Stephen A. Meigs seems like he has severe Asperger's syndrome. I don't think he's a scary pedophile; many of the great philosophers were probably people like him.
He's just theorizing about why it is that some people have sex, while other people don't. He has a quite interesting way of hypothesizing why it is that those emotional and irrational humans behave the way they do.
Also, if I ever get a poem published in an anthology, I'll borrow his introduction: "Like a good poem generally should, it deals with the idealistic case, assuming laws are reasonable, etc."
Not a significant sense. But he does follow certain ideas to their logical conclusions instead of getting muddled in what he thinks will actually convince people that he's right.
Actually, I based #5 on the excerpts from his book. His blog appears to be random nonsense on the level of "Time Cube", only with concepts like "intraejaculate sperm selection" and "female lust chemicals" in the place of "educated singularity stupid" and "four corner stage life".
I think we have a new candidate for the John Derbyshire "Should stick to writing things that have been edited, even if only by himself" category.
From October 2004:
"Here it is shortly before the election, and my choices disappoint me. I can take the party arguing that unselfishness is stupid (the Republicans) or I can choose the party arguing that stupidity is unselfish (the Democrats). I sit back and observe that the end result of the campaign will be to further encourage people to view stupidity and unselfishness as indiscriminately the same."
One more post: How the heck did you find this guy? None of his blog posts have even 1 comment on them. Not even any spam comments. Not even a trackback from Christopher Hitchens, his favorite journalist.
I don't think he'll actually fuck a twelve-year-old unless he's absolutely sure her parents are okay with it. And not just him paying them for it...he needs their moral approval. He doesn't want to be sneaky or deceptive ("a bad male").
He is really really creepy, but I don't think he's dangerous. I wonder what people who were in college with him thought. (UNC-CH for Math, class of 1987. Spent 7 years at UM-Ann Arbor for doctoral math after that.)
You don't think someone like that is capable of rationalizing some theory that the parents approve, since after all, they let their kid talk to him or something?
"On the whole, I liked Michigan better than North Carolina, though--probably from lingering effects of slavery, southerners tend to be a little less civilized than Yankees."
14: Don't try to imply that Meigs is John Emerson. I found a passage that makes him sound more like bitchphd:
"Fast candor is good in that it enables a female to know a male’s intentions before she has wasted much time upon him, just as it is good to scare girls sooner than later when there is not choice. "
Honestly, though...I really do like his poetry. It's unpredictable. It's very difficult to write a poem that's unpredictable. It's almost impossible if you're not insane in some way. I've found very few poets who are unpredictable enough for my taste.
That blog is one of the saddest and loneliest things I've ever read.
I forgot to mention that, but yes.
I know a guy with Asperger's syndrome, he's an adjunct astronomy professor, and he's always saying things like "I haven't had a girlfriend for 20 years, and I don't want another one unless she is (list of twenty-five quite specific attributes). Any other woman would be too unpredictable."
Because he's really smart, the underlying message is not "God damnit, why aren't women the way I want them to be. My only option is rape or prostitution" but "I am aware that there is zero chance I will ever get married for love, but I do have fantasies". This Meigs guy is definitely less reasonable.
someone I went out with twice. I referred to him in the "remedy" thread, and in the Ask the Mineshaft post about agreeing to see people when you weren't sure you were seriously interested.
Gary says I might be Aspergerish, and I couldn't write a poem like that. That was astonishing stuff, not even interesting word-salad. But I can't hang, I am busy watching Sharpe and searching for the post of funny metaphors and similes I read yesterday. The only one I remember:
"When I see you, I hear bells as if a garbage truck were driving by." Now that's poetry.
According to this most dubious test, I most likely have Asperger's. I scored 32. And I know I definitely couldn't write a poem like that. And even if I could, I would know well enough not to post it in a public place.
Oh, I don't doubt that he's mentally ill in some other way. But it seems like when he really puts his thoughts together and edits his work, as in his "book", what he comes up with reminds me of the Asperger's way of thinking in its extremely curious and objective, yet uncomprehending, views of other humans.
T's 35: And weirdly, the very subject of Wolfson's entry has a post on Sasha Cohen and I was totally confused because I was expecting it to be about Borat and it ended up being about a figure skater.
You don't think someone like that is capable of rationalizing some theory that the parents approve, since after all, they let their kid talk to him or something?
YES.
I have two daughters. And you people wonder why I own guns.
I dunno. To my mind anyone who spends this much time justifying why seducing a young girl would be a praiseworthy act probably imagines himself performing the seduction, and so whether he's mentally ill or just a creep, I'm not too inclined to think his motives are just academic.
I got bored with the Asperger's test halfway through.
I got 11, but only because I like pretending. Meigs seems to have a fairly rich fantasy life, by the way. doesn't that tend to disqualify him for Asperger's?
From what I understand of Asperger's, yes. On the other hand, 'Asperger's' seems to suffer the same kind of colloquial usage as 'depressed' and 'eating disorder', where 'geeky & shy around girls' is enough to say colloquially that someone has Asperger's.
Asperger's, Asperger's, Asperger's. The ADHD of the MENSA set. (And borderline pedos, it seems.) I expect to see it as a defense in criminal cases soon, if it hasn't happened already. Even worse are the people who say they have "mild" Asperger's. Shorthand for "I'm socially incompetent but enough of an ass to see it as your problem."
I scored a 37 but I don't have any form of Asperger's nor am I socially incompetent. While I'm not a fan of social events, I'm very easy going and can get along with anybody. So, I doubt the validity of the test.
for the record, my date was neither geeky nor (obviously) shy around girls. He does seem to have a lot of trouble understanding implicit communication, human motivation, and why people get offended by shit he says. he has a very "rational" way of approaching things, and he's annoyed by the fact that other people aren't that way, although he's aware he has to accept it.
I got a 24. Earlier in my life I probably would have scored higher, and a few of the questions made me pause because I wasn't sure what the answer would be now. Maybe an intermediate option would have been good for dealing with that.
And I remember some article I read on Asperger's - maybe the only article I've read on Asperger's - quoting a number of people with multiple divorces. So unless none of those marriages were consummated, all of you using "ability to get laid" as a counterindicator may want to rethink your criteria.
Holy shit, that latest blog entry. An excerpt. And uh, someone put a comment with a link to unfogged on that entry.
"Though obviously the girl’s opinion of me matters most, I like the idea (at least in a world with reasonable laws) of not having sex with a girl until her mother is so comfortable with it she can just nonchalantly walk right into the room her daughter and I are having sex in, and as she refills our water glasses or drops off a snack by our bed, feel really good about her decision as she looks at the clean benevolence of me while I am having sex with her daughter."
I got an 8 on the dubious test. Should I worry about ADHD, is there a test for that, what's happening in the room next door?
I wonder, though, about writers and this test. Fiction, it seems, takes a lot of concentration, solitude and long chunks of undisturbed time. On the other hand, it also takes the imagination to come up with characters, observation to make them seem plausible and something else to drive the plot. So they'd score high on some parts of the test but not on the others, while leading lives that to outsiders might appear fairly Aspergery. Is there a different, characteristic syndrome for fiction writers? (Apart from alcoholism, of course.)
Everybody's quoting that line about the voyeur mother, but I am finding this sentence from the next paragraph far freakier/more deserving of censure: "When at the dinner table, for instance, [the father] should look at [the daughter] before and during the relationship, and reassure/protect her according to the extent she looks like she possess/lacks the same snow-like innocence of untouched youth."
(And the structure of that sentence is a little confusing -- the slashes are not a parallel construction. Meigs is not saying, "He should reassure her if she possesses snow-like innocence and protect her if she lacks it", anyway i don't think so -- my reading is, "He should reassure her and protect her if she possesses snow-like innocence and do neither if she lacks it." Not that I think the first reading would be defensible, just nonsensical. Meigs appears to believe that fathers should gradually estrange themselves from their daughters as they mature, eventually having no interaction with them at all. Well anyway, there's 10 minutes of my life I will never have back.)
I was going to say that I didn't really think ability to get laid was a counterindicator for Asperger's. I don't know that much about it, but I think you can learn social skills in a kind of procedural, methodical way, and I think he'd done something like that, and was interested in doing it further. It was, for the record, kind of sweet the way, by the second morning, he sat around patiently listening to my lectures on the connotation, implication, and context of human utterance. He wasn't an asshole, exactly.
I got a 21. I only appear Aspergerish because I get very anxious in social situations, which is an entirely different disorder (although also a well publicized one.) However, I probably don't have social anxiety disorder, because really, everything makes me anxious.
One of the indicators for autism and Asperger's is an inability to engage in pretend play or imagine what it's like to be someone else. Hence all the questions about enjoying fiction; high functioning autistics may be capable of reading the words but they'll have a hard time grasping the subtext, enjoying it, or seeing the point. Social skills can be learned methodically, but it shows when the person doesn't understand metaphor at all.
Temple Grandin, who is autistic and studies animals (PhD in something or other biology), has said that understanding human interaction is very difficult because she misses all the subconsious cues that everyone else picks up. She said that she could get by in everyday life, but that sex was impossible because there were too many emotional cues.
One of my friends used to work with autistic and Asperger's kids, and they needed a lot of therapy just to hope that they would be able to hold down a job and live on their own. I'm kind of with goneril on this; while Asperger's is a real condition, I'm not sure the Wired/Silicon Valley set, when they say they have mild Asperger's, mean much more than 'I've heard they tend to be savants, and that would be cool, and I'm bad with social skills.'
But says the incontrovertible font of wisdom and truth, Wikipedia:
It is worth noting that because it is classified as a spectrum disorder, some people with Asperger syndrome are nearly normal in their ability to read and use facial expressions and other subtle forms of communication. However, this ability does not come naturally to most people with Asperger syndrome. Such people must learn social skills intellectually, possibly delaying social development until later in life.
and
Asperger Syndrome is often camouflaged, and many people with the disorder often blend in with those that do not have Asperger syndrome. The effects of Asperger syndrome also depends on the individual as some deal with the characteristics differently than others with Asperger syndrome.
Also
Traditionally, Kannerian autism is characterized by significant cognitive and communicative deficiencies, including delays in or lack of language. Often it is clear that these people do not function normally. On the other hand, a person with Asperger's will not show delays in language. It is a more subtle condition, and affected people often appear only to be eccentric.
I guess it just depends on what comes of giving it a label and calling it a disorder, y'know? More treatment to help the person gain social skills, or alternately, learning to be comfortable with what you have? Okay. Ability to get out of any serious social faux pas with, "Well, I'm on the Asperger's spectrum?" Not so cool.
I don't think anyone should be able to get out of anything, but I also think that if AS is structuring someone's behavior, the label might help their intimates to figure out what's going on, and to know how react constructively to things they don't like. But I don't think you can self-diagnose it, either, so if tech geeks are really walking around saying they have AS w/o going to a doctor, they're [insert word in that funny language with the numbers for letters for "losers"].
A Wired magazine article called The Geek Syndrome[19] suggested that Asperger syndrome is more common in the Silicon Valley, a haven for computer scientists and mathematicians. It created an enduring notion popularized in the media and self-help books that "Geek Syndrome" equals Asperger syndrome and caused an explosion of self-diagnoses in part because it was printed alongside Simon Baron-Cohen's 50-question Autism Spectrum Quotient Test[20]. Like some people with Asperger syndrome, "geeks" may exhibit an extreme professional or casual interest in computers, science, engineering, and related fields and may be introverted or prioritize work over other aspects of life. However, no determination has yet been made of whether the "Geek Syndrome" personality type has a direct relation to autism or is simply a "variant normal" type that is not part of the autistic spectrum.
Since I linked to it, I want to stress that that test is so obviously not an indicator of anything. Most of the questions are different formulations of "are you an introvert or an extrovert"? And it says that 80% of Aspergersites scored over 32; but no doubt 95% of them scored more than 5. So does that mean that people scoring 6 are likely to have it?
I have a high-functioning autistic brother and can certainly accept that Asperger's doesn't just mean "asshole who isn't good at social situations," though the label conveniently gives those people an excuse.
104: I think about this a lot, too.
I once described to a friend how, if I had some bureaucratic errand to run, or in general, something to do that wasn't part of my routine, it would take me the first part of the day to psych myself up to do it, and then after I had done it, it would take me the rest of the day to wind down from it.
He said, "Kudos, that's a good phenomenological description of a lazy person."
Taking the Aspberger test, again:Yes, I am frequently fascinated by dates. there is almost a crystalline sugar quality to the dried ones. Figs simply freak me out. Never ever mention pomegranates.
Actually, the most promising way to medicalize assholery is not through autism spectrum disorders, but sociopathy spectrum disorders. Robert Hare is a psychologist who developed a test used to diagnose sociopaths for police departments. He is now attempting to popularize the idea that low-level sociopaths tend to cluster in certain professions, like the stock market. If you heard chatter about workplace sociopaths, it is derivitive of his work.
Unsurprisingly, there are popular "Is my boss a sociopath" quizes out there. Fast company did one. But there are not "Am I a sociopath?" quizes, to my knowledge.
I had some bureaucratic errand to run, or in general, something to do that wasn't part of my routine, it would take me the first part of the day to psych myself up to do it, and then after I had done it, it would take me the rest of the day to wind down from it.
I had some period where I was like this, but it was because nothing else about my life was very demanding at the time. When your job is hard or you have five kids or something like that, you have to do lots of stuff you don't particularly want to do anyway, so doing one more annoying thing is that much easier.
108: That's a good observation. I know a self-described sociopath, and he's a rare record dealer. Which is like the stock market in that it involves speculation, buying and selling. I've often told him that when he gets out of that biz, he would probably do well in the stock market.
I bet a lot of assholery is just excess aggression. Sociopathy would do it, but isn't necessary if there's aggression. Or is it the case that a quite aggressive and yet very empathetic person would simply appear as very assertive, but not really assholish?
One of the indicators for autism and Asperger's is an inability to engage in pretend play or imagine what it's like to be someone else. Hence all the questions about enjoying fiction
When I was a kid, I could never play with robots or action figures or whatever like my friends could. But I read more fiction than most or all of them. Then again, all the way through high school my favorite subject was math.
111: "Asshole," like a lot of folk psychological categories probably covers many distinct disorders. The category "asshole" might best be divided into "stone cold psycho," "macho douche bag" and "pestering dweeb.”
Now that I think about it, "heartless prick" might be a better name for assholes with *low level* sociopathy spectrum disorders than "stone cold psycho"
I should also add "self-absorbed bastard" to my provisional typology of assholes, as a category that encompases but extends past heartless pricks.
I think being an asshole implies some sort of arrogance, so I wouldn't include "pestering dweeb" in the assholery spectrum. That would more likely be a subcategory of cluelessness, which is a different disorder.
119, 120: I agree. I initially included Pestering Dweeb in the asshole typology because some people were including self identified Asburger's types as assholes.
In all seriousness, what difference does it make if asshole (or whatever) becomes a diagnosable "condition"? Either way, the onus is on the person who is autistic/assholish/whatever to learn the social skills or compensatory mechanisms that will make it possible to get along with others. And either way, the others who care for the autistic/assholish person have to learn how to shrug off certain behaviors, retain firm boundaries over others, and decide what is and isn't acceptable.
I'm oversimplifying a bit, but Rob's comment about the morality of the distinction got me thinking. It seems the primary thing that's achieved by shifting X behavior into the category of "syndrome" is that it implicitly removes the judgmental aspect. And then I thought, what good does judgment do, really? Why would we want to retain it? I mean, isn't a lot of assholish or self-destructive behavior in part a preemptive reaction to presumed judgment by others?
B: I agree completely. The medicalization of morality, which began in earnest when alcoholism became a disease, is actually a very humane process that has positive outcomes on people's lives. Nevertheless, it has a hell of a lot of detractors, both academic and popular, who wish to stick with the a pure "blame and shame" method for regulating behavior.
This is not to say that blame and shame shoudl disappear entirely in the medical model. I hope to see a kind of convergence of clinical psyciatry and virtue ethics.
Well, I honestly wonder: what are the advantages (if any) in a blame/shame model of behavior? Are we inclined to be snarky about the proliferation of syndromes because there is actually some advantage to the blame/shame thing, or is it just assholish of us to do so? Or is the problem in a misapprehension of what a medicalized model means--that it somehow removes the idea of human agency and self-control from the picture entirely? And if so, then how would we better understand it?
I have some sense of the answers to these questions, but they're not things I've thought about very deeply.
Both 128 and 127 are certainly true, but re. 127, I honestly wonder if "repentance" is a good thing. I am thinking of how awful it makes me feel to have, for instance, my mother constantly beating herself up over the shitty things she does, and how doing so actually just makes her feel worse and therefore more likely to continue to do shitty things, and how much I really wish she would just fucking quit the self-blaming and deal with the problem in a practical way. I think the shame/blame model is as likely to keep people from repentance because shame feels like crap, and so folks construct some pretty elaborate rationalizations and defenses and ways to blame others. I wonder if it might not be a lot easier to deal with the interpersonal problems of irritating behavior by thinking of it in more practical, dispassionate ways, e.g., as being about management and the limits of what is and isn't tolerable.
I have a relative who did unconscionable things to me when I was 25, right after my father had died and I was very weak and hardly able to protect myself. And I would have felt better if the person's monstrous ego was held in check by something. So that's where that thought was coming from.
Rest of the room: "Fuck you, Rob."
Rob: "Fuck you, everyone. I'm unrepentant but I want to stop being an asshole so everyone will stop blaming me for their stupidity."
To 129: a lot of clinical psychiatry also thinks repentence isn't worth much. This is especially true in cognitive behavioral therapy, rational emotional therapy, and the like. "Moving on" becomes much more important than repentence and forgiveness.
I like this a lot, because it avoids the "sorry, but" phenomenon. Most people who seek forgiveness always have to say "but" after they apologize, and follow the but with their half assed rationalization of their action. (Caroline [my 3 year old] on kicking her brother: "Sorry, but I just wanted to put my foots there.")
I wonder if it might not be a lot easier to deal with the interpersonal problems of irritating behavior by thinking of it in more practical, dispassionate ways, e.g., as being about management and the limits of what is and isn't tolerable.
I think part of the problem with shifting to this sort of model is that it would be a pretty dramatic shift. Blame and shame (really, probably "blame" and "guilt") is a model that's been deployed for a very long time, and it's worked well enough to get us to this point. There's just a lot of intellectual capital that's been expended in creating the blame and shame model, and people are going to be reasonably reluctant to throw it away without evidence that the other model offers specific benefits.
The really annoying part was that other people around me were saying, "She can't help it, she's sick." Which is not the most supportive backing to get. I'm still really close to the people who told her to back the fuck off. Much more helpful, in the circumstances.
The problem isn't shame per se, it's the inappropriateness of the level of shame. It's bad to beat oneself up repeatedly for past actions; but if one has treated another shittily, I don't think the correct response is to say, "oh well, nothing I can do about it now. What's done is done. Gotta move forward."
Shame is a very weak motivator of human behavior. It's not quite as weak as pure will, but much less strong than various compulsions that may result from addiction or anger.
One of the more intersting features of the medicalization of morality is that "sick" has actually become a term of moral disapproval. This actually might be the right thing to do, because it makes "she's sick" and "she should fuck off" more compatible, although the details of how to merge the two attitudes are still murky.
I'm also sorry to hear about your relative, ac. I'd also tell the sick witch to fuck off.
138: I'm not sure I'm seeing the distinction you're drawing. If you are asking whether I think that it would be a good thing to move to the new model, but it will be difficult to convince people, as distinct from problems arising from adopting the new model, then I think the answer is, "Both."
In that case the "she's sick" people were different from the "back the fuck off" people. The former were trying to understand why she was doing the things she was doing, the latter didn't think about the causes too much and just moved to protect me.
Not to make it all about this example, but it was just the most concrete experience I have had of the consequences of shifting moral frames.
The thing is, it is very useful to know why someone is doing something to get them to stop. In fact, it is necessary to genuinely empathize with people to really help them shut down shitty behavior. You do need this element.
Here's a different example, if we need one. Here in upstate New York, the villages have been playing "Sex Offender NIMBY" with a guy who was convicted of molesting a nine year old and a thirteen year old. Every time he moves someplace, he appears on the registry of level three sex offenders, and everyone makes his life living hell, until he moves to the next village.
He just moved to Potsdam, and immediately flyers appeared all over the place with his name, picture, an dthe words "level three sex offender." His landlord has already started eviction proceedings.
While I would not be thrilled to have this guy live next door to me (and my children), it seems pointless to keep shoving him from place to place. A more sensible attitude would be to figure out what kind of life would make him least likely to molest anyone again, and put him in that kind of situation.
A more sensible attitude would be to figure out what kind of life would make him least likely to molest anyone again, and put him in that kind of situation.
In Iowa the solution was to forbid them from living virtually anywhere, thus forcing sex offenders into an underground network where their whereabouts could no longer be followed by the authorities, as noted in the New York Times. Somehow I think castration would be more humane.
The really annoying part was that other people around me were saying, "She can't help it, she's sick." Which is not the most supportive backing to get. I'm still really close to the people who told her to back the fuck off. Much more helpful, in the circumstances.
Yeah, I think that's the problem with the idea that a medical model = an excuse, which I think comes from still caring about the shame/blame thing. That is, the idea is to avoid blaming because it's unfair. As opposed to realizing that illness doesn't absolve one from protecting others from the consequences of one's illness (don't throw up on people, don't expose them to your germs, don't treat them badly), that failures to do so require a genuine apology, and most importantly, that people who are hurt deserve sympathy.
Rob's comparison to childrearing makes a good analogy, I think. One of the things I think it's important to teach (and model) for kids is the genuine apology: "I'm sorry I yelled at you, PK, I shouldn't do that" as opposed to "I'm sorry I yelled, but you made me really mad." Another thing is the lesson that, if one kid bites another on the playground, you deal with the kid who is bitten first, you separate them if necessary, and then you explain to the biting kid that biting is not okay. Explaining that "he's really to young to understand" doesn't help the situation at all.
I actually did some work in sex offender rights. Surprisingly, it did not make me feel wrong or icky. Once I realized that legislators were passing sex offender-related laws (because easy way to increase one's positive political profile) without thinking about the consequences for actual people, it wasn't hard at all to defend their constitutional rights. Of course, one of the major things I worked on wasn't for the benefit of sex offenders, but for people who are unfairly classified as sex offenders under Illinois law; if anyone over 18 is convicted of murder of a victim under 18, the convict gets labelled a sexual predator for registry purposes. So you had some 19-year-old who killed a 17-year-old in a gang drive-by having to follow the sex offender laws for the rest of his life. It was total bullshit.
There are a bunch of other pretty interesting/infuriating quirks to sex offender laws too, like how (at least in Illinois), if you are up for parole, but you don't have an "approved" place to live, they'll release you, then when you get to the gate, they tell you you've violate your parole and put you back into prison. Agh.
145: A lot of the villages around here have been doing things like that. I think if he wanted to move to ogdensburg he would be allowed to pitch a tent in the median strip of the highway that runs by down. Except its a two lane road without a median strip.
I was told by a philosopher who was researching the state's right to mandate invasive bodily procedures that castration is a surprisingly ineffective way to prevent recidivism in sex offenders. Often castrated people can still get erections, and they still have whatever demented issue drove them to offend in the first place.
You all are ridiculous. Why can't you just see a person who has carefully thought out opinions about morality that differ from more conformist opinions? It's like you've become so used to calling a horse a zebra that now that you've seen a zebra you feel obliged to call him a zebraform horse. As for my poetry maybe being good, well, I make a special point to include poetry on my web site, partly because I figure that few people will bother taking the time to study my intricate opinions and reasonings more carefully unless they can appreciate me in a medium that is more quickly comprehensible than one that requires careful thought. As for you, Clown__ , and your interpretation of my poem (regarding how fathers should play a role in monitoring their daughters), hey, why don't you just say black is white, up is down, and whenever someone says one thing they mean the opposite? Ya' wannabe Bozo.
I think the concept of confession and forgiveness is really psychically and morally healthy, actually. It's one of the things the Catholic Church got right.
That's nice that you're all taking my word for it that her acts were unconscionable. They were, though. She's crazily, notoriously litigious. It did suck!
The full-on apology is hard. Whenever you're going over an argument you think about the ways the other person contributed to your behavior. But it's true, you have to take it all on yourself. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.
But how can we not?! Have you all lost your zest for life? Stephen writes,
What I imagine happens is that as a result of a love chemical secreted during sex, a well-loved partner tends to have his gametes’ chromosomes painted with an epigenetic chemical that sticks somewhat to his DNA in such a manner that this epigenetic chemical painted on his chromosomes can be passed on to future generations. It follows that over time, the parts of chromosomes that are often in specially well-loved individuals will become more thickly painted with epigenetic love chemical.
Stephen, seriously, for your project to work, you need to show (among other things) that "goodness" is heritable. Imagining an epigenetic love chemical isn't going to get you there.
Well, to some extent "goodness" is hereditable, inasmuch as empathy is a component of goodness, and presumably empathetic parents teach empathy to their children, and so on down through the generations. Though of course that's not actually genetics.
The biggest problem with Stephen's theories is that they hold women responsible for not only the behavior, but the very thoughts of men. The second problem is his clear sense that sexual desire is shameful and bad (which is probably a big part of where he came up with the first part). Both of those lead to elaborate rationalizations that amount to seeing other people as means to an end, rather than as autonomous individuals in their own rights, and frankly that thought process is incredibly unhealthy and dangerous.
I don't know where you get the idea, BitchPhD, that I believe sexual desire is bad. Nor where you get the idea that I view women as responsible for men's thoughts. In fact, I consider female lust chemical to be very important. Upon being absorbed by the male it allows intraejaculate sperm selection to be meaningful. Also, female lust is what I think most responsible for the little bit of thinking for themselves that people do. If anything, I glorify female lust. And I criticize those (like selfish females) who (to denigrate the former) conflate fucking pleasure with sodomizing pleasure because they are no matter what too greedy to be willing to have children with any man unless they can get all the resources out of him.
150: It's like you've become so used to calling a horse a zebra that now that you've seen a zebra you feel obliged to call him a zebraform horse.
I feel compelled to point out that the zebra is, indeed, a type of horse. Taxonomy tells us nothing about the appropriateness of grown men preferring sex with twelve-year-olds for their greater moral purity, however, so go right ahead on that one.
rob: If you really thought shame was a weak motivator, you would prove it by posting naked pictures of yourself to the internet.
Ever try shaming a sociopath into behaving with empathy? Shaming an alcoholic into being dry? A gambling addict into not gambling? It's quite weak compared to many other motivators, but in the absence of other motivators going against it, of course it's going to be effective. Thus, no nudie pics for you, sorry.
OK, the child fucking would be weird enough by itself. But pseudo-scientific biological nonsense babble? Usually pseudo-science is relegated to New Age-type things like auras and NLP or quantum mechanics. But isn't human reproduction a bit mundane and well-understood to be going around spouting nonsense about?
pdf: oh I agree with you about the ineffectiveness shame in all of the cases you name. What's remarkable to me is how effective shame is for most people most of the time.
I should turn my challenge into a thought experiement to make things clearer (and less combative). Suppose you knew that there would be no reprocussions from posting naked pictures of yourself on the internet. You wouldn't get fired; no one would even mention it. Still, the whole world would see your heinie. Would you do it? Probably not.
I feel compelled to point out that the zebra is, indeed, a type of horse.
Figures.
Taxonomy tells us nothing about the appropriateness of grown men preferring sex with twelve-year-olds for their greater moral purity, however, so go right ahead on that one.
Indeed, so one has to think about it carefully. But before thinking about a question carefully, it behooves one to think about the right question. I never asserted anywhere that I prefer twelve-year olds for their greater moral purity. Not that an innocent twelve-year old isn't more wise and ready for sex than a screwed-up woman (especially, I have been thinking of late, if the latter has sufficient advanced degrees to somehow allow her to feel good about herself), but not every woman is screwed-up. Not every woman is into sodomy. Females can get wiser as they age. I assert as everywhere that my attraction toward youth qua youth in females results from the effect female youth likely has upon intraejaculate sperm selection. E.g., the histology of the adolescent cervix is quite different from that of an adult female. Obviously-non-deceptive males who don't make females feel the need to wait before deciding on sex tend to have qualities females especially want (or the females would wait to see if something better comes along). It follows that intraejaculate sperm selection is something girls would want and benefit from when having sex with virtuous males (who tend to be obviously non-deceptive), and that girls lose out by postponing such sex.
I'm not saying all females are selfish, just some females. Just like I believe some males are selfish. Sodomizers, in particular, I think tend to be very selfish, and they are all males.
It's because the chemicals in their cervixes made him do it, obv. But we needn't fear, because he's virtuous and nondeceptive. In fact, it's good for them. Otherwise they wouldn't have such chemicals.
Of course the chemicals have been postulated for the sake of argument. What's the problem there?
Not that an innocent twelve-year old isn't more wise and ready for sex than a screwed-up woman (especially, I have been thinking of late, if the latter has sufficient advanced degrees to somehow allow her to feel good about herself)
The temperature rises as we get closer to the molten core of misogyny that powers this nonsense.
Remember when people were talking about odd phobias, and one of them was watching embarrassment? And people were talking about how their own personal phobia or neurosis, whatever, was how crushingly painful it was to watch embarrassment?
I never thought I'd get that feeling (sort of 2 inches below my diaphragm, and maybe a few inches in) reading comment threads here.
Rob, that's a neat thought experiment, but I think a bit confusing. Are we supposed to assume a world where the taboo exists, but due to my particular circumstances I won't suffer any major consequences? But, assuming that *everyone* sees the pics, and the taboo exists, it would surely be impossible to avoid all consequences, even if they were just strange looks from others. So I wouldn't if there were still a taboo against nudity.
But if there were no taboo against nudity, then there wouldn't be any reason to feel shame about posting nude pictures of myself, or really much interest at all. (I'm not exactly what you call the chisled type.)
I don't understand what "intraejaculate sperm selection" means, or when it is supposed to occur. Or who does the selecting.
There's a theory about interejaculate sperm selection, along the lines that different men's ejaculate can compete within the female to fertilize the egg. Google "kamikaze sperm". However, evidence for this is mixed. A related POV sees female hormones as being able to intervene in this process.
first you have to think of a person whose name starts with N, and give me clues about that person, and if you stump me, you get to ask me if I'm Russian.
Rob, the problem with the nude pictures of ass question is that a lot of people *do* post such pictures, even with the possibility of losing one's job still in place.
203: I was! But I guess the question was still too general. Jesus. This game expects me to actually know shit. And how does the questionee do it--lots and lots of googling, or are you only allowed to play if you have an encyclopedia in your head?
210: Wrong answer. Correct answer is, the Venerable Robert Nutter. I get a second-order question. Did you hold some kind of political office, whether by birth or election?
I don't understand what "intraejaculate sperm selection" means, or when it is supposed to occur. Or who does the selecting.
When a man has sex, he puts a very large number of sperm into the female. These sperm compete with one another. Intraejaculate sperm competition is the sort of sperm competition that occurs when just one male is involved ("intra-" meaning "within"). In a young female, those sperm especially adapted to fertilizing young females are more likely to fertilize the ovum than sperm not well adapted to fertilizing young females. Intraejaculate sperm competition is also I think what makes female bisexuality important. If a man's sperm goes back-and-forth between females (as the coronal ridge of the penis facilitates), that selects for sperm able to survive the changes of environment involved when having such sex simultaneously with several females. These would obviously be the studly sperm.
It is important to note that insofar as intraejaculate sperm competition in descendants is concerned, females basically don't have an advantage or disadvantage in being fertilized by especially virile sperm except to the extent such virility is associated with desirable diploid traits. Indeed, in the ejaculates of sons, sperm more related to her will have to compete with sperm more related to her mate, which makes it disadvantageous for her in that generation to have been fertilized by strong sperm; but then in future generations, she gets an advantage (that decays like a geometric series) from having been fertilized by strong sperm, and the total advantage (if second-order effects are ignored, as is appropriate if the advantage is small) exactly cancels the disadvantage, just like the reflections from a quarter-wave-length coating cancel on the anti-reflective coatings on eyeglasses, etc.
Ordinarily (a case of meiotric drive), genes that code for useful haploid traits don't tend to be associated with useful diploid traits because the mere fact that a gene can survive notwithstanding it is less useful haploidly suggests it is more useful diploidly. This is why ordinarily, a female benefits by sperm success being random, and why sperm development is apparently ordinarily mostly under diploid regulation (effectively making intraejaculate sperm competition meaningless). But it stands to reason a female would want meaningful intraejaculate sperm competition when it would be supposed to select positively for useful diploid traits, which is what I believe female lust (by degrading cytoplasm bridges between developing sperm cells) and absence of (sperm mixing, sperm-success-randomizing) female orgasm allows.
Stephen A. Meigs seems like he has severe Asperger's syndrome. I don't think he's a scary pedophile; many of the great philosophers were probably people like him.
He's just theorizing about why it is that some people have sex, while other people don't. He has a quite interesting way of hypothesizing why it is that those emotional and irrational humans behave the way they do.
Also, if I ever get a poem published in an anthology, I'll borrow his introduction: "Like a good poem generally should, it deals with the idealistic case, assuming laws are reasonable, etc."
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 4:34 PM
I don't think you can properly diagnose him without reading his entire treatise on morality, Ned.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 4:37 PM
I read the first sentence of this stuff and I just can't stand to keep going.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 4:37 PM
You've read his stuff about sperm and age of consent and whatnot and you think it's "quite interesting" in a significant sense?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 4:37 PM
Not a significant sense. But he does follow certain ideas to their logical conclusions instead of getting muddled in what he thinks will actually convince people that he's right.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 4:38 PM
I think Ned's point is that it's "quite interesting" in a non-significant sense.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 4:39 PM
Crap, pwned. I need to go do something else for a while.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 4:40 PM
Actually, I based #5 on the excerpts from his book. His blog appears to be random nonsense on the level of "Time Cube", only with concepts like "intraejaculate sperm selection" and "female lust chemicals" in the place of "educated singularity stupid" and "four corner stage life".
I think we have a new candidate for the John Derbyshire "Should stick to writing things that have been edited, even if only by himself" category.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 4:46 PM
From October 2004:
"Here it is shortly before the election, and my choices disappoint me. I can take the party arguing that unselfishness is stupid (the Republicans) or I can choose the party arguing that stupidity is unselfish (the Democrats). I sit back and observe that the end result of the campaign will be to further encourage people to view stupidity and unselfishness as indiscriminately the same."
That's pretty interesting, I think.
Of course, his next post was this.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 4:54 PM
One more post: How the heck did you find this guy? None of his blog posts have even 1 comment on them. Not even any spam comments. Not even a trackback from Christopher Hitchens, his favorite journalist.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 4:59 PM
Sex is dirty! And yet I want to have sex! Those dirty whores, tempting me!
Maybe if I fuck a twelve-year old, she'll be innocent and not make me feel guilty.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:04 PM
I don't think he'll actually fuck a twelve-year-old unless he's absolutely sure her parents are okay with it. And not just him paying them for it...he needs their moral approval. He doesn't want to be sneaky or deceptive ("a bad male").
He is really really creepy, but I don't think he's dangerous. I wonder what people who were in college with him thought. (UNC-CH for Math, class of 1987. Spent 7 years at UM-Ann Arbor for doctoral math after that.)
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:11 PM
You don't think someone like that is capable of rationalizing some theory that the parents approve, since after all, they let their kid talk to him or something?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:13 PM
"On the whole, I liked Michigan better than North Carolina, though--probably from lingering effects of slavery, southerners tend to be a little less civilized than Yankees."
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:23 PM
14: Don't try to imply that Meigs is John Emerson. I found a passage that makes him sound more like bitchphd:
"Fast candor is good in that it enables a female to know a male’s intentions before she has wasted much time upon him, just as it is good to scare girls sooner than later when there is not choice. "
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:25 PM
One more post: How the heck did you find this guy?
He commented on Megan's post that ogged mentioned in the Remedy thread.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:26 PM
Honestly, though...I really do like his poetry. It's unpredictable. It's very difficult to write a poem that's unpredictable. It's almost impossible if you're not insane in some way. I've found very few poets who are unpredictable enough for my taste.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:27 PM
16: Oh, I thought maybe he had sent his book to an academic press you know of, or something.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:28 PM
That blog is one of the saddest and loneliest things I've ever read.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:30 PM
19- But is it sadder than that S den Be/ste thing about real women/female persons?
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:33 PM
His was the comment that prompted her "this blog is pro-sodomy" response, right?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:35 PM
15 is gross, and I reject it and all its works.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:35 PM
21: yes.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:36 PM
That blog is one of the saddest and loneliest things I've ever read.
I forgot to mention that, but yes.
I know a guy with Asperger's syndrome, he's an adjunct astronomy professor, and he's always saying things like "I haven't had a girlfriend for 20 years, and I don't want another one unless she is (list of twenty-five quite specific attributes). Any other woman would be too unpredictable."
Because he's really smart, the underlying message is not "God damnit, why aren't women the way I want them to be. My only option is rape or prostitution" but "I am aware that there is zero chance I will ever get married for love, but I do have fantasies". This Meigs guy is definitely less reasonable.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:36 PM
I think the Monday guy has Asperger's. Mild though. I brought it up to him. He said many other people have suggested it.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:50 PM
ben, you have darkened my view of humanity.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:52 PM
Monday guy?
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:53 PM
Honestly, though...I really do like his poetry.
there's no accounting for taste.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:54 PM
Hey, has it been noted yet that Mr. Meigs is 'Postropher's state-mate?
Posted by Clownęsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:56 PM
Not directly, but see 14.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:57 PM
someone I went out with twice. I referred to him in the "remedy" thread, and in the Ask the Mineshaft post about agreeing to see people when you weren't sure you were seriously interested.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 5:58 PM
Gary says I might be Aspergerish, and I couldn't write a poem like that. That was astonishing stuff, not even interesting word-salad. But I can't hang, I am busy watching Sharpe and searching for the post of funny metaphors and similes I read yesterday. The only one I remember:
"When I see you, I hear bells as if a garbage truck were driving by." Now that's poetry.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 7:12 PM
According to this most dubious test, I most likely have Asperger's. I scored 32. And I know I definitely couldn't write a poem like that. And even if I could, I would know well enough not to post it in a public place.
Posted by dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 7:24 PM
The Aspergersy Monday guy sent me a poem he wrote. It wasn't fabulous, but it wasn't embarrassing either.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 7:27 PM
Hey, Simon Baron-Cohen. That's Ali G's cousin.
Posted by T | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 7:29 PM
Oh, I don't doubt that he's mentally ill in some other way. But it seems like when he really puts his thoughts together and edits his work, as in his "book", what he comes up with reminds me of the Asperger's way of thinking in its extremely curious and objective, yet uncomprehending, views of other humans.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 7:33 PM
I scored a 37 and will probably remember that you scored a 32.
Posted by TD | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 7:33 PM
T's 35: And weirdly, the very subject of Wolfson's entry has a post on Sasha Cohen and I was totally confused because I was expecting it to be about Borat and it ended up being about a figure skater.
Posted by dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 7:38 PM
You don't think someone like that is capable of rationalizing some theory that the parents approve, since after all, they let their kid talk to him or something?
YES.
I have two daughters. And you people wonder why I own guns.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 7:39 PM
Sorry, that T was me. I got a 13. Although if I enjoy the company of others so much, why am I taking internet quizzes on a Friday night, hmmm?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 7:40 PM
Sorry, that T was me. I got a 13. Although if I enjoy the company of others so much, why am I taking internet quizzes on a Friday night, hmmm?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 7:40 PM
It's Saturday night, Tia. You totally don't have Asperger's.
Posted by dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 7:43 PM
Simon Baron-Cohen
Simon Cohen
Sacha Baron Cohen
Sasha Cohen
Cohen Simon-Sasha
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 7:46 PM
I was thinking...that if someone went over to Meigs' blog and told him he was being discussed here...he would leave lots of comments here.
Wouldn't it be interesting to see what that would be like? You can always ban him, after all.
If you choose to do that, delete this comment, I guess.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 8:02 PM
I dunno. To my mind anyone who spends this much time justifying why seducing a young girl would be a praiseworthy act probably imagines himself performing the seduction, and so whether he's mentally ill or just a creep, I'm not too inclined to think his motives are just academic.
I got bored with the Asperger's test halfway through.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 8:21 PM
I got 11, but only because I like pretending. Meigs seems to have a fairly rich fantasy life, by the way. doesn't that tend to disqualify him for Asperger's?
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 8:26 PM
From what I understand of Asperger's, yes. On the other hand, 'Asperger's' seems to suffer the same kind of colloquial usage as 'depressed' and 'eating disorder', where 'geeky & shy around girls' is enough to say colloquially that someone has Asperger's.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 8:31 PM
Asperger's, Asperger's, Asperger's. The ADHD of the MENSA set. (And borderline pedos, it seems.) I expect to see it as a defense in criminal cases soon, if it hasn't happened already. Even worse are the people who say they have "mild" Asperger's. Shorthand for "I'm socially incompetent but enough of an ass to see it as your problem."
Posted by gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 8:33 PM
I scored a 37 but I don't have any form of Asperger's nor am I socially incompetent. While I'm not a fan of social events, I'm very easy going and can get along with anybody. So, I doubt the validity of the test.
Posted by TD | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 8:51 PM
Score: 10. I'm like the anti-autistic, or something.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 8:55 PM
Asperger's was brought up as a partial defense in the trial of Billy Cottrell, the Caltech physics grad student who helped torch lots of Hummers.
It didn't work; he's in the federal pen.
The undergrads who roped him into it (or were his accomplices) are still on the lam.
Posted by NL | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 8:58 PM
for the record, my date was neither geeky nor (obviously) shy around girls. He does seem to have a lot of trouble understanding implicit communication, human motivation, and why people get offended by shit he says. he has a very "rational" way of approaching things, and he's annoyed by the fact that other people aren't that way, although he's aware he has to accept it.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 9:02 PM
I got a 23 on the test. My mom recently learned about Asperger's and has been wondering if I have it ever since. Obviously, I don't.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 9:15 PM
I'm an 11.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 9:16 PM
52: Mr. Monday sounds like he might be the real thing.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 9:30 PM
For a second there I thought "the real thing" = "a keeper".
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 9:32 PM
I got a 24, but I was annoyed that there was no intermediate choice.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 9:33 PM
Yeah, that irritated me too.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 9:40 PM
otoh, he was an empathetic lover. is that a counterindicator?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 9:40 PM
The ability to get a woman over the age of 16 into bed without resort to drugs is a counterindicator, Tia
Posted by gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 9:44 PM
He was hawt.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 9:47 PM
A better basis for keeperdom than 52.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 9:52 PM
I got a 24. Earlier in my life I probably would have scored higher, and a few of the questions made me pause because I wasn't sure what the answer would be now. Maybe an intermediate option would have been good for dealing with that.
And I remember some article I read on Asperger's - maybe the only article I've read on Asperger's - quoting a number of people with multiple divorces. So unless none of those marriages were consummated, all of you using "ability to get laid" as a counterindicator may want to rethink your criteria.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 10:18 PM
12
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 10:19 PM
I think the fact that I want to send poor old Billy Cottrell a cake is a counterindicator.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 10:23 PM
Appropriate sex is much, much funner for girls if they aren’t scared while having it
That takes the cake.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 10:29 PM
No! the cake is for Billy!
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 10:31 PM
Hey, didn't Kaczynski do his doctoral work at Ann Arbor, too?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 10:34 PM
68: I believe so. As well as an undergrad at Harvard and a post-doc at Berkeley.
Posted by Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 10:38 PM
Indeed he did.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 10:38 PM
Wikipedia notes that Kaczynski has recently written a letter to the NYRB.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 10:40 PM
I suppose he has a lot of free time.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 10:49 PM
Kaczynski's letter to the editor is more coherent than Stephen A. Meigs's writing. Makes you wonder if Meigs is really so safe and harmless.
Posted by Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 10:53 PM
Kaczynski was always pretty coherent. He's a smart dude.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 10:55 PM
The ability to get a woman over the age of 16 into bed without resort to drugs is a counterindicator, Tia
Are girls under the age of 16 easier to get into bed?
Posted by L. | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 11:01 PM
Probably, since they're smaller and all.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 11:03 PM
Why isn't Stephen Meigs's name being go/ogl/epr/o/ofe/d? When he finds this thread he's gonna be all sad.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 11:06 PM
I knew that he had been smart, but I guess I'd always assumed that his schizophrenia had made him incoherent. At least on the level of Meigs.
But looking at his manifesto it looks like he was always more coherent than Meigs.
Posted by Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 11:06 PM
78 to 74
Posted by Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 11:08 PM
77: To say nothing of T/e/d Kac/zyn/ski.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 11:09 PM
Probably, since they're smaller and all.
Hunh. You must be pretty easy then, eh, Wolfson?
Posted by L. | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 11:09 PM
Hunh. You must be pretty easy then, eh, Wolfson?
If you wanted to try your luck, I bet you wouldn't have much trouble.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-24-06 11:13 PM
It would be awesome if Ted Kaczynski showed up and left a comment.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 12:59 AM
20. That's surprisingly low, given my self-image.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:53 AM
Damn am I up late. Time for bed.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:54 AM
Wuss
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:56 AM
It would be awesome if Ted Kaczynski showed up and left a comment.
Word.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 2:00 AM
Holy shit, that latest blog entry. An excerpt. And uh, someone put a comment with a link to unfogged on that entry.
"Though obviously the girl’s opinion of me matters most, I like the idea (at least in a world with reasonable laws) of not having sex with a girl until her mother is so comfortable with it she can just nonchalantly walk right into the room her daughter and I are having sex in, and as she refills our water glasses or drops off a snack by our bed, feel really good about her decision as she looks at the clean benevolence of me while I am having sex with her daughter."
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 2:42 AM
I got an 8 on the dubious test. Should I worry about ADHD, is there a test for that, what's happening in the room next door?
I wonder, though, about writers and this test. Fiction, it seems, takes a lot of concentration, solitude and long chunks of undisturbed time. On the other hand, it also takes the imagination to come up with characters, observation to make them seem plausible and something else to drive the plot. So they'd score high on some parts of the test but not on the others, while leading lives that to outsiders might appear fairly Aspergery. Is there a different, characteristic syndrome for fiction writers? (Apart from alcoholism, of course.)
Posted by Doug | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 4:37 AM
Everybody's quoting that line about the voyeur mother, but I am finding this sentence from the next paragraph far freakier/more deserving of censure: "When at the dinner table, for instance, [the father] should look at [the daughter] before and during the relationship, and reassure/protect her according to the extent she looks like she possess/lacks the same snow-like innocence of untouched youth."
Posted by Clownęsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 5:32 AM
(And the structure of that sentence is a little confusing -- the slashes are not a parallel construction. Meigs is not saying, "He should reassure her if she possesses snow-like innocence and protect her if she lacks it", anyway i don't think so -- my reading is, "He should reassure her and protect her if she possesses snow-like innocence and do neither if she lacks it." Not that I think the first reading would be defensible, just nonsensical. Meigs appears to believe that fathers should gradually estrange themselves from their daughters as they mature, eventually having no interaction with them at all. Well anyway, there's 10 minutes of my life I will never have back.)
Posted by Clownęsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 5:38 AM
I was going to say that I didn't really think ability to get laid was a counterindicator for Asperger's. I don't know that much about it, but I think you can learn social skills in a kind of procedural, methodical way, and I think he'd done something like that, and was interested in doing it further. It was, for the record, kind of sweet the way, by the second morning, he sat around patiently listening to my lectures on the connotation, implication, and context of human utterance. He wasn't an asshole, exactly.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 6:16 AM
Wasn't Meigs the guy next to Hannibal Lecter who gave Clarice Starling that lovely token of his esteem in the Baltimore mental hospital?
Posted by shpx.ohfu | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 6:50 AM
I got a 21. I only appear Aspergerish because I get very anxious in social situations, which is an entirely different disorder (although also a well publicized one.) However, I probably don't have social anxiety disorder, because really, everything makes me anxious.
Posted by rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 6:52 AM
One of the indicators for autism and Asperger's is an inability to engage in pretend play or imagine what it's like to be someone else. Hence all the questions about enjoying fiction; high functioning autistics may be capable of reading the words but they'll have a hard time grasping the subtext, enjoying it, or seeing the point. Social skills can be learned methodically, but it shows when the person doesn't understand metaphor at all.
Temple Grandin, who is autistic and studies animals (PhD in something or other biology), has said that understanding human interaction is very difficult because she misses all the subconsious cues that everyone else picks up. She said that she could get by in everyday life, but that sex was impossible because there were too many emotional cues.
One of my friends used to work with autistic and Asperger's kids, and they needed a lot of therapy just to hope that they would be able to hold down a job and live on their own. I'm kind of with goneril on this; while Asperger's is a real condition, I'm not sure the Wired/Silicon Valley set, when they say they have mild Asperger's, mean much more than 'I've heard they tend to be savants, and that would be cool, and I'm bad with social skills.'
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 7:02 AM
But says the incontrovertible font of wisdom and truth, Wikipedia:
and
Also
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 7:18 AM
I guess it just depends on what comes of giving it a label and calling it a disorder, y'know? More treatment to help the person gain social skills, or alternately, learning to be comfortable with what you have? Okay. Ability to get out of any serious social faux pas with, "Well, I'm on the Asperger's spectrum?" Not so cool.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 7:27 AM
Eventually, "being an asshole" will itself become a medical condition, which would be a good thing if there were only a treatment for it.
Posted by rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 7:50 AM
I don't think anyone should be able to get out of anything, but I also think that if AS is structuring someone's behavior, the label might help their intimates to figure out what's going on, and to know how react constructively to things they don't like. But I don't think you can self-diagnose it, either, so if tech geeks are really walking around saying they have AS w/o going to a doctor, they're [insert word in that funny language with the numbers for letters for "losers"].
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 7:56 AM
It's in the Wiki article, too:
A Wired magazine article called The Geek Syndrome[19] suggested that Asperger syndrome is more common in the Silicon Valley, a haven for computer scientists and mathematicians. It created an enduring notion popularized in the media and self-help books that "Geek Syndrome" equals Asperger syndrome and caused an explosion of self-diagnoses in part because it was printed alongside Simon Baron-Cohen's 50-question Autism Spectrum Quotient Test[20]. Like some people with Asperger syndrome, "geeks" may exhibit an extreme professional or casual interest in computers, science, engineering, and related fields and may be introverted or prioritize work over other aspects of life. However, no determination has yet been made of whether the "Geek Syndrome" personality type has a direct relation to autism or is simply a "variant normal" type that is not part of the autistic spectrum.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 7:58 AM
"being an asshole" will itself become a medical condition
And you'll trade in your psychiatrist for a proctologist.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 8:14 AM
98: Nice.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 8:22 AM
98 makes me laugh, as Dr. Helpy-Chalk's allzuseltene contributions over here regularly do.
Posted by Clownęsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 8:33 AM
I actually meant 98 semi seriously. I think this is where psychology is heading, which is something I think about a lot as an ethicist.
The real threat to the folk conception of morality will come when "lazy" becomes a medical condition.
Posted by rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 8:44 AM
Since I linked to it, I want to stress that that test is so obviously not an indicator of anything. Most of the questions are different formulations of "are you an introvert or an extrovert"? And it says that 80% of Aspergersites scored over 32; but no doubt 95% of them scored more than 5. So does that mean that people scoring 6 are likely to have it?
I have a high-functioning autistic brother and can certainly accept that Asperger's doesn't just mean "asshole who isn't good at social situations," though the label conveniently gives those people an excuse.
104: I think about this a lot, too.
I once described to a friend how, if I had some bureaucratic errand to run, or in general, something to do that wasn't part of my routine, it would take me the first part of the day to psych myself up to do it, and then after I had done it, it would take me the rest of the day to wind down from it.
He said, "Kudos, that's a good phenomenological description of a lazy person."
Posted by dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 9:20 AM
Aww, kitty. I love kittens more than anything.
Posted by dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 9:21 AM
Taking the Aspberger test, again:Yes, I am frequently fascinated by dates. there is almost a crystalline sugar quality to the dried ones. Figs simply freak me out. Never ever mention pomegranates.
37
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 9:23 AM
Actually, the most promising way to medicalize assholery is not through autism spectrum disorders, but sociopathy spectrum disorders. Robert Hare is a psychologist who developed a test used to diagnose sociopaths for police departments. He is now attempting to popularize the idea that low-level sociopaths tend to cluster in certain professions, like the stock market. If you heard chatter about workplace sociopaths, it is derivitive of his work.
Unsurprisingly, there are popular "Is my boss a sociopath" quizes out there. Fast company did one. But there are not "Am I a sociopath?" quizes, to my knowledge.
Posted by rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 9:31 AM
I had some bureaucratic errand to run, or in general, something to do that wasn't part of my routine, it would take me the first part of the day to psych myself up to do it, and then after I had done it, it would take me the rest of the day to wind down from it.
I had some period where I was like this, but it was because nothing else about my life was very demanding at the time. When your job is hard or you have five kids or something like that, you have to do lots of stuff you don't particularly want to do anyway, so doing one more annoying thing is that much easier.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 9:32 AM
108: That's a good observation. I know a self-described sociopath, and he's a rare record dealer. Which is like the stock market in that it involves speculation, buying and selling. I've often told him that when he gets out of that biz, he would probably do well in the stock market.
Posted by dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 9:35 AM
I bet a lot of assholery is just excess aggression. Sociopathy would do it, but isn't necessary if there's aggression. Or is it the case that a quite aggressive and yet very empathetic person would simply appear as very assertive, but not really assholish?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 10:05 AM
One of the indicators for autism and Asperger's is an inability to engage in pretend play or imagine what it's like to be someone else. Hence all the questions about enjoying fiction
When I was a kid, I could never play with robots or action figures or whatever like my friends could. But I read more fiction than most or all of them. Then again, all the way through high school my favorite subject was math.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 10:13 AM
111: "Asshole," like a lot of folk psychological categories probably covers many distinct disorders. The category "asshole" might best be divided into "stone cold psycho," "macho douche bag" and "pestering dweeb.”
Posted by rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 10:15 AM
Now that I think about it, "heartless prick" might be a better name for assholes with *low level* sociopathy spectrum disorders than "stone cold psycho"
I should also add "self-absorbed bastard" to my provisional typology of assholes, as a category that encompases but extends past heartless pricks.
Posted by rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 10:41 AM
Don't forget "smirking dickweed."
Posted by dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 10:43 AM
How about a smug git?
Posted by Nakku | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 11:00 AM
And 'fatuous prat'? Or is that getting too far from prototypical assholery?
Posted by Nakku | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 11:01 AM
Fatuous prat is a little too far.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 11:05 AM
I think being an asshole implies some sort of arrogance, so I wouldn't include "pestering dweeb" in the assholery spectrum. That would more likely be a subcategory of cluelessness, which is a different disorder.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 11:09 AM
I think Ned is right -- we need to get clear about our concepts. Assholishness does seem to require arrogance.
Posted by dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 11:28 AM
Asshole Admits to Being Asshole in Supreme Asshole Move"
Posted by rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 11:29 AM
119, 120: I agree. I initially included Pestering Dweeb in the asshole typology because some people were including self identified Asburger's types as assholes.
Posted by rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 11:30 AM
122: A self-identified Assburger would probably be suffering from some sort of self-loathing.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 11:55 AM
In all seriousness, what difference does it make if asshole (or whatever) becomes a diagnosable "condition"? Either way, the onus is on the person who is autistic/assholish/whatever to learn the social skills or compensatory mechanisms that will make it possible to get along with others. And either way, the others who care for the autistic/assholish person have to learn how to shrug off certain behaviors, retain firm boundaries over others, and decide what is and isn't acceptable.
I'm oversimplifying a bit, but Rob's comment about the morality of the distinction got me thinking. It seems the primary thing that's achieved by shifting X behavior into the category of "syndrome" is that it implicitly removes the judgmental aspect. And then I thought, what good does judgment do, really? Why would we want to retain it? I mean, isn't a lot of assholish or self-destructive behavior in part a preemptive reaction to presumed judgment by others?
Maybe I need more coffee.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 12:04 PM
B: I agree completely. The medicalization of morality, which began in earnest when alcoholism became a disease, is actually a very humane process that has positive outcomes on people's lives. Nevertheless, it has a hell of a lot of detractors, both academic and popular, who wish to stick with the a pure "blame and shame" method for regulating behavior.
This is not to say that blame and shame shoudl disappear entirely in the medical model. I hope to see a kind of convergence of clinical psyciatry and virtue ethics.
Posted by rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 12:11 PM
Well, I honestly wonder: what are the advantages (if any) in a blame/shame model of behavior? Are we inclined to be snarky about the proliferation of syndromes because there is actually some advantage to the blame/shame thing, or is it just assholish of us to do so? Or is the problem in a misapprehension of what a medicalized model means--that it somehow removes the idea of human agency and self-control from the picture entirely? And if so, then how would we better understand it?
I have some sense of the answers to these questions, but they're not things I've thought about very deeply.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 12:22 PM
The reason the medicalization of morality is dangerous is that it can make the person unrepentant.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 12:22 PM
Seeing certain behavior as the result of a disease and "blaming and shaming" a person for said behavior are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 12:27 PM
Both 128 and 127 are certainly true, but re. 127, I honestly wonder if "repentance" is a good thing. I am thinking of how awful it makes me feel to have, for instance, my mother constantly beating herself up over the shitty things she does, and how doing so actually just makes her feel worse and therefore more likely to continue to do shitty things, and how much I really wish she would just fucking quit the self-blaming and deal with the problem in a practical way. I think the shame/blame model is as likely to keep people from repentance because shame feels like crap, and so folks construct some pretty elaborate rationalizations and defenses and ways to blame others. I wonder if it might not be a lot easier to deal with the interpersonal problems of irritating behavior by thinking of it in more practical, dispassionate ways, e.g., as being about management and the limits of what is and isn't tolerable.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 12:34 PM
Seeing certain behavior as the result of a disease and "blaming and shaming" a person for said behavior are not mutually exclusive.
This is part of the secret to success of AA. Perhaps one day we will see "Assholes Anonymous": "Hello, my name is Rob, and I am an asshole."
Posted by rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 12:37 PM
I have a relative who did unconscionable things to me when I was 25, right after my father had died and I was very weak and hardly able to protect myself. And I would have felt better if the person's monstrous ego was held in check by something. So that's where that thought was coming from.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 12:39 PM
Scene from an Assholes Anonymous meeting.
"Hello, my name is Rob, and I am an asshole."
Rest of the room: "Fuck you, Rob."
Rob: "Fuck you, everyone. I'm unrepentant but I want to stop being an asshole so everyone will stop blaming me for their stupidity."
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 12:40 PM
To 129: a lot of clinical psychiatry also thinks repentence isn't worth much. This is especially true in cognitive behavioral therapy, rational emotional therapy, and the like. "Moving on" becomes much more important than repentence and forgiveness.
I like this a lot, because it avoids the "sorry, but" phenomenon. Most people who seek forgiveness always have to say "but" after they apologize, and follow the but with their half assed rationalization of their action. (Caroline [my 3 year old] on kicking her brother: "Sorry, but I just wanted to put my foots there.")
Posted by rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 12:41 PM
The person had been in therapy for years. Was probably aware that she has narcissistic personality disorder. Seemed to make her worse.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 12:43 PM
I wonder if it might not be a lot easier to deal with the interpersonal problems of irritating behavior by thinking of it in more practical, dispassionate ways, e.g., as being about management and the limits of what is and isn't tolerable.
I think part of the problem with shifting to this sort of model is that it would be a pretty dramatic shift. Blame and shame (really, probably "blame" and "guilt") is a model that's been deployed for a very long time, and it's worked well enough to get us to this point. There's just a lot of intellectual capital that's been expended in creating the blame and shame model, and people are going to be reasonably reluctant to throw it away without evidence that the other model offers specific benefits.
Sorry about your relative's behavior, ac.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 12:44 PM
Thanks, Tim.
The really annoying part was that other people around me were saying, "She can't help it, she's sick." Which is not the most supportive backing to get. I'm still really close to the people who told her to back the fuck off. Much more helpful, in the circumstances.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 12:49 PM
The problem isn't shame per se, it's the inappropriateness of the level of shame. It's bad to beat oneself up repeatedly for past actions; but if one has treated another shittily, I don't think the correct response is to say, "oh well, nothing I can do about it now. What's done is done. Gotta move forward."
Posted by dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 12:55 PM
"I think part of the problem with shifting to this sort of model"
Problem, or difficulty?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 12:55 PM
Shame is a very weak motivator of human behavior. It's not quite as weak as pure will, but much less strong than various compulsions that may result from addiction or anger.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 12:58 PM
One of the more intersting features of the medicalization of morality is that "sick" has actually become a term of moral disapproval. This actually might be the right thing to do, because it makes "she's sick" and "she should fuck off" more compatible, although the details of how to merge the two attitudes are still murky.
I'm also sorry to hear about your relative, ac. I'd also tell the sick witch to fuck off.
Posted by rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:01 PM
pdf: If you really thought shame was a weak motivator, you would prove it by posting naked pictures of yourself to the internet.
Posted by rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:04 PM
138: I'm not sure I'm seeing the distinction you're drawing. If you are asking whether I think that it would be a good thing to move to the new model, but it will be difficult to convince people, as distinct from problems arising from adopting the new model, then I think the answer is, "Both."
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:04 PM
In that case the "she's sick" people were different from the "back the fuck off" people. The former were trying to understand why she was doing the things she was doing, the latter didn't think about the causes too much and just moved to protect me.
Not to make it all about this example, but it was just the most concrete experience I have had of the consequences of shifting moral frames.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:09 PM
The thing is, it is very useful to know why someone is doing something to get them to stop. In fact, it is necessary to genuinely empathize with people to really help them shut down shitty behavior. You do need this element.
Here's a different example, if we need one. Here in upstate New York, the villages have been playing "Sex Offender NIMBY" with a guy who was convicted of molesting a nine year old and a thirteen year old. Every time he moves someplace, he appears on the registry of level three sex offenders, and everyone makes his life living hell, until he moves to the next village.
He just moved to Potsdam, and immediately flyers appeared all over the place with his name, picture, an dthe words "level three sex offender." His landlord has already started eviction proceedings.
While I would not be thrilled to have this guy live next door to me (and my children), it seems pointless to keep shoving him from place to place. A more sensible attitude would be to figure out what kind of life would make him least likely to molest anyone again, and put him in that kind of situation.
Posted by rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:18 PM
A more sensible attitude would be to figure out what kind of life would make him least likely to molest anyone again, and put him in that kind of situation.
In Iowa the solution was to forbid them from living virtually anywhere, thus forcing sex offenders into an underground network where their whereabouts could no longer be followed by the authorities, as noted in the New York Times. Somehow I think castration would be more humane.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:26 PM
The really annoying part was that other people around me were saying, "She can't help it, she's sick." Which is not the most supportive backing to get. I'm still really close to the people who told her to back the fuck off. Much more helpful, in the circumstances.
Yeah, I think that's the problem with the idea that a medical model = an excuse, which I think comes from still caring about the shame/blame thing. That is, the idea is to avoid blaming because it's unfair. As opposed to realizing that illness doesn't absolve one from protecting others from the consequences of one's illness (don't throw up on people, don't expose them to your germs, don't treat them badly), that failures to do so require a genuine apology, and most importantly, that people who are hurt deserve sympathy.
Rob's comparison to childrearing makes a good analogy, I think. One of the things I think it's important to teach (and model) for kids is the genuine apology: "I'm sorry I yelled at you, PK, I shouldn't do that" as opposed to "I'm sorry I yelled, but you made me really mad." Another thing is the lesson that, if one kid bites another on the playground, you deal with the kid who is bitten first, you separate them if necessary, and then you explain to the biting kid that biting is not okay. Explaining that "he's really to young to understand" doesn't help the situation at all.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:33 PM
I actually did some work in sex offender rights. Surprisingly, it did not make me feel wrong or icky. Once I realized that legislators were passing sex offender-related laws (because easy way to increase one's positive political profile) without thinking about the consequences for actual people, it wasn't hard at all to defend their constitutional rights. Of course, one of the major things I worked on wasn't for the benefit of sex offenders, but for people who are unfairly classified as sex offenders under Illinois law; if anyone over 18 is convicted of murder of a victim under 18, the convict gets labelled a sexual predator for registry purposes. So you had some 19-year-old who killed a 17-year-old in a gang drive-by having to follow the sex offender laws for the rest of his life. It was total bullshit.
There are a bunch of other pretty interesting/infuriating quirks to sex offender laws too, like how (at least in Illinois), if you are up for parole, but you don't have an "approved" place to live, they'll release you, then when you get to the gate, they tell you you've violate your parole and put you back into prison. Agh.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:33 PM
And also, ac, I'm sorry your relative was an asshole. Narcissists kind of suck.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:34 PM
145: A lot of the villages around here have been doing things like that. I think if he wanted to move to ogdensburg he would be allowed to pitch a tent in the median strip of the highway that runs by down. Except its a two lane road without a median strip.
I was told by a philosopher who was researching the state's right to mandate invasive bodily procedures that castration is a surprisingly ineffective way to prevent recidivism in sex offenders. Often castrated people can still get erections, and they still have whatever demented issue drove them to offend in the first place.
Posted by rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:34 PM
You all are ridiculous. Why can't you just see a person who has carefully thought out opinions about morality that differ from more conformist opinions? It's like you've become so used to calling a horse a zebra that now that you've seen a zebra you feel obliged to call him a zebraform horse. As for my poetry maybe being good, well, I make a special point to include poetry on my web site, partly because I figure that few people will bother taking the time to study my intricate opinions and reasonings more carefully unless they can appreciate me in a medium that is more quickly comprehensible than one that requires careful thought. As for you, Clown__ , and your interpretation of my poem (regarding how fathers should play a role in monitoring their daughters), hey, why don't you just say black is white, up is down, and whenever someone says one thing they mean the opposite? Ya' wannabe Bozo.
Posted by Stephen A. Meigs | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:35 PM
By which, of course, I mean "narcissm sucks."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:35 PM
150: Because said "carefully thought-out opinions" have really unsavory and offensive implications. Duh.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:38 PM
differ from more conformist
Heh. That's a, um, mild way to put it.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:38 PM
Can we please not?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:38 PM
Perhaps we could medicalize repentance -- that would be cool -- turn the doctor's office into a confessional.
Posted by Clownęsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:39 PM
Hey check it out! Mr. Meigs likes me!
Posted by Clownęsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:39 PM
I think the concept of confession and forgiveness is really psychically and morally healthy, actually. It's one of the things the Catholic Church got right.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:41 PM
Black is white, up is down."
It's like an echo chamber in here.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:44 PM
154 gets it exactly right. Let's indeed not. Quoth the Deignan, nevermore.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:47 PM
That's nice that you're all taking my word for it that her acts were unconscionable. They were, though. She's crazily, notoriously litigious. It did suck!
The full-on apology is hard. Whenever you're going over an argument you think about the ways the other person contributed to your behavior. But it's true, you have to take it all on yourself. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:55 PM
But how can we not?! Have you all lost your zest for life? Stephen writes,
Stephen, seriously, for your project to work, you need to show (among other things) that "goodness" is heritable. Imagining an epigenetic love chemical isn't going to get you there.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 1:57 PM
specially well-loved individuals will become more thickly painted with epigenetic love chemical.
What an awesome hint for a game of hangman.
B _ _ _ _ _ _
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 2:04 PM
E?
Posted by Clownęsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 2:05 PM
Wait, no, no! U?
Posted by Clownęsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 2:06 PM
The full-on apology is hard.
"full" and "hard" should be replaced here.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 2:07 PM
Well, to some extent "goodness" is hereditable, inasmuch as empathy is a component of goodness, and presumably empathetic parents teach empathy to their children, and so on down through the generations. Though of course that's not actually genetics.
The biggest problem with Stephen's theories is that they hold women responsible for not only the behavior, but the very thoughts of men. The second problem is his clear sense that sexual desire is shameful and bad (which is probably a big part of where he came up with the first part). Both of those lead to elaborate rationalizations that amount to seeing other people as means to an end, rather than as autonomous individuals in their own rights, and frankly that thought process is incredibly unhealthy and dangerous.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 2:08 PM
I don't know where you get the idea, BitchPhD, that I believe sexual desire is bad. Nor where you get the idea that I view women as responsible for men's thoughts. In fact, I consider female lust chemical to be very important. Upon being absorbed by the male it allows intraejaculate sperm selection to be meaningful. Also, female lust is what I think most responsible for the little bit of thinking for themselves that people do. If anything, I glorify female lust. And I criticize those (like selfish females) who (to denigrate the former) conflate fucking pleasure with sodomizing pleasure because they are no matter what too greedy to be willing to have children with any man unless they can get all the resources out of him.
Posted by Stephen A. Meigs | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 2:24 PM
150: It's like you've become so used to calling a horse a zebra that now that you've seen a zebra you feel obliged to call him a zebraform horse.
I feel compelled to point out that the zebra is, indeed, a type of horse. Taxonomy tells us nothing about the appropriateness of grown men preferring sex with twelve-year-olds for their greater moral purity, however, so go right ahead on that one.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 2:33 PM
rob:
If you really thought shame was a weak motivator, you would prove it by posting naked pictures of yourself to the internet.
Ever try shaming a sociopath into behaving with empathy? Shaming an alcoholic into being dry? A gambling addict into not gambling? It's quite weak compared to many other motivators, but in the absence of other motivators going against it, of course it's going to be effective. Thus, no nudie pics for you, sorry.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 2:35 PM
OK, the child fucking would be weird enough by itself. But pseudo-scientific biological nonsense babble? Usually pseudo-science is relegated to New Age-type things like auras and NLP or quantum mechanics. But isn't human reproduction a bit mundane and well-understood to be going around spouting nonsense about?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 2:38 PM
165: a new term for make-up sex.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 2:43 PM
pdf: oh I agree with you about the ineffectiveness shame in all of the cases you name. What's remarkable to me is how effective shame is for most people most of the time.
I should turn my challenge into a thought experiement to make things clearer (and less combative). Suppose you knew that there would be no reprocussions from posting naked pictures of yourself on the internet. You wouldn't get fired; no one would even mention it. Still, the whole world would see your heinie. Would you do it? Probably not.
Posted by rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 2:52 PM
Ah yes, those selfish females. And that female lust chemical that the male absorbs. Nope, nothing troubling in this theory whatsoever.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 2:53 PM
I feel compelled to point out that the zebra is, indeed, a type of horse.
Figures.
Taxonomy tells us nothing about the appropriateness of grown men preferring sex with twelve-year-olds for their greater moral purity, however, so go right ahead on that one.
Indeed, so one has to think about it carefully. But before thinking about a question carefully, it behooves one to think about the right question. I never asserted anywhere that I prefer twelve-year olds for their greater moral purity. Not that an innocent twelve-year old isn't more wise and ready for sex than a screwed-up woman (especially, I have been thinking of late, if the latter has sufficient advanced degrees to somehow allow her to feel good about herself), but not every woman is screwed-up. Not every woman is into sodomy. Females can get wiser as they age. I assert as everywhere that my attraction toward youth qua youth in females results from the effect female youth likely has upon intraejaculate sperm selection. E.g., the histology of the adolescent cervix is quite different from that of an adult female. Obviously-non-deceptive males who don't make females feel the need to wait before deciding on sex tend to have qualities females especially want (or the females would wait to see if something better comes along). It follows that intraejaculate sperm selection is something girls would want and benefit from when having sex with virtuous males (who tend to be obviously non-deceptive), and that girls lose out by postponing such sex.
Posted by Stephen A. Meigs | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:01 PM
Let's play botticelli! My name starts with N
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:06 PM
Ah yes, those selfish females.
I'm not saying all females are selfish, just some females. Just like I believe some males are selfish. Sodomizers, in particular, I think tend to be very selfish, and they are all males.
Posted by Stephen A. Meigs | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:07 PM
shorter version:
It's because the chemicals in their cervixes made him do it, obv. But we needn't fear, because he's virtuous and nondeceptive. In fact, it's good for them. Otherwise they wouldn't have such chemicals.
Of course the chemicals have been postulated for the sake of argument. What's the problem there?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:09 PM
175- Are you the assassinated father of a novelist?
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:11 PM
I don't understand what "intraejaculate sperm selection" means, or when it is supposed to occur. Or who does the selecting.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:12 PM
No, my son did not write Lolita
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:13 PM
Do you write silly op-ed pieces?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:14 PM
Are you Louis XVI's finance minister?
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:17 PM
I am not Nicholas Kristof? but should be last name? if its not him, you get a question.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:18 PM
Peggy Noonan. I get a question!
Are you currently alive?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:20 PM
text meant, of course, Kicholas Nistof.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:20 PM
182: Not Necker
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:21 PM
Not that an innocent twelve-year old isn't more wise and ready for sex than a screwed-up woman (especially, I have been thinking of late, if the latter has sufficient advanced degrees to somehow allow her to feel good about herself)
The temperature rises as we get closer to the molten core of misogyny that powers this nonsense.
Posted by gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:21 PM
184: I'm dead, dead, dead, dead, dead.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:22 PM
Remember when people were talking about odd phobias, and one of them was watching embarrassment? And people were talking about how their own personal phobia or neurosis, whatever, was how crushingly painful it was to watch embarrassment?
I never thought I'd get that feeling (sort of 2 inches below my diaphragm, and maybe a few inches in) reading comment threads here.
Posted by NL | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:22 PM
Rob, that's a neat thought experiment, but I think a bit confusing. Are we supposed to assume a world where the taboo exists, but due to my particular circumstances I won't suffer any major consequences? But, assuming that *everyone* sees the pics, and the taboo exists, it would surely be impossible to avoid all consequences, even if they were just strange looks from others. So I wouldn't if there were still a taboo against nudity.
But if there were no taboo against nudity, then there wouldn't be any reason to feel shame about posting nude pictures of myself, or really much interest at all. (I'm not exactly what you call the chisled type.)
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:24 PM
Are you the Marquis de Lafayette's wife? (I seem to be stuck on 1789).
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:25 PM
189- Play botticelli, you'll feel better.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:26 PM
I don't understand what "intraejaculate sperm selection" means, or when it is supposed to occur. Or who does the selecting.
There's a theory about interejaculate sperm selection, along the lines that different men's ejaculate can compete within the female to fertilize the egg. Google "kamikaze sperm". However, evidence for this is mixed. A related POV sees female hormones as being able to intervene in this process.
Posted by gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:27 PM
not Madame de Noailles
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:27 PM
Are you Russian?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:27 PM
Did your husband change the religion of your native land, only to see it changed back shortly thereafter?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:28 PM
bitch, dude, that's a second order question.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:29 PM
Btw, I have no clue if I'm playing this game correctly, feel free to let me know if I'm not.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:29 PM
See? So what's a first-order question? And at what point do you get to switch to second-order?
I hate games like this.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:30 PM
Not Nefertiti.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:30 PM
Were you martyred at Lancaster?
Posted by gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:31 PM
194- You're killing me.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:31 PM
first you have to think of a person whose name starts with N, and give me clues about that person, and if you stump me, you get to ask me if I'm Russian.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:32 PM
Rob, the problem with the nude pictures of ass question is that a lot of people *do* post such pictures, even with the possibility of losing one's job still in place.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:33 PM
Did you deliver Babylon from Assyria?
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:33 PM
crap. Did you sing a song covered by the Smashing Pumpkins roughly 20 yrs later?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:34 PM
204: Under their real names (or an easily-identifiable pseudonym) and not for pay?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:34 PM
203: I was! But I guess the question was still too general. Jesus. This game expects me to actually know shit. And how does the questionee do it--lots and lots of googling, or are you only allowed to play if you have an encyclopedia in your head?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:35 PM
Did Southey write your biography?
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:35 PM
201: not northumberland
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:36 PM
207: Well, along with pictures of their faces, which is about as identifiable as you can get.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:37 PM
205: not nebuchadnezzar
206: text gets a question
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:38 PM
210: Wrong answer. Correct answer is, the Venerable Robert Nutter. I get a second-order question. Did you hold some kind of political office, whether by birth or election?
Posted by gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:39 PM
Stevie Nicks! (Landslide)
Are you European?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:39 PM
209: I'm not Nelson.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:40 PM
Okay, trying again. Did you have a scar on your forehead from an assassination attempt, like Harry Potter?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:40 PM
Killing me!
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:40 PM
If you couldn't google, I couldn't paly. In fact, I wish I had an assistant googler.
213: no, I'm not a politician.
214: yes I am European.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:42 PM
I don't understand what "intraejaculate sperm selection" means, or when it is supposed to occur. Or who does the selecting.
When a man has sex, he puts a very large number of sperm into the female. These sperm compete with one another. Intraejaculate sperm competition is the sort of sperm competition that occurs when just one male is involved ("intra-" meaning "within"). In a young female, those sperm especially adapted to fertilizing young females are more likely to fertilize the ovum than sperm not well adapted to fertilizing young females. Intraejaculate sperm competition is also I think what makes female bisexuality important. If a man's sperm goes back-and-forth between females (as the coronal ridge of the penis facilitates), that selects for sperm able to survive the changes of environment involved when having such sex simultaneously with several females. These would obviously be the studly sperm.
It is important to note that insofar as intraejaculate sperm competition in descendants is concerned, females basically don't have an advantage or disadvantage in being fertilized by especially virile sperm except to the extent such virility is associated with desirable diploid traits. Indeed, in the ejaculates of sons, sperm more related to her will have to compete with sperm more related to her mate, which makes it disadvantageous for her in that generation to have been fertilized by strong sperm; but then in future generations, she gets an advantage (that decays like a geometric series) from having been fertilized by strong sperm, and the total advantage (if second-order effects are ignored, as is appropriate if the advantage is small) exactly cancels the disadvantage, just like the reflections from a quarter-wave-length coating cancel on the anti-reflective coatings on eyeglasses, etc.
Ordinarily (a case of meiotric drive), genes that code for useful haploid traits don't tend to be associated with useful diploid traits because the mere fact that a gene can survive notwithstanding it is less useful haploidly suggests it is more useful diploidly. This is why ordinarily, a female benefits by sperm success being random, and why sperm development is apparently ordinarily mostly under diploid regulation (effectively making intraejaculate sperm competition meaningless). But it stands to reason a female would want meaningful intraejaculate sperm competition when it would be supposed to select positively for useful diploid traits, which is what I believe female lust (by degrading cytoplasm bridges between developing sperm cells) and absence of (sperm mixing, sperm-success-randomizing) female orgasm allows.
Posted by Stephen A. Meigs | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:43 PM
216: nope, not Tsar Nicholas.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:44 PM
Did you kidnap St Patrick?
Posted by gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:45 PM
If you ruled the world, would you free all your sons?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:45 PM
213: to answer more comprehensively, never held office, by birth or election.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:45 PM
"it stands to reason"
Key indicator of 'just-so' stories of evolution.
Didn't take long for him to turn up here, though, did it?
Posted by Doug | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:46 PM
Did you participate in the Spanish civil war?
(Also, can you bold the 2nd order answers?)
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:47 PM
221: Not Niall.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:47 PM
Are you the firstborn of a trio of French painters active in the 17th century?
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:48 PM
Did you play the clarinet and have the nickname "Yellow"?
Posted by gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:49 PM
Was your great-grandfather killed at the battle of Gettysburg?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:49 PM
222: I'm not Nas
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:50 PM
Are you the breaker of horses?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:50 PM
Holy hell!
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:50 PM
Come on, we're waiting. If you had Aspergers you'd be doing this a lot faster.
Posted by gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:54 PM
Did you build the Tower of Babel?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:54 PM
(Sorry, I've been looking at slides all day.)
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:54 PM
225: I'm not Neruda
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:55 PM
Of course she cries "holy hell!" at everyone else. Mine she tackles right away.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:57 PM
227: not Antoine le Nain.
Gonerill, Bitch and text get second order questions.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 3:59 PM
Were you a philosopher?
Posted by gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 4:00 PM
231: I'm not Nestor.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 4:00 PM
Did you perform at La Scala?
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 4:02 PM
you already gave me the second order.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 4:02 PM
234: I'm not Untash-Napirisha
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 4:02 PM
mcmc takes a suspicious amount of time in answering a suspiciously large amount of questions correctly.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 4:05 PM
Elam's pretty far from Babylon.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 4:05 PM
239: not a philosopher
241: never performed at la Scala
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 4:06 PM
Did you teach economists a lot about light?
Posted by gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 4:07 PM
La Scala was a 1st order question.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 4:07 PM
Are your paintings of cold and aloof beauties hanging on an 80's yuppie's wall?
Posted by NL | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 4:07 PM
Richard Nixon.
2nd order: Are you an artist?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 4:07 PM
244: wait--is it cheating to google?
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 4:07 PM
248: oh. well, you get a second order question then.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-25-06 4:08 PM
Are you a McGill graduate in the Basketball Hall of Fame?
Posted by L. |