Sunday, March 14, 2010

The physiology behind xenophobia

The roots of racism, bigotry, sexism, intolerance; why people with autism are bullied so much and why some parents of autistic children have said their child would be better off dead if the autism could not be “cured”. I think this is the motivation behind the curebie mind set that some NT parents have.

This relates in part to the concept of the African philosophical term Ubuntu: being human through other humans and how lack of Ubuntu causes xenophobia. This derives from trying to understand the cognitive and communication differences in autism spectrum disorders. The concept of becoming a person through other people exactly fits with this, but in a much more literal sense than (I think) is understood in Ubuntu as a philosophical concept.

I am thinking of this not in any moral or ethical sense, rather in a purely physiological and psychological sense, how do we, as human animals, recognize and learn to recognize other entities as “human”, and how does the “human essence” that is recognized as “human” occur and develop. Considering what “essence” of someone is perceived to be “human”, and how, also leads to what happens when that “essence” is not perceived is what I think leads to the perception that someone is “non-human”, i.e. what triggers xenophobia. I am using “human” as being synonymous with “non-other” or “someone who is not so different from me that it is not OK to treat them badly”.

In other words, how do we recognize someone, something outside ourselves as something that should be treated as a fellow human being? As a brother, sister, neighbor, peer, or as an alien? As an enemy, someone who cannot be trusted and who does not deserve the normal rules of hospitality that apply to neighbors, kin and fellow human beings?

As I have been writing this it has gotten more involved and matrix-like, rather than a linear argument that is easily understood. The basic point I am trying to get across is that understanding any communication requires a Theory of Mind that matches the person you are trying to communicate with. When the two theories of mind don't match, the increased error rate triggers xenophobia via the uncanny valley effect. NT people of different races and cultures trigger xenophobia because the content of their NT ToMs doesn't match. ASDs trigger xenophobia in NTs because the fundamental structure of the ASD ToM doesn't match the NT ToM. Most of the examples I use are from politics because it is very easy to see that the xenophobia exhibited by political partisans does not have a basis in fact. The feelings of hatred come first, the arguments to support the feelings come later.

Ideas based on feelings or on facts and logic.

This feeling, that someone who is not like me belongs to a class which may be treated differently than me and my group, is a feeling, and so may be difficult or impossible to analyze rationally because at its core it is not rational. Feelings derive from physiological states, not from facts and logic. It is unreasonable to expect feelings to be rational. The feeling that one's own feelings are rational and are to believed is the essence of truthy. Stephen Colbert coined the term and discusses it saying:

Truthiness is 'What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.' It's not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There's not only an emotional quality, but there's a selfish quality.”
It is the selfishness of truthy that is its most important characteristic. It is the implicit assumption that one individual's feelings have a privileged access to truth over all other individuals. This is the essence of xenophobia, an individual's personal subjective assessment that another does not have what ever human essence it requires for that person to be a peer or equal, or even someone to not be abused or killed.
How I arrive at this is somewhat complicated. Just bear with me and try to understand the whole thing before you pick it apart. There are a lot of concepts I am trying to pull together, and putting them in a logical form isn't that easy and I have been pressed for time. I feel I need to bring up a lot of background and definitions in order for the overall concept to be understood. Not everything is in a good sequential order for easy understanding. My intent in this is not to be pejorative, but to be descriptive, to describe traits such as xenophobia as they are, so that individual bearing such traits can choose to change them (or not) as they wish. I appreciate that there is considerable stigma attached to bigotry, racism and xenophobia, and being accused of such is considered a great insult. My intent is to explain the physiology behind the feelings of xenophobia so those feelings can be understood and I hope modified or at least not acted upon. Feelings of xenophobia are morally neutral. Acting on feelings of xenophobia is not morally neutral, those actions are immoral and damaging to all involved, both the victim, the perpetrator, the enabler and the uninvolved observer.
I have an earlier version on my blog which more closely focuses on the different thinking styles on the autism spectrum. In this write-up I am trying to explain xenophobia. Why it happens, how to recognize it, how to stop it from causing problems and how to change people so they don't experience xenophobia. Getting people to not experience xenophobia is more difficult and takes their active participation in adults, not so much in children. Peer pressure can be used to compel this, but it takes active pressure and many xenophobes are in denial and resistant to change because xenophobia is such an important part of their self conceptualization. To change and become non-xenophobic means to become in part that which they now despise. This is quite important. To be non-xenophobic, one must be able to understand the other, and the only way one can understand the other is to be able to think like the other, and if one can think like the other, then one has become other-like in the most fundamental way. If one begins to understand the other before one stops hating the other, then as one's understanding increases so does one's self-hatred.
In the sense that I am using it, a Theory of Mind (ToM) produces output i.e. feelings that are direct input to another part of the ToM. The output of the ToM is “transparent”, that is there is no access to the lower hierarchical input, or the process by which the output is derived. An insulting facial expression or gesture triggers the feeling of being insulted without the conscious observation and registration that the gesture comprised a number of fingers arrayed in a particular order, or lips turned at a particular angle, and that in this particular culture that particular hand sign has a particular meaning. The gestures and body language that lead to the feelings that one is being lied to, being insulted, being put down, being loved, can't be expressed in words because the “language” that the communication is occurring in is not verbal.
I think that xenophobia is purely an outcome of a ToM and that a theory of reality (ToR) does not (and can not) lead to xenophobia. I think this is mostly because the ToM deals mostly with feelings, and those feelings are “primitives”, that the conscious brain does not have access to and good control over, and is difficult to change, and difficult to reject when they are wrong or when they don't follow from premises. In contrast a ToR is easier to change and is under much better conscious control. One adopts a ToR because it actually corresponds with reality, not because one wants to, or because one feels it is correct. In general if you have a belief and you can't derive it from facts and logic, then it is a ToM feeling, and not a ToR fact. One can have mistaken ToR “facts”, but if you refuse to change them when they are shown to be mistakes, then they are actually ToM feelings. Being able to appreciate this dichotomy is virtually impossible for someone without a good ToR.
People with a strong ToM want to be perceived to be correct because it gives them power in a human power hierarchy. They will attempt to impose their ToM on others to exert control over them. To some extent a ToM can be projected. Charismatic leaders have a strong ToM that they can use, and project and get other people to adopt. The actual truth value of the ToM is irrelevant to those using it, it is completely arbitrary. Groupthink, is an example of what can happen in an organization when ToMs are allowed to run things. The Wiki discussion points out very nicely the difficulty in problem solving in a hierarchy. When success depends in part on pleasing those higher up in the hierarchy, Groupthink is a natural consequence, which can only be avoided with substantial effort, as discussed. Groupthink lead to the serious problems of the Bay of Pigs, JFK recognized that and tried to avoid it during the Cuban Missile Crisis (fortunately he did, or we might not be here today). Drinking the Kool-Aid is another expression that means essentially the same thing. It is essentially accepting someone else's Truthy as your own.
The term Reality Based Community was originally meant as a pejorative term, applied to those who were not in political power and so had to react to the “reality” that the Neocons with political power were “creating”. Trying to create “reality” via force of will is a ToM construct.
People with a strong ToR want to be actually correct and will change their ToR when they find it to be in error. People with a strong ToM want to be perceived to be correct and want you to change your ToM to match theirs, and (in the limit) will kill you if you don't. Avoiding being killed is the ultimate reason why there is the ToM switch in Stockholm Syndrome. Threats of violence to induce adoption of a policy are virtually always ToM derived.
Truthy is a pure ToM activity, as is the postmodernism idea that everything is relative. The modernism idea of rejecting prior ideas can also be a ToM activity if another ToM is substituted for the one that is rejected. The closest things that correspond to ToR activity are Skepticism (particularly as exemplified by the James Randi Educational Foundation) and also science as exemplified by Richard Feynman. In particular see Feynman's discussion of Cargo Cult Science. I have a quote of his that exemplifies the degree of intellectual honesty that is necessary for a good ToR on my blog: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.” Very smart people can fool themselves. How one uses one's ability to reason is what determines the outcome. Skeptics use their intelligence to try and make their ToR correspond with actual reality by changing their ToR; Denialists use their intelligence to trick themselves into thinking reality corresponds to their ToM.
To be a good skeptic, or to have a good ToR, you can only argue from facts and then only using valid logic. If you make up your own “facts”, or use invalid arguments, you are not being a skeptic.
Denialism is a pure ToM activity. I think that some of the ideas I am expressing here are semi-consistent with the Jungian idea of the Collective Unconscious being equivalent to a shared ToM. However a ToM in the sense that I am using it is only shared within a group of humans and I don't posit any non-physical or metaphysical action at a distance to explain it or how it arises, just simple physiology. It is not “universal” in any sense. What can be universal is the overlap, the lowest common denominator of a mob for example. One does need a ToM that overlaps with social animals to understand and predict their behavior (for example dogs), and even to some extent non-social animals such as predators. Non-social animals do not really have a ToM that can be shared, so trying to understand and control them is not possible, hence the expression “herding cats”. Non-social animals do sometimes need to communicate, for example to mate, and also for predators to predict what their prey is doing, but the ToM needed for that level of communication is quite simple. It is not just that non-social animals can't be understood, the animal does not have the capacity to understand what social interaction is because it doesn't have the brain structures to instantiate that understanding.
It has been said that "Organizing autistics is like herding cats." I think this expression relates the similarities between autistics and cats as not having a robust ToM that is shared between the would-be cat (or autist) herder and the objects of their herding attempts.

Thinking requires neuroanatomy to instantiate idea.

The only way anyone can think about something is if that person has the neurological hardware to instantiate the mental concept. If the mental concept cannot be “mapped” onto the neuroanatomy of the brain, the idea cannot be held in that brain, the idea cannot be thought about. I am using “neuroanatomy” in the most general sense, a configuration of brain matter/stuff. All changes in the mind result from and are caused by changes in the physical structure of the brain (which I am calling neuroanatomy even though it may be sub-cellular in nature).

Understanding that someone without the neural hardware to instantiate the idea is unable to think about it is difficult. Most human thinking is transparent, that is it takes very little effort. It is only coming up with completely new ideas that is difficult, but like all things it always looks easy in hindsight. Bora has a good example of that kind of thinking in regarding science journalism:

You understand that it is impossible for a single person to gain a full understanding of every area of science.

- Can you play violin?
- Sure, of course
- Have you ever played?
- No. But it looks easy, I'm sure I can do it.

This is how non-scientists often think about science.”

This is how people who lack the neural hardware to understand an idea often think about the idea. They are unable to actually think about it, so they are unable to evaluate if the concept is easy or difficult. With a ToR, you know if you have or don't have a chain of logic leading from facts to what you believe is true. With a ToM, there is only the feeling, the process by which the feeling was arrived at is transparent, it is completely unknown. Sometimes the path can be figured out, that is one of the things that psychotherapy and psychoanalysis is used for. In day-to-day use, where feelings come from is mostly unknown.

Facts are independent of the neural network that instantiates them. Feelings are subjective products of the neural network that instantiates them. Feelings change due to the physiological state of the brain, facts do not. When you are tired, angry, hungry, sick, or running from a bear, feelings change and the pathways by which feelings are used to derive other feelings change. Facts do not change and the logic that connects facts does not change.

Learning is the process by which neuroanatomy remodels itself so the new neuroanatomy can instantiate the learned idea.

Being ignorant of a mental concept is equivalent to having a neuroanatomy that does not support instantiating the mental concept that one is ignorant about. The only one can become non-ignorant is to learn the concept which means modifying your neuroanatomy so the idea can be instantiated.

Learning can be looked at as modification of the brain's neural network so the new neuroanatomy can support what ever new idea it is that is being learned. This change in neuroanatomy takes a time that is dependent on how similar the new idea is to ideas that can already be instantiated.

In computers, there is a distinction made between hardware and software. There is no such distinction in natural neural networks, there is only “hardware”. I don't want to get into a mind-body argument. This is written from a completely materialistic perspective, that there are no ghosts or immaterial minds, or spirits that have influences other than through chemistry, physics and quantum mechanics. The brain is only hardware, but that hardware can change with a time constant of less than a second. That is what memory does, it records (via some unknown process) ideas in short term memory and later consolidates it into long term memory. Both of those are hardware in the sense that I am using, the sense that there are actual physical objects, cells, molecules, networks that have changed state and the “data” is recorded in that changed state, and the physics and chemistry of those physical objects determines the properties of the “memory”. It is fundamentally not like computer memory, where the type of memory does not affect the data and where “data” in the sense of software can direct the hardware to perform calculations. In brains there is only hardware, but that hardware is very complicated and can change second-to-second. A ToR in essence emulates a computer where “facts” and “logic” can be stored so they are not changed by a change in the emotional state of the organism.

Learning physics or mathematics is difficult because the normally developing neural patterning doesn't spontaneously support that type of thinking the way it supports language. Language acquisition occurs spontaneously. Essentially all infants learn to speak essentially any language that they are exposed to as infants, without an accent and with no special effort. It is not that language acquisition is easy or simple, rather that evolution has configured humans to have very powerful language acquisition systems; that either a language is spontaneously acquired, or a new language is generated de novo.

Learning is a process of neurodevelopment which must follow a path. The neuroanatomy is reconfigured a little bit at a time through neuronal remodeling to transition from the state before the mental concept can be instantiated to the neuroanatomy after the mental concept can be instantiated. Memory is a simple example, but one that requires very complex neuronal remodeling, the details of which is still not understood, yet it happens completely transparently. This is why most learning has to start with the basics, then once the basics are learned more complex ideas can be learned, and so on. The early learning configures the neuroanatomy into a state where it can be reconfigured again for later learning, and again, and again throughout the entire lifespan.

Theory of Mind: absolutely necessary for any communication

I discuss much of this in a hypothesis of autism in an earlier post.

My understanding of xenophobia and othering starts with an understanding of how people communicate, that is through a shared “theory of mind”. A “theory of mind” in this context is the cognitive hardware that converts a data stream of language into a mental concept and back. When two people communicate, the first one translates a mental concept into a data-stream of language, the data is transferred, the second person receives the data-stream through their senses, and then up converts the data-stream into a mental concept. Fundamentally, the only things that can be “communicated” are mental concepts, and those mental concepts can only be communicated if the two individuals share a common “theory of mind”, the same (or close enough) mapping of a data-stream of language onto mental concepts. What is critically important is that both individuals have neural structures that are both able to instantiate the same mental concept that they are both thinking about. If they are unable to instantiate the same mental concept, they are unable to communicate about that mental concept. All communication necessarily is a two-person activity. A failure to communicate is also a two-person activity, a failure to communicate cannot be localized to one individual.

Communication and language acquisition: the compulsion of peer pressure

Because infants are unable to speak but yet can learn to speak essentially any language as a first language with no accent, the ability to communicate in a specific language is not innate but is a product of neurodevelopment (which is innate). Usually infants will adopt the language of the majority population, usually the language of their parents.

Social animals communicate with each other. In humans the brain structures to support language and language development must be coded for genetically. Language itself must be learned or is synthesized de novo during certain periods of brain development. This point is quite important. When humans are growing up in a culture, they adopt the language of the culture, provided that the language is "well formed". If the language the adults are using is not "well formed", the children synthesize a new language that is "well formed". That is, when the children of immigrant parents grow up, they do not adopt the pidgin language their parents are speaking, they either adopt the "well formed" dominant language, or synthesize a new "well formed" Creole. The various sign languages did not become "well formed" until children grew up with signing as their first language, which they modified into a "well formed" language. This is well documented in the development of Nicaraguan sign language.

The acquisition of language in this way tells us several things; that the ability to acquire language is innate, and that there is a more "primitive" cognitive structure underlying language (by that I mean that the structure of "cognition" has a component that is hierarchically simpler than the linguistic components humans communicate with), and that neurodevelopment of language acquisition is to some extent directed by that underlying cognitive structure in ways that are transparent, i.e. not observed or noticed. Without a simpler and more primitive cognitive structure, the Creole could not be unconsciously analyzed as it is being formed to ensure the resulting Creole has a "well formed" grammar and that the specific well-formed language corresponds to what the other children are using. However, the ability to form a Creole is lost at a certain age. The immigrant parents of the Creole synthesizing children continue to speak their pidgin language. This implies that the cognitive structure that analyzes language as it is being learned and forces the develop0ing neuroanatomy to instantiate a language that is "well formed", i.e. to conform to standard default human linguistic patterns is lost (to some extent) with age. It also implies a compulsion to learn the "standard" language and a compulsion to force others to comply with the "standard".

Some individuals may not lose the ability to acquire new languages with as high fidelity as “first languages”. That ability is extremely rare and insufficiently characterized for me to discuss it further. It is not the case that the only type of “languages” that humans can understand are languages that fit the “well-formed grammar” of first languages. Pidgin languages do not fit a well-formed grammar and yet can be understood.

The development of a de novo language, such as a Creole, is a collective outcome produced by a population. It is not produced by a single individual. Another way of describing it is that the population developing the language acquires a shared neural mapping of the medium of the language (sounds, gestures, etc) to neural structures producing the mental states that are the ultimate outcome of communication (that is the ideas being communicated). In this context, there is no arbitrarily correct mapping. The mapping is correct so long as it is the mapping shared by the group. In the sense of this quote: “In any great organization it is far, far safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right alone.” (John Kenneth Galbraith); what ever the majority adopts as the linguistic mapping is the correct mapping. This is a very important point. What ever the majority adopts as correct is correct; everything else is wrong. The ability to incorporate something arbitrary into a ToM is important. It allows and is necessary to support Doublethink the holding of two contradictory ideas simultaneously while believing both of them.

For a single majority linguistic mapping to arise spontaneously there must be very powerful mechanism(s) to eliminate deviation from the mapping acquired by the majority. The majority acquire a shared Theory of Mind with respect to linguistic mapping. In other words, the differences between the shared Theory of Mind and that of any individuals in the population are reduced. The deviation is not reduced by changes to the shared theory of mind; the deviation is reduced by individuals adopting the shared ToM as their own.

This is an important point. There is no "shared" ToM. There are only individual ToMs which correspond to the shared ToM more or less. The shared TOM can only be shared to the extent that all individuals have the same components and the same structural relationships between those components. The shared ToM reflects the "lowest common denominator"; the ToM that overlaps with everyone else's ToM is all that can be shared. I think this relates to the importance of "peer pressure" in the age group capable of forming a Creole language. If peer pressure were not so compelling, a single coherent language would be difficult or even impossible to achieve.

As mentioned earlier, the parents of the generation that develops the Creole continue to speak their pidgin language. They do not participate in the Creole formation because their ToM is insufficiently plastic. Their ToM has become “fixed”.

The rigidity of an inflexible ToM maintains stability of communication over your lifetime, and of information transmitted culturally to the next generation. If your ToM doesn't support an idea, you cannot transmit it, cannot receive it, cannot understand it, or cannot even think it. When times are easy, transmitting the cultural information that led to those easy times is important. It is important to do so with high fidelity because it worked. When times are hard, the culturally transmitted information isn't working, and so needs to be abandoned or modified. The fidelity of transmission must be reduced so what ever is wrong and/or isn't working can be eliminated. I think the “hard times” skews neuronal remodeling in utero to a less social phenotype, to more toward the ASD end of the ASD spectrum. Exposure to stress in utero does increase the incidence of autism.

The “theory of mind” encompasses all communication modalities, spoken language, sign language, text, music, lip reading, gestures, and very importantly body language where emotional states are communicated. Much of the communication of emotional states is likely unconscious and we don't have conscious access to everything that is being communicated, especially when what is communicated are emotional states. What is communicated results in feelings, feelings of unease, feelings of trust, feelings of respect, feelings of every type. The details of those feelings are very important. The details of feelings produced by translation of the data stream is also a part of the ToM that is learned during early to mid childhood. This is a major mechanism by which xenophobia can be learned, peer pressure compels adoption of what the peers are doing. One has to go along to get along, even to the extent of ostracizing those that are different.

That is why being ostracized hurts. It has to be aversive or it would not be effective at enforcing a single shared ToM. Avoiding the feelings of hurt are what compel people to “go along”. It is what compels people to change their ToM, to acquire the local accent, local customs, local gestures, local ways of feeling, local ways of ostracizing those who are not “local”. I think that this is the basis for mob rule, and why as Friedrich Nietzsche said “Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule.” The ToM of the mob is the lowest common denominator, the intersection of the ToM of all the individuals in the mob. The larger the mob, the smaller the intersection, and the smaller and less complex ideas can be collectively understood. I think this is why mobs tend to descend into hatred, violence and fight or flight stress responses. Those are the most primitive and universal feelings. Mobs also tend to exclude those who would provide a moderating influence.

Nietzsche also said: “The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.” I think by “corrupt” Nietzsche means “stunt the ability to think and understand”.

NT infants and children have an enormous compulsion to acquire a NT-type ToM. That compulsion is what drives the NT brain to organize itself in the NT neuroanatomy. NTs end up with communication being their “savant” ability. In ASDs, the “compulsion hardware” compels acquisition of other skills, skills that are more randomly distributed and which end up being the savant skill of that particular individual. I think this is why there is so much more diversity in ways of thinking among people with autism. ASD children have less compulsion to be the way everyone else is.

I think (but this is somewhat more speculative) that the “compulsion” module is more flexible in ASDs, and can even be “programmed” to a greater extent than in NTs. I suspect that OCD is what happens when the compulsion module gets focused on a particular and semi-dysfunctional activity. Of course, what is considered to be dysfunctional is in the mind of the beholder. To become expert in any activity, athletics, music, science, acting, writing, fighting, weaving, making stone tools, train spotting, requires extreme levels of practice. Having a compulsion to repeatedly do a task is a way to spontaneously develop expertise in that task. It takes about 10,000 hours to be come expert in a field. If you haven't spent that kind of time, you are not an expert.

ToM and pattern recognition

How communication works, is that a data stream is transferred, decoded by the ToM and matched to mental concepts via pattern recognition, either familiar mental concepts or mental concepts generated de novo. Pattern recognition is a well understood ability. All systems instantiating pattern recognition are subject to different forms of error. There is the type 1 error, the false positive, the error in wrongly identifying a false instance as positive. There is also the type 2 error, the false negative, the error in missing the correct identification of a correct instance. In a general sense any pattern recognition system can be made more sensitive, that is with a reduced type 2 error, but then there is an increased type 1 error and there are more false positives.

If there is good consilience between the “theory of mind” of the two individuals, they can communicate complex ideas in ways that are robust and nuanced. If there is not good consilience, then the communication is poor. So far I have only talked about communication and in the sense I am meaning it this communication is neutral, it has no moral or ethical component and the communication conveys no value judgment.

What triggers xenophobia

I think (and this becomes speculative now) that when two people meet, they do in effect a “Turing Test”, where they try to communicate and see if the other individual is “human enough” to trust and communicate with. I think that this hinges on whether one individual's “theory of mind” can match or emulate the “theory of mind” of the other individual and so can understand how they are thinking and can predict their responses. You are only “human enough”, if your “theory of mind” matches the “theory of mind” of the other individual. If there is insufficient consilience, then the communication error rate goes up, you fail the “Turing Test”, and xenophobia is triggered (my hypothesis) via the “uncanny valley” effect.

I see the triggering of the uncanny valley effect as being due purely to physiology and not within conscious control and so does not have a moral or ethical component. How one then responds is under conscious control (more or less) and so does have a moral and ethical component. I think this provides an explanation for a lot of human group interactions, including religions, xenophobia, bigotry and racism in all of its forms.

Michelle Dawson has a very good post about Turing and brings a modern perspective to his classic and prescient paper. Turing was gay, and experienced considerable abuse as a consequence. Abuse that ultimately led to his suicide. I think it is ironic (and very tragic) that the man who first conceived of the Turing Test in effect “failed” it as far as other humans were concerned.

I think it is the lack of consilience in the two ToMs that leads to the failing of the Turing Test and the triggering of xenophobia. It kind of has to be that way, because without consilience of the ToMs, the two individuals cannot exchange any information. They may exchange data, sounds, gestures, facial expressions, but without a ToM to translate that data into mental concepts, no information is being conveyed. What is being noticed is that there is a lack of communication going on. The error rate goes up, both type 1 and type 2 errors; getting false mental concepts that are not conveyed and missing the mental concepts that are being attempted. When those false mental concepts trigger emotions, distrust, unease, hatred, fear, distress, then fear of the other, xenophobia is happening.

I suspect that the underlying cognitive structures that enforces the development of a single Creole in children develops into the cognitive structure that does the Turing Test in adults. The compulsion of trying to communicate and behave like everyone else develops into rejecting and feeling antipathy toward everyone who doesn't behave and communicate as you do. (hypothesis)

This is where the selfishness of truthy comes in. If you privilege your own feelings above all other things, facts, logic and the feelings of others, then your mental state is unreachable. You are incapable of having a discussion because you are unable to even consider ideas different than your own.

Under this hypothesis, xenophobia comes from an inability to recognize someone as human (a type 2 error, a false negative), and derives from an inability to emulate their thinking processes and so understand their actions, motivations, and mental states. The xenophobe then substitutes (i.e. projects) what ever is convenient or what ever they are thinking (a type 1 error, a false positive) onto the person that is not understood.

Examples of xenophobia showing non-matching ToM and resulting inability to understand (mostly drawn from politics)

A classic example is when George Bush tried to explain the actions of those who flew planes into the WTC on 9/11 as “because they hate our freedoms”, which makes no sense at all. What train of logic leads from “hating freedoms” to hating people not living under a dictatorial authority to killing essentially random people in a murder-suicide? There is no train of logic. The logical explanation is that 9/11 was perpetrated to provoke a certain response, as in providing Bush with an excuse to go to war with Iraq (who played no role in 9/11) and that the expected war with Iraq would further the cause of Al Qaeda (which it abundantly did). Bin Laden played Bush perfectly, and he fell right into his trap.

In Sun Tzu's The Art of War, (III Attack by stratagem), he says:

18. Hence the saying: If you know the enemy

and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a

hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy,

for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.

If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will

succumb in every battle.

Knowing the enemy” is being able to understand their thinking processes sufficiently well so as to emulate them and to be able think the way that they do. The xenophobia that George Bush exhibits is extremely dangerous in a leader, and disastrous (as observed) in a military leader.

Similarly the post 9/11 Iraq war was started with what was called “shock and awe”; with the “idea” being that individuals would be so “shocked” and “awed” that they would simply surrender. Really? What level of “shock and awe” would it take to cause Americans to simply surrender? Not surprisingly “shock and awe” didn't work. Many aspects of the initial stages of the Iraq war didn't work. They didn't work because they were produced by people completely ignorant of war and how people act when in a war, and refused to listen to people who did understand. The decision to go to war was made on the basis of Groupthink, not reasoning.

The recent Tea Party political activity in US politics can also be seen to derive from xenophobia and bigotry and not from disagreements about policy. People can disagree with President Obama and hate him for his policies, but when someone hates President Obama for policies that he does not have, the source of the hate cannot be due to his policies (because the hated policies are not his). For example when Sarah Palin hates Obama because of his “death panels” and her assertion that Obama wants to kill her son, we know that President Obama has not proposed “death panels”, and so the source of Sarah Palin's hate cannot be “death panels”, the hate must have another source. Sarah Palin's accusation of President Obama that he is proposing “death panels” is what is called a blood libel. A false accusation of heinous murder. The hating came before the blood libel because the events claimed in the blood libel never happened. The blood libel is a lie thought up to rationalize the hatred that Sarah Palin feels. The hating came first, then the blood libel, and then the blood libel can't be analyzed rationally because it “feels right” because of the hatred.

Similarly, Antisemitism and Christian hating of Jews came first, and the Antisemitic blood libel against the Jews (the lie that Jews use the blood of Christians in Passover rituals) came later. When I was about 10 years old, a Catholic boy of similar age told me that Jews used the blood of Christians in Passover rituals. I knew at the time that didn't make any sense and couldn't be true because Passover pre-dated Christianity so there could have been no Christians for Jews to use the blood of at earlier Passover ceremonies. I knew it made no sense and couldn't be true, but the boy who was telling me this believed it was true. He believed it was true because he had been told it was true. No one who told the story had ever seen it happen because it never did happen.

Similarly, left handedness has been a reason for people to be discriminated against.

In the context of bombing Iran to stop their nuclear program I have asked people who have spoken positively about bombing Iran and so stopping the Iranian nuclear program to tell me the number that would make the US surrender. Usually they respond that there is no number that would make the US surrender, not hundreds or even thousands. When asked what is different about the Iranians that one or two would cause their surrender, they are unable to reply other than by saying “but they would have to”. But in the exact same circumstances they acknowledge that US citizens would never surrender. It is the labeling of Iranians as “the other” that allows wishful thinking to project the wish of how they would act for an expectation and generate the false belief that the expectation is reasonable.

Experts in nuclear weapons find no credible reasons to expect Iran to abandon nuclear weapons following a bombing of their nuclear facilities and many reasons to expect an attack to accelerate their acquisition of them. So why is an action that cannot be expected to achieve its stated goals “on the table”? Why did presidential candidate John McCain considered bombing Iran when no credible experts on Iran, or on military activities consider that it would be successful? It is clear that John McCain is expressing that belief for a different reason, either consciously or unconsciously. That tactic by a would-be leader only works when the followers are profoundly ignorant of the group being talked about, and are willing to remain ignorant. It is a Groupthink type of reasoning.

I think this same inability to understand the other as human is involved in the gay marriage debate. Homophobic individuals are unable to conceive of gay people as fully human, and so are unable to conceive of them as having the capacity for human emotions such as love. Homophobic individuals can't imagine that a lesbian mother actually loves her child, or that her child could possibly love his/her gay mother, so the homophobe imagines that the child would be better off in foster care with an individual who might have the capacity to love and be loved.

When homophobic individuals talk about their fears of “gay culture”, what they are talking about is their fear of people being non-homophobic. One doesn't need to be gay to be non-homophobic, but many homophobic individuals are unable to appreciate that. A large part of the homophobic mind set occurs because they are attracted to same-gender individuals. They are afraid of gay culture being acceptable because it is something they can imagine themselves wanting to do. As a result, they assume everyone is like them, and the only thing keeping society from becoming the gay culture they are afraid of is the gay bashing they are doing. They are trying to enforce the Groupthink they exhibit in their narrow homophobic group.

There is an effort to repeal the “don't ask, don't tell” policy of the US military toward homosexuals. I think that eliminating xenophobia of all types in the US military is absolutely essential for them to be able to do what ever missions the civilian leaders call on them to do. As I am trying to demonstrate, xenophobia derives from an inability to understand the other. If the other cannot be understood, then the actions of the other cannot be predicted, and the other cannot be reasoned with. Diplomacy requires understanding by both sides. War, being diplomacy by other means requires it too.

Individuals of a particular group can experience xenophobia toward themselves. This is complicated and is usually tied up with abuse and the physiology behind Stockholm Syndrome. Being alive but at the bottom of a social hierarchy is better than being dead. A good description of the phenomena is tied up in a term from the history of slavery in the US, the term House Negro. A better discussion of the term is found on the blog Field Negro. Essentially the House Negro was a slave in the master's house, and had a better life with easier working conditions than the Field Negro who was a slave in the fields and was worked brutally hard. The easier life the House Negro had was built on the back of the Field Negro.

I think this is the same thinking process that lead to the taking away of children from indigenous peoples, from non-white parents by the white majority. This happened in the US, in Canada, and in Australia. I suspect that adults have somewhat higher innate connections to children, even children of different ethnicity, than they do to adults. Before those children have their own fully developed ToM, they likely are not rejected by adults. Once the ToM does develop (or does not develop so as to be consilient with the adult ToM), then xenophobia could be triggered. Removing children from their culture of origin is a way to destroy that culture. If a new generation does not grow up with that culture and language as their first language and culture, then they are lost.

In folklore, there is the mythology of changelings, the idea that a human child was stolen and a non-human child of identical appearance substituted in its place. I suspect that this is how the curbies of an earlier time rationalized the feelings they had for their autistic children. Some of them even use the metaphor of their child being stolen by autism, as if autism is an object or entity that can be anthropomorphized and then hated or blamed.

I think there are some similarities in Deaf Culture. I think the major motivation for Deaf Culture and the rejection of cochlear implants in deaf children is so that the deaf children will grow up with signing as their first language and will acquire the ToM of the Deaf Culture they grow up in. To not have a ToM that is shared by your parents is to be rejected by those parents as a changeling, and also to reject those parents. I think that deaf parents of a child who cannot sign would have feelings toward that child similar to feelings of NT parents with an autistic child. The relevant physiology is the lack of consilience between the ToMs.

I suspect that being bi-lingual with signing as one of the languages is somewhat more difficult than being multi-lingual with spoken languages because of the difficulty of making cross-connects between visual and aural senses and between hand signals and vocal muscle systems. Those difficulties are probably less than the difficulties of learning a language in the first place and likely less than the language difficulties that autistic individuals have. The communication deficits that ASDs have encompasses both language and body language, so it is likely more profound than in Deaf Culture.

As I was putting the finishing touches on this, a particularly illustrative example appeared in the news. Harry Reid, the Democratic Majority leader in the Senate, just had his wife injured in an automobile accident, where she broke her back and neck. A conservative blogger is calling on Harry Reid to “pull the plug” on her, to euthanize her. Why? Because the Right Wing Blogger can't imagine that Harry Reid has the capacity to love his wife. Love is something that only “humans” can exhibit. Since Harry Reid is a Democrat, and a liberal, he can't possibly be capable of feelings like love. It is pure projection, pure xenophobia, pure bullying. Designed (probably unconsciously) to hurt Harry Reid, those associated with Harry Reid, and to send a message to non-liberals that if you leave the Right Wing Conservative group, this will be your fate too.

There was a moment in 1954, in the Army-McCarthy hearings when Joseph McCarthy attacked a young lawyer, and Joseph Walsch said his very famous line:

Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

In truth Joseph McCarthy didn't have a sense of decency. A sense of decency is reserved only for those one feels are fellow human beings. If someone is not felt to be a human being (because they lack a ToM that can be related to as such), then considerations normally given to fellow humans, such as decency, do not apply.

Ubuntu: the basis of humanism

I think the physiology behind the philosophy of Ubuntu is the actual root of humanism. That is the root of the physiology that makes it difficult for some people to kill other humans. In the past many soldiers were simply unable to kill other humans. Modern basic training has evolved to overcome that, the unfortunate side effect (which I think is an immutable aspect of being able to kill other humans easily) is PTSD and overt xenophobia (which has to be invoked to kill humans easily).

What counts as “human”, is the ToM that one developed as a child and young adult. That ToM is very much the human “essence” that is detected and measured by others with their own ToM. It is hard to kill others in your peer group. You recognize them with your shared ToM. To induce others to kill, you need to get their ToM to not align with the group that you want them to kill. You have to induce xenophobia via Groupthink type activities to reinforce the desired ToM that will induce xenophobia and prevent the rational thinking that a ToR does.

Being human (developing a human-recognizable ToM) occurs through interactions with other humans. You take in a bit of their ToM, and adopt it as your own. This is what Nietzsche was talking about when he said “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.” Your neuroanatomy will remodel itself to be able to do pattern recognition on what ever it is you are exposed to and then to react appropriately to it. To be able to see what is in the abyss, you need to have pattern recognition neuroanatomy that can recognize what is in the abyss, in effect you have to know what is in the abyss before you can see it.

This is why people who want to remain bigots can't have positive interactions with those they are bigoted against. To see the objects of their xenophobia as human and having human characteristics is to cause distress if they are not treated humanely. I think this is why there was such opposition to desegregation and why the GOP cannot accept diversity of opinion and have a Big Tent.

Social Hierarchies: Ubuntu and the Abrahamic Religions

As I have been thinking and writing this, I have been wanting to contrast Ubuntu with the Abrahamic religions. Not because Ubuntu is a religious principle, but because the religious principles of the Abrahamic religions have been claimed to underlie and be necessary for any sense of ethics or morality. This is not the case. The Abrahamic traditions specify a particular type of social structure, that of the top-down Kyriarchy (the Kyriarchy is analogous to the Patriarchy, but with any authority at the top). In the case of the Abrahamic religions, God is at the top, with His Prophets and priests next but above the common people who are followers, who are above non-followers.

The essence of any hierarchy is differential rights and responsibilities. Those at the top have more and those at the bottom have less. This is why power corrupts. The ToM of those at the top becomes modified so it feels as though they are better than those at the bottom, and so should have more and so they take more. More power, more money, more salary, more mates, more of everything.

In essence in Ubuntu it is 'people first'; in Abrahamic religions it is 'God first'. The “Golden rule” of 'doing unto others as you would have them do unto you', only comes after and is secondary to doing what God commands. It is like the rule in Animal Farm, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. All of God's children are equal, but those who follow His teachings and do whatever His representatives say to do (the self-proclaimed and self-appointed religious leaders) are more equal than those who do not. Putting God first generates a hierarchy, with those who put God first ahead of those who do not. It is a way of “othering”, a way of classifying people into people who are like us, and people who are “the other” (and so do not deserve normal human considerations) and can be enslaved or put to death at will, just as Moses said to do to non-virgin women and male children (Numbers 31:17).

The God first meme set the stage for the Divine Right of Kings, where because the first born son of the king was to be the next king, the characteristics of that king were put in place by God.

Abrahamic conflict resolution

The Abrahamic “eye for an eye” is similar. Strict punishment doesn't really deter much crime, what it does is classify individuals into criminals and non-criminals, setting up a social hierarchy with criminals at the bottom. Criminals (because they are not like us) can be subjected to maltreatment because they have been dehumanized. They are also dehumanized because they have been subjected to maltreatment. The Abrahamic eye for an eye is completely different than the Ubuntu conceptualization of justice. Justice in the Ubuntu sense is about the society getting along after the crime has happened, not about some “punishment” achieving a “balance”. It is not about a concept like “sin” being balanced by a concept of “punishment”. Justice in a Kyriarchy is about satisfying the “leader”, who will deliver “justice” after his “judgment”. It is about “justice” by fiat by the individual at the top of the hierarchy. The "Justice" is about giving you a new place in the social hierarchy. This is why "leaders" are so difficult to bring to justice. Moving them to the bottom of the hierarchy puts their followers still farther below them.

The incarceration of individuals can make crime worse because the criminals are all put together in the prison community and so the ToM of individual prisoners becomes closer to the average ToM of the prison community. Non-violent drug offenders become violent offenders. Deterrence comes not from fear of punishment (which is always contingent on being caught), but from the aversive effects of violating shared cultural norms, the same aversive effects that enforce those cultural norms in the wider community, and the same aversive effects that enforce the adoption of a shared ToM during language acquisition. When a non-violent drug offender adopts the shared ToM of the prison community (where violence is accepted), the drug offender now becomes more capable of violence.

Restitution in the Ubuntu sense is by doing something positive, by giving back to the community, by the perpetrator (and his/her family) by exhibiting Ubuntu, by doing positive things and acting in positive ways, not by having something negative happen to the perpetrator. How these two concepts work in practice is illustrated by what happen in South Africa when the Apartheid government fell (or rather what did not happen). There was no blood-bath. There was no general retribution on whites in revenge for the generations of maltreatment of blacks. In Europe following WWI, the victors extracted ruinous reparations from Germany, which set the stage for WWII.

Connection to autism, maltreatment of people on the spectrum

Autism spectrum disorders are characterized by deficiencies in abilities to communicate across all communication modalities, including body language, emotional content, nuance and the like with neurologically typical individuals, NTs In ASDs, this is caused by the lack of a ToM that matches the ToM of the NT individual. Unfortunately this activates feelings of xenophobia in NTs.

When one has feelings of xenophobia, feelings of fear, revulsion, antipathy directed toward another individual, one has the choice of how to respond. Unfortunately for NTs, the compulsion of peer pressure that causes the development of the NT ToM also compels acting on those feelings.

Problems with the standard treatment of Theory of Mind

The standard formulation of Theory of Mind, postulates that there is a “standard” way of thinking, and that people with autism are unable to mentalize in this “standard” way, and so they have a deficit in mentalizing due to their defective theory of mind. This is not correct. There is not a single or “standard” Theory of Mind, each individual has a Theory of Mind that is unique. There is no arbitrarily correct mapping of language into mental concepts. There can be no arbitrarily correct ToM. This may be very difficult for NTs to accept. Their ToM is very complex, very structured, full of nuance and with a great deal of data-compression and auto-correction that fills in the gaps in the puny data stream of language to convey mental states that are much more complex than the data stream has the data content to transmit. Two NTs can communicate very complex ideas with very little data because they have enormous amounts of data compression. The compressing and decompressing of that data is done by their ToM, and is completely transparent to them while they communicate. Much of this compression is tied up in shared cultural experiences.

Idioms convey information due to their cultural context. Phrases like the Wikipedia example “kick the bucket” have a cultural meaning that goes beyond the literal linguistic meaning. Idioms are often very difficult for people on the spectrum to appreciate. “Kick the bucket” is an idiom, but can also refer to an example of something one might do to a bucket. People on the spectrum are notorious for taking idioms literally.

How to deal with xenophobia?

This is a difficult problem with two different aspects and two possible solutions. There are the feelings that lead to xenophobia, and then there are the actions that are a result of those xenophobic feelings.

Producing individuals that do not have xenophobic feelings is most easily done in children, by exposure to individuals who are different and the prevention of the ostracizing of children who are different by adults. Mainstreaming children into regular classrooms is (I think) extremely important in accomplishing this for the next generation (of all children). It has to be done carefully, and in particular parents and teachers cannot tolerate or foster abusive behavior toward children who are different than others in the group.

A major problem is that people who have xenophobic feelings don't want to lose those feelings. They want to remain xenophobic because being a part of a community that has a common enemy does provide a sense of community and to lose the xenophobia is to lose being a part of that community. This is because excluding others is an important part of the social dynamic that produces group cohesion. We see this very clearly in homophobic communities, where even the idea of criminalizing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unacceptable. There was a recent case in Virginia, where Virginia public universities had policies in place to forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation, and the Virginia Attorney General wrote them saying that such an anti-discrimination policy was forbidden.

Being in a non-xenophobic community is likely to reduce the xenophobia of the xenophobes by compelling a shift in their ToM to a less xenophobic state. It does require the non-xenophobes making known to the xenophobes that xenophobia is unacceptable. The xenophobes must be made aware that xenophobia is unacceptable but without being excluded from the non-xenophobic community.

The feelings of xenophobia engendered by a ToM are exacerbated under conditions of stress. The “fight or flight” response makes a ToR more difficult to maintain its independence of emotional state. The ToM is the more “primitive” cognitive structure, that is the default that people default back to under stress. The reason that people bully is to put their victims under stress and try and induce Stockholm Syndrome.


Anonymous said...

Great article. I appreciate the comprehensive approach, although I have a feeling in today's world, you might have more readers if you broke it up into smaller, shorter segments. Just a suggestion...

But the following comes off as I'm sure you didn't intend it to:


So...Harry Reid had his wife injured? Hired someone did he?


daedalus2u said...

I am glad that someone has read it and liked it. yes, that sentence is awkwardly worded. No, I am not going to change it now, but thank you for noticing.

I can only do things by wholes, not by parts.

scrumpto said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shrooms said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shrooms said...

I think that actions like the ability to kill another human are basically because there was no cultivated bond and there were preconceived notions about how that person functioned that were lies. With those two, isn't it enough to see why a soldier could kill the opponent without regard for the opponents life? And even if he considered the lies to be lies, he will be pressured to believe them anyway in an army.

Nyx said...

Wow, this is an amazing essay. I haven't actually been able to read the whole thing yet ... there is a lot here to digest! But I am afraid I will forget my question, so I hope you won't mind if I go ahead and ask this even though I haven't read your whole essay yet. You said that it takes 10,000 hours to become expert in something, and I am fascinated by this fact! Do you recall where you learned this and would you be interested in sharing more detail on it? e.g., do you think that it might take 10,000 hours for a child to learn his/her first language?

Nyx said...

ps -- I wasn't going to ask you this because a) it has nothing to do with this post; and b) I haven't really don't all my homework. But I despair of ever being able to do all my homework, because I have no extra time and after reading (part of, so far) this essay I see that I am lacking the proper architecture. LOL! So, at the risk of being annoying, here is my question: after reading some other things you posted about mitochondrial disease, I have become concerned that maybe I have been doing something inadvisable with my son lately. I have a 3 year old with an autism spectrum disorder. He does seem in some ways to match what other parents have described in terms of possibly having a mitochondrial disorder, and it doesn't seem cost-effective to try to consult an expert. But for other reasons, I have been working hard to encourage more physical activity in him, on the theory that people need exercise for their parts to function properly (including the intestines!!). He has decreased gut motility, and I suspect he just doesn't get enough exercise. So I've been on a campaign designed to increase his exercise. Also, I have read a couple of adults with ASD claim that heavy exercise (to the point of fatigue) seems to alleviate symptoms, so I thought it might be good for him. He tends to be more communicative when he's very tired, for example. But now I am concerned. After reading some things you described (over at left brain right brain) I'm wondering if I could be overtaxing his mitochondria?? If he DOES have a mitochondrial problem, does that possibly suggest that he needs to rest? I know you're not a doctor. I'm sorry for this giant post. But I do wonder if you think perhaps I need to be more careful at any rate about his exertion level? also ... if I can impose a little more ... do you know of a fairly accessible source of information that might function as a sort of primer for me? I particularly have a hard time being able to separate out the authoritative from the not so much. It's hard as an autism parent to sort through the pseudo science out there.

daedalus2u said...

Nyx, mitochondrial deficiencies are not as common as some in the biochemical community would have people believe. The only way to be sure is via a real diagnosis, some of them are very difficult to diagnose even then.

The critical factor in most mitochondrial disorders (they can be quite different) is not so much not exercising, but sufficient rest to more than recover afterward. During exercise some mitochondria (in muscles) are tested to failure. That is a normal and necessary part of aerobic exercise. Metabolic capacity is reduced after that exercise. It is during rest afterward, usually during sleep afterward that the failed mitochondria are replaced plus some extra. It is that replacement plus extra that causes the increased endurance from exercise.

If you child is recovering from exercise and gaining a little endurance afterward, then there doesn't seem to be much of a mitochondria disorder. A mitochondrial problem will cause acute effects. If a muscle is pushed so hard that there is a lot of mitochondrial failure, it will hurt, and hurt a lot and there will be reduced function. Pushing physical activity when it hurts is not a good idea for anyone. It is especially bad for people with mitochondria problems. If it is hurting, then you are not getting any more aerobic benefit from the exercise and you should stop, allow the muscle to recover (that means at least over night, and to at least where it was before the prior exercise).

The only things I would suggest would be a diet with enough omega-3 fatty acids (be careful with fish oils because of fat soluble vitamins, PCBs and mercury, flax seed oil doesn't have those problems) and a lot of green leafy vegetables (a couple of times a day). I would avoid all supplements except maybe a multivitamin as suggest by a real MD (not a DAN! quack). Make sure that your child gets enough sleep, and try to reduce as much as possible the “stress”, particularly psychosocial stress that your child is exposed to. Mostly that means preventing bullying. I would avoid over the counter meds too, like tylenol and stuff. None of them actually accelerate recovery, they only relieve pain and other symptoms. Some of those symptoms are not “bugs”, they are “features”, features that have protective effects even though they make you feel crappy. If you feel crappy you need to rest, not take a pill so you feel non-crappy and can over exert yourself. You feel crappy because your body wants to divert metabolic resources to dealing with the thing that is making you feel crappy. Prevent that diversion and it will take longer to recover.

Nyx said...

thank you very much for taking the time to share your thoughts. I am interested to hear that you consider all of the DAN! doctors to be quacks. I have been unable to decide for a year now but have become increasingly worried that I may be making a mistake by not taking him to one, especially since I saw the recent Dr. Sears book. I really thought that the Sears family were pretty smart, but maybe not? My son is only 3, with limited communication still, so I worry that I may not always know when he is in pain. I'm glad you brought that up so I can think about that. It sounds like I need to be more vigilant to signs that he needs to rest and make sure that if he seems like he does, that he really does. Often for some reason he will not rest even when he is obviously tired, but instead will fight sleep and become hyperactive. aside from melatonin, I struggle to figure out what to do. As it is, I breastfeed and co-sleep with him and try to reduce stress like you said, but it does not always seem to be enough. I haven't taken him to an expert for diagnosis because it seems like diagnostic tools are poor and horribly invasive. I don't ever try to force him to exercise or anything like that, but I do cajole him into it by offering to play fun games with him that he enjoys, like chasing and tickling. But often it does seem like this makes him very tired. Perhaps I should not. I don't know. Since I began this programme to work harder to help him stay active, it does seem as though his communication skills have become more spotty, so maybe I have overfatigued him. Your writing is very interesting. Thanks for taking the time.

daedalus2u said...

Sorry to be harsh, but yes I consider the DAN! Doctors to be quacks because they are not science based. They were heavily involved with the mercury nonsense, the chelation nonsense, the anti-vax nonsense, the mitochondria nonsense, the supplement nonsense and the HBOT nonsense.

The only websites I trust for autism stuff is the Autism Hub, Science Based Medicine, Neurologica, Respectful Insolence and PubMed. Everything I have seen on the Autism Hub, LBRB, SBM and RI has been pretty much correct and science based. In my opinion Dr Sears is an anti-vax quack. I don't trust him for anything. I see him as someone who is preying on the fears of parents who look to him for advice. I trust nothing about science from the Huffington Post.

I don't think a child with a mitochondrial disorder who is exhibiting muscle damage would continue to run around. Lots of running around is good for him as long as it is voluntary, and isn't like a marathon. The muscle damage that comes from mitochondrial overload is extremely painful. There is no way he could be running around if he was experiencing mitochondrial derived muscle damage. Not sleeping is a sign of low nitric oxide, try increasing his lettuce intake.

Unless he as real signs of mitochondria disorders, I don't think he needs testing (but check with your pediatrician). I think that getting “too tired” isn't a big problem, so long as it is voluntary and he has sufficient rest afterward to recover. Being with other children is important to develop socialization. Younger children might be easier for him, but you need to supervise very carefully so nothing happens by accident.

Nyx said...

well, it is very confusing for a person who is not able to fully evaluate who is and who isn't "science-based." everyone has studies to cite. some people seem clearly to lack credentials or say things that don't make sense, but others ... do you think martha herbert and tim biuie are quacks too? I am actually lucky that my best friend is an internal medicine doc doing a fellowship in infectious disease, but she just says that no one can say for sure that there are no side effects to vaccines, because all they really care about is herd immunity. it is possible for vaccines to cause a cascade in individuals with autoimmune diseases, though. so I don't know. but of course, the viruses you're vaccinating against can be a problem too, so it's still hard to make good decisions about it, I think. My friend does not seem to think it was just obvious that vaccines aren't harming some of these children. The problem is, you can't expect a bunch of parents who are trying to share experiences to be responsible for explaining them, in my opinion. You know, if a thousand people told me that aliens attacked them I wouldn't believe they had been aliens, but then I wouldn't necessarily think they hadn't been attacked either. Sometimes a person just has to make decisions based on the best information available, even if it is all nonsensical.

daedalus2u said...

You are right, one has to understand the science to know if something is science based. It takes a long time to understand the science. Until you do understand the science you can't know if something is science based or not. It takes 10,000 hours to become an expert. If someone has not spent that kind of time, they can't be an expert. That is 8 hours a day for 5 years.

No one has ever said there are no side effects from vaccines. There are side effects, and those side effects are very rare compared to complications from the diseases the vaccines protect against. Those side effects are also much milder than complications from the diseases the vaccines protect against.

There is no data that suggests vaccines cause autism. The major symptoms of autism is an increased number of minicolumns in the brain. That number is fixed during the first trimester in utero. A vaccination years later can't change it.

The original suggestion that vaccines caused autism was made by lawyers trying to scam money from the government. That is who funded Wakefield's work (which was fraudulent). The whole “vaccines cause autism” meme has been driven by people making money off of it, lawyers and pushers of chelation.

Autism is not an autoimmunity disorder. There is no hint that it is an autoimmunity disorder. There is no hint that it is associated with autism. If vaccines were harming children, it would not look like autism. If vaccines were harming children, the diseases the vaccines protect against would be much worse for them.

If you are bombarded with conflicting information, then talk to your pediatrician and go with the CDC based guidelines. That is a lot better than going with something you read on the internet. That is what I did for my children, go with the guidelines exactly.

Anonymous said...

Hi, I am from Australia.

Great essay, and great site too.

There is a sentence in one of the Upanishads: where there is another fear arises.

The essays in this remarkable book address this topic in a unique way.


Nyx said...

hi, daedalus2u, I just wanted to let you know that I didn't mean to just disappear. I actually posted but I messed up my last reply, then life happened, and it took me a while to find my way back here again. I'm not able to pick this conversation back up again right now, but I did want to thank you for your time. Also, my original intention was to ask you if you could recommend any books (real books!) on mitochondrial function/dysfunction -- I have access to the emory university health sciences library, so although something written for a lay person would be NICE, I would gladly take a recommendation for something more technical. either way, thanks again!

goodwin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Excellent post. I'm going to have to reread this a few times and let it percolate.

It clearly states things I've often thought/tried to say, pieces things together in ways I hadn't, yet, and introduces new concepts that jibe with the rest.

One nit: at least twice you use "transparent" (easily seen through, recognized, or detected; manifest; obvious) when you clearly mean "opaque" (hard to understand; not clear or lucid; obscure) But still -- excellent overall.

daedalus2u said...

I am using "transparent" in a computer programming sense where is means "invisible or undetectable",,sid9_gci765434,00.html

The user is unaware of the details of the computations going on and only has access to the results.

daedalus2u said...

Oh, thanks, glad you like it.

VeriVera said...

I am trying to share this article with people because it has become so fundamental to my worldview. I keep reviewing it to further incorporate it into my ToM, lol.

I just wanted to ask, when you refer to NTs, do you mean neurologically typical, i.e. "not autistic?" Originally I read the article under the impression that this was referring to the "Rationalist" Meyers Briggs personality type. =)

daedalus2u said...

VeriVera, sorry it has taken me a while to respond. Yes, by NT I mean neurologically typically developing.

It isn't just autism, and neurologically typically developing is not the same as "normal". I think that just about all neurodevelopment can be considered "normal" as process, not necessarily "normal" as outcome.

Just because something is "normal" does not mean it is desirable or even acceptable. Xenophobia is "normal". That does not make it acceptable.

Anonymous said...

Enjoyed your essay. Have seen correlations made between autism and Neanderthal interbreeding (dramatically higher rates of autism in historical HN habitation zones). Also reported are forensic analysis of Neanderthal relics showing a 40% homicide rate. If you cannot share your thoughts and dreams, you cannot trust to leave a neighbor un-molested I suppose. I have long asserted that it was a lack of ‘community’ among the archaic hominids that led to their doom at the hands of the ‘moderns’.

Picking nits: Synthesizing a Creole from a pidgin is not ‘de novo’, but ‘from a pidgin’. There is nothing mutually exclusive between a social animal and a predator, dogs and humans being prime examples of both. I do not like your use of ‘ToM’, though have not got a preferred universal substitute (state of mind, mental map?). You are refereeing to a state or structure perhaps a virtual structure, but not a ‘theory’.

daedalus2u said...

Anon 4:29 The syntax and grammar of the Creole is de novo because the pidgin doesn't have it.

The term “theory of mind” is a term of art in the psychology literature and is considered to be the ability to impute mental states and mental thinking to another. This is sometimes illustrated by when children are able to impute mental states that do not correspond with reality, as in the Sally-Ann examples used by Uta Frith.

Mind Blindness and the Brain in Autism

In this example, children with autism have difficulty imputing a mental state that does not correspond with reality (a false belief). You should look at my ToM vs ToR piece on autism.

The major problem with the literature on this is that researchers act as if there is only one “correct” “theory of mind”, the one that individuals who are neurotypically developed have and that people with autism are “mind blind” because they can not emulate the NT mental state. This is not correct. Each person has a unique ToM, but two different ToM have to be sufficiently consilient for there to be communication. Over time, your ToM can expand to encompass other ToMs, if you let it.

Because communication has to be two-way, in my formulation a lack of communication cannot be blamed on only one of the parties. All that can be said is that their communication protocols (their ToMs) are not sufficiently consilient.

I don't think a Neanderthal connection is correct. It is my understanding that the Neanderthal maternal pelvis is larger and so there was not the need to specialize the programming of the brain in utero to tune it for language or for tool making. Neanderthal were not as good at tool making and tool using as H. sapiens. Individual Neanderthal may have had better average skills than the average human, but humans could specialize and through division of labor and trade, a group of humans could have the tools made by the most skilled members of the group. It is the diversity of abilities that is the human strength.

Diversity of abilities has to be both positive and negative. The substrate for one skill (neuronal tissue) can't be used for another skill. Brain size is limited, to be better at one thing you must be worse at something else.

I don't think enough is known about the relative homicide rates to say if Neanderthal or H sapiens was higher.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the reply, I see how this must be a very active, dynamic and complex process. A mental model where we impute a mental process of ‘the other’, test our model by issuing some stimulus (words, gestures, odors or whatever) and gauging the response. If the response is wrong, we react with suspicion or worse. Simultaneously we are carefully responding to the others stimuli that we might convince them to respond as we desire of them. Quite the dance.

The autism – Neanderthal connection is, shall we say, speculative at best. Just threw it in for its curiosity. HN language and mental capacities, relative homicide rates and social structures are likewise speculative. Your suggestion of specialization and superior tool production/use, however, has a significant temporal component. When HS first migrated to the Middle East and Europe, their tool kits, diet and habitat were essentially equal to the HN already there, and the two body styles competed with neither showing advantage. The HS advantage came later with the diaspora of the bands showing ‘modern behavior’. Most telling of the modern bands is that they had elders in their mix, third and fourth generation members and their wisdom/experience. Tool specialization and technology retention really got started once we had elders. Earlier hominids, including the HN and archaic Cro-Magnon (HS) were not inclined to live past 35.
The advance that looks to me as making the difference was the socialization and nurturing that allowed the band to acquire elders, to be more supportive and less combative. Less ‘I don’t understand you or trust you, so I’ll kill you (just to be safe)’. To keep ‘better’ in perspective, modern studies of historic and surviving aboriginal populations show an average homicide rate of 30%. This is with a much larger data set than the pitifully small set of HN relics evaluated for the 40% homicide rate mentioned earlier.

Typical for a Creole is to incorporate significant aspects of the grammar and syntax from the parent languages. The Nicaraguan sign language development was pretty unique - and demonstrates the possibilities.

ornithosaurus_rex said...

Excellent post! Very enlightening in constructing my worldview on how the demographic neurological landscape shapes up.

Relatedly, I'm working on a book, a kind of philosophical investigations into the nature of the ephemeral fool. I've quoted you, here and there, adds up to a page or 2 out of 60 odd (MS word now).

So I wanted your name, lest I were to simply leave it at how it seems right now over there i.e. Daedelus says, "etc."

(I've edited your excerpts myself, quite a lot, actually, but I'm still going to "quote you" Sire

David Harmon said...

A most excellent article! I do have a few quibbles:

1) The Abrahamic "eye for an eye" needs to be seen in context. In its proper context of Bronze Age tribal society, that rule isn't a mandate for equal retaliation, it's a limit on retaliation. That is, if your neighbor knocks out one of your teeth, you don't get to kill him over it! Avoiding that sort of arbitrary retaliation is why the original text also requires going to an authoritative third party for arbitration of such cases....

2) "In computers, there is a distinction made between hardware and software. There is no such distinction in natural neural networks, there is only “hardware”." The usual term for neurobiology taken as computing systems is "wetware". It's important to remember that wetware can (and continually does) reprogram itself in response to input; that reprogramming stands in for "software".

3) Your Turing-test idea doesn't cover learned xenophobia, where "the other" is declared beforehand as such, and explicitly condemned as part of the xenophobe's own upbringing. That is, their family or culture has a group ToM including "<they> aren't our kind of people", and a child learns that from them, even without being exposed to the "victim" group.

4) There's yet another source of xenophobia, which is group rivalry -- this can be tribal, but in modern societies, social class can also come into play. When two groups are competing for resources or status (likely because there simply isn't enough to go around), they will separate into groups based on shared interests, and actively separate their ToM's from the competition's ("othering"). This, for example, would cover the Tutsi/Hutu conflicts in Rwanda.

daedalus2u said...

David, I am glad you liked it. I disagree with the points you make.

The “eye for an eye” philosophy is not part of the philosophy of Ubuntu. The idea that there is a need for retaliation, or punishment to “balance” a harmful act is part of the Abrahamic tradition. The whole “Jesus died for our sins” meme is the implicit requirement of retribution, that to balance the “sin”, someone must be punished. Why must someone be punished to counter the evil of “sin”? Who is it who must be satisfied?

Christians act as if there is some kind of Law of “conservation of sin”, and that the only reason God can allow sinners into Heaven is because the infinite suffering and penance of Jesus balances all sin that ever was and ever will be. They can't even see the logical flaw in that.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Harming someone else doesn't undo the harm that was done earlier. “Harm” is not a zero-sum transaction. Harming a second person increases the total harm. How does harming an innocent person undo the harm that someone else does?

Ubuntu specifically rejects punishment as an appropriate response to wronging someone. Ubuntu calls for restitution, for the wronging to be the motivation for the offender to “give back” to the community and to the wronged individual and the wronged individual's family and community.

I appreciate that it is very difficult for those steeped in a culture of retribution to understand that there are different (and better) ways of providing justice and stability. The system of punishment isn't very good at providing a stable productive society. It is good at “othering” the people who get caught up in it, and those people can be severely damaged even if they are innocent. Texas has executed innocent people. Those in charge of the Texas justice system don't want to investigate themselves because it would show that the system has executed innocent people.

Since the “eye for an eye” approach doesn't minimize harm, what does it do? It puts a tremendous amount of power in the hands of the “leader” who administers the “eye for an eye”. I think that is the actual reason for the “eye for an eye” approach, to maximize the power of the “leader”. He/she gains power over both parties by being the adjudicator of “justice”. The “eye for an eye” doesn't minimize harm, what it does is move the quantity that is conserved, social power, to those who are already at the top of the social hierarchy. It is a way for the powerful to become even more powerful. If you look at the adversarial system of English law, it derived from the system of trial by combat, where if you had a dispute with someone, you fought with them over it, to the death. Rich people then instituted being able to hire champions who would fight to the death, now people just hire lawyers and fight to financial ruination. That isn't a way to achieve “justice”, it is a way to enrich the process. Same old same old.

daedalus2u said...

I am aware that some people call neurological computational structures “wet ware”, that term is ill defined. I don't really know what the term means, and neither does anyone else.

Hardware and software are understood and humans can make and utilize either one of them or both to accomplish computations. People want to use a hardware-type metaphor for the brain, and a software-type metaphor for memories and such. The use of those metaphors is wrong. The brain does not have anything that is like software. The brain has no hardware independent mechanism to instantiate the storage of data the way that software can be stored.

ZenMonkey said...

Thought you might find this interesting.

My NO levels, by the way, are fine.

ZenMonkey said...

(sorry, am unable to delete above comment and this one. Please feel free to.)

daedalus2u said...

Thank you for the link. I have only seen the abstract, but I am virtually certain that they did not measure actual NO levels. It is likely that instead they measured nitrite plus nitrate (metabolites of NO) and from those tried to infer the actual NO levels. This is a very common mistake. Nitrite and nitrate levels reflect the production rate of NO, integrated over a considerable period of time. The production rate is independent of the concentration. The effects of NO on sGC are concentration dependent, not production rate dependent. It is wrong and not useful to try and infer NO concentrations from nitrite plus nitrate concentrations. NO concentrations are in the nM/L level, nitrite plus nitrate are ~10,000 or more times higher (and variable).

In steady state, the production rate equals the destruction rate (no accumulation). In blood, the destruction is by hemoglobin and the rate depends on the product of the NO concentration times the hemoglobin concentration. If you lower the hemoglobin concentration, the NO concentration goes up, and causes the vasodilatation observed in isovolemic anemia. Take blood out and replace it with plasma, the NO levels go up, blood pressure goes down, the blood flow rate increases and there is no change in O2 delivery. You can measure an increased NO level in exhaled breath when this happens.

Actual NO levels are in the nM/L range or lower (usually and also in the case of CFS). NO has a very short lifetime in blood (seconds). The only way to measure NO in blood would be with NO sensitive electrodes in situ. Maybe if they collected blood with a spin trap to sequester the NO, but then mixing presents a problem.

There are no techniques that I am aware of to measure actual NO levels in vivo on the time and length scales that are important, sub-second, sub micron, and sub nM/L. NO in blood is not a very important NO parameter because the hemoglobin destroys it so rapidly. I appreciate that researchers like to take measurements in blood because blood is easy to gain access to.

There is tremendous cross-talk between different NO-species, RSNO in blood is probably more important than actual NO as far as NO physiology goes. The most abundant RSNO species in blood is S-nitrosoalbumin, and is ~10,000 times higher concentration than NO. Multiple enzymes can take the NO off of S-nitrosoalbumin and put it on another thiol in the process called transnitrosation. These enzymes can operate through intact cell membranes, and without every producing free NO.

Did they measure the S-nitrosothiol level of blood? N-nitrosothiol? Nitrosylheme? Unless you measure all of them, you can't really talk about the NO status of the blood. The NO status changes minute by minute, depending on what physiology is trying to do.

People with CFS may have normal levels of NO in their blood. NO in the blood is used to regulate vascular tone (mostly). If you have “normal” blood pressure, then you likely have “normal” NO levels in the blood, and adjacent to the endothelium in the smooth muscle that sets vascular tone. A “normal” level in the vascular wall tells you nothing about what the level is in skeletal muscle cells a few microns away.

The NO level in skeletal muscle mitochondria is quite dynamic. At rest it is high enough to block cytochrome c oxidase from binding O2. At high levels of aerobic exercise it is low enough to allow O2 to bind and be reduced. Much of that NO physiology is mediated through S-nitrosation of proteins.

Anonymous said...

‘. . . it is very difficult for those steeped in a culture of retribution to understand that there are different (and better) ways of providing justice and stability. The system of punishment isn't very good at providing a stable productive society. . . .’

As much as I appreciate your desires for a better world, Mother Nature calls bull to a core feature of your argument: As loving and nurturing as your Ubuntu muse, the South Africans never produced much beyond an endearing philosophy, a few stone tools, grass huts and various craftworks. Along with executing innocents, Texans build space stations. How much science, how many empires came out of tribal Africa. Further, if you look at the rate of homicides [Wiki], >30 per 100,000 for So. Africa, ~ 10 for Texas (1.5 for W. and Central Europe). You must look beyond philosophy to know the world.

If you look at the adversarial system of English law – was it the Cause of Britain’s (and USA’s) success, or did Britain/America succeed despite it? I appreciate that it is very difficult for those steeped in a culture of utopian idealism to recognize ours is a Darwinian world, but nature gives no points for niceness.

Point being, better is only better if it first works, and second, actually works better. Nature is the only judge, and suffers few fools. Whatever you may think of tribal Africa, it offers no challenge to Texas. I hope most of us desire (and are willing to work for) a kinder, gentler world, but I suspect it advantageous to improve upon what has proven in the past to work the best. Ubuntu society may have proven stable, but not productive, so perhaps a blending could serve?

hbd chick said...

@daedalus2u - "...the fundamental structure of the ASD ToM doesn't match the NT ToM."

ain't that the truth! (~_^)

i don't have the time just now to read your whole post, but i'll be back. (^_^) it's been a while since i've (directly) thought about aspergers/autism related things. went through a 2-year phase a few years back where i read everything i could find about AS, but i've moved on since then (you know how it is!). but i am still interested in the topic.

daedalus2u said...

Yes, and I have something that makes the ASD ToM and ToR work a whole lot better. Not different but better.

nerkul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
nerkul said...

I'll add some thoughts here in case you don't get back to me.

I like this article a lot, i.e. it mirrors a lot of my own thinking. What I'm currently wondering is if NT ToM and AS ToM are symmetrical, merely different ToMs wherein some of us happen to be in the minority and thus suffer dysfunction, or if there's a more primitive difference. It seems to me that NTs are far more willing to project their assumptions (conversely, autistics don't judge NTs by the uncanny valley: is that asymmetry learned or innate?). Obviously that's a useful shortcut in society if most people are like you but is the imperative trainable or is it stuck in the 'on' position?

My guess is NTs use ToM to work out the social hierarchy and they can't easily turn it off. Here is an example, I believe, of NT ToM being automatically applied in error:

^ those are smart philosophy people trying their damnedest to rationalise their assumptions. It seems to show that, okay if you shove enough gay pride down their throats they'll be smart and follow the herd, but their most basic view of other people is as projections of themselves. ToM stuck on 'on'.

Relatedly, I recommend MDMA/oxytocin to gain insight into NT concepts of group identity. Deeply enlightening.

daedalus2u said...

I think the ToM and ToR are fundamentally different and are incommensurate, that is not mapable onto each other.

I don't think that NTs consciously project their assumptions. I think the ToM that an NT has is used as the default ToM and is a scaffold and is used to compare every other ToM to. I don't think this is a choice, I think it is simply how NT brains and minds work. They might be able to do things differently, but I am not sure they can. You can feel that someone is higher status, as a sycophant feels toward the king, or you can feel someone is lower status, the way a bigot feels toward the object of their bigotry. I think that fear can modulate this as in Stockholm Syndrome.

I think that NTs don't have another way to communicate and think about other people except as projections through their ToM. That is why bigots really can't perceive the objects of their bigotry as human beings. The ToM of a bigot doesn't have the capacity to recognize as human what the bigot is bigoted against.

This is what the tea partiers think about Obama. They can't perceive him to be human, so they make up all this nonsense about his birth certificate. Their feeling that he is non-human isn't on a conscious level, so they don't have access to it and can't change it with facts and logic because it doesn't derive from facts and logic. They can't allow facts and logic to interfere with the feelings of their ToM.

I think from the ToM NTs obtain two things, their status in the social hierarchy, as well as communication protocols. Status in the social hierarchy is communicated via feelings generated in the ToM that modulate the activity of the brain and the ToM. How you “feel” when you are communicating with someone is what determines their social status relative to you (as you perceive it).

I think that AS get some of the communication protocols but they don't “get” the social hierarchy stuff. They don't get the feelings that relay the social status (so much).

Be careful with oxytocin. You might end up attached to something you would rather not be attached to. It may also trigger anti-bonding.

nerkul said...

Yes. So I'm wondering if AS ToM is equally primitive, automatic and uncontrollable but just without the need to locate oneself in a hierarchy. I'm not sure how it might then be defined. If it is similarly constrained, perhaps it would take someone 'more autistic' than us to see it. My hunch is that experimental psychology can provide answers; the scientific method itself being unbiased.

My experiments with oxytocin were remarkable. Intense awareness of who was 'in' and 'out'. Boundless love for the former, hostility and fear of the latter; those feelings preceding any conscious reason for them. Very weird. I can imagine, if you lived with that perspective your whole life, you would believe it was rational and when asked the moral value of something/someone you could construct a story that felt right. I've seen this happen, probably we all have. The stunning revelation, for me, was that NTs absolutely believe in the correctness of their point of view. For them the hierarchy is their only god and it is real.

Tiziana Zalla, the psychologist who co-authored that linked paper and who has studied Aspergers extensively, believes that NT ToM is a conscious process that leads to better awareness of morality. When morality and status within the hierarchy are confused like that... bad things are going to happen. Have you seen the press for Baron-Cohen's new book? He's going to explain Nazis in terms of empathy while he has no idea how to see outside the hierarchy. This won't go well for us.

What we need is anti-oxytocin so they can gain our perspective.

daedalus2u said...

I have seen the press for the book and have been in contact with SBC and have sent him this writeup on xenophobia. I have met him, and my experience of him is that he does want to do the right thing and to understand things correctly but the NT privilege that all NTs have interferes with that.

Your experience with oxytocin is very interesting. I have a very hard time telling who is “in” and who is “out”.

Maternal bonding is the archetypal mammalian social behavior, all other social behaviors are derivative of that. Because lactation in mammals is so energy intensive, there has to be a mechanism to turn maternal bonding into maternal anti-bonding when the mother doesn't have the metabolic resources to sustain lactation.

Inhibition of nitric oxide synthase does block maternal bonding in ewes. At some point low NO likely triggers maternal anti-bonding, aka infanticide.

hbd chick said...

hi d2u!

i think you make many very good points here about how nts and aspies have difficulties understanding each other because we have such very different sorts of minds. you are very right on, i think!

however, i don't think you've delved deep enough into the roots of xenophobia. you need to start with the meaning of life (no, not the monty python movie!).

what's it all about? well, afaics, it's all about genes replicating themselves and, yes, like dawkins said, we organisms are just survival machines for our genes.

genes are in a (bizarre) race with one another to reproduce themselves. they have to deal (sorry about the anthropomorphism) with the annoying situation of limited resources here on earth. so, what happens? competition.

so, genes compete with each other, thus organisms compete with each other. family members compete with each other, extended family members compete with each other, really exteneded family members compete with each other, tribes compete with each other, ethnicities compete with each other, races compete with each other, species compete with each other, etc., etc.

THAT'S where xenophobia comes from. it's a misnomer, really. it's not an irrational fear of "the other", it's a VERY RATIONAL fear because "the other" is actually in direct competition with us. and the more unrelated genetically, the stronger the "anti" feelings will be.

cooperation can and does happen, of course. if something is mutally beneficial, organisms might work together. but only if it furthers each of their chances to reproduce further. no one on this planet does anything out of sheer kindness.

daedalus2u said...

hbd, that is not correct. Xenophobia is irrational because it occurs before one knows if it is appropriate to be afraid or not. Maybe fear is appropriate, but if everyone who is not your clone triggers such fear that you destroy them, that is not adaptive.

Xenophobia can be triggered against one's own children. That xenophobia is not about “competition” in the sense that you are using it. An infant is not a competitive threat, and certainly is not a competitive threat to its parent. Under extreme stress, yes, parents will kill and eat their offspring. That is not a usual behavior. It is an unusual behavior that is triggered by extremes of stress. The physiology can be triggered by other things.

“Competition” that is dysfunctional is defective competition and is irrational in every sense of the word.

Feelings of xenophobia can drive “competition” to dysfunctional levels that do not aid in survival. Not the survival of individuals, not the survival of families, not the survival of tribes, not the survival of nations or even of the entire human race. Evolution doesn't always pick “the best” strategy, evolution selects for traits that minimize the sum of non-reproduction from all strategies combined.

The archetypal social mechanism is maternal bonding and is mediated through oxytocin. I think the archetypal anti-bonding mechanism is maternal anti-bonding aka postpartum psychotic infanticide. I think that is also mediated through oxytocin, but under extreme metabolic stress. There are circumstances where postpartum psychotic infanticide is a “feature”, which is why humans exhibit it. Usually it is not, but under conditions of extreme metabolic stress, all mammalian mothers need a mechanism to shed an unsustainable lactation metabolic load. All mammals do have such a mechanism, in humans it is postpartum psychotic infanticide. The mechanism that caused Andrea Yates to kill her children.

Going with one's evolution derived feelings is not always the best thing to do.

Hating someone because they are different and trigger your xenophobia is not rational. It is irrational. Hating gay men and killing them does not provide a survival or reproductive benefit to straight men. Why do homophobes do it? Because they are irrationally following the xenophobia that has been triggered.

Most conservatives and libertarians are stuck in a zero-sum mind set. There are only a few zero-sum things, where if someone else has any then you have less. Social power is one, territory is another, mates of reproductive age is zero sum for males, not so much for females.

Many things are not zero-sum. Economic growth is not zero sum. Treating the economy as if it is zero-sum will make it zero-sum.

The problem with “competition” of the type conservatives and libertarians want is that it is zero-sum. Since it is zero sum, and money is what gets summed, and since money is necessary for survival, you are advocating competition until the losers die. Since you are advocating a scenario where the losers die, those “losers” have every right to choose a different scenario where you die instead of them. Is that what you really want?

That is the lesson that the veterans of WWII learned. “There are no rules in love and war”. If you put people in desperate situations, they will do desperate things. If you want people to not do desperate things, then you have to ensure that they are not put in desperate situations. Of course if you so hate the people you are putting in desperate situations that you are willing to kill them when they do desperate things, then they have every right to kill you first. Of course libertarians and conservatives don't think that way, because they can't imagine that “the other” could possibly do something like that, even though that is exactly what they would do in their place.

Anonymous said...

Hi, I'm a student currently working on a project for one of my classes. The section of your blog titled Social Hierarchies: Ubuntu and the Abrahamic Religions contains relevant information that I would like to use in my project. I am curious to know if you have a title in the field relevent to your blog, so I can correctly reference this resource. If you have no title in the field, your name would suffice.
My contact email is

Many thanks :)

Anonymous said...

An excellent post. One that I will need to read again to further my understanding. I still do not understand how you can be so anti 'anti-psychiatry'. (a horrendous term that has been imposed on those that reject the biological disease theory of mental illness.) You would not disagree with Szasz or Bentall. It is life's experience that can cause brain change resulting in mental distress. The cure is not a lobotomising 'drug' but a change in the experiences experienced.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Your view.. on Neurologica's blog

'BillyJoe, evolution being the scientific theory which has the most supporting evidence by far, in every field, by many orders of magnitude, someone who tries to boost their “skeptic” cred by claiming to be so skeptical that they are even skeptical of evolution, doesn’t know the meaning of the term “skeptical”.; They are a denier.

Was Galileo a 'denier'? Or Bruno?
I happen to agree with Popper. One's first duty as a scientist is not to confirm one's bias but to attempt to refute it. The truth will then emerge.

Dirk Steele said...

If we can produce a disconnect between believing stories that someone tells and acquisition of power and authority, then maybe there will be a way to move society to more science and reasoning based.

site said...

Thanks for the article, very effective information.

nikita sharma said...

human anatomy and physiology study course

Anonymous said...

Your segues into politics do you a disservice. You attack some really low hanging fruit (Palin, really?) and vastly overgeneralize Conservative, and in your comments, Libertarian philosophy.
You stress the importance of science, but cannot see that *Liberal* politics has a pretty bad track record when it comes to issues of tolerance and with respect to matters of science.
For the record, Libertarian ideology concerns itself with market-based solutions to problems and certainly doesn't believe in zero-sum anything. Furthermore, please don't conflate Conservative and Libertarian policies, there isn't much overlap. The Tea Party also comes under undeserved fire. We should all be happy to see any group challenging the power structure, since our media ceased to do it properly years ago when it started to pretend to "impartiality."
You seem quite learned on your medical topics but I cannot evaluate them as well as I'd like to be able to. My medical knowledge is self-taught and I struggle with understanding PubMed abstracts in many cases.
I came to your blog after reading your posts over at SBM. Your politics are so simplistic and biased they reduce the impact of your medical essays.
I am a cheerleader science whenever possible.

daedalus2u said...

You can't just be a "cheerleader", you have to actually practice critical thinking yourself. You can't rely on others to do that for you.

I am not “attacking” Palin, I am trying to understand how she comes to her absolutely bat-shit-crazy ideas (no disrespect to bat-shit). I take her at her word that she believes what comes out of her mouth.

There is no train of facts and logic that justifies what Palin and the tea-partiers believe. Their ideas are word salad, words that strung together don't have coherent meaning. I appreciate they hate Obama so much, because he is black and so they need to string everything else they hate to justify the magnitude of their hatred without acknowledging they are simply bigots. That is why they call him a Marxist, Fascist, Islamist, never mind that those 3 things are mutually incompatible (you can't be more than one of them). People have the right to hate Obama, they don't need a reason. When they make stuff up to justify how much they hate Obama, their justifications cannot be the “real” reason because those things are made up, just like the Blood Libel Against the Jews. Obamacare doesn't have “Death Panels”, it never did. Palin made it up to justify how much she hates Obama. Unfortunately, tea-partiers would rather believe Palin's lies than check to see if they make sense. They have forgotten the “... but verify” part of the quote.

Palin and the tea-partiers are bat-shit-crazy. They are the “useful idiots” of fascists like certain fossil fuel magnates (who are not Libertarian, they are oligarch fascists). The tea-partiers don't have coherent ideas. Many of their ideas are oxymoronic; they are self-contradictory. “Government hands off my Medicare”. How does that work exactly?

daedalus2u said...

Did you watch the debate where the moderator asked Ron Paul what do do if someone required long term hospitalization and couldn't pay for it? The tea partiers said “let him die”. Ron Paul said “let charities” pay for it, but there are not enough charities with enough money to do so, so Ron Paul is also saying “let him die”, but in “Libertarian-speak”.

How is it “Libertarian” to use something and not pay for it? Who is paying for putting CO2 in the atmosphere? Certainly not the people who profit by doing so. Who is going to pay to mitigate the climate change all that CO2 is causing? Who is going to compensate the people who will be flooded when sea level goes up?

How is it “Conservative” to wreck and despoil the Earth? I agree with you that those terms (Libertarian and Conservative) are not well defined. Usual practice now is to use them as tribal identities, so that a self-proclaimed “Conservative” can be against a government too large to provide food and healthcare to citizens (and even soldiers) without enough, but wants a government big enough to monitor everyone's bedroom and every woman's reproductive organs.

Market solutions can only work when there are no unpriced externalities. It seems the whole way of thinking of self-described Libertarians is simply to pretend that those externalities do not exist. If they don't exist, then no one needs to pay for them, hence Global Warming Denial.

I try to apply the same standards to everything, medicine, skepticism, science, politics, it is all the same to me. I appreciate that many people can't do that. If there are no correct facts that can be linked together with valid logic to construct an idea, that idea is likely wrong. If there are correct facts that can be linked together to construct an idea, then the idea is likely correct. If there are no correct facts inconsistent with the correct-fact constructed idea, that idea is very likely correct. That is why I am a Liberal, a Feminist, and a Progressive. That is why reality has a liberal bias. It is more important for my ideas to be actually correct (actually correspond with reality) than for them to be perceived to be correct (correspond with the dominant paradigm). I have spent too much effort training my mind to work this way, I am not going to throw it away for some feel-good idiocy from ignorant demagogues and those whose highest aspiration is to be a “ditto-head”.

If you want me to consider an idea, show me the facts and logic that lead to it.

Jurij said...

Great article. I agree with everything as I have exactly the same thoughts. I just use different definitions to describe them.

Xenophobia is really well explained here. One thing that is missing is why we have xenophobia in the first place. You could explain ingroup-outgroup and how your extended family was your ingroup with a well functioning tit-for-tat. While people who wanted resources from your group without giving anything back were your outgroup.