Jordan Peterson Video / IQ and Suitable Employment

All I can say about JBP (this is my first exposure to his thinking), is that I like his “concrete” approach…

Oh, and I like the descriptive label “disagreeable person” over and above the (becoming tiresome) label Asperger. LOL

I tried to choose a couple of videos that would apply to Aspergers…especially employment problems.

WIKIPEDIA: Jordan Bernt Peterson (born June 12, 1962) is a Canadian clinical psychologist and public intellectual (I hate this label), who is professor of psychology at the University of Toronto.[2][3] His main areas of study are in abnormal, social, and personality psychology,[1] with a particular interest in the psychology of religious and ideological belief,[4] and the assessment and improvement of personality and performance.[5]

Peterson studied at the University of Alberta and McGill University. He remained at McGill as a post-doctoral fellow from 1991 to 1993 before moving to Harvard University, where he was assistant and then associate professor in the psychology department. In 1998 he moved back to Canada, to the University of Toronto, as a full professor.

Peterson’s first book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, was published in 1999, a work which examined several academic fields to describe the structure of systems of beliefs and myths, their role in the regulation of emotion, creation of meaning, and motivation for genocide.[6][7][8] His second book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, was released in January 2018.[9][10][11]

Are You a Highly Sensitive Person (HSP) / Oh no! More Labels…

While looking for info on sensory processing / sensory thinking:  

Just when I think there is nothing more to investigate / confront in this mish-mash of ASD / Asperger “stuff” – a psychology acronym turns up in what seems to be a personality type called HSP, the innate temperament trait of high sensitivity.

There seems to be an overlap with ASD, Asperger’s, introversion and of course, with sensory processing disorders – What gives?  Or for some of us, awareness of the sensory environment is just “normal”!

Are You Highly Sensitive?

Copyright, Elaine N. Aron, 1996

http://hsperson.com/test/highly-sensitive-test/

Instructions: Answer each question according to the way you personally feel. Check the box if it is at least somewhat true for you; leave unchecked if it is not very true or not at all true for you.

I’ve highlighted those statements that are “suspiciously” ASD. Personally, I could check yes to all of these!  

If you are a parent trying to evaluate your child, please use the test “Is Your Child Highly Sensitive?

I am easily overwhelmed by strong sensory input.

I seem to be aware of subtleties in my environment.

Other people’s moods affect me.

I tend to be very sensitive to pain.

I find myself needing to withdraw during busy days, into bed or into a darkened room or any place where I can have some privacy and relief from stimulation.

I am particularly sensitive to the effects of caffeine.

I am easily overwhelmed by things like bright lights, strong smells, coarse fabrics, or sirens close by.

I have a rich, complex inner life.

I am made uncomfortable by loud noises.

I am deeply moved by the arts or music.

My nervous system sometimes feels so frazzled that I just have to go off by myself.

I am conscientious.

I startle easily.

I get rattled when I have a lot to do in a short amount of time.

When people are uncomfortable in a physical environment I tend to know what needs to be done to make it more comfortable (like changing the lighting or the seating).

I am annoyed when people try to get me to do too many things at once.

I try hard to avoid making mistakes or forgetting things.

I make a point to avoid violent movies and TV shows.

I become unpleasantly aroused when a lot is going on around me.

Being very hungry creates a strong reaction in me, disrupting my concentration or mood.

Changes in my life shake me up.

I notice and enjoy delicate or fine scents, tastes, sounds, works of art.

I find it unpleasant to have a lot going on at once.

I make it a high priority to arrange my life to avoid upsetting or overwhelming situations.

I am bothered by intense stimuli, like loud noises or chaotic scenes.

When I must compete or be observed while performing a task, I become so nervous or shaky that I do much worse than I would otherwise.

When I was a child, my parents or teachers seemed to see me as sensitive or shy.

Scoring: If you answered more than fourteen of the questions as true of yourself, you are probably highly sensitive. But no psychological test is so accurate that an individual should base his or her life on it. We psychologists try to develop good questions, then decide on the cut off based on the average response.

If fewer questions are true of you, but extremely true, that might also justify calling you highly sensitive.  Also, although there are as many men as women who are highly sensitive, when taking the test highly sensitive men answer slightly fewer items as true than do highly sensitive women.

This is copyrighted material and may not be copied and used without permission. For permission, please email. If you wish to use this questionnaire for psychological research, there is a better version on this website for you to use along with suggestions for how best to employ it.

The contents of this website and the self-tests it contains are not meant to diagnose or exclude the diagnosis of any condition.  See more information on this subject in our FAQs.

About Dr. Elaine Aron: Dr. Aron earned her M.A. from York University in Toronto in clinical psychology and her Ph.D. at Pacifica Graduate Institute in clinical depth psychology as well as interning at the C. G. Jung Institute in San Francisco. Besides beginning the study of the innate temperament trait of high sensitivity in 1991, she, along with her husband Dr. Arthur Aron, are two of the leading scientists studying the psychology of love and close relationships. They are also pioneers in studying both sensitivity and love using functional magnetic resonance imaging. She maintains a small psychotherapy practice in Mill Valley, CA.

________________________________________________________

Honestly? I’d rather be Asperger: HSP appears to have spawned an (NT) cult of “pants-droppers” LOL

A revelation about being Asperger / Chronic Pain

I had a bad day today. What does that mean? Pain.

I had never looked at bad days as being identifiable in terms of pain. I see “problems to solve” as the source of discontent, disruption, a bad mood – the badness in a bad day. I experience physical pain (sometimes intense) at the same time; maybe a meltdown. How could I not connect the two?

Today I could identify that bad days are not discrete events, but wave tops of continuous, chronic pain. I could suddenly see that this has been the pattern, since childhood. This was a connection I had never before made. This connection must be shown visually.

— Such that the wave crest is maximum pain (a meltdown); the wave trough, is the absence of pain: the path of the wave describes chronic pain. I didn’t see the continuous nature of pain because I ignore (am unaware of, don’t feel) the pain between the peaks and troughs.  As is often said of Asperger types, there is pain we don’t feel; there is pain we do feel. Our response to pain is “eccentric.” There is a “threshold” at work in this experience of pain.

Something else is familiar about the “highs and lows” of this wave: Years ago I was diagnosed bipolar. Since the discovery that I’m Asperger, I have suspected that bipolar was a mistaken diagnosis. Could this “wave pattern” of chronic pain (stress induced?) “look like” bipolar mood swings and engender the belief that bipolar is co-morbid with being Asperger? My proposed “Asperger Wave” is actually the inverse of bipolar swings: The peak is extreme pain, the valley is pleasure.

The next question is, What is the origin of chronic pain? 

I’m off to consult the Wizard… 

 

Neurotypical Drug Wars / Libertarian Views CATO Inst.

Full PDF: 

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/DrugProhibitionWP.pdf

From sourcewatch.org: The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank founded by Charles G. Koch and funded by the Koch brothers. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Institute states that it favors policies “that are consistent with the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, and peace.”[1] Cato scholars conduct policy research on a broad range of public policy issues and produce books, studies, op-eds, and blog posts. They are also frequent guests in the media.

The Cato Institute is an “associate” member of the State Policy Network, a web of right-wing “think tanks” in every state across the country.[2] They are also part of the international Atlas Group network with links to the Institute for Humane Studies. The Independent Institute seems to operate as a Cato subsidiary.

I’m posting this link in the interest of “untangling” the U.S. DRUG WARS – profit, cost, ideologies behind policy, and effects on American life. 

___________________ 

53 page PDF by the Cato Institute on the “revenue” benefits of across the board decriminalization and legalization of marijuana and “other drugs”.

The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition

Jeffrey A. Miron and Katherine Waldock

State and federal governments in the United States face massive looming fiscal deficits. One policy change that can reduce deficits is ending the drug war. Legalization means reduced expenditure on enforcement and an increase in tax revenue from legalized sales. This report estimates that legalizing drugs would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. Of these savings, $25.7 billion would accrue to state and local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government. Approximately $8.7 billion of the savings would result from legalization of marijuana and $32.6 billion from legalization of other drugs. The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $46.7 billion annually, assuming legal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Approximately $8.7 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana and $38.0 billion from legalization of other drugs.

Copyright © 2010 by the Cato Institute. All rights reserved.

CATO INSTITUTE 1000 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 www.cato.org

Cato Institute / What they say about themselves: Founded in 1977, the Cato Institute is a public policy research foundation dedicated to broadening the parameters of policy debate to allow consideration of more options that are consistent with the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, and peace. To that end, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government. The Institute is named for Cato’s Letters, libertarian pamphlets that were widely read in the American Colonies in the early 18th century and played a major role in laying the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution. Despite the achievement of the nation’s Founders, today virtually no aspect of life is free from government encroachment. A pervasive intolerance for individual rights is shown by government’s arbitrary intrusions into private economic transactions and its disregard for civil liberties. To counter that trend, the Cato Institute undertakes an extensive publications program that addresses the complete spectrum of policy issues. Books, monographs, and shorter studies are commissioned to examine the federal budget, Social Security, regulation, military spending, international trade, and myriad other issues. Major policy conferences are held throughout the year, from which papers are published thrice yearly in the Cato Journal. The Institute also publishes the quarterly magazine Regulation. In order to maintain its independence, the Cato Institute accepts no government funding. Contributions are received from foundations, corporations, and individuals, and other revenue is generated from the sale of publications. The Institute is a nonprofit, tax-exempt, educational foundation under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

______________________________________

Big Bang was not an Explosion / Matt Strassler

So well written! I thought others might enjoy…lots more on his blog. The Big Gap between science and the pop-sci interpretations that are so awfully distorted.

Big Bang: Expansion, NOT Explosion

Conversations About Science with Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler
Of Particular Significance / blog

Big Bang: Expansion, NOT Explosion

© Matt Strassler [March 16, 2014]

The Big Bang was an expansion of space, not like an explosion at all, despite what countless books, videos, articles and statements (even by scientists) often depict. Let’s look at the differences between an explosion of something into space versus an expansion of space.

[For an older article with a different perspective on the same subject, see here.]

In Figure 1 is shown a before and after of an explosion. Initially there is some space, with a seed — a bomb or a grenade or star or some other form of stored energy — sitting in it. The space is pre-existing, and so is the seed. Then something happens and the seed explodes. What was inside the seed undergoes some kind of transformation — for instance, a chemical reaction or a nuclear reaction — and energy is released. This creates tremendous heat and pressure inside the seed. The forces associated with the compressed heat and pressure cause the seed’s insides to expand outward as a hot ball of material. The energy comes out as the high speed and temperature of the seed’s insides, and the pressure and temperature gradually decrease as the interior of the seed expands outward into the pre-existing space in which it originally sat.

Fig. 1: What the Big Bang was not: An explosion of a seed into a pre-existing space. The explosion is created by a process that generates tremendous heat and pressure inside the seed, which rushes outward as a ball of hot material exploding into the pre-existing space. The Big Bang is nothing like this.

Notice that the cause of the explosion is a reaction that creates tremendous heat and pressure inside a tiny region. It is the imbalance between the huge pressure and heat inside the seed compared to the low pressure and temperature outside the seed that causes the seed to explode outward. And the things inside the speed move with high velocity, rushing apart from their initial location. Their speed relative to their starting point can’t be larger than light, so there’s a limit to how quickly they can recede from each other.

Fig. 2: The expansion of space is depicted by the growth of the distance between the grid lines. Normal objects remain of the same size, but the distance between them grows as the space uniformly expands.  This type of expansion can occur either in a hot or cold universe, under the right conditions, and it can be very rapid.

In Figure 2 is depicted the process (which may have already been going on before the moment of the left-hand figure) of an expansion of space. Between the left-hand picture and the right-hand picture, space has doubled in size, as you can see by the grid of lines. Things inside the space that are held together by powerful forces, such as chairs, tables, cats and people, do not expand — only the space in which they sit does. In short, space becomes more abundant, so there’s simply more room for the objects inside it.

Note that the objects do not intrinsically move! There’s no heat or pressure pushing them anywhere; they’ve not been kicked. It’s simply that the space between them and around them is growing, appearing out of nowhere, making the distances between them larger than before. And the increase (for uniform expansion) is uniform. In the right-hand picture, the distance between the cat and the table has doubled; so has the distance between the cat and the chair. That’s what happens when the universe doubles in size.

This kind of change in space itself is possible in Einstein’s theory of gravity but not in Newton’s older one.  For Einstein, space is not just a place where things happen; it is a sort of thing itself, capable of growing, shrinking, deforming, wiggling, and changing shape.  (Actually it’s space and time together which can do all of that!)  Ripples in space-time are called “gravitational waves”.

Since it is space that is expanding, and it is not the objects that are moving, Einstein’s relativity puts no constraints on how fast the distance between the objects can grow — i.e., no constraints on how rapidly space between the objects can appear. It is possible for the distance between two objects to grow much, much faster than the speed of light. This is no contradiction with relativity.

People often say, with loose and imprecise words, that “relativity says that nothing can go faster than the speed of light”. (mea culpa) But “nothing” and “go” are ambiguous, and in science we learn that imprecise words cause trouble. Einstein’s words (if you read them) are often ambiguous and easily misunderstood, though he tried to be precise. But Einstein’s equations are not ambiguous. The precise statement of relativity is that if two objects pass each other at the same point, then an observer who is moving with one of the objects will measure the speed of the other object to be less than or equal to the speed of light; and vice versa. But this is not in contradiction to the statement I’m making here: that the distance between two objects at different points can grow faster than this. And that will always happen, in a uniformly expanding universe, for two objects that are far enough apart.

Notice also, very importantly, that the cause of the expansion of the space need not have anything to do with heat or pressure… unlike an explosion. I’ve deliberately drawn normal objects like chairs and tables so that you can see that, in contrast to an explosion which will damage or destroy normal objects, an expansion can leave them untouched, just increasingly separated. Expansion can occur in a very hot universe — and early in the universe’s history, that did happen, during the Hot Big Bang. But expansion can also occur in a very cold universe. It is currently suspected that this, too, may have happened early in the universe, during the inflationary period. And of course our universe today is rather cold, yet not only is it expanding, the rate of expansion is increasing.

The Hot Big Bang, whose final stages we are living in, is an era that somehow began, at some moment in time, as a large region of space filled with a hot dense soup of particles, expanding and cooling very rapidly at first, then more and more slowly until just a few billion years ago. It did not begin as a point object that exploded into empty space. How the Hot Big Bang may have begun after inflation is explained at the end of this article on the Era of Inflation.