Again, you can say you don't need to prove things, but that goes directly to Promit's point that people use philosophy as an excuse for making shit up.

I'm all for thinking deep thoughts and discussing theories to see if they hold water, but It needs to be done with at least a nod to having solid premises that flow into reasonable deductions.

Again, you can say you don't need to prove things

Can we just pretend he said "Based on these assumptions, I hypothesise...."

Which allows you to ignore him if you don't also believe the assumptions, demonstrate a flaw in the assumptions if you've got one, or debate the follow-on-logic if you want to accept the hypothetical assumptions (temporarily or not), without worrying about whether someone is asserting false assumptions as truth or not.

Can we just pretend he said "Based on these assumptions, I hypothesise...."

Given the correct set of assumptions, I can conclusively prove that Hitler was an objectively better person than Jesus. Doing so does not help you, me, or anyone else.

If you do not at least make the effort to establish the validity of your assumptions, any further philosophising is just pissing in the wind.

Again, you can say you don't need to prove things, but that goes directly to Promit's point that people use philosophy as an excuse for making shit up.

I cannot possibly say this better or emphasize it enough. And SteveDeFacto's "I don't feel need proving" is exactly the kind of thing that irritates me about people who are "being philosophical". Oh, we're just discussing ideas and possibilities, so let's say any old nonsensical garbage that comes to mind. Don't agree with me? Think I'm being a moron? Too bad! It's my philosophy and therefore unarguable!

On a bit of a side-note, there's also the oddball tendency of socially dysfunctional geeks to justify their social dysfunction by talking about how smart they are. And people who are good at social interaction are so because they are stupid and don't think about deep problems. And worse still, we get this kind of sexist bullshit:

My theory can be seen in so many previously unexplained phenomenons. Women generally tend to be more social skills and are better at language than men. On the flip side men generally tend to be better at science and mathematics. Likely this has to do with differences in the development of their Amygdala. The early presence of testosterone may play a small role in this but that is only one theory.

Jay Gould wrote a book called The Mismeasure of Man, which discusses a long history of scientific justifications for racism and slavery. And this type of thinking seems to be disgustingly common in engineering and scientific fields. That's not even getting started on the problems of selection bias, or confusion between correlation and causation. You are not socially dysfunctional because you are intelligent. I'm not even particularly convinced that you have the latter attribute, and I saw this pathetic attitude in too many of my peers in school to keep quiet about it.

There. Now you have some of my philosophy to chew on. (And I can only imagine how much this must irritate someone who actually knows something about real philosophy as a field.)

Again, you can say you don't need to prove things, but that goes directly to Promit's point that people use philosophy as an excuse for making shit up.

I'm all for thinking deep thoughts and discussing theories to see if they hold water, but It needs to be done with at least a nod to having solid premises that flow into reasonable deductions.

It is common sense that someone who is antisocial will have difficulty maintaining a romantic relationship for long enough to produce children. What part of the word antisocial do you not understand? It is obvious that Asperger's syndrome is hereditary, and even if it were not, being raised by antisocial parents tends to make children antisocial.

There's a big difference between asocial and anti-social. Asocial is trouble talking with people. Anti-social is punching people who talk to you.

That said, some of the most prolific procreators that I've ever met have been both asocial and anti-social -- they've been violent, criminal, delinquent, drunk, and also would also be completely lost and withdrawn if place in a "civilised" social situation. Nonetheless, in their slice of society they manage to become the "alpha" consistently and produce more offspring than any responsible person would care deal with, often pushing the burden of raising these children onto relatives or the state.

Also, these abusive people often seem to have more success in maintaining a long term relationship, as it's a well studied fact that abusive relationships have the capacity to create a "battered partner syndrome", where the abused person becomes dependent on and submissive to their abuser.

Futhermore, while many of these people are complete morons, some have been sociopaths (a disorder quite similar to aspy) with extremely high IQ scores -- a combination displaying a great ability to manipulate the human psyche, to intuit the workings of the world, yet still fail to connect with it in a meaningful way.

Meanwhile, people that I've met with good social skills have tended to avoid unnecessary pregnancies and are often the same people who complete higher education, have technical jobs and end up happily married long before even considering the possibility of raising kids.
Overall though, the vast majority of people I've met don't at all fit on this 1D scale, and have high social skills in some social settings, low social skills in other social settings, and the same disparity in general intelligence as well.

That's my anecdotal experiences, which completely contradict your assumptions :/
Now, the only thing obvious here is that my descriptions are formed from my own tiny perspective on things, and the language I've chosen is entirely dictated by my own upbringing and experience in life, so I'm not going to assert any of these things as universal truths.

You can only seriously discuss this stuff if you're willing to accept that your "it's obvious that"s are actually "assumptions", and be open minded enough to consider that your assumptions will at some point be demonstrated to be false.


P.S. that asperger's link doesn't even mention the word "hereditary". Not everything that has links to specific genes is hereditary (in fact, very, very few disorders are hereditary). If those genes are passed down, it can mean that a statistical predisposition is hereditary though -- as your brain/body is capable of turning said gene's on and off at will, and that tendency to (de)activate can be a (hereditary) instinctive response. However, in order for that hereditary response to trigger, you must be exposed to the right environment! The hereditary predisposition itself is harmless until a certain kind of trigger environment is encountered.

While you're investigating the amygdala though, have a look into the correlation between underdeveloped amygdala and right-wing political views

And lastly, any diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder is not a universal fact - it's a human category for stereotyping other humans. It's a useful one within the psychiatric field of medicine, but the category itself is still just an arbitrary stereotype and the diagnosis is still just an opinion as to whether you fit in that stereotype.
The reason it's called a spectrum should be a hint that all personality traits are on a bigger spectrum, and it's common for many "normal" people to strongly associate with some "spectrum" traits. The uber-social (normal) vs asocial (aspy) dichotomy presented in your "Is there Hope?" link is laughable.

There's a big difference between asocial and anti-social. Asocial is trouble talking with people. Anti-social is punching people who talk to you.

That said, some of the most prolific procreators that I've ever met have been both asocial and anti-social -- they've been violent, criminal, delinquent, drunk, and also would also be completely lost and withdrawn if place in a "civilised" social situation. Nonetheless, in their slice of society they manage to become the "alpha" consistently and produce more offspring than any responsible person would care deal with, often pushing the burden of raising these children onto relatives or the state.

Also, these abusive people often seem to have more success in maintaining a long term relationship, as it's a well studied fact that abusive relationships have the capacity to create a "battered partner syndrome", where the abused person becomes dependent on and submissive to their abuser.

Futhermore, while many of these people are complete morons, some have been sociopaths (a disorder quite similar to aspy) with extremely high IQ scores -- a combination displaying a great ability to manipulate the human psyche, to intuit the workings of the world, yet still fail to connect with it in a meaningful way.

Meanwhile, people that I've met with good social skills have tended to avoid unnecessary pregnancies and are often the same people who complete higher education, have technical jobs and end up happily married long before even considering the possibility of raising kids.
Overall though, the vast majority of people I've met don't at all fit on this 1D scale, and have high social skills in some social settings, low social skills in other social settings, and the same disparity in general intelligence as well.

That's my anecdotal experiences, which completely contradict your assumptions :/
Now, the only thing obvious here is that my descriptions are formed from my own tiny perspective on things, and the language I've chosen is entirely dictated by my own upbringing and experience in life, so I'm not going to assert any of these things as universal truths.

You can only seriously discuss this stuff if you're willing to accept that your "it's obvious that"s are actually "assumptions", and be open minded enough to consider that your assumptions will at some point be demonstrated to be false.


P.S. that asperger's link doesn't even mention the word "hereditary". Not everything that has links to specific genes is hereditary (in fact, very, very few disorders are hereditary). If those genes are passed down, it can mean that a statistical predisposition is hereditary though -- as your brain/body is capable of turning said gene's on and off at will, and that tendency to (de)activate can be a (hereditary) instinctive response. However, in order for that hereditary response to trigger, you must be exposed to the right environment! The hereditary predisposition itself is harmless until a certain kind of trigger environment is encountered.

While you're investigating the amygdala though, have a look into the correlation between underdeveloped amygdala and right-wing political views

And lastly, any diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder is not a universal fact - it's a human category for stereotyping other humans. It's a useful one within the psychiatric field of medicine, but the category itself is still just an arbitrary stereotype and the diagnosis is still just an opinion as to whether you fit in that stereotype.
The reason it's called a spectrum should be a hint that all personality traits are on a bigger spectrum, and it's common for many "normal" people to strongly associate with some "spectrum" traits. The uber-social (normal) vs asocial (aspy) dichotomy presented in your "Is there Hope?" link is laughable.

You are right a lot of antisocial people can effectively reproduce which is clearly evident. However, when I said antisocial I was meaning Asocial. I disagree that Asocial people can reproduce as effectively as social people. Simple fact is if you are a hermit and avoid social interaction it is very unlikely you will reproduce at the same rate as a social person. However, I feel as though everyone is taking my assumption to an extreme. I think people who are right amygdala dominate are only slightly more likely to be interested in math, science, and critical thinking. Fact is everyone feels gratification from solving problems but some more than others.

If anything the correlation between nerdiness and lack of social skills revolves primarily around having other nerdy people to associate with. If you do you have a greater chance to develop social skills because social skills are all about practice. If you don't you are more likely to have poor social skills. Similarly, plenty of dumb people who lack a group of compatible individuals will have poor social skills as well. They are called social SKILLS for a reason.

It is common sense that someone who is antisocial will have difficulty maintaining a romantic relationship for long enough to produce children.
What part of the word antisocial do you not understand? It is obvious that Asperger's syndrome is hereditary, and even if it were not, being raised by antisocial parents tends to make children antisocial.

*facepalm* You know, sometimes I can't believe you are really this dim; sometimes I fear you are instead a highly skilled troll, but then Occam's razor wins. Hurrah philosophy.


How can you possibly expect us to equate Asperger's (which at the very most effects 5 in 1000) with low social skill? And even if we did believe such absurdity, there's still no ties to get us from that to your 'low social skills are darwinistically selected against, thus the lack of high critical thinking skills leads to the norm of not being interested in "deep" discussions' assertion.

[quote name='SteveDeFacto' timestamp='1329987451' post='4915812']
It is common sense that someone who is antisocial will have difficulty maintaining a romantic relationship for long enough to produce children.
What part of the word antisocial do you not understand? It is obvious that Asperger's syndrome is hereditary, and even if it were not, being raised by antisocial parents tends to make children antisocial.

*facepalm* You know, sometimes I can't believe you are really this dim; sometimes I fear you are instead a highly skilled troll, but then Occam's razor wins. Hurrah philosophy.


How can you possibly expect us to equate Asperger's (which at the very most effects 5 in 1000) with low social skill? And even if we did believe such absurdity, there's still no ties to get us from that to your 'low social skills are darwinistically selected against, thus the lack of high critical thinking skills leads to the norm of not being interested in "deep" discussions' assertion.
[/quote]

I think you misunderstand what I'm trying to explain. I'm not saying all nerds have Asperger's. I'm saying intellectuals have a higher interest in solving problems than they do with social interaction. Factually the gratification you feel from solving a problem or social interaction comes from your amygdala as do all other emotions. The part about Asperger's is an assumption that it is an extreme case of right amygdala dominance which results in a much lower interest in social skills but a high interest in problem solving.