Sperm banks

[Dan Rowden]

Hah! Call that "goading"!? That's barely an eyebrow raiser! Well, actually, the crappiness of the point did raise my eyebrow just a little ;)

[keenobserver]

So, I take it the idea of a peaceful paradise on earth doesnt interest you?
Better to lounge in mediocrity and grab all the short-term gain you can, then, with all the other vermin.

[Pye]

keenobserver writes:

So, I take it the idea of a peaceful paradise on earth doesnt interest you? Better to lounge in mediocrity and grab all the short-term gain you can,

That's what a "peaceful paradise" on earth would look like. You can't wait for everything to slow to a stop? Another fine man with a grasp of reality, temporality.

then, with all the other vermin.

. . . . and another fine spokesperson for life.

No wonder the genes of geniuses are just dying to go on . . . .

[/all sarcasm, all the time]

Dan writes:

Hah! Call that "goading"!?

and you call this-

the crappiness of the point

- a rejoinder?

;) yeah, back at ya

[Jamesh]

Due to increased incidence of autism when certain types of people propagate, ie if an engineer breeds with a computer programmer, then the likelyhood of autism in their children is raised, then I suspect high intelligence levels are created by high levels of testosterone in both parents. The gene is not an "intelligence" gene as such, but the gene that determines how much testosterone is produced. If a child has access to higher levels of testosterone from the mother while developing in the womb, and genes that produce high levels of testosterone, then, in the womb, this hormone will cause higher mental (and perhaps physical) activity leading to higher cranial development, which at extreme levels could produce a genuis, a thrill seeker or an autistic. I'm sure there would be some correlation with estrogen, perhaps abnormally low levels of estrogen inn the female who has high levels of testosterone are also needed to produce a genius.

I wonder if doctors will one day attempt to prevent autism that runs of families, by the injection of drugs that limit testorerone. If so, it may be that they will remove the conditions in which geniuses are created.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The whole testosterone thing is, as far as I know, just a QRS theory. I don't recall any scientific backing on that one.

As for things with scientific backing, there is an experimental drug out for the treatment of PTSD ( Propranolol has been approved for other uses, but is still considered experimental for treatment of PTSD). The testing behind it showed that adrenaline is what makes memories stronger, and the removal of the adrenaline from the system fades the strength of the memory. From decades of horrific experiences, I have a constantly higher level of adrenaline than most people, and I have a better general memory and higher IQ than most people. I now wonder if my intelligence is actually due to being terrorized for so long. Before my mother died, my memory was actually much better - but it was also critical that I be able to quote her verbatim for up to a couple of weeks after she said pretty much anything (and the woman talked a lot). After my mother died, much of the pressure was off - particularly the pressure to remember so many trivial details. I still had and have a pretty good memory, but not like then. Certain other conditions must add to or subtract from the effect. My marriage was just as stressful as my childhood, but my ex used sleep deprivation on me, amongst other things, so my memory was not as good then, and my thinking got less and less clear during that time period, despite the level of stress involved.

Increased stress does lead to increased testosterone - as shown both in transgendered birds and in the discoveries that too much testosterone in the womb during certain stages of gestation makes male fetuses homosexual - but correlation is not causation. The adrenalin could be the mutual genesis of testosterone and genius. In school, although teachers told us not to worry about the tests, many of us in the AP program would intentionally worry about a test anyway because we noticed that we did better when we were worried about it. That could have been the adrenalin forming better memories for us.

Of course many things go into intelligence (good nutrition and so forth) and there may be a genetic component - but the genetics may not be a direct cause of genius at all. Other than not having a genetic disposition to mental retardation, it may be a genetic disposition to be high strung that creates genius. There are too many variables that have not been verified as possible causation for genius, and even after all the factors are identified, it would then have to be narrowed down into what combination or combinations of factors must be present for genius to occur.

With a certain amount of genetic health, a parental combination of environmental factors that previously produced genius in the parents, and a conscious effort of the caregivers to produce an advanced and well balanced child, there would be a pretty good chance of some level of genius developing - but such potential parents would most likely get together based on mutual interests and decide if it would be wise for them to bring a child into this world or not anyway. Geniuses do not need to be herded into a breeding program like sheep.

[Dan Rowden]

The whole testosterone thing is, as far as I know, just a QRS theory. I don't recall any scientific backing on that one.

I'm not sure that QRS has any testosterone theory beyond what science already says about how it functions.

[Tomas]

.



-the voyeur quotes insanity-
"integral" From Poison for the Heart
The Christians of today speak of themselves as "vehicles for God," a selfless sacrifice . . . and then I speak of myself as a vehicle for my genes and thoughts. How disappointed they are in me!



-tomas-
The 'christian' is nothing more than an adaptation of the term 'pagan'... the names are interchangeable and of the same tree-root.



-the voyeur shoots his load-
Kevin, Dan, and David: have you guys ever thought of donating to a sperm bank to capitalize on any role your genes may have played in you becoming sages?



-tomas-
In a non-gay way... would the girlfriends be allowed to "hold the flask" and watch the scene play out? Hahahah



Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971



.

[Jamesh]

I'm not sure that QRS has any testosterone theory beyond what science already says about how it functions.

I think she is referring to David's ideal world. He has said a couple of times as an off-the-cuff comment, that he wouldn't mind an attempt to inject females with testosterone to make them more masculine.

The whole testosterone thing is, as far as I know, just a QRS theory. I don't recall any scientific backing on that one.

"Before birth, testosterone induces the primary sex characteristics of males. At puberty, testosterone is primarily responsible for the secondary sex characteristics of males."

Effects on the brain
As testosterone affects the entire body (often by enlarging; men have bigger hearts, lungs, liver, etc.) the brain is also affected by this "sexual" advancement; the enzyme aromatase converts testosterone into estradiol that is responsible for masculinization of the brain in a male fetus.

There are some differences in a male and female brain (the result of different testosterone levels); a clear difference is the size, the male human brain is on average larger, however in females (that do not use testosterone as much) the corpus callosum is proportionally larger. This means that the effect of testosterone is a greater overall brain volume, but a decreased connection between the hemispheres.

"Most studies show no significant difference in the average IQ for men and women. However, on average men perform better on tests of spatial and mathematical ability, while women perform better on tests of verbal ability and memory. Also, men's IQ has greater variance, that is, there are more men than women in the very high and very low IQ groups, with women's scores more concentrated around the average."

As testosterone is what directs the fetus to be male, and there are more men in the very high IQ groups, then it has an effect on intelligence. Of course exactly how it affects brain development is not really known. Perhaps the increased incidence of males in the low IQ groups is a result of the increased odds of very mild types of autism. I take a very generalised view of the term autism, to me the term covers a spectrum of effects, not just those that require medical treatment. I apply it to those who coose to be loners.

There is not a clear-cut ratio of incidence between males and females. Studies have found much higher prevalence in males at the high-functioning end of the spectrum, while the ratios appear to be closer to 1:1 at the low-functioning end.[53] In addition, a study published in 2006 suggested that males over 40 are more likely than younger males to parent a child with autism, and that the ratio of autism incidence in males and females is closer to 1:1 with older fathers

Reported increase with time

The number of reported cases of autism increased dramatically over a decade. Statistics in graph from the National Center for Health Statistics.There was a worldwide increase in reported cases of autism over the decade to 2006. There are several theories about the apparent sudden increase.

Many epidemiologists argue that the rise in the incidence of autism in the United States is largely attributable to a broadening of the diagnostic concept, reclassifications, public awareness, and the incentive to receive federally mandated services.[56] However, some authors indicate that the existence of an as yet unidentified contributing environmental risk factor cannot be ruled out.[57] On the other hand, a widely-cited pilot study conducted in California by the UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute (17 October 2002), reported that the increase in autism in California is real, even after accounting for changes to diagnostic criteria.[58]

As the modern world feminises males, it is not surprising autism in on the increase. Mind you it might be more because males are now freer to wank when they want to :)

A 2001 study[2] examined the effect of a 3-week period of sexual abstinence followed by masturbation-induced orgasm. It found that abstinence over such periods "does not change the neuroendocrine response to orgasm but does produce elevated levels of testosterone in males."

A 2003 study[3] showed that serum testosterone levels reach a peak seven days after abstaining from ejaculation.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

there are more men than women in the very high and very low IQ groups, with women's scores more concentrated around the average.

As testosterone is what directs the fetus to be male, and there are more men in the very high IQ groups, then it has an effect on intelligence.

Your own quote states that men have more in the very high and the very low ends of the IQ spectrum.

Most studies show no significant difference in the average IQ for men and women.

So there are enough men in the lower IQ end to balance out the average to make all men average out to the same IQ as the average of all women.

So what exactly does that say about testosterone's effect on intelligence? It might not make people brighter - it has an equal chance of making them more stupid.

[Pye]

Jamesh writes all 3 of the following quotes:

If a child has access to higher levels of testosterone from the mother while developing in the womb, and genes that produce high levels of testosterone, then, in the womb, this hormone will cause higher mental (and perhaps physical) activity leading to higher cranial development, which at extreme levels could produce a genuis, a thrill seeker or an autistic.

1. So, high testosterone is related to autism/genius ("masculine")

I wonder if doctors will one day attempt to prevent autism that runs of families, by the injection of drugs that limit testorerone. If so, it may be that they will remove the conditions in which geniuses are created.

2. So, limiting testosterone ("feminine") might reduce autism/genius

As the modern world feminises males, it is not surprising autism in on the increase.

3. So, we are living in a more feminized world, but are producing more autistics ("masculine").

Another fine example of the clarity that this mas/fem rubric can provide . . . .

[Pye]

A more coherent and more recent corollary between autism and its possible causes lies in the strong relationship between cases of autism and toxicity of locale, particularly heavy metals (lead, arsenic, mercury). Autism cases are found clustered in environments where these things are found in high concentrations.

Discover magazine, recent issue, it's probably online somewhere and you probably have more time than myself to look it up if you're interested.

If testosterone is related to intelligence/brain capacity, how do you explain american football players; let alone the inhabitants of the WWWF . . . .

[Cory Duchesne]

[David] has said a couple of times as an off-the-cuff comment, that he wouldn't mind an attempt to inject females with testosterone to make them more masculine.

I'm skeptical of injecting testosterone that late into the game as I've heard that it is while a body is in the womb that testosterone masculinizes the brain into a specific structure. After the baby is born, the brain is locked into a feminine or masculine structure.

So you have to wonder if much good would result from having a feminine brain that feels all the aggression and disatisfaction of high testosterone levels. To draw an analogy, perhaps testosterone is like the electricity or fuel needed to run an apparatus. The male brain needs higher levels of electricity because, as an apparatus, it functions at a higher level. So if the female brain is a bit more low end in its demands and abilities, then adding more testosterone to it seems kind of like pumping 100amps of electricity into a toaster that only needs 10amps. You're just going to blow the thing up!

Now there are some woman who get into weight lifting and such who take testosterone on their own initiative, but you gotta wonder if these women were a bit masculinized at birth - - but their penchant for weight lifting doesn't speak well for their mental abilities.

And then there are the handful of fairly intellectual woman with high IQ's and high levels of inquisitiveness, independence and initiative - and it's these one's who may have a somewhat masculine structure, so maybe more testosterone might enhance their efficiency and focus.

But it follows then that if these women would benifit from more testosterone, then perhaps it might be a good idea for a significant number of men to start taking testosterone as well.

They say that men with criminal tendencies and abnormally intense sexual appetites have abnormal levels of testosterone - - but I wonder if Buddha, Socrates and others had similar if not higher levels of testosterone without the uncontrollable violent or sexual appetites. You have to wonder if there are other biological factors contributing to their criminal recklessness, or if it is as simple as testosterone. For instance, criminals may actually have had certain compenents of their brain feminized at birth, where other components were masculinized - and this created some sort of imbalance or conflict. Or maybe they just missed out on some essential opportunities for mental benifits in their infancy, childhood and teenage years and were left with some serious deficits in their brains structure, and this might not be as attributable to masculine or feminine hormonal/biolgoical development, but more environmental. And then there is the factor of brain size. Many, many factors to consider.


* edited to add a word I accidently omittted, and then corrected my failed attempt at italicizing it - - this may or may not be attributable to low testosterone levels :)-

[Pye]

The moral of this and all these stories is this:

"feminine" = bad
"masculine" = good

And that's why what belongs to the feminine or belongs to the masculine becomes an argument of values - arguments conducted by the purveyors of this rubric themselves. Even amongst them, they cannot decide which features belong to which, but they all float in the same immovable barge: As long as the "feminine" can express the lesser-valued (even "bad"), it's working.

Not a single one of these manichaean purveyors has any philosophical right to even clean the dirt from the feet of the Tao, let alone invoke it as part of their philosophy.

You join a host of others who have butt-fucked reason in support of misogyny - perhaps even worse, in support of just plain ressentiment. You've certainly butt-fucked the Tao. Dress it up all you like - you can't hide the stench of your attachments, no matter how fancy your footwork.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Here are:

Autism linked to mercury poisoning

Autism linked to lead poisoning

Autistic gene suspected.

under the last link:

The parents are also faster at "visual search tasks" - in effect they have an unusually sharp eye for detail, just as their child with autism does - compared with the parents of unaffected children.

Brain scan studies of mothers and fathers of children with autism have shown that the mothers have a masculinised pattern of brain activity, again suggesting they are strong systemizers.

and

Systemizers feel more comfortable in the company of each other rather than that of what he calls empathizers. "We have found clues in a range of studies we have conducted since 1997 that assortative mating is going on."

[Kelly Jones]

Pye,

It doesn't matter if others have a consensus about what is true and false, or if they don't.

What matters is if one is sane and rational oneself. One can hardly decide whether truths are ultimately truths, otherwise.

I think perhaps you believe all biological females have exclusively "womanly" character traints (irrational, passive, unconscious, emotional, confused), and all biological males have exclusively "manly" character traits (rational, purposeful, conscious, ruthless, sane). I've never argued it, because it's not the case.


-

[Jamesh]

It doesn't matter if others have a consensus about what is true and false, or if they don't.
What matters is if one is sane and rational oneself. One can hardly decide whether truths are ultimately truths, otherwise.

If one is insane or irrational, then "One can decide X truths are ultimately truths" and be wrong.

You know what, even your beloved QRS have decided they are sane and rational, based on consensus. It is a consensus based on their little group and the words of past philosophers (100 percent of whom are at least partially wrong in soem regard), rather than some form of automatic ability to know the greatest truth for any circumstance.

I've seen enough to know for certain that they are not enlightened in any way that would allow them to state absolute correctness of opinion for any specific detail in the finite world. Essentially, they are just fundies promoting their egos.

[Pye]

Pye writes: Even amongst them, they cannot decide which features belong to which, but they all float in the same immovable barge: As long as the "feminine" can express the lesser-valued (even "bad"), it's working.

Kelly responds :It doesn't matter if others have a consensus about what is true and false, or if they don't.

"Consensus" is an incidental point at best, incidental in the language I used, and incidental compared to everything else I have challenged in this thread. Nevertheless, you've picked up this rejoinder nearly verbatim from your teachers and found a place to use it properly.

Kelly: I think perhaps you believe all biological females have exclusively "womanly" character traints (irrational, passive, unconscious, emotional, confused), and all biological males have exclusively "manly" character traits (rational, purposeful, conscious, ruthless, sane). I've never argued it, because it's not the case.

Really I wonder if you are reading or understanding any of my posts at all.

Kelly, have you read the Tao? It is, after all, one of the books on your teachers' hit list. Perhaps if you do this, you will not find yourself so inclined to annihilate what you perceive as the "feminine" in both yourself and everyone else (for, rather like the Puritan, you transfer your temptations onto others and then do your condemning there. Perhaps also like the Puritan, you are having no joy in life, so you don't think anyone else should, either.)

I assure you, that this confusion between mas/fem traits and to whom they are or are not attached is not my confusion. Witness yourself how easily you swim back and forth on this subject between despising what you perceive as the feminine, and despising all who belong to the gender itself, including yourself.

It's crafty; I'll give them that. Reminds me of Hitler saying of Will to Power that it didn't matter what Nietzsche originally meant; what mattered was how Hitler intended to use it. Both have appropriated texts and bent their meaning to serve and justify their fear.


(summer school starting; I'll be spotty here at best.)

[Pye]

Pye writes:

(for, rather like the Puritan, you transfer your temptations onto others and then do your condemning there. Perhaps also like the Puritan, you are having no joy in life, so you don't think anyone else should, either.)

Before dashing, I organize the context of this parenthetical statement around the Kelly that, especially recently, goes here or there snapping her ruler over the knuckles of people like Leyla or Laird with things like "Don't flirt," "Don't excite [him]," "You only want a girlfriend/have no interest in truth," the implications of "you just want sex," etc. and many other examples of Kelly the Security Guard, trying to address her own weaknesses through others.

Frankly, I think that if Laird stated to you that some female companionship would be a good thing to come along with this, then I give him kudos for honesty. I'd bet my bottom dollar that this thought is kept alive in nearly every male poster here, without the straightforward recognition of it. (after all, we are talking on a sperm-bank thread over the mating objectives of these "geniuses.") I am thinking I remember that Kelly herself made pilgrimages to Kevin with just this thought in mind. At least that Kelly was honest enough to admit it here. This recent Kelly is soldiering on in bad faith.

[Pye]

Public message to Elizabeth:

I am not interested in gossiping about the posters here in private little convos. If you have a point to make, make it publicly, thanks.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Public message to Pye:

That was not gossip - in fact my intent was to promote compassion. Had that comment been stated publicly, rather than being a statement to increase understanding, it would have looked like I was trying to start a cat-fight - much like your above "public message" appears to be that you're trying to start a cat-fight with me.

There are purposes for private messages. Cat fight declined.

[Pye]

No "cat fight," Elizabeth. I state this straightforwardly. If what you say in private would look like a cat fight here, then it looks like a cat fight there. If what you say in private is meant to promote compassion, it will promote compassion here as well.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings in rejecting private correspondence with you.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Pye,

The appropriate rejection would have been a private message stating as such. As it is, your comment makes what I said look far worse than what was actually said. I have decided that the best way to handle this at this point is to publicly post my pm to you in order to prevent Kelly from thinking something worse.

Really I wonder if you are reading or understanding any of my posts at all.

At this point, the only ones I think she bothers to read for comprehension with are Sue, Kevin, and possibly David (although she has not interacted with him on the forum much lately, so that one is hard to tell).

Sue is doing an amazingly good job with her, amazing meaning especially in contrast to how I perceive her posts to other people - which is fortunate because it appears that Sue is the primary one who has any chance of reaching her at all.

[Pye]

good, thanks.
after all, nor is it my place to offer your message for you.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Hmm - but it was a manipulated offering of my comment. In the future, if there is anything that I think would be helpful to your understanding (in this case was the understanding that Kelly isn't going to listen to either of us anyway and that someone else is handling it just fine, so no use getting worked up over it), i will keep in mind that if I believe it would be simultaneously helpful to you but possibly harmful to someone else to see me say that, I will neglect to help you out of greater consideration for the other person.

[Pye]

Elizabeth writes:

Hmm - but it was a manipulated offering of my comment. In the future, if there is anything that I think would be helpful to your understanding (in this case was the understanding that Kelly isn't going to listen to either of us anyway and that someone else is handling it just fine, so no use getting worked up over it), i will keep in mind that if I believe it would be simultaneously helpful to you but possibly harmful to someone else to see me say that, I will neglect to help you out of greater consideration for the other person.

oky-doke.

btw, your parenthetical reasoning regarding Kelly I do not judge as helpful, or accurate, and there is no "either of us," as though we occupy the same mind regarding her. That's precisely the kind of private messaging dynamic that repulses me - the smug little agreements between private individuals who wouldn't otherwise publicly say, like so many back-room, glad-handing politicians. I did this sort of thing in 8th grade. I'm not interested in doing it here, hence the purpose of the public manifestation of this point. Sorry it had to be you, Elizabeth, but then, you are the only person on this forum who has ever used private messaging with me for this sort of thing. Luckily, we're both in agreement that it won't happen again.