This is Lecture 2 of 25
Features Game Theory and Tournament Species – Pair Bonding Species
This is Lecture 2 of 25
Features Game Theory and Tournament Species – Pair Bonding Species
The first ten Amendments are known as the Bill of Rights, which (supposedly) protect all American citizens from abuse by government. But, despite the intention of the originators of these protections, “rights” have been denied, twisted and interpreted to “benefit” the decidedly unequal social hierarchy / class system that is the United States.
CIVIL RIGHTS is a magic word concept that carries all sorts of social and legal messages, that are repeated over and over again by media, bureaucrats, Congresspersons, the President, judges – and citizens. “Rights” are a political and legal illusion, open to perversion, lies and misapplication: Does anyone truly believe that a poor person has any comparable “value” to American society and the state? This is how rights are applied: by wealth, social standing and influence.
I’ve included the Bill of Rights in this post as reference for the most sinister practice I have yet come across in the “Injustice System” – questionnaires “invented” by psychologists and sociologists, that use algorithms to “crunch” the (highly)questionable information provided by “suspects” “accused” “convicted” citizens which are then used to determine the particular “judgements” made about their “future crimes”
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances. Many religious organizations in the U.S. have as their primary goal, the overturning of this injunction against the establishment of a state religion.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. (This protection is being trampled to death by the “assessments” created by social scientists and psychologists that have been used increasingly by the justice-court-incarceration system)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. 95 % of cases are “PLEA BARGAINS” coerced into acceptance by a system that imposes severe punishment for choosing a jury trial.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Cruel and unusual? Mentally ill individuals locked up with violent criminals; solitary confinement for “vulnerable” inmates; life sentences for non-violent crime…..
Poor people often cannot afford any amount of bail, and SIT IN JAIL, sometimes for months or years, before the “case” gets around to court hearings. And then what happens? Charges dropped, a release, a plea bargain, probation? A sentence equal to time spent locked up and waiting for a court appearance? The outcome depends on how backlogged and inefficient the system has become; on selection of easy targets by prosecutors (will accept any plea bargain) Prisoners, felons, convicts whose identity has become a function of the “social discrimination” of American life since childhood, become helpless targets. People with access to money and lawyers can of course, purchase a “fair outcome.”
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Robert Sapolsky, STANFORD
Course (25 lectures) Biology of Behavior. How physiology affects human behavior, especially social behavior. Painless (and funny) Sapolsky classic.
Limits of categorical thinking: Breaking down “bucket” thinking. How wrong (and dangerous) “scientists” can be who are stuck in categorical thinking. Psychiatrists and psychologists as generators of pathological ideas about human behavior – which I’ve been yelling about for two years on this blog.
For general consumption! Science background not required.
SCINEWS Online Scientists Produce Map of Neanderthal, Denisovan Ancestry in Present-Day Humans
Dr. David Reich from Harvard Medical School and his colleagues have produced a world map of Denisovan and Neanderthal ancestry in 120 diverse populations. Their analysis proposes that Denisovan admixture into humans occurred about 100 generations after Neanderthal admixture.
Dr. Reich and co-authors collected their data by comparing known Neanderthal and Denisovan gene sequences across more than 250 genomes from 120 non-African populations publically available through the Simons Genome Diversity Project.
The analysis was carried out by a machine-learning algorithm that could differentiate between components of both kinds of ancestral DNA, which are more similar to one another than to modern humans. The results, published this week in the journal Current Biology, showed that individuals from Oceania possess the highest percentage of archaic ancestry and South Asians possess more Denisovan ancestry than previously believed.
“We developed methods that can disambiguate the locations of segments of Denisovan and Neanderthal ancestry in present-day humans and applied them to 257 high-coverage genomes from 120 diverse populations, among which were 20 individual Oceanians with high Denisovan ancestry,” the scientists explained.
“In Oceanians, the average size of Denisovan fragments is larger than Neanderthal fragments, implying a more recent average date of Denisovan admixture in the history of these populations. We document more Denisovan ancestry in South Asia than is expected based on existing models of history, reflecting a previously undocumented mixture related to archaic humans.”
In contrast, Western Eurasians are the non-Africans least likely to have Neanderthal or Denisovan genes. “The interactions between modern humans and archaic humans are complex and perhaps involved multiple events,” Dr. Reich said.
Sriram Sankararaman et al. The Combined Landscape of Denisovan and Neanderthal Ancestry in Present-Day Humans. Current Biology, published online March 28, 2016; doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.037
Published online 6 March 2003 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news030303-6
Ten-million-year-old fossil teeth turn up in Thailand. by
An ancient relative of the orangutan has been discovered in Thailand. The species is the first fossil ape unearthed in the area where orangutans live today. Only teeth have been found so far. These bear an “amazing resemblance” to orangutan teeth, says the fossil’s discoverer, Jean-Jacques Jaeger of the University of Montpellier, France. “It’s more similar [to orangutans] than any other fossil ape,” he enthuses.
Like the orangutan, the newly discovered species, named Lufengpithecus chiangmuanensis by Jaeger and his colleagues1, probably weighed about 70 kilograms. It lived in the tropical forests of northern Thailand between 10 and 13.5 million years ago.
The finding opens a window onto new times and places in the apes’ paltry fossil record, says palaeontologist Peter Andrews of the Natural History Museum in London. “This is just the beginning,” he says. “There will be lots of species all over Southeast Asia.” But Lufengpithecus is almost certainly not an ancestor of the orangutan. It joins a group of fossil apes that ranged from Europe to China around 10 million years ago. Researchers have little idea about how they were related to one another.
Most of the orangutan’s extinct relatives are known only from skulls and teeth. The exception – Sivapithecus, which lived in modern-day Pakistan – had a face like an orangutan, but few other similarities. Its skeleton shows it to have walked on all fours, like a baboon.
No known fossil ape is adapted for life in the trees, says Jaeger. Orangutans may therefore be descended from a ground-dweller, or it may be that no known fossil is an ancestor of a living ape.
Comparing teeth is not always a good guide to animal relationships, warns oral biologist Jay Kelley of the University of Illinois in Chicago. “Animals that are very similar dentally have turned out to be very different.”
Kelley has found two other species of Lufengpithecus, with intact skulls, in southern China. “There’s a lot about those skulls that doesn’t look at all like an orangutan,” he says. Both are several million years younger than the Thai species.
The orangutan is the only great ape with a known fossil record. Mysteriously, no African fossil has been found that might be related to chimps and gorillas. “The apes seem to have sprung out of nowhere,” says Andrews.
Published online 18 November 2004 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news041115-12
Fossil from 13 million years ago sheds light on human split from apes. by
Fossil hunters in Spain have unearthed what seems to be the most recent common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and humans. The ape lived almost 13 million years ago, about the time that our different lineages are thought to have diverged.
The species has been christened Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, in reference to the Catalan village of Els Hostalets de Pierola, where the fossil was found. The specimen consists of 83 bones from an adult male, including parts of the skull, teeth, ribs and fingers.
“The problem is that our finding is the only one we know. However, we can speculate and suggest that the probable origin of this animal is in Africa.”
Miguel Crusafont Institute of Palaeontology, Barcelona
The creature would have weighed about 55 kilograms, making it about the size of a female chimpanzee, says Salvador Moyá-Solá of the Miquel Crusafont Institute of Palaeontology in Barcelona, whose team reports the discovery in this week’s Science1. But it would have looked more like a primitive gorilla, he adds.
The scarcity of the fossil record makes it difficult to say whether P. catalaunicus is actually the most recent common ancestor of all great apes living today, Moyá-Solá says. But it is likely to resemble it closely: analyses of the rates at which differences arise between our DNA and that of other apes show that our family must have begun diverging at about the time when P. catalaunicus was alive.
Intriguingly, the fossil shows a mixture of typical ‘apelike’ features alongside more primitive ‘monkey’ characteristics, the team reports. The creature would have been able to lift itself into a standing position as modern apes can, but its short fingers mean that it would not have been able to grip branches with enough strength to swing from them.
This means that tree-swinging might have evolved several times in different apes, rather than being a habit from the start, the researchers suggest. The earliest great apes might have scuttled around on top of branches, much as today’s monkeys do.
This fits with the idea that apelike characteristics evolved very gradually, rather than all appearing together in a single ancestor, comments Todd Rae, who studies primates at the University of Durham, UK. “It’s a stepwise process,” he explains. “One bit changes and then another bit changes.”
P. catalaunicus also has a very flat face, Moyá-Solá’s team reports, with nostrils that are in almost the same plane as its eye sockets. Its face would have looked a lot like a gorilla’s does today, but very different from a chimp’s, in which the jaw is thrust forwards in a pattern called prognathism. The chimp pattern therefore probably evolved later in the great apes’ family history.
Although the species was discovered in Spain, it is unlikely to have lived only there, Moyá-Solá says. “The problem is that our finding is the only one we know. However, we can speculate and suggest that the probable origin of this animal is Africa.”
Africa is widely agreed to have been the birthplace of modern humans around 160,000 years ago. But palaeontologists also think that Africa’s climate, and the number of different species that lived there, would have made it a hotbed of ape evolution for millions of years before that. But the apes could just as easily have been found mainly in Europe, as its climate was certainly different back then, Rae argues. “At that time Europe had lots of different apes – you don’t necessarily have to invoke Africa as the place where all these things evolved.”
Of course, we will not know where else P. catalaunicus lived until other fossils are found. “We always need more and better fossils,” says Moyá-Solá.
Miguel Crusafont Institute of Palaeontology, Barcelona
Pay-to-read article at Wiley Online Library
Visual thinking is regarded as a “defect” by psychologists – because they don’t understand it. Irrational prejudice and ignorance have resulted in a science and math illiterate U.S. population. Psychologists have taken over education theory and practice – and have managed to destroy one of the most amazing human attributes: enthusiasm for learning.
Clichés from the Internet, and one positively boneheaded slide show: Suzy Housewife and Joe Texas (vaccines and Autism)
Thinking with images plays a central role in scientific creativity and communication but is neglected in science classrooms. This article reviews the fundamental role of imagery in science and technology and our current knowledge of visual-spatial cognition.
A novel analogic and thematic organization of images and visualization within science and technology is proposed that can help in the generation and evaluation of classroom activities and materials, and serve as a focus for professional development programs in visual-spatial thinking for science teachers. Visual-spatial thinking includes vision—using the eyes to identify, locate, and think about objects and ourselves in the world, and imagery—the formation, inspection, transformation, and maintenance of images in the “mind’s eye” in the absence of a visual stimulus.
A spatial image preserves relationships among a complex set of ideas as a single chunk in working memory, increasing the amount of information that can be maintained in consciousness at a given moment. Vision and imagery are fundamental cognitive processes using specialized pathways in the brain and rely on our memory of prior experience. Visual-spatial thinking develops from birth, together with language and other specialized abilities, through interactions between inherited capabilities and experience. Scientific creativity can be considered as an amalgam of three closely allied mental formats: images; metaphors; and unifying ideas (themes).
Combinations of images, analogies, and themes pervade science in the form of “master images” and visualization techniques. A critique of current practice in education contrasts the subservient role of visual-spatial learning with the dominance of the alphanumeric encoding skills in classroom and textbooks. The lack of coherence in curriculum, pedagogy, and learning theory requires reform that addresses thinking skills, including imagery.
Successful integration of information, skills and attitudes into cohesive mental schemata employed by self-aware human beings is a basic goal of education. The current attempt to impose integration using themes is criticized on the grounds that the required underpinning in cognitive skills and content knowledge by teachers and students may be absent. Teaching strategies that employ visual-spatial thinking are reviewed. Master images are recommended as a novel point of departure for a systematic development of programs on visual-spatial thinking in research, teacher education, curriculum, and classroom practice.
© 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 83:3–54, 1999.
Note: I don’t use “invention” lightly here. Every disease “as a disease” requires invention. There may be a group of people who display symptoms that are novel or previously unnoticed or unrecorded. The circumstance must come to someone’s attention, be deemed worthy of study, and systematically investigated: the disease, disorder or condition must meet criteria set by “the institution” that has named itself as “keeper of the standards” or meet those set by whatever agency or institution decides “official” status. This process is one of social invention.
We must never forget that Asperger’s the “disorder” is not the person, it is the result of a template that is laid over the person’s behavior, which selectively screens for “symptoms” as PATHOLOGIES. It is an EXTERNAL view of the individual by a psych / Psych who has preconceived biases about human behavior. There is nothing in these “lists” that asks the person being evaluated about their experiences, which is mind-bogglingly irresponsible. Human beings are not objects. Thus, within the invention of Asperger’s (?) there is a fatal flaw.
If you often have experiences like this, you’re probably Asperger.
Epidemiology of Asperger Syndrome: A Total Population Study
© Cambridge University Press, 1993 This article was originally published in The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 1327-1350, November 1993.
Abstract: This paper describes a total population study of Asperger syndrome using a two-stage procedure. All school children in an outer G–teborg borough were screened. Final case selection based on clinical work-up showed a minimum prevalence of 3.6 per 1,000 children (7-16 years of age) using Gillberg and Gillberg’s criteria and a male to female ratio of 4:1. Including suspected and possible Asperger’s syndrome cases, the prevalence rose to 7.1 per 1,000 children and the male:female ratio dropped to 2.3:1. (This demonstrates that the vague and imprecise criteria radically affects data and diagnosis. Whether or not one is diagnosed depends on your doctor, psychologist or school counselor having a subjective interpretation of what is “abnormal” “emotionally acceptable” or “peculiar.”
These findings are discussed as they relate to previously published results in the field and to findings obtained using Szatmari et al.’s and ICD-10 draft criteria for the disorder.
Introduction Since Lorna Wing’s vivid clinical account of “Asperger’s syndrome” appeared in 1981 (Wing, 1981), about 50 articles have been published on the subject. However, the epidemiology of Asperger syndrome (AS) has never been specifically studied.
Considering that the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) (World Health Organization, 1992) includes “Asperger’s syndrome” as a subcategory of Pervasive Developmental Disorders, obtaining reliable prevalence estimates becomes mandatory.
A review of indirect data from neighboring fields revealed that a minimum prevalence in children who attend normal schools would be 2.6 per 1,000 children, i.e. several times higher than that reported for autism (Gillberg & Gillberg, 1989). The rate among mentally retarded children appears to be similar (Gillberg, Persson, Grufman & Themnr, 1986). Still, given the relatively low prevalence of mental retardation, AS cases recruited from this subpopulation add little to the total population prevalence. The available data originate from surveys not particularly geared to examining AS prevalence. The object of the present study was to provide reliable epidemiological data on AS.
Defining AS (Here we get a glimpse of a disorder being invented.)
The definition of a “case” presents difficulties in all prevalence studies on childhood psychiatric disorders (Schwartz Gould, Wunsch-Hitzig & Dohrenwend, 1981), and AS is no exception. The main reason for this is that we lack a true “gold standard” (Szatmari, 1989). Furthermore, there is no universal agreement on diagnostic characteristics (Szatmari, 1991). Asperger’s own descriptions are penetrating but not sufficiently systematic (Asperger, 1944). His frame of reference was Bleuler’s typology (i.e. “autistic psychopathy”) that is out of keeping with current diagnostic manuals. Wing, in her pioneer paper, did not explicitly spell out which symptoms had to be present for a diagnosis to be made, though more specified characteristics are presented in a recently published paper (Wing, 1991).
Other authors, such as Gillberg and Gillberg (1989), and Szatmari, Brenner and Nagy (1989) from Asperger’s and Wing’s work, clinical experience and comparative studies, have proposed operationalized diagnostic criteria. In several other publications (Bosch, 1970; Van Krevelen, 1971; Wolff & Barlow, 1979; Wolff & Chick, 1980; Nagy & Szatmari, 1986; Kerbeshian & Burd, 1986; Rutter & Schopler, 1987; Kay & Kolvin, 1987; Bowman, 1988; Frith, 1989; Tantam, 1988a, b, 1991; Goodman, 1989; Bishop, 1989; Baron-Cohen, 1988; Kerbeshian, Burd & Fisher, 1990; Green, 1990; Howlin, 1991; Cox, 1991; Wolff, 1991a, b; Wolff, Townsend, McGuire & Weeks, 1991; Gillberg, 1992) the delineation of the syndrome vis-ý-vis autism, schizoid personality and schizotypal personality disorder, Tourette syndrome, semantic-pragmatic language disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder has been discussed. The criteria of the Gillbergs (1989, 1991) and Szatmari et al. (1989) have been elaborated with the purpose of making them compatible with current diagnostic manuals. The proposals of these two groups have much in common, but differ in that the Gillbergs underline the children’s obsessional and narrow pattern of interest and Szatmari et al. highlight their social isolation. In short, Szatmari et al.’s criteria appear to be slightly more in line with “the passive” and the Gillbergs’ criteria with “the active but odd” in Wing’s typology of autism spectrum disorders (Wing & Gould, 1979; Wing & Attwood, 1987).
The ICD-10 draft criteria for AS (WHO, 1990) are similar to those of the Gillbergs, but with one important exception. In the ICD-10 “the term Asperger’s syndrome proposes that there is a group of individuals who have a disorder of social development similar to that found in infantile autism, but with a pattern of early language development that appears grossly normal” (Cox, 1991). Accordingly, criteria of abnormalities in verbal communication are not included. However, by not including operationalised criteria of abnormalities, such as odd prosody and semantic-pragmatic problems, the ICD-10 criteria exclude features that other authors in the field find important and characteristic of AS (Asperger, 1944; Wing, 1981, 1991). Current diagnostic criteria for AS are outlined in Tables 1-3.
In the present study we applied the diagnostic criteria for AS outlined by Gillberg and Gillberg (1989) and elaborated in Gillberg (1991), since, at the time of embarking on the study, these were the only published criteria available to us. Also, we report the result of applying Szatmari et al.’s (1989) and the ICD-10 (WHO, 1990) diagnostic criteria for the disorder.
Table 1. Asperger syndrome: Gillberg and Gillberg’s (1989) diagnostic criteria elaborated
I have highlighted those behaviors which cannot be interpreted objectively, because the child’s reasons for the behavior and his or her subjective experience is ignored. The observer views the behavior as “abnormal” before making any attempt to understand the behavior. Quite a number of the “symptoms” are utterly subjective – One is reminded of Christian missionaries who use their own prejudices to “condemn” “native” behavior because they possess no understanding of the context and content of that behavior, but merely judge it as “evil.” Also, many of the symptoms are internally contradictory.
Hang in there; he’s a good guy.