Fake “Nature” documentaries defended as better than “Reality”

How Nature Documentaries are Fake: A Filmmaker’s Perspective

Simon Cade is an English Filmmaker and Director who owns and runs the YouTube Channel, DSLRguide in which he teaches both aspiring and weathered Filmmakers the art of making movies. Cade is 19 years old, a “director” and teaches filmmaking. Jeez! His casual attitude about “reality” reveals a common, neotenic inability to distinguish “lies” from scientifically established facts, which is A-OK in the modern social “value” system.

The Elites Complain about the Inequality they Create!

The New York Times The Great Divide / a series about inequality

Equal Opportunity, Our National Myth

February 16, 2013

By: Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, a professor at Columbia and a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and chief economist for the World Bank, is the author of “The Price of Inequality.”

Here goes the Blah, Blah, Blah!

President Obama’s second Inaugural Address used soaring language to reaffirm America’s commitment to the dream of equality of opportunity: “We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American; she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.” (WOW! I agree. What a whopper of a lie!)

The gap between aspiration and reality could hardly be wider. Today, the United States has less equality of opportunity than almost any other advanced industrial country. Study after study has exposed the myth that America is a land of opportunity. This is especially tragic: While Americans may differ on the desirability of equality of outcomes, there is near-universal consensus that inequality of opportunity is indefensible. The Pew Research Center has found that some 90 percent of Americans believe that the government should do everything it can to ensure equality of opportunity.

Perhaps a hundred years ago, America might have rightly claimed to have been the land of opportunity, or at least a land where there was more opportunity than elsewhere. (We must remember how inhuman and devastating conditions were for poor people in Europe and other parts of the world, which caused mass emmigration to occur) But not for at least a quarter of a century. Horatio Alger-style rags-to-riches stories were not a deliberate hoax, but given how they’ve lulled us into a sense of complacency, they might as well have been.

It’s not that social mobility is impossible, but that the upwardly mobile American is becoming a statistical oddity. According to research from the Brookings Institution, only 58 percent of Americans born into the bottom fifth of income earners move out of that category, and just 6 percent born into the bottom fifth move into the top. Economic mobility in the United States is lower than in most of Europe and lower than in all of Scandinavia.

Another way of looking at equality of opportunity is to ask to what extent the life chances of a child are dependent on the education and income of his parents. Is it just as likely that a child of poor or poorly educated parents gets a good education and rises to the middle class as someone born to middle-class parents with college degrees? Even in a more egalitarian society, the answer would be no. But the life prospects of an American are more dependent on the income and education of his parents than in almost any other advanced country for which there is data.

How do we explain this? Some of it has to do with persistent discrimination. Latinos and African-Americans still get paid less than whites, and women still get paid less than men, even though they recently surpassed men in the number of advanced degrees they obtain. Though gender disparities in the workplace are less than they once were, there is still a glass ceiling: women are sorely underrepresented in top corporate positions and constitute a minuscule fraction of C.E.O.’s.

Discrimination, however, is only a small part of the picture. Probably the most important reason for lack of equality of opportunity is education: both its quantity and quality. After World War II, Europe made a major effort to democratize its education systems. We did, too, with the G.I. Bill, which extended higher education to Americans across the economic spectrum.

But then we changed, in several ways. While racial segregation decreased, economic segregation increased. After 1980, the poor grew poorer, the middle stagnated, and the top did better and better. Disparities widened between those living in poor localities and those living in rich suburbs — or rich enough to send their kids to private schools. A result was a widening gap in educational performance — the achievement gap between rich and poor kids born in 2001 was 30 to 40 percent larger than it was for those born 25 years earlier, the Stanford sociologist Sean F. Reardon found.

Of course, there are other forces at play, some of which start even before birth. Children in affluent families get more exposure to reading and less exposure to environmental hazards. Their families can afford enriching experiences like music lessons and summer camp. They get better nutrition and health care, which enhance their learning, directly and indirectly.

Unless current trends in education are reversed, the situation is likely to get even worse. In some cases it seems as if policy has actually been designed to reduce opportunity: government support for many state schools has been steadily gutted over the last few decades — and especially in the last few years. Meanwhile, students are crushed by giant student loan debts that are almost impossible to discharge, even in bankruptcy. This is happening at the same time that a college education is more important than ever for getting a good job. (Isn’t it massively insulting for one of the ELITES to point out what “they” did to “us” as if it “just happened” somehow? )

Young people from families of modest means face a Catch-22: without a college education, they are condemned to a life of poor prospects; with a college education, they may be condemned to a lifetime of living at the brink. And increasingly even a college degree isn’t enough; one needs either a graduate degree or a series of (often unpaid) internships. Those at the top have the connections and social capital to get those opportunities. Those in the middle and bottom don’t. The point is that no one makes it on his or her own. And those at the top get more help from their families than do those lower down on the ladder. Government should help to level the playing field. (Wow! Since “the government” IS THE ELITES, why would they do something totally against their own supremacy?)

Americans are coming to realize that their cherished narrative of social and economic mobility is a myth. Grand deceptions of this magnitude are hard to maintain for long — and the country has already been through a couple of decades of self-deception. (To the contrary: self-deception and deception are social typical high accomplishments!)

Without substantial policy changes, (which will never occur) our self-image, and the image we project to the world, will diminish — and so will our economic standing and stability. Inequality of outcomes and inequality of opportunity reinforce each other — and contribute to economic weakness, as Alan B. Krueger, a Princeton economist and the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, has emphasized. We have an economic, and not only moral, interest in saving the American dream.

Policies that promote equality of opportunity must target the youngest Americans. First, we have to make sure that mothers are not exposed to environmental hazards and get adequate prenatal health care. Then, we have to reverse the damaging cutbacks to preschool education, a theme Mr. Obama emphasized on Tuesday. We have to make sure that all children have adequate nutrition and health care — not only do we have to provide the resources, but if necessary, we have to incentivize parents, by coaching or training them or even rewarding them for being good caregivers. The right says that money isn’t the solution. They’ve chased reforms like charter schools and private-school vouchers, but most of these efforts have shown ambiguous results at best. Giving more money to poor schools would help. So would summer and extracurricular programs that enrich low-income students’ skills.

Finally, it is unconscionable that a rich country like the United States has made access to higher education so difficult for those at the bottom and middle. (Actually, predatory student loans have made it EASY for students to “go to college” but not to get a valuable education; most degrees at this point are “remedial” high school diplomas. Too few students complete degrees, but leave with enormous debt, and no  job skills.) There are many alternative ways of providing universal access to higher education, from Australia’s income-contingent loan program to the near-free system of universities in Europe. A more educated population yields greater innovation, a robust economy and higher incomes — which mean a higher tax base. Those benefits are, of course, why we’ve long been committed to free public education through 12th grade. But while a 12th-grade education might have sufficed a century ago, it doesn’t today. Yet we haven’t adjusted our system to contemporary realities. (The “contemporary reality” is traditional reality: profit and greed are important; human well-being is not.)

The steps I’ve outlined are not just affordable but imperative. Even more important, though, is that we cannot afford to let our country drift farther from ideals that the vast majority of Americans share. We will never fully succeed in achieving Mr. Obama’s vision of a poor girl’s having exactly the same opportunities as a wealthy girl. But we could do much, much better, and must not rest until we do.

Blah, Blah, Blah

Stereotypic repetitive behaviors: Stimming / Environmental Causes

Why do psychologists ignore the facts? We are animals! What are Autistic (and typical) children trying to tell us about modern environments? That these environments are  STRESSFUL for children; humans evolved in stimulating NATURAL environments, not in restrictive, violent, emotionally barren and anxiety-driven social prisons.

If an animal is prevented from performing its “natural behaviors” it will invent abnormal compulsive behaviors to stimulate itself. Modern environments are ABNORMAL.

Chimps / Similar Personality Traits to Humans


Also from Yerkes National Primate Research Center: Chimps’ Gestures Explain how Human Languages Appeared

Weasel words in green. My comments.

Chimpanzees Show Similar Personality Traits to Humans

May 6, 2014 / Georgia State University
Chimpanzees have almost the same personality traits as humans, and they are structured almost identically, according to new work led by researchers at Georgia State University.

The research also shows some of those traits have a neurobiological basis, and that those traits vary according to the biological sex of the individual chimpanzee.

“Our work also demonstrates the promise of using chimpanzee models to investigate the neurobiology of personality processes,” said Assistant Professor Robert Latzman of Psychology, who led the research team. “We know that these processes are associated with a variety of emotional health outcomes. We’re excited to continue investigating these links.”

The team, which also included Professor William Hopkins of Neuroscience, started with a common tool for analyzing chimp personalities called the Chimpanzee Personality Questionnaire.

The questionnaire is filled out by the chimpanzees’ caregivers, (just like Autism questionnaires) who rate individual chimps in 43 categories based on their observation of the animals’ daily behavior. Is the chimp excitable? Impulsive? Playful? Timid? Dominant? (Note that these are human emotion-behavior words – the assumption being that chimps are “just like us” – which is what the psychologists are trying to prove / another “conclusion as hypothesis” error. Also, these “emotions” are highly subjective depending on the human caretaker’s relation to the chimp and degree of anthropomorphic bias. Again! – just like bias in Autism questionnaires. THESE ARE NOT WILD CHIMPS, but thoroughly contaminated-by-humans LABORATORY ANIMALS.

When you think about it, maybe research on enslaved, depressed and zoochotic chimps does produce great models for social typical human personalities and behaviors.

The researchers analyzed complete questionnaires for 174 chimpanzees housed at the Yerkes National Primate Center at Emory University. They ran extensive individual analyses to find out which traits tend to go together, and which combine to make more basic, fundamental “meta-traits.”

The analysis showed that the most fundamental personality trait for chimpanzees is dominance — that is, whether an animal is a generally dominant and under controlled “Alpha,” or a more playful and sociable “Beta.”

But those two big categories can be broken down statistically into smaller personality traits in ways that echo the personality structures researchers have repeatedly found in child and adult human subjects. (Well, duh! If you use a system of human personality traits to evaluate chimps, you are going to get “human” personality traits in chimps. Same goes for dogs… Is the dog excitable? Impulsive? Playful? Timid? Dominant? )

Alpha personalities, for example, statistically break down into tendencies toward dominance and disinhibition. Beta personalities, on the other hand, show low dominance and positive emotionality. (Alpha-Beta are BORROWED from Wolf Pack hierarchy; jargon now transferred to any and all “social” species – really not kosher)

Further analysis shows these lower order traits also can be statistically broken down into their constituent parts. (Which came first? “Analysis – guess” that 5 factors “exist” or are the 5 factors the result of statistical manipulation that “reveals” 5 factors?) The research team identified five personality factors that combine differently in each individual chimpanzee: conscientiousness, dominance, extraversion, agreeableness and intellect. This echoes a well-known five-factor model of the human personality, although the specific factors are slightly different. (Wow! How unconvincing this leap is!)

Now, for the neurobiology: many of those chimpanzee traits statistically correlate with the function of a neuropeptide called vasopressin. (The “love” hormone in monogamous prairie voles) Chimps who were born with a common variant in the genes that control vasopressin behaved differently than their peers, the males showing more dominance and more disinhibition, but the females less of both.

This research shows not only a neurobiological basis for personality, but an evolutionary basis as well. (Sweeping generalization of the type so common in psychology: claim that your flimsy subjective pre-conclusion is “valid” by tacking on “neuro” and “evolution” – so it ‘sounds’ like Science. In fact, it would be impossible for personality TO NOT BE neurobiological, since personality arises in the physical organism: it’s not a “supernatural thing” stuffed into the brain body by imaginary entities – space aliens or elves, or Jesus. – but maybe, since this is Georgia…LOL) The neurobiological bases of personality can vary according to the biological sex of the subject, at least in chimpanzees. Chimpanzee personality appears to have almost the same ingredients as human personalities, and that similarity seems to arise from the species’ similar neurobiology. (Humans and most species equipped with nervous systems have ‘similar’ neurobiology.)

“These results are particularly significant in light of the striking parallels between the major dimensions of personality found between chimpanzees and humans,” said Sam Gosling, professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin and an internationally known researcher in cross-species personality research.

“Personality in Chimpanzees (Pan Troglodytes): Exploring the Hierarchical Structure and Associations with the Vasopressin V1A Receptor Gene,” appeared in the April 21 issue of the journal PLOS ONE.

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Center for Research Resources.


 

Mormon War on Native Americans / Documentary

How the Bat-Crap-Crazy (Neurotypical) Mormons tell it:

L-I-E-S

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Native_Americans

Native Americans

See this page in the original 1992 publication. Authors: Garrow, Thomas; Chadwick, Bruce A.

LDS BELIEFS. The Book of Mormon, published in 1830, addresses a major message to Native Americans. Its title page states that one reason it was written was so that Native Americans today might know “what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers.”

The Book of Mormon tells that a small band of Israelites under Lehi migrated from Jerusalem to the Western Hemisphere about 600 B.C. Upon Lehi’s death his family divided into two opposing factions, one under Lehi’s oldest son, Laman (see Lamanites), and the other under a younger son, Nephi 1 (see Nephites).

During the thousand-year history narrated in the Book of Mormon, Lehi’s descendants went through several phases of splitting, warring, accommodating, merging, and splitting again. At first, just as God had prohibited the Israelites from intermarrying with the Canaanites in the ancient Promised Land (Ex. 34:16; Deut. 7:3), the Nephites were forbidden to marry the Lamanites with their dark skin (2 Ne. 5:23; Alma 3:8-9). But as large Lamanite populations accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ and were numbered among the Nephites in the first century B.C., skin color ceased to be a distinguishing characteristic. After the visitations of the resurrected Christ, there were no distinctions among any kind of “ites” for some two hundred years. But then unbelievers arose and called themselves Lamanites to distinguish themselves from the Nephites or believers (4 Ne. 1:20).

The concluding chapters of the Book of Mormon describe a calamitous war. About A.D. 231, old enmities reemerged and two hostile populations formed (4 Ne. 1:35-39), eventually resulting in the annihilation of the Nephites. The Lamanites, from whom many present-day Native Americans descend, remained to inhabit the American continent. Peoples of other extractions also migrated there.

The Book of Mormon contains many promises and prophecies about the future directed to these survivors. For example, Lehi’s grandson Enos prayed earnestly to God on behalf of his kinsmen, the Lamanites. He was promised by the Lord that Nephite records would be kept so that they could be “brought forth at some future day unto the Lamanites, that, perhaps, they might be brought unto salvation” (Enos 1:13).

The role of Native Americans in the events of the last days is noted by several Book of Mormon prophets. Nephi 1 prophesied that in the last days the Lamanites would accept the gospel and become a “pure and delightsome people” (2 Ne. 30:6). Likewise, it was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that the Lamanites will at some future time “blossom as the rose” (D&C 49:24).

After Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem, he appeared to the more righteous Lamanites and Nephites left after massive destruction and prophesied that their seed eventually “shall dwindle in unbelief because of iniquity” (3 Ne. 21:5). He also stated that if any people “will repent and hearken unto my words, and harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them, and they shall come in unto the covenant and be numbered among this the remnant of Jacob [the descendants of the Book of Mormon peoples], unto whom I have given this land for their inheritance”; together with others of the house of Israel, they will build the New Jerusalem (3 Ne. 21:22-23). The Book of Mormon teaches that the descendants of Lehi are heirs to the blessings of Abraham (see Abrahamic Covenant) and will receive the blessings promised to the house of Israel.

THE LAMANITE MISSION (1830 – 1831). Doctrine and a commandment from the Lord motivated the Latter-day Saints to introduce the Book of Mormon to the Native Americans and teach them of their heritage and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Just a few months after the organization of the Church, four elders were called to preach to Native Americans living on the frontier west of the Missouri River (see Lamanite Mission of 1830-1831).

The missionaries visited the Cattaraugus in New York, the Wyandots in Ohio, and the Shawnees and Delawares in the unorganized territories (now Kansas). Members of these tribes were receptive to the story of the Restoration. Unfortunately, federal Indian agents worrying about Indian unrest feared that the missionaries were inciting the tribes to resist the government and ordered the missionaries to leave, alleging that they were “disturbers of the peace” (Arrington and Bitton, p. 146). LDS pro-Native American beliefs continued to be a factor in the tensions between Latter-day Saints and their neighbors in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois, which eventually led to persecution and expulsion of the Latter-day Saints from Missouri in 1838-1839 and from Illinois in 1846 (see Missouri Conflict).

RELATIONS IN THE GREAT BASIN. When the Latter-day Saints arrived in the Great Salt Lake Valley in 1847, they found several Native American tribal groups there and in adjacent valleys. The Church members soon had to weigh their need to put the limited arable land into production for the establishment of Zion against their obligation to accommodate their Native American neighbors and bring them the unique message in the Book of Mormon.

Brigham Young taught that kindness and fairness were the best means to coexist with Native Americans and, like many other white Americans at the time, he hoped eventually to assimilate the Indians entirely into the mainstream culture. He admonished settlers to extend friendship, trade fairly, teach white man’s ways, and generously share what they had. Individuals and Church groups gave, where possible, from their limited supplies of food, clothing, and livestock. But the rapid expansion of LDS settlers along the Wasatch Range, their preoccupation with building Zion, and the spread of European diseases unfortunately contravened many of these conciliatory efforts.

A dominating factor leading to resentment and hostility was the extremely limited availability of life-sustaining resources in the Great Basin, which in the main was marginal desert and mountain terrain dotted with small valley oases of green. Although Native Americans had learned to survive, it was an extremely delicate balance that was destroyed by the arrival of the Latter-day Saints in 1847. The tribal chiefs who initially welcomed the Mormons soon found themselves and their people being dispossessed by what appeared to them to be a never-ending horde, and in time they responded by raiding LDS-owned stock and fields, which resources were all that remained in the oases which once supported plants and wildlife that were the staples of the Native American diet. The Latter-day Saints, like others invading the western frontier, concerned with survival in the wilderness, responded at times with force.

An important factor in the conflict was the vast cultural gap between the two peoples. Native Americans in the Great Basin concentrated on scratching for survival in a barren land. Their uncanny survival skills could have been used by the Mormons in 1848, when drought and pestilence nearly destroyed the pioneers’ first crops and famine seriously threatened their survival.

The Utes, Shoshones, and other tribal groups in the basin had little interest in being farmers or cowherders, or living in stuffy sod or log houses. They preferred their hunter-gatherer way of life under the open sky and often resisted, sometimes even scoffed at, the acculturation proffered them. Nor did they have a concept of land ownership or the accumulation of property. They shared both the land and its bounty-a phenomenon that European Americans have never fully understood. The culture gap all but precluded any significant acculturation or accommodation.

Within a few years, LDS settlers inhabited most of the arable land in Utah. Native Americans, therefore, had few options: They could leave, they could give up their own culture and assimilate with the Mormons, they could beg, they could take what bounty they could get and pay the consequences, or they could fight. Conflict was inevitable. Conflict mixed with accommodation prevailed in Utah for many years. Violent clashes occurred between Mormons and Native Americans in 1849, 1850 (Chief Sowiette), 1853 (Chief Walkara), 1860, and 1865-1868 (Chief Black Hawk)-all for the same primary reasons and along similar lines. Conflict subsided, and finally disappeared, only when most of the surviving Native Americans were forced onto reservations by the United States government.

Still, the LDS hand of fellowship was continually extended. Leonard Arrington accurately comments that “the most prominent theme in Brigham’s Indian policy in the 1850s was patience and forbearance…. He continued to emphasize always being ready, using all possible means to conciliate the Indians, and acting only on the defensive” (Arrington, p. 217). Farms for the Native Americans were established as early as 1851, both to raise crops for their use and to teach them how to farm; but most of the “Indian farms” failed owing to a lack of commitment on both sides as well as to insufficient funding. LDS emissaries (such as Jacob Hamblin, Dudley Leavitt, and Dimmick Huntington) continued, however, to serve Native American needs, and missionaries continued to approach them in Utah and in bordering states. Small numbers of Utes, Shoshones, Paiutes, Gosiutes, and Navajos assimilated into the mainstream culture, and some of that number became Latter-day Saints. But overall, reciprocal contact and accommodation were minimal. By the turn of the century, contact was almost nil because most Native Americans lived on reservations far removed from LDS communities. Their contact with whites was mainly limited to government soldiers and agency officials and to non-Mormon Christian missionaries.

RELATIONS IN RECENT TIMES. Beginning in the 1940s, the Church reemphasized reaching out to Native Americans. The Navajo-Zuni Mission, later named the Southwest Indian Mission, was created in 1943. It was followed by the Northern Indian Mission, headquartered in South Dakota. Eventually, missionaries were placed on many Indian reservations. The missionaries not only proselytize, but also assist Native Americans with their farming, ranching, and community development. Other Lamanite missions, including several in Central and South America and in Polynesia, have also been opened. Large numbers of North American Indians have migrated off reservations, and today over half of all Indians live in cities. In response, some formerly all-Indian missions have merged with those serving members of all racial and ethnic groups living in a given geographical area.

An Indian seminary program was initiated to teach the gospel to Native American children on reservations, in their own languages if necessary (see Seminaries). Initially, Native American children of all ages were taught the principles of the gospel in schools adjacent to federal public schools on reservations and in remote Indian communities. The Indian seminary program has now been integrated within the regular seminary system, and Indian children in the ninth through twelfth grades attend seminary, just as non-Indian children do.

The Indian Student Placement Services (ISPS) seeks to improve the educational attainment of Native American children by placing member Indian children with LDS families during the school year. Foster families, selected because of their emotional, financial, and spiritual stability, pay all expenses of the Indian child, who lives with a foster family during the nine-month school year and spends the summer on the reservation with his or her natural family. Generally, the children enter the program at a fairly young age and return year after year to the same foster family until they graduate from high school.

From a small beginning in 1954, the program peaked in 1970 with an enrollment of nearly 5,000 students. The development of more adequate schools on reservations has since then reduced the need for the program and the number of participants has declined. In 1990, about 500 students participated. More than 70,000 Native American youngsters have participated in ISPS, and evaluations have shown that participation significantly increased their educational attainment.

In the 1950s, Elder Spencer W. Kimball, then an apostle, encouraged Brigham Young University to take an active interest in Native American education and to help solve economic and social problems. Scholarships were established, and a program to help Indian students adjust to university life was inaugurated. During the 1970s more than 500 Indian students, representing seventy-one tribes, were enrolled each year. But enrollment has declined, so a new program for Indian students is being developed that will increase the recruiting of Native American students to BYU and raise the percentage who receive a college degree. The Native American Educational Outreach Program at BYU presents educational seminars to tribal leaders and Indian youth across North America. It also offers scholarships. American Indian Services, another outreach program originally affiliated with BYU, provides adult education and technical and financial assistance to Indian communities. In 1989, American Indian Services was transferred from BYU to the Lehi Foundation, which continues this activity.

In 1975, George P. Lee, a full-blooded Navajo and an early ISPS participant, was appointed as a General Authority. He was the first Indian to achieve this status and served faithfully for more than ten years. Elder Lee became convinced that the Church was neglecting its mission to the Lamanites, and when he voiced strong disapproval of Church leaders, he was excommunicated in 1989.

The Church has always had a strong commitment to preaching the gospel to Native Americans and assisting individuals, families, communities, and tribes to improve their education, health, and religious well-being. Programs vary from time to time as conditions and needs change, but the underlying beliefs and goodwill of Latter-day Saints toward these people remain firm and vibrant.

Evo Psych Oversimplification / The Spin Doctors

Harvard Business Review / Organizational Culture (Consider the PURITAN ORIGINS of Harvard University.)

https://hbr.org/1998/07/how-hardwired-is-human-behavior

How Hardwired Is Human Behavior?

by Nigel Nicholson

___________________________

For comparison: See Previous Post / William James on Instinct

This article on “evolutionary psychology” may be truthfully labeled a “marketing tool” for promoting the myriad “services” that Evo Psychs offer to business, corporations and institutions for improving the control over their “stone age” employees.

Message? You can take the employee out of the Stone Age, not the Stone Age out of the employee.

Note the “sales pitch” Format of this Article: From info for writers on why to use “weasel Words”: Use ‘weasel words’ to modify statements, weakening any real meaning or force. This allows you to say anything without offending anyone or putting yourself into danger of being contradicted. Use weasel words assertively and their weakness will often all but disappear; Weasel words give you a way out, should anyone criticize you or make any counter-claim.

Article: Weasel words and deceptive claims

New fields of science don’t emerge in a flash, and evolutionary psychology—sometimes called modern Darwinism—is no exception. But over the past several years, evolutionary psychology as a discipline has gathered both momentum and respect. A convergence of research and discoveries in genetics, neuropsychology, and paleobiology, among other sciences, evolutionary psychology holds that although human beings today inhabit a thoroughly modern world of space exploration and virtual realities, they do so with the ingrained mentality of Stone Age hunter-gatherers. Homo sapiens emerged on the Savannah Plain some 200,000 years ago, yet according to evolutionary psychology, people today still seek those traits that made survival possible then: an instinct to fight furiously when threatened, for instance, and a drive to trade information and share secrets.

Human beings are, in other words, hardwired. (‘pop-sci” claim that compares the human brain to a computer is not legitimate)

That said, evolutionary psychologists do not argue that all people are alike underneath (but, they proceed with this assumption, as do “other” psychologists!) The discipline recognizes the individual differences caused by a person’s unique genetic inheritance, as well as by personal experiences and culture. Further, like other scientific theoriesthe Big Bang and global warming, to name two—evolutionary psychology is the subject of fierce debate. (See the insert “Evolutionary Psychology: A Convergence of Research and Controversy.”) NICE TRICK! Elevate your piss-poor opinions to the “level” of PHYSICAL SCIENCE – and bingo – Evo Psych is not only legitimate, but places itself in the scientific “big leagues” with physics, chemistry and all that “big important stuff”. Indeed, proponents and opponents of the field are becoming increasingly numerous and vocal.

Evolutionary Psychology : A Convergence of Research and Controversy

The central proposition of evolutionary psychology—that human beings retain the mentality of their Stone Age forebearsgathers its strength from six convergent sources of scientific research. (The tactic? Elevate your field, not only as “legitimate science” but position it as SUPERIOR TO the disciplines listed, because Evo Psych “subsumes” these disciplines, AND THEIR CONTENT under it’s Big New Magic Umbrella!)

Anthropology. By studying societies past and present, Darwinian anthropologists are identifying cultural universals with regard to gender relations, art and ritual, language and thought, and trading and competition. Patterns that recur across all societies, regardless of time and place, are thought to have a strong biogenetic origin. (Selectively construct a universal pattern and then say, “Oh look; a universal pattern!”)

Behavioral Genetics. Scientists in this field, drawing on research in genetics and on a growing number of studies on twins and adopted children, focus their research on the hereditary components of the mind. They have identified, for instance, several genes thought to control human dispositions, including aspects of temperament and cognitive skills. (WOW! How many weasel words can be crammed into two short sentences?  This outlandish “appropriation” and extreme generalization of genetic research is intended to “prop up” Evo Psych nonsense. I’m sure the Bio-Gen people are happy to have the Evo Psych people save them the “trouble” of explaining their own research.

Comparative Ethology. Comparing the mating, status-seeking, and social behaviors of monkeys, chimpanzees and other primates, scientists in this field have observed systematic patterns of behavior and analyzed where they reveal parallels in human behavior. In particular, they shed light on our basic programming for sexual politics and cooperative behavior and analyzed where they reveal parallels in human behavior.  (Monkey see, monkey do: if you claim that prior research has already proven your agenda, well –you can just proceed as if you have actually proven whatever it is that you are claiming to be ‘true” about human behavior”)

Neuropsychology. Using a variety of methods, including electrical stimulation, brain surgery, imaging techniques that film the brain in action, scientists in this field try to understand which parts of the brain control emotions and how chemicals in the brain affect thoughts and sensations. (And??)

Paleontology. Based on their analysis of fossils and ancient human remains, paleontologists believe they have discovered evidence of how human beings lived and how their characteristics adapted to the environment they inhabited. (Mumbo? Jumbo! This is pathetic – not how evolution works.)

Social Psychology. Studying social behavior in experiments and field studies, scientists have tested theories in evolutionary psychology (Total B.S.) about the conditions under which human beings cooperate, compete, and behave aggressively. Their findings about universal patterns suggest which impulses and reactions (that is; instinct and emotions) are hardwired into the human psyche. (WOW! Just how does one “wire” an abstract notion like the psyche? A positively supernatural activity! LOL Also, there is no “proof” that a computer is remotely close to modeling the brain; in fact, the brain is incredibly more complex than any artificial machine – this is “popular jargon” of the tech analogy brain = computer)

Even with the convergence of findings in these disciplines, (even with the pile of BS we just presented) the field of evolutionary psychology is controversial. Some scientists for instance, believe that evolutionary psychology overstates the biogenetic origin of cultural mores and norms and understates the capacity of learning and language to shape human nature. (which it does) (Tactic? Appear to be “evenhanded or objective about your gross flaws) Further, evolutionary psychology clearly challenges what some religions, including Christianity, believe about the creation and free will. (Setting Evo Psych against “religion” does not lend credence to Evo Psych: this is an illegitimate argument) 

And finally, the tenets of evolutionary psychology also directly dispute a great deal of popular management theory, which contends that people can change their personalities if correctly trained or motivated. Thus, evolutionary psychology may not be the only lens through which managers choose to view their work and their world, but it is a challenging perspective that calls for a closer look. (Here we finally have the intent of this article, and it’s the classic claim of all Puritanical despots: We are the elite experts: We know your “business” better than you do, and evolution (formerly; “god”) is on OUR SIDE: our “magic secrets” will save you tons of money. Instead of trying to educate and train your idiot employees, which is useless, because “evolution” (God) has decreed that they will forever be Stone Age idiots, we will share with you how to manipulate them; for a price, of course.)

But evolutionary psychology is by now well established enough to merit examination. Understanding evolutionary psychology is useful to managers because it provides a new and provocative way to think about human nature; (not “new” – this is standard archaic social hierarchy crap) it also offers a framework for understanding why people tend to act as they do in organizational settings. Put another way, evolutionary psychology, in identifying the aspects of human behavior that are inborn and universal, (original sin) can explain some familiar patterns. It sheds light on why people behave in ways that don’t appear to be beneficial to themselves or to their businesses.

Evolutionary psychology goes so far as to raise the questions: How might organizations be designed to work in harmony with our biogenetic identity? and Are modern-day executives managing against the grain of human nature?

This article is an extremely cynical use of language, which poses as “modern science” but is the same old Puritan dogma: a human-hating belief system that insists on control over the behavior of the “sinful” bone-headed peasants by THE ELITES!  

Noise Effects Handbook / Health and Welfare Effects EPA, 1979

 NOISE EFFECTS HANDBOOK

A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise

By Office of the Scientific Assistant, Office of Noise Abatement and Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 1979, Revised July 1981

  • Published by the National Association of Noise Control Officials
    P. O. Box 2618, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549
  • EPA 500-9-82-106

TOPICAL OVERVIEW (Links are active)

  1. The National Noise Problem
  2. Hearing Loss: normal auditory function, hearing loss criteria, presbycusis, hearing conservation, hearing impairment formulas
  3. Nonauditory Physiological Response: stress, arousal response, cardiovascular effects, effects on the fetus
  4. Communication Interference: factors that affect speech interference, masking, measurement of masking and speech interference, levels and criteria, special populations, overcoming speech interference
  5. Performance Interference: detriments of interference; qualities of noise and their relationship to performance interference; noise-sensitive tasks; effects on children; positive effects; and injury rates
  6. Sleep Disturbance: falling asleep, awakening, arousal and sub-awakening effects; criteria; noise and non-noise factors; other considerations
  7. Subjective Response: (individual, psychological responses) : special populations, coping behavior, antisocial behavior, decrease of helping behavior
  8. Community Response: criteria, activity interference, predictors of community annoyance, relation to population density, urban survey findings
  9. Health and Welfare Analysis: how it is carried out in regulatory development; fractional impact; level-weighted population
  10. Summary of Human Effects of Noise from Various Outdoor Noise Levels
  11. References
  12. Index

Isn’t it amazing? This handbook was published 38 years ago by the EPA and yet the “mystery” of noise-caused negative reactions in ASD-Asperger diagnosed people not only continues, but is attributed to “defective development” of our brains.

The handbook is crammed with excellent info: Example, under Subjective Response:

What kind of mental or psychological effects can occur with excessive noise exposure?

Excessive noise exposure can bring about a wide variety of psychological responses or symptoms in the individual. A person may respond with anger, or experience symptoms such as anxiety, irritability, and/or general emotional stress. Noise may negatively affect work performance because of reduced worker morale and motivation. Distraction and poor judgment may result from mental fatigue. (14)*

And:

What physiological changes occur in response to noise?

Loud sounds can cause an arousal response in which a series of reactions occur in the body. Adrenalin is released into the bloodstream; heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration tend to increase; gastrointestinal motility is inhibited; peripheral blood vessels constrict; and muscles tense. On the conscious level we are alerted and prepared to take action. Even though noise may have no relationship to danger, the body will respond automatically to noise as a warning signal. (14)

 

 

Sick Building Syndrome and ASD / Sensory Sensitivity

Regarding the supposedly “developmentally defective” state of ASD – Asperger individuals as “over-sensitive” to the environment: The faulty assumption is made that “typical, normal, typically developing” humans are not affected by, or damaged by, manmade environments. This is preposterous – an organized lie promoted by corporations, whose blatant predatory behavior is legitimized and protected by government laws and policies.
This “acceptable” system of abuse reflects a callous disregard for the health and safety of ALL humans.

This list encompasses only the pollutants common in buildings: one cannot escape these dangers by retreating to the outdoors. All environments on the planet have been altered by human activity. This list also does not include overcrowding, industrial accidents, destruction of natural environments, extinction of plants and animals necessary to healthy systems, lack of clean water, nutritious food and the effects of processed foods. And – toxic social environments: war, violence and abuse of every imaginable type wherever hyper-social humans dominate the environment.

The Environmental Illness Resource: Mission Statement

http://www.ei-resource.org/illness-information/related-conditions/sick-building-syndrome/

“The Environmental Illness Resource seeks to provide those with environmental illnesses with information of the highest quality in the hope that this will lead to improved quality of life and perhaps even recovery of good health. In addition, to provide a free and open online community in which members may exchange information between themselves and support each other in their healing journeys.

Chemical Pollutants:

Combustion Pollutants

Various chemical pollutants that can affect the health of a building’s occupants are produced when heating systems or gas fired appliances such as stoves are poorly maintained, and thus don’t burn fuel efficiently, or don’t vent exhaust correctly.

The main pollutants from this source are:

Carbon Monoxide (CO) – a gaseous asphyxiant, CO is known as the ‘silent killer’ as it is colourless and odourless. When it is breathed in CO binds to red blood cells preventing them from carrying oxygen and essentially suffocating the victim. Methylene Chloride may also breakdown to form Carbon Monoxide as well. Methylene Chloride is a common toxic solvent used in many products such as paint and paint strippers.  Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) – is a colourless gas with a strong odour like that of a struck match. Sulphur dioxide is an irritant to the respiratory system and exposure to high concentrations for short periods of time can constrict the blood vessels in the lungs and increase mucous flow, making breathing difficult. Those most at risk from these effects include children, the elderly, those with chronic lung disease, and asthmatics. Other harmful effects of SO2 include it’s ability to impair the respiratory system’s defenses against foreign particles and bacteria when chronically exposed to low concentrations, and enhance the harmful effects of ozone.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) – is another toxic gas produced from combustion of fuels. It can be fatal in high concentrations, whilst lower levels, like SO2, act as irritants to lung tissue. Long term low level exposure can destroy lung tissue and lead to emphysema. Long term exposure also makes people more susceptible to respiratory infections such as pneumonia and influenza. The risk of ill-effect is greatest for the same groups most affected by SO2.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Volatile organic compounds are organic (carbon-based) compounds that evaporate at ambient temperatures within a building. VOCs can ‘offgas’ from building materials and much of the contents of most buildings. These compounds often have effects on health from irritating the eyes, nose, and throat, to causing breathing difficulties, to increasing the risk of developing cancer. An example of a VOC commonly present in indoor air is formaldehyde, which is also one of the most toxic being both a strong respiratory irritant, and carcinogen.
Building Construction – High levels of formaldehyde offgas from particle board. Modern buildings or buildings renovated with modern materials suffer the most from offgassing of VOCs due to the extensive use of particle board rather than solid wood or stone/brick for interior walls etc. Particle board is also often used in place of solid wood in modern furniture such as computer desks and shelving. Although a cheap alternative to other materials, particle board is a major source of VOCs due to the high content of powerful adhesives used in its manufacture. Formaldehyde and other VOCs offgas from particle board used in building construction and furniture for years, with the highest concentrations being generated in the first 6 months.

Carpeting is another major source of VOCs in many buildings since a large number of chemicals are used in their manufacture in the form of glues, backing materials, flame retardants, and dyes. The specific VOCs that offgas from new carpet include acetone, toluene, xylene, formaldehyde, and benzene derivatives. These chemicals are all known to cause irritation, effect breathing, and produce various neurological symptoms. Many of them are also potent carcinogens.

Finishes such as paints and varnishes can also increase the VOC content of a building or room. That fresh paint smell is the result of paints high content of VOCs in the form of solvents and binders. In the case of oil based paints, whose use if thankfully being reduced in indoor paints, the entire base of the paint is made up of VOCs. The US EPA has determined that the off-gassing from architectural coatings is estimated to account for about 9% of the VOC emissions from all consumer and commercial products. Many of the VOCs used in paints have ben banned or are being phased out as they are now recognized to be highly toxic and/or carcinogenic.
Chemicals Used Within A Building – The various chemical based products routinely used inside a building can be an equally large source of VOCs. Products that contain VOCs range from chemical products used to clean a building to marker pens and printer ink, common in an office or school environment.

Cleaning products contain a range of toxic VOCs including diethyl phthalate, found in a range of products, toluene, found in stain removers, and hexane/xylene, found in aerosol sprays. Diethyl Phthalate is a known endocrine disrupter (interferes with hormone activity), toluene is a known carcinogen (cancer causing agent) and can cause neurological problems, and finally both hexane and xylene can also damage the nervous system.

Marker pens are a particularly concentrated source of VOCs as their very strong smell indicates. Their chemical constituents include methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), toluene, and formaldehyde. The VOCs present in marker pens have various consequences for human health including neurological effects. Ink cartridges and toners used in printers also contain VOCs, albeit at less concentrated levels than marker pens.

Electronic equipment also offgases a large amount of VOCs. In an office full of computers, these essential pieces of equipment can be a substantial source of VOCs which offgas from materials such as flame retardants and various other chemicals used in their manufacture.

Besides the above there are many other sources of VOCs within the average office building or other communal building. These include air fresheners, personal care products such as deodorants and perfumes, and laundry detergent and fabric softener residues on the occupants clothing.

For a more detailed look at some of these VOC sources see our multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) page.

Heavy metals

Although much has been done to reduce or eliminate the use of heavy metals in buildings in over the past few decades, older buildings may still contain a significant amount of these highly toxic substances. Buildings built or extensively renovated after the early 90’s in most developed countries are not likely to have a problem, but many buildings constructed before this time could pose a risk for heavy metal poisoning. The two most common heavy metals present in buildings are lead and mercury.

Indoor paint manufactured before 1990 and outdoor latex paint manufactured before 1991 may contain mercury, which was added to paint mainly to prevent build up of mold on walls, as mercury is an effective antifungal agent. Mercury can damage health in a number of ways, from impairing detoxification to causing serious neurological damage and birth defects. In fact, the mercury containing compound thimerosal was routinely added to vaccines to prevent contamination by fungi and bacteria until concern about its role in causing autism recently lead to its removal. (This does not translate to: vaccines themselves cause autism.) Mercury may also be present in small amounts in computer and electronic equipment.

Lead is another common problem in older buildings because it was also added to paints until a couple of decades ago. Lead-based paint is still a major problem in older buildings particularly when the residues are disturbed and become airborne such as during renovation or construction projects. Like mercury, lead can cause severe neurological damage and a host of other problems.

Unless disturbed by renovation it’s unlikely that heavy metals would be a major contributor to cases of sick building syndrome. For older buildings the risk is there however so must always be considered. (note that poor people are more likely to be chronically exposed to “sick” buildings)

Biological Pollutants

As well as the chemical pollutants described above, various biological contaminants often contribute to cases of sick building syndrome. In fact biological factors are reported to be behind the majority of cases. These biological pollutants can cause illness through three different mechanisms:

  • Infection
  • Allergy/Hypersensitivity
  • Toxicosis – symptoms caused by toxins produced by micro-organisms e.g. mycotoxins produced by mold/fungi

There are many sources of biological pollution that can affect a building and many reasons why a building might become contaminated and cause illness in its occupants.

The following are the main sources of this form of pollution:

Toxic Black Mold – is reported to be the leading cause of sick building syndrome and building related illness. Mold grows rapidly in warm and damp environments. If the indoor environment is too humid or if water damage occurs through leaks or rising damp, mold growth is very likely to occur.
Viruses & Bacteria – are common in every building, especially high occupancy buildings such as offices and schools. These micro-organisms can make a significant contribution to causing SBS. They become increasingly problematic if humidity levels are either too low or too high, as a result of how their growth is affected and the fact that our defenses against them are also affected by humidity levels.
Dust Mites – are highly allergenic and thrive on the constant supply of shed human skin cells that accumulate in carpeting, soft furnishings, and other areas. Like mold and bacteria, dust mites like the warm and relatively humid environment that we usually provide in our buildings.
Pollen – is another allergy causing substance that can accumulate in a building if proper ventilation and filtering is not maintained. Pollens from various trees and plants can be troublesome for a great number of people. Aside from being carried on breezes through open doors or windows, pollens can also be brought indoors on the occupants shoes and clothing.
Insect Body Parts – although not well known are especially potent allergens for some people. Cockroach allergens are particularly troublesome allergens and are commonly implicated as contributors to sick building syndrome. Usually become a problem only when sanitation is poor.

The above are collectively known as bioaerosols. The common definition of a bioaerosol is any extremely small living organism or fragment of living things suspended in the air. They cannot be seen without a magnifying glass or microscope. Of course when a large growth of mold occurs, it does then become visible to the naked eye.

Reasons For a Building Becoming Contaminated by Bioaerosols

Moisture –The primary reason why bioaerosols become a major problem in buildings is the presence of damp in the buildings structure and/or a high level of humidity in the air. There are numerous reasons why such a situation could arise, some of the most common being:

  • Water damage to homes from flooding or storm damage.
  • Leaks in plumbing, roofs, or from air conditioners or HVAC systems.
  • Condensation on central air pipes, HVAC components, or other cool surfaces where insulation may not be present, is insufficient, or has become damaged. Uninsulated air conditioning coils or pipes will “sweat” the most when hot humid air contacts them such as during warm months.
  • Ice damming on building roofs which allows water to seep under shingles and through roof sheathing.
  • Dehumidifiers and humidifiers.
  • Pets
  • Moisture from unvented or poorly vented kitchens and bathrooms.
  • Poor insulation causing drafts or the “chimney effect”.
  • Defective heating and air systems such as clogged condensation drain lines and full drip pans.

Hygiene and Cleaning – Poor sanitary and cleaning practices also contribute to a building becoming contaminated with bioaerosols. In a high occupancy building for example, germs from bathrooms can easily be spread to the rest of the building if they are not cleaned and disinfected both effectively and regularly. People not washing their hands after using the bathroom can also be a big problem.

Another problem is often inadequate or poorly maintained cleaning equipment. A poorly functioning vacuum cleaner for example can do more harm than good by spreading dust around rather than picking it up. As we have heard, dust is a breeding ground for micro-organisms like dust mites that cause allergies in many people. It may also contain other allergens such as pollens that have either blown into the building or been carried in by the occupants. Dust may also harbour disease causing bacteria and other unpleasant organisms. Efficient vacuum cleaners are thus essential pieces of equipment for avoiding a sick building. Models equipped with HEPA filters which remove even the tinniest particles are infinitely preferable.

Going back to chemical pollutants, growing research shows that chemicals, such as flame retardants that are commonly used in electrical equipment and on furniture, accumulate in dust. If a building is not kept free from dust by regular and effective cleaning, the amounts of chemicals present will only increase and pose an ever greater risk for the occupants health.

Other Factors That May Contribute to Sick Building Syndrome

Besides the more obvious chemical and biological pollutants that are commonly present in buildings and can lead to SBS, there are a number of more subtle factors that can also contribute, sometimes significantly. The most common of these are:

Fluorescent Lighting and Electrical Equipment – People commonly report feeling unwell after spending time in buildings lit entirely with fluorescent strip lighting. The flickering light is very harsh and tends to give even otherwise healthy people headaches and make them feel drained. Many people also complain of feeling unwell when they spend time close to computer screens and other electrical equipment. It has been suggested that high frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) which are generated by electrical equipment and a building’s wiring can cause a host of unpleasant symptoms such as fatigue, headaches, and inability to concentrate. Electrical Hypersensitivity (EHS) is the term used to describe the condition in which people are made ill by electromagnetic radiation.

Temperature – Although many would dismiss the ambient temperature within a building as a minor consideration, an environment that is either too hot or too cold can have a major effect on how people feel. With extremes of temperature the body has to work hard to maintain its own internal temperature at the right level. With resources focused on this task people can quickly become tired and drained and experience a wide range of symptoms. If the temperature is too hot for prolonged periods for example, people can become dehydrated with potentially serious consequences for their health.

Humidity – again can put a strain on the body as it tries to maintain equilibrium. Like high temperature, a very humid environment can lead to dehydration and associated problems.

Noise – is an equally important factor. Too much noise can be draining and produce headaches and other symptoms. It also makes it hard to concentrate so impacts on the productivity of workers in an office for example.

Bad Office Design/Ergonomics – A badly designed workplace can cause numerous health problems. A cramped office with uncomfortable furniture can result in injuries such as those to the back as well as injuries such as repetitive strain injury (RSI) from repetitive tasks such as typing.

Psychological Stress – is another important consideration in an office building in particular. Stress can be caused by work pressures such as deadlines but also by all of the other factors we’ve discussed here that often relate to a building’s design. Stress is a leading cause of absenteeism as it can result not only in psychological distress but also many physical ailments as well.  In many cases, SBS is a major issue and requires a complete redesign in order to rectify the problem. If an office or room needs to be stripped down and redesigned with new items, then a quick Google search might be in order. Or you could check out the Homeclick Twitter feed for contemporary ideas. In the end, the problem (if not remedied) will eventually worsen, creating an uncomfortable and potentially hazardous workplace.

What Can be Done About Sick Building Syndrome?

If you and other people living or working in the same building experience health problems that seem to only be present when you are in that building, or at least get much worse, then it is reasonable to suspect sick building syndrome. You should report the situation to the landlord, office manger, or whomever is responsible for the building and ask them to have an inspection carried out. If they are unwilling to cooperate then you may have to get local authorities such as an environmental health agency involved.

After a thorough environmental health inspection is carried out on a building to determine possible causes for the occupants health complaints, there are many measures that can be taken to rectify the situation. A combination of some of the factors we’ve discussed above will usually be involved and all will have to be tackled. Measures taken may include an overhaul or replacement of the ventilation system, structural repairs to prevent leaks and damp, a review of chemicals used in the building, a review of cleaning practices, and professional mold removal.

The important thing is to take action to have a suspected sick building investigated as soon as possible as it is likely that the problem will only get worse if not addressed.

Obsession with Novelty / Neurotypicals Destroy Earth

This morning I dreamed that I was back in advertising: working alone with the agency owner to prepare a presentation for a new client. It was fun; we did a few large posters – simple, graphic, meaningful text-headlines and set them aside to refine later. When I came back, he was gone and (seemingly) hundreds of “young people” (20s and 30s) had taken over the presentation, which no longer had any “advertising” materials in it. They were designing a vast “party” – a carnival type assortment of games, product giveaways, foods, etc – none of which had anything to do with the business of the “new client”. Needless to say, it was a mess; an event cobbled together (with much enthusiasm) from every online “catalogue” of consumer “must have” trivialities.

The head of the agency never reappeared: our presentation had been “scuttled” – the posters vanished and the carnival went on…

The “message” that popped up (when I say this, I mean, words that “translate” the dream images into verbal language was this:

The earth is dying from neurotypical obsession with novelty.

Obsession with novelty is a consequence of neoteny. It’s a requirement in a childish economic system that relies on ever-expanding markets for trivial junk, like artificial fingernails, plastic toys and hundreds of brands over OTC pills and remedies.

Think about it; thousands of years of human inventiveness, slave labor and creative engineering and industry have culminated in not only a pollution-producing flood of useless products, but an “app” obsession that allows “juvenalized” humans to track their pizza delivery, Amazon order and their bowel movements, using “smart gadgets” that become toxic waste in poor countries, where they are dumped by the millions, destroying agriculture, water supplies and plant animal human life.

And on and on… and at the same time, these apps and websites allow “bad actors” (corporations, government agencies, data collection mills and plain old criminal predators), observe our intimate lives, 24/7, for the purpose of collecting “data” – not to “get to know our customers and serve them better” as advertised, but to sell for profit the massive data that they collect. Ever wonder why products are incredibly cheap and are delivery halfway around the planet is “free”? Corporations don’t “sell products” anymore – they provide lures, which gather information about health, spending, leisure activities, banking habits, family relations, criminal records, sexual preferences, debt, food buying, clothing, and every phone call or text, and photo that propagates from you, your family, friends, co-workers, across the planet. Many products are “spies” installed in your house, by you – neurotypicals are insanely stupid!

And most damning about all this “data pornography” (you are not human, you are data) is that neurotypicals don’t even care that this has become the “human condition”. Novelty – that ever-flowing river of trivia, nonsense and useless objects is not a big benign “party”. It is literally “killing” life on earth, including Homo sapiens.

Is that “cute” decorative item from China, or “cheap” T-shirt from Thailand worth the destruction of earth’s environments? Is continued dominance of fossil fuel anything but intentional destruction of earth’s environments? Is having an obsession with social media “gadgets” worth the destruction of earth’s environments? Globalization is simply a disaster as potent as any other phenomenon of mass extinction.

Read about the shipping industry that is massively polluting the oceans:

The Containerized Shipping Industry and the Phenomenon of Containers Lost at Sea  / An extensive PDF from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, March 2014. NOAA Office of Marine Sanctuaries

Hint: “Office of Marine Sanctuaries” while sounding like an attempt by the U.S. government to “protect” marine environments, does not protect marine environments. 

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/conservation/pdfs/lostcontainers.pdf

____________________________________________________________

A well-documented environmental disaster off New Zealand that dumped 400 tons of heavy oil onto a reef – followed by an attempted cover up and a $108 million “clean-up” This is not a “rare” occurrence.

Container ship Rena hit Astrolabe Reef about 12 nautical miles off Tauranga, New Zealand early on October 5, 2011

A Ship Grounding case study- Training video for shipping/marine industry. Produced by Dhhunki Productions.www.dhhunkiproductions.com

Epilepsy Forum / Sensory Overload Discussion

From an epilepsy site forum: 2006-2007

Epilepsy and Sensory Overload – Adults

Topic:

I have temporal lobe epilepsy with simple partial seizures. I also struggle with something I call sensory overload. I know that is a term for autism, but it is the best way to describe what is happening to me. I have difficulty when there is too much stimulation in the room. I become very agitated if, for example, there is music playing while the TV is on and people are talking. Add too many people to the stimulation and I become very stressed. If I cannot turn off the music and TV, I must leave the room. This agitation and stress is especially strong when I am around children because they tend to create a lot of stimulation with loud voices, banging and thumping from their physical activity, and they lack an understanding for personal space and often run/bump into me. I know too much noise can annoy anyone, but from what I have observed my agitation is much stronger than others in the same situation.

Is the sensory overload problem just another one of my issues or could there be some correlation between that and my epilepsy?

Comment 1.

I don’t know if there is a correlation but people can have Sensory Integration issues. This is not autism although I have read before it could be part of the spectrum. A person can be treated for sensory issues through an occupational therapist with specific training in this area. I am only familiar with therapists who work with children but there must be some out there who would work with adults who were never treated for this as a child. It is worth looking into. There also are books out there that specifically discuss sensory integration issues.

Comment 2.

I think i get something similar. I’m in the process of getting diagnosed with TLE (temporal lobe epilepsy), simple and complex partials. If there is too much to look at, I freak out. Like in shopping centers, all the colors, vastness, noises etc cause me problems. I just wrote in my blog about freaking out while shopping yesterday! I just feel as though I can’t process it all, and its just all too much.

If I am in a simple partial (epileptic seizure) I have to be in complete silence. Even if the TV is on it drives me nuts and I can’t look at anything.

I’m in the beginning stages of diagnosis, but I shall bring this up with my Neuro on my next appointment.

Comment 3.

I am being examined for Temporal Lobe Epilepsy and have also wondered about the Epilepsy and Sensory stuff connection.

I know EXACTLY what you are talking about!!! I call it “Tactile Defensiveness”.

When you said, “….my agitation is much stronger than others in the same situation,” bells went off in my head like “DING DING DING!! THIS IS TOTALLY ME!!”I knew instantly what you are talking about. If my 2 year old rams into my leg (which is like you say entirely normal for his age) I can actually get almost combative. There’s nothing rational about it, I cannot “think” my way out of this reaction. For me it seems to be hard-wired and almost reflexive, the way it would be if a doctor taps your knee with a rubber hammer.

Other “sensory overload” struggles I have:

*the waistband of my clothes often feels too tight, sometimes the socks around my ankles will feel too tight/clingy, sometimes the cuffs/wristband of my jackets will also feel too tight. I simply have to get rid of the offending article of clothes

*I have photosensitivity to many bright lights including sunshine. To compensate, I purchased a nice pair of shades, which happens to be in vogue

*certain cloth has always been aversive to me, in particular polyesther weaves, it was so coarse it felt almost like it scratched my skin. to this day I cannot use bed linen that is not 100% cotton and has a 400 thread count or higher b/c it feels too scratchy on my skin

*places with a lot of lights, sounds, crowds of people, I get panic stricken and overwhelmed, like you said SENSORY OVERLOAD

* cannot wear terry cloth socks b/c it feels to prickly and couldn’t stand the feeling of some face cloths taking a bath as a child

*I am overly sensitive to very hot or very cold temperatures, particularly bath water/shower water

*my shoelaces have to be laced up with the “exact same” tightness on both shoes or I go insane, literally I cannot stand it and have to fix it! LOL

*if I am in a bright store like WalMart sometimes the lights make me well…very on edge almost hair-trigger irritable

*my ears actually hurt when a fire truck puts it’s siren on to the point that when I was a child I would cover them up. As an adult I don’t want to look weird doing that, so I learned to just white knuckle through it with my fist and jaws clenched

*Smells are so strong in my nose that sometimes the scent is so aversive (like dog poo or skunk) that I gag and have to leave a situation. On the other hand pleasant smells are so strong it makes me feel like I’m in heaven if I like it (baking cookies etc) I speculate that I smell more keenly than everyone else

*Taste is the same way but thank God I never had texture issues with food like my sister does.

*If I get something sticky on my hands I have to wash it immediately, I just hate that feeling: maple syrup, jelly/jam

I could go on and on but the bottom line for me, being 36 years old, is that I had to learn to compensate for my heightened sensory issues by either avoiding siutations or de-sensitizing myself. This wasn’t a “formal” process it just happenened out of necessity and I consciously told myself to “sit with the discomfort” I just instinctively knew I had to do it.

Comment 4.

I have been told I self monitor a lot. I used to think this was stupid and ‘as if’, but I can now catch myself in the act. I suppose having a condition like us makes you super sensitive to every bodily sensation that we don’t assume to be normal. In fact, it seems I have decided every bodily sensation is abnormal!

I know there are certain things that my poor little brain doesn’t cope to well with like the whole lights thing, shopping centres, loud noises, heat, being super tired etc … although I think half the time I am so strung out about everything – anything will set me off or freak me out.

I find if its over-cast it sends me in to a tail spin. haha. Weird, hey? I love rainy days, but they make me feel awful. I think I need and respond well to normal natural light / sun shine. i seem to get worse when things get darker. Weird. Hmmm.


OMG! Could the “autism” “brain” “behavior” industry be any more chaotic, incoherent, or ridiculous?

Honestly! Do any of the “experts” ever talk to each other; compare notes, cases, or FACTS? Can they even recognize the vast duplication of diagnosis going on in “parallel universes” of research?

NEUROTYPICALS are bat-crap-crazy!