Whenever I can’t sleep, I turn off the lights, place my Ipad by my bed, and listen to an interview on Youtube. Last night I was especially lucky to find an interview with Dr. James Fallon that I hadn’t heard before. You would think if you were a psychopath, it would be a source of great shame, or if psychopaths are shameless, still something you would want to hide to protect your reputation. So you have to admire Dr. James Fallon for running around the country, telling everyone he’s a psychopath and basking in the attention.
In a way being able to admit you’re a psychopath is the ultimate status symbol; a way of saying, I am so respected, and my position in society is so secure, that I can admit this deep dark secret with impunity because I’m untouchable.
The interview was quite fascinating because renowned autism expert Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen expressed skepticism that Fallon really is a psychopath, suggesting instead he might have Asperger’s. But Cohen was slapped down by an aspergoid audience member who said that people with the condition can tell when others have Asperger’s and she didn’t get that vibe from Fallon at all.
In the past, I have argued that schizophrenia is the opposite of autism, but Cohen makes a coherent case for why psychopathy is the opposite of autism.
In psychopathy:
Cognitive empathy > emotional empathy
But in autism:
Cognitive empathy < emotional empathy
If I understand correctly, it sounds like cognitive empathy helps make you socially intelligent (you understand what others are feeling), while emotional empathy helps make you a good person (you feel what others are feeling, and thus care). People who are extremely high on cognitive empathy but extremely low on emotional empathy sound quite dangerous, because they have the social IQ to see your weakness, but are so heartless, they ruthlessly exploit it to their advantage. By contrast, people who are extremely high on emotional empathy but low on cognitive empathy can be easily exploited, because they want desperately to help everyone, but can’t see who will take advantage of their big hearts.
The reason Cohen doubted Fallon’s psychopathy was that Fallon stated the only people he ever physically hurt (as a youth) were bullies because he was outraged by the injustice. Cohen felt this was a sign of emotional empathy. However Fallon said something that everyone seemed to ignore which was that justice was aesthetically pleasing. What Fallon was saying (in my view) was “it’s not I truly care about justice, it’s just that it’s pretty”
This resonated deeply with me because just as folks mistake Fallon for a non-psychopath because he likes justice, people mistake me for some kind of political conservative because I like capitalism and HBD. But like Fallon, I like these things, not because they reflect my heart, but because they reflect my aesthetic tastes. There’s something incredibly beautiful about a linear relationship between IQ and money, there’s something wonderfully symmetrical about a tri-level racial hierarchy, or the idea that biggest brained people can afford the biggest house.
In a way I am the opposite of Fallon. I’m a non-psychopath who gets aesthetic pleasure from ideas that are considered evil in our politically correct society. By contrast, Fallon is a psychopath, who gets aesthetic pleasure from ideas that are intrinsically good.
Pumpkin Person 
I have a feeling schizophrenia is not really the opposite of anything because it is pretty much by definition a lack of consistency and therefore a combination of many different traits that are expressed unpredictably.
If possible, the opposite of it would be someone who doesn’t have any personality traits… perhaps a prelinguistic moron or a totally unsocialized person. Since personality types are survival strategies, perhaps only someone in an artificial environment that suppressed or circumvented normal individual’s trait’s expression/differentiation could develop traits so non-human as to be the opposite of schizophrenia.
Perhaps a post-schizophrenic personality type that combines the flexibility of schizophrenia with the stability of other types will emerge when we gene select for both creativity and stability. Actually that reminds me a bit of psychopathy… can they be creative?
On second though the emulative flexibility of psychopathy is probably just a cheap imitation of actual flexibility.
In terms of etiology, you may be correct about schizophrenia and autism being opposites: research has linked schizophrenia to excessive neural pruning and autism to a lack of the same.
…renowned autism expert Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen expressed skepticism that Fallon really is a psychopath, suggesting instead he might have Asperger’s.
…thus revealing that the only genuine sociopath is ali g’s cousin…for whom everyone is a nail…if he thinks so…he may strike with his hammer of bullshit…the motivation being “listen to me. i’m an autism expert, and i’m cool. i should be as famous as ali g.”
drrr.
he is renowned…as a pile of shit.
Instead of this dumb shit pumpkin is blogging about nowadays, what do you think about this paper on in-vitro effects on educational outcomes? http://www.nber.org/papers/w21894 I think it has more influence than other “environmental” factors, but like JayMan says, there’s a genetic confound because in-vitro conditions are heritable.
you mean in-utero or in-vivo i assume.
i’ve already said that the dispositive study would require randomly selected gestational surrogates.
such a study will never be done in humans, though it could be done in animals if some animal had behavioral characteristics like IQ which have been found to be heritable under quite limited circumstances.
IQ can’t be said to be heritable under only limited circumstances. One another thing I think you should look at is this, where Visscher responds to the critique of GCTA I showed you earlier: http://cnsgenomics.com/software/gcta/Commentary%20on%20Krishna%20Kumar%20et%20al.%20PNAS%202015.pdf
You’ve claimed before that GCTA’s failure to replicate IQ SNPs findings is a hit against heritability of IQ, but Visscher, I think, explodes that argument above. Missing heritabilty problem is well within GCTA’s capacity to solve.
But aside from that, I’d also like to see your thoughts on this recent article: http://quillette.com/2016/01/19/heritability-and-why-parents-but-not-parenting-matter/
There’s also the point that “E” doesn’t exist, it’s all just developmental stochasticity. Many behaviour geneticists believe thi.
Also have you read this: http://genetics.org/content/early/2014/06/26/genetics.114.165282.abstract ?
One more thing: you say on your blog:
“I have found that even people who are three standard deviations above the mean in IQ lack the subtlety to think flexibly about very basic statistical concepts.”
What percent of your own ability to grasp these concepts came immediately or quickly upon being exposed to them, and what percent is the result of years of continual exposure?
Thanks, -C
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Pumpkin Person wrote:
> Carl Churchill commented: “Also have you read this: > http://genetics.org/content/early/2014/06/26/genetics.114.165282.abstract > ?” >
[redacted], if you look at the greatest mathematical geniuses, from Einstein to Feynman, what we all have in common is not formal training in the field, but a deep passionate curiosity about the subject. Even though I have a fiancé, I’m already very happily married: IQ is the love of my life.
[pumpkin person: name redacted from post; Jan 21, 2016]
Google seems to inadvertently given published my full name on your blog. Do you think you could redact that?
Thanks,
–[redacted]
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Pumpkin Person wrote:
> pumpkinperson commented: “[redacted], if you look at the greatest mathematical > geniuses, from Einstein to Feynman, what we all have in common is not > formal training in the field, but a deep passionate curiosity about the > subject. Even though I have a fiancé, I’m already very happily ma” >
[pumpkin person: name redacted from post; Jan 21, 2016]
Okay I think i redacted it
A better link to Visscher et al.’s rebuttal of the GCTA criticism paper: http://cnsgenomics.com/software/gcta/Commentary%20on%20Krishna%20Kumar%20et%20al.%20PNAS%202015.pdf
“developmental stochasticity” is E fucktard.
the world isn’t really random. it’s just that its phenomena are uncertain.
statistics and probability theory are just ways of quantifying human ignorance, not ways of describing the world as it is in itself.
though i expect some would say that QM phenomena really are random.
in other words:
same G + same E = same P by definition.
but being kind-er…the “developmental stochasticity” jive might be paraphrased as…
even if environment is more important than hereditists think it is, it may be impossible to increase IQ or whatever via changes in environment even if such changes are tailored to the individual genome…there’s just too much chaos.
but this is bullshit. how do i know? the flynn effect and that i myself can name ways my own environment could have been a lot better.
of course by the time one can look back at his childhood and say how he would have raised himself…it’s may be too late.
and the very idea of “individual differences”…one of academic psychology’s divisions…
it’s asperger’-y….and transparently ideological whenever limited to a given country or region.
1. of all species of mammal humans are the most gregarious, the most social.
2. the most defining characteristic of humans, language, is a 100% social phenomenon…someone born on a desert island and raised by penguins will speak no language.
3. but no one wants to imagine that the very person he is is contingent, so genes are the most obvious environment independent identity…
imagine you had 100 clones you’d never met and then you met all of them.
what if a lot of them were very different from you?
what if a lot of them were hateful and disgusting?
people don’t want to think about this un-pleasant possibility.
so what might you find?
some would be smarter than you, some dumber. some would be richer, some poorer.
one of them might even be a faggot or a chimo or a drug dealer or whatever.
some of them would endorse a different politics.
etc.
if only everyone were a clone of me?
it might still be very far from utopia.
but one thing can be said for certain…
though your clones might vary in height, it would be obvious that they were all clones.
right?
that is, even the most different looking MZTs are still obviously MZTs.
believe it or not i was in the grocery store some time in the last 30 days and i saw two pairs of MZTs…and there wasn’t any convention. what’re the odds?
to be human is to be social…
BUT!
after the printing press, recorded sound, video, and the internet, this social-ness, at least in the developed world among the well educated, is now mostly NOT face to face.
that is,
reading a book is social interaction…unless one is reading a book which he himself has written.
watching movies or tv is social interaction…unless one is the director or an actor.
listening to music or lectures is social interaction…unless one is listening to his own performances or lectures.
of course interacting socially with flesh and blood is the only way there was > 500 years ago, and at its best it is still the best.
but at the same time anyone who’s tried to express himself extemporaneously will have the l’esprit d’escalier experience.
that is, the most serious human interaction is often better conducted via print…in an age of print…unavailable a little more than 500 y ago.
techne has changed what it is to be human.
marx was right. more right than even he knew…perhaps.
…
it’s an unfortunate aspect of the current american/global ideology that the name “marx” is always associated with strident “equalitarianism”.
in fact, marx was an idealist like berkeley.
“historical materialism” can be paraphrased as “technological determinism”.
and…
it is TRUE.
as an arrant anti-semite my word has more weight…
marx belongs in the “western canon”.
no other jew does.
of course engels was a goy.
hitler hated bolshevism but he loved socialism…national socialism.
that’s bishop berkeley peepee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley
i must admit…
when i re-read what i’ve written from (what i imagine is) the pov of a moron, i think…
this is gibberish…
when you’re past the 99th percentile in verbal IQ…
or if you’re an obscurantist…
or if you’re schizo…
most can’t tell the difference.
and i, i’ll drink all the time…
which reminds me:
1. lloyd blankfein has cancer…lymphoma…i bet he’ll die within the next three years. i’d bet my house and IRA on it.
2. david bowie had beaucoup bucks. his “bowie bonds” sold for 50 m in 1990 something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_bond#Bowie_Bonds
we could steal time just for one day…we could be heroes…just for one day…
january 22, 2016.
blankfein dies before…
january 22, 2019.
let’s see.
I, I can remember (I remember)
Standing, by the wall (by the wall)
And the guns, shot above our heads (over our heads)
And we kissed, as though nothing could fall (nothing could fall)
Chartreuse, do you think there is a correlation between very high verbal IQ and spouting gibberish? I think there is. Being a math genius does not mean that one’s mathematical models will describe reality. Perhaps if Einstein was better at math he would not have been so curious about the actual reality that equations described.
Von Neumann might be the smartest man of the 20th century but was not the most important thinker.
And these guys are in domains of high agreement… What some call ” high paradigm ” fields where there are strong corrective mechanisms to keep one from straying from the path of reality based thinking.
In the social sciences and humanities there is much less of a support structure for the most gifted minds. There is therefore much more crazy shit that is believed to be legitimate. We may well be taking these nutcases at their word because they’re interesting.
Perhaps if Einstein was better at math he would not have been so curious about the actual reality that equations described.
They say necessity is the mother of invention. I think being too smart might sometimes impede creativity, because if you understand existing theories too well, you never need to create new ones of your own.
Pingback: Emotional empathy = cognitive empathy * anxiety | Aeoli Pera
Yes, psychopathy and autism are opposites in the sense the former has high “cognitive” empathy but little “affective” empathy, while autism is the opposite.
What’s interesting is that both are basically “extreme male” version of traits that everyone has to one extent or another. Both disorders are much more common in men that women.
But the disorders are so different at the same time. Psychopaths are usually great with women and sex; autistics are very rarely so. Extreme psychopaths have no real beliefs or values or allegiances, and will change them on the drop of a hat to suit their needs, whereas autistics are extremely rigid in their belief and value systems.
I still support the idea that autism and schizophrenia are opposite in some respects, but unlike psychopathy, neither is adaptive in any environment in its most extreme forms. An extreme psychopathy would be very successful in ruthless anarchic state like Somalia, but a extremely autistic or extremely schizophrenic person wouldn’t likely succeed or pass on their in any environment.
Autism is the opposite of schizophrenia in the sense that autists understand and process the world in a literal sense, whereas schizophrenics understand and process the world by seeing things (sometime literally) that aren’t there.
What’s strange about schizophrenia and autism is that they impact so many different domains of information processing. Both can impact how the affected individual process sight, sound, language, their own thoughts, their emotions, etc.
Have to be at work soon. i wish I could sleep straight through the night 😦
I think what’s funny about the HBD-sphere is that it attracts both psychopaths and autistics and maybe people who are a bit of both. I mean, the appeal to me (and to PP) is that it provides a parsimonious explanation of reality that’s not presented in the mainstream. I think HBD also appeals to a lot of autistic people for the same reason, because autistic don’t believe things because society tells them to, but because they “make sense”.
But for some people in the HBD-sphere, it’s clear that their fascination with the topic stems more from low empathy, callousness and hatred for minorities than anything else.
I thought that Dr. Fallon’s thoughts in the previous video about Nazis to be very interesting. I’ve often wondered those in the Nazi leadership were truly psychopaths, even though people assume they are because of the atrocities they committed. I think they were psychopaths in chartreuse’s first sense rather than the second sense, because they truly bought into the ideology and thought they were saving people. True psychopaths (in the second sense) don’t buy into any belief system and only care about themselves.
They thought they were saving people, meaning, they thought they were saving the German state
Dr. Fallon reminds me of some high-IQ psychopaths I’ve met who are extremely brilliant but clearly incapable of truly empathizing with others, and only do things in their own best interests. These people were extremely narcissistic and rude, but could get away with such things because of their (supposed) brilliance.
Dr. Fallon is smart and non-impulsiveness enough that he’s managed to contain his true nature, unlike a lot of psychopaths who eventually leak out who they are. If he were stupid, he’d probably be in prison. Instead, he gets awards for his research and probably has sex with hot women 😀
But in autism:
Cognitive empathy < emotional empathy
Seems I would be autistic.
140 < 150
I just spent the past two days sleeping. I saw a video about how in China they are testing people for IQ and sequencing their genome. This gave me an insight. When I do not feel sick I feel smarter. I feel smarter because I have energy and am aware of more than when I am sick. When I am sick or tired I cannot focus on external data. It seems that smart people can handle huge amounts of data because of clear focus. I suppose to them their minds must feel like the body does when it is in peak performance.
Relating back to Carl Jung
Intuition and Sensing
Possibilities. Perception.
Internal and External
Si is about narrow details and Se is peripheral vision.
Ni concludes one possibility from Se because Se sees everything at the same time.
Ne comes up with multiple possibilities because details are all separate unlike in (Ni-Se).
Felling and Thinking
Harmony. Order.
Internal and External
To maintain inner harmony of Fi, Te controls the external environment by exerting dominance.
Fe and Ti is more aware of the influences that lead to the natural confluences of events. Less actions is needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei
I am ESFJ and my feelings are easily hurt.
The minimum effort is taken because it causes the least disturbance.
140 < 150
Ti < Fe
The body must maintain homogeneity. Such as how the hypothalamus maintains body temperature. When you are sick your body is unbalanced. The mind maintains balance to survive. Sometimes this balance forms irregularities in other parts of the mind. These imbalances allow leverage. It is a mechanism just like a screw or a pulley. It just so happens that mechanisms the mind uses is more efficient in some people because they have a cyclic working memory. Like how they body can run when it is not sick. Or like juggling because you do not feel woosie. When man became erect, walking became efficient because you do not need long arms to walk. You need long arm to climb trees. Intelligence is a balance of cyclic leverage. The mind tests all possibilities against its database until it find the idea that fits the environment in real time.
Archimedes lever
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Archimedes
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-06-upfront-personal-scientists-human-brain.html
*homeostasis
*feeling
When I do not feel sick.
I can hold thoughts in my mind.
That is basically it.
Pumpkin and co-conspirators- This blog discussion is enjoyable, interesting, and even prescient. Here’s a fun/quirky one from last week on MBTI, neuroscience, and our presidential candidates, including some discussion of cog vs emotional empathy (from the TV feed “Media Mayhem”).
http://thelip.tv/episode/genetic-personality-political-feuds-explored-dr-james-fallon/
Lol, telling everybody that you’re a psychopath might be a status symbol but it’s a giant reveal.
We’re given so much useful information about him by him and about his “kind” that we can counter-manipulate effectively.
With more and more known about ASPD, the better prepared we are in dealing with them and as a sociopath I once knew said and I paraphrase “I wouldn’t consider empaths inferior as such, just unprepared to deal with us and what we’re willing to do as yet. Over time this will change and the playing field will level”
Maybe I should feel less delighted being as a good amount of my family have ASPD and I probably do too based on my genetic profile (Though I don’t care to find out) but at the very least I can assure that as the playing field is leveled, and they’re more out in the open I will at least have a territorial advantage.
Sociopaths are very territorial.
One more mark against me, I guess.
i-pad?
what a fucking herd animal.
disgusting.
“[redacted], if you look at the greatest mathematical geniuses, from Einstein to Feynman, what we all have in common is not formal training in the field, but a deep passionate curiosity about the subject. Even though I have a fiancé, I’m already very happily married: IQ is the love of my life.” –Pumpkin
Are you claiming to be one of the greatest mathematical geniuses?
I’m comparing my passion to theirs. Obviously they are much much much more naturally talented than I which is why they changed the World and I have not.
Regarding “HBD” broadly, I don’t find many of the proponents any more systematic in their thinking than the dogma of genetic equality. Most individuals have either drifted towards supporting it because it validated their priors, or because they became enmeshed in a (generally online) social group which slowly caused them to “see the light.” Indeed, I’ve generally found that when adults change their position on a political issue (which is rare), it is not because they have carefully considered the evidence, but because their peer group shifted to one with new ideological norms, which they slowly, on an unconscious level, mold themselves to.
I am open to the idea of there being variation in intelligence between populations. However, given what we know of how most human traits vary, I am doubtful that intelligence will break neatly along historic racial typology. As an example, height clearly varies among human populations, not just within them, even with adequate nutrition. However, you can find tall populations and short ones on every continent – in the case of Africa, only a few hundred miles apart. This really isn’t surprising, as the selective environment which makes being taller or shorter advantageous is based upon the local climate and cultural toolkit.
I would also expect, given we know that intelligence is massively polygenic, that there’s no way that boosted intelligence could just be a “spandrel” – a side effect of mutations which had selective advantage for other reasons. This may of course be the case for individual genes, but one would presume that it could be just as likely that a gene with a secondary selective advantage could result in lowered intelligence. So heightened intelligence was probably a trait which many populations experienced active selection for.
What could cause active selection for heightened intelligence? The two most likely factors, through most of human society, would be either be heavily seasonal climates or increasing social complexity. Neither of these would be perfectly linear processes however. Climates have long-term oscillations. And civilizations do eventually fall – and even when they don’t the conditions which allowed for the smartest to flourish and have many children may change over time.
But really, this is all conjecture. I tend to concur with PumpkinPerson that it’s not really worthwhile to argue the points until serious data points are in. Even if these sort of studies are surpressed in the West, I’m sure they’ll be done in Asia or elsewhere.
What do you think, PumpkinPerson?
Last time I checked, my name was not Pumpkin Person. However, I’m going to respond anyway. I like what you said, and it’s basically how I feel about HBD, with the exception what you said about the metabolics of intelligence selection. A population that is stable – that is, in balance with its environment (which could be argued to be the case for human populations who have lived in the same place, and had the same cultures, for tens of thousands of years), will have a genotype that will be a a tradeoff between many different traits. The reason why brain size (a rough proxy for intelligence) would not be selected for is that brains are extremely expensive to grow. Therefore, it will always benefit a body to invest its energy elsewhere if intelligence is not being selected for in an extreme way.
HBD is often used as a way to profile a population using their race. The danger is, as you point out, some populations in each ill defined quasi-scientific category of “race” may be exceptional. Moreover, the benefits of racial profiling are often difficult to compare to the drawbacks. The qualities of a population are not a rubric for how to treat this population. For example, you can’t simply say “ok because they are inferior, we are going to treat them worse”, because doing so may only exacerbate the problems that they are perceived to be causing (for example cutting headstart programs in the US). Alternatively, the country could kill them, expelling them like an immune response to a virus (for example with hitler and the Jews), but in the process the parts of the culture and the law that made the country successful in the first place would be destroyed.
HBD is too politically loaded a term to be used in a reasonable way, but the practice and the study of human genetics itself doesn’t have to be this way. What I like about Pumpkin Person and James Thompson, for example, is that they are extremely curious, and their curiosity is much more a driving force of their writing than any political agenda.
I am open to the idea of there being variation in intelligence between populations. However, given what we know of how most human traits vary, I am doubtful that intelligence will break neatly along historic racial typology. As an example, height clearly varies among human populations, not just within them, even with adequate nutrition. However, you can find tall populations and short ones on every continent – in the case of Africa, only a few hundred miles apart. This really isn’t surprising, as the selective environment which makes being taller or shorter advantageous is based upon the local climate and cultural toolkit.
We see similar anomalies in HBD. For example gypsies and American Jews both are Caucasoid, yet differ 40 points in mean IQ. East Asians and Native Americans are both Mongoloid, but show large differences in IQ and crime. Does this reflect intra-racial genetic differences, or environmental differences among people who are genetically similar? Most HBDers would say the former.