The Pillows have a song called RUSH... intriguing
I wasn't all that pleased with my last entry (for cool people, assume last entry means last public entry). Its alright, but in retrospect... ehhhhhh meh. It is especially difficult to write these after reading Robert Sapolsky's books, two of which I indeed read over the course of my "vacation." He has such a good hold on the entire field, while being interested in the same sorts of stuff as I am a lot of times and remaining humorous and cognizant of his own limitations. The years of experience don't hurt either.
Particularly on the note of religion, which I meant to say a few things about, he has this great essay at the end of one of his books where he discusses relations to neurological disorders. So, Schizophrenics' progenitors are not always Schizophrenics themselves, but do often display characteristics which make them "Schizotypical," not delusional or imbalanced, but merely more likely to be into new age shit, or believe that the earth was really created in seven days, or think that ghosts are really floating around out there in haunted locations. Odd types, but not actually crazy. This isn't Sapolsky's idea, its something followed by many scientists for years, but the premise is this: Schizophrenia is a hugely debilitating disease with a strong genetic component. In those cases, the genes will usually die out because they harm the genetic fitness of the individual. Unless you have a balanced polymorphism in place (example: sickle cell anemia, carriers are resistant to Malaria thus the gene survives in heterozygous individuals and does not die out), then the gene should disappear. Where does such a balanced polymorphism exist for Schizophrenia?
This isn't just some fringe crap I'm spouting off here, this is a fairly widely recognized theory with consistent evidence to back it. Here's the deal: in the earliest of times, simple hunter-gatherers, complex hunter-gatherers, and even some later agricultural villages, were all strongly influenced by shaman figures. The actions of modern hunter gatherer shamans and archaeological evidence indicate that Schizotypical individuals (not Schizophrenics themselves) are oftentimes highly suitable to fit into the role of the shaman. Thus, by giving Schizotypical individuals attention in these positions, you give them power, and such actions usually lead to improved genetic fitness. The trend continued for thousands of years, likely into the early age of cities and beyond (easily so when priesthood became a hereditary order). This means that the advent and development of religion might have indirectly allowed Schizophrenia, a severe mental disorder, to flourish in human beings.
To me, that is some fucked up shit. It might or might not be entirely true, but almost certainly some part of the argument is correct, and shamanism did at very least help Schizophrenia stay alive. Strange strange shit. Its that sort of insight and bizareness that makes it hard to write this stuff. Coming up with original ideas is hard as is, but it makes one realize the stuff we don't know that others do. That isn't even Sapolsky's theory, its one that's been around for a while, and I'd never heard of it.
I've already begun to enter the locked state of what I call "Rush Fugue," in which I eat little and irregularly, don't worry about sleep at all, work on something or other constantly almost, and gradually let my memories of the week fold in upon themselves because sleep deprivation does wonders for memory consolidation. I wrote a term paper about this, you know. Thus, I don't have time in the next while to write any of these things, and I don't have the inclination to do so, either. There are a lot more concerning things I ought to be worrying about for the next several months, and I could use all the focus I can muster. I actually have some real idea, then sometime in a while I'll mention it, but writing for the sake of just putting shit down isn't at all what I had in mind with these things.
It's all fine really. I gained a good deal from Sapolsky's stuff, so I could hardly consider the course of actions a loss. Actually, if anyone's interested in his stuff, its really informative and entertaining to boot. I have three of his essay collections, of which The Trouble With Testosterone is probably the best, and Jo has a copy of A Primate's Memoir, which is rather different; an account of his time with people and baboons in Africa, and is one of the damn finest true stories I've heard in a long time. Highly recommended stuff.
Right, so that's that, I need to follow joeg around tomorrow and then do fifty other things. Hopefully I won't completely crack up. I think I'll be pretty okay this year. Hopeful and all that.
Particularly on the note of religion, which I meant to say a few things about, he has this great essay at the end of one of his books where he discusses relations to neurological disorders. So, Schizophrenics' progenitors are not always Schizophrenics themselves, but do often display characteristics which make them "Schizotypical," not delusional or imbalanced, but merely more likely to be into new age shit, or believe that the earth was really created in seven days, or think that ghosts are really floating around out there in haunted locations. Odd types, but not actually crazy. This isn't Sapolsky's idea, its something followed by many scientists for years, but the premise is this: Schizophrenia is a hugely debilitating disease with a strong genetic component. In those cases, the genes will usually die out because they harm the genetic fitness of the individual. Unless you have a balanced polymorphism in place (example: sickle cell anemia, carriers are resistant to Malaria thus the gene survives in heterozygous individuals and does not die out), then the gene should disappear. Where does such a balanced polymorphism exist for Schizophrenia?
This isn't just some fringe crap I'm spouting off here, this is a fairly widely recognized theory with consistent evidence to back it. Here's the deal: in the earliest of times, simple hunter-gatherers, complex hunter-gatherers, and even some later agricultural villages, were all strongly influenced by shaman figures. The actions of modern hunter gatherer shamans and archaeological evidence indicate that Schizotypical individuals (not Schizophrenics themselves) are oftentimes highly suitable to fit into the role of the shaman. Thus, by giving Schizotypical individuals attention in these positions, you give them power, and such actions usually lead to improved genetic fitness. The trend continued for thousands of years, likely into the early age of cities and beyond (easily so when priesthood became a hereditary order). This means that the advent and development of religion might have indirectly allowed Schizophrenia, a severe mental disorder, to flourish in human beings.
To me, that is some fucked up shit. It might or might not be entirely true, but almost certainly some part of the argument is correct, and shamanism did at very least help Schizophrenia stay alive. Strange strange shit. Its that sort of insight and bizareness that makes it hard to write this stuff. Coming up with original ideas is hard as is, but it makes one realize the stuff we don't know that others do. That isn't even Sapolsky's theory, its one that's been around for a while, and I'd never heard of it.
I've already begun to enter the locked state of what I call "Rush Fugue," in which I eat little and irregularly, don't worry about sleep at all, work on something or other constantly almost, and gradually let my memories of the week fold in upon themselves because sleep deprivation does wonders for memory consolidation. I wrote a term paper about this, you know. Thus, I don't have time in the next while to write any of these things, and I don't have the inclination to do so, either. There are a lot more concerning things I ought to be worrying about for the next several months, and I could use all the focus I can muster. I actually have some real idea, then sometime in a while I'll mention it, but writing for the sake of just putting shit down isn't at all what I had in mind with these things.
It's all fine really. I gained a good deal from Sapolsky's stuff, so I could hardly consider the course of actions a loss. Actually, if anyone's interested in his stuff, its really informative and entertaining to boot. I have three of his essay collections, of which The Trouble With Testosterone is probably the best, and Jo has a copy of A Primate's Memoir, which is rather different; an account of his time with people and baboons in Africa, and is one of the damn finest true stories I've heard in a long time. Highly recommended stuff.
Right, so that's that, I need to follow joeg around tomorrow and then do fifty other things. Hopefully I won't completely crack up. I think I'll be pretty okay this year. Hopeful and all that.