- Squeaky pen at beginning.
- The frantic hand jumping all over the screen writing down EVERY WORD Pinker says.
- The content.
The good thing about it is, it demonstrates everything about neurotypical “communication” that drives Asperger types to DESPAIR!
The good thing about it is, it demonstrates everything about neurotypical “communication” that drives Asperger types to DESPAIR!
“Prehistoric Central European women’s manual labor was tougher than rowing in today’s boat crews.” Typical title of articles all over the Internet, which are promoting this “ground-breaking” research.
Like, no one has ever been “aware” of the amount of LABOR that women (as de facto slaves) have contributed to the survival of Homo sapiens, the idiot male???
Happy Russian peasant, 1955; Scottish women “lounging about” on the farm; female child laborers, United States; female Mexican farmhands, United States; women farm workers, India today; “team” of female humans, pulling a plow in Saskatchewan, Canada.
The photos touch me deeply (visually) – I can’t respond verbally, as yet.
Bark Masks and Bodypainting of the Yamana (or Yaghan) and the Selk’nam (or Ona) of Tierra Del Fuego
Note the story of women using “spirit” incarnations to “control” men, and the violent male response, when they finally “get it”.
Snipped for length.
The origins of Europeans have come into sharp focus in the past year as researchers have sequenced the genomes of ancient populations, rather than only a few individuals. By comparing key parts of the DNA across the genomes of 83 ancient individuals from archaeological sites throughout Europe. An international team of researchers reported earlier this year that Europeans today are a mix of the blending of at least three ancient populations of hunter-gatherers and farmers who moved into Europe in separate migrations over the past 8000 years. The study revealed that a massive migration of Yamnaya herders from the steppes north of the Black Sea may have brought Indo-European languages to Europe about 4500 years ago.
Now, a new study from the same team drills down further into that remarkable data to search for genes that were under strong natural selection—including traits so favorable that they spread rapidly throughout Europe in the past 8000 years. By comparing the ancient European genomes with those of recent ones from the 1000 Genomes Project, population geneticist Iain Mathieson, a postdoc in the Harvard University lab of population geneticist David Reich, found five genes associated with changes in diet and skin pigmentation that underwent strong natural selection.
First, the scientists confirmed an earlier report that the hunter-gatherers in Europe could not digest the sugars in milk 8000 years ago. They also noted an interesting twist: The first farmers also couldn’t digest milk. The farmers who came from the Near East about 7800 years ago, and the Yamnaya pastoralists who came from the steppes 4800 years ago, lacked the version of the LCT gene that allows adults to digest sugars in milk. It wasn’t until about 4300 years ago that lactose tolerance swept through Europe.
When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.
But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.
When the first farmers from the Near East arrived in Europe (7,800 ya) they carried both genes for light skin. (Did they have light skin?) As they interbred with the indigenous hunter-gatherers, one of their light-skin genes swept through Europe, so that central and southern Europeans also began to have lighter skin. The other gene variant, SLC45A2, was at low levels until about 5800 years ago when it swept up to high frequency.
The team also tracked complex traits, such as height, which are the result of the interaction of many genes. They found that selection strongly favored several gene variants for tallness in northern and central Europeans, starting 8000 years ago, with a boost coming from the Yamnaya migration, starting 4800 years ago. The Yamnaya have the greatest genetic potential for being tall of any of the populations, which is consistent with measurements of their ancient skeletons. In contrast, selection favored shorter people in Italy and Spain starting 8000 years ago, according to the paper now posted on the bioRxiv preprint server. Spaniards, in particular, shrank in stature 6000 years ago, perhaps as a result of adapting to colder temperatures and a poor diet.
The paper doesn’t specify why these genes might have been under such strong selection. But the likely explanation for the pigmentation genes is to maximize vitamin D synthesis, said paleoanthropologist Nina Jablonski of Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), University Park, as she looked at the poster’s results at the meeting. People living in northern latitudes often don’t get enough UV to synthesize vitamin D in their skin so natural selection has favored two genetic solutions to that problem—evolving pale skin that absorbs UV more efficiently or favoring lactose tolerance to be able to digest the sugars and vitamin D naturally found in milk. (Not mentioned: people who eat high vitamin D seafood, fish and seals /walrus / whales don’t need other sources) “What we thought was a fairly simple picture of the emergence of depigmented skin in Europe is an exciting patchwork of selection as populations disperse into northern latitudes,” Jablonski says. “This data is fun because it shows how much recent evolution has taken place.”
Anthropological geneticist George Perry, also of Penn State, notes that the work reveals how an individual’s genetic potential is shaped by their diet and adaptation to their habitat. “We’re getting a much more detailed picture now of how selection works.”
From Huffington Post Aye, yai, yai!
Complaint: Dear Parent Partner,
Whenever my 3-1/2-year-old son gets frustrated, he takes it out on me by saying, “Stupid mom.” I am heartbroken and angry, feeling like my son completely disrespects me. I put my career on hold to stay home with him, and it takes such patience to take care of him and his sister all day, but I do it with love and care. And this is what I get for all my dedication? What is the best way to handle this? (Love and care? Are you kidding? Resentment over ‘disrespect’ – from a 3 1/2 y.o.- and a litany of “sacrifices”? Sounds like ‘thug’ mentality!)
Response: Dear Brigitte,
I fully empathize with your feelings of sorrow and anger. But please be assured that, though this is an awful experience, it’s far from an uncommon one.
When your child says those words, it can feel like the ultimate betrayal. You might feel like howling: “look at all I’ve done for you!” You gave up your career — something that presumably offered you stimulation, satisfaction and a paycheck. You traded all this for long and demanding days in a 3-year-old world. You cook the meals, launder the clothes, read books, buy toys, research preschools, play with trucks and wash the dishes. The high point of your day might be sneaking into the bathroom and jumping on Facebook. It. is. so. hard! (OMG! Really? Who is the child in this situation?)
So, to be called stupid by the person who inspired all these sacrifices can feel soul-crushing. (The child is not a “person” but an incomplete 3 1/2 y.o. fetus developing outside the mother’s body, due to extreme premature human birth. This child is not an adult – and neither are these two women!)
I know this feeling well. Your 3-year old sounds like a very spirited child, more pioneer than pleaser. If he’s like my own son at 3, he has the most pressing needs and intense desires with little to no awareness that other people (like you) have desires of their own. (What a narcissist! Children depend on their parents; they are born helpless!) When my son was 3, every day was a struggle, because no matter what I did, it seemed he wanted the opposite. He fought every guideline I put in place, no matter how thoroughly I explained it or how many choices he was offered otherwise. (Psychology: children ought to be “trainable” just like lab rats. Where’s that cage, electrical stimulator, edible reward and study data?)
One day we were on the playground after preschool, where I had agreed to let him play with his friends. After a good hour of chasing and climbing and rock-hunting, after everyone else had left, after I’d issued the five-minute and two-minute warnings, I told him it was really, truly time to go.
And that’s when I heard it. “Stupid Mom!”
I had no idea what to do with my rage at that moment. (Rage? Really? What is wrong with this woman?) I didn’t want to unleash it on him, but I also didn’t want to let him get away with that kind of disrespect. I didn’t know the right response and so as the kids got into the car, I didn’t say anything at all. I just buckled them in and began driving home, processing my anger and resentment on the way.
Kids feel our energy, so pretty soon, the silence got to Eli. He asked, “What are we having for dinner?” in an upbeat, nothing-ever-happened kind of voice.
“I’m not sure,” I answered. My tone wascontinued all the way to our house: His upbeat questions, my brief and distant responses.
We arrived home and I set about getting dinner ready. I was still hurt, still unsure of how to handle the situation, still noticeably short on small talk. Soon, Eli came into the kitchen.
“Are you OK, Mommy?” (The child must parent the infantile parent)
“Not really,” I told him. He went upstairs and I continued making dinner. Soon, I heard him crying in his room. I went upstairs and asked what was wrong.
“I feel baaaaaad!” he wailed.
“Why do you feel bad?” I asked.
“Because I said something meeeeean!”
Knowing that he felt remorse melted my resentment and cleared the way for empathy. (Empathy as a “tool” for domination?) I held him and stroked his hair, telling him that I know how it feels to make a mistake. I explained how important it is to show respect to each other and let him know that I forgave him. He asked if we could cuddle, and I could see that I was no longer “stupid mom” — I was the mom he could turn to for both guidance and comfort. (Yeah! The mom he can expect to “jerked him around” emotionally; to manipulate him using “mental cruelty” psychology. How “warm”; how motherly!)
What had I stumbled onto that afternoon? The power of authenticity. My response was not to dispense punishment or engage in a power struggle, but simply to tune into my own feelings and honor them. I hadn’t forced him to apologize, and because I hadn’t made him feign an emotion he didn’t yet feel, I allowed him to experience the impact of his words upon someone he loves. (OMG! I am going to puke! What rationalization for narcissistic behavior!)
So often we feel the need to modify our children’s behavior, and we try to apply a stock response. But when we allow our real feelings to move through us before jumping into action or reaction, we give ourselves — and our children — the space to be guided by our true and better instincts.
Brigitte, you do not deserve to be called stupid, and your feeling that this is utterly wrong is utterly right. If this were any other relationship — a friend or relative telling you you’re stupid — how would you respond? (This is a 3 1/2 y.o.) It is time to set a real boundary around this. When your son says, “Stupid mom,” you say “Not Ok,” and take him to his room. Don’t force an apology, but allow your own emotions and give yourself the gift of time away from him, until you can let the anger move through you and return to your center. Honor yourself by owning all the ways that you’re a great mom.
Sooner or later, he’ll ask, “Can I come out?” He will feel the distance his own behavior has created and want to reconnect with you. But be true to your own emotions. Do you need a little more time? Then be authentic. “Not yet, Sam. I’m not quite ready.” Wait until you are truly ready, after you’ve tapped into your sense of worth, self-regard and adult perspective. When he asks again, you will be able to respond from that place. You’ll say something like, “Are you ready to treat me with courtesy?” You’ll hear a resounding “yes,” and it will be genuine.
No lectures, no rehashing. The boundary will teach him. He will see what self-respect looks like. He’ll realize that you have a limit, and pushing past it will cost him. Every good relationship has such a line, and it’s time for him to learn this. Please know that at 3, your son is at the nadir of his ability to empathize, but this will improve sometime after his fourth birthday.
There’s nothing wrong with you or your child. This is simply the time to demonstrate that healthy relationships stem from self-respect and clear boundaries. The sooner you do, the sooner he will respect you, which is ultimately what kids want the most.
In warm support,
Sheila, The Parent Parent
The rest of the 50 terms can be read here: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01100/full/
“The goal of this article is to promote clear thinking and clear writing among students and teachers of psychological science by curbing terminological misinformation and confusion. To this end, we present a provisional list of 50 commonly used terms in psychology, psychiatry, and allied fields that should be avoided, or at most used sparingly and with explicit caveats. We provide corrective information for students, instructors, and researchers regarding these terms, which we organize for expository purposes into five categories: inaccurate or misleading terms, frequently misused terms, ambiguous terms, oxymorons, and pleonasms. For each term, we (a) explain why it is problematic, (b) delineate one or more examples of its misuse, and (c) when pertinent, offer recommendations for preferable terms. By being more judicious in their use of terminology, psychologists and psychiatrists can foster clearer thinking in their students and the field at large regarding mental phenomena.”
“If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.” (Confucius, The Analects)
(3) Autism epidemic. Enormous effort has been expended to uncover the sources of the “autism epidemic” (e.g., King, 2011), the supposed massive increase in the incidence and prevalence of autism, now termed autism spectrum disorder, over the past 25 years. The causal factors posited to be implicated in this “epidemic” have included vaccines, television viewing, dietary allergies, antibiotics, and viruses.
Nevertheless, there is meager evidence that this purported epidemic reflects a genuine increase in the rates of autism per se as opposed to an increase in autism diagnoses stemming from several biases and artifacts, including heightened societal awareness of the features of autism (“detection bias”), growing incentives for school districts to report autism diagnoses, and a lowering of the diagnostic thresholds for autism across successive editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Gernsbacher et al., 2005; Lilienfeld and Arkowitz, 2007). Indeed, data indicate when the diagnostic criteria for autism were held constant, the rates of this disorder remained essentially constant between 1990 and 2010 (Baxter et al., 2015). If the rates of autism are increasing, the increase would appear to be slight at best, hardly justifying the widespread claim of an “epidemic.”
(4) Brain region X lights up. Many authors in the popular and academic literatures use such phrases as “brain area X lit up following manipulation Y” (e.g., Morin, 2011). This phrase is unfortunate for several reasons. First, the bright red and orange colors seen on functional brain imaging scans are superimposed by researchers to reflect regions of higher brain activation.
Nevertheless, they may engender a perception of “illumination” in viewers. Second, the activations represented by these colors do not reflect neural activity per se; they reflect oxygen uptake by neurons and are at best indirect proxies of brain activity. Even then, this linkage may sometimes be unclear or perhaps absent (Ekstrom, 2010). Third, in almost all cases, the activations observed on brain scans are the products of subtraction of one experimental condition from another. Hence, they typically do not reflect the raw levels of neural activation in response to an experimental manipulation. For this reason, referring to a brain region that displays little or no activation in response to an experimental manipulation as a “dead zone” (e.g., Lamont, 2008) is similarly misleading. Fourth, depending on the neurotransmitters released and the brain areas in which they are released, the regions that are “activated” in a brain scan may actually be being inhibited rather than excited (Satel and Lilienfeld, 2013). Hence, from a functional perspective, these areas may be being “lit down” rather than “lit up.”
(7) Chemical imbalance. Thanks in part to the success of direct-to-consumer marketing campaigns by drug companies, the notion that major depression and allied disorders are caused by a “chemical imbalance” of neurotransmitters, such as serotonin and norepinephrine, has become a virtual truism in the eyes of the public (France et al., 2007; Deacon and Baird, 2009). This phrase even crops up in some academic sources; for example, one author wrote that one overarching framework for conceptualizing mental illness is a “biophysical model that posits a chemical imbalance” (Wheeler, 2011, p. 151). Nevertheless, the evidence for the chemical imbalance model is at best slim (Lacasse and Leo, 2005; Leo and Lacasse, 2008). One prominent psychiatrist even dubbed it an urban legend (Pies, 2011). There is no known “optimal” level of neurotransmitters in the brain, so it is unclear what would constitute an “imbalance.” Nor is there evidence for an optimal ratio among different neurotransmitter levels. Moreover, although serotonin reuptake inhibitors, such as fluoxetine (Prozac) and sertraline (Zoloft), appear to alleviate the symptoms of severe depression, there is evidence that at least one serotonin reuptake enhancer, namely tianepine (Stablon), is also efficacious for depression (Akiki, 2014). The fact that two efficacious classes of medications exert opposing effects on serotonin levels raises questions concerning a simplistic chemical imbalance model.
(23) Psychiatric control group. NOT a true control group! This phrase and similar phrases (e.g., “normal control group,” “psychopathological control group”) connote erroneously that (a) groups of ostensibly normal individuals or mixed psychiatric patients who are being compared with (b) groups of individuals with a disorder of interest (e.g., schizophrenia, major depression) are true “control” groups. They are not. They are “comparison groups” and should be referred to accordingly. The phrase “control group” in this context may leave readers with the unwarranted impression that the design of the study is experimental when it is actually quasi-experimental. Just as important, this term may imply that the only difference between the two groups (e.g., a group of patients with anxiety disorder and a group of ostensibly normal individuals) is the presence or absence of the disorder of interest. In fact, these two groups almost surely differ on any number of “nuisance” variables, such as personality traits, co-occurring disorders, and family background, rendering the interpretation of most group differences open to multiple interpretations (Meehl, 1969).
Alternative history of the so-called “Fermi Paradox” in Scientific American Blogs: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-fermi-paradox-is-not-fermi-s-and-it-is-not-a-paradox/
A video-graphic treatment of the “problem of alien life” as set forth by the Pop-Sci version of the Fermi Paradox. I hate this type “billions and billions” cliché presentation of “life in the universe” that ends up right back at the original question: Are there (other) intelligences in the universe, and if yes, then why aren’t they visiting us? A bit narcissistic, no?
As far as I can see (LOL) ALL our conceptions of life and the universe at this stage in our perceptions and machinations are “cartoons” – classic avoidance schemes that are actually all about our inability to solve problems (created by us) right here on Earth. It’s about OUR incompetence: there must be “someone” out there (parental figures) who can “fix” this mess, pat us on our heads with their gecko-like gray fingers, as if we’re good little kids, and then “zoom off”, leaving us with instructions for the next part of our “journey” into immortality!
This truly is one of those questions that can only be answered by fact: We’ll know -when, and if, they arrive, or we are foolish / smart enough to send the type of message that gets a response.
One clue as to whether or not Homo sapiens will succeed proactively in locating “intelligence “out there” in the incomprehensibly “big” universe, is the massive failure to recognize intelligent life right here on planet Earth. Like the Conquistadors who burned thousands of codices of the Aztecs and Mayans, or Christians who purposefully destroyed the intellectual heritage of Greece and Rome, if we could get our grubby little hands on alien life and technology, we would turn it into marketable pink and purple plastic crap from “Planet X” and domesticate their lessor “lime green and orange slime” life as novelty pets. And you can bet from our sordid history, we would set about destroying any and all life that we encounter.
My reaction to Oswald Spengler is that he was possibly Asperger, and certainly a non-typical thinker. His PhD thesis was rejected for lack of references – he may have been unable to conform to formal academic standards. His insights about modern culture, and where it was headed, were prophetic; his thinking was not bound by linear processes but had that “big picture, interconnected pattern” quality familiar to Aspergers like me. Contrary to limitations in the socially modern imagination, some of my nurturers (mothers) are individuals such as Spengler.
________________________________________________________ Author profile: