The truth about how love and attraction really work

Page 6 of 6 [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,026
Location: Sweden

03 Jun 2021, 2:34 pm

badRobot wrote:
I've put my theories into practice couple years ago and forgot any urge to return to this forum. Forgot about depression and dating/short term relationships are now freaking easy. It feels like I'm 40-60% less autistic. Yeah, long term relationship and moving in together was still challenging twice, but only time will tell.


Ah, one of those "I cured myself" guys. Are you sure you actually were autistic to begin with?

If I ever get to the point of feeling 40% less autistic I think it would feel like I was dead, and so not something to aspire for. I feel I've become 50% more autistic instead, and I'm quite content with that.



badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 616

03 Jun 2021, 3:40 pm

rdos wrote:
No, because your hypothesis was that we have an "inner chimp", and the current article checked if MHC related to mate selection. It's possible that MHC in some way or another influence mate selection, but it doesn't say in what way or how much. It could also be just a side effect of something that happens to lie in the rather large MHC area.

Yes, because results of study mentioned in this article match predictions of my hypothesis. There are no results that contradict it.

"Inner chimp" is idiom, explanatory oversimplified approximation for hypothesis of certain environmental factors and stimuli being a requirement for expression of genes responsible for mechanisms of biological attraction and mate selection.

rdos wrote:
So, no, you haven't proved anything.

This is not how scientific method works. This is evidence in support of my hypothesis whether you like it or not.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,026
Location: Sweden

04 Jun 2021, 3:01 am

badRobot wrote:
Yes, because results of study mentioned in this article match predictions of my hypothesis. There are no results that contradict it.


That's not enough to prove a hypothesis. Not to mention that the study doesn't even study anything relevant for your hypothesis (see below).

badRobot wrote:
"Inner chimp" is idiom, explanatory oversimplified approximation for hypothesis of certain environmental factors and stimuli being a requirement for expression of genes responsible for mechanisms of biological attraction and mate selection.


The present study has nothing to do with the environment. It measured if genetics in the MHC were similar or dissimilar in married couples. There is not even a remote connection to the environment in the study, at least not one that has been validated.

Besides, your hypothesis is completely incompatible with the theory of evolution, but I suppose you don't believe in evolution either? That's because functions that result in lack of reproduction cannot be retained in the population, and so requiring certain stimuli in order to be able to participate in reproduction is something that cannot evolve, unless it has huge benefits, which is not the case with your hypothesis. You even claim this is part of all mammals and not only humans, and that the stimuli are shared, which makes it even less compatible with evolution.

My guess is that you simply have distorted some more reasonable hypothesis that makes more sense. Like some more reasonable theory from ethology about courtship. After all, courtship has a need for triggers, and in many species, we can assume that in the absence of these triggers there is no interest or attraction. Something that likely applies to humans too. However, as I already pointed out, courtship is species-typical and not something shared between many species. In the context of courtship, it makes a lot of sense that the triggers are required and this is not incompatible with evolution since cross-species mating typically is wasted effort.

Besides, if you really are autistic after all, and not just misdiagnosed as younger, then the thinking that "I got a partner" is only the beginning and not the "we will live happily ever after". For people that fake a lot to appear NT, this is the stage when the real trouble starts, unless they have selected a compatible partner. Given your talk about "I cured myself", the chances of you having selected a compatible partner seem low, so I guess we simply have to hope that you are not autistic after all.



badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 616

04 Jun 2021, 3:45 am

rdos wrote:
badRobot wrote:
Yes, because results of study mentioned in this article match predictions of my hypothesis. There are no results that contradict it.


That's not enough to prove a hypothesis. Not to mention that the study doesn't even study anything relevant for your hypothesis (see below).

This is not how scientific method works. There is hypothesis, there is prediction, there is scientific data collected. Results either match or contradict prediction. This is evidence is clearly supports this hypothesis. What kind of wannabe "researcher" doesn't understand that?

rdos wrote:
badRobot wrote:
"Inner chimp" is idiom, explanatory oversimplified approximation for hypothesis of certain environmental factors and stimuli being a requirement for expression of genes responsible for mechanisms of biological attraction and mate selection.


The present study has nothing to do with the environment. It measured if genetics in the MHC were similar or dissimilar in married couples. There is not even a remote connection to the environment in the study, at least not one that has been validated.

What kind of wannabe researcher never ever heard of meta-analysis?

rdos wrote:
Besides, your hypothesis is completely incompatible with the theory of evolution, but I suppose you don't believe in evolution either? That's because functions that result in lack of reproduction cannot be retained in the population, and so requiring certain stimuli in order to be able to participate in reproduction is something that cannot evolve, unless it has huge benefits, which is not the case with your hypothesis. You even claim this is part of all mammals and not only humans, and that the stimuli are shared, which makes it even less compatible with evolution.

My guess is that you simply have distorted some more reasonable hypothesis that makes more sense. Like some more reasonable theory from ethology about courtship. After all, courtship has a need for triggers, and in many species, we can assume that in the absence of these triggers there is no interest or attraction. Something that likely applies to humans too. However, as I already pointed out, courtship is species-typical and not something shared between many species. In the context of courtship, it makes a lot of sense that the triggers are required and this is not incompatible with evolution since cross-species mating typically is wasted effort.

This hypothesis is fundamentally part of theory of evolution. This is how human species evolve to thrive in new environment.

rdos wrote:
Besides, if you really are autistic after all, and not just misdiagnosed as younger, then the thinking that "I got a partner" is only the beginning and not the "we will live happily ever after". For people that fake a lot to appear NT, this is the stage when the real trouble starts, unless they have selected a compatible partner. Given your talk about "I cured myself", the chances of you having selected a compatible partner seem low, so I guess we simply have to hope that you are not autistic after all.

I'm well aware of challenges of long-term relationships with NT females. I stopped faking to appear NT after traveling abroad and seeing that people are more accepting to differences in communication when it's clear upfront you are coming from a different culture. And I stopped trying to date with women on the spectrum in hopes it would be easier. People on the spectrum are all different, each person has their own quirks, it is much harder to have a relationship with ASD female when overlap is even smaller than with NT, chances of perfect match are very slim.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,026
Location: Sweden

04 Jun 2021, 4:18 am

badRobot wrote:
This is not how scientific method works. There is hypothesis, there is prediction, there is scientific data collected. Results either match or contradict prediction.


Sure, and in this case they contradict and so you added a just-so explanation for why it was contradicted in the African American population.

badRobot wrote:
This is evidence is clearly supports this hypothesis. What kind of wannabe "researcher" doesn't understand that?


Wannabe? I have published three papers and I think this makes me a researcher. I also regularly do peer-review for JADD. :-)

badRobot wrote:
What kind of wannabe researcher never ever heard of meta-analysis?


Meta-analysis usually uses papers relevant to the hypothesis/research area. In this case, you have not yet presented ANY paper that is relevant to your hypothesis.

badRobot wrote:
This hypothesis is fundamentally part of theory of evolution. This is how human species evolve to thrive in new environment.


Previously you claimed it was something common to all mammals, but now you are talking about human populations. So, which is it?

badRobot wrote:
I'm well aware of challenges of long-term relationships with NT females. I stopped faking to appear NT after traveling abroad and seeing that people are more accepting to differences in communication when it's clear upfront you are coming from a different culture. And I stopped trying to date with women on the spectrum in hopes it would be easier. People on the spectrum are all different, each person has their own quirks, it is much harder to have a relationship with ASD female when overlap is even smaller than with NT, chances of perfect match are very slim.


Good that you have stopped faking, but the cultural argument will cease to work as you get to know people better, like in a relationship.

You are wrong that everybody on the spectrum is different. The correct statement is that people on the spectrum have a random combination of autistic traits (and some NTs have these autistic traits too). There is a well-defined set of relationship traits that are correlated to autism, and these actually are the courtship traits. If you have these, you can both attract & develop a worthwhile relationship with somebody that has them too. A relationship where you can communicate naturally and not through NT emulation.



badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 616

04 Jun 2021, 4:55 am

rdos wrote:
Sure, and in this case they contradict and so you added a just-so explanation for why it was contradicted in the African American population.

No there is no contradiction. This is predicted outcome, so this result is evidence in support of hypothesis.

rdos wrote:
Wannabe? I have published three papers and I think this makes me a researcher. I also regularly do peer-review for JADD. :-)

Yes, wannabe. Publishing three papers doesn't mean value of your research is recognized by peers. I have published and co-authored several articles when worked on my post-graduate thesis but don't consider myself a legit researcher.

rdos wrote:
Meta-analysis usually uses papers relevant to the hypothesis/research area. In this case, you have not yet presented ANY paper that is relevant to your hypothesis.

MHC-dependent mate selection is one of mechanisms affected, so it is relevant. There are papers published on sunlight exposure in African Americans, this is one of the groups in your paper, so it is relevant. Outcome matches prediction. So this is evidence in support of my hypothesis. Stop throwing a tantrum and deal with it.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,026
Location: Sweden

04 Jun 2021, 6:04 am

badRobot wrote:
Yes, wannabe. Publishing three papers doesn't mean value of your research is recognized by peers. I have published and co-authored several articles when worked on my post-graduate thesis but don't consider myself a legit researcher.


I don't think wannabe or not is related to how much peers like your research. Particularly not when I'm critical of much of the ASD research done. Citations & reads are more important, and lots of people read my work, both the preprints and the three that actually passed peer-review.

badRobot wrote:
MHC-dependent mate selection is one of mechanisms affected, so it is relevant. There are papers published on sunlight exposure in African Americans, this is one of the groups in your paper, so it is relevant. Outcome matches prediction. So this is evidence in support of my hypothesis. Stop throwing a tantrum and deal with it.


Yeah, and then the "autism epidemic" here in Sweden proposed to be caused by sunlight exposure was published too. Just because something is published doesn't make it right or relevant. You should know about the replication crisis in this kind of research.



badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 616

04 Jun 2021, 6:23 am

rdos wrote:
I don't think wannabe or not is related to how much peers like your research. Particularly not when I'm critical of much of the ASD research done. Citations & reads are more important, and lots of people read my work, both the preprints and the three that actually passed peer-review.

rdos wrote:
Just because something is published doesn't make it right or relevant.


Good bye.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,730
Location: Stendec

04 Jun 2021, 6:25 am

Good-bye, bot! Do not let the door hit you on your way out!

:D


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


Gentleman Argentum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2019
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 524
Location: State of Euphoria

04 Jun 2021, 6:38 am

Fnord wrote:
Good-bye, bot! Do not let the door hit you on your way out!

:D


We're all one big dysfunctional family here on WP! :lol:

Reminds me of my family, come to think of it...


_________________
Just a few of my favorite things: music, chess, weather.


badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 616

04 Jun 2021, 7:27 am

Fnord wrote:
Good-bye, bot! Do not let the door hit you on your way out!

:D


Thanks! :D



Gentleman Argentum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2019
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 524
Location: State of Euphoria

04 Jun 2021, 11:01 am

badRobot wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Good-bye, bot! Do not let the door hit you on your way out!

:D


Thanks! :D



Oh no -- love overdose :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull:

I'm DYIN'.... :lol:


_________________
Just a few of my favorite things: music, chess, weather.


Gentleman Argentum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2019
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 524
Location: State of Euphoria

04 Jun 2021, 11:02 am

Gentleman Argentum wrote:
badRobot wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Good-bye, bot! Do not let the door hit you on your way out!

:D


Thanks! :D



Oh no -- LOVE OVERDOSE ! !!
:heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:

:skull: :skull: :skull: :skull:

I'm DYIN'.... :lol:


_________________
Just a few of my favorite things: music, chess, weather.