Post: #26

(12-04-2015 08:58 AM)Caribou Wrote:  Sorry for derailing the conversation it just an issue that's very personal to me

You avoided my question. Are you an Aspie?

Post: #27

(12-04-2015 08:31 AM)Caribou Wrote:  Also why would they be classified as retards if if most of them have iq in the 130 range
To be clear im talking about Aspergers not Rainman like autism

Do you have any authority for that number? It seems really high. I'd believe 100 or maybe even 115.

Post: #28

The whole high IQ thing linked with aspergers seems like medical urban legend. A brief search on the internet shows that it's inconclusive and these rumors were started long ago outside the medical community. It sounds like some SJWs and parents of aspies wanted their kids to feel special so they started spreading this high IQ rumor for more social acceptance and brownie points.

I simply don't believe it. I've met a few aspies and they just seem like high functioning retards to me. Social skills at a bare minimum and a lot of them are weird to say the least. I doubt most of them are building fusion core reactors in their bedrooms.

Post: #29

Since this thread turned assburgers, and it's obvious that Caribou either has it or has a loved one with it, I'll give my two cents.

The whole "women having babies too late" isn't necessarily the cause in my unqualified opinion.

Disclaimer: I have no medical background or qualifications.

But women have been having babies in their late thirties since the beginning of time. There's a reason the vasectomy was created. My dad was born in the early 60's and both his parents were in their forties. He was an obvious mistake. Hell, half my uncles and aunts are older than most of my friend's grandparents.

My sister had her last kid at thirty five. The doctors deemed her higher risk and made sure to monitor everything. My dad is far from Aspie and my youngest niece is progressing normally.

While my two examples can't argue against scientific evidence, it is not simply age that is causing the increase is aspbergers and autism. My guess would towards diet, alcohol, and drug use. McFood Inc. is causing more problems than women having babies in their late thirties.

Post: #30

(12-04-2015 06:46 AM)Requiem Wrote:  Whether vaccinations can cause Autism/Aspergers or not can and should be discussed in public and thoroughly investigated. It is a fact, that vaccinations can, in very rare cases, cause other issues - some of them lasting, e.g. I personally know of a case where a girl became mute because of a vaccination. But these are very very rare cases. If there was more research done on the Aspergers possibility, then we might find out if there is a link, which part of the vaccine specifically causes it, so we might be able to correct it. I doubt that if it is the case, it is an "evil plan" to do it purposefully. Might be that big pharma already knows about it but it's so rare that investing in a solution isn't worth it, especially as long as it isn't proven to be a fact in the general public.

(12-03-2015 11:44 PM)Caribou Wrote:  These conditions have only became an epidemic in the last 50 years since we started mass vaccinations. I know the "official" story is that there's not no link between vaccinations and autism but considering how the government isn't exactly looking out for the welfare of its people I wouldn't be surprised that the two are linked.

It's certainly a possibility, but there are so many other factors that have changed dramatically and could be a cause - why pick vaccines? GMOs for example. Comparing the GMO-infested USA and Kanada with other countries that have similar lifestyles but still eat natural foods, could be an interesting study. But as always, correlation does not equal causation, so these studys still don't prove anything. Also - picking up what Paracelsus said - these diagnoses are relatively new. If the disease pattern wasn't known before, naturally it just wasn't diagnosed at the time, even though possibly having had the same or a similar prevalence as today.

(12-03-2015 11:56 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Aspergers also appears to run in families, which somewhat eliminates the vaccine possibility.

Aspergers running in families doesn't eliminate this possibility at all. Since it is clear that even if vaccines could cause Aspergers, they definitely don't do so in the majority of people, so there must be a difference between those who get it and those who don't. While many factors could play a role, a very obvious difference could be that certain genetical dispositions are more prone to a vaccine-induced development of the disease.

All this being said, there is one argument however, which always trumps everything and makes the existing doubts futile: Even if vaccines do cause Autism/Aspergers/ADHD/Depression/homosexuality/what have you, these effects are very rare considering that almost everybody is being vaccinated nowadays. At the same time, they very effectively protect against certain deadly diseases or diseases that can cause lasting impairments/disabilities. Those who do not vaccinate their children put them in greater danger than if they'd give them the shots and if their children manage to grow up without these infections, it is mostly thanks to herd immunity.

Also: short story about game and shootings --> vaccinations and autism. Make the connection.

It's neat to see where threads go. There are other threads that discuss these topics, but I would like to address them a bit since they cropped up here. Later on I might add my thoughts to those threads, though I doubt I'll remember to until the next time the topics crop up in other thread derailments.
GMO's have existed longer than vaccines, since we've been picking the desired traits of each crop to plant the next year, we've been refining what we eat, hence why corn, watermelon, tomatoes, potatoes, and tons of other crops look the way they do now. Even in my own garden I unintentionally make GMO's, I planted tomatoes right next to my jalapenoes, and then I had weak ass jalapenoes and spicy tomatoes, which I think was from cross-pollination, or roots getting bound, or something. That's what they are doing, but under sterile lab conditions now, picking the parts of other plants they want in their refined plants, using scalpels and acids to get what they want specifically. They aren't blasting seeds with gamma radiation and making hulk beans, like what the Jolly Green Giant carries around. The shit you need to worry about is the special pesticide coatings they put on the seeds, to make pests infertile and insane, which is part of the plant as it grows. You can't wash that shit off. When I worked on a small farm, all the seeds had a bright pink or orange colored coating on them. I asked what it was, and they said that's how they come after ordered from Monsanto. Later after the planting season, we had to go through and manually pollinate the plants, because using those seeds got us blacklisted from the beekeeper's route.
So really, who the fuck knows why all these kids are developing disorders. Are we just now reclassifying them so we recognize them? Is it from the older pregnancies? Bad diets? Cell phone towers? Pesticides? How many Amish kids have it? Is it related to how all these kids are allergic to everything now? (-amish are fairly unaffected with allergies) If the parent(s) were put on SSRI's growing up, does it affect their kids?
There's so many variables, but how do we test each one within our lifetime?

Post: #31

(12-04-2015 09:42 PM)wi30 Wrote:  Hell, half my uncles and aunts are older than most of my friend's grandparents.

All of my aunts and uncles on one side are (or were. Only one is still alive). The other side is all of the typical age.

Post: #32

Spoke, you're right. Anyone's guess is as good as ours. I'm very pro GMO in the sense of Matt Ridley's works. Anyone who is against GMO's would never touch any grain or wheat product. They also wouldn't own any type of dog or cat unless it was a wolf or bobcat because humans artificially selected specific traits. That's why a mastiff and chihuahua can technically classify as the same animal.

My dad grows tomatoes and jalapeno's as well, he "artificially selects" to make the best breed of plant. That technically is genetically modifying his food.

I'm not a betting man, but I would put my life savings on the diet of the average trashy whore shitting out kids to be the issue of aspergers/autism/most mental illness. It's not solely the age of thirty five year old women. I'd also bet that it's over diagnosed. And the fact that fathers aren't in the picture.

Post: #33

(12-04-2015 10:27 PM)wi30 Wrote:  I'm very pro GMO in the sense of Matt Ridley's works. Anyone who is against GMO's would never touch any grain or wheat product. They also wouldn't own any type of dog or cat unless it was a wolf or bobcat because humans artificially selected specific traits.

My dad grows tomatoes and jalapeno's as well, he "artificially selects" to make the best breed of plant. That technically is genetically modifying his food.

> le "selected breeding is the same as combining DNAs of different organisms that couldn't ever do so without a scientist and his tube"-meme.



Stronk. Shill some more. What I find funny about the whole GMO-issue is that the majority of people shilling for it are either scientists whose careers depend on it or laymen who want to come off as sophisticated or who play it down to seem cool. You make ridiculous statements about GMO-opponents and these quite honestly make you come across as ignorant.


Also, I don't want to be the asshole attacking you on two fronts, but since the deed is already done, here's another issue I saw:

(12-04-2015 09:42 PM)wi30 Wrote:  The whole "women having babies too late" isn't necessarily the cause in my unqualified opinion.

Disclaimer: I have no medical background or qualifications.
[...]
While my two examples can't argue against scientific evidence, it is not simply age that is causing the increase is aspbergers and autism. My guess would towards diet, alcohol, and drug use. McFood Inc. is causing more problems than women having babies in their late thirties.

1) you are very hesitant to refuse the age-claim completely and acknowledge that you lack qualifications to do so anyway
2) you give two examples where it was different
3) you acknowledge that these say basically nothing about whether or not age is actually the causing or one of multiple causing factors
4) you make a definitive statement, that age is not the cause
5) you admit to guessing alternatives
6) you make a definitive statement about which factors weigh in more than others

1) is inconsistent with 4), 5) and 6)
2) is irrelevant (see 3)
4) is inconsistent with 3)
5) is inconsistent with 6)

This is not meant to be a personal attack at you or me profiling myself as a smart-ass, but I just cringe at logical errors like these and I don't want people being influenced by such comments.
This says nothing about my opinion on what you said btw. For all I know, you could very well be right that food is a more important issue than age. Nobody knows. That's why the research is so important.

Post: #34

Requiem, what qualification's do you have? You must be highly qualified to take down my analysis.

I agree with a number of Matt Ridley's views. That apparently makes me ignorant and illogical.

I've spent summers selectively breeding different corn strains with a number of alternatives. I know that doesn't qualify me for anything but it gives me an understanding of how selective breeding works.

(12-04-2015 10:51 PM)Requiem Wrote:  This says nothing about my opinion on what you said btw. For all I know, you could very well be right that food is a more important issue than age. Nobody knows. That's why the research is so important.

Requiem, I suggest you spend less time attacking me and more time studying the issue. I suggested that diet plays a bigger part. I encourage you to look up the word suggest.

I clearly stated that everything I wrote was an opinion. I clearly encourage a healthy diet and lifestyle for those experiencing pregnancy. Diet plays the biggest role. Stop posting like a woman.

Post: #35

I'm on the spectrum (aspergers) so I'd like to clear up a few things about it.

The board seems to have some very odd ideas about aspergers, like that it's a life sentence for loneliness, or that aspies are emotionless robots. Hardly. Speaking from personal experience you can get laid and have relationships while being on the spectrum, as long you apply the same obsessive intelligence to relationships.

In fact, I suspect many members of the sphere are also on the spectrum. They just don't know it. Roosh's style of speaking, his systematic logical way or organizing the world, his early troubles with women, and his early interest in science all suggest that he is somewhere on the spectrum - and I mean this as a high compliment. We recognize our own.

Now as for why some mass shooters are autistic...

Aspies are generally 20-30 IQ points higher then the general population and highly logical (think Data or Spock). Imagine how you would act if everyone in the world was 30 IQ points lower - mentally retarded by comparison - and had massive emotional outbursts when you just stated obvious facts in ways they deemed socially inappropriate.

Actually, you don't have to imagine. Most people here have already had the experience of voicing "hatefacts" which SJWs will form mobs and try to push you out of society for voicing. Now imagine everyone was that way, over everyday social things, and they were all retarded. A world of retards SJWs.

If you lived your entire life in a world of retard SJWs, what would you do?

Of course, most aspies find constructive uses of their abilities. Red pill thinking and game is actually one of them. Most of the early founders of game are actually highly neuroatypical. RSD Tyler (Owen Cook) stands out as someone clearly on the spectrum. Game was founded by neuroatypical men trying to understand relationships with neurotypical women. The systematic way game practitioners organize human behavior is autistic as fuck.

Those who are able to use their intelligence to systematically break down human interactions often never even get a diagnosis. I didn't figure it out till I was older. By that time, I'd ready every body language book in existence, trained in communication classes, and gotten red pilled. If you were to meet me, you probably wouldn't know I was someone with aspergers unless I told you.

I realize some of what I've written may offend some members, but saying what you think is true regardless of how people will socially respond is exactly what an aspie would do. Again - guys in the sphere frequently do this - writing logical opinions that offend the neurotypicals and wonder why everyone doesn't agree with their perfectly sound argument that rape should be legal or accusations should have proof.

I almost didn't post this, since I can pass as neurotypical, but if you're interested in what I've said, let me know. Aspies respond very well to direct communication.

Post: #36

Thanks for posting Barbarian_Brad. I haven't met many people in real life who are on the spectrum. It's interesting to get an inside view.

And sorry Aer, this is one of the biggest thread derailments I've ever seen.

Post: #37

I'm gonna say as much that my field of study is very related to the topic and I also have a very high personal interest in the subject which is why I also read a lot about the matter outside of university. I'm not familiar with Mr. Ridley's views which is why I didn't comment on them. My comments were in regard to your statements only. People who are "anti-GMO" very rarely (if ever) oppose organisms that result from selective breeding. It wouldn't make any sense to be honest. Whether one can call these plants and animals genetically modified or not is none of my concern. I wouldn't argue against it, though to me, it's not as distinct as you make it out to be either. You'd have to label (beautiful) people as genetically modified as well as they too are the result of selective breeding (based on biolocical attraction). Then the label would start losing meaning but that's none of my concern. What is my concern is that "anti-GMO" is usually meant in regards to genetic engineering and more importantly specifically so in regards to genetically engineered crops and animals. Personally, I'm not even generally opposed to genetic engineering for medicine or for some industrial processes. In these sectors it is mostly safe: the used organisms usually aren't being released into the environment and in the case of insulin for example, their products - not the organisms themselves - are being used. The products cannot spread. Also, nobody is making them a part of their own physiology by eating them. So a very big difference here. Also, the use of the technology is actually justified because it makes something more productive, more efficient, less costly,... . Genetically modified crops or animals however might also grow faster, be more resistant, get bigger,... but they are being released into the environment and they are being consumed. Also, and most people will disagree with me here, the benefits (more yielding) don't justify the technology at all. If you cannot sustain a population with natural foods, then the population is simply too high. Not addressing that issue right now but instead modifying the genetic basis of the food as a necessity to provide for the growing population is simply delaying the problem into the future. What will you do when the population gets so high that even with GMOs you cannot provide for them? So there is pretty much no reasonable argument in favor of GMO food (I know of the poor African children who now get their Vitamin A with golden rice - that is no argument in favor of GMOs, it is an argument for population control, development aid and vitamin supplements) but there are many concerns or even plain detriments with them. Leave our food alone. Not everything that can be done, should be done or is justified to be done.

Post: #38

(12-05-2015 01:19 AM)Barbarian_Brad Wrote:  Now as for why some mass shooters are autistic...

Aspies are generally 20-30 IQ points higher then the general population and highly logical (think Data or Spock). Imagine how you would act if everyone in the world was 30 IQ points lower - mentally retarded by comparison - and had massive emotional outbursts when you just stated obvious facts in ways they deemed socially inappropriate.

Actually, you don't have to imagine. Most people here have already had the experience of voicing "hatefacts" which SJWs will form mobs and try to push you out of society for voicing. Now imagine everyone was that way, over everyday social things, and they were all retarded. A world of retards SJWs.

If you lived your entire life in a world of retard SJWs, what would you do?

Post: #39

(12-04-2015 09:07 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(12-04-2015 08:31 AM)Caribou Wrote:  Also why would they be classified as retards if if most of them have iq in the 130 range
To be clear im talking about Aspergers not Rainman like autism

Do you have any authority for that number? It seems really high. I'd believe 100 or maybe even 115.

I suspect that for aspergers the IQ stratification is basically male taken to another couple orders of magnitude. Instead of a distribution of morons and geniuses, you get guys who are profoundly mentally disabled that have aspergers as well as guys who are sitting easy in the 130-160 IQ range or above.

I have met a few guys 'on the spectrum' in STEM fields (selection bias) and they're generally pretty brilliant with numbers and code and whatnot.

Post: #40

(12-07-2015 03:03 PM)Hades Wrote:  

(12-04-2015 09:07 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(12-04-2015 08:31 AM)Caribou Wrote:  Also why would they be classified as retards if if most of them have iq in the 130 range
To be clear im talking about Aspergers not Rainman like autism

Do you have any authority for that number? It seems really high. I'd believe 100 or maybe even 115.

I suspect that for aspergers the IQ stratification is basically male taken to another couple orders of magnitude. Instead of a distribution of morons and geniuses, you get guys who are profoundly mentally disabled that have aspergers as well as guys who are sitting easy in the 130-160 IQ range or above.

I have met a few guys 'on the spectrum' in STEM fields (selection bias) and they're generally pretty brilliant with numbers and code and whatnot.

That's what I was thinking, but I think Caribou was saying that most Asperger's people are of superior intelligence, which didn't completely make sense to me. I think there are a lot of dumb people with Asperger's and a lot of smart people with it.

Post: #41

Don't you think the Asperger label is used too much, like ADHD?

A lot other conditions mimic so called Asperger, I've met two rather clear Aspergers and it's not something you miss. Both were actually very intelligent in math/code, but simply had no innate ability to understand social behavior.

Schizoids are probably very often mistaken for Asperger and much more likely to be violent.