Over the years I've noticed that more often then not, aspies are less feral and irrationally animalistic then their counterparts...

I was invited to a high IQ society because of some of the work I had done and once I got in, it was just a bastion of immaturity.  Which just re-enforced what I've always known:  IQ has some partial merit in that you have great hardware, but it tells you nothing about the quality of the resultant person at all.

I encountered all manner of people not interested in the truth, people who would simply totally evade one  anothers arguments and talk past teach other on purpose.  It was ridiculous, I really have to say that more often then not *I cannot stand certain NT characteristics*, it's like living among a lower life forms at times, it's like they're like the lower animals, and it drives me nuts.  Human beings have had millions of years to solve many of the most primitive problems and we still have them.

I've been thinking of devising a way to test for feral characteristics, their frequency and intensity, it'd be sort of like a 'personaltiy test' but not exactly, it's more about basic functions built into all human beings which makes them more or less feral.

Once someone took the test, what would that accomplish? Would they take the more intrinsically "feral" people and make them live in special institutions/camps? I don't understand how it could be relevant to anything.

This sounds like another Aspie-superiority theory to me. Also, animals are generally much better behaved than many people.

well said!

I have to admit I have developed some unique animal like senses for example when I meet someone I "scan" them and note their talking and everything else about them I know NT's do this as well but I do it to like absoloutley weird levels!

also I can tell if someone is horrible or not e.g my cousin lived near a boy who when i met him I always thought there was somethng I didn't like about him I couldn't put my finger on it but I just could when speaking to my mum about this a little while later she says that he is quite horrible and tends to leave other kids out of games he plays!!

I doubt you can devise a coherent theory of "feral traits" in humans. I agree with Natalie, this sounds very much like elitism to me.

And verging dangerously on the talk of eugenics. Simply because we might sometimes *feel* superior, does not make it so.

Younly have to look at examples throughout history to see why *that* can of worms doesn't need to be opened again.

This thread proves my point: Completely feral

Unsubstantiated emotionalism and ego defense mechanisms, take the front seat while truth gets whipped ... again.

So when someone gets a PHD it's "elitism"?   Superiority is not relative, there is a logical geometric reason why this is the case. I remember darwin's comment.

    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

    "Man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system- with all these exalted powers- Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."

True, and the more irrational and self-indulgeant they are, the greater the influence they have on how the world is run. This follows from the fact that being "people oriented" is all about the manipulation of emotive issues and acquisition of status. It turns out in practise that, in effect, society is largely dictated by those who are the polar opposites of autistics, and who thus feel a "natural" antipathy towards us. Such people don't care to note evidence of their own shortcommings, and thus tend to make virtues of them. In contrast, the virtues of autistic outlooks are deemed "defects", and differences are exaggerated out of all proportion, however trivial.

The only tests needed in a rational world would be those psychometric tests used by industrial psychologists, like those based on Aaron Rosanoff's theory of personality (see the Chandler & Macleod test, for a free on-line sample of such tests) which assess everyone objectively. Regrettably, we don't live in a rational world, so we find autism research being carried out by clueless non autistics, who, decade after decade keep re-discovering that, for example, "autistics seem not to be able to assess the emotional states of others" but never think to ask us if we even want to do so (nor wonder, given that we don't perceive non-verbal cues, just how we'd be able to do so, short of using telepathy) and who won't use the psychometrics mentioned above. Nor will they contemplate asking autistics adults for their opinion on the subject!

They will, though, use crap like the AQ test, which asks questions like "do you find it difficult to remember telephone numbers?", as if, in a century or so of it's existence, spending much of your time in idle phone chatter with friends, has somehow become a biological imperative, without which we cannot survive? Another corker is "do you find it difficult to maintain eye contact?" Answer = no! If they asked "do you derive any benefit from maintaining eye contact?", now that would be a more relevant enquiry. Have you ever seen an "expert" try to explain just what the point of maintaining eye contact is?

Get the picture? If the rulers imagine a passtime to be "natural", then as far as they are conserned, it's absence in others is a defect. This could almost be plausible, except that most of these "natural" behaviourisms by which autistics are judged, apply very little to males (and "autism", by anyones definition, is overwhelmingly a male issue) e.g., ask an average guy in the street if he has "theory of mind", and the chances are he won't have a clue what you're talking about (try to explain, and watch how quickly most males try to change the subject!). Autism "experts" though, whether male or female, attach great relevance to this alleged defect, though it's absence hurts no one, nor is it needed in the pusuit of science (so a valid question here is "why is autism research predominantly reserved for either women, or males of the "extreme female brain" variety, neither of which have any inate capacity for rational or scientific thinking?") which should indicate the whole effort is designed to fail; the current establishment do not want "autism issues" to be resolved, other than by terminating any fetus carrying "autism" genes (which will be defined by the same "experts" who currently are trying to "justify" the eugenic removal of our kind (but without letting on to the public what the real motivation is; i.e., that the extreme establishment types, having arranged that "science" is now a pursuit for team playing conformists, can't stand our continued existance, now they think us superfluous).

So go ahead, Soulsick; design a feral test...but don't expect the "experts" nor the public at large to ever acknowledge its existence; none of them want to know that, without autism, humans would no longer merit the title "homo sapiens".

Personally I think your test would be a great idea!!
It would give people are chance to assess and reflect on the higher ideals of human behaviour. It is hard when immersed in society not to take on the cultural norms. that are competitive and generally selfish. Sometimes we need to stop and reflect upon ourselves.

I like these words "bastion of immaturity".

Maybe the aspies you have met have given up trying to meet social norms. and have stopped playing the games.

This idea seems a bit extreme.

People are people - we shouldn't try to put them in boxes.


People with aspergers can also be experts in their chosen field.

The problem is too many NT people treat us like we are a non human species.

http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthre...243&page=2

have you seen the results of this poll Chris.

Bullshit.

You have not defined what "feral traits" are, and you have not proved anything you've said about them. Your so-called truth is unsubstantiated speculation at best.

A logical geometric reason, is it now?

I've not said a word about PhDs, so why don't you quit making strawmen and address the points I raised?

Indeed. You are the one that's afraid of your own "lowly origin", it seems, since you seek to elevate yourself above those lowly NTs.

Wrong answer. Women are quite capable of rational or scientific thinking..........not sure where you get this *** from but it is ignorance.