The Dataist Manifesto, part I

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Aristotle was a toe-rag, and if his grave is ever located, people should crap on it.

There, I said it.

When approaching a problem, people tend to want to use either inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning, but successful problem-solvers use both.  Inductive reasoning is applied to generate a broad range of possible root causes, and then deductive reasoning is used to narrow the list until a solution is found.   The trick is to never allow a beautiful theory to blind you to what the data is telling you.  Logic relies on the brain structure of weaponized apes, and that structure imposes limitations that said apes must be able to look past by not ignoring what the actual, real-world results are.

In other words, Aristotle had it totally backwards and set humanity back a thousand years because he was one of the "ancients" and everyone had to listen to his stupid ass.

Know your own limitations.

I've been thinking about autism recently, and the perceived upsurge in the frequency in which it occurs.  It seems mostly to happen in developed areas, and seems to be a relatively recent thing.  In fact, the recorded frequency seems to have a direct correlation with increased calorie intake in a population.

Hypothesis:  Autism is related to the human mind's pattern recognition capability (people with mild autism are *really* good at spotting patterns), and people with autism simply have that part of their brain augmented by a decent diet during its development, similar to how well-nourished children tend to have better cognitive skills in general.

And since pattern recognition is so critical to our survival, maybe a higher level of development in that area could actually have adverse effects?  Like not being able to do anything but recognize patterns?

BUT:  I am not a neurologist.  And I am operating off of "data" that is largely not data at all, but rather general impressions.  For all I know, autism has always been around, but was referred to as "the village idiot" or "that guy who died from stepping on a bear."  Inductive reasoning has produced a really neat-looking hypothesis, but that's all it is...Neat-looking. 

And this is the part where a lot of people crawl up their own arse and go full David Avocado Wolfe.   The hypothesis is absolutely useless until it has been tested and data has been collected (again, fuck you, Aristotle) and the whole thing repeated, preferably by somebody else who really wants to tear you a very public new asshole.  If your hypothesis can survive that, it's probably worth taking seriously.

The universe doesn't lie to you, but YOU lie to you.

The universe follows exacting rules, no matter how it got there.  It never breaks its own rules, even when it seems to...If it looks like it's breaking the rules, you just don't know enough about the situation.  "Spooky action at a distance" is spooky because it's at a distance, or because you just flat out cannot see enough of the situation.  But humans will decide that the rules actually don't work at times, if it fits their comfort zone.

This is exactly why agnostics are so fucking annoying.  Everybody hates those guys...They're the only people who are doing it right, because you can't gather data on whether or not an omnipresent God or three are actually there or not.  Needless to say, agnostics are smug as hell about the whole thing, and should be kicked up and down the block until they wipe that smirk off of their faces.

To be continued.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

You just had to go and drop something this good right after I finally finish Holy Nonsense, huh? 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You just had to go and drop something this good right after I finally finish Holy Nonsense, huh? 

So maybe we gotta make another book.   

Everyone get off your asses.   

[The Wizard Joseph]

Had me from the first line. My inner Diogenes avatar or archetype or whatever actually appeared involuntarily in my head and snorted laughing.

Aristotle was a toe-rag, and if his grave is ever located, people should crap on it. 

I like the idea of humans as "weaponized apes". I know neither of these are the point of the post, but I love the style and rarified and humorous references in a lot of your work.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Had me from the first line. My inner Diogenes avatar or archetype or whatever actually appeared involuntarily in my head and snorted laughing.

Aristotle was a toe-rag, and if his grave is ever located, people should crap on it.

I like the idea of humans as "weaponized apes". I know neither of these are the point of the post, but I love the style and rarified and humorous references in a lot of your work.

Those lines are 75% of the post, if you think of it.

[The Wizard Joseph]

Had me from the first line. My inner Diogenes avatar or archetype or whatever actually appeared involuntarily in my head and snorted laughing.

Aristotle was a toe-rag, and if his grave is ever located, people should crap on it.

I like the idea of humans as "weaponized apes". I know neither of these are the point of the post, but I love the style and rarified and humorous references in a lot of your work.

Those lines are 75% of the post, if you think of it.

I guess so! Misguided Weaponized Apes kinda sums up the story.

Thanks Aristotle! 

[Vanadium Gryllz]

You just had to go and drop something this good right after I finally finish Holy Nonsense, huh? 

So maybe we gotta make another book.   

Everyone get off your asses.   

Holy Nonsense II: Horrible things by Horrible people

[hooplala]

Aristotle was a toe-rag, and if his grave is ever located, people should crap on it.

There, I said it.

When approaching a problem, people tend to want to use either inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning, but successful problem-solvers use both.  Inductive reasoning is applied to generate a broad range of possible root causes, and then deductive reasoning is used to narrow the list until a solution is found.   The trick is to never allow a beautiful theory to blind you to what the data is telling you.  Logic relies on the brain structure of weaponized apes, and that structure imposes limitations that said apes must be able to look past by not ignoring what the actual, real-world results are.

In other words, Aristotle had it totally backwards and set humanity back a thousand years because he was one of the "ancients" and everyone had to listen to his stupid ass.

Know your own limitations.

I've been thinking about autism recently, and the perceived upsurge in the frequency in which it occurs.  It seems mostly to happen in developed areas, and seems to be a relatively recent thing.  In fact, the recorded frequency seems to have a direct correlation with increased calorie intake in a population.

Hypothesis:  Autism is related to the human mind's pattern recognition capability (people with mild autism are *really* good at spotting patterns), and people with autism simply have that part of their brain augmented by a decent diet during its development, similar to how well-nourished children tend to have better cognitive skills in general.

And since pattern recognition is so critical to our survival, maybe a higher level of development in that area could actually have adverse effects?  Like not being able to do anything but recognize patterns?

BUT:  I am not a neurologist.  And I am operating off of "data" that is largely not data at all, but rather general impressions.  For all I know, autism has always been around, but was referred to as "the village idiot" or "that guy who died from stepping on a bear."  Inductive reasoning has produced a really neat-looking hypothesis, but that's all it is...Neat-looking. 

And this is the part where a lot of people crawl up their own arse and go full David Avocado Wolfe.   The hypothesis is absolutely useless until it has been tested and data has been collected (again, fuck you, Aristotle) and the whole thing repeated, preferably by somebody else who really wants to tear you a very public new asshole.  If your hypothesis can survive that, it's probably worth taking seriously.

The universe doesn't lie to you, but YOU lie to you.

The universe follows exacting rules, no matter how it got there.  It never breaks its own rules, even when it seems to...If it looks like it's breaking the rules, you just don't know enough about the situation.  "Spooky action at a distance" is spooky because it's at a distance, or because you just flat out cannot see enough of the situation.  But humans will decide that the rules actually don't work at times, if it fits their comfort zone.

This is exactly why agnostics are so fucking annoying.  Everybody hates those guys...They're the only people who are doing it right, because you can't gather data on whether or not an omnipresent God or three are actually there or not.  Needless to say, agnostics are smug as hell about the whole thing, and should be kicked up and down the block until they wipe that smirk off of their faces.

To be continued.

Yes. Yes yes yes.

I actually don't know a whole lot about Aristotle, he never much interested me... but I know Ayn Rand liked him, so something's wrong there...

[LMNO]

Someone's got a case of the Holies^TM.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yes. Yes yes yes.

I actually don't know a whole lot about Aristotle, he never much interested me... but I know Ayn Rand liked him, so something's wrong there...

He said that empirical evidence was for lesser minds, and you should be able to solve anything with logic.

In short, he was a fucking assbag.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Someone's got a case of the Holies^TM.

It's this job.  It's everything I ever wanted, and no annoying profit margins or ethical limitations or "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING TO THAT GUY".  It's just pure research on Improper Science for people with bags of money and mostly questionable motives.

It's the life I was promised as a kid.

[Doktor Howl]

You just had to go and drop something this good right after I finally finish Holy Nonsense, huh? 

Resubmitted.

Also part 2.

[The Johnny]

I personally dont think autism is caused by better nutrition and the associated brain development... some professionals see it as a variation of narcissistic configurations, but not narcissistic in the usual sense.

The narcissism spectrum denotes the investment and use of your attention and energies upon oneself and a lack of attachment and interaction with other human beings... the malevolent version of narcissism is what in common parlance is understood as plain "narcissist", then theres psychosis which is a non-investment and non-interest in reality (even up to an active avoidance of it)... then theres autism, which is close to psychosis, but not quite there yet, but it does show detriments to the relation not only with others but with everyday tasks and reality itself.

Now, are autists smarter? Its been argued that a lot of scientists and brainy people are in the autism spectrum, so it is a possibility. One could argue that autists and psychotics have greater mental capabilities than the average person because otherwise they would be bored with themselves and could not have the capability to replace reality with their own or "entertain themselves", but these are the "born this way" cases which follow their tendencies.

But then theres trauma induced psychosis and autism which is a retraction from reality because THEY HAD TO. Absent care-takers in early stages of development, abusive family environments, deprivation... this is somewhat comparable to prisoners in solitary confinement which are so deprived of stimuli that their brain makes their own "entertainment", so if they are deprived from external stimuli, the mind creates its own internal stimuli... humans need stimuli, literally one can die from "boredom" and lack of stimuli - other results are self harm, violence or going catatonic.

So yup, in short, extraordinary abilities usually come with extraordinary deficiencies, at least in this case.

[Doktor Howl]

I didn't claim that autistic people are smarter, though...And the whole point here was that I have this neat little hypothesis that has never been tested, in a field in which I am not educated.

[The Johnny]

I didn't claim that autistic people are smarter, though...And the whole point here was that I have this neat little hypothesis that has never been tested, in a field in which I am not educated.

Maybe my english comprehension failed me a bit tbh; i think im only good at reading academia and news which is more straightforward than literature or essays.

I reread it and i think i understand now that it was merely an example of the types of reasoning and its limitations, rather than a correlation between Aristotles thought process and autism.