to step outside of the bounds of our own typical thinking.
I find people who are extremely emotive and extroverted to be tiring to be around, for example. They 'balance out' my personality in the sense that I am calmer/less emotive, and introverted, but I find them overwhelming. Easily angered people make terrible company in particular. When I mask less, I seem uninterested and do not give certain people the reactions they are looking for, and this can be messy. Furthermore something as simple as a loud voice with a great deal of inflection is not pleasant for me to listen to for long periods of time either. This might be a sensory issue of mine, though. I have the urge to tell them to calm down and be quiet.
I enjoy swimming and going on runs, but I will not enjoy participating in marathon events.
I enjoy drinking a little bit of alcohol and watching something with a close person, but I do not enjoy getting drunk and I loathe clubs and bars.
I *do* enjoy learning skills from others that possess ones I do not, if they are happy to teach me.
I enjoy people who are different to me, but I don't enjoy all differences. I can see what your friend is meaning. Once or twice in life I have met someone who was so similar to me that we struggled to find things we did not have in common. It can be tiring when there is very little to explore or learn about somebody. In a way it was interesting though, seeing myself reflected in someone else beyond mere social mimicry. Even a person with the same traits and a similar background is different to me in the way that these affect each other, how their traits are expressed and what influences that. Sometimes those who seem very much like oneself on a surface level undergo a completely different process internally, but merely with a similar external result.
When it comes to seeming rude, I am a polite person, both when masking and not, but I do not trust others first and foremost. I think first about protecting myself, and I think this should come first for all people, especially vulnerable people. I very much agree with you about putting safety before politeness. I think us females are often taught to put politeness first, but that seems to be an easy way of getting yourself hurt or killed in many situations, like the unfortunate woman you mentioned. I do think many women use politeness as a means of avoiding male anger and violence, but when somebody is determined to hurt you, they are not going to care if you were polite or not.
I think that you handle your relationships in a sound and reasonable manner
How much time does it take you to trust someone enough to be your friend?
Years
I live in a capital, where a woman can go home from a club in the middle of a night in fishnets and a see through top, somehow leaving shorts out of the picture, while simultaneously flirts and shouts at coincident passersby. And she makes it home in one peace, well and unharmed.
Watching ID and alikes already gives some indication that reality in the states is somehow different but it still leaves me baffled to what extent. It isn't just a precaution, right? The threat must be all-present if behavior is so innate?
If a woman does that where you are from, she might appear to be safe, but she isn't. The idea that she is an illusion, not reality. One of the most common things to hear in a true crime story is, "it was somewhere that no one bothered to lock their doors at night because nothing ever happened there". Yeah, except this triple homicide that the true crime story is about. The people might "think" that they are safe, but they weren't. They were naive. There is a difference.
I knew you were gonna go there and I have no intent to disagree with your point.
I am trying to understand the difference between crime rate/severity here and there. The feeling is that here they'd have a problem to scrape up cases for one decent season of ID.
It can depend on many things. I think that culture has a great deal to do with it.
One thing I hate about the clothing narrative, is that it implies that you’re safe if you wear modest clothing. That’s not true.
I’ve had a close encounter in a pub a few months ago, and I was wearing jeans and a jacket. Literally the most generic outfit you’ll see on most people who live here.
The only reason I can see as to why I was harassed was because the guy was drunk and I was girl alone at a hotel bar, and I can’t fake confidence to save my life.
You are entirely correct, it does not protect you.
Observing the world through that lens for a while, you're spot on, why on earth would we trust in anything/anyone?
All of the sudden everything started to click together and the illusion of a system started to melt. Sure enough, we have a system in place that raised people into somewhat more tamed beings, which in turn protects us better. But that's just another (few) layers to our animal core and there's no guarantee, that this layer won't fail for whatever reason. I can now see the darkness we all posses, you were talking about. Could you write more about the darkness?
The realization has also an interesting but not surprising effect. Now, I'm afraid driving with a bike through a dark park and evaluating options in case of an attack. On point. Why I wasn't afraid before is an easy one, but why would I keep on doing it, if there's a slightest option of something happen to me? There's a strength in overcoming the fear and then comes pride. Nothing happens and you start to trust, that world is a safe place and you forget about that fear.
I see that I should rather leave that risk for something that actually benefits me. Doing a ride around the park won't cost much. Curious what will happen with the fear in a long run.
What about the darkness would you like me to touch on?
Something in terms of what's in the core of it, what all it entails. Not so much in term of a function but rather characteristics.
Are there different types of darkness? Is it unique to every individual or is it universal? Which signs should one pay attention to when observing individuals? Is it something that is appealing or appalling to neurotypicals?
It's difficult to say what exactly, when I don't know what all is there. I just recently became aware of it and you seem to be a professional on the topic. It's always interesting to get your angle.
I will definitely write a post about that, as it is something that I have paid attention to throughout my life, but it is the type of post that will absolutely need a content warning.
This is getting more interesting by the minute.
Japan?
Nope.
OK, well, Japan is an interesting case. They have not only a very non violent society. But one that is in some places more technically advanced than ours like a Disney movie. They have enchanting castles and futuristic train systems.
The reason this is is because they are a homogenous people. There is no immigration in Japan. There are no contrasting groups to fall into conflict with each other, and no outwardly aggressive groups being imported (A lot of immigrants actually come out of the prison system of Islamic countries since they want to get rid of them!)
This might be an element of whatever capital you are in.
While I can understand the interesting part of diversity in thought processes, the truth is that it's normally annoying to me most of the time because it normally involves non practical notions. Normally there is a very general line on how most things should or could be conducted, for the most positive outcomes. I get told by one of my friends that I am very stubborn because I believe my way to see things is the correct one, and that I refuse to consider I might be wrong... but he's wrong, and he's the arrogant one. I am more than open to admit it, more than open to learn, but if you are gonna propose a different thought process then you must be able to argumentate it in an intelligent manner so you can aim to have your perspective considered.
As you have said, just because you say something does not make it so.
BACK IT UP boyos! Back it up...
In that sense I love someone agreeing with me. Having someone challenge you with interesting thoughts would be fun and make you grow personally. I am all down for that.
And as to why I choose people. You vibe, I guess. All I can say.