The social mindset as a whole

There are instances in early teenage years in which I displayed indications of having already significantly lost the social mindset.

In multiple online posts at age 14, I described myself as ‘not feeling any empathy’, ‘naturally having a lack of empathy’, ‘lacking empathy almost completely’, ‘not feeling empathy at all’, ‘just not feeling it’, ‘never feeling for someone who is upset’ and it ‘just not coming to me’.

I also commented on noticing tonnes of people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) online showing a lot of empathy or claiming to have it, despite reading that lack of empathy was a feature of ASD.

Our appraisal of those with social mindset became solidified as a whole after we were able to make the links between most of its features late in teenage years.

At age 18, my friend stated:

‘In reality, nobody and no society is completely compatible with me. That’s why I always have to approach societies that contain similar people, but I don’t really fit in any society.

Still haven’t had any alcohol and won’t, still won’t stop learning German, won’t change, won’t stop speaking to you.’

At age 18, I stated:

‘I’ve been scarred for life about my perception of people in this town. Started in secondary school, could’ve been improved in college but worsened (overhearing alcohol stories, other ridiculous stuff). Now, I will have a lot of trouble meeting anyone in real life. I will be on edge.

But of course, we have social media, and we see that it’s the same across the country, and some things are the same across the world.’

At age 18, I stated:

‘You know what I hate? When people make assumptions about me based on something I said, but that assumption is characteristic of a regular person and not me. I mean, they’ll try to read me like I’m a typical person. That’s what I mean, and they get it wrong, all the time.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes. My nan does that. She thinks I would behave like any teenager.‘

At age 18, I stated:

‘I’m one of the most isolated people I know. I have minimal contact with even my household family.‘ My friend replied, ‘Yes. I often think about how it’s surprising to know you.’ I replied, ‘It’s surprising for anyone to know me now, ever since 2014.’

I continued, ‘I feel like if I started meeting people my age now, it would be like meeting other animals. I feel like I’ve diverged so much, away from their influence, like the European colonies.’

My friend replied, ‘Well, they are. You have become something else. … It’s a shame that not everyone sees what we see. It’d be such a reformed world. Its just such a shame. … That’s why I refuse to address British politics, because I know the real solution, and it’s impossible.’

I replied, ‘Yes. I also don’t know what to expect from people my age anymore. In [college], I barely communicated, and all I saw were disgusting things, and I continue to see it on social media, so I feel like I’ll be in for a shock if I’m forced to socialise at any point. Do you not use Instagram much anymore?’ My friend replied, ‘Nope. Too busy. Don’t use it at all.’ I replied, ‘Yes, thought so.’

At age 18, my friend stated:

‘I just tell a girl I can seem very robotic in real life, and I have confusing views to others, and I use certain terminology and words. [My girlfriend at age 15] did not understand. She did not understand why I didn’t display the emotions she expected and got offended. [Your girlfriend] may get offended, but you aren’t even thinking about it. You just suddenly offend them, because you’re not acting in a certain way.

I offended [my girlfriend], because she made me a drink and was met with no expression. I didn’t know how to respond. How on earth am I meant to respond to that? It was out of the blue. Not only that, my parents make the food, make the drinks and bring it to me. It is nothing special. I hate that. I hate spontaneity of arrangements.’

I replied, ‘Yes. I offended [my girlfriend] when I didn’t respond much to her idea to send a gift. I hated it. It was out of the blue.

When I say thanks, to anyone, it’s extremely muffled, always. I feel embarrassed to say it. I cringe. Is that the same with you? I get blamed for not saying it, but I say, “I did say it.”

It happened in the hospital appointment two days ago; went unnoticed, but I said a ridiculous, gibberish version of thanks when leaving the scan room. Didn’t sound like anything. It was a muffled mess of “thrkgfp”. I couldn’t say the word. I just can’t in real-life situations.

I remember I seriously confused my driving instructor when I didn’t react to passing my test first time. He was overjoyed, but I was blank, and I had to spend the whole drive home explaining why I didn’t react, ultimately couldn’t (in a clear way).

Yes, it was inevitable to smile at least somewhat to show the [examiner] telling me, “I’m pleased to say you’ve passed”, that you’ve acknowledged what he said. Other than that, I was just relieved not to have to mess around with tests again. There was not much joy in it. Also, I was not going to start driving, and I still haven’t, so there was nothing to be happy about.’

At age 19, I stated:

‘I have another problem too, so I think. I think I look like I’m lying whatever I’m saying.’ My friend replied, ‘What?’

I continued, ‘It’s happened in different ways in real life [1, 2, 3] and on text [1, 2], but I feel like it happens, judging by people’s reaction. Not to you, of course; I’m talking about regular people.

You understand that I mean every word I say literally, but regular people don’t. They think there is a hidden meaning and that I’m covering it up.

It’s not with everything, but there are a few notable examples that stand out, and I don’t think there’s any way I fix this.’

I later stated at age 22, ‘I take what people say too seriously. They don’t take what I say seriously enough.’

At age 18, my friend stated:

‘I’m just laughing at how crazily different you work in comparison to the rest of society, totally incompatible. You will never be able to “integrate”.‘ I replied, ‘Yes.’

My friend continued, ‘You know these stories of people with Asperger’s or shy people coming out of their shell, or they go off to these courses or something, and it makes them all social? I see them as fakes. They must be. If they are able to integrate, it means that they aren’t like us.‘

I replied, ‘Yes. I don’t know how I could ever do that.’ My friend continued, ‘It is physically impossible for us to integrate, as you know. We work in a way that nobody would be able to understand, and in fact, the police are in danger of being called.’ I replied, ‘Exactly.’

At age 19, I stated:

‘I talk as if I have my own nationality, of 1 person. I feel like I’m growing up in a separate country, a bubble, an exclave. I feel not in tune with British culture whatsoever. I far more relate to the cultures of other countries and territories, not one in particular.

I relate to no one culture, but everyone in Britain is so absorbed in their British norms, and then there’s just me, the outlier, who shares none of them.

I feel like I’m growing in a separate path away from all other British people, not in contact or in tune with them, unable to be influenced by them, unable to acquire their norms, fostering my own little personal culture instead.

I feel like I’m relating less and less with them, and that when I am forced to “come out of my shell”, I’ll be unable to relate to British people at all, like they’ll all see me as weird and alien, that I won’t be able to talk about or share with them anything.

I honestly think my accent has diverged since being away from education and on the computer 24/7, my accent and culture. I’m diverging like a tree branch. I can feel it.

I’m in my own bubble of a culture, which takes from all manner of other cultures, from America to Africa. It’s true, though, at this point. I mean, imagine a typical British person being greeted with Russian “))”s. They wouldn’t know what to make of it.’

At age 19, I stated:

‘This is ridiculous; stumbled across an interview with an autistic teenager and his mother, and the interviewer is behaving exactly like my [college] assistant, saying the exact same thing: “No other teenager would answer with that.”

It’s uncanny. Just watch it. The man is exhibiting the same fantastical interest that my [college] assistant did. Autistic people always captivate them like that, the ones that can speak, anyway, and I don’t know why.

It’s like they’ve never seen a person so intelligent and logical in their lives, and their whole lives have been a lie.’

My friend later stated, ‘The mentor woman I see every week is shocked by my practices and how rigid they are, and how in-depth I think about things, and how many times I think about a scenario and all the alternatives, and how rigid my hand-cleaning process is, and how I know and keep track of everything that has been contaminated, and how high-up my thought process is, how far ahead I am.’

I replied, ‘Ridiculous. No one should be shocked.’ My friend replied, ‘No, but she laughs, not horrified. She marvels at it.’ I replied, ‘Still, it still depresses me, because I only see us as the reasonable ones. Anyone marvelling at or praising us is reacting to what should be normal.‘

My friend replied, ‘Yes, but it’s enlightening for her to know someone like me exists. I’m sure she enters a whole new world when speaking to me.’

I replied, ‘I know what you mean. I’ve had that response. I know exactly that. I’ve had it from people. It’s funny in a way, but still, looking at it from the outside, it shouldn’t be happening.’

At age 19, I stated:

‘Something else has happened to me recently. As a result of all this complete and utter discouragement about the human race, I’ve become less and less inclined to associate with it but, more importantly, to put myself out there to it, because I see absolutely no benefit or reward. It would be a waste of effort, posting Instagram pictures to people who will never know me fully because their brain can’t comprehend it and that they’ll run into an issue they can’t accept.

It’s why I don’t update any of my social media anymore and why the people I regularly talk to has shrunk to just you. I could not possibly share this information with anyone else, not because I fear they’d reject it but literally because they’re unable to understand it, literally because I don’t know anyone like you who has the independent-enough mind to feasibly understand such material.

I have literally no one to vent to, because my thoughts are too problematic in all sorts of ways for anyone else. Either there’s a moral/ethical issue come up, or they just can’t understand it.

I feel more and more prohibitively alone. That’s the term I’m using, because I could theoretically have a lot of people around me in close quarters, but the feasible percentage of people I could reasonably associate with and function with has dwindled to such a low figure that it’s almost ensuring my isolation on that front.

It’s a theoretical loneliness, a loneliness of extrapolation to the general population, a limit of people I could identify with that has been determined. That’s why it’s tonnes worse than actual loneliness, because there, there’s always the possibility that you could associate with tonnes of people; you just haven’t done it yet, for whatever reason. Circumstances haven’t allowed it.

But in my case, I’m seeing it that the people I could associate with literally do not exist in any reasonable figures, so it’s a permanent loneliness that I’ve identified, at least at this point. It’s an observable universe, if you like. That’s a great analogy.

I’m hating having to water down these great explanations into inaccurate simplifications for general people like therapists. Only you get to hear the truth. Same reason I don’t make music anymore, because at the end of the day, all my contributions as a human are for other humans.

That’s what being a human is at the end of the day, a cell in a body, a cell in an organism. That is the meaning of life, so when it can’t be fulfilled, you’ve got nothing to give, no one to share it with, no one on your level.

It’s like living as a lone organism, which, as anyone should know, is not possible as a human [where every conspecific, including potential mates, is not behaving like this], so being this type of organism is leading a pointless life. People are cells in a body. The cell [in the multicellular organism] cannot act on its own; it requires others.

The only reason we have a house and can buy food at a shop is because of thousands upon thousands of others. Imagine they decided to go on strike; you’re fucked. Anything could change at the drop of a hat, and it would be out of your control. …

I feel like my perspective of humanity is miles ahead of anyone else’s at this point when it comes to things like this, including god. I do honestly believe I’ve transcended anyone else’s perspective on god, yet none of this I’m proud of. I hate this fact.

As I’ve said before, everyone should be up here with me, on my level. It pains me to see where they are. I couldn’t possibly be proud of having what I consider a normal understanding of the world.‘

At age 19, in response to my friend, I stated in a voice message:

‘That’s a huge, huge point to make there. That just shows, doesn’t it? It seems completely representative of those people’s thinking and how they cannot comprehend a life without being under someone’s influence, so they just cannot comprehend that someone like you exists and thinks as you do and thinks as independently as you do.

And because they cannot comprehend that, because they cannot see how it’s possible – it doesn’t happen to them; it doesn’t happen to anyone they know, in their little social relations, whatever they do – they just assumed the lowest common denominator that you’re under someone’s influence.

We see the evidence of our theories just pile and pile and pile up to this ridiculously high stack that’s just laughable. It’s just a laughably high stack of evidence, and that’s just another one to add on to the pile, that people just can’t see anything except influence. They just can’t. Yes, when [your nan] said, “You have to stop copying.”

I cannot begin to see how they have this socially bound mind. I just see them as like a cell in a body that’s grown up to have this birth-bound duty to serve the greater, to serve the greater organism as a certain role, and they’re just stuck in that mindset, where everything is for someone else or from someone else, and it’s all about other people, and it’s all about social, and it’s all about relations.

And then we’re the cells that just don’t cooperate, because we think independently and see independently. It’s like they’re trapped in this cage, this mesh, like they’re just stuck as a node in this mesh, and they cannot conceive acting as a separate part away from that mesh. They cannot conceive acting alone, basically.’

At age 19, I stated in a voice message:

‘Well, really, anyone, any person at all, who thinks they’re worse or is self-conscious, has self-hatred, self-harming, even; anyone who has that mentality is the socially influenced mentality. I mean, that’s just what it boils down to.

It boils down to them not having a sense of identity, just having this completely empty, flux sense where they’ll adopt whatever they think people like, and it’s just an indicator, a big, fat red flag for a whole bunch of other terrible issues, because it means they have the adoptive mindset, which means they’ll adopt who the hell knows what, all these awful practices.

You’re right; if there is a person who appears good on the face of it, has good practices on the face of it, but comes out with that, “I’m so worthless. Everyone’s better than me; everyone has this, everyone has that’, then it’s just a huge red flag that should just put you off instantly, because it means they don’t see their worth, which means they see worth in something else, which means they’re going to be prone to changing into that something else.

Obviously, if you find someone who is like that and does see their worth and will never do all these practices other people do, just people who have a level head… I see it as just being reasonable, being level-headed. It’s not necessarily thinking they’re better; it’s just having a pragmatic, analytical view of practices, of behaviours, of influences, seeing the exact reasons why you should or shouldn’t do it, not seeing a social reason, not seeing a social side of things, seeing the actual practical reasons why you should be doing something or shouldn’t be doing something.

Also, when they do change, they say, “I did it for myself”, “It was my choice”, “I liked how it looked.” There’s no point trying to rationalise it. The fundamental bottom line is that they cannot understand a non-social mind. They cannot understand not being socially influenced, so anything that is socially influenced is just normal to them; it’s just being a normal human mind, “independent”, in quotations. That’s how they see it, apparently.

It is literally that they don’t have the faculty to understand that it’s a socially influenced thing.’ In response to my friend suggesting a virtual machine analogy, I stated, ‘Yes, it’s like a virtual machine insofar as they’re trapped in this microcosm of thinking they’re independent when the actual picture is that they’re being socially influenced, so yes, it is like being trapped within a greater system and not being aware of the greater system, so that’s how it is like a virtual machine.’

At age 19, I stated:

‘I don’t like that. I don’t like when someone’s inconsistent, when half of their views comply with one logic [survival] and the other half comply with a totally polar one. It blows my mind, makes me want to back away and leave the messed up being to itself.

I’m the most consistent person ever. My views have the same underlying basis, consistent across the board. I’ve actually said this before: it’s like people who talk to me can’t grasp how I’m so consistent. They look at it with suspicion, like there’s something wrong with me, think I’m wrong for thinking everything about a person should be natural. It’s totally mind-blowing.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘The problem is, anyone would think we’re making a huge fuss about nothing, but what they don’t understand is that we take issue with the thinking behind it, what it indicates about that person’s logic in general and how they would apply it elsewhere in their life. When I see someone like that, they are absolutely not a suitable partner for me.

Imagine I’m in peril, and they make a stupid decision because of the same thinking that gives them those practices, or maybe they waste household resources in an irresponsible way, which is why I have to plan for it and vet people.

I don’t know what’s wrong with them. They don’t seem to see the thinking; they just see product. They see person choosing to wear what they want and [that being] fine, and not only that but get angry at someone who dares question the basis.

Why can’t they look past that and ask why? Why can’t they question why it’s necessary and what consequences it has? Why spend all that money on clothes and shoes that could be spent for more crucial things? Why do people adopt such styles, and why the styles they do? Where does it come from?’

My friend replied, ‘And yet, they pay all this money for clothes, and they just go down in my estimation. They’ve paid out money to go down in my estimation.’

I continued, ‘And since it comes from society, what does it tell you about their thinking, if they’re so impressionable? It tells a lot. It tells how their entire brain works, and then you weigh up what sort of risks that would pose, living with such a person, even contemplating a future with such a person.

Imagine a person who wants to bring viral and bacterial vectors (pets) into your house. What’s up with them risking your physical wellbeing if they say they care about you and love you? Why aren’t people asking these questions?’

My friend replied, ‘It’s funny how the term “pet” doesn’t exist in your world. It is “bacterial vector”.’ I replied, ‘Haha, yes, but also, questioning on pets as I’ve brought it up, why don’t people question whether pet-owners know the damage and suffering they’re doing by owning a pet? Why don’t they realise that breeds were created and left with terrible afflictions, that it’s a stray from nature’s path for the absolute worse, and if they do know that, why do they support it?’

My friend replied, ‘I’ve seen people cry and scream over a dog’s death and have an official funeral and burial in a coffin.’ I continued, ‘Then ask, how could I love a person like that? Why is it so hard for people to understand? It’s all wrong. It’s so, so, so wrong.’

I continued, ‘How they end up doing these things is totally beyond me. I’m assuming, at this point, that it must take some unwieldy empathetic force that is present in everyone’s brains and overwhelms their ability to think logically, because it takes over, and they get this fake, fluffy, emotional attachment to things. I can’t be dealing with it.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes. I see dogs as this sort of mutation. It’s like someone has brought up a miscarriage.’ I replied, ‘Any pet, anything bred for no good reason, and then the same goes for any societal imposition.’

I continued, ‘It’s always: a thing has no practical purpose and, even worse, detrimental effects; why do they do it; if it’s something they learnt from society, why don’t they question that origin, why are they that impressionable, why can’t they think straight; if they’re so impressionable and can’t think straight, how can I rely on a person like that, and why would I want to live with or love a person like that?’

My friend replied, ‘It’s always when something has no purpose and detrimental effects, and they pay to do it.’ I replied, ‘Yes. Yes, they do pay.’ My friend continued, ‘It’s a triple blow: no gain, detrimental effects, costs money.’ I replied, ‘The only missing piece here is that they must see some fictional huge gain that we don’t see. It’s clearly one that doesn’t exist, but they envision it, compelling them to do it.’

At age 19, my friend stated:

‘I’m sick of people who get offended at my hygiene practices.’ The girl in our group chat replied, ‘Yeah. Why would they? If it’s not affecting them, then why should they care?’ My friend replied, ‘They do. They get all emotional, as if I find them dirty.’ The girl replied, ‘That’s weird.’

I replied, ‘I still remember the time I heard how [a teacher] was offended at my reeling away from him in class, because he got too close. It was in a parent note of some sort, parents’ evening or report.’

My friend replied, ‘Maybe he thought his breath smelt.’ I replied, ‘Exactly. They’ll think all sorts of things that take it personally. It wasn’t even the smell; it was simply his proximity. He would lean in and just keep leaning, until his head was almost touching mine, if I didn’t move away.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘Yes, and then you realise that everyone else speaks to everyone just like [we speak to each other], with no suffocation, because their brains are that shallow and low-resolution that they’ve got nothing to hide, nothing they know of gravity that the other person won’t know, so we’re speaking as humans should be speaking to each other, normally, but we can’t do that with >99% of people.

As I’ve said a million times, you and I are what I’d consider reasonable, not amazing, not incredible, not fantastic, just reasonable. I don’t feel like I’m asking for anything at all when I want people to be as reasonable as you and I. It’s what should be the case in a reasonable, normal world. They’re living in this matrix reality of happiness.

I can’t understand how that’s their entire thinking, how their entire brain stops there at these superficial relationships and superficial thinking and superficial views with no basis whatsoever, no depth.

They’re all these happy-go-lucky mannequins. That’s how I see them, air-headed dummies prancing around with plastic smiles, and all the plastered on makeup you’d expect to see on a dummy.’

At age 19, my friend:

‘Why do people look so retarded? It’s this constant empty, gormless, hollow expression. It’s like they’re good for nothing other than a xylophone. I expect to percuss their forehead with a drumstick and it to play a xylophonic note.’

I replied, ‘Yes. Almost all expressions typical people pull for the camera are ridiculous and piss me off. Once again, my mind goes off on a trail. It makes me wonder why on earth they’re doing it, who they want to see them pulling their faces like that and why, what response they hope to elicit in the viewer when they do it and publicise it.

What do they expect will happen? Do they expect the viewer to laugh? Do they expect them to somehow emotionally connect and think, “That person’s having so much fun. Look at them” and actually feel happy themselves about that?

Like, what on earth? I have nothing to feel happy about a person pulling a stupid expression when they’re at a party and doing 1 million other things I abjectly disagree with.’ My friend replied, ‘It’s the fact they’d do that in the name of it all, that stupid squat in front of the camera.’

I replied, ‘All of it. People posing in pictures raises a tonne of questions in my mind, because they have to have an expectation of what they think the viewer will think when they see it, and I find that to be silly.

If I did a stupid pose and stupid face, I’d expect the reaction to be that I’m stupid. Why would I do that to someone I don’t know as well? That will be their first impression of me.’

I later stated at age 21, ‘Don’t you ever find that the way people talk is scary? Don’t you ever find yourself scared when you watch a video of someone talking, and all the mannerisms and facial expressions they’re pulling, mainly the facial expressions?

It scares me. I feel it physically, an uncomfortable, anxious feeling, like I wouldn’t want them around me in real life or that I’d be seen as doing something wrong. It sets me on edge to watch. They look possessed or unpredictable.’

My friend replied, ‘My reaction is depression, but sometimes I laugh, because it strikes me how fucking ridiculous it all is. I look at it in disbelief, that it is real, that people consider it normal.’

At age 19, my friend stated:

‘Every time I come back from university, I feel more and more alien. I’m more and more distanced. Things that I used to do and accept at home, I cringe at. I cringe at normal life more and more, after all that isolation and learning and speaking to you. I return more distant than ever.

Like, it just hits me, when I come back. I haven’t been exposed to it for all that time, and I come back to interacting with family or seeing television, and it just hits me how cancerous it is, how stupid people are. Every time, it gets more and more noticeable.’

I replied, ‘Interesting. For me, it hasn’t been a “hit”; it’s just been a gradual, growing rejection, in part because of how much worse everything’s got recently, people our age, for example.

I remember when I never used to have to reason with makeup-wearing, because people my age weren’t wearing it. Everything was normal. It all came crashing down after that. Never used to have to reason with alcohol consumption, because people my age weren’t doing it; never had to reason with drugs and smoking, with fashion.

People weren’t doing it, people my age, the people that mattered. It was all just silly stuff adults did and worried about that we weren’t meant to worry about.

But now, there are no adults to compare us to, because we are the adults, and everyone our age is the adults, so it’s just this suffocating cancer that’s been closing in on me, suffocating me, rotting my brain away.’

My friend replied, ‘It’s what happens. There is just this expectancy, as soon as people are 18, actually.’ I replied, ‘It doesn’t matter. I don’t know why they can’t resist it, why they don’t resist it.’

My friend stated, ‘I remember going to Germany in [school, as a school trip], and some people in my class had hit 18, in fact, all three, I think, and we went in a shop, and they all went and brought beer now they were 18 and away from home.

They were all talking about football as well. I was nothing like them, and then [the teacher] enquired why I’m not speaking to people my age and why I was lurking around him. Shouldn’t it be obvious?’ I replied, ‘They’re all clueless. It’s just more of the same.‘

My friend continued, ‘I’ll never understand that, people who love trends, people who actively follow trends consciously. Most of these people do it subconsciously; they’re just trapped, but some of these people actually want to be in tune with the trends, so-called “trendmakers”.

People delusionally think they’re individual or not following any trends, but there are some people who want to be in tune with the trends. That’s a mentality I can’t understand.

There is no rationalising. It’s just air. It blows my mind. Let’s forget it before it annoys me. I hate inexplicable things. It’s pointless mental gymnastics. I have an issue with spending time thinking about pointless debates.’

At age 20, I stated to the girl in our group chat:

‘I don’t know why you think you can relate to other people’s feelings. Everything they feel is just anti-me most of the time.‘

She replied, ‘I may not agree with everything they say or do, but I can still put myself in their situation and think, what if I am them? Then I use that tactic to respond to them in a way that will benefit all.

I have so much empathy that I can imagine what it is like to be someone who feels no empathy at all and place myself in their shoes. I can think back to times when I might have felt no empathy for someone.’

I replied, ‘I struggle to believe that, actually. I’ve never, ever had someone who can imagine themselves being me or thinking like me, no matter how much they proclaim they can.

Often, that “intuitive” tactic regular people use to work out emotions fails spectacularly when it comes to me. People cannot work out my emotions. Girls complain that I don’t smile. It bugs people off that I don’t show emotion.

Remember the driving instructor, cheering and hooraying at my first-time pass while I sat cold-faced, just wanting to get on with it and go home? He couldn’t understand.

So I don’t believe people can understand me or be in my shoes, no matter how much they say they can. I don’t know about you, but others have had that backfire with me.

Honestly, the best thing you can do to benefit me is be logical and practical like [my friend], then a relationship immediately strikes up, and we both become productive together.’

The girl then sent the definition of the neologism ‘sonder’, which begins with, “The realization that each random passerby is living a life as vivid and complex as your own—populated with their own ambitions, friends, routines, worries and inherited craziness …”^[1]

I replied, ‘Impossible for me to see it like that, plainly impossible. It doesn’t compute whatsoever. When you know how much we know, it’s impossible. When you see people for what they are rather than an idealised version of themselves, it becomes clear.

What that describes there is an idealised world, not the real world. Also, no one’s life could be as vivid and complex as my own. My entire life history has complex events and interests and experiences in it that could never occur in a regular person’s due to my nature, even just the raised sensitivity of the senses. What happened in my life would not be permitted by other people’s brains.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘You know this whole “theory of mind” thing, where they say autists struggle to guess what other people are thinking? Guess what? Other people struggle to guess what autists [and other animals] are thinking.

They can’t do it for shit, because their minds are fundamentally different and shallow. That’s where that stems from. I’ve always had my views passed off as something more shallow than they actually were. These people cannot think past a few inches deep of water, whilst I think metres deep.

They’ll ascribe some bullshit reasoning to it that wasn’t what I was thinking whatsoever, because they can never understand the real reasoning, because it’s too deep for them, just like your nan or mum about you copying me.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘You have to consider that I can list in detail almost every single precondition and cause for how I came to hold a certain view and why I’ve weighed up a certain thing to be a certain way and not another. These people can’t; “I just like it”, “It’s just wrong”.

I’m blown away by how little other people can explain themselves, absolutely blown away, how they can’t explain the simplest of likings or views, things that should be so easy, but not because they can’t put it into to words – because they don’t actually know; like, there’s nothing there, no thought process wondering why it is they like a certain thing, the root reason rather than a superficial one.’

My friend replied, ‘Because they’re not in control; the condition controls them‘. I replied, ‘Exactly. It’s because it usually is literally not them, not their view. The unconscious vacuum has adopted it and replaced themselves with it. It’s something real that’s there and has a root cause. We see things and come back to the same reproduceable arguments of the socially influenced mindset.’

Later the same day, the girl in our group chat stated, ‘The reason I liked Japan and anime was because I liked it, not because it was a trend. Mostly, I like the fact that in Japan everything is “cute” they have this cute culture, and the guys, of course, possessed more neotenous features.’

I replied, ‘Not helpful, unfortunately. That’s an exact replica of the Reddit answers and everything I’ve ever said about social mentalities.’ I then quoted the ‘I just like it’ messages from above.

At age 19, my friend stated:

‘I don’t know how they all fall into that way. It’s a phenomenon, how they resemble it so exactly, without knowing someone in the category and making a conscious effort to resemble them.

Like I said, there must be at least one person in their school, and they get drawn to it, and along comes another person, and they get converted, and it becomes a group, and it picks others up like some sticky ball of gum on carpet, but I don’t know where the originator got it from.

I’d like to see if these people are still like it if we could isolate them and make sure they have 0 friends but give them access to the Internet.’ I replied, ‘I’m betting that it won’t be much different. It’s clearly something about them and not their exposure. It just is. We see the evidence.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes. I feel like it’s neurological, and they’re bound to fall into the same thing. I feel like their minds operate in exactly the same way.’ I stated, ‘Our exposure doesn’t mean anything for our social susceptibility. We’ve seen all the abominations they’ve seen, but we don’t adopt them.’

I continued, ‘When I picture people who’ve lived on farms and that, I just know as soon as they get their hands on a computer, they’d adopt Snapchat filters and the full works. I see it all the time, properly rural people or people with diseases, and their main or only line to the social sphere is the Internet, and they still look like everyone else.’

At age 19, my friend stated:

‘They’re all such clones, even though they’re not trying to be one. They all have this same destiny, neurologically.’

I replied, ‘Yes, it is a destiny. It’s a ditch that they all fall into one way or another, a groove. I see them like bowling balls that fall into the gutters.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘Their brains are vacuums and regurgitators. It’s this set-in-stone tendency built into them. It’s like a cancer, really, because it’s this single thing that ends up replicating and hoarding and becoming the whole person.

They were not trend-adopters out of the womb. It starts in infancy and just racks up, and they rack up this massive social debt. That’s how I see it. It’s like neurodegenerative disease; it’s a progressive racking up of social influences such that the influences eventually surpass the original individual person and become the person.

The person is just replaced by their influences. That’s why I see them as hollow. They’re vacuums that mirror and regurgitate. It’s this constant stream of taking in social trends that begins.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘It’s hardly a mind. [Trying to imagine being a person with the social mindset] would be trying to squeeze all of me into a space 1/10th the size, or omitting 9/10ths of what I know, forgetting it.

It’s literally like trying to imagine living with half an eye and half the hearing, half the nerve endings, a quarter of the taste buds.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘It’s a complex that was introduced with the introduction of [directed transmission of] language. That’s why the origin of language is so important and something to be investigated. It changed everything. It, along with the biological complex that introduced it, the social thinking, is the only reason.

I am proof of how easily that social thinking can be removed and what gets left behind. It’s why I’ve said before that in many ways, I would be better off living in the wild with animals.’

At age 19, my friend stated:

‘People come out with such nonsense. It’s all this abstract, emotional thinking. It’s a scary, loopy world they live in. It’s utterly delusional, scary. “We’re so upset to see our lady of the city [Notre Dame Cathedral] die.” It’s a nonsense, delusional fantasy that follows no logic or anything.

When they say autists find it difficult to understand the delicate social code of others, what they don’t realise is that autism shouldn’t be a diagnosis. It only exists and only has a diagnosis because the control set of people are clones with a crazy, wacky fantasy world of emotion and social behaviours.

It only exists because of other humans. It only exists because people can’t compute that existence, because they don’t know such an existence exists.

Baron-Cohen needs to hear exactly what I have to say about autism. I’d actually be the most interesting person he would ever speak to.’ I replied, ‘Precisely, precisely that. It exists because of other humans, full stop, and the social fantasies they’ve developed and opinions of others they rely on.’

My friend replied, ‘It only exists because other people can’t quite place their finger on it. They have no hope of seeing the metalogic level. That’s why these people can’t deal with us.‘

At age 19, my friend stated:

‘People think everyone is an individual. I just see these categories of people with exact neurologies.’ I replied, ‘Literally what my psychiatrist said to me, so I stopped wasting my breath.’ My friend replied, ‘Would have rebutted that with fire, some “psychologist”. The whole point of psychology is to identify those patterns and see why people are so similar.’

I replied, ‘But that’s what happens when I try and introduce the topic to anyone. I stop bothering, because I know I’ll get nowhere and just alienate. They don’t even deserve my time on that matter. They’re just there to do a job, so I let them.’

I later stated, ‘Was quite the moment when [my mum] repeated that “Everyone’s an individual” catchphrase without being prompted, verbatim.’ My friend replied, ‘Yes. You know I’d pick up on that, and I knew what you were thinking. No point in even arguing.’ I replied, ‘Yes, wasn’t there to argue, was just there to get information.’

My friend replied, ‘The way they see people is wrong. It has solid evidence, proven time and time again. I’ve got hundreds and hundreds of photos [of people with social-mindset features], and the photos are the same.’

I later sent a screenshot of an autistic person answering a question about autism by saying, ‘That’s a tricky one. People are people, and people are individuals.’

I remarked, ‘Idiot. Why does that line keep getting repeated in the most unlikely of places? Why is it a mantra I’m regularly hearing now? It’s pissing me off, because it shouldn’t be happening in all these random places at all, let alone [a person with autism], but it’s like a prank picking at me, like you say.’

I later stated, ‘I heard that “Everyone’s an individual” comment again, from a man espousing that childhood-trauma and addiction lark, no doubt.’

My friend replied, ‘It actually makes me laugh now, a very loud burst.’ I replied, ‘It’s pure anger now, whenever I hear it. Any chuckle over the absurdity of its repetition and caricaturishness is quickly whisked away.’

My friend continued, ‘I laugh because the person I’m speaking to couldn’t be made more of a caricature. It’s not even funny the amount of evidence they’re up against. It’s a whole fucking corpus. Scary, though.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘There’s another example I’m trying to think of that I’ve suffered. Well, actually, it’s every example where I’ve been expected to have a reaction and haven’t had one and have been deduced as feeling a certain way as a result of that when in reality I wasn’t.

And it’s every time I’ve been offered emotional support when I hoped for practical support, and let’s add to that every time I’ve been assumed as being ashamed of myself in some way when in fact I wasn’t.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘Part of the reason I’m not finding anyone like me is because in order to be active online, you have to have a faith in people to appreciate your content, one that I don’t have at the moment, so every person I find is going to be 100x more optimistic and social than me and happy-go-lucky.

So it’s as if any person who is like me will indeed be a recluse in their own home with minimal social-media presence and therefore incredibly hard to find, and there’s nothing I can do about that.’

At age 19, my friend stated:

‘”Neither are bad responses …”; I hate that, that pressure to tone down or slip something in that will neutralise it.’ I replied, ‘Exactly. I fucking hate it.’

My friend continued, ‘It’s something I never have to do in this chat, but I see it all the time in real life, from YouTubers, politicians, even people speaking as supposed friends.’ I replied, ‘Exactly, virtue signalling, as they call it.’

My friend replied, ‘It’s a joke, this ridiculous neutralisation and toning down or affirming that you are in line with social morals. It’s this phenomenon I notice all the time.’

I replied with the following excerpt from the Wikipedia article for virtue signalling: ‘In the mid-2010s, many users on internet forums and social media gave “virtue-signalling” a pejorative sense when they denounced such empty acts of public commitment to unexceptionable good causes such as changing Facebook profile pictures to support a cause, participating in the Ice Bucket Challenge, offering thoughts and prayers after a tragedy, celebrity speeches during award shows, and politicians pandering to constituents on ideological issues.’^[2]

I then sent the Wikipedia articles for conspicuous consumption, the purchasing of particular goods to convey social status, and conspicuous conservation, the purchasing of environmentally friendly options to convey social status.

My friend replied, ‘It’s more than that. It’s something I feel pressure to do as well, when speaking to a general person, having to assure that you don’t think this and that and showing some imaginary respect for something.’

I replied, ‘Yes, same. I do it to the bare minimum I feel I have to without causing offence. Depends, though; sometimes, I stop caring about causing offence.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘I think of all the dog-face-licking and the makeup-wearing and the alcohol-drinking and how people would just never understand me, even those in place to help me like psychiatrists, and I just know how it’s best for me to just live as secluded as possible until it’s no longer possible and only then force myself to go out.

They’d never be able to help me, because they’d never understand me, and it’s the fact that I’ve established that it’s a discrepancy in genetic cognition and not just a personal opinion. It’s a genetic fact that these people won’t understand me.

It’s quite remarkable that I’ve had to establish that and shut them off and leave myself with no one, essentially, but yourself, even though they think they have to offer the help I need, even though so many other people think they have to offer the help I need, and yet, they’re talking gibberish.

And they’re never going to get it, never going to be able to help, because they have social thinking, emotional thinking, empathic thinking that overrides their ability to think logically, to understand cause and effect.

Even though they have jobs known for helping countless social people cure their problems, obviously, the patients being social thinkers, it worked.

It’s still, in a way, laughable that the only reaction I get to my underweightedness is screaming and shouting and frantic worry and never a calm, cautious attempt to understand.

Maybe that’s part of the social-thinking paradigm, that it’s impossible for them to understand a logical reason for my lack of weight gain, that they ascribe subconsciously in their mind all sorts of social or regular-person reasons for it.

My mum, at least, has always gone on about how I “want to make excuses for shutting myself off”, and I ask her why I’d want to do that, and she can’t answer. She doesn’t have an explanation. It’s such a stupid way to approach it.

Ah well, we know that the eating-disorder clinics [also subconsciously ascribe a social reason for it]. That’s all they ever deal with and all they’re ever trained in, and I just got referred to one again.

I even expressed to my mum this time that I think this’ll be a waste of time, because they only have experience with body dysmorphic disorders, and she pled that she “can’t do nothing”, “What is she going to do?”

It’s her rushing to do any solution that passes her way without any forethought. It’s just knee-jerk reaction after knee-jerk reaction, no planning and no understanding what works and what doesn’t work. It’s the shittiest form of help imaginable.

It’s also funny how much I remain silent now when asked about why [I can’t put on weight], because of how much I know they’d never understand, how much I know how badly it went before (arguments) and how they’ve blatantly ignored or forgotten about core characteristics about me, such that I feel they’d be forgotten or blatantly ignored again, and thus, there’s no point wasting my breath.

There is no understanding with me. There is no understanding in this household; there is no understanding by medical professionals; and there is no understanding by general people.’

At age 19, my friend stated, ‘It’s shocking how blinded people are by social factors, emotions, fame, money, success, role models, what other people think, social justice. It’s this one big cluster of degeneracy and absolutely disgusting attitudes and views. It’s this massive, oozing cluster of greasy clones.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘That’s what I mean; people can criticise us and our worldview all they want, but we don’t have the countless problems they have.

We don’t have the self-worth issues; we don’t have the alcohol issues; we don’t have the “bad stereotypes”, the “fake news”, the “bad influence” issues. [A girl] told me yesterday she was talking a “friend” out of overdosing. These people live in loopy land where that could be considered a “friend”.

We don’t have the issue of crying over pointless shit like movies or news stories. We don’t fall for scams. It’s impossible for us to get harmed by going out to parties or other outings, because we don’t.

We don’t idolise people like they do and become distraught when something happens in the celebrity world, like Robin Williams dying or, outside that, the Notre Dame Cathedral going up in flames.

Who cares? We don’t have all those petty issues.’ My friend replied, ‘I can’t imagine how anyone would be crying over a public building going up in flames. It’s totally impossible for me to imagine.‘ I replied, ‘Exactly, but everyone on Instagram was sad, so they all have an issue that we don’t.’

I later stated at age 21, ‘I just had a thought, while reading [this excerpt], that those with the social mindset would still consider it a bad thing that we’re not able to feel sad at a sad movie or a death of a person or pet or any other social tragedy. Despite them having negative feelings, they’d consider our lack of those negative feelings bad.

Well, I’m glad they consider feeling sad and depressed and having self-worth issues a good thing. I’m glad they consider having alcohol issues a good thing. I’m glad they consider feeling suicidal a good thing.

You literally can’t win. They will hate you even for being unable to feel those things. I’m glad they consider getting scammed a good thing. I’m glad they consider obesity a good thing. I’m glad they consider crime itself a good thing.’

At age 19, my friend stated, ‘I honestly believe we’ve totally uncovered how humans behave in modern Western society. No psychologist knows this. They just don’t.‘

At age 20, I stated:

‘[My 3-year girlfriend] seemed captivated by the idea that being fat was a views issue and not an anatomy issue, seemed enlightened that it explained why muscular boys get muscular, and it’s like, this was blatantly obvious.

We’ve done so much investigating and research into our own ideals and humans in general that other people just become ants in their understandings.

Our difference with other people is very high-level, very neocortical. You sometimes get neurological conditions that stem from a certain part of the brain or a certain gene or receptor; ours is very high-level, because it’s caused by megalencephaly.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘It’s completely above and beyond me how any of these people did not have anything even remotely similar to my childhood experience, specifically age 10–11 onwards, like not one.

I can’t find a single person who shares my principles, core, core principles to life. It’s really mind-blowing. As I’ve said before, I’d expect at least a small percentage, not 0.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘Is it just me, or do people have no fucking clue how to research, like researching news articles? My mum told me today that my dad had found information that [benefits were] being redesigned to omit people with mental health issues. I told her, what is she talking about? They already tried to do that in 2017, and it was overturned by the court.^[3] Then she said that this was new, that he saw it yesterday.

Well, by her fault or his, they were talking rubbish. There is no article from yesterday, only one Guardian article from January,^[4] which states something totally different, which is that a “study shows” mentally ill people are more at risk of having their benefits revoked, which is just common knowledge; has always been that way.

I hate that, though, when news organisations push “studies showing” as a brand new piece of news. It’s the worst form of cherry-picking from that basket. It’s just a random odd study of pre-existing information that they’ve just decided to choose, and of course The Guardian would choose that lol, but it’s not relevant; no progress or news has been made within the benefits system recently, so it’s false news.

Anyway, point was that people don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about. That should be a 4th life lesson. People don’t know the fuck how to research or fact-check. It’s not that surprising to me, though, which is why I didn’t include it as a lesson to begin with. I never once expected people to be good at fact-checking, ever. It never struck me or occurred to me.

When I first heard of fact-checking, I thought, “How pointless that it’s given its own name.” It should just be a thing people are doing, constantly.

9 times out of 10, people don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about, and those 9 out of 10 people willingly try to talk about things they don’t know about while pretending they know about it. Meanwhile, I admit when a topic is out of the range of what I know about. They just come up with garbage.

You saw it in those prank street interviews, where they ask what president a picture of Colonel Sanders was. The person just assumes the interviewer knows better, despite not recognising the president, and makes a guess and looks even more stupid, when they could just say, “I don’t recognise that as a president.”

They care more about they socially look. That’s what “knowledge” is to them, knowing how to socially behave and look. They’ll pretend they know factual knowledge, just because pretending to know factual knowledge is social knowledge, because it makes the person look better.’ My friend replied, ‘Yes. They’d only gain knowledge as a social endeavour, to improve their image.’

I later stated, ‘I still remember the one time [my 3-year girlfriend] suggested maybe I would’ve been better off not doing the research I did, because I was chastising her over something knowledge-related, and it still blows my mind to this day how she actually managed to suggest that being dumb was a better option, over being more knowledgeable.

It speaks tonnes if that’s how normal people think, that they’d choose ignorance over knowledge.’ My friend replied, ‘Nonsense. Idiot, bottom line of the box.’

My friend later quoted my mother saying about me, ‘Perfectionists never think they have done enough research or know enough’ and remarked, ‘I’ve had that thousands of times.

When I say I don’t know enough about something, it is objective. My mum always says that I do, that I just “think that I don’t”. She’s questioning me, basically, when I’m the one with the knowledge, and I know the scope of the area and what I know and don’t know.’

I replied, ‘They think it’s bad to know more. It says it all.‘ My friend replied, ‘Yes. It shows they’re happy knowing what they do, whereas I’m not, and why would she know and not you, when you’re the one with the knowledge?’

My friend continued, ‘Only I can relate, because only I do that type of research, so I know what it’s like to be in a massive swamp with no end to it and not knowing enough and seeing stuff and it slowly coming together over months.’

I later stated at age 21, ‘That is hilarious: factcheck.org rewrote one of my Wikipedia edits, about 90% certainty. I’ll show you. I mean, they took one of my edits, changed the wording in situ and made it part of one of their articles. Yes, they basically copied tonnes of my addition.

It’s even funnier, because the original source I got it from didn’t say [two words they included] at all. I selected those two words. Then guess what that “does not” links to? The same source I added in my edit to the article. I have now become the fact-checker with qualifications.

It’s such a set of twisting turns of irony. This is why it’s so funny: I’m becoming the authority. Everyone appealing to authority in response to me is now appealing to me. That’s why it’s so hilarious. They’re appealing to authority, which is appealing to me, sourcing from me, so it’s a circular reference.

Not only are my edits being implanted in random places, such as in videos by popular YouTubers or an online newspaper, but my articles are experiencing the weekday view-count peaks reflective of doctors and nurses learning about the respective conditions.’

I had previously stated, ‘That Geography Now YouTube channel^[5] read out one of my Wikipedia edits on a video. I’ve transcended watching their channel to check if they got their facts right. I’m now watching them include my facts.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘People don’t know when to refrain and not offer answers where they don’t have the knowledge or just admit that they don’t have the knowledge.

When I give answers, I state what I know, and what I don’t know, I state that I don’t know it, and if the question is implying something I don’t know, I state it as such. Meanwhile, regular people: instant belief.

A lot of people prioritise trying to be helpful over actually being helpful. They prioritise trying to be helpful over offering helpful advice, so, exactly like in your situation, they’ll respond for the sake of being helpful but take elements of your question as givens and therefore return with an unhelpful answer.

I’ve had people tell me stuff that completely didn’t answer the question whatsoever. That’s the main issue I get, I’d say. Other times, it’s them stating what is obviously already known.

Helping for the sake of being helpful is not helpful when the help is not helpful, and that is the bottom line, so no, I will not accept offers of help if they’re blatantly not helpful such that the people giving it should reasonably know it.

It doesn’t matter their “kind-heartedness” if the content of the help is counter to that. It dilutes and invalidates it sometimes. Sometimes, the help is so blatantly harmful that any hint of a good intention is cancelled out.

People don’t realise this. People don’t acknowledge this as a concept. Sometimes, it borders on abuse. Sometimes, it’s a fucking tactic of abuse, for god’s sake.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘[Those with the social mindset] suck in and regurgitate and depend on the opinions of others.‘

I later elaborated at age 21, ‘They only know a world of absorbing influence and changing, so when someone doesn’t do that, it strikes a chord.

You’re not allowed to not change and just be you, just be the most individual a person can be, not a replaced individual, not a constantly vacuumed-out and refilled individual, but just a static individual, impervious to influences from other people. They only know the former. That is their idea of an individual.

They go on about the struggles of identity [like cell identity] and a need to be yourself because only they deal with those issues. It’s inherent to them.

The individual of a year prior will be considered just as much of an individual as the person now, even if it’s a totally different person. They will consider the change and absorption of influence as them being an individual, them finding an identity, not realising that it’ll just change again the next year.

It’s a constant cycle, sucking out and refilling in. They are funnels, vessels, as I’ve always said. They are tubes with a hole in one end and out the other. That’s exactly what they are, whereas we’re the closed off pouches.

Their brains will all see it in the same way, and hence comes the web, the mesh that we’re not a part of. It’s right to one person because it’s right to another, this mutual dependency.‘

At age 20, in response to a voice message from my friend, I stated:

‘Yes, about everyone being malleable and not even a person, changing for other people or to adopt the styles of other people. And you know, I sometimes demonstrate influences from other people or something online, but these people: their entire identity becomes adopted, everything about them. All their interests exactly conform: their fashion sense, their makeup, their hairstyles.

Everything about them becomes identical, until it’s like you’re barely speaking to a different person, and therefore, there becomes no point in speaking to that person, because they’re just a clone.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘I was going on about how all of makeup conforms to society-prescribed standards and how that’s the only reason it exists and is done the way it’s done, and then [the person I was speaking to] goes, “What if sometimes those standards are accurate?”

It just screams blatantly to what’s going on, blatantly and glaringly. These people cannot see out of their box. They cannot see out of the social mindset. This is established, has been for ages.’

My friend replied, ‘What does accurate even mean? It doesn’t apply to the situation.’ I replied, ‘Exactly. Yes, you have to define what constitutes accurate there, and the answer is it’s what society deems such, so it’s circular reasoning. They can’t escape their loop.’

I continued, ‘It’s not inaccurate to come under the impression that we are of a different species, because we lack something, the social goggles, that defines literally the rest of humans. It’s part of what makes humans humans. I’m that much different from these people that I might as well be considered a different species.

I’m more on par with how other animals think. I have something in common with them that they don’t: the lack of social goggles, the lack of gushing over other species, the lack of fashion and cosmetics.

It’s subjective, what she said. It’s because she herself thinks they’re accurate. She likes the look of them, and other people with the social mindset also do, so she’s appealing to them, appealing to popularity [though not subjectively].

I know why I despise cosmetics. She can’t even say why she likes them. I know why I consider social things “bad”. I know that if I did have the social mindset, I would consider them good, but she can’t even speak for herself. She can’t even imagine that.

It’s as simple as the fact that all the usual benefits people see that revolve around appeasing others based on their standards, I do not, and therefore, only the negatives stand out, because they don’t help me on a fundamental, practical, logical scale. They wouldn’t help people like us.’

In response to my friend mentioning people giving reasons for liking something as ‘because I do’ and ‘because I like it’, I replied ‘Yes. No one could possibly actually have that reason for liking something.’

I continued, ‘The only thing it could suggest is that they don’t know why they like it, and the social mindset is only really compatible with not knowing why you like something, because if you knew why, you wouldn’t like something just because others did [which is what happens objectively]. If you had that cognition, it wouldn’t be allowed.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘They have the emotional/individuality goggles, where absolutely everyone under the sun is seen as having individual worth, regardless of their capabilities or how totally identical to millions others they actually are.

Ultimately, it’s not just about being like other people; it’s about having an impractical mindset, where doing things that cause personal and pointless external harm are seen as good or enjoyable, which we simply do not have, at least not when not first warranted by its infliction on us.

It’s that innate steel sense of justice I’ve always been going on about; they simply don’t have it. Their justice is skewed against people and things that aren’t actually causing harm, victimless crimes, while those who do actually cause harm are let off the hook and are indeed even celebrated.

It’s the fact that 99.99% of people would support those [social-mindset] people or practices, even if they didn’t do the practices themselves. That alone is enough reason.’

At age 20, my friend stated:

‘Everyone with the social mindset has these polar-opposite wishes to me, in all areas [1, 2, 3], and it’s all linked. It’s every single time, and then you realise that every single person you see has the same 100 reactions in common, and it all lines up, but with me, it’s the total complement.

Or when you realise that on a list of 50 red flags, I’ve only ever seen 3 people with less than 10, out of the millions of people I’ve seen, and not one single person exists other than us that doesn’t have less than 10 issues with them on this confined list of seemingly specific red flags that would appear to be a specific and random set of behaviours that couldn’t possibly be replicated in all those people, because there are so many alternatives, right?

It is like a zombie apocalypse. It’s like I’m sitting on the roof of a caravan on a deck chair for the past 6 years, scratching my head and eating a slowly depleting supply of tinned food as an endless horde of caricatures loiter past, and clowns and circus acts. It never stops.’ I replied, ‘Hahaha, exactly.

At age 20, I stated in a voice message:

‘Haha, I only just realised that nowadays, every time people try to ask me about an opinion, I always reply back with a fact, and it’s funny, because it’s like they’re desperately trying to get my view or opinion on something, and I just come out with factual information, like there’s no person there, like there’s nothing, just an encyclopaedia.’

My friend replied, ‘Exactly. I don’t have opinions on a lot of things. I can only present facts, what is known and what isn’t known. I rarely give subjective opinions, which is why I can’t answer “How are you?” or “How was…” questions.’

I replied, ‘Yes, but I’m laughing at how immune that makes us to certain types of manipulation, because there’s no person there to manipulate. You’d be trying to manipulate the corpus of knowledge.’

My friend replied, ‘Hahaha. I really struggle with subjective opinions and likings, because it’s not relevant what I think.’ I replied, ‘I was literally saying in my head, “It doesn’t matter.”‘

My friend continued, ‘It doesn’t matter, because if the facts are saying something, then why am I going to have a different opinion? How could my opinion possibly differ? That’s why I don’t need to state an opinion.

It’s inferred that I “believe” the same as the facts, but it’s not even about belief, or “I”. There’s no belief to be had. … They seriously expect me to have an opinion when I know what the answer to the question is. There’s an objective answer.’

I replied, ‘Stupid questions like “Do you think ghosts exist?”‘ My friend replied, ‘Exactly. How is that a question? What do they get out of asking that question? They don’t, so why does what I believe matter?’

At age 20, I stated:

‘Goodness gracious me, the comments^[6] on that H3 bill wurtz interview.^[7] None of them get it. They’re calling him “super strange” for not wanting to talk about food preferences, and only 1 of them gathered that he had Asperger’s, because they had Asperger’s themselves.’

My friend replied, ‘I don’t want to talk about food ever, really, only when making a point.’ I continued, ‘They’re doing the exact same thing they did on that schizophrenic-woman video, throwing out the most outlandish explanations for why he behaved the way he did.’

I continued, ‘”Seeing the thinness of his forearm i wouldnt be surprised if he just doesnt care about food at all and just drinks Soylent or something …” One person claiming he had ADHD, rubbish.’ My friend replied, ‘They just sound like [your mum].‘

I continued, ‘Ok found a 2nd person who gathered he was autistic. “the only thing that annoyed me that i felt bill was thinking that we are judging him i just wanted to scream to him we love u and u can talk about any thing u want without being nervous.” “Annoyed”; it annoyed them.’ My friend replied, ‘Bet he weighs more than me.’

I continued, ‘”This guy is a strange dude man. Such a talent though. It’s very hard to understand his mindset. I’m worried he is obsessed with many things.” They have no clue. It’s the fact they have no clue that’s a primary symptom of autism. It just flies right past their fucking head.‘

My friend replied, ‘Yes. It is glaring. They cannot diagnose at all. They are clueless about the landscape of people, absolutely clueless. They see loopy-land classifications.‘ I replied, ‘Yes; one of the people claiming he had Asperger’s also said we can’t diagnose through a screen, so I instantly had to revert my assessment of them to idiot.’

My friend replied, ‘But you can. I can diagnose from the tiniest detail, because I’ve been proven to be right time and time again. It’s never not followed on in majestic form.‘ I replied, ‘Exactly. It’s blatantly, blatantly fucking obvious.‘

I continued, ‘You know what? It’s funny, because it’s literally how [the hospital] diagnosed my autism. They diagnosed it through a screen. [One of them] recorded an interview with me, and then [they] watched it back, looking for cues for autism. It’s literally the gold-standard procedure for autism diagnosis: the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R).

“How do you not know if you play ping pong or not? It’s a pretty straightforward question…” “I think he might be a bit insane”. “It’s very weird Bill didn’t want to talk about food preferences, even when it came to drinks. It’s almost like it’s a touchy subject for him. Why do you think that is?” Woosh, over their heads. It completely flies past.

“He was so… weird. Not talking about food, inspirations, etc. was super strange, but also funny and charming in a confusing way. I don’t know what to think of this one. I don’t like it, but I do.” “Totally didnt rock my boat. I like Wurtz’s videos but i find him too “unique” to listen to.”

This is all important stuff, because it just speaks to how we’d be perceived in the wider world. We’re destined to be ostracised, basically. There’s nothing much we can do about it. It’s like the dalits of the Indian caste system.’

My friend replied, ‘I would also say “I don’t know” to similar questions.’ I replied, ‘Yes. You can’t answer some questions in a single word. You just have to see how he reacted to those philosophical questions, complete passing them off.’

My friend replied, ‘I can’t answer “How are you?” questions and “What did you do?” I say, “I don’t know.” I can’t engage in fluffy questions and answers, ones that are for the purpose of social niceties or for emotion. I can’t answer them. I can only answer seriously, with a full answer, a full account.

It’s funny, because he gains higher respect than h3 does for me, so all other podcasts would be worse. The presence of him would have made it better, if anything, but it’s nothing I’d ever watch.

They don’t see the factual world. They just think everyone is an individual or a person. They don’t see the biological or evolutionary facts. The only see an emotional or traditional layer.

They only see the social layer, and in the social world, in order to survive, it comes across as if everyone is an individual, so that’s where they’re going wrong. If you remove the social layer and become aware of the description of autism, then you can diagnose. They are yet to make those 2 stepping stones, never will.

They just have this blind emotional faith in people that they’re all individual and that there’s nothing wrong with them, or that they can’t be categorised, or it’s cruel to be categorised medically. They lose sight of facts. They don’t even think about medical classifications, because the social and lower-layer fluff categorisation are the only ones they see.’

I continued, ‘”i dont know how this guy acts normally, but i was so sure he was tripping. saying ‘food is weird’ is a really tripping thing to think. ive had the exact same thought on LSD while looking at a table of food in front of me, and trying to eat something while tripping. he couldnt answer simple questions and just ‘didnt know’ alot of the time.” Hahahaha, oh my god, the fact that’s the first, only thing they can attribute it to.’

“This is just what we needed… an extremely awkward guest who, by comparison, makes Ethan look like a decent interviewer.” Redditors are cancer. “Who the fuck doesn’t like to talk about food? It’s pretty universal. I don’t know who Bill Wurtz is and thanks to is [sic] lack of ability to be interviewed I still don’t know who Bill Wurtz is. E&H we’re slammin though.”

“I would be entertained by Ethan interviewing a tree, so I’m not complaining. And I think a tree would have given better answers than bill did” “‘I don’t like to talk about food.‘ Okay man just say you like burgers or whatever, it’s so much weirder that he seized up about it”. Idiots. “Definitely a unique kinda dude… when he said he doesn’t like to talk about food though?? I did not understand that…”

Only a large minority was in support of him, quite unnerving stuff, and they are all calling him “unique”, when he’s just like many other autists out there, including me, and I would be the same when to comes to food. It’s not unique at all; you just don’t know shit.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘The “You always want to be right” lark: every time I questioned my parents on why they’d think that, they couldn’t give an answer. Also, why would one not want to be right?’ My friend replied, ‘It’s an endless cycle, endless.’ I replied, ‘Nothing about them makes any sense at all.‘

I continued in a voice message, ‘Yes, but I could clearly imagine their idea of a snobbish kind of pretentious person who likes the idea of being right and parades it around, and I can imagine that that’s immediately what they think of whenever you say that, even though you’re just saying the external facts of the matter.

I just know that that’s exactly what they’re going to think of all the time. They’re always going to think, “Oh, he always wants to be right.” They can’t imagine someone just actually being right, saying it and actually being right that they’re right.

And just the problem with that is, why would you not want to be right? Like, I’m sure if anyone… Everyone in the world would want to have the right view of a factual matter. They’d want to know the truth. They’d want to be right. At least, you know, that’s what I’d think.

You’d want to have a right view about the causes of natural phenomena, the causes of scientific phenomena, the causes of human phenomena. You’d want to be right about that. You’d want to know the truth, but apparently, knowing the truth is a crime now. Apparently, knowing the truth is something to stigmatise. It’s ridiculous.

But like, I don’t understand why that’s an insult. I don’t understand why that’s a bad thing. “You always want to be right”; that’s the aim, is it not? That’s the aim of all scientists across the world. That’s the aim of anyone when they’re trying to work out a solution for a problem.

How on earth have they come to the point of using that as an insult? And then I ask them why I would just “want” to be right, for the sake of it, and then they can’t answer, because when I tell them that, it reveals to them that I don’t have an ulterior motive for being right. I just want to know the truth. That is the essence of being right. Why would there be any other essence to it?

But obviously, they are seeing another essence. They are seeing the pretentious, social-impression essence. That is what they are seeing, because they can’t think any other way.’

I later stated, ‘Dr. Phil using the “because you want to be right” line. It’s parodical, slapstick. It looks like a pantomime [in how repetitive it is].’

At age 20, I stated:

‘It wasn’t going to be that humans have a ridiculously higher intelligence than other apes, since we already established that what defined humans came about quickly and as a minimal physical change. Not much actually changed, and that video proves that other apes are of a similar level of actual intelligence.

What has changed is where the intelligence is directed. Something, some mutation, caused early humans to direct their intelligence outwards to other humans and, indeed, other animals (pets and domestication).

And what I said about autists not needing to rely on the opinions of others: it’s exactly what I mean. Autists have an element of reversal back to that stage.

So what happened is, the individual human actually lost intelligence, but the human social network gains intelligence, so when I speak about these people as bacteria or nodes in a mesh and us as individuals, it really is true.

It’s the actual science of it, the hard, established, repeatable science of it, the entirety of the literature, the pointing, the ape memory skill, the parrots, the brain size, the empathising–systemising spectrum. It all correlates; it all supports what we’re saying.

They, as individual people, are actually pretty worthless, pretty useless. All that mattered was a mutation that compelled the building of social structures, not a vocal-cord change, not the cerebral intelligence change; this is the only change that mattered and caused humans as we know them.

It’s something that has the potential to happen [via other mechanisms] in any species, hence termites, etc. It’s basically another level of multicellularity, so it can happen to anything, really.

All it is is a redirection of intelligence and resources where instead of the individual trying to benefit itself, there’s this overwhelming compulsion to divert that to the group through whatever means are easiest, i.e. vocalisations, body language.’

I later stated at age 21, ‘Actually, yes, another fake social-mindset creation: the presumption that animals with a basal social mindset are more intelligent; the assumption that humans are more intelligent; the assumption that the social mindset equates to intelligence, when it doesn’t, and here’s why it doesn’t.

The brain is essentially the same level of intelligence with or without the social mindset, so essentially, any animal with a larger brain than ours could be seen to have greater intelligence.

It’s not in the brain; it’s in the society. That’s where the so-called “intelligence” arises. It’s in the transfer of information. The brain’s intelligence is the same, except now, it has a social mindset and wants to transfer it to a conspecific.

So when that process continues over millennia, you eventually get science, so the society, if you like, is intelligent, but the person is not. The person is almost less intelligent, because of that self-detrimental behaviour the social mindset imposes. The person is lesser. The person is less without the greater society, but with the greater society, they function.

Obviously, the reason they consider it intelligence is because they can’t see it, can’t subjectively be aware of it. Basically, certain animals [with a brain size similar to ours] could learn a lot of what we know, meanings of words, etc., but they won’t go about using it with others, so you’ll rarely, if ever, see that intelligence shown back. You won’t see the proof, and that’s why they mistake it as lower intelligence.

[The animals] can hardly use it in their own life, because it’s hardly applicable with any of the knowledge humans know now, but regardless, they have no inherent impetus to tell it to you back.

I mentioned it because I saw it in a video of dolphin mirror self-recognition. They were throwing out the wildest and most outlandish claims and terms, aside from the intelligence ones, that it was long thought that animals “don’t think” and only humans “think”. Just what? Absurd, but those are the delusions the social mindset creates.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘”Jim was optimistic. He thought he could beat the cancer.” “The usual outcome is poor, because only 10–20% of hepatocellular carcinomas can be removed completely using surgery. If the cancer cannot be completely removed, the disease is usually deadly within 3 to 6 months.”^[8] Couldn’t just do a basic google.‘

My friend replied in a voice message, ‘You know what? I’m sick of hearing about that “beat the cancer” stuff. Haha, what are they talking about?

It’s like the human emotional mind has got to all proportions. It’s like it’s mutated out of control to ridiculous dimensions, the fact that they think that with a human emotion they can overcome biological facts. I replied, ‘Yes, exactly: “His battle with cancer”, “He lost his battle”, “He won his battle”.’

My friend replied in a voice message, ‘Yes. That’s what pisses me off, because they’re referring to an emotional battle, basically, which has done nothing to do anything to the cancer whatsoever, some emotional will, but that’s the battle they’re talking about.

In reality, it’s the battle of doctors using radiotherapy or whatever other cancer-reducing treatments.’ I replied, ‘Exactly. There’s no battle. There’s just surgery or chemotherapy or radiotherapy.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘It’s not monkey see, monkey do; it’s actually human see, human do.’

My friend later stated at age 21, ‘Human see, human do. It’s way more extreme in humans. I can’t think of any notable situation with a monkey.’ I replied, ‘Yes.’

I later stated, ‘I’m starting to get sick of “Monkey see, monkey do”, just like that girl claiming that it was “a part of her monkey brain” making her think she needed to put jewellery on to impress men.

It’s the dart-into-the-ground analogy again, the repelling-magnet analogy. They absolute cannot, for the life of them, attribute it to what it is, to its cause, because the cause doesn’t exist for them.

They’re trapped in the cause. They are the cause. To them, the cause is normal; the cause is “individuality”, but from the outside perspective, they look like lunatics. They’re the ones with the ridiculous social trends, not the monkeys. It’s human see, human do.

The Olduvai mutation is a human-predominant mutation; von Economo neurons are a human-predominant form of neuron; the social mindset is a human-predominant phenomenon. How in the fuck have they got from that to saying “Monkey see, monkey do”?

It’s almost like they think they’re disparaging themselves, like it’s a self-deprecating remark, but they deprecate themselves by referring to something that is acting more like an individual, meanwhile it is they who are acting more like a cell or empty husk, an empty vacuum, mirroring.

I would disparage myself by referring to myself as one of them. That’s what I’d use as the most extreme offence, the most offensive remark.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘I can only think of one time in the last 10 or so years that I was surprised by someone’s intelligence, off the top of my head, and they weren’t even intelligent; it was just a one-off example.

Every other time is a let-down, both the people I expect to be intelligent and the people I expect to be dumb; they both always end up dumber than my expectation, or as dumb.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘And now, I know even more about how memories are formed; it is very much like flash memory. The memory is the sequence of likely-to-transmit neurons and unlikely-to-transmit neurons, and they are all connected to multiple other neurons, so it forms some matrix.

Neurons become likely to transmit through either addition of more neurotransmitter receptors to the synapse or (de)phosphorylation of existing ones, adding or removing a protein marker. …

It’s long-term potentiation and long-term depression via phosphorylation or ubiquitination of receptors. Phosphorylation is addition of a phosphate group to make a protein more or less active; ubiquitination marks the protein for degradation in the proteasome. More or less receptors means greater or lesser likelihood to fire.

The reason changes in memories are even allowed to occur is through constant external input through the eyes, ears, etc., just like a regular computer. The memory won’t change unless something’s done to it.

It’s obvious why neurons can’t keep dividing. It would be like adding an extra 0 or 1 in the middle of your computer file. It would fuck things up.’

I later stated, ‘The brain doesn’t act; it reacts. As soon as you remember that, it suddenly stops being so confusing. Every single part of the brain and nervous system reacts. People always make it out like the brain creates thoughts out of thin air, with their notions of “decisions”.

Every part of the brain has a specific route and pathway arrangement of neurons that ultimately begins at the senses, whether the eyes or the enterochromaffin cells of the digestive system, and information gets stored and forms the basis of future reactions.’

I later stated, ‘In reality, it’s obviously just a bunch of logic gates funnelling that action out. That’s how they are arranged. It is very much like a computer: some parts are single, long buses, like white matter; others are multiple dendrites feeding into 1 axon, with the strength of the preceding neuronal transmissions determining the output strength, and so on down the line.’

I later stated, ‘It’s just a filter for brainstem signals. … The brain is literally just fatty cells filtering stuff out, a maze that the inputs take, a labyrinth. I see it for what it is. It’s not some magnificent machine; it’s very simple. It’s like sticking a marble run in the middle of the path of a marble.’

At age 20, my friend stated:

‘They can’t compute that a human doesn’t have a personal human veil of interpretation or perception and that the fact won’t be skewed by it and reached by the wrong means. They can’t compute objective fact.

The only advantage you have is scientific credibility. That’s the only way to get through to them, and obviously, because we know it is a real condition, it 100% will have scientific proof, so we’ve always had that advantage, the fact that everything about us is indeed objective.

But obviously, everyone else in existence has a subjective delusion, and therefore, everyone assumes that we do as well, but the advantage is we know that ours is actually the real deal, and therefore, we know it can be scientifically proven, because it’s real stuff.

So yes, it was a wise thing to realise that the only people you could get it through to would be scientists, but someone reading the site with the social mindset will simply not understand how it is even a condition or that it’s something that anyone could do.

Basically, anyone reading it who has the social mindset will simply not understand how it is a condition and will have seen people who don’t drink alcohol, etc. etc. They can’t read it and know you’re outside the social bubble, because they can’t see that dimension. They’ll just see you as a different position within the overarching social human bubble. You can never get it across.

I don’t know, though. It should be interesting to list absolutely everything they enjoy and have taken for granted in life and society, and everyone they know does it, and then claim that you absolutely hate and despise every one of those things. It should arouse attention from neuroscientists to know they haven’t seen that before.

They won’t come across someone who doesn’t lack the social mindset who has also said they hate all of those things. They’d have to lack the social mindset to say that, so it is objective fact that we are the only people who would have that specific selection.

The problem is them seeing the significance in that specific selection, them seeing a connection and not it being an arbitrary list that we just happen to have, and everyone has their own list because they’re individual blah blah blah.

So of course they haven’t seen that exact list before. I don’t think they’d be able to spot the significance of the things on that list. It’s not going to be a “Wow, someone doesn’t like that. How is that possible? Now, my interest is piqued.”

It’s not significant to them, because they can only see them in isolation. They’ve seen multiple people who haven’t drunk alcohol. They think you’re a human like everyone else, with the same emotions and the same abilities, but yes, the only way you can appeal to these people is when their brain is in the FPN [frontoparietal-network] mode [as opposed to the default mode network, where such brainstem-response-linked episodic memories are fetched].

It’s like somehow translating logic about humans to mathematical or programmatic logic and making them see it that way. You have to meet them on that fine borderline, that grey area, where it might be engaged in them, where it might be possible to sustain that engagement.

Neuroscience is the only subject that addresses humans in a technical way. Psychology, philosophy don’t. They aren’t technical. Computing is, but it’s not about the human brain. I’m able to get maximum agreement, relation, common sense and logic when speaking to people like [a person my friend knows with computing knowledge] about computer science.

Neuroscience is a grey area. It puts it to the test, because it’s actually about the human, and we know it all goes to shit when it’s about humans.

However, scientific facts and axioms are known that will support what you are saying, so it’s a funny clash. I think, honestly, that the social mindset will win. It will come out on top. It always does, I’m afraid.

I’ve got people with the social mindset to listen to and say that I have a condition that hardly anybody else does and that it’s on another level, but they can’t truly feel it themselves. It’s taken as if I’m any person saying it, because it’s just how they see and compute humans.

They think they’re like every other human in the same society dealing with the same things with the same emotions and the same challenges and the same ability to speak and feel emotions. I’ll just be a something human to them who has a something place in society.

I hear people all the time saying they’re on a different plane. It’s never going to truly click to them that we actually are, and they’re never going to truly appreciate what it is like. Their personal emotions and whole life’s work is based around the opposite of that concept. It will personally offend them, most likely.

It doesn’t matter how intelligent they are or how much scientific knowledge they have; it always breaks down when you’re saying you’re something different to what’s deemed to be basic functions, way of life and laws in society, which is all that they can see and what their life work has a meaning in context of.

The whole area has less established facts than something like computing. The social mindset has got in the way of research about the human brain.

The fact I have part of the social mindset allows me to know and feel all of this. I know how they work. I know what is ridiculous to say and what isn’t as far as they’re concerned, because I’ve felt it myself.

I’ve felt pressured to feel that from somewhere. I felt it in my childhood. I still feel it when I speak to psychologists or people in general. I feel how ridiculous or out-of-order I am. There’s something there that is also thinking all the same things just like they are.

[In regular people,] it comes to a point where that becomes the dominant player, and they don’t know. They aren’t able to know it exists or be aware of it. It is them, the schoolteacher in their head.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘If I had the social mindset, I’d be experiencing more joy, but I’d also be experiencing trauma and issues I never have to experience now, perhaps even death or harm in a way I never have to experience now.

And it just begs the question of what’s the point of simple enjoyment? So what? If that’s all happening, it is not significant; it means nothing. The greater picture is what matters, of how you want to live your life, how you want it to go, what dangers you want there to be, what ways you want to think, what you want to be able to produce, and having those abilities matters to me far more than simple, in-the-moment enjoyment.

Social-mindset people could say we are less happy, and they might be right; so what? I don’t see why or how it matters when we have what we have, which I wouldn’t trade for anything. It constitutes who I am, genetically and physiologically.

Well, it’s just the fact that there’s nothing they can do. They can’t make me enjoy anything they enjoy. They can’t make me enjoy outings. They can’t make me enjoy alcohol. They can’t make me enjoy social interaction with regular people, so it’s an absolutely null point.

I cannot frame my goals or ideals in terms of enjoyment. I can’t say the meaning of life is enjoyment or happiness. It’s just not realistic, just not how it works. It’s almost irrelevant. The reason I can’t frame it like others do is because detrimental things do not provide me enjoyment. Drinking, partying, socialising does not provide me enjoyment.

They have a choice of either being productive [innate survival mechanisms as triggers of reward] or experiencing enjoyment [episodic memories as triggers of reward]. For me, the latter isn’t there, because none of the typical things cause me enjoyment, so the only purpose left is to be productive.

To them, it just looks like our lives are a waste, but they don’t realise that it’s all a result of external factors acting against our very physiology, and because we can change neither of those things, it means nothing.

It implies there’s a troublesome factor that can be removed, but there isn’t. It implies we can change something about ourselves that would lead us to live like them, which is physically, biologically, genetically impossible.

Not only that, but they then fail to realise that it doesn’t make it a “waste” issue for us. We aren’t sad that our lives are being unjustifiably “wasted” and that things could be different anymore. We’ve accepted it as biological fact, of how it could only possibly be given the physical, material, real way that we are and that others are.

That’s what they don’t understand. The fact of our potential not being realised because no one else is like us is just a fact. It’s out of our hands; it’s just how it is. There’s nothing we can do to change that. We’re not sulking away thinking things could be different; we know they couldn’t be.

They can only envision being “sad” at this state of affairs, as if it could be changed. They don’t realise it’s absolutely pointless to be sad about it. It’s pointless to be sad about something you can’t change, and so we don’t feel it, don’t waste our energy on that. We just have a neutral emotion day in day out, take each day as it comes.

It’s not even just that; there’s only one other reason we could possibly be sad at this state of affairs, the first being thinking we could change it, and that is that it implies we wish we could associate with regular people, that we want to, and that is just the opposite of the truth. To regular autists, it isn’t, but to us, it is.’

At age 21, in response to a social media profile of a girl claiming herself to be ‘1 in 1 million’, my friend stated:

‘When I try to bring up the mathematical figures for how rare I am, it will be mistaken for that, because the only other time they’ve heard a phrase like that is based on social-mindset fluff.’

I replied, ‘It doesn’t bother me that much, and the reason is this …’ My friend replied, ‘Yes, because you don’t care about people with the social mindset knowing how rare you are, because they can’t, so might as well give up. Any knowing or not knowing would be fake.’

I replied, ‘That sums it up, but even when I do speak to people, I don’t say I’m “rare” or whatever to actually make them understand I’m rare. That’s not the making-them-understand part, because I know they’ll never think so just based on that.

It’s the setting-up part. It’s the part that gets proven right later on when I do demonstrate qualities about me. That’s how I speak to people. I don’t rant and emphasise this or that about me; I say it calmly and plainly in plain fact, and basically, it’s a massive “Told you so” moment.

The amount of times, the amount of times I’ve had to tell a person, “Well, I did tell you…”: astronomical, and that’s the struggle I’ve been outlining for the past few days, the never-getting-to-know struggle.

I constantly speak in a way that sets me up to be proven right about myself later on. I make sure to declare a certain thing in a certain way or in a certain context when the opportunity arises and when it won’t be taken badly.

When someone asks me about something I know they’ll dislike the response for, I tell a half-truth or coat it in a way that avoids pushing the limit but still speaks 100% truth, not to avoid hurting their feelings; it’s when I judge that the drama and response is not worth it. It’s entirely logistical to maintain peace.

However, I previously thought that when I’d say a statement about myself that would clearly be put on par with everyone else, like I’m “rare”, or I laugh at things other people find offensive, the gradual influx of demonstrations of that fact would slowly shock the person and make them realise I was right and, by extension, that I’m actually a person who speaks truth and sticks to my word, unlike others.

But what I’ve since discovered is that even if you directly demonstrate what you say about yourself, if it’s in conflict with the social mindset, it won’t be registered, ever. They will not take in the fact you’ve just proven yourself right about yourself, stuck to your word, and that other people failed to, and that’s what’s led me to abandon all initiations.

You’re sort of right; truth doesn’t exist to them when it’s about the social mindset.’ My friend replied, ‘It doesn’t sink in.‘

I continued, ‘This is what I’d do: if a person (who I’d expect to have the social mindset) proclaimed to have dark humour or be 1 in a million, I’d not believe them, obviously, but if they then actually demonstrated that truthfully, with no social-mindset bullshit, I would actually be blown away and realise they were a person who actually stuck to their word.

But that doesn’t happen for other people when it comes to us, because they all have the social mindset.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘There’s a logical reason why I don’t wear fashion despite it potentially gaining me greater acceptance in the social world. It’s all dictated by my reward centres. I don’t get a reward from the social world. I don’t get a reward from social appraise or social value or social money, social success. It means nothing to me, because of the very people it’s coming from.

It means this: it means that I fundamentally wouldn’t care if I were left to rot and die as a result of it. That is the path I’ve been put on. Who cares about changing it? Seriously, who cares? Other people seem to. I only care as much as it matters to me, and when the hurdle is just too much, it becomes illogical to care.

It’s illogical to care about doing something that is that against who you are just to achieve “survival”, to have to pull it off for that long, years and years, your entire life basically; it would have to become your entire life, and I haven’t got my entire life to pretend being someone I’m not and missing out on all of the unique qualities and potential that make me me.

I’m going to rot and die anyway. What is the point spending it all being someone else when I’ve been given this ability and this perspective? I have to pursue it. There’s no other option, otherwise it’s pointless being me, pointless existing. It is my brain. It is who I am. I’m not the regular brain, the social-mindset brain, and that is a fact of physiology.

It’s the equivalent of being given a cannon and a water pistol and only using the water pistol. That’s what living the social-mindset life would be like for me, the difference between fitting a circular object in a circular hole and a circular object in a triangular hole, pushing with all your might, forever and ever.’

At age 20, my friend stated, ‘I don’t have an opinion on Brexit. … The reason why it doesn’t affect me is because nothing could affect me more than living in a world of 7 billion people with the social mindset. The damage has been done. These are just meaningless aftereffects.’

At age 20, my friend stated:

‘There’s a big issue with anti-bullying campaigns, and that’s because it comes down to shouting at an MRI scan again. You just need to shut up and accept that it exists.‘ I replied, ‘Yes. That’s exactly it. Good analogy.’

My friend replied, ‘The reason that the campaigns exist is obvious; it’s because of the fundamental axiom of the social mindset, the belief that all humans are “individual”, a somewhat overwhelming seeming reality, one where you almost feel ridiculous claiming otherwise, and that all humans have the same ability to change.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘I look at these people [with conditions nominally similar to ours] and wonder how the fuck I made it, honestly, how the fuck I made it out of that craziness, because I’m in that realm. We both are. We both are the result of similar mutations.

I wonder how I avoided the anime realm, the obesity realm, how I made it out of the social mindset in general. I made it out of virtually everything. Oh yes, and suicidality, you could include.

What we proved with the whole children-dying thing is that if I am even asking the question of whether I’d feel something again, chances are I wouldn’t, and we know that’s proven itself with romantic love most notoriously, but also I was able to prove it through studies of the animal kingdom with regards to child love and, by extension, parent love, but I was more sure on that anyway.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘It always looks like people go off the rails when they enter adulthood. I see it being like entropy, like the chain reaction going out of hand, the influences coming on exponentially, and it’s very sudden.

All the makeup, dye, piercings, tattoos, fashion, alcohol comes on all at once, and suddenly, you end up looking at what looks like a person who’s fallen through a fancy-dress cabinet, pantomime.

Just completely out of hand and a sudden unleashing where they can’t help themselves, and you’re suddenly no longer looking at a person, just a mess, a doll or dummy that’s been thrown into the makeup cabinet, thrown into who knows what, thrown down a dingy alley, picking up scraps of dirt and markings and alcohol and piss off the floor.’

At age 20, my friend stated:

‘The social mindset is not just the expectation that that’s how it works for others. It’s 2 things, basically: something causes them to be convicted about something but based on nothing and have such a flimsy definition of “must”, and then the second part is that that’s then imputed onto others. That’s how they approach another person’s conviction, but they can’t see that.

It’s like the social mindset is these fundamental axioms that are locked away that they can’t think about or reach, and they’re acting without them knowing, but that paradigm parallels basically all the behaviours they perform. They have a flimsy definition of friendship, where one minute they say how much they love or respect or have their friend’s back, but if the friend breaks the law, they disown the friend.

They don’t have a consistent form. It’s a liquid. They can’t get at [these things]. They don’t know they exist, because it’s this special class of things; it’s a unit of select things that they can’t identify and assume that’s how all humans are, but that level of metacognition, they cannot get at, cannot identify, because they are within it.

You can’t get it through to them either, even if you draw their attention to it as succinctly as possible. An anger emotion will take over, because you’re denigrating human existence and human consciousness, which is like what I said about God.

The social mindset does not permit or entitle another human to know those details about another human or to minimalise or know the details about the human consciousness. The human experience is so vivid that humans become all important, and the universe has to be created for humans and geared towards humans.

It’s overestimation of human capability and importance, and you see it all the time, like [a YouTuber] saying that they have something to offer or value to bring to the world. It’s this extreme empathy for human rights and overestimation of human capabilities.

Perhaps evolution is too mundane for that human importance, to think they evolved from [lesser apes] and that it wasn’t an equally divine and spectacular process as the human experience feels.

But yes, there’s a lack of seeing humans on a meta-level in a diagnostic way. They can’t see them as a separate or neutral species that they aren’t emotionally invested in, like presumably God would.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘It annoys me how certain philosophers or psychologists are respected or famous for saying nothing much of anything at all. Their words are held as the answers to the questions of human existence when they’re really saying nothing at all, not getting to any crux or point.’

My friend replied, ‘Exactly.’ I replied, ‘Yes. It’s just rambling, and it starts to become like inspirational quotes.’ My friend continued, ‘They’ve done nothing compared to you, but it’s not like they had the technology and resources available.’

I replied, ‘I wouldn’t be saying that if I thought they’d said something of worth or had something to offer with regards to what I’m studying, but instead, what I’m seeing is absolute failures in understanding and completely missing the point yet it being held as a possible answer and the philosopher/psychologist being held in high esteem and known throughout Western society.’

My friend replied, ‘Well, all philosophers and psychologists I hear are stupid buzzwords: “Kant“, “Freud“. They’ve done fuck all, basically.’ I replied, ‘Yes; it was Kant that triggered that.’ My friend replied, ‘It means nothing to me.’ I replied, ‘Nietzsche is often quoted too.’ My friend replied, ‘They’re all celebrated for talking fluff, whereas you’re getting to the root, and you aren’t known.’

I replied, ‘”God is dead“; how is that a quote? “I think therefore I am” – René Descartes; again, how is that a fucking quote? Why are these people renowned?’ My friend replied, ‘It sounds like fluff. They sound like cavemen.’ I replied, ‘Well, it’s the height of the social mindset, some of the things they say.’

My friend replied, ‘Well, no wonder they’re lauded by people with the social mindset. They’re promoting a social-mindset fantasy substitution for what they don’t understand.’ I replied, ‘Yes, like inspirational quotes, like I said.’ My friend replied, ‘Like religion.’ I replied, ‘Also, idolisation.’

At age 19, my friend stated in a voice message:

‘Subconsciously, it’s because of what they’ve learnt socially. It’s because of their neurology, but what is conscious in their mind, what it’s actually for, is something completely different, and it’s so dystopian. It’s all sorts of ridiculous. …’

I replied in a voice message, ‘It’s funny how you say it’s subconscious, and what is subconscious? It’s what they aren’t aware of, what isn’t aware. It’s subconscious in them because they have lesser awareness, so it puts it past that threshold where it becomes subconscious.

So just because something’s subconscious, just because these people are doing things for reasons that they can’t verbalise or aren’t aware of and can’t cognise, doesn’t mean [what you said is] not the reason; just means it’s stuck in their subconscious. They can’t verbalise it. They can’t say that’s why they’ve done it.

Doesn’t mean it isn’t the reason they’ve done it. The reason doesn’t change, really, so it’s funny that. You just pointed out something that directly complies with everything we know and all the research about psychiatry, and it proves basically everything I’ve ever said about these people who do these things for social reasons, even if they’re not aware of it. Just because they aren’t aware of it, doesn’t mean that’s not the reason.

Hahaha, it’s funny. Trying to argue with these people, telling them that they do these things for social reasons and them firmly denying it, is like arguing with a schizophrenic. It’s like trying to dispel their delusions, and obviously, they’re not going to relent. They’re firm in their conviction towards their delusions.

So that’s exactly how it is, a perfect correlation, because we are coming from the higher-IQ position talking down to an average-IQ position who can’t see the greater awareness, and regular people, when they speak to people who are schizophrenic, are talking from their average-IQ level down to a lower IQ, technically, or, at least, a lower awareness level, so it’s the same thing, really.’

I later stated, ‘I’ve noticed it’s this very specific dichotomy of reactions. People’s reactions to those saying something more stupid than them usually has an element of pity, whereas their reactions to those saying something more intelligent that counteracts their own beliefs is always vile resentment. It’s always some kind of offence.

So for us, we get seen as rude and highly opinionated by everyone. Schizophrenics would probably take offence to what normal people have to say, while normal people see them as pitiful crazies. Meanwhile, normal people take offence to what we have to say, while we see them as pitiful crazies.’

At age 20, my friend stated in a voice message:

‘They’re just delusional, because they are living a lie, basically. The reason why nothing makes sense in their lives, the reason why anything goes, the root of it all is because they [have the social mindset]. It’s just this big fantasy, confused mess. Their lives are just so confused, it’s ridiculous.

Everyone’s part of it. Everyone’s just tumbling around in this confused reality where anything goes, and classifications are just… It’s just a completely confused landscape, “Oh, she’s emo”, all these stupid classifications that they think anyone can be at any time, that anyone can adopt the emo style, all these random classifications, all this arbitrary respect they have for people. They’re just totally stuck.

I can’t express enough how all of this would go away if everyone just suddenly woke up and saw exactly what we saw. It would all go away, everything: all the controversies, all the issues, all the arguments and debates going on, all of these laws, all psychologists, the mental health system, fashion, makeup, everything. It would all be gone.

It’s just a load of scum. It’s just a load of baggage that shouldn’t exist. It shouldn’t be there. It’s just crap. It’s all fluff, and it needs to go away. All of that would be gone, all of those issues, all of the psychological problems; they’d all be gone.

They’re going to be trapped on the lower layer forever, and the reason why they have depression, anxiety, all these emotions, is because it’s on the lower layer. It’s not based on logic. They’re not anxious due to a conscious, logical thing that’s proven with evidence that is most likely to occur. They’re not depressed because they’ve identified that everyone is the same and totally unrelatable.

Their lower-layer reason for being anxious is nothing. It means that there’s something out of their control that’s wrong with their brain. There’s something wrong subconsciously with their emotional system that’s out of their control, because the depression is not conscious, not based on a logic.

And that’s what psychologists obviously fail to see, the difference between our anxiety and their anxiety, and that’s why these people can go to a festival and not be anxious and start screaming, because the anxiety is not based on a logical, conscious thing; it’s something that periodically comes, on-and-off, regardless of any logic.

And of course, all of that anxiety and depression would go away if they were like us. All the problems they’re facing, all the issues they’re facing, all the problem friendships they’ve got, all of the identity crises they have: they’d all just go away.

If they saw what we saw, they’d just wake up, and it would all be gone. They would just shed, cast off all that scum, just cast it all off, like a massive, big burden, just all this fluff.

I can’t even explain how I see it, how I visualise it, but it’s like it’s something that’s come out of nothing. They’ve made it into this massive, big, complex network of fluff, and it’s just come out of nowhere. It’s come out of nothing. It’s like someone creating something out of nothing. It’s like transforming 0 = 0 into a great, big, massive sum, where it’s equal on both sides. They’ve just created something out of nothing, and all of that rubbish could just be cast off.

But no, they’re all trapped, and they haven’t got a clue what their life is. They don’t even know who they are or why. They don’t know anything. They’re just mindlessly bumbling along in the human fantasy, taking everything for granted, not knowing anything. Everything’s based on emotion. They’re just stuck in the paradigm: school, relationships, job, marriage, kids. It’s just the same old paradigm that they fall into. Everyone is just a caricature; everyone’s just a clone.

They’re just totally trapped, and all these problems they have, all these issues they have where they complain about, “Oh, my best friend’s doing this or that; she’s texting my boyfriend'”, all of these issues they have, all of these “friend circles”, all of that baggage that they have with just complete idiots dragging them down, the peer pressure involved: it’s just a mess.

They haven’t got a clue. No wonder these people are depressed, really. No wonder, because they don’t have an identity. They’re just a confused mess. There is no logic; they can’t identify reality or logic, so it’s no wonder.

It’s just such a mess. The social mindset: it’s just a scary place, you know. Anything goes. It’s all based on fluff and emotion. Anything goes. There’s no logic involved: something’s better than something else, something’s worse, something’s bad, something’s disgusting, something’s good, just based on fluff.

And now I can see why people can answer “How was your day?”, “How was your weekend?” questions. I can see how people can answer that. The mentor asked me that today, “How was your weekend?”; just didn’t respond at all. Just went silent, and then she asked me something else.

Of course those people will be able to answer that question, because they’re just so basic. They’re so simple. Something’s good; something’s bad; something’s disgusting. They’ve got a very superficial set of adjectives and emotions, and they have no justification for why. It just is. They just feel that. That’s just how it feels. That’s the vibe they get, no justification at all and no conscious reason why.

But it’s the social mindset. It’s a scary place, it really is. These people are just so lost, so confused. I can’t even put it into words.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘So when they say the DMN [default mode network] is used for autobiographical memories, it’s just that [the regulation of our behaviour by] our own memories of ourselves and our lives is not funnelled out and replaced by what comes in from the senses via the [link to the brainstem], and it’s constant, day-in, day-out.

All it had to be was a connection to an intermediary before the frontal lobe that bypassed the existing connections to it, the ones that you and I use to get information into movement. That part of the DMN is all intact. The funnel link is just not there, that’s chugging the [sources of reward/aversion] out constantly and replacing them.

So basically, all that had to happen was a second link had to be made, so the circuit became a loop instead of a line. One side of the loop serves the individual; the other side serves the society.

So it’s funny, but people are permanently half-no-social-mindset and half-social-mindset, in a constant battle with each other, and we’ve seen that paradigm play out thousands of times, but now there’s anatomical evidence lol.’

At age 20, my friend stated:

‘”He developed depression because of the pressure of being an elite athlete”; silly sentence. “He developed depression because he had a brain structure predisposed to getting depressed” is better, one commonly seen among types that do sport.’

I replied, ‘It wrongly implies anyone in that position would develop depression, like how it’s wrongly implied that anyone growing up with abuse would develop BPD [borderline personality disorder] or PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder], when it’s in fact a minority.^[9][10]‘

My friend replied, ‘Exactly, whereas if we were in that position, we would just stop doing the sport, wouldn’t even be doing it in the first place.

The thing is, they can’t see past the illusion. They can’t see past the impression of the human consciousness and how it reacts to environmental stimuli.

It takes over, such that they just wouldn’t be able to imagine the fact of them not being aware of [the environmental stimuli] having full control over it and the consciousness being discretely determined, because it appears to them like they [have the control].

They talk about a higher power, but the higher power is actually their brain, which is determining everything unbeknownst to them, and the wider phenomenon.’

At age 21, I stated, ‘It’s always funny when I see studies generalise the human social mindset as “empathy” or “theory of mind” when it’s best characterised by so much more than that, but it offers a sufficient proxy for my research purposes.’

At age 21, I quoted a study stating:

‘As early as 1962, psychologists described children with “autistic psychopathy” as being “unable to achieve empathy.” An empathy deficit has since become a core feature in many conceptualizations of autism, including the theory of mind (or mind–blindness) model and the empathizing-systematizing model. …

Even this position, however, has been widely criticized by autistic individuals in online forums. Autistic adults often argue that the notion that autistic individuals lack empathy or theory of mind is dehumanizing and perpetuates dangerous stereotypes and oversimplifications.‘^[11]

I remarked, ‘Lol, the authors there know [about how regular autists claim empathy].’

My friend replied, ‘I don’t know why I keep hearing this “theory of mind” term, but it’s pissing me off. Never heard it before until I started this research, so last week.’

I replied, ‘Yes. I heard it when I looked up Asperger’s in 2012 to get my diagnosis, but it is a silly name.’ My friend continued, ‘I still don’t know how the name relates to what it is.’

I replied, ‘The social-mindset world is like an alternative universe. They’re using that term like it’s what the social mindset would be called in an alternative universe, basically beating around the bush as much as possible, but it doesn’t extend to every feature we know about the social mindset, obviously. Whatever it is, it’s very myopic.’

At age 21, I quoted the Wikipedia article for theory of mind, which stated:

‘Theory of mind is a theory insofar as the output (thoughts, feelings, etc.) of the mind is the only thing being directly observed so the existence of a mind is inferred. The presumption that others have a mind is termed a theory of mind because each human can only intuit the existence of their own mind through introspection, and no one has direct access to the mind of another so its existence and how it works can only be inferred from observations of others.’^[12]

I remarked, ‘Right, so that’s why it’s given that name. Stupid though. It implies effortful or voluntary problem-solving, which is just not how it happens. It requires 0 effort, basically. It happens automatically.‘

My friend replied, ‘Yes. I never understood the term. The word “theory” threw me off, and the lack of article, and “mind”. It’s unsuitable; the whole term is unsuitable. It’s not a theory.

Theory made me think it was the theory of the whole thing created from a neuroscientific point of view [which is, ironically, what we have done]. Theory here suggests hard thought.’

I later stated, ‘I need to address “mind”; it’s a fake social-mindset creation. In fact, I did address it where I mentioned the creation of the mind and body problem, but only in passing.

Basically, it doesn’t refer to anything except the same old stuff that the science has established, i.e. the brainstem response. It’s just a nothing term, basically. All that matters is the brainstem response and the episodic memories in the medial prefrontal cortex; that’s it.

So “theory of mind” is a bad term for that reason. In essence, they go on about an ability to infer the existence of a mind in another, i.e. the ability to attribute thoughts/feelings/etc. to another.

It’s not only extremely vague but doesn’t pinpoint the exact thing that is being inferred in the other. The thing that’s being inferred in another is the emotional brainstem response linked to the episodic memory that their behaviours/appearance resemble. It’s that and nothing more than that.

Not only is it being inferred, it’s triggering the response in the self, causing a desire to manipulate the other person in a way that would correlate with the emotion in the self, such as aid if the person looks unhappy.

But yes, it is the reason people assume wrong thoughts about us. It’s because we superficially resemble episodic memories of those thoughts that are linked to certain brainstem responses in themselves, episodic memories that also resemble those of others they have witnessed throughout their lifetime.

So because we resemble that, we’re assumed to think like that automatically, involuntarily. Again, it’s not worked out. It happens automatically, and they have no control over it. You can’t rationalise it happening. It just happens.

It’s hijacked the expectations centre of the brain, the predictions centre of the brain. The brainstem has hijacked it. They’re not inferring an “existence” of a “mind”. It’s just wrong on so many levels.

First of all, the existence part is irrelevant. Even if we don’t feel or use our brainstem response to characterise someone, they still have a brainstem. Their brainstem still fires. We’re aware of that part. We’re aware that if we sliced open their cervical region, we would be greeted with a brainstem, so it’s not that.

Of course, it corrupts their reasoning system such that such ridiculous, fluffy concepts get created in the first place, so it’s difficult to reason with these people, difficult to reason them out of these concepts and show exactly what takes place and what they are and how they come about. It’s difficult to dispel that they don’t actually exist.

“Inferring a mind” is just a nothing. The brain is still there in the other person. The brainstem is still there in the other person. Nothing’s different, at least in terms of what’s inferred to exist.

Existence is irrelevant here. That’s not what’s being inferred, not an existence. It’s the firing of a specific brainstem response that one feels internally. That firing is what is being inferred.

Yes, they have a brainstem, and it may be firing a certain way, but rather than observing that externally, like you would on fMRI, it’s being applied a blanket prediction from within the self based on linked episodic memories, based on ones own brainstem responses.

They happen to resemble an episodic memory that took place when one’s own brainstem fired a certain way, and that brainstem response is what they’re being considered to have, not a “mind”, not a brainstem, nothing in actual reality, nothing that actually exactly meets the response that is actually taking place in that person – one’s own brainstem response. That’s what’s being inferred. One’s own brainstem response at a certain time in the past is being inferred to be taking place in the other person.

So get with the picture, basically.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘“God particle” is such a stupid name. Wish they’d keep god out of it.’ My friend replied, ‘Gross.’

I continued, ‘For some reason, all the things I study don’t have hype in the general consciousness. Einstein’s theories have hype; physics and quantum mechanics has hype; coding has hype in the minds of general people. They’re seen as the classic subjects of the intelligent. Neuroscience isn’t; history isn’t.

I think it’s because humans are involved lol. It becomes taboo, because I’m studying the actions of humans in history and then the brains of humans. It’s only acceptable when you’re studying an inanimate computer or the physical world outside humans. Hardly anyone knows the names of the discoverers of DNA, but everyone knows Einstein and Bill Gates.’ My friend replied, ‘Of course, but yes, I’ve said the same thing before.’

In response to an excerpt from a physics YouTube video, I remarked, ‘Exactly; infinity doesn’t exist. Can’t emphasise the amount of times I’ve heard the singularity described as “infinitely” this or “infinitely” that. It’s all bollocks.

No infinites can exist, because you can always say you can always go more, always go deeper, or you can have more stuff in it than there is, otherwise it wouldn’t be infinite.’

I then sent a screenshot of a YouTube video suggestion titled ‘Is God in Physics? Fine Tuning Scrutinized’ and stated, ‘Shut up, damn it.’ I then sent another screenshot of a YouTube video suggestion titled ‘Superconsciousness: Is the universe a conscious mind?’ and stated, ‘Oh my fucking goodness. What is he on about?’

My friend replied, ‘Schizophrenia.‘ I replied, ‘Yes, but I see it often, many physicists saying shit like that.’ My friend replied, ‘Well, actually, it’s just a hilarious, hilarious caricature emphasising your section on anthropomorphisation, the most wild forms that occur.’ I replied, ‘Exactly.’

I then sent a screenshot of a YouTube video suggestion titled, ‘Is Reality Real? The Simulation Argument‘, and stated, ‘More bollocks in the suggestions.’

I then sent a screenshot of a quote from Stephen Hawking stating, ‘a theory of everything… would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would truly know the mind of God.’

I remarked, ‘Look at this utter ridiculousness. That’s why he was studying physics and not humans, because he was uttering “mind of God“.’ My friend replied, ‘Sounds counter to physics, but yes, I know what you’re saying.’

I continued, ‘As someone with a lack of the social mindset, this is more important. There are many people with the social mindset studying physics. There aren’t people who can do what I can do here or are doing.

I’m purposely studying the cutting edge, because I see less point studying what is already well known, at least without the goal to reach the cutting edge. The goal is always to pioneer and create something new that hasn’t been done before. The motive to why I learn is to counter slights and frustrations I’ve been dealt with, all my life, experience-based.’

My friend replied, ‘I do, however, feel more pressure to be doing what I’m doing than neuroscience. If the concept of a job or university went away, then I’d be able to do neuroscience and history more, but physics, maths, computing is the line I need to follow, so there are 2 reasons why I’m pursuing that line.’

I replied, ‘So there’s a job motivation or family-pleasing motivation?’ My friend replied, ‘No; it’s because it’s what’s required of me right now from those people, so there will be less worry of not being able to get a job, but also, I will be able to prove my point more about my lifestyle and method of learning. Other than that, at the base, what I’m craving to know is equal among the fields.’

I replied, ‘As in, that it could get you a job? I have nothing to prove to anyone who says, “How’s that going to earn you money?”‘

I continued, ‘People keep regurgitating all these E=mc²s all over the place like they’re holy.’ I then sent a screenshot of a photo from the Wikipedia article for the mass–energy equivalence featuring the Taipei 101 skyscraper lit up with the E=mc² formula and stated, ‘See, this is retarded. You’d never see anything like this for neuroscience.’ My friend replied, ‘Hahaha. Imagine it saying dACC [dorsal anterior cingulate cortex].’

I replied, ‘The difference is, the common image of neuroscience is a brain, and the common image of genetics is DNA, and people know what those are. I guarantee 10x more people would not know what E=mc² is.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes, the culture of it all, hahaha.’ I continued, ‘They appropriate it without knowing what it is or what it means. It drives me nuts.’

I then sent a screenshot of another photo from the Wikipedia article for the mass–energy equivalence featuring the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) painted with the E=mc² formula and stated, ‘Really? I don’t know why Newtons are so celebrated. No one knows who Watson and Crick are.

Every time I see Einstein’s face, I get annoyed, getting reminded of that culture. I actually don’t care, that’s the thing. I don’t care who is responsible. I don’t care that it happens to be Blench studying African linguistics, Cavalier-Smith studying protists and Baron-Cohen studying autism.

It could’ve been anyone. I don’t worship them. I mention their name when their studies are relevant. I despise idolisation culture. Einstein was not a polymath, yet his name has entered vocabulary as a term to describe an intelligent person. Einstein studied physics.

Anyway, I seem to be making accurate predictions about the universe without the help of all these formulae or physics study, so I think I’m doing fine right now.

It doesn’t take a genius for the most part, that’s the thing. It does not take a genius to realise infinity can’t exist. It’s a stupid concept. I still hear them mention it like it’s a possibility, like it’s possible the universe is infinitely large or that there are infinite universes. Just no.

I see the social mindset creep into physics all the time. It’s a surprise they’ve got this far. I also saw some stuff about quantum wave function collapse upon measurement and the allowance of all these parallel universes; looked like the social mindset to me.

[“Quantum physics has proven to be an empirical success and to have wide-ranging applicability. However, on a more philosophical level, debates continue about the meaning of the measurement concept.”^[13]

“In quantum mechanics, the measurement problem considers how, or whether, wave function collapse occurs. The inability to observe such a collapse directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer.”^[14]

“Despite nearly a century of debate and experiment, no consensus has been reached among physicists and philosophers of physics concerning which interpretation best ‘represents’ reality.”^[15]]‘

My friend later stated, ‘Do you feel like you’re on the sort of form to crack it with the momentum you’ve got in the other areas? I sometimes get that, where I blast through something I didn’t understand before, just because I’m on a momentum spree.’

I replied, ‘It’s funny, because it’s my lack of the social mindset that’s made me steer away from that area of study despite it being what would allow me to understand it better than those who are studying it.

But it’s exactly why those artefacts show up in those who do study it, because the social mindset is responsible for both the artefacts and the choice of study, because it’s away from the social-mindset mechanism.’

At age 21, my friend stated:

‘I’m sick of being dragged into society, being made a part of it or treated by their laws and rules, their standards, being assumed I must be part of it, forcing me to be part of it and work for their values and morals.

How I feel about working is how they’d feel if they were forced to work for a paedophilia organisation, or an organisation that burns down the environment, or an organisation that commits mass killing.’

I replied, ‘Lol, well it’s more like how they’d feel if they were forcibly stripped of their social-mindset features, if not a job then their body modifications and cosmetics, their alcohol, their fashion styles.’

My friend continued, ‘All these things are going on in a species I’m not part of. It’s like suddenly putting me in the Kalahari Desert and telling me I need to hunt and survive and drink from the lake without crocodiles jumping out of the water.

It suddenly makes all those problems mine, like some ridiculous nightmare, when previously, they were just things that were happening in a species I was studying.’

I replied, ‘I don’t see it that way. I see the Kalahari scenario as what’s happening right now. I will die. There’s nothing I can really do about it. I’m not owed anything from people, any support.‘ My friend replied, ‘Well, they think you are owed it.’

I continued, ‘I’m totally aware that what I’m doing now could not be done without the mindless support of others, without them all having the social mindset, even the running water and electricity we have, but the point is, I don’t have the social mindset back in order to “earn” those things through society, so it’s just a thread that’s slowly running out.

I can clearly clearly see that path. I can’t really see any other way it will go anymore. The evidence all points to it, so it’s as if I’m already at that point.

I feel exactly that way, like I’m not owed anything, like I’m not owed food from family, electricity, emergency services, like I have no right for anything. I’m in that mindset. I’m not in the human mindset where I feel like I have “rights” and things people should just give me that I deserve just for being human.

I don’t have that mindset. I’m continuing my activities on a time limit. I’m continuing them because I’m betting on the resources still being available while I can finish what I’m doing, not because I expect them due to being human.

It’s a bet based on past experience and knowledge, but the time is coming where I will be expected to earn it all myself through society, and I won’t be able to.

I don’t treat my family in any way that would be expected to get resources from them, so it’s their social mindset that allows them to continue providing. I’m betting on that.

A lot of things I don’t do anymore are because society is full of people I want nothing to do with, making the act useless to me. Earning money is one of them; going out at all, even as “practice” for going out later, as my family puts it.

It’s not necessary, because I won’t have a need for it, because it’s not in my goals to have anything to do with almost all people and, of course, anyone outside the house.

It’s very hard to remove the human from the human economy. It’s all just a big bunch of bets. If other people did want to provide food for me, I would be betting on their want to do that.

It’s very hard not to be acknowledged as a person and forced into those interactions, to survive without doing that. You’d have to scavenge bins and that.

In essence, the site is a last ditch to attract those I do want something to do with. It’s the fact some people would want me dead for some of the views I hold. It changes the dynamic totally. It’s no longer just a case of not being able to interact due to lack of the social mindset; it’s having learnt threats that would not be there if the social mindset didn’t exist.

Instead of them not having those views and me just seeing them as conspecific lower primates, they have those views. Where the primate wouldn’t attack, they would attack, so it’s different. Literally my very existence would be treated poorly should it come to knowledge, and that’s a threat to my survival.

Leaving the house is a scary prospect now. I’ve basically felt what it’s like to be under house arrest for 7 months [1 year, as of December 2020]. It’s been ideal, though of course without the lack of Internet or online communication [of house arrest].

It all depends on the reason. I have absolutely no reason to [go out] now, and the only reason I can see coming up is some survival-based one, so it’s a scary prospect. When it does happen, I’m sure I’ll end up being fine, but it’s a whole load of unnecessity right now.

It’s like imagining being forced to redecorate your room when you don’t have to. It’s a daunting prospect, but if such an act were necessary, it would feel less so, as it was with building a new computer [when my previous one stopped working].

Actually, what is daunting about going out is the expectation to, the forcing by others when I know I don’t need to myself, the forcing by family. That is what’s daunting. I’d just want them to stop and go away.

It was incredibly anxiety-provoking when my dad brought that up as a talking point, when I’m going to next go out, as if there were some arbitrary reason to, to do so before it’s necessary. Hated that, as it means pointless downsides for me, when nothing’s changed.’

My friend replied, ‘I do wonder if your parents will pull a stunt to attempt to get you into the social-mindset world.’ I replied, ‘Yes. I’ve always said, it’s a miracle how much they leave me alone; seems unreal, seems not allowed.’

I continued, ‘I only occasionally get the overexcited mum comment when I walk past her: “Oh, how are you? You never talk to us”, but it’s rare and only when she’s in a good mood. Most of the time, it’s no interaction or a criticism when I walk past: no interaction, maybe 50%, criticism, 25% – no, more like 35%.’

My friend replied, ‘You’re just growing further and further away from it. When you go into it, it probably feels like a joke, a plastic, simulated world. The accrual of knowledge just means you’re going to be even more incompatible with it as time goes on.‘

I replied, ‘It already does. [My town] already did last time I went out in it. It was totally unrecognisable. Everything looked like some joke from a lost memory that had no relevance anymore. Looked like it was being forced back into me in an ugly way, an anachronistic way, just kept thinking I have no reason to be here or be reminded of this.

Exactly; it’s all in the rates [of knowledge and social-mindset associations], as the site details. The rates make that the inevitability. It will keep getting worse, and there’s no way out of it. The people I can relate to and the potential partners I can see will keep getting less, though it is technically a linear effect.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘Also, restricted and repetitive behaviour: that’s the normal in the animal world. It’s because it’s not constantly changing through appropriation through the social mindset. That needs addressing too. Autism shouldn’t even be a disorder, basically. It’s just the natural norm.‘

My friend replied, ‘It’s not even restrictive behaviour. That’s a subjective viewpoint. It’s they that have restrictive behaviour compared to us, but they’d think that I have restrictive behaviour.’ I replied, ‘Yes, good point. That’s what they call it.’

I continued, ‘Don’t you feel like, at every corner, they’re trying to make you go nuts? And gaslighting you into thinking that all of your non-social-mindset-related behaviours are symptoms that deviate from what should be, giving them names and descriptions like “restricted” and calling empathy an “ability” or the adoption of cultural features as an “expression of the self”?’

At age 21, I stated:

‘My whole room and productivity arrangement has arrived at what you’d get if you had no obligation to interact with anyone: absolutely nothing flashy whatsoever, like you see in tech YouTuber videos; no RGB LEDs; everything black or greyscale; limited “giving back” utilities, so no streamer gear, no crazy microphones or cameras.

My mum called me a wolf a few days ago; found that to be an accurate appellation. I described myself as a lone wolf Wikipedia editor.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘The fact she thinks [a photo of her neutral expression] looks sad. Sick of it. Literally, the default face of an animal cannot be anything but “sad” now. You have to be smiling all the time. Totally unnatural.’

My friend replied, ‘I get extremely pissed off when anyone recommends someone to smile or queries why they’re not smiling.’ I replied, ‘Yes.’

I later stated, ‘I have to make a note of how sick to death I am of girls saying I look “sad”, “bored” or “angry” in my photos. It’s been several girls I’ve been with, and at first, I was able to brush it off, but one just did it recently, and now I’m pissed.

I just can’t believe how the default face of an animal has been reduced to that, reduced to those outrageous descriptors, denigrated to that.

Smiling is an explicit act. The default is not to smile. People aren’t smiling 24/7. Since when did smiling become a default thing to do on a photo? It just looks outrageous, a permanently frozen smile, frozen in time forever.

It’s the fact they get it wrong. That’s what’s so nutty about it. It’s their empathy failing them again, getting it wrong what we’re actually thinking or feeling.

That’s the part I hate the most, the fact we’re not actually sad, bored or angry in the photo but the fact that actually needs to be stated, explicitly stated, to dispel the false delusion instead of just going unqualified and unmentioned, like the default that not smiling is.

The never-getting-to-know struggle, rearing its ugly head once again, since if they knew us, they wouldn’t ask.’

As a preface for the second half of the following block, at age 19, my friend stated:

‘I’ll tell you what I do in classes: I sit at a corner [of a table], and on the front row, and preferably the one closest to the door.’ I replied, ‘I always made a point of sitting nearest the edge and closest to the door, in any room. To think no one’s even considering that. They’d sit any old place, have no time at all to escape in an emergency.’

My friend replied, ‘Not only that, but I’d rather not have 2 people beside me [on either side], and I’d rather not have people in front of me. I’d rather have a free side.’ I replied, ‘Exactly. It was 3 factors of consideration for me: a) distance from the door, b) number of people next to me and c) number of people able to see me. I balanced them all out.’

I continued, ‘I didn’t like sitting in the front row of horizontally rowed tables, because everyone could see the back of my head, and I could see no one. I’d never, ever, ever, ever sit in the middle of a classroom, ever.’

My friend replied, ‘There was also a desire to sit on the back row. I prefer to be able to see everyone rather than not being able to see everyone.’ I replied, ‘Exactly. That’s it, not being seen and also being able to see others.’ My friend continued, ‘In a restaurant, I never sit facing a wall. I always sit facing the room, to observe and look out for a range of things.’

I replied, ‘The funny thing is, authoritative evidence backs up our procedures. That self-protection channel advises people to never sit facing away from people at a restaurant so you’re ready for potential threats, and flight-safety presentations always go on about sitting closest to the exit so you can escape fastest in an emergency, and we just happen to be employing these crucial points in everyday life by our very nature.

Remember stampedes? Remember that nightclub fire? No wonder the cameraman got out; he was at the back. It was everyone who got front-row positions who died. Yes, you were thinking the exact same as me in that regard.’

My friend replied, ‘I don’t like not being able to see things. I like having my back to the wall rather than to a room, but in general, I like to see what’s going on, so I can see danger before it occurs.’ I replied, ‘It’s just a total given. Who would not do that? Who in their right mind would be thinking otherwise or not considering these things?‘

My friend stated, ‘I’ve stood in a classroom before, because I didn’t want to sit in any of the available seats. I sat on a chair out in the open at university. I pulled a chair out with my leg. People were looking, because I wasn’t using my hands to touch the chair, so it looked awkward, and I placed it in the middle and sat down.’

I replied, ‘I’ve done things similar to that [including sitting on a chair away from tables].’ My friend stated, ‘I don’t really care anymore. I don’t have much anxiety on that part. I could just do that. If someone asks, I’ll say I’m disabled.’

I later stated at age 21, ‘I realise now that I basically see all other humans as an animal sees its own reflection – not just something unrelatable; it literally defaults to “a threat”. That’s just how it is in the animal world. The default position is not to trust.

We’re told to believe the default position is one of willingness to interact, “socialisation”, but it’s bullshit, unfortunately for them.’ My friend replied, ‘Yes. Their default position is trust.’ I continued, ‘You avoid, like a wolf does when it sees a human. You stay in the shadows and go about your business.‘

My friend then sent a YouTube video titled ‘What to expect if you encounter a wolf’,^[16] in which the wolf walks up to a human without noticing, notices the human and then immediately runs away.

My friend remarked, ‘Reminded me of that.’ I replied, ‘Hahaha. The funny thing is, I hadn’t even watched that prior, but it matched my prediction essentially exactly. I know how animals behave now, because I basically am one unlike humans, i.e. I can use myself as a reference, while other humans can’t.’

I continued, quoting my diagnostic report, ‘”[He] is thought to have become more withdrawn over the past few months and is reluctant to communicate with others, seeing nearly all other students as potential aggressors. …” And this is exactly the thing. Now, I know exactly why.

It’s totally normal and natural. “Potential aggressors” is the fucking default, in the animal kingdom, for fuck’s sake.

I mean, think: imagine a city, and everyone turns into a wolf, including you, and they have wolf instincts and lack the social mindset, but there are that many of them, all walking about.

Imagine everyone just suddenly turned into a wolf. It would be mass terror and conflict among the wolves, immediate retreat by many of the wolves, startle responses, aggression, perceived threats, immediate cowering into nooks and crannies and safe spaces.

That is the fucking default. Why is that so hard for them to understand? Just kidding; I know why.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘This is the problem with consciousness and free will: they describe it as an actual ability to make conscious choices, but it’s the illusion that you’re making conscious choices, or it’s an illusion of agency as applied to your self, as it is applied to everyone else [i.e. its definition is an example of falling foul to the very illusion it represents, similar to the case with mind].

Fundamentally, the processes are occurring regardless, would occur regardless. You don’t make them do anything; they do what they do. It’s just an illusory layer on top.

“Consciousness”, as associated with the social mindset, isn’t necessary to understand an animal and how it functions, how it sees, hears, etc. That’s the part that is effectively the same with us in higher animals. The only part that’s significantly different is the brainstem–episodic-memory connection, and of course, that has nothing to do with the actual sensory mechanisms and input, the processing that’s going on there.

It’s a totally separate part, episodic memories and brainstem responses, so it’s doing something totally different that just happens to create an illusion that you’re in control of this or that thing.

But funnily enough, even it can’t win in most cases. People are well aware that they can’t control their sexual desires, can’t control that when they hear a certain thing, it sounds a certain way. It’s perceived that way whether they like it or not.

No; it just creates an illusion that can be applied to others, and that’s the stupid thing. It’s actually hilariously stupid. They don’t even want to call animal episodic memories episodic memories, because they’re “not consciously retrieved”. What does that mean, not chosen to be retrieved? Because that’s falling foul to the exact illusion the social mindset created, idiots.

They aren’t chosen; you just believe they are. The process happens regardless; the signals happen regardless, reacting to external stimuli in the same predictable way. They want to call them “episodic-like”. It’s just so stupid.

This is the thing: other mammals have a DMN^{[17][18][19][20][21][22]} [default mode network, which accesses episodic memories, though in marmosets, it involves far less medial-prefrontal-cortex connectivity than in humans^[21]]; it has nodes in the visual areas of the brain like the human one [such as the posterior cingulate and parietal cortices].

None of that is fundamentally different. The difference, the illusion, is the idea that it was chosen, fetched with intent, when in fact, it was just a response to the same old external stimuli in the same old way.

It’s an illusion, and that’s the social-mindset part. That’s all it created, so it’s a nothing subject, a nothing issue, like God.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘The reason why empaths and people with the social mindset can’t claim it as an “ability”, an “ability to attribute thoughts to others”, is because not only do they get it wrong with us [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16], but they get it wrong with animals [and nature/the universe]. They can’t do it. They invent the thoughts. They make it up.

It’s hardly an ability when they’re constantly getting it wrong, constantly don’t actually know what the animal is thinking, constantly attributing a wrong thought or intention, just as they’re always doing it with us, assuming we’d give love when we won’t, assuming bad intent when we don’t have any. It’s a whole delusion, as you said.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes. It’s not an ability, but you can see why it would appear an ability to them, because it’s real in their world.’ I replied, ‘Well, it’s like calling schizophrenia an ability.’

My friend replied, ‘It’s an ability to not have an ability, but ability is subjective. It’s subjective what’s good and what isn’t.‘ I replied, ‘Exactly. It’s all according to their goals and their wishes, their desires [which are socially appropriated].’

I continued, ‘It’s what furthers their desires, the desires of society and most humans, which is funny, because I’m the one with the condition. Well, it leads them to get many things flagrantly wrong, like theism. Hardly an ability.’

My friend later stated, ‘It’s the fact the human brain has been geared towards this purpose for [hundreds of] thousands of years.

You know what’s funny? The fact that people act like mutations can’t exist, because they’re human, and the only ones that do have a place in society and a social meaning, like Down syndrome, but they’re unable to compute the extent to which a member of their species could mutate, i.e. lacking the social mindset.

It’s beyond their comprehension, but it should be blatantly obvious those things can occur, otherwise how do new species branch off? It’s just stupid.’

I replied, ‘It’s not even that. It doesn’t matter whether it affects the social mindset or doesn’t. We already know: you can be a cat, and they’ll still treat you as if you have the social mindset. It doesn’t matter what they know. They will always approach it in that way, always treat a Down-syndrome boy like that, us like that, a cat like that, nature like that.

You can’t escape it. It isn’t a knowing – it’s an assuming, because it doesn’t come from external input, learnt visual/aural input. It comes from inside themselves, so it will never reflect what’s outside themselves, never reflect the reality they are trying to assess.

It will always be a fake prediction, a made-up assumption. It only becomes accurate when it’s about other humans with the social mindset. It stops being accurate when it’s us, stops being accurate when it’s another animal and stops being accurate when it’s nature, but they can’t snap out of it, because it’s within them, in their neurology.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘You know, there’s also a problem with this “intelligent-life”-on-other-planets deal. It’s funny, because what they’re actually describing is life with the social mindset. That’s what they actually want to see. They want to see societies and civilisations like their own. That’s what they consider intelligent, not an elephant or a whale with a brain larger than ours.

Basically, they are doing what alien conspiracists and fiction-writers do when they picture aliens as humanoids with big eyes. It’s the same thing. It’s expecting a human to be there, expecting human emotions and human references to be there.

It’s not realising that any life that doesn’t have the social mindset of humans, which is absurdly more likely, won’t be any less of a discovery, won’t be any less good, won’t be any less “intelligent”.

Basically, they’re wrongly attributing a specialness or importance to their own emotions and race and hoping for that to exist elsewhere. They are looking for relatability, just as we do when I put my site up, but they aren’t aware of it.

Basically, there’s no distinction. They’re wrongly attributing importance where there isn’t any.

First of all, there’s basically no way other life we encounter is going to have evolved the same brainstem mechanism we have to the book. Secondly, where do they draw the line? There are other forms of “sociality” that don’t involve such a brainstem connection, such as insect eusociality or burrowing mole-rats, but they wouldn’t like to see that over another human-like society.

They’re too wrapped up, trapped in their social mindset once again, and it’s affecting science, but there’s no real distinction. A bunch of interdependent small critters will be just as important as some race that looks like us.

It doesn’t matter how social they are or even how intelligent they are. The reason it doesn’t matter is because it’s the social mindset for that stuff to matter. Ultimately, it’s just a bunch of atoms, molecules or cells all reacting in a certain way together.

They’re looking to relate. They hope to find a race they can “contact” and communicate with. They send messages out to space, expecting, wrongly, to see one that will message back, i.e. one like themselves, having the same emotions and intent, like a votive offering left for the gods.

Think: they see relatability in pets, in cats, but cats don’t have the social mindset. That’s why it’s wrong. They’re seeing relatability where there isn’t any, just like they see it in us, think we’re like them and think the same as them.

So basically, they may discover a cat-like species, but it won’t have contacted back. That’s the unlikely part.

The likely part is they’ll find some critter that looks like one on earth that already triggers their empathy. Even insects do for many people. Many animals do.

That’s the likely part. The absurdly unlikely part is that the creature will have empathy back, just like me, just like other animals. That’s why they’re wrong.

The anthropic principle suffers the same bias. It wrongly attributes importance to humans when, in fact, it doesn’t matter. I see the anthropic principle and think, “It doesn’t matter.”

The reason it matters to them is because of the importance they give humans and the fake consciousness and free will and whatever gunk they come up with, detached from reality, which is just another set of organisms with cells, which, as we know, is extremely likely on other planets, so that part renders the principle null.

There is no principle. It’s a nothing. It’s a fake creation made by the social mindset. It just doesn’t matter. It could be that there are other animals observing the universe like we are. Indeed, before humans came along, that was the case, still is the case among other animals. Just because they hadn’t evolved a multicellular-like mechanism to exchange that knowledge between conspecifics, doesn’t make it any less important.

They are wrongly ascribing importance like the social mindset does. It’s all false beliefs. They think we’re special when we’re not. Life just got a bit out of hand such that satellites are now in orbit, but it’s just a mess of cascading physical effects; that’s all. Same could occur on another planet through some other mechanism.

Besides, it happened now rather than before, wasn’t always the case and may not always be. Meteorite could end it all, then there’d be no anthropic princple anyway.

It’s literally in the name: “anthro”. It’s the human social mindset, and it’s wrong. It’s a wrong mindset.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘I’m actually so far ahead that I see myself for what I am now. People always go on about their sense of self and about “me” and about “I”, but I now realise that there is hardly anything physically, materially special about me compared to a person standing next to me.

It does not matter that I see out of these eyes, hear out of these ears and think out of this brain. Factually, in the real world, I’m just another set of eyes, ears and a brain. Factually, from an externally observed viewpoint, that is all that matters, and millions of people have those things. That is all that there is.

There’s no separate thing powering the “self”. There’s nothing, only what I said. When I touch my desk, it’s one set of matter touching another set of matter. There’s hardly any distinction, like an asteroid crashing into a planet.

There’s nothing special about me in the grand scheme of things. My internal experience is just nothing, not important. It will disintegrate back into the same matter it came from when I “die”.

Essentially, there is 0 reason why I see out of these eyes. It’s a pointless question, because materially, there isn’t actually a distinction. If you ignore your internal biases and just look at the facts, there’s no reason, no reason why you happen to be seeing out of those eyes.

It means the “you” part is nothing. It’s just matter. Us talking about “you” and “I” is just part of that, part of that made-up paradigm.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘It’s funny how agency, will and intent literally don’t exist. “Want” is such a weird word, implies it could be another way, but it refers to a predictable path in the brain that would’ve always gone that way, a reaction to external stimuli, certain conditions, so that’s why it’s all fake.

“Want” just refers to that. “Agency”, “will” and “intent” all refer to that, the emotion in the brainstem that happened to be taking place when the act occurred [or the emotional brainstem response that oneself or another person is assumed to have based on linked episodic memories].’

At age 21, I stated:

‘It must look weird hearing us talk about normal people as if they all had schizophrenia. I can see why that would make us look like the delusional ones, because from their point of view, they’re normal.

Basically, it would look like we’re talking about something that isn’t the case, because to them, it isn’t, but it’s basically the same way schizophrenic people respond. Schizophrenic people would also do so.

So the question becomes, how do you identify the difference, before anyone starts throwing “schizophrenia this”, “schizophrenia that” claims about.

Firstly, schizophrenics confabulate. They won’t believe it’s a confabulation. They’ll try their hardest to explain away an illogical behaviour. Yes, that’s what regular people do about social-mindset behaviours, but put that aside. That’s all schizophrenics have. They don’t have science.

The first difference is we have science. We’ve been able to prove, from A right to Z, that this is how it is, from A to Z and 0 to 1,000, right the way through. We have the facts on our side. We have about 1,000 studies on our side. We’ve identified the genetics, the neurology and the symptomatology.

All of it is plainly observable and follows on. A follows to B follows to C follows to D. They don’t have that.

That’s difference number one. Difference number two would be in what it is we’re actually saying, the content.

Schizophrenics have very specific delusions; they are delusions of intent. Regular social-mindset features are heightened.

They have more drug use; we have less. They have more religiosity; we have less. They have more attribution of malintent; we have less.

They think they’re owed money more; we think less. The girls put on strange and excessive makeup; we are against all makeup.

They launch frivolous lawsuits; we don’t even feel like we have the right to launch any lawsuit, since rights are a social-mindset concept. They believe in conspiracies; we see them for what they are.

So that alone shows the spectrum.

The problem is, of course, in the fact that each person with that delusionality will attribute others to that delusionality, i.e. they’ll be believed to think the same as they do.

If you like, that’s a third point: regular people think we [and other animals] act like regular people and get it wrong. Schizophrenics excessively think people act with intent and get it wrong.

We have the opposite of both of those things. We see people as acting based on a predictable, scientific neurology without choice, without free will. We know how people act objectively. We don’t attribute it to intent where it isn’t.

For example, all the germ contamination they do: we know it’s without intent; we know they’re just careless. In fact, we know exactly why they do it, because social gains override survival protections, so none of that’s there.

So those are 3 points, but it doesn’t do it justice summarising all the science in point 1, because it’s expansive. We have the genetics on our side; we have the neurology on our side; and we have the symptomatology on our side. All 3 line up perfectly.

Oh, here’s another thing: we have been able to identify where we ourselves have confabulated, given the research on the mechanism.

We are able to own up. We are able to admit. I would hope that people with the social mindset are also able to own up and admit, but it’ll be hard for them.

For example, I recognise that when I speak to you, it’s entirely a social-mindset endeavour. I recognise the site is a social-mindset endeavour. I have to expect you to understand, and I have to expect that some of them will understand. I know I can’t feel it subjectively, that it guides my behaviour whether I like it or not.

It will be hard for them to own up to that as we can, since we’ve just attacked everything they know and love.

We ourselves were unaware in the past. We made many wrong explanations for our own social-mindset behaviours. The reason it can’t happen again is because we know the mechanism now.

The key is not to approach it subjectively but to approach it objectively, not to fish out in your mind your own reason why you might’ve done it but look at the external reasons, the external evidence, because you’ll never be able to find that internal reason.

It doesn’t exist. It is the thing that guides reasons. It’s not a reason itself. It’s the source of reward or aversion, not the knowledge that leads you to a reward or aversion. It became added as one.

So you just have to abandon that endeavour entirely, just not even bother, and look outside the box. That’s what I hope they’ll try to do, as we have been able to, despite retaining a latent social mindset.

It is totally possible. Scientists can do science. Science is possible despite the social mindset. It’s just stopped them from answering this specifically.

But you know what? The same thing happened with gods in the past. The science wasn’t in, and what did people do? Make up their own explanations based on their brainstem responses.

But guess what? The science was still possible, and when enough people were born to share that science around, it overtook. More experiences of nature could be associated with that science than with brainstem responses linked to one’s own behaviours.

So polytheism got dispelled and eventually theism in general, though never entirely, but it shows it’s possible. Anyway, that’s why we don’t have schizophrenia or positive symptoms and why they are closer to it than us.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘It’s like when I used to say that the only thing that could make me re-interact with my parents was a long, long period of good experiences, and same for other people in general; not possible with a progressive loss of the social mindset, of course, but that’s how it works for other people to an extremely easy degree, a very sensitive degree.

The smallest period or set of good experiences can give them all this empathy, so their empathy and love for their family just continues to rise, doesn’t get lesser, just carries on, no matter the arguments, no matter abuse, even.

My friend replied, ‘There’s basically no other option. It’s got to the point where people are born into the world designed for the social mindset. They will force it into you. It’s not even subtle. It’s not a subtle or implicit process. There’s quite literally the fact that if you don’t do it, you’ll go to prison or be killed, if you don’t see it as the right thing, so what chance have people got?’

I replied, ‘Yes. They wouldn’t need the killing part, though. It happens because they have the social mindset, and it doesn’t happen to us because we lack it. The killing part is just an unfortunate side effect for us. They end up being the ones who want the killing. They aren’t coerced. They welcome it with open arms. They just don’t know it.‘

My friend replied, ‘Well, because they can’t see on that level. They only see the issues inside it, but it’s like we are born into a video game, pretty much, because it’s all made up. It’s a made-up existence, and it is what it is. Everything is established, and you have no choice but to play by the rules, because that’s all there is. That’s why they can’t see it.

Everything people do is basically to slot in with what exists already and the existing rules, and it’s taken for granted that that’s how those things are. They are unable to be thought about. The focus is 100% on doing those things. All the energy is spent on doing those things rather than changing them, subconsciously forced to be that way. A microcosm is an exam specification where you need to focus on that and nothing else in the research field.’

I replied, ‘I consistently see us as like unicellular organisms trying to negotiate our way around a human body, trying not to trigger the immune system, trying to feed off scraps that get left over. We’re the commensalist bacteria, like gut flora, and if you kill us, you’d probably end up harming yourself, because of the science we have to give, like the digestion the gut flora have to give, but it doesn’t stop the immune system having the potential to overreact.’

My friend replied, ‘Everything I do resulted from the social mindset: the computer I use, the language I speak, the bed I’m in, brushing my teeth, the building. It’s this shoddy use of those things for my own purposes, like I’m wearing someone else’s clothes or someone else’s body. My own life has acquired its own meaning using the same tools and media.

I can’t describe it, but my life basically looks like theirs. I’m still doing the same human-created things. I’m still speaking language, communicating with other humans and being aware of the same concepts. Everything I do is still based around humans.’

I replied, ‘Yes, like a unicellular organism in a body.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘Mirror self-recognition doesn’t even exist; it’s empathising with your reflection. You see yourself in your reflection the same way you see yourself in another person who is like you. You can’t identify what is you, because the “you” part is a fake concept.

It’s just using your own brainstem responses to predict those of the reflection, which happen to be yours. When you see someone resembling you, you expect them to behave like you or have the same wishes as you, like people incorrectly do to us.

It’s no different to that, except it just happens to match it exactly, so that’s where the separate concept comes from, the fact it really does match fully. There’s not much else separating it.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘If you hyperamplified the Olduvai domain in a monkey, you’d probably end up with a Homo habilis– or Australopithecus-looking creature. It may or may not give it the auditory memorisation ability to use speech, but that’ll be irrelevant, because you could teach it signs, and it’ll use them voluntarily with others.

Anyway, at least I’ve documented all the possible effects that could arise from that, so researchers know what to predict, sexual social-mindset associations, etc.’

At age 21, my friend stated:

‘The main source of stress is the future.’ I replied, ‘What about the future?’ My friend replied, ‘All of it: getting a job, family deaths, my death.’

I replied, ‘Doesn’t bother me anymore.’ My friend replied, ‘How did it stop? I don’t see it ever stopping.’ I replied, ‘Last time that did was 2018 and maybe some of 2019, not the family-deaths or my-death part; the getting-a-job part only. It’s the last time the job world bothered me that much. Now, I just don’t care.’

I continued, ‘Family deaths, as mentioned on the site, no. My death, I have never been upset over. I can’t get upset over the idea of it, because that’s an episodic memory. What stops me dying is innate mechanisms in the moment: hunger, threat perception, etc., but the general idea: impossible, because my knowledge is that it’s inevitable.

Basically, I’d be upset if I were in a life-or-death situation, but I wouldn’t if I weren’t but were merely thinking about one. It would be pointless upset for me.

The last thing I care about in life (that is not survival), really, is getting this site out. I have no other real human reason to get emotional or upset or happy, no girl reason (excluding sexual attraction), no job reason, no parent reason.’

My friend replied, ‘I just picture how it was before we were born, billions of years going past in an instant, which was the illusion.’

I replied, ‘I don’t even need to picture that, because I can just picture now, which is that I’m matter just like the desk in front of me and will remain matter when I die, the fact there’s no distinction of “me”. I can picture my own cells dispersing around me.’

My friend replied, ‘So you don’t get a single panic attack at the thought that you’re going to die and that it can’t be prevented and that your age is just counting up, the percentage bar?’ I replied, ‘No. Why would I? I used to get paranoia over my age, but I accept it now.’

My friend replied, ‘I constantly calculate maths and fractions as to my age, the calendar years, and try to frame it in a positive light but can’t. All of it is crude. If I think too hard about the fact I’m going to die, I will suddenly go berserk, a fluttering in my chest and a sick feeling and a sudden burst of Tourette’s, and I basically get out of my chair.’

I replied, ‘I have a strong feeling your spontaneous threat perception is the reason for your fear. Basically, dying isn’t a big deal, even subjectively. It only matters when people think too hard about the concept of the self.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes, well I do.’ I continued, ‘… and forget about reality.’ My friend replied, ‘But I don’t. I know the reality; I just don’t feel it.’

I continued, ‘They think that their person is the only thing there is and that there’s something special and unique about them inhabiting that body, when there isn’t. It’s 1 in 8 billion bodies that have always been materialising.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes, but nothing makes me feel better.’ I replied, ‘It’s because I studied biology and the mechanism. That’s the reason I don’t care anymore, because the memories have been overwritten.’

I continued, ‘I immediately picture biology, immediately picture cells, immediately picture evolution, Homo habilis to Homo sapiens, all the genetic conditions, everything other than the fake conception of “self”.

Attention gets diverted away from that and on to reality. I see it all from the third-person window. I don’t see me; I see a view looking down at me and everyone else on the planet and just see it for what it is, because that’s what it is, and me being me means nothing. It’s completely empty concepts.

It means nothing will cataclysmically happen when I die, because the thing I would worry about, losing the “self” or losing “me”, doesn’t exist, so basically, there’s an equal chance the “me” part will pop up in any human body to come in the future, because it’s not a thing.

You can think of it this way: before you were born, the “you” was literally the sperm and egg, and before that, the nutrients and molecules that made the sperm and egg, and as you grew, the “you” was all the food your mother put into her mouth. That is you.

Basically, you are as much the matter around you as you are your own body. There’s no separate you. You are that, so that’s why you’re not losing much when you die. You’re only going back to the same matter that you both came from and continues to make you as you live.

It’s just like how nothing cataclysmically happens when another human you see on the news dies; nothing cataclysmically happens when a dog dies; nothing cataclysmically happens when an insect dies, bacterium. Below the bacterium is just raw DNA and molecules, and then you’re thinking of an atom dying, and it just gets ridiculous. It’s all nothing.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes, but I know all that. It still doesn’t change the anxiety.’ I replied, ‘Well, you know why you have that anxiety. It’s the social mindset + presumably a spontaneously firing amygdala creating a large pool of episodic memories of threat to survival that you now ruminate over and trigger that same emotion later.’

I continued, ‘If I’m actually dying, I’ll go berserk. If there’s an actual chance I might die in the moment, I’ll go berserk, but otherwise, no.’

My friend replied, ’60 years off and 60 minutes off is still the same thing to me. It still feels like I’m in an execution chamber.’ I replied, ‘Right now, I’m living as if I only have about 1 or 2 years left. That’s generally how I live now.’

My friend replied, ‘Yes. Do you think that’s the case?’ I replied, ‘It’s literally the foreseeable scenario [from my perspective], based on current knowledge. Statistically, it’s likely I’ll live much longer, but I don’t act that way, because I don’t trust. It relies on trusting other people to provide, so I consider it dumb to act that way.’

My friend replied, ‘I have no idea how long I’m going to live. I could literally be dead in months, or it could be 80 years.’ I replied, ‘It’s funny how there’s an excerpt on valuation of money where I say I see myself dead in 2019, so I’m aware that the likelihood is I’ll live right through to adulthood, but I just don’t plan for it, because the evidence I have is not one that allows me to do that.’

My friend replied, ‘I used to imagine waking up as another baby when I die but having 0 knowledge of anything I know now.’ I replied, ‘I don’t, because basically, there’s no “I” part there. I see it like I’m the entire earth or the entire universe. I see it like I am all matter that exists, because all of it is having an effect on me or coming together to create me, allow me to live, so me waking up as a baby would still be “me”, because “me” is literally all matter, so it’s a non-concept.’

My friend replied, ‘There’s some comfort in the fact that everyone is in the same position that they’re going to die. I often wonder how people are so jolly and how that isn’t on their mind.’ I replied, ‘But sad people commit suicide, so that isn’t the argument. They have certain episodic memories triggering their reward centres; that’s the answer, for both suicidals and jolly people.‘

At age 21, I stated:

‘I just realised, that whole section where I’m lambasting physics: regular people would consider it silly, because they’d consider themselves to be studying the nature of reality and me to just be studying humans, one part of that.

Let’s detach the social mindset away from that, which is the reason they’re saying that to start with. So they consider themselves studying stuff like atoms and astronomy and whatnot and me to just be studying the brains of a species of animal on earth.

Here’s where they go wrong: it all goes wrong for them once you exit the human perspective and stop imagining you are a human with some sense of relatability to all other humans.

Let’s say you’re another animal; your population is about 100,000, worldwide.

7 billion of the animals on earth would be humans with crazy clothing styles and body modifications and societies. They would be everywhere. Just as we were confused as to how they behaved, those animals would be confused. They’d be wanting to work it out, because it would dominate their existence and their life.

The only reason humans don’t is because they are it and find it relatable and normal. They see it from within that perspective rather than outside it. Within that bubble, it’s about what they can do for all other humans. How humans are behaving and thinking as a whole doesn’t dominate their life and what they wish to understand.

The long and short of it is that the majority areas of interest of what other humans have discovered has been implanted in their head as what they should build towards. What others are interested in is what they should be interested in.

I mean, they’re only learning as much as their technology allows. They’re not on to some huge astronomical revelation. They have forever to go, and they’ll never know everything. It’s merely what dominates their minds and their perspective, due to it being what others are doing and have also happened upon.

The discoveries that match will be, by and large, those that aren’t reasons for social-mindset behaviours, bases of social-mindset behaviours. It doesn’t mean those discoveries don’t exist and only the others do; it just means they’re cognitively incapable of coming to them, by and large, so they never get the attention.

The reasons for their behaviours are out there, the material ones, and the material reasons for their behaviours are those documented on the site, but it won’t match their own reasons, and that’s why the study dies, why they never arrive to realisation, why, even if I presented the explanation, they may still refute it, because it doesn’t line up with their subjective reason for what is subjectively their own behaviour.

They’ll disagree and most likely take offence, but unfortunately for them, it is the reality, and they can do nothing about it. They can do nothing about the fact that these explanations are fact, external to them, regulating them, dictating them, and it will cause strife.

It will be a hard pill to swallow, a very hard pill for these people to swallow. It’s the hard truth, the harsh truth that doesn’t line up with their emotions.

They may continue living on in ignorant bliss, probably pretending they never saw the site, but the reality will remain, and they’ll just have to make that choice to ignore it to not go mad living as a human.

All pursuit of knowledge comes from an internal reward/aversion. In many cases, that is appropriated; in others, it’s based on innate-mechanism reactions to what’s been dealt to you. In my case, it’s a reaction to what I’ve been dealt with, so I can better understand and predict it, and now I can.

It’s just obvious that living my life [with my lack of the social mindset] and having my entire life experience, people with the social mindset would form a hugely greater source of trouble and things to work out; what’s going on in space, less so. It matters far less to my survival. These people who surround me: they do.

I have to be put in the position in which it is relevant. I had no reason to study computing until I needed to code as part of a greater goal, which itself was fomented by the desire to understand the humans around me.

As a child, it was all about raw lights and colours and sounds, mass exposure. As the experiences grew, it became more about understanding those experiences. Something deals you a threat to survival – you set yourself on understanding the nature of that threat so you can better predict it in the future.

Again, even coding wasn’t that when I started it. It was still an appropriated reason why I went into it, because it was to get the site out, which is a social-mindset cause.

It’s pulling away from my survival to get it presentable and publishing it in website form. It’s not aiding my survival. The only part that’s aiding is the fact that the info is all in one place and that I’ve been able to make some more discoveries as a result of that. It’s expecting the prospective group of researchers to understand enough to benefit.

However, I have the benefit of being able to not care if they don’t. I have that benefit that some others don’t, who will literally break down in tears if they don’t get accepted to their chosen university or get this or that grade or impress this or that person.

I just don’t care. I don’t have to, partly because I know I’m right about the main issues, but partly because I have nothing else left to do. A person’s opinion doesn’t matter when I now know I’m materially right about why they do what they do, and then the second part is, I have no other social-mindset cause left.

I don’t have big expectations for the site, necessarily. I’m not doing it for notoriety or fame or to revolutionise science per se. I’m doing it as a handy resource for those who deal with me or people like me first-hand, since they’ve never been able to understand.

It’s like my [social media] profile, both when I first started it and now. It’s for a very small, select subgroup of people. That’s all I expect will get something substantial out of it.

That’s disregarding the effect I know it may have when circulated around, which does not form part of the reward but is merely something I acknowledge externally is likely to happen; it’s just not why I’m doing it. Who I’m envisioning and how I’m envisioning them to understand is a small group of people.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘I wouldn’t be at an evolutionary disadvantage if other humans with the social mindset didn’t exist, because it’s like the unicellular organism in the multicellular organism. Obviously, the presence of things like the immune system immediately become a threat to its survival, whereas in the water of a pond, it doesn’t have that.

Also, of course, it’s the fact it’s an even worse situation than that; it’s the fact there are no females with our severity of our condition. Of course, the unicellular organism may reproduce asexually or sexually, but we can only reproduce sexually, so we’re fucked that way.

It’s therefore like a unicellular organism trying to mate with a skin cell. That’s what it’s like, a protist trying to mate with a blood cell or a neuron. That’s how bad it is, and that’s how it looks to us.

So the point is, it changes the arena. It changes the arena from nature to humans. Essentially, the Olduvai mutation wasn’t necessarily evolutionarily advantageous because it gained the individual an advantage over nature; it was advantageous because it gained multiple individuals, the society, an advantage over nature.

If there were only one person with the social mindset on the planet, there would be no advantage. That person would have no advantage. This is excluding brain size, only the social mindset, since, obviously, we have larger brain size than most of those with the social mindset as do dolphins, elephants, etc.

This is just talking about the social mindset. It is not advantageous to the individual or on its own; it only becomes advantageous when multiple people have it. It’s like asking whether a blood cell or neuron is evolutionary advantageous; it makes no sense. A blood cell is useless on its own; a neuron is useless on its own. It only becomes advantageous when multiple cells have those roles.

This is what has to be drilled in. Domesticated animals are like the gut flora of the human society. That’s what they are, just as we are. We are essentially domesticated animals, living off a society of empathy while not giving it back and actually maintaining survival as a result of that.

Again, though, there are many male and female cats, dogs, horses, etc. There are only male versions of us, so it is a worse situation, but it allows them to reproduce into the hundreds of millions, so again, if females like me existed, there’d be less of a chance for it to be evolutionarily disadvantageous, because that effect would play out.’

My friend replied, ‘It’s not an advantageous condition to have, anyway. It’s only advantageous in that it’s the same thing that everyone else has. The actual thing itself is not advantageous.’

I later quoted the Wikipedia article for power politics: ‘Power politics prioritizes national self-interest over the interests of other nations or the international community, and thus may include threatening one another with military, economic or political aggression to protect one nation’s own interest.’^[23]

I remarked, ‘Yes. This is how it is.

Nations always act in their own interest, but people act in the interest of other people.

Multicellular organisms without the social mindset act in their own interest, but the cells that make them up act in the interest of the other cells.

Unicellular organisms act in their own interest, but the molecules and proteins that make them up act in the interest of the other molecules and proteins.

I don’t know what the next level of multicellularity will be, societies acting in the interest of other societies. That would be crazy.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘I should probably give a better explanation of consciousness than I’ve given already, which is hardly one.’ My friend replied, ‘Yes, you should. Only you know.’

I continued, ‘First and foremost, they can’t even agree on what it refers to. The Wikipedia article for it^[24] alone is a mess. That’s number 1.

The article begins with “sentience or awareness of internal or external existence”, then a bunch of stuff about how no one knows what it’s supposed to refer to, then that it may be equivalent to “the mind”, which I’ve already explained, then “one’s inner life, the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition“, all of which I’ve explained, then “experience, cognition, feeling or perception”, which I’ve covered.

“Awareness or awareness of awareness, or self-awareness”: I’ve covered self-awareness [though I proceed to cover it in greater detail], such as under mirror self-recognition, extensively explained that, how it’s just empathising with your reflection, using your brainstem to predict your reflection’s feelings, i.e. expecting them to be the same as your own in the past due to the resemblance to your behaviours at those times.’ My friend replied, ‘Lol, so the ability to identify oneself is the same as anthropomorphisation of the reflection.’

I continued, ‘Then it says some stuff about how there might be “different kinds of consciousness” then questions whether only humans are conscious or whether all animals are or even the universe is, which is basically exactly what I’ve described in association with the social mindset.

It’s always the humans, animals, nature paradigm. That’s the magic triad of what they apply the brainstem response to. It comes up repeatedly.

Then it describes doubts about whether the right questions are being asked, which is true. They’re a bumbling mess. They’re discombobulated. They don’t know what they’re doing.

I have to laugh sometimes at the complete, brazen lack of awareness of those scientists, held in such high esteem, yet they don’t know what they’re doing [1, 2].

I laugh at any scientist investigating consciousness or the origin of language or any social-mindset feature, knowing they’ll never get as far as I did, purely due to not lacking the social mindset.’ My friend replied, ‘Yes.’

I continued, ‘Then there’s some more stuff. One definition is simple wakefulness, which doesn’t have to be social-mindset related. Another is “one’s sense of selfhood or soul, explored by looking within”, which I’ve already answered, both selfhood and soul [though I proceed to answer selfhood in greater detail].

Then it references qualia, which are basically a mild form of hallucinations, which are already answered, [with qualia being just another manifestation of the same episodic-memory–brainstem-response mechanism characterising external phenomena as having the brainstem responses linked to those memories, or “feeling” them,] then it suggests that it’s what one refers to when they wonder what it’s like to be someone or something else, which is literally the whole premise of the social-mindset brainstem-response mechanism.

So consciousness is answered for 90% of those things, but I’ll answer the last one, when it comes to oneself and only oneself.

It’s the mechanism doing the same thing it does to others but to oneself. It’s using the brainstem response to characterise the actions and behaviours of the self as being the product of a brainstem response attached to an episodic memory that they resemble.

So one may move their arm a certain way, record that as an episodic memory, and the social-mindset mechanism will attach the brainstem response to that, i.e. their emotional state at the time.

Then later on, they may move their arm the same way. This will match that saved memory, trigger that brainstem response and result in the brainstem response characterising what you saw, meaning it will be assumed to have that same brainstem response, which in this case, unlike with another person, is one you did actually feel in the past, and only you.

Rather than characterising another person’s behaviours as being the responsibility of the response, it’s characterising your own. The scenario just happens to be different. It just happens to be your own behaviours you’re witnessing rather than someone else’s, same with mirror self-recognition, just happens to be your own reflection you’re witnessing.

But the mechanism doesn’t discriminate. It only cares about how much something resembles what you experienced at any given time of a brainstem response, so that’s why it can apply to other people, animals and nature.

So there’s the explanation for “consciousness”.

I look at articles on social-mindset phenomena like consciousness, and it almost looks surreal, like I’m in a parallel world where no one knows what they’re talking about, and they’re all bumbling messes, and they’re so confused at what is blatantly known to me.

But I mean all of society, all scientists, all of humanity is confused at something I happen to know, and it just looks surreal, but we see that all the time, like the people throwing out the most ridiculous explanations for autistic or schizophrenic behaviours.

They’re all in a confused reality, not knowing what’s going on, grasping at straws, and it’s funny but surreal. They’re just in an alien land of confusion. They look so helpless and hopeless, and it’s pitiful. I pity them, but anyway, that’s what the site is for, to shut them up once and for all.’

I later stated, ‘As a rule, when something is so well covered and known, but there are wildly different opinions on it, especially regarding its very nature or whether it even exists or not, it’s a social-mindset feature, so that applies to god, consciousness, etc.

That’s the rule. Automatically, it’s a social-mindset feature, and it a) doesn’t exist in reality and b) is a product of the social-mindset brain mechanism.

Also, whenever anyone is debating what is real, immediate social mindset, because they’re debating against something they have no other reference for, but it’s implying they do have another reference, and they do – it’s their brainstem.

Aside from that, the only reference is what comes in through the senses, so that’s only ever going to reflect what’s outside the senses. Whether it’s “real” or not is irrelevant, because it’s all you have. There’s nothing to compare it to, but they have something to compare it to – their emotions [during previous similar sensory inputs].’ My friend replied, ‘Correct.’ I continued, ‘Elon Musk going on about “base reality”, people talking about “multiple realities”.‘

I continued, ‘They’re convicted in their reliance on their second reference, because it’s what they have. It’s part of their reasoning centre, so it’s real to them. It’s all they’ll ever think. They’ll never think another way. It’s their biological makeup, their cellular construction.’

My friend replied, ‘This is what I’ve been saying. It’s 2 references, but the social-mindset one is massively dominant in them, but it’s subordinate in me, and in you, it’s extremely subordinate.’

I replied, ‘There’s actually no easy way to quantify the relative degree of social-mindset linked memories to other ones, other than that it started at 0 before mammals, then it was very minimal in primates before humans, then a mutation progressively increased it to a point resembling today, where if you increase past that point, we refer to it as schizophrenia, and if you decrease below that point, we refer to it as autism.

That’s all we have right now, those relative terms. It’s never going to be a number, basically, because it depends on resemblance. It loosens or restricts that resemblance threshold [depending on the size of the rest of the brain].’

At age 21, I stated:

‘You know what the social mindset is like? It’s like someone’s datamoshed reality, datamoshed the people they see. Everything gets exaggerated and floats above reality.

It’s like where the frame gets stuck, and it melts into the next frames in a video, cosmetics exaggerating the base reality, in this pile-on of moshed data.’

My friend replied, ‘I sometimes imagine the makeup and embellishments separating themselves from the body and just taking life of their own as this greasy human outline without the human underneath, see-through, the floating piercings, makeup, jewellery and clothes.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘The social mindset is definitely like a mod for the brain. It reminds me a lot of the mods I’d get for apps or programs.

It’s like this shaky solution that was never meant to be there and adds a ridiculous array of functionality but with a lot of risk. It’s like a hijack for the existing mechanisms, like someone’s broken a boundary or limit on existing mechanisms so that it can go up to 999999.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘I mean, it’s quite ridiculous, honestly, when you consider that we are ruling out 99.99% of people from our lives, and yet, every one of those people take it personally, despite the fact that we are ruling out 99.99% of people, just about the least personal it could get, no singling out any one person or social-mindset feature.

It’s fucking all of them, for god’s sake. They’d just need to snap out of it, but they can’t.’

At age 21, my friend stated:

‘These people that trust everyone; it’s like they’re setting themselves up for failure, setting themselves up for maximum emotional damage and turmoil.

These people who just automatically assume everyone is good and honest and could never commit a crime, until it actually happens, and it always comes as this ridiculous, traumatic shock to them, because they have that mindset instead of our mindset.’ I replied, ‘Exactly.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘There are some hilarious analogies on the site, how we’ve described people as ‘mannequins’, ‘dummies’, ‘dolls’, ‘zombies’, ‘robots’, ‘made of wood’, ‘poisonous plants or frogs’, ‘a cell’, ‘a small animal’, ‘bacteria’, ‘flocks of birds’, ‘flies’, ‘ants’, ‘a xylophone’ and ‘a brick on a chair’. That’s what happens when the social mindset is removed, and that’s how animals see people.

People just become what they are, predictable, biological organisms whose only meaning is one to innate survival mechanisms, whether they’re going to harm you or not, whether they’re a source of food or not; objects, basically.

I mean, they’re no different. Living organisms are just chemically active objects in a cascade. Saying people are objects isn’t demeaning or belittling; it’s reality.

The whole basis of something being “demeaning or belittling” is the hurting of emotions, the instigation of a fight-or-flight brainstem response, and that’s just another product of more chemical reactions among objects.

So not only are people objects, but the feeling of being demeaned or belittled is the product of objects, so they can’t win. Every step of the way, what’s “right” or “wrong” to them falls back to their emotions, how it makes their brainstem fire, and that’s just yet another biological effect, so they can’t win. They can’t say anything to us.

They are as much what the site describes them to be as their criticisms of us are, their offence, their fight-or-flight responses in response to what we say. It’s all a result of the very dynamics we describe, so they are that, and they can do nothing about it.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘I just find it hilarious how we get called all these names, “rude”, whatever, when the reality is, if animals could talk, they’d be saying stuff similar to what we say.

I find it hilarious how they gush over their little pets despite them shitting and pissing everywhere and being self-entitled and many of them often “not wanting to be held”, especially cats, but the moment it’s us doing it, we’re called all sorts of names,

despite it being the norm and an easy, expectable effect in the abnormal that is humans, something that is easily at risk of happening, an extremely unstable region of the genome, a sudden increase in the social mindset in humans, and yet we’re criticised for simply being like other animals, the very ones they came from, the very ones they gush over and think “love” them to this day.

A cat can never say a word a day in its life, and the humans will still tend to it and cater to it and love it and serve it food, but the moment a human slips back into that normal mindset, back into the norm of the animals it came from; the moment a human does the same, doesn’t want to talk to anyone, avoids being held or being around people, they’re called all sorts, hated, considered “rude”, despite it being the exact same behaviour of the cat – in fact, not even all the way there, still retaining some of the social mindset, but very close. Despite that, they’re ridiculed.

They think it’s abnormal or unexpected or wrong, but it’s actually extremely normal [in the animal kingdom], expected and right. It’s so normal, it hurts, so expected, it hurts, and funnily enough, so right, it hurts, since they’re in that internal brainstem delusion that will never exactly match the outside reality, while we’re going off external input, sensory observation.

All you have to do is go on the Genetics of the social mindset page to see how normal and expectable it is to end up like us. If you look down on us, you look down on all other animals; if you call us rude, you call all other animals rude; if you call us entitled, you call all other animals entitled.

The genetics, neurology and symptomatology comply; the genetics, neurology and symptomatology explain it all. If they’re ever in doubt, they just need to look, just have a quick reference, to remind themselves of the reality they’re being faced with when they see us.

Not some rude, highly opinionated young adults with some secret vendetta or ulterior malicious motive or intent who can secretly do everything they claim not to be able to do; just the reality, a brain with underlateralised anterior insulae and anterior cingulate cortices, a prefrontal cortex that doesn’t attach brainstem signals to nearly as many episodic memories.

Reality. Not emotion, reality. But I get it; reality’s hard for them.’

I later stated, ‘I should make that a saying: “If an animal doesn’t do something, that’s why I’m not doing it.“‘

References

1. ^ "sonder". Tumblr. (Archive version from 10 August 2020.)
2. ^ "Virtue signalling". Wikipedia. 2019-05-02.
3. ^ Kennedy, Steven (2018-04-17). "Changes to the Personal Independence Payment eligibility criteria". House of Commons Library. (Archive version from 12 June 2020.)
4. ^ "Mentally ill people more at risk of losing benefits, study shows". The Guardian. 2019-01-22. (Archive version from 31 January 2019.)
5. ^ "Geography Now - YouTube". YouTube. (Archive version from 3 October 2020.)
6. ^ "r/h3h3productions - H3 Podcast #96 - bill wurtz". reddit. (Archive version from 2 October 2020.)
7. ^ H3 Podcast (2018-11-30). "H3 Podcast #96 - bill wurtz". YouTube.
8. ^ "Hepatocellular carcinoma". Wikipedia. 2020-10-05.
9. ^ Gunderson, John G (2011-07-01). "Family Study of Borderline Personality Disorder and Its Sectors of Psychopathology". Archives of General Psychiatry. 68 (7): 753. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.65. ISSN 0003-990X.
10. ^ Bisson, Jonathan I; Cosgrove, Sarah; Lewis, Catrin; Roberts, Neil P (2015-11-26). "Post-traumatic stress disorder". The BMJ. PubMed Central. 351. doi:10.1136/bmj.h6161. ISSN 0959-8138. PMC 4663500. PMID 26611143.
11. ^ Nicolaidis, Christina; Milton, Damian; Sasson, Noah J.; Sheppard, Elizabeth (Lizzy); Yergeau, Melanie (2018-12-10). "An Expert Discussion on Autism and Empathy". Autism in Adulthood. liebertpub.com (Atypon). 1 (1): 4–11. doi:10.1089/aut.2018.29000.cjn. ISSN 2573-9581.
12. ^ "Theory of mind". Wikipedia. 2020-09-25.
13. ^ "Measurement in quantum mechanics". Wikipedia. 2020-10-19.
14. ^ "Measurement problem". Wikipedia. 2020-10-13.
15. ^ "Interpretations of quantum mechanics". Wikipedia. 2020-10-07.
16. ^ myodfw (2019-10-24). "What to expect if you encounter a wolf". YouTube.
17. ^ Patel, Gaurav H.; Yang, Danica; Jamerson, Emery C.; Snyder, Lawrence H.; Corbetta, Maurizio; Ferrera, Vincent P (2015-07-28). "Functional evolution of new and expanded attention networks in humans". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 112 (30): 9454–9459. doi:10.1073/pnas.1420395112. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 4522817. PMID 26170314.
18. ^ Raichle, Marcus E (2015-07-08). "The Brain's Default Mode Network". Annual Review of Neuroscience. 38 (1): 433-447. doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-071013-014030. ISSN 0147-006X, 1545-4126.
19. ^ Lu, Hanbing; Zou, Qihong; Gu, Hong; Raichle, Marcus E.; Stein, Elliot A.; Yang, Yihong (2012-03-06). "Rat brains also have a default mode network". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 109 (10): 3979–3984. doi:10.1073/pnas.1200506109. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 3309754. PMID 22355129.
20. ^ Mantini, Dante; Gerits, Annelis; Nelissen, Koen; Durand, Jean-Baptiste; Joly, Olivier; Simone, Luciano; Sawamura, Hiromasa; Wardak, Claire; Orban, Guy A.; Buckner, Randy L.; Vanduffel, Wim (2011-09-07). "Default Mode of Brain Function in Monkeys". The Journal of Neuroscience. 31 (36): 12954–12962. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2318-11.2011. ISSN 0270-6474. PMC 3686636. PMID 21900574.
21. ^ ^{a b} Liu, Cirong; Yen, Cecil Chern-Chyi; Szczupak, Diego; Ye, Frank Q.; Leopold, David A.; Silva, Afonso C (2019-04-29). "Anatomical and functional investigation of the marmoset default mode network". Nature Communications. 10 (1): 1–8. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09813-7. ISSN 2041-1723.
22. ^ Mars, Rogier B.; Neubert, Franz-Xaver; Noonan, MaryAnn P.; Sallet, Jerome; Toni, Ivan; Rushworth, Matthew F. S (2012). "On the relationship between the “default mode network” and the “social brain”". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 6. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00189. ISSN 1662-5161.
23. ^ "Power politics". Wikipedia. 2020-07-12.
24. ^ "Consciousness". Wikipedia. 2020-10-27.

< Back to Presentation and progression