Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 > I'm not saying I'm better or worse. > I *am* saying that autism seems to render us handicapped in the areas of > being able to project or interpret ape-like social behavior. I would go on > to say that this is because our brains are not ape-like enough to handle > this monkeying around. I disagree because I've seen autistics do similar behaviors to the ones you described. I've not seen them exactly in ACs, but I haven't seen them exactly in NTs either. I think ACs don't as often get into social situations where they can do those behaviors, but when they do, they do them just as often. -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 I see it as having evolved even further away from the apes than most humans have. Yet we are still on the planet of the apes. Ride the Music AndyTiedye Kaiden Fox wrote: >I'm not saying I'm better or worse. > >I *am* saying that autism seems to render us handicapped in the areas of >being able to project or interpret ape-like social behavior. I would go on >to say that this is because our brains are not ape-like enough to handle >this monkeying around. > > Re: Re: Sort of new member > > > > >> >> >> >> >>>and wrote: >>> >>> >>>>And autistics certainly don't do any less of this then NTs. >>>> >>>> >>>?? What Kaiden wrote certainly doesn't describe me. Does it >>>describe you, ? >>> >>> >>Given the right circumstances, I'm pretty sure it would. I don't think >>I'm a better man then the average NT. >> >>-- >> >> >> >> > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 > I see it as having evolved even further away from the apes than most > humans have. > Yet we are still on the planet of the apes. I don't believe this because evolution simply doesn't work this way. We are no more further evolved then someone with red hair is further evolved. -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 further AWAY. Re: Re: Sort of new member > > > > I see it as having evolved even further away from the apes than most > > humans have. > > Yet we are still on the planet of the apes. > > I don't believe this because evolution simply doesn't work this way. We > are no more further evolved then someone with red hair is further evolved. > > -- > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 > further AWAY. I don't believe that either. Unless red haired people are further away too by your definition. -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 I'm not a geneticist, nor am I the one making definitions. *rolls eyes* One *can* define groups as being " closer " or " further " (or is it farther - not sure in this context) in relationship to another group, using genetic similarity. E.g., Ponogo chimps are closer to humans than they are to the other species of chimpanzee. One could also use traits, including behavioral traits. It depends on if you're taking a genetic or a structural viewpoint. I prefer a genetic viewpoint simply because it's more quantifiable, and thus harder to get into arguments. I *hope* you wouldn't argue that clams aren't further/father from us then they are from octopi. Re: Re: Sort of new member > > > > further AWAY. > > I don't believe that either. Unless red haired people are further away > too by your definition. > > -- > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 For the record, the answer is yes: red hair is a sign of greater diversity to the primate population. Red hair is a Neanderthal (or at least Alma) trait, and is overrepresented in the autistic population. http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm#Alma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 > I'm not a geneticist, nor am I the one making definitions. *rolls eyes* Neither am I. > One *can* define groups as being " closer " or " further " (or is it farther - > not sure in this context) in relationship to another group, using genetic > similarity. E.g., Ponogo chimps are closer to humans than they are to the > other species of chimpanzee. One could also use traits, including > behavioral traits. It depends on if you're taking a genetic or a structural > viewpoint. I prefer a genetic viewpoint simply because it's more > quantifiable, and thus harder to get into arguments. Okay, so is Autism with brown hair further or closer then non-autistic with red hair? Why? > I *hope* you wouldn't argue that clams aren't further/father from us then > they are from octopi. No, I don't have any problem with that - but we are talking about separate species in this question. Autistics are not separate from NTs in this regard. This discussion reminds me of the discussions in the past about how blacks were more " ape-like " . (which has been disproved) -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 > This discussion reminds me of the discussions in the past about how blacks > were more " ape-like " . (which has been disproved) Has it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 > > This discussion reminds me of the discussions in the past about how blacks > > were more " ape-like " . (which has been disproved) > > Has it? Yes. But I'll do a little thought experiment to show that it has been. Let's assume: - Whites are descended from black ancestors - These black ancestors are descended from some form of non-human primate (I don't believe either, but I suspect most people do believe both, so I will argue from that point of view) The would be an evolutionary line from " ape " (or whatever other primate) to " old human " (which is a black human). At some point, a genetic mutation occurs producing a white person from the offspring of two black people. This white person starts the evolutionary line of " white " people. What happens to the evolutionary line of " black " people? Does it stop evolving? Does one genetic change mean none of the others are significant? I maintain that this mutation must have occurred a fairly long time ago, and that other mutations must have occurred that were of similar magnitude, affecting each race. Neither is " closer " to primate, as that would have involved one race having more mutations - and the presence of a certain color skin is hardly evidence of that. If you are going to say black people have experienced less genetic divergence from apes in the last few million years then whites have, I would like to see your explanation for why evolution takes place at different rates in different races. Both races, if my understanding of how evolution occurs is correct, have diverged since the divergence (if that really was the cause in the first place) that caused different races. And that this divergence occurred at the same rate in both races, causing both races to be just as different from apes as the other one (although possibly in different ways). -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 Geographically. Gotcha'. I read it the same way that did, at first. Probably, my ancestors spawned in a different tarpit than yours, that's all. Does complicate communication, though. --DKM > > > > > I see it as having evolved even further away from the apes than most > > > humans have. > > > Yet we are still on the planet of the apes. > > > > I don't believe this because evolution simply doesn't work this way. We > > are no more further evolved then someone with red hair is further evolved. > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 wrote: >Both races, if my understanding of how evolution occurs is correct, have >diverged since the divergence (if that really was the cause in the first >place) that caused different races. And that this divergence occurred at >the same rate in both races, causing both races to be just as different >from apes as the other one (although possibly in different ways). My understanding is that all human " races " are so much alike that it makes no scientific sense to talk as if they are different in any way. The differences *within* " races* are larger than the differences between " races. " Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 > Let's assume: > - Whites are descended from black ancestors > - These black ancestors are descended from some form of non-human primate > > (I don't believe either, but I suspect most people do believe both, so I > will argue from that point of view) Ah, I see where you're coming from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 > > Let's assume: > > - Whites are descended from black ancestors > > - These black ancestors are descended from some form of non-human primate > > > > (I don't believe either, but I suspect most people do believe both, so I > > will argue from that point of view) > > Ah, I see where you're coming from. And what is that supposed to mean? Are you dismissing my argument based on the basis of who is saying it rather then its' merits? That's a pretty lousy way of arguing. -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 > > This discussion reminds me of the discussions in the past about how blacks > > were more " ape-like " . (which has been disproved) > > Has it? If you're a white-supremecist, obviously not! And if you're a white- supremecist AND a geneticist, then you can always find data to prove the disproof has been disproven. And so on... If, like me, you've studied the psychodynamics of race relations and realized that no one group of self-glorified apes is any more inherently wortthy of existence than any other...well, you just flat out don't give a damn. --DKM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 > > Ah, I see where you're coming from. > > And what is that supposed to mean? It means, " Ah, I see where you are coming from. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 > > > Ah, I see where you're coming from. > > > > And what is that supposed to mean? > > It means, " Ah, I see where you are coming from. " It is best not to use the term in the definition of the term. I wouldn't have asked if I knew what you meant. Specifically, so, did you even read my argument? Do you have a response? Do you care? Have you dismissed it? Why? -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 Joal, your perceptions and conclusions are so radically different than mine that we seem to be running incompatible brain software. You'll never convince me that autists behave in an ape-like manner, and I'll never be able to convince you that they don't. In your world, autists aren't teased, beaten, or even killed because they present a threat by their failure to conform. In your world, neurotypicals don't " present " in ape-like ways, with ape like expressions, postures, and vocal tones - or if they do, then autists do as well. Either you're seeing something that's not there, or you're failing to see something that is there, OR I am the one with the perceptual problems. Obviously, we have VASTLY different life experiences, or we wouldn't have this communication/perception gap. I may have a need to be right, but I don't have a need to be VIEWED as right, so I'm not going to continue defending a point I think is well-enough made. I also don't have a need to make you wrong. Your statement that you do not believe in a primate ancestor for the human race, and a dismissal of the out-of-Africa theory of human divergence, gives me some insight into how I believe your mind must work. While I admit that " theory of mind " isn't my strongest point, I do believe I have a good enough " handle " on you. Your mind operates in such a way that, somehow, you seem to believe that human beings were " created " by either aliens or some supernatural entity, or perhaps I am reading too much into your statement and you simply believe that the evolutionary lines for human beings do not cross with the lines of other primates, despite the anatomical similarity and the 97% identical genetic structure with chimps. I won't be able to convince *you* of anything, because you're paradigmatic structure precludes the idea of genetics, anatomical structure, or behavior, making individuals within a species (or closely related species - I'm not completely sold on the " one humanity " idea, simply because anthropology is TOO politically motivated) NEARER or FARTHER from another species is not something you're going to be convinced of. Also, your belief that autistic behavior and neurotypical behavior is the same, in regards to the formation and perpetuation of social structures and ape-like hierarchies, is so radically different than my observations that I simply don't *trust* you. One of us is living in a fantasy world, and given the comments of others supporting my claims as to their behavior (which I will confess I cannot observe except by trusting them), I have to assume that it's not me. Your paradigm is too far removed from mine, and that's the bottom line. It doesn't mean you're wrong, just that we're using EXTREMELY different rules to codify reality into something we can understand. It's an epistemological problem. Re: Re: Sort of new member > > > > > > Ah, I see where you're coming from. > > > > > > And what is that supposed to mean? > > > > It means, " Ah, I see where you are coming from. " > > It is best not to use the term in the definition of the term. I wouldn't > have asked if I knew what you meant. > > Specifically, so, did you even read my argument? Do you have a response? > Do you care? Have you dismissed it? Why? > > -- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.