Some people have expressed a very (and very nastily) contemptuous attitude towards the antiinnatia theory and its author. Their confident contempt is based on the notion that after so many years, the textbooks have never even mentioned this theory, and nor do any of the "leading experts" (in the context that Bernard Rimland can be ignored as a candidate for "leading expert" status not least due to being helpfully dead now). It follows, these people "reason", that therefore the theory has failed, is a proven dud. And they assert that it follows that they do not have to themselves point to any fault of reasoning or evidence damning the theory, because there is "obviously" "no case to answer" anyway.
Those who say this are in effect saying exactly the same as "Hello, I am a mindless herd-following sheep. I've noticed that none of the rest of the herd is heading your way, so I fail to see any reason why I should either. Baahh!"
Indeed, why think for yourself when you can just let others do your thinking for you instead?
"~Independent-minded~"? -- Baahh!
(See also description in Anna Karenina chapter 3.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Or maybe its because your ideas are totally balmy..
ReplyDeleteNah, couldn't possibly be.. You're a genius and everyone else is wrong.
"Everyone else" has been wrong before, at various times in history. Clicking on the link above at "just let others do your thinking for you instead?" will take you to some of them. Part of the reason why "everyone" is so easily wrong is that 99.9999999% of people are content to just assume the opposite, and that if the "~leading expert~" Prof Barely-Conning says or doesn't say something, then there's no reason why they too should not accept that as the end of the matter. Especially as every reasonable person can ignore such exceptionals as Rimland and Eysenck on the solid grounds that they are dead and hence already proven duds.
ReplyDelete99% of being a significantly creative genius is a lack of something in the brain (caused by antiinnatia). That something being the innatons producing conformity to conventional wisdom and conformity to one's own prior notions. The "sheep-brained gene" and "pig-headed gene" so to speak.
A broken clock is right twice a day... but nobody in their right mind will suggest that as far as checking the time goes, a broken clock will do the job just fine. For every scientific "heretic" that history has proven right, there's a dozen that were, in fact, plain wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe occurrence that prominent geniuses have been misunderstood and ignored in the past, just as you perceive yourself to be, is completely irrelevant to the question of your ideas' worth.
Work more on finding compelling evidence to prove your theories and presenting it in a way that conforms to the standards of science, and less on defending your huge, bruised ego with childish rants.
Making up random numbers on the spot doesn't help your case either. The relationship between general intelligence, "genius", creativity and latent inhibition -as well as how latent inhibition is determined genetically- isn't completely understood yet.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"A broken clock is right twice a day... but nobody in their right mind will suggest that as far as checking the time goes, a broken clock will do the job just fine. For every scientific "heretic" that history has proven right, there's a dozen that were, in fact, plain wrong."
Indeed. I never suggested otherwise (though the precise ratio seems unclear). But so what? It appears you are attributing a straw man to me here. Namely the elementary fallacy that "great geniuses are ignored therefore ignored ideas must be (or probably are) works of great genius". But I said nothing of the sort. I merely challenged the converse fallacy that (relatively) ignored ideas can be rightly judged on that basis to be worthless. The historical evidence I have cited proves that that is a seriously unhinged notion. Have you cited any evidence yourself?
"The occurrence that prominent geniuses have been misunderstood and ignored in the past, just as you perceive yourself to be, is completely irrelevant to the question of your ideas' worth."
I perceive myself to be ignored? What evidence? Several of the most famous names in science have highly praised my work and accepted it for publication, and yet "I perceive myself to be ignored"? I merely said that a handful of usually anonymous people express (with a lot of sneering) that fallacy stated at top of this reply.
The relevance that you deny away here is that that historical evidence disproves that fallacy mentioned above.
"Work more on finding compelling evidence to prove your theories and presenting it in a way that conforms to the standards of science,"
I have been, thanks!
"and less on defending your huge, bruised ego with childish rants."
What huge bruised ego would that be? What evidence? I don't include any bio information or picture of my ugly/handsome face, I don't even indicate my gender here or anywhere. Isn't that a small enough ego for you?
"Childish rants"? I can't quite follow your reasoning there. It looks like you may be suffering from SED (Salieri's Envy Disorder, hopefully to be included in DSM-V...).
You put the word genius in quotes. On what evidence do you say there's no such thing? Oh of course, suffering from SED again....
Just out of curiosity, because I happen to be involved in an extensive literature review of material concerning autism for my dissertation, I would like if without acerbic commentary or name calling you could provide me with those famous names in science who have praised you and the associated citations? I don't mean to be offensive but I hope you do realise that neither you nor those on the other side of the argument are helping third parties absorb literature by seasoning it liberally with taunts and jibes.
DeleteI'd also like to mention that I'm not the person with whom you were debating previously, since there doesn't appear to be any way to distinguish between users without accounts here.
DeleteRobin P Clarke writes: Thanks Anon (Feb 2013) for your question of “those famous names in science who have praised you and the associated citations”. I should first mention that I don’t myself consider it very important whether something is said by a “famous” person or otherwise – better to ask whether the evidence and reasoning are sound, which can be far from the case even with some Nobel winners and the like. However, since you ask (and many others presume…). If you look at the top right of each page here you will see links to the comments from:
Delete1) HJ Eysenck, the most-cited-ever scientist (at least then), widely considered the leading expert on intelligence (with the antiinnatia theory being just as much IQ theory as autism theory).
2) Bernard Rimland, arguably the most influential person in autism research history. He pioneered the modern view of autism as a biological condition, though as is the nature of things in certain quarters his name is carefully avoided mention of and it is pretended that certain more convenient people in London were the pioneers instead. There’s a lot of such falsification of what happens in research.
In addition there are similarly positive letters from Prof David Horrobin who was famous as a stern critic of mindless medical orthodoxy. A measure of Horrobin’s stature was the revolting deceitful “obituary” that the BMJ chose to publish immediately after his wife became a widow (so the BMJ liars couldn’t be sued for libel), and which they were forced to retract after a deluge of complaints. The same BMJ liars are right now on the losing side of a libel action from “fraudster” Andrew Wakefield following the similarly deceitful articles they published last year. By comparison any “ad hom” content of this website is very mild.
However, I have to wonder why you ask this question. A competent scientist thinks for themselves (unlike a sheep), judges things on the merits of their evidence and reasoning rather than the fame or status of their author. It is the experience of many scientists that the most honest, competent researchers get horribly vilified (as did Horrobin and Wakefield for just two of many examples) while charlatans get promoted as supposedly great “evidence-based” expert geniuses. There’s also the malign Matthew Effect. (P.S.: There’s something wrong with this website on my computer which makes it very difficult for me to post/ manage the comments here, I’ve only managed this now via a lot of fiddling around with spare computer parts.)
By the way, I appreciate your point about taunts and jibes but that was only in the context of the extremely conceited, contemptuous and insolent first commenter to whom I replied with hopefully a deal less conceit and attitude but hopefully a bit better humour. In any case it's only words which one should learn to get used to! Especially if you're studying autism research in which half the people accuse the other half of being liars and vice versa. Personally I think it's just human nature to be at least slightly thick.
DeleteHello, Neat post. There's an issue along with your website in web explorer, would check this? IE nonetheless is the market leader and a good element of other folks will miss your fantastic writing because of this problem.
ReplyDeleteMy web page : make money online blogging
Test
ReplyDeleteRobin P Clarke writes: Thanks Anon (Feb 2013) for your question of “those famous names in science who have praised you and the associated citations”. I should first mention that I don’t myself consider it very important whether something is said by a “famous” person or otherwise – better to ask whether the evidence and reasoning are sound, which can be far from the case even with some Nobel winners and the like. However, since you ask (and many others presume…). If you look at the top right of each page here you will see links to the comments from:
ReplyDelete1) HJ Eysenck, the most-cited-ever scientist (at least then), widely considered the leading expert on intelligence (with the antiinnatia theory being just as much IQ theory as autism theory).
2) Bernard Rimland, arguably the most influential person in autism research history. He pioneered the modern view of autism as a biological condition, though as is the nature of things in certain quarters his name is carefully avoided mention of and it is pretended that certain more convenient people in London were the pioneers instead. There’s a lot of such falsification of what happens in research.
In addition there are similarly positive letters from Prof David Horrobin who was famous as a stern critic of mindless medical orthodoxy. A measure of Horrobin’s stature was the revolting deceitful “obituary” that the BMJ chose to publish immediately after his wife became a widow (so the BMJ liars couldn’t be sued for libel), and which they were forced to retract after a deluge of complaints. The same BMJ liars are right now on the losing side of a libel action from “fraudster” Andrew Wakefield following the similarly deceitful articles they published last year. By comparison any “ad hom” content of this website is very mild.
However, I have to wonder why you ask this question. A competent scientist thinks for themselves (unlike a sheep), judges things on the merits of their evidence and reasoning rather than the fame or status of their author. It is the experience of many scientists that the most honest, competent researchers get horribly vilified (as did Horrobin and Wakefield for just two of many examples) while charlatans get promoted as supposedly great “evidence-based” expert geniuses. There’s also the malign Matthew Effect. (P.S.: There’s something wrong with this website on my computer which makes it very difficult for me to post/ manage the comments here, I’ve only managed this now via a lot of fiddling around with spare computer parts.)
- Although her blog just isn't focused on WBT just like the rest of the list, she often shares her experiences with WBT in numerous blogs payday loans forces loans claims it is the no 1 lender on the military.
ReplyDeleteThe headlines, produced by journalists without any frame of reference for modern
ReplyDeletestudent activism, talked up a concocted threat to Jews paydayloansonline1.co.uk so, greater selections of companies you must choose from the boost your rates, which can fit well
along with your finances.
The thing in the scheme is the fact that, lender will not ask for that credit standing No credit check loans uk another important point to consider will be the monthly interest on the first mortgage.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, tuition for pre-sem courses for example summer Greek, refresher courses, extra summer courses payday loans no credit check if
ReplyDeleteyou have never owned a car, you can try and use the first time car buying programs.
They make poor choices and often wind up indebted and should not pay their bills payday loans UK
ReplyDelete" this morning, gallup reported what has economic confidence index held at -16 the other day, the highest index level inside four-plus a lot of gallup daily tracking in the united states.
It turns out - You spend 12 percent more once you swipe payday loan lenders after i contacted the firm
ReplyDeletethat offers loans at 2,339 percent apr it, to its credit, removed the articles.
Here are new options available: President Obama's debt relief federal government grants assistance and also the Income Based Repayment program payday loans online by working together with rapid payday advances mortgage loan approvals up to $1,six-hundred; nearly everyone could very well qualify during that very moment.
ReplyDeleteThe gained amount is actually enough for managing some unexpected fiscal crises
ReplyDeletepayday loan lenders these relate with two factors
particularly: the debt-to-income ratio and finding a cosigner.
They don't look at your credit in any way and allow you to get an automobile on loan from their website online payday loans if you've got an unhealthy credit rating, you could want to consider a loan modification.
ReplyDeleteThey don't look at your credit in any way and allow you to get an automobile on loan from their website online payday loans if you've got an unhealthy credit
ReplyDeleterating, you could want to consider a loan modification.
The company welcomes everybody to pop to their shop based at 74 Gerard Street and acquire
ReplyDeletetop tips on any of the equipment and services using their team of coaches payday loans with no credit checks the offered fund
might be used by paying medical bills, electricity bills, plastic card payments, home rentals,
child's school or tuition fees therefore forth.
This is especially try in case you bank with a local
ReplyDeletesmaller bank or perhaps a bank fast online payday loans
best practices: most flashes contain the capacity to zoom
in and out.
Once you receive out there and compare car loan refinancing options
ReplyDeleteyou'll observe that in lots of cases online refinancing will be the way to look Pay day Lenders the year has ushered in very good news for the auto industry.
as Congressman for that Ninth District, recent developments
ReplyDeleteshould disturb everyone payday loan direct lenders
banks along with the other traditional lenders do what you can but they are at the mercy in the market.
On Line Lenders For our money advance loans no credit
ReplyDeleteexamine is statutory,On Line Lenders so you will will not need
to be worried about your qualifying when looking at this aspect cash advance payday loans they do not require any paperwork to become faxed because they can verify your details electronically.
Go through their site and have a look at their "FAQ s" page to have some answers to
ReplyDeletetheir mostly asked questions instant payday loans uk the cosigner should be someone
with good or decent credit that trusts you to the
borrowed funds and meet your obligations.
Depending on the quantity of debt, you will find also
ReplyDeletelegal actions that the lender could possibly be prepared to
take to recuperate the amount of money same day payday loans online if you've no time and profit pocket and you will need cash immediately about the fast, then quick cash loans can be a perfect solution.
Traders will use a few winning trades in the row then think
ReplyDeletethey've worked your markets and tend to forget regarding their plan discipline and trade blindly cash until payday loans your loan will be approved in less than a day serious amounts of the cash is going to be in your money.