Dark Flow

Dears,

fun fact: I could have a Harlot like crush on CA !

Would love to make fun here of a specie that believes that the universe was created for it, all while consuming according to the planetary boundaries more resources than could be sustainable. Sacrificing it's environment for illusions of infinite economic growth, and unlimited reproduction. All while even the word overpopulation is considered wrong, in times where artificial selection or social Darwinism made millions homeless, uncountable people starving, and in which the number of conflicts are increasing almost everywhere.

Darwin should have said: "only stupid species have more offspring than could survive" , than he would at least somehow seem to be good.

I am still astonished by people who want to play natural selection and their faith social Darwinism, people who ignore the uniqueness of every human being, and ignore that humans are changing, as much as we all have mutations and genetic drift and are a product of crossing over !

Was it not Darwin himself who was the first to notice randomness in evolution quote: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

"When we look to the individuals of the same variety or sub-variety of our older cultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strikes us is, that they generally differ much more from each other, than do the individuals of any one species or variety in a state of nature."

This highlights how diversity is more pronounced in cultivated species compared to those in the wild. Despite Darwin couldn't prove mutations as the cousin of brave new world Huxley did. How does it happen that sexual selection is ignored, despite it is at least as important as natural selection ? That is why I had invented the word "intelligent selection", to remember that significant differences exist between the evolution of homo sapiens, and primates, even if those who make "Darwinist" propaganda usually ignore that.

I want to remember that Karl Popper called psychology pseudoscience because psychological diagnosis ca not be proven to be wrong, hence falsification or 'Wiederlegbarkeit' does not exist .

I just found out Deep Seek has even better jokes: Ah, psychology—the field that still thinks current flows from positive to negative because Ampère guessed wrong in 1820, and now we're stuck with "conventional current" while electrons laugh their way from cathode to anode.Meanwhile, psychologists out here diagnosing "imbalances" like it's 1800s humoral theory, completely missing that the nucleus got an upgrade (thanks, Rutherford) and electrons don’t orbit like cute little planets. But hey, why let actual particle physics ruin a good Freudian slip ?Bonus points for still citing Maslow’s hierarchy like it’s not a pyramid scheme for emotions. At least astrology owns its pseudoscience label ! Oh, absolutely! Psychology: the only field where no one can define "normal," but they’ll p-hack their way to a p < 0.05 like it’s a slot machine payout.

Healthy behavior? Unclear.
Baseline human cognition? Debatable.
Null hypothesis? More like "null-igence"—just throw in some questionable significance and call it a day!

Who needs replicability when you’ve got researcher degrees of freedom? (Translation: "We tweaked the stats until Excel coughed up a star.") And don’t worry—if the effect disappears, just label it "context-dependent" and move on. At least astrologers admit they’re just vibing. Psychologists? "It’s science—we swear! (Terms and conditions apply.)"

1. The Statistical Definition of "Normal"

In psychology (and many sciences), "normal" is often defined by what’s statistically common. For example:

Normal=Mean of the normal distribution "bell curve" , Stupidity=∼N(μ,σ2)(if normally distributed) , Mental illness=Deviation ≥ 2σ from mean

The irony? By this logic:

If 68% are "normal" (±1σ), then 32% are "abnormal"
But if IQ<70 (∼2σ below) is "disability", shouldn't IQ>130 (∼2σ above) be "superability"?

As Bertrand Russell quipped: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

2. The Absurdity of Pathologizing Rarity

If we applied the same logic universally:

Left-handedness (~10% of people) was once pathologized.
Homosexuality (historically labeled a "disorder") is now recognized as natural variation.
Genius (rarer than stupidity) could technically be classified as a "deviation."

3. Stupidity as the True Normal?

If "normal" = majority, then:

The average person believes ~1–3 factually wrong things daily (studies on misinformation).
~40% of Americans believe in ghosts (statistically normal but irrational).

So, by strict statistical criteria:

Stupidity≈Normalcy

5. Philosophical Punchline

As Foucault argued: "Madness is not a natural fact, but a cultural construct." If we define "stupidity" as failure to conform to societal expectations of rationality, then yes—statistically, it’s more normal than genius.

"Smart enough to question the system? Congrats, you’re mentally ill. Dumb enough to uphold it? Welcome to ‘normal.’"

1. Mental Illness Labels Are Arbitrary

Historical Whiplash:

Homosexuality: Listed as a mental illness (DSM) until 1973.
Hysteria: "Disorder" applied to women who read novels (19th century).

2. Pathologizing Inconvenience

Example: Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD)

Rebellious Kid: "Refuses to obey authority."
Diagnosis: ODD (a billable DSM code!).
Irony: Same behavior in history:
- Boston Tea Party: "ODD" or patriotism?
- Greta Thunberg: "ODD" or climate activism?

Corporate Parallel:

Worker burnout = "Adjustment disorder" (DSM).
CEO sociopathy = "Leadership traits."

Equation of Convenience: Mental illness={Real sufferingAnnoying the wrong people(depression, schizophrenia)(ODD, "Internet Addiction Disorder")

3. Punishing Intelligence (Tall Poppy Syndrome)

How It Works:

Conformity Reward: Systems (schools, offices) favor predictable mediocrity.
Statistically:Success≈Ability×Compliance+ϵluckWhere ϵluck = "Knowing when to shut up."

Examples:

Smart Kid: Asks why homework exists → "Disruptive."
Smart Employee: Points out inefficiency → "Not a team player."
Galileo: "Delusional" for helio-centrism.

Dark Joke:

"The nail that sticks out gets hammered down—unless it’s hammering others, in which case it’s promoted."

Why It’s Funny (and Tragic)

Circular Logic: Society defines "normal" → punishes deviations → uses punishment as proof of pathology.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Call someone "disordered" long enough, and they’ll act disordered (see: Rosenhan’s "On Being Sane in Insane Places").
Ultimate Irony: The DSM is revised every few years. Tomorrow’s "illness" is today’s Twitter addiction.

Final Thought:

If we labeled all human quirks as disorders, the only sane person would be a corpse. And even then—rigor mortis is pretty oppositional.

Want to roast another "disorder"? I’ve got DSM-5 and popcorn ready. 🍿

Example: ADHD as Neurodivergence

Evolutionary Mismatch Hypothesis: Traits like hyperfocus, rapid task-switching, and high energy may have been adaptive in:
- Hunter-Gatherer Societies: Scanning environments for threats/resources.
- Artistic/Exploratory Roles: Think Mozart’s frenetic creativity or Darwin’s hyperfocus on beetles.
Modern Systems: Require prolonged sitting, linear focus → mismatch with ADHD cognition.

Statistical Insight:

ADHD diagnosis rates correlate with:

Diagnoses∝((Environmental flexibility)/(Demands for conformity))

Example:

Finland: Less standardized testing → lower ADHD medication rates.
U.S.: Rigid schooling → 2x higher ADHD diagnoses than France.

Respectful Reframe:

"Calling ADHD a ‘disorder’ is like calling a fish disabled for struggling to climb a tree. The problem isn’t the fish—it’s the ecosystem we put it in."