About

The goal of the Linux-Society (LS, dating back to the mid-90s as a professional club and tech-mentoring group) has been a purely-democratic Information Society; many of the articles are sociological in nature. The LS was merged with Perl/Unix of NY to form multi-layered group that included advocacy, project-oriented learning by talented high school students: textbook constructivism. Linux has severe limitations such that it is useless for any computer that will, say, print or scan. It is primarily used for webservers and embedded devices such as the Android. (Google is high-invested in it).

Technology is problematic. During the heyday of technology (1990s), it seemed it had the democratic direction Lewis Mumford said it should have in his seminal
Technics and Civilization.

Today, we are effectively stuck with Windows as Linux is poor on the desktop and has cultured a maladaptive following. Apple is prohibitive, and all other operating systems lack drivers, including Google's Android, an offshoot of linux.

In the late 90s there was hope for new kernels such as LibOS and ExoOS that would bare their hardware to programs, some of which would be virtual machines such as Java uses. Another important player was the L4 system that is a minor relation to the code underlying the Apple's systems. It was highly scientific but fell into the wrong hangs, apparently, and has suffered from having no progress on the desktop. There is a version, "SE" that is apparently running in many cell phones as specialized telecom chips, but is proprietary. SE's closed nature was only recently revealed, which is important because it is apparently built from publicly-owned code as it is not a "clean room" design it may violate public domain protections, and most certainly violates the widely-accepted social contract.

Recent attempts to enjoin into L4 development as an advocate for "the people" have been as frustrating (and demeaning) as previous attempts with the usual attacks to self-esteem by maladaptive "hacks" being reinforced by "leadership" (now mostly university professors).

In short, this leaves us with Windows, which is quite a reversal if you have read earlier posts here. But, upon Windows, we have free and open software development systems in the forms of GTK+ (the windows usually used on Linux) and the Minimal GNU Windows (MinGW and MSYS) systems. It is very likely this direction that development should go (that is, on Windows) such that s/w can then be ported to a currently-valid microkernel system that includes a driver system that can be adapted by hardware developers to reuse of their windows and apple drivers.

From a brief survey of L4, it appears that the last clean copy was the DROPS system of the early 2010s, was a German effort that used the Unix-like "OS kit" from an American University.

If we are going to be stuck on Windows, then it seems that a high level approach to free and open systems integration, such as creating fully transparent mouse communication between apps so that they can seamlessly work together as a single desktop (rather than deliberately conflicting). This would be very helpful for GIMP and Inkscape, both leading graphics programs that are strong in the special ways, but suffer from an inability to easily interrelate.

Another important issue is the nature, if you can call it that, of the "geek" or "hack." Technology is formed democratically but "harvested" authoritarian-ly --if I can coin a term that Mumford might use. Authority is plutarchy: a combination of aristocracy and oligarchy that is kept alive after all these millennia by using, or maligning, the information society as a part of the civilizing (or law-giving) process that embraces the dialectic as its method. Democratic restoration, that is to put humanity back on an evolutionary (and not de-evolutionary) track, I think, will require the exclusion of the "geek" from decision-making. As is, the free/open s/w culture attempts to give leadership to those who write the most lines of code --irrespective of their comprehension of the real world or relationship with normal users. We need normal people to somehow organize around common sense (rather than oligarchic rationalism) to bring to life useful and cohesive software and communications systems.

Interestingly, the most popular page on this site is about Carl Rogers' humanistic psychology, and has nothing to do with technology.




Thursday, October 09, 2014

What about Aaron Schwartz?

If you study Snowden, searches invariably lead you to cyber-related Aaron Schwartz who killed himself after two years of prosecution for attempting to “liberate” J-Store material and is viewed as a cyber-martyr.

Unfortunately from my perspective, Schwartz put himself on the oligarchic side of technology; he worked to help eliminate newlines for the forced paragraph format in word processing by helping
MarkDown (see “typewriter lives” here), he was in support of internet control of the people (who are increasingly becoming proletariat) through app-centric architecture over liberating data-centric systems logic (thinman.com).  He was highly-aligned with both Harvard (which supplies all our current oligarchs along w/ Yale), and MIT, which turn Schwartz into the Secret Service for "liberating" J-Store empricial information.  He was so poorly aligned that he ultimately killed himself as a martyr to the very things he opposed.  As J-Store is a storage for empirical data, I ask myself, how stupid can a person be? He wasn't stupid, he was seduced: Western Civilization's Socratic Method.

Seriously, this travesty is purely academic/oligarchic, and, as we see, empiricist – the very "think" that genuine constructivists are attempting to reverse. Progress is NOT what is needed; what we need is human, natural restoration, with the preservation, of course, of current benefits such as medical technologies.

Perhaps Schwartz was so well (behaviorally) rewarded for his early work as a teenager that he could never have known that he would kill himself as a socratic puppet attempting to help preserve Western Civilization by fixing it by freeing its empiricist documents from J-Store.  His deception lives on with Rep. Zoe Lofgren whose bill called Aaron’s Law was framed with Harvard's chief ethicist, Lawrence Lessig, who together with Lofgren, continue the deception as world-class dialecticians with Schwartz's family by attempting to push the blame on to law-bound prosecutors!
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/p206x206/999654_4775245593640_522474193_n.jpg

Purely socratic, non-platonic Harvard chief ethicist: 
Lessig''s non-verbal communication says it all as he
seduces young Aaron Schwartz at a computer expo


Socrates at it again: I feel safe in hypothesizing that what we see in this picture is evidence of a highly-unethicalplatonic relationship between Lessig and Aaron Schwartz that led to Schwartz’s becoming an information criminal and ultimately his suicide when Schwartz found himself unprepared to handle the pressures of the federal prosecution he brought upon himself.

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Wednesday, April 09, 2014

Windows XP users DEAD in Microsoft's eyes --feck'n info oligarchs

XP will be orphaned next week -- there will be malware support for another year -- but the OS is dead in MS's eyes. I probably should not care because I hate non-free computers and software, and I always felt XP was "rationally reduced" for your average marketing victim, but, stats show, something like 1/3 of computers run XP. Saving XP is a democratic obligation.

FREE THE ORPHANS!!!!
The way to go with this will have to be LEGISLATIVE, that is to say orphaned systems go to the public domain for users to fix for themselves, that is to say property rights no longer apply. It would be hard to get Microsoft to give up the code, but the public domain community would get it anyway, of course. (What a LEAKY world we live in, heehee)

Part of the problem (for me) is that (I don't believe) Linux, even Android is a solution for the simple reason that Defective Dominance was dominating the information society even before free s/w came along (dates back to ancient Egypt). Along w/ the Linux assholes (who will ruin your day) is the whole sick crew over at Wikipedia (high-functioning autism --what Putin has)

What we REALLY need is a MicroKernel ARCHITECTURE that can be build from components so that broken parts can be switched and specrically designed components can be switched in. The obvious path for this is L4 by rolling back a decade to the OSKit to avoid the Dresden crew's proprietary (but pretend to be free) academic-oligarchic "purposing" strategies.  Presumably, XP can be run in a cloud-type emulator.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Rationale for the Pengpod (in relation to ThinMan Model)

Given NSA involvement in everything with obvious capitulation to gov't sponsored hacking/cracking by nearly every information corporation (possibly even Microsoft/Windows) PengPod makes huge sense

I have promoted L4 over Linux for a decade now, but L4 needs to roll back a decade. to make it actually free and open as FSU developers have made it purely-proprietary (w/o mentioning..) The microkernel advantage, I believe, is currently security-oriented; not to say Linux is bad in that way, but that OSs need to be able to switch out components depending on how political/financial winds blow around their developers. Further, I support the original GNU model where code is highly-visible so that weaknesses can be easily spotted during implementation efforts: scripting like Korn's shell, but significantly updated.

If Pengpod is going to be real-world useful far beyond Android, it needs drivers, and all drivers are written for Apple (IOkit) and Windows (NDSI), so, in my opinion, the driver tail wags the OS dog.

Comparions w/ my Thinman Model from late-90s / early 2000s
If I may say so, I pretty-well "presaged" this idea in the late-90s during the tech boom but had horrible experiences with F-ll-ps and Caldera. (Caldera went on to the famous own-your-brain nonsense law suits bought with SCO via the Unix purchase from Bell, so you get the idea). My products were basically this and also a set-top box that was educationally-oriented. I initially meant to use a National Semiconductor/Cyrix chip that eventually became the VIA MiniITX with all its fun community stuff (http://www.mini-itx.com/projects). At first glance PengPod meets much of my initial criteria including external keyboards and HDMI.

This idea, the ThinMan, meant to develop a purely-data-centric OS that brought modules to data within a browser window, so that each dataset imitated a unique "app." All developers would code would be modules and libraries. Perl's CPAN was the model for support, but in machine- or byte-code; meshing would be the communication method of sharing and to wire for server support: the Thin/Fat model.

Needless to say, I learned the hard way that individual efforts are nearly a waste of time and hugely demoralizing, and that "angel" investors are anything but. Keep in mind the tech market had just crashed along w/ the WTC towers with a good many associates. The entire US economy would follow in a few years thanks to CDS derivatives, which was actually my last paying tech gig, oops.

L4 now runs fully independently as a "security phone"
I must add OSkit when writing about IOkit and drivers. This effort in the earliest part of the century (in Utah, of all places ;) ) was much like it sounds, and was used by Dresden to create the proprietary L4 that is in nearly every phone. In one case, a "secure" phone system "montes" to pure L4 operation, so fully-certified secure code is out there (but not available to us despite impressions.)

L4 is effectively purely-proprietary
The Dresden effort was largely academic (but still proprietary ironically a descendant of the non-owning socialism of the former GDR), so many PDFs (in typically-horrid empirical-style) are available so one can get a good idea of where free OSs need to go--or, at least, follow.

Re-assembled Linux as the new Android
An area w/in Android that confuses me wrt to Linux and Android is the Linux/Android fork. First, why has Android forked, or, perhaps, delineated?  The explanation seems to be that Linux & Co. are too slow to intake Android mods, and, of course, Android cannot wait. So, Android goes its own way making it effectively a fork, but it continues to be Linux.

If Android is moving ahead so fast and Linux is lagging, and Android is meeting consumer demand and Linux was a server-oriented deception pretending to be a (free) desktop (for the masses) all along, then, logically, Android is the place to be! What I read is that Android is highly-reduced and, thus, no longer POSIX. So, my question is "why hasn't a distro emerged that takes Android released-code and adds back the missing stuff" to make a valid POSIX desktop (and presumably server) for all systems?

Note: I often coredump here: http://www.oddmuse.org/wiki/John_Bessa

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

FB will delete 10s to 100s of millions of users for "over-friending"

Help end FB's "anti-friending" crisis (though I am at a loss as to how):
  • Facebook has and will delete a sizable percentages of its user-base:
    • at least 10's of millions, perhaps 100's of millions from a user-base of a billion
  • I may be in the "next round" of "deletions"

Facebook (FB) is deleting, or disabling, accounts to the tune of 100 million accounts, and is, apparently ramping-up, so the numbers banned from FB will reach into the 100's of millions.  FB has about a billion members, though it can be assumed that many, if not most, members use it infrequently, perhaps half or more barely long in at all, judging from my personal observations and experiences on other social sites.

That suggests that FB wants to eliminate a sizable percentage of its actual active "resident population," perhaps 20% to a third; maybe even as much as 50%.  A good question is "why would they do that as it makes no sense?"  FB profits are high, and its tax burden is apparently negligible (thanks to US government generosity to huge corporations), the per-user maintenance cost is negligible, and if it actually figures out how to attract beneficial sellers and link them wifh valid customers, there is no reason "non-clickers" such as me, will not buy into its commercialism.  Seriously, makes no sense from the business standpoint, and is dangerous to the world psychology.

http://johnbessa.com/picts/fb_employee_tormey.jpg
UpdateI definitely have FB’s attention: I am being “followed” by an FB employee presumably because of this material, so it seems my effort is working--at least as an individual. 

Typical current "friending" experience
I put my workplace as “please friend me as I can’t because I am blocked” and a gallery-owner just “friended” me, probably as a result. When I confirmed, FB asked me if I knew this person, so I responded “yes,” of course. Also, I get continual requests for more personal information, such as “where did I go to school,” or “where did I work.” Frankly, as an early promoter of a social internet (in the late 80s), I think you would have to be very trusting or stupid to use your real name on the Internet, let alone make personal information available everywhere.

General anger with FB and Zuckerman
There are many people angry enough with FB (to organize boycotts) for many, many reasons, whcih makes FB's founder, Zuckerburg, a seriously-hated person.  Many express serious ill-will towards Zuckerberg, which may even go to homicidal desires (but not from me). 

No "happy ending"
I don't see a happy ending to situation that I think is extremely damaging to the World's psychology for many reasons, including maladatpive behaviors express in FB's film biography, Social Network, as well as the intents of its controlling "angel investors."

Reversing original intent of the social Internet's founders (such as me)
My complaint is that FB is reversing the meaning of the Internet, which is to make create world communication as a form of digital empathy.  In retrospect, the concept of "digital empathy" seems like seriously wishful-thinking because it is contradictory (digital personalities are non-empathic) and the capital structures that funded the Interment's "tech boom" of the 1990s have since shown a clear desire to destroy the planet for quick profit.  Nonetheless, I have a good many long-term friends (hundreds) from the Internet whom I only know from the Internet and with whom I have excellent relationships, perhaps because of the Internet's digital nature. 

The only way to get kicked-off FaceBook is "friending" people whom you don't know in real life
Important to me is the method of "weeding" undesirable members: the method is described "anti-friending" campaign being implemented as part of the "terms of service" agreement that everybody clicks "yes" to but no one comprehends.  Because of the way computer-related laws are written, website "terms of service" are actually law, though you have to break actual law to get prosecuted, as Aaron Schwartz was.  Still, no matter what, FB's terms of service are the final word, and, contact with actual, potentially feeling humans at FB is nearly impossible.  The intractable nature of FB is described in psychological personality order of "concrete thinking," which is a serious problem.  After watching the movie about him, Social Network, I think I am within my rights by wondering if he was/is using.

Rationale
The "rationale" for new-friend-blocking that FB gives to me is that I am somehow abusing people who don't know me by asking to be their friends.  In real life, normal people talk to strangers and potentially spark up a friendship.  Normal people who are rebuffed by others who think that they are being abused by an extension of friendship invariably think to themselves something like "what an asshole!" 

Patronizing "assholes"
It would appear that FB is specifically patronizing this kind of unusually hostile and perhaps paranoid person.  (This is not to say such hostility makes a person "bad" as many people are simply extending negative worldviews of others--are are necessarily bad--and can recover through therapy.)  Nonetheless, given FB's size of a billion users, FB's promotion of this maladaptive approach to life significantly adds to the "contagion effect"

Does, or did,  Zuckerberg use cocaine?
Further cause for concern is that I sense from photographs of Zuckerberg at work and play is that he is some kind of user, and the movie about him, Social Network, emphatically stresses cocaine use during its "start up" --cocaine is highly addiction.  My concern here is not Zuckerberg's well-being, but the personality-disorder effects of cocaine, it causes concrete thinking (which halts possible change) and narcissism, which can only compound the situation.  But then, if he is the way he is portrayed in the movie, which seems accurate, doe he really run FB, or is it run by the "angel investors" that hold controlling stock (and attempted to rob its other founders).

A Dialectical explanation of my concern
A different dialectical issue to personally affect me is constant threat to block my account for using it to do what the Internet, and before it, the Information Society, was meant to do: make friends with the World. This is, of course, is the ultimate extension of Empathy, as everyone knows, but it is just about the only way to get kicked-off FaceBook--why? There is no doubt in my mind that a major reason is FaceBook’s “business model,” that focuses on family and community (as consumers), but I “sense” there is something more. I think of it in terms of “divide and conquer,” rational reduction to the family/work level where incompetent matriarchs/patriarchs prevent any talent from evolving to higher level incompetence to threaten the incompetents of the “power elite” (Bush/Obama). This inquiry into FaceBook (followed, I hope, by empathic action) is (in my opinion) the best critical direction for information society studies because it seems obvious to most what is going on with it: information control society. The scope and depth of the problem affects all information (like bacterium) making comprehension of it difficult for most which is why we need abstraction skills, abstraction being antithetical to the thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis of the current dialectic, but the way serious information science is accomplished, such as with the Internet Protocol communication stack (and the Empathy Model).

Dehumanization by FB and other dangerous "tech effects"This looks like an ongoing-process, and is important for the dual reasons that FB has such a big audience that it will continue the process of metacognitive de-humanization through human isolation, and that the purely “unfeeling types” will continue their seamless bond with computer networks to bring implement metacognitive control, such as BF Skinner modeled it in Walden II. Sad truth is that all community websites have similar controlling business models as the “angel investors” dictated the commercial nature of the Internet early on (in the mid-90s), and even open source and non-commercial sites such as Wikipedia and supporting components such as Wikipedia and Ubuntu openly support intellectual property protection either by narrowly defining or controlling free information so as to make “their own.” Ubuntu, for instance, will force users to unload file sharing tools such as Handbrake during upgrades, and Wikipedia forces all material to confirm to its particular “free” approach so as to actually confound society’s generous laws allowing “fair use.”

How does one fight this?
Seriously, how do you fight this? Government supports “business freedom” giving “terms of service” as a weapon for rabid prosecutors (Aaron Schwartz), the average person seeks to “stay off the radar” for safety’s sake, and the Internet “media” is purely positivist, that is to say that it metacognitively paints a pretty picture of everything often by suggesting (Socratic) alternatives--so as not to impact the “buying mania” of its advertised products (by family). When it offers alternatives to FB, they go in the direction of private interconnections between people who can just as easily talk on the phone (or text) or, preferably, meet in person.

Not good, it makes "cyber thuggery” (hacking) the only available option to “save the world,” which actually serves the oligarchic “meme’s” (or selfish-gene’s) maladaptive purpose by thwarting democracy’s evolution of freedom of speech through the information society. Democracy is what the Internet is meant to enhance, and why it has a free and open nature --not to create a information control society.

Reintroducing (wiki-style) anonymity
In the end, internet anonymity (as practiced by the Wikipedia) is not to protect one form the individual predator (as originally conceived) but from the information collector:

FaceBook defines, more than the others--even the NSA, the Information Society predator

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

The Snowden Effect: Uncle Tom is Dialectical

The people of the United States worked hard to shed its racism over the past 20-30 yrs to elect a Black president --twice-- in the face of an oligarchic Republican party proved in its ability to steal elections. But, in the end we got a war criminal, and the biggest threat to the constitution since slavery in the NSA's covert PRISM operation.

This is how it is dialectic -- we thought we were implementing our chosen and self-decided group destiny, but we dialectically arrived at place with a person so it is as if Plato chose him. The instrument and vehicle of this deception was the Harvard University, MIT pair. Aaron Schwartz was another dialectic victim through the highly unethical influneces of ethical leader Lessing -- our true, "liberal/progressive" enemy (what do we do now? -- no place to go but within)

Below is a link to my notes, which I am attempting organize while updating based on this on-going, exceedingly important event that is becoming "phenomic"

Link to Notes on Oddmuse (CLICK)

About the notes -- Searches on Snowden inevitably lead to Aaron Schwartz, who killed himself during his prosecution for attempting to "liberate" J-Store academica material.  He was mentored by Lessing, Harvard ethics leader -- perhaps the world ethics leader. While a socratic link from Lessing to Schwartz's death is hypothetical, the relationship adds yet another data point to the greater hypothesis that academia exists largely to assure that "revolutionary process" brings us right back to the point at which we started, and the dialectic process develops seemingly self-appointed mini-guards (from Aaron Beck), and now, perhaps even martyrs, such as Schwartz.  Here Lessing "chats" with Schwartz: Schwartz is definitely underaged, and Lessing's body langauge cannot be mistaken.



Sunday, February 24, 2013



Simplified Model
Wallet-sized abstraction to access people and situations psychologically on the fly

My empathy model is a clean-room abstraction that specifically looks  mutually-beneficial interrelations for organismic success, and is easily accepted by the vast majority of people, that is to say, those who normally interrelate.  It is fundamentally based on Dariwn's second important writing that attributes human morailty to the evolution of the "natural affection" of higher animals.  It is designed almost as a manual to apply empathy ideas to situations where normal interrelation is problematic or impossible--perhaps to design an avoidance strategy, or, possibly, to fight back as in activism.  It strongly suggests that the root problems attacking otherwise normal, happy society are rooted in "anti-complex" organic dysfunction.

With the start of my psych masters, the established empirical model that leverages the ancient Socratic method, the dialectic, introduced to me an entirely new language to describe mental problems that is not accessible to, or easily-used by, the average, normal people.  Further, the use of common psychological words from the dictionary such as psychotic and schizophrenic may be considered "unethical" to use with "proper training" (ie, a PhD and a license).

However, there are big changes happening in the study of the mind with the introduction of digital imaging.   This change is very popular; more accurate fMRI-evidenced material is being produced now than empirically-evidenced material using the thesis, antithesis, synthesis of empirical science.

Now, mental brain activity as it surfaces as human activity can be seen accurately in images.  Maladaptive activity can be directly related to parts of the brain that are failing.  That is to say activity (or behavior) that results from an inability to adapt to an internal problem, such as those that are organically-caused by DNA failures, or traumatic resulting from unfortunate events often deliberately caused by others, can be viewed, or seen to be absent, in images on a screen.  An important example  is in this article about signalling errors (in this blog) caused by DNA problems where the protein that is supposed to instruct neural function is broken and thus cannot do its job.  In this study, patients with the broken signalling process suffer from schizophrenia, psychosis, and bipolar disorder.

This study points us in the right direction.  It encourages us to create hypotheses that can suggest that specific major mental illnesses can be caused by specific signalling errors, and that maladaptive activity can be predicted by testing for these errors.  

Initially a problem surfaced with an early attempt.  If you attempt to tease apart illnesses based signalling errors, this does not help as it accounts for three separate diseases.  Psychologists who have been consulted are adamant that schizophrenia and psychosis are completely different illnesses especially in the empathy context--schizophrenics are easy to get along with.  When looked at closely, psychosis seems to result in problems in networks (including psychotic depression) that causes "out of control" behavior, and schizophrenia comes from false information signalling in the analytic, executive function, working memory part of the mind, the pre-frontal cortex.  It should be noted that the protein signalling errors were correlated with diagnoses made using the DSM, which predates fMRI evidence; the DSM may be (or probably is) dragging fMRI research backwards.  Further, one of the very first discoveries while building the empathy model, is that most of those interviewed in the empathy working group who had had problems, had had on average no less that five separate diagnoses; diagnostics are problematic--probably because the DSM is so horribly convoluted.

One component of the cited signalling study could easily be correlated with observed reality.  Family members carrying the same hereditary-and-genetic defect had similar fMRI scans as positively-diagnosed participants, but abnormalities were to lesser-degrees.  One of my early observed subjects was done in a family setting with me absorbing far more data than I cared for.  Family members were higher-functioning but less moral; as described in the empathy model, they applied their dysfunctions as controlling strategies for secondary gain: greed.  This goes to the obsessive-compulsive-impulsive continuum that historically links to addictive behaviors that disregard effects on others--money and possessions being two of them along with substances.  This puts uncontrolled impulse in the psychotic category.

Modeling
So, to create a workable model that is in line with the empathy model, psychosis (being "out of control") and schizophrenia (hallucinations) are pulled apart and the third important "empathy model" problem, aspergers, is added as it is generally linked with the inability to feel others' emotions, and thus act with respect to them--morally.  Since the empathy model is made for the common person (that is to say it is democratic), and since there may be peril in using these terms (because of ethical perversions), the definitions, or descriptions, for the diseases are used rather than the disease names themselves.   This is a wallet card that should provide one with a map to avoid the maladaptive behaviors of those whose maladaptions to sickness make them immoral, and thus dangerous.  If it is a successful model, it should save the average person a great deal of grief.  The purpose of a model is almost the direct opposite of the purpose of an empirical study; a model (such as a business model, or the highly-successful weather models) is to predict phenomena and provide benefits.  This model has been doing both for a year, and is thus tested--just not correlated to genetic-fMRI-assessment sicence (yet).

Metacognition
The final item, that is not directly related to signalling errors, is the idea of metacognition that appears in the empathy model as "painting a pretty picture" of poor events to make them more palatable.   This is often the basis of cognitive therapy which suggests looking finding an "alternative" way to look at things to relieve troubling symptomatic such as anxiety or depression.  The problem is, of course, that the underlying problem is ignored and that only symptoms are addressed.  A person could spend their entire life feeling better about a person with dangerous signalling errors, say, to save a marriage, without realizing that their life has been stolen.  

In this model's view, the adaption of humanity to signalling errors as they manifest as psychosis, aspergers, and the combination of the two, socio-psychopathy, is at the crux of humanity's failure; it is an alternative to what is natural in that it empowers dangerous people in the traditional sense, it gives them control.  In the empathy model sense, the maladaptive are given power to take resources from others through coercion.  This is necessary for the emphatically maladaptive because they cannot use empathic abilities and facilities to work with others to create resources.  

In this view, psychology (historically with the dialectic and currently with the DSM) have provided an alternative to what is natural using what is called the Socratic method.  We normal humans are expected to view maladaption from an alternative perspective, that is to paint a pretty picture in place of reality to make life less anxious and depressing.  This, in this view, is the "method" of civilization, the dialectic, and deception.  

Normal human success depends on shining a light on it, which is the purpose of this "simplified model wallet card."



Mediated Citations:
this section is an implementation of annotated bibliography that (eventually) hopes to blend referential support, footnotes, and (most important) forum discussion with the idea that it is our differing influences that define our points of view, and that by combining these influences we should come to agreed-upon explanations for phenomena

Protein signalling from McIntosh, 2009
A look back on this research shows how abstracted this simplified model is, and the size of the gap between pure science and everyday reality.  Initially I intended to directly apply the research which links many diseases to a single signalling error, but resistance from experts in the field forced me to reduce this one error to a single disorder, psychosis, because (as they say) psychosis is functionally related to bipolar, but not to schizophrenia.  In defense of the pure scientists, the signalling goes to "maintenance" cells such as the astrocyte in the background. (I think of these cells as relatives of neurons).

A though that occurred to me as I first read the studies, is that I had once hypothesized that the fat on the cells, mylein, gets burned off when the mind is over active, such as in the term "burned out."  This occurred to me in the mid-90s when I was fixing an expensive desktop computer and noticed that the CPU chip got much hotter when it was running a "batch job" than when it was still.  Given the many abstracted similarities between computers and humans, I also assumed human intellectual matter will get hotter in similar proportions, and hence "burn off" the insulation causing dysfunction--in any part of the brain.  This implicates both dopamine-exciting meth, and extreme overactivity caused by, say, terror-level fear resulting in trauma, sometimes called an insult.

APA-style citations:

Chong, V., Thompson, M., Beltaifa, S., Webster, M., Law A., and Weickertad, S. (2007). Elevated Neuregulin-1 and ErbB4 protein in the prefrontal cortex of schizophrenic patients: Schizophr Res. 2008 March ; 100(1-3): 270–280. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2007.12.474.

Fazzari, P., Paternain, A., Valiente, M., Pla, R., Luj├ín, R., Lloyd, K., et al. (2010). Control of cortical GABA circuitry development by Nrg1 and ErbB4 signalling. Nature, 464(7293), 1376-1380. doi:10.1038/nature08928.

Homayoun, H., & Moghaddam, B. (2008). Orbitofrontal cortex neurons as a common target for classic and glutamatergic antipsychotic drugs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(46), 18041-18046. doi:10.1073/pnas0806669105.

Li, B., Woo, R., Mei L., Malinow, R., (2007, May 24). The neuregulin-1 receptor ErbB4 controls glutamatergic synapse maturation and plasticity. Neuron, 54(4), 583-597.

McIntosh, A., Hall, J., Lymer, G., Sussmann, J., and Lawrie, S. (2009). Genetic risk for white matter abnormalities in bipolar disorder. International Review of Psychiatry, 21(4), 387-393. doi:10.1080/09540260902962180.

McIntosh, A., Hall, J., Lymer, G., Sussmann, J., and Lawrie, S. (2009). 
Genetic loading for psychosis and the internal capsule disorder. International Review of Psychiatry, 21(4), 387-393.

Stone, J., Morrison, P., and Pilowski, L. (2007, January 26)Review: Glutamate and dopamine dysregulation in schizophrenia — a synthesis and selective review. Journal of Psychopharmacology. 21(4), 440-452