3 ms·

I wasn't going to respond to this article, or even read it, or even really acknowledge the HN culture anymore on account of gems like this, but in all honesty:

I wasn't going to respond to this article, or even read it, or even really acknowledge the HN culture anymore on account of gems like this, but in all honesty: SRSLY? ___Autism is mostly boy's disorder. That picture is about clinical depression, which is women's trait, and it is just being shut in oneself.___ The loaded _gender-nomenclature_ of this patriarchal, advanced-capitalist polyarchy has become so freaking thick that I would find it laughable if scientific literature (STEMers) even distills 5% of it from shared knowledge 100 years from now. ___In a similar vein, Baron-Cohen and Hammer (1997) argued that, whereas individuals with autism have extreme “male brains,” with better spatial skills than social skills, those with Williams syndrome show the reverse pattern and, as such, may be characterized as having extreme “female brains.” ___ -- https://sites.google.com/site/drjonbrock/publications/the-other-end-of-the-spectrum-social-cognition-in-williams-syndrome https://sites.google.com/site/drjonbrock/publications/the-ot... Now looking at your statement, we have terms like "boy's disorder" contrasted with "women's trait". What are you talking about? With Williams Syndrome we have "female brains" so with every reason to believe that they are alone in clinical depression. That is, by your grammar of reasoning. But what is more?: ___This view of Williams syndrome and autism as diametric opposites has, however, proven to be somewhat simplistic (Tager-Flusberg, Plesa-Skwerer, & Joseph, 2006). Despite their sociable and empathetic personalities, individuals with Williams syndrome are often reported as having high levels of social anxiety (Dykens, 2003; Udwin, Yule, & Martin, 1987). Children with Williams syndrome typically prefer adult company to mixing with their own age group, and have great diffi culty making and sustaining friendships (Einfeld, Tonge, & Florio, 1997; Rosner, Hodapp, Fidler, Sagun, & Dykens, 2004; Udwin et al., 1987). The two disorders also overlap clinically.___ -- https://sites.google.com/site/drjonbrock/publications/the-other-end-of-the-spectrum-social-cognition-in-williams-syndrome https://sites.google.com/site/drjonbrock/publications/the-ot... So what are you, in factual terms, please, sir, saying? What is going on here, where your post ranks highest, and you have express'd what seems to be unessential and obfuscating sexist language, in such a way as to talk about what is clinical; and current research says, quite simply, and quite exactly the opposite of what you theorize on with false knowledge; if indeed they clinically overlap, that is?

drequivalent 14y ago
With all the respect to gender equality supporters (to which I count myself), why so much butthurt?
- nerdfiles 14y ago
  What does this have to do with gender equality? I'm talking about his "theorizing" and his "nomenclature". I am talking about his method and his "grammar." I am talking about the future state of existing true statements that may exist in our scientific literature in "the next 100 years." I am dealing with Popperian-style skepticism; this is philosophy of science. Please, understand. I want sense, from nonsense. That is a big issue to me, essentially since I just read his post with http://antijingoist.github.com/AlphaSymbolic/ http://antijingoist.github.com/AlphaSymbolic/. And quite frankly, I'm not happy about it. All I see is a logical paradox. A sequence of linguistic markers, and his paradoxical blobs of AlphaSymbolic text is way to clear to me. It's way too eerily clear. Please see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/. This human man is clearly using language in a way that is expected and fits along a normalized pattern that suggests "rational." However, his theorizing immediately leads to "explosion"; so it is a matter, then, of what content quantities of his exist which, in principle, say nothing. How much of any of this paradoxical language exists? And how did we get to a point in society where what he says passes off as passively authoritative? -- What are we filling the Internet with? -- Ultimately, when I reflect on Godel's proof, Candor's diagonalization, it all becomes too clear that our Western society is intolerant to difference; and this can undermine scientific progress. I am concern'd with consistency and the stress of things like general internet ecologies (and hypermedia applications) on organic cognitive systems (like us). Because, quite simply, What is going on here? What is he talking about? Is it informational? Operational? Pragmatic? Dogmatic? What does his content and its ilk engender in terms of rational, dialectical discussion with no obvious linguistic glitches that mislead and misinform.
- nerdfiles 14y ago
  And really, you nerds write like robots all day. I have to put up with that, and I cannot use expressive language? You address none of my claims; the response I get is "butthurt." What is this? That is what I am asking. Right now. This conversation; starting from "boy's disorder"; and then "butthurt" -- what is that? It's a mod-chic-Nietzschean way of saying "womanish." Did I fail to generate a proposition such that your internal theory of mind, or inner homunculus, do not perceive it? [Edit:] Fascinating. 1 hour, 5 downvotes and a response later, still none the wiser. I even gave away a futuristic subplot for it. Low point.

drequivalent 14y ago

With all the respect to gender equality supporters (to which I count myself), why so much butthurt?

nerdfiles 14y ago
What does this have to do with gender equality? I'm talking about his "theorizing" and his "nomenclature". I am talking about his method and his "grammar." I am talking about the future state of existing true statements that may exist in our scientific literature in "the next 100 years." I am dealing with Popperian-style skepticism; this is philosophy of science. Please, understand. I want sense, from nonsense. That is a big issue to me, essentially since I just read his post with http://antijingoist.github.com/AlphaSymbolic/ http://antijingoist.github.com/AlphaSymbolic/. And quite frankly, I'm not happy about it. All I see is a logical paradox. A sequence of linguistic markers, and his paradoxical blobs of AlphaSymbolic text is way to clear to me. It's way too eerily clear. Please see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/. This human man is clearly using language in a way that is expected and fits along a normalized pattern that suggests "rational." However, his theorizing immediately leads to "explosion"; so it is a matter, then, of what content quantities of his exist which, in principle, say nothing. How much of any of this paradoxical language exists? And how did we get to a point in society where what he says passes off as passively authoritative? -- What are we filling the Internet with? -- Ultimately, when I reflect on Godel's proof, Candor's diagonalization, it all becomes too clear that our Western society is intolerant to difference; and this can undermine scientific progress. I am concern'd with consistency and the stress of things like general internet ecologies (and hypermedia applications) on organic cognitive systems (like us). Because, quite simply, What is going on here? What is he talking about? Is it informational? Operational? Pragmatic? Dogmatic? What does his content and its ilk engender in terms of rational, dialectical discussion with no obvious linguistic glitches that mislead and misinform.
nerdfiles 14y ago
And really, you nerds write like robots all day. I have to put up with that, and I cannot use expressive language? You address none of my claims; the response I get is "butthurt." What is this? That is what I am asking. Right now. This conversation; starting from "boy's disorder"; and then "butthurt" -- what is that? It's a mod-chic-Nietzschean way of saying "womanish." Did I fail to generate a proposition such that your internal theory of mind, or inner homunculus, do not perceive it? [Edit:] Fascinating. 1 hour, 5 downvotes and a response later, still none the wiser. I even gave away a futuristic subplot for it. Low point.