Read the most advanced science of autism causes here. Bypass the commenterati and go direct to the science. Don't waste your time at the sites which pretend "no-one" knows what causes (or what sometimes cures) autism.
This is a website relating to the unchallenged theory of autism, IQ and genius, Personality and Individual Differences 14:459-482 (1993) by Robin P Clarke (the antiinnatia theory). An update review paper is being prepared for publication. Meanwhile you can download the original 1993 publication (author's reprint) here . (the journal site version is here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90316-U, but without added charts of social class and you may have to pay Elsevier $31.)
Click here to see the pseudo-expertise being used by NHS "experts" to cover up the dental amalgam catastrophe.

Why you are a brain-dead sheep (or not?)

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.)

11 comments:

  1. Or maybe its because your ideas are totally balmy..

    Nah, couldn't possibly be.. You're a genius and everyone else is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "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.
    99% 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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 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.

    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.

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous said...
    "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....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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.

      Delete
    2. I'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.

      Delete
    3. Robin 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:
      1) 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.)

      Delete
    4. 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.

      Delete
  5. Hello, 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.
    My web page : make money online blogging

    ReplyDelete
  6. Robin 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:
    1) 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.)

    ReplyDelete