Natural Talents and the Nightmare of Getting on Smashwords

Imagine a world in which, some two thousand years ago, every person was given a paintbrush and canvas, after which the result of their creation became the new standard for judging art quality and only those who matched this standard were allowed to paint. The work of people like Rembrandt and Van Gogh would have been repressed from childhood (today possibly with the help of Ritalin), since it was clearly not of equal quality as that of ‘most people’. Would humanity have enjoyed the cultural diversity that it knows now?

It is the same with every other talent; not just artistic talents, but talents like practical handicraft in trades, editing, accounting, technological skills, computer programming and writing. These talents come with a person’s inborn gifts and can be practised, but each of us has some talents and some weaknesses, which are part of our personality. That is necessarily so, because it is a result of how we process information and every personality type does that differently. If we all had the same talents, even potentially, we’d have a very boring world without progress.

In the writing world, writers used to be supported by publishers. A publishing house had some people with editing skills, others with marketing skills, others with illustration skills and printing or formatting skill and the writer could focus on their own natural talent, which usually had to do with the content of the topic they were writing on and not the technical aspects. Writers tend to initiate social change, prevent dogma and come up with novel ideas. Without those insights, the world would rapidly slip into dogma. Homosexuality, for example, started to get serious attention after writers (and filmmakers) started portraying it as normal. Until then the public opinion rejected it. The same applies to all other social issues, no differently than that hard science fiction writers often invent an idea for a technology before it gets developed. Writers, therefore, have a vital role in social progress.

But as a writer (in New Zealand), I am struggling to get onto the market. Not only can I not sell my hard copies outside of the country, because of the cost in postage, but local book shops and libraries go for what is popular, which tends to come from a foreign mass market. The local library will not accept my printed copies, but they have agreed to list my eBook titles. But, as they prefer to take them from Smashwords, I agreed to put my books there. It seemed simple enough.

But Smashwords is made for people who upload a word document (according to certain specifications) and then they make eBooks out of it, although they do have the option of uploading professionally made ePub files. But all my books were already professionally converted to eBook (both Mobi and ePub) by a converter who works to a high standard and there have never been complaints. Yet trying to get those books on Smashwords is an ongoing nightmare. With most of my books, I have to ask my converter to change something in the file, which tends to be explained in techno babble I cannot understand. Not only that, but the rejections seem inconsistent. For example, I have a five-part science fiction series, which all have a different title, but the same series title. Despite entering them with the exact same capitalization and punctuation, one was immediately accepted and the rest came back twice with requirements to change the title format. Now they have all been accepted, the reader might wonder why one of the titles does not match. If I try to change that, I risk it being rejected again. Additionally, the first book in the series, which was converted and created as ePub file, at the same time as all the others and according to the same format, keeps coming back as being faulty, so the readers can buy parts two to five, but not part one.

In short, Smashwords is nice if you have a word document and want to sell it as a book, but if you have already self-published, it is a lot of trouble. Sure, if you are skilled in electronic formatting, you have no problem, but that privilege is personality type dependent. That means that those personality types who prefer genres like hard science fiction and crime can upload their books easily, but not those who naturally lean towards the humanities (and social issues).

And Smashwords is one of the better ones. For one thing, it is trying very hard to make it accessible for all people, and the creators are most likely unaware of the personality types and therefore assume anybody can learn it as easily as they do. Yet it is exactly that understanding of personality types I am trying to promote with my books. So, we are stuck in a cycle: they don’t learn about psychology because those who write about it are less likely to be on the current market and therefore keep assuming that anybody can understand their technology.

In other words, not much has changed from before eBooks, when publishers rejected books for their content; if you expressed the already accepted opinion it was okay, because the objective of publishers was money, which also meant ignoring potential social issues. I have therefore no regret that the industry has changed to give independent writers more chance. But I am beginning to see problems if the new selection process ignores content and grammar altogether and only looks at the technical aspects.

But it gets worse. Contests are traditionally intended to find original and quality books and give the winners a chance to get their name out. Despite biases according to the chosen panel, the size of the contest and the entering requirements, there was the chance that a real-life reader recognized a book’s potential. But I recently saw an advert for a contest that selects their winner according to an algorithm that is created according reader behaviour – thus, no human judges involved – which is therefore outright selecting exactly that which is not original and puts us back at what the publishing houses used to do.

Bittersweet as this may sound, I am happy to give up trying to spend my time on pursuits like marketing, that are clearly not my expertise, so that, no matter how much time I spend on them, I will never stand out.

I am a writer by nature and I need people with other natural talents to support that. As long as our society is solely focused on money and promotes the misconception that everybody has the same potential psychology, it will continue to favour certain pursuits over others. All I can do is keep writing about it and know I have done everything in my ability.

A Perspective of Life and Death

In the movie Twin Sisters – originally De Tweeling after a book by Tessa de Loo – quarrelling relatives separate two very young twin girls after their parents’ death, which results in both girls leading a completely different life. Ignoring the effects of the war on both of them for this discussion, one grows up with loving parents in relative wealth and with a cultural education; the other suffers all the hardships: poverty, abuse, hard work. Thus, the arbitrary choice made by the relatives influences the objective value of life for each of the girls.

Obviously, the same is true for the circumstances any other child grows up with. If life itself hangs by a threat every single day in a war-torn country or in a place where hunger and disease are prominent; if it is an everyday struggle, the contemplation of life itself may not even occur to people – too preoccupied with survival or too malnourished to think that deeply about it. In a situation  where death is a daily occurrence due to war or street violence, children may become desensitized to death and misery – and the same may apply to children raised with violent movies.

Constant fear (for one’s life), a hopeless situation and constant physical pain can cause death to appear more attractive than life and unforseen circumstances can generate a sudden change in attitude . I am thinking of the movie Frida (portraying the life of the painter Frida Kahlo) where a bus accident changes a carefree existence into one of daily physical pain to the point where Frida says that she cannot wait to get out of this life.

Of course it depends on what belief system a person has. Those growing up with religious beliefs that dictate life as the greatest good and frown upon death by choice (suicide, abortion, euthanasia) may find themselves in a moral dilemma if they experience depression or a crippling disease – as do those who grow up in a social setting where life is treated as if sacred on humane grounds, like those opposing the death penalty.  And whether a person believes in a life after death and what exactly that ‘life’ looks like will also play a role.

Nevertheless, those are all objective influences on the value of life and death. But have you ever wondered why two people growing up in the exact same circumstances can have completely different responses? Why do some people become so depressed in our affluent society that they are willing take their own life while others may live in physical or social misery, yet remain optimistic or fight to their last breath? Why do some defy the wrath of their deity by choosing suicide, while others choose imprisonment to avoid war? Why are these objective circumstances and strong moral, cultural or social beliefs not the determining factors in the perceived value of life for individual people and how they view death and disease?

I believe that different people have a different inborn subjective value that causes a completely different perspective of both life and death.

There are those who take life itself with a pinch of salt. They consider it a game or a lucky coincidence and accept that it is not forever. This is the source of slogans such as  “Don’t take life too seriously; you’ll never get out alive” that appear on postcards and stickers. People who live with this attitude tend to make jokes about life and death equally and some of them may even seek dangerous pursuits to ‘challenge’ death; they are generally optimistic, consider a life of caution not worth living and may choose high risk jobs. And as they see their own life as passing or a game, so they may treat that of others thus and they may laugh at disease or at fear.

There are others who take life as a matter of fact. It is something to make the most of and maybe even leave one’s legacy behind. People who live life with this attitude will not seek dangerous pursuits, because that is not a sensible thing to do and death is to be avoided (not challenged), because it would come in the way of all the things they still want to achieve. They may consider life something that deserves respect but may also believe that taking a life can be justified (either their own or that of others in the name of humane treatment, in the name of war or justice). They tend to accept disease as possibly unavoidable and take what is given them.

Then there are those that find life a struggle – possibly due to circumstances – and have a tendency to pessimism. They may say things like “if the apocalypse comes I’d rather be the first to go”. They may fear death or disease, but they may also fear a life of disease or pain. They may or may not actively choose death, but they see it as a relief of hardship, something to look forward to and may favour the idea of mercy killing.

And finally, there are those (like me) who consider life to be sacred. We each get only one and it is serious business that is not to be trifled with. To take somebody else’s life or to even make it miserable is to disrespect life itself. Death (and disease up to a degree) is the ultimate humiliation and to be avoided at all costs. Jokes made about life or death are usually considered to be of bad taste. Nobody should have the right to decide over somebody else’s life – including soldiers, governments or judges – and those that ruin the life of another purposely should pay with their own, since there is no price high enough.

None of the above is right or wrong and none is better than the others. They are simply different perspectives that result from the relationship one has with life itself. What we need to realize, however, is that we do not all have the same perspective and that each perspective deserves respect.

This concludes my little contemplation of life and death. There may be people who have other views. My own belief is that these inner values are closely related to a person’s psychological type and I would be interested to hear what your view is and (if you know it) what your Jungian or MB typename is.

And the World Held its Breath

 On March 29th, 1936, the legitimate voters of one democratic nation were to decide the fate of the vast majority of the world’s citizens. I don’t know how many people that did not have a say in those elections held their breath until the result was known. And I don’t know how many of them stopped breathing altogether after it was over.

I do know that today millions of non-Americans held their breath, for once again the voters of one nation were to decide whether the entire world would be safe, at least for another four years.

Thankfully, this time the result allowed us to breathe out and let our blood pressures go down.

Natural leaders, people who have the right personality to lead, are rare and have been rare throughout history. They are certainly rare among monarchs and politicians for the simple reason that those do not get to power because of their leadership skills. They get there either because of an inherited title or because of a popularity contest.

It is even rarer to find a natural leader who is also a desirable leader for the people and for the circumstances at the time.

Plato is often accused of failing in his pursuit of providing proof for his belief in the philosopher-king because the prince he went to tutor did not become the ideal leader. But to me that only proves the theory: this prince was there by right of birth, not because he had the natural talents to rule.

Hitler was a natural leader, but not a desirable leader; Martin Luther King Junior was a natural leader and a desirable leader, but he was not in the position of leading a nation.

Pericles, leader of Athens, and Augustus, first emperor of Rome, were natural leaders and desirable leaders in view of the needs of their nation at that time  – yes, yes, I know Augustus used a certain amount of violence to get the power, but that is because most in his time had been brought up to believe that leaders were chosen and educated to be leaders.

There have been few since, but until four years ago no politician emerged from a democratic country who was actually also capable of leading: A person with the right personality traits to stand up and make decisions without having somebody else prompt him, who could answer questions without having been prepared, who was not afraid to show himself as a human being, who was willing to listen to the advice of those around him and who was not afraid to admit making mistakes.

As explained in my book Concerto for Mankind, I believe that the natural personality type to lead a nation is an ENTJ, for in that type come all the natural gifts that guarantee decisiveness, honesty, the ability to delegate, the ability to communicate, a willingness to prioritize the needs of the larger community, a genuine interest in human needs, a cool head under pressure and boundless energy in meeting people, but most of all, the strategic insight in the long term consequences of every decision made.

I am not saying there have not been other good leaders, but they were not politicians voted in by a majority of voters without such insight; they either came from a privileged background to allow them to be pre-selected or they came to power by other means than democratic elections.

And just for the record: I do not believe that philosophers should be kings, even if I am in agreement with Plato that leaders must be born to lead and not only taught to do so.

Thank you for reading.

 

 

 

Censorship and Independent Writing

In an earlier post I discussed why I have chosen to adopt a penname and to become an independent writer.

My definition was that independent writers won’t choose their topics according to the financial considerations of the big publishing houses, won’t adjust their style to the latest fashion in writing techniques and won’t limit their stance to the visions of political, religious or cultural groups.

 In short, independent writers won’t let social censorship determine how and what they write.

What do you mean “censorship”?

Writers, of course, come in all sorts and write about all kinds of things. But that does not mean that every person is born to become a writer or can write about the same topics.

Each personality type has a preferred topic, so that some writers write about social issues, just like others are born to be science writers. This is not a simple choice people make, but driven by the way they deal with information, which determines their natural talents.

For example, most theoretical physicists (writing about cosmology and particle physics) have a natural gift for mathematics, a gift political and ethical writers do not usually possess.

These gifts apply to all human activities – not just those we think of as the arts – and they don’t only apply to what people are good at doing (like maths), but also to what they observe and experience – their perceptions.

And so there are people who are naturally good at seeing the immediate practicalities of a current event and there are those who are good at seeing the long term consequences of a social situation that prevails today.

But those different talents cannot exist in the same people, since excelling in something means putting all your focus on it, so the other abilities are less developed. This provides humanity as a whole with the variety it needs to build civilization. It is not a question of some people are smart and others dumb; every person is smart in his own preferred area.

Thus, we have natural proofreaders with an excellent eye for detail in the immediate practical now and natural innovators who design the products and ideas we need tomorrow; there are caregivers, inventors, race car drivers, business people, people with a gift for logistics, practical problem solvers like mechanics, theorists of physics and cosmology and theorists who deal with the human world.

All of them may become writers, but each writes only about the topics that they are naturally drawn to – so that the cosmologist may write a science fiction story but probably not a family romance, the race car driver may write an action packed thriller but not a work on politics, and personality types like me write fiction that is intended to address social problems with an emphasis on dialogue, human character and contemplation but very little action adventure.

Suffices to say that people cannot simply become a writer because it is fashionable and neither can people simply stop being a writer – they may stop doing it for a living, but the natural drive remains.

Today, people have the option of going to university and get a degree in creative writing, but what they learn are techniques – the passion for the topic cannot be learned and neither can someone learn the perceptions that don’t come natural to him.

Publishers use market research to select the books they wish to publish – because they have to make a profit – so that they select on the basis of “what people want”; the assumption being that readers want a repeat of old ideas and more of the same.

Book reviewers  consider themselves objective critics of what constitutes good writing and tend to express themselves in objective terms, such as “this is a good book” or “that writer ignores the facts”, which many readers (and publishers), believing that writing is something that anybody can learn at university, accept as true.

None of them considers the influence of their own personality type on this misconception and many people argue that it is right for the market to decide what is good writing – or rather, what is good for people to read – based on the idea that every person has an independent mind and makes his choices objectively without being influenced by others.

But  we know that the vast majority of people believe something to be good because  it is popular or because some critic has said it is – we see this everywhere: in advertising and fashion and with celebrities – and despite using words like “critical thinking” and “creative writing”, most publishers, critics , agents and teachers use comparison to famous names or best sellers to endorse their choices and so they reject what they believe to be unrealistic.

Apart from that, the publishing industry, which originated to assist writers in having their voices heard, is now also struggling to stay alive due to eBooks and the ease of self-publishing, so that it is even more determined to take only that which is already selling well – escapism stories about vampires and super heroes, similar to those that allowed the masses to carry on pretending that all was well and ignore the warnings in the 1920s and 1930s.

The irony is that with it getting more and more easy to self-publish, it has both become possible for those writers who used to be rejected to get published, as well as increasingly difficult to be acknowledged as writers,  because of the avalanche of information and books now flooding the market. And those writers who try to self-publish without the financial means to do so, end up producing manuscripts that lack in proper editing, because the writer is focused on content.

Thus, we live in a society where publishers – who have an inclination to accept the existing order – dictate what writers can write about (if they want to get published by them), while writers are forced to do the editing and marketing the publishers are naturally good at.

Therefore, and unintentionally, the media and publishing industry have become social censors, making it difficult for socially critical writers to get their voices heard. These institutions are looking back (at what exists now), while social writers naturally look forward (at the consequences and what could be possible).

The result of censorship, whether intentionally or not, is that the masses are being kept ignorant of social dangers and dogmatic views prevail.

And it is simply not true that living in an “information age” protects us from that dogma – on the contrary, due to the information avalanche, most people only read the headlines, the gossip and their social networks anymore.

Hypocrisy.

Currently there is a tendency in the western countries to berate others for imprisoning writers who express criticism about their government – writers who due to their inborn nature address social issues.

And although I share the sentiment of organizations like PEN – I do not believe that people should be imprisoned (or worse) for expressing their opinion – I do believe that such judgmental actions from outsiders can only make the situation worse; criticism should come from within a society, from its socially critical writers.

But more than that,  I object to the idea of berating the neighbours for the state of their garden, while ignoring one’s own weeds. Western weeds are hidden censorship that is covered with slogans about freedom of speech, democracy, and free market opportunity.

In conclusion, I do not criticize the social media or the ‘information age’ for the danger that dogmatic thinking is causing in today’s western society. I think that the information avalanche does give those willing to put in the effort a much better chance of getting uncensored information, due to the willingness of so many people to write for free – to step out of the money-motivated media market. I certainly don’t think that the social media have caused us to become more selfish – on the contrary, through blogs and newsletters there is more and more free advice available.

But nevertheless, we need to be aware that the masses remain uninformed about the global issues and about the natural personalities that cause different people to be able to see what others cannot, so that those in a position of power may once again dismiss the dangers until it is too late.

A Dangerous Misconception

This last week has been one of frantic e-mail exchanges and posts made on group sites and pages that have as their topic the on Jung, Myers-Briggs or Keirsey based personality type differences (the psychological types) that define and explain everything that motivates and influences every person.

I initiated this action in response to an article found on healthline.com that, in an effort to describe ‘antisocial-personality disorder’, referred to some of the psychological types as “abnormal”:

“Every person’s personality is unique. However, social scientists have identified distinct characteristics of personalities that can be assigned to specific categories.

One common way to label personalities is with the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator (MBTI). The MBTI lists 16 types of personalities. Some types are considered abnormal. People who have those types have a mental health condition known as a personality disorder. Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is one type of these disorders.”The symptoms of this condition tend to worsen during late teenage years to early twenties. Treatment may help improve symptoms. Symptoms can improve with age for some people, allowing them to feel and act better by the time they reach their forties.

The article (www.healthline.com/health/antisocial-personality-disorder) displays a gross ignorance of the type differences and of the basic principles of the theory and sparked many furious reactions of those perfectly normal types that were in essence being called psychopaths.

My own first response was to write to Healthline and then to alert every psychological type friendly Facebook and LinkedIn group to this misconception – the latter generated much support and many also decided to write to Healthline with the request they correct their mistake.

Healthline itself responded to me within two days with a link to a scientific study by some members of the University of Colorado (http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Euccs%2Eedu%2FDocuments%2Fdsegal%2FAn-empirical-investigation-Jungs-types-and-PD-features-JPT-2%2Epdf&urlhash=pxps&_t=tracking_disc) on which the article was based, which implied that they consider the conclusions of the article (since it was based on an academic study) by definition correct. This is itself an assumption since the writer of the article drew conclusions over and beyond the conclusions of the article. Additionally, I also found that the study itself has many flaws that make its value questionable.

The article is flawed, not only because it shows a complete ignorance with regard the psychological types and the theory behind it, but also  because of the conclusion it draws, since it goes on to mention that ASPD  is being treated with medication or CBT, which implies that it is not a personality type but a temporary condition (as the types are inborn), and that some types “are considered abnormal”, which implies that either the MBTI makes this distinction or the study does, neither of which is true. By ‘abusing’ the word  ”personality” (see blog post The Abuse of Personality) the writer confuses inborn dispositions with a mental illnesses.

The study, on which Healthline says the article is based, is also using many assumptions:

The title of the study is “An Empirical Investigation of Jung’s Psychological Types and Personality Disorder Features”, although its bibliography does not list any of Jung’s works at all and only has the CCP Manual to the use of the Myers-Briggs Indicator, but no reference to any other books that explain the types nor to Isabel Myers or David Keirsey.

The sample they use for their study consisted of people recruited by psychology students, which implies they already had a certain outcome in mind and certain beliefs with regard what is accepted as human nature – most academic psychology department do not acknowledge multiple types of people – which is a result of the “brain story theory” currently accepted in the academic world (see my blog post The Black and White of Grey Matter).

The conclusion that there is a correlation between the characteristics they attribute to “personality disorders” and the MBTI personality trait descriptions is nothing new to any person who understands what the psychological types are about. Jung himself already made a study of psychological types in relation to psychiatric disorders, because that is how he got to the idea in the first place. The difference is that Jung and his followers consider personality differences healthy and acceptable differences in normal people, while the researchers consider these differences unhealthy.

The study makes a caveat that advices further investigation since

“Jungian types were not verified by any instrument other than the MBTI and personality disorders or their features were not verified by any instrument other than the CATI. In addition, both instruments are self-report….”

Of course, self-report is the only possible manner of measuring types and the mention that personality disorders are based on self-report may be unavoidable for the same reason, at which point it becomes a question of who accepts that what they experience is a sign of abnormality and label themselves thus and who chooses to explain what they experience as a type trait.

This ‘choice’ in turn depends on the personality type of the people involved. Some types are keen to trust authority or popular views and other types choose to make their own assessments.

The study also states that “Lifetime prevalence rates for personality disorders in the general population are estimated to range from 8% to 13%… The present sample was expected to have sufficient levels of personality disorder traits or features in order to conduct the present investigation”.

Thus, the study set out with the assumption that the disorders listed in the DSM-IV (because it has an official name) are objective facts rather than a collection of traits that are given a special name when sufficient people are found that match the description, forgetting that most people making these descriptions do so because they have learned that they exist as a fact. In other words, the more popular or accepted a ‘disorder’ becomes, the more people will either self-report having it or label others thus, on which, in turn, the existence of the disorder is based.

The sample used is that of the general population (“The present sample is limited by a non-clinical sample of convenience”)  and not of clinically ill psychiatric patients, yet the study is happy to assign certain types with “schizotypal” (a new fancy word for “psychotic”) and “antisocial” (which used to  be called “sociopath” or “psychopath”) and a whole range of descriptions that used to be considered “neurotic”.

However, such descriptions of syndromes used to refer to temporary problems (like depression), but are now suddenly referred to as “lifetime prevalence”, which is confusing the state of unwell being (of real depression) with a melancholic disposition, which, indeed , fits certain types more – even if not the ones the study mentions, and is making the same mistake as the writer of the article, mentioned above.

The study mentions that “Psychopathological MBTI poles were clearly more likely to be introversion, intuition, thinking, and perceiving” –  which ironically describes among others Jung himself, Einstein, Bill Gates,  Kant and David Keirsey and most any academic who chooses theoretical physics or computer programming, while the ASPD label would include people like Benjamin Franklin, Churchill, Socrates, Oscar Wilde, Mark Twain and Richard Branson.

My point is that the intent of the study was to accept personality disorders as a given and use the MBTI as a way of recognizing them, rather than the other way around – as in acknowledging the differences and then note that some types may be more sensitive to certain problems, which is what Jung did. The difference is that the former attitude predetermines that being melancholic, short tempered,  not practical, not inclined to express one’s feelings, and preferring one’s own company is by definition pathological and that the MBTI is merely an “instrument” that can help  find and treat these ‘potential patients or sociopaths’.

Therefore, the most important issue have with the study is that it claims to ‘know’ personality type theory, yet it totally omits to allow for the personality type influences of the researchers that influenced the manner in which the sample was collected and the conclusions drawn, as well as for the prevalence of certain types in the population that makes any random sample .

“No matter how open-minded we try to be, our own psychological types influence how positively or negatively we view the traits of others; we are stuck in our own type and nobody can look at other personalities objectively.” (Playing with Natural Talents, Nursery Rhymes and Musical Complement).

Many researchers, especially in academic psychology, are of the J type that measure to one standard and believe that every person should conform to the norm, which leads them to consider other people “abnormal”, so that the conclusion was predetermined , since most academics are of a personality type that prefers to work with categorical standards (as explained in my book Concerto for Mankind).

The other feature most academic psychologists have in common is that they are more likely Fs than Ts, while empirical studies tend to attract more Ss and extraverts are more likely to go out and interview others and to volunteer for such studies than are introverts.

Additionally, any statistics based on volunteers or a random sample of the population is bound to be flawed to begin with (as explained in Concerto for Mankind) since certain types are more common prevalent in the population.

In short, the study is naïve, not original, non-conclusive and based on assumptions.

So, if the correlation is nothing new, then  why the anger?

For two reasons: it justifies discrimination and opens the door to pre-emptive justice

The study itself  is just a study of some people who are only recently waking up to the accuracy of typology. The problem comes with people who write articles to the general public based on such studies and say things like “some of these types are considered abnormal”, as described above, which causes other members of the public or politicians, who have accepted the existence of personality disorders at face value, to conclude that if certain types are more likely to be psychopaths, we should be able to recognize them early and prevent school shootings by removing them.

Though I understand that sentiment, we are now talking pre-emptive justice: the idea that if we medicate or imprison these types before they act we are doing the world a favour.

Hitler (who was an ENFJ, by the way) thought so too: he thought that if most Jews behave in undesirable ways, they should be removed before they could do so.

This is discrimination of the same kind as racism, only unlike skin colour the different personality types are not immediately visible.

Yet it is discrimination of the same kind as is currently exercised in schools, where every child that cannot sit still (due to their absolutely normal personality type) gets tranquillizers like Ritalin and where every child that does not like team sports is labelled “autistic” – without anybody wondering if maybe humans were not meant to sit still in schools for hours on end without being allowed to exercise their individuality, their autonomy or their lateral thinking.

What is flawed is the school system; what is flawed is the academic investigation that has prejudged certain behaviour as abnormal because it is unlike that of the researchers.

I have yet to get a response from Healthline to my request that they allow me to publish a counter article, hence this blog post.