In the time, I was interacting with Pasek, he was male. In the interaction with Ziz (as far as I can assess from data Ziz published), they adopted Ziz’s idea of being bigender with one hemisphere being male and the other female.
The Chris Pasek, I meet was very much into TDT. Maia, the female personality that developed in the interaction with Ziz, cared more about feeling good. As far as I understand, the post laying out the case for committing suicide was not written by the female personality but the male one.
I know that I can create a male or female tupla via hypnosis in someone who’s open to accepting that mental change work regardless of the gender they had before. I can see the path of how someone might make that created tulpa the new main actor in the person.
When looking at multiple of the Zizians who commit violence, people who knew them before say that the person who committed the violence is very different from the person they knew beforehand.
I don’t have a good reason to believe that the personality that’s created through the Zizian techniques is more legitimate than the older personality and thus is more deserving of the overall identity of the person when using pronouns.
your last posts on the forum were about how doing genetics studies in medicine is “DEI”.
I did not make that claim. I said that FDA policy about required racial representation in studies is DEI. Having a list of 6 (or so) options of possible races that people can have and then treating people based on which of those races they self-identify with is quite different than treating people based on genetic studies.
If you would use genetic studies to guide clinical trial representation for a drug to combat heart disease you would look at the genes associated with heart disease and see that mutations in those genes are evenly distributed in your clinical trial representation. You would not focus on the race with which people self-identify.
Don’t confuse with race as a social construct with genetic studies. The FDA policy uses race as a social construct. DEI overemphasizing self-identification as very important is what holds back genetic studies.
EDIT:
Someone asked me for more details on the suicide. I asked one of the people with whom Pasek lived and according to them it was suicide by jumping from a building in Poland.
If you would use genetic studies to guide clinical trial representation for a drug to combat heart disease you would look at the genes associated with heart disease and see that mutations in those genes are evenly distributed in your clinical trial representation. You would not focus on the race with which people self-identify.
I asked Claude a few questions. I’ll just give snippets of the answers:
Are there scenarios where doctors recommend different doses of a medication, or other variations in a medical plan, based on a patient’s race?
Yes. “For instance, some Asian populations metabolize certain antidepressants and antipsychotics differently, requiring adjusted dosages”; “African American patients often respond differently to certain blood pressure medications. Guidelines recommend specific first-line treatments like calcium channel blockers for this population.”
In these scenarios, have people found out the relevant genes that make the difference?
Yes in some cases. “CYP2D6 gene: Affects metabolism of antidepressants, antipsychotics, and pain medications. Variations are more common in certain ethnic groups”; “HLA-B*1502 gene: Associated with severe skin reactions to carbamazepine in Asian populations, particularly those of Han Chinese descent.”
Are there cases where doctors adjust the treatment plan by race but don’t yet know which genes are relevant?
Yes. “Kidney Disease: African Americans show different progression and treatment responses compared to other racial groups, with ongoing research to identify genetic factors”; “Differences in heart disease risk and medication response across racial groups are recognized, with some genetic pathways identified but not fully mapped.”
So. If you do know what genes make the difference, then of course that’s the best type of information to work with. But, particularly for polygenic effects, it may be that you have information about the relevance of race without knowing the genes in question. In that scenario, either you use the race information or you use nothing, and the former seems the better choice (though, yes, to the extent that “self-identification” means that someone would say “I’m X” instead of “I’m half-X and half-Y”, that makes the information lower-quality).
For background, I’m coming from Germany, where our liberals protest when they ask asylum seekers for their ethnic identity to find out whether they are discriminated in their homeland for their ethnic identity, because we believe treating people different based on ethnic identity is wrong.
Obese people show different effects to all sorts of clinical interventions compared to people that are underweight. Yet, the FDA makes no attempt to have a representative sample of obese people and underweight people in their clinical trials. When Big Pharma companies recruit patients for clinical trials, they don’t try to a representative population when it comes to weight. In many cases they have a hypothesis that their drug will be more effective if the trial population is based to have less preconditions and then they recruit a clinical trial population that’s biased by design.
Clinical trials have trial populations that are sized to find clinically significant effects in the total trial population. If you have a clinical trial that sized to find an effect in the general population but only have that effect on Native Americans or on Black people, you are unlikely to find a statistical significant effect if you have Native Americans and Black people at their normal representation of the population.
The way doses for antidepressants and antipsychotics are chosen in clinical practice is often that you start with the lowest dose and change the dose for a single patient till the dose is good for the patient.
It’s also worth noting that genetic differences between different populations in Africa itself are higher than genetic differences between Whites and Asians. When people like Elizabeth Warren identify as Native Americans even when they are genetically mostly White, it’s not very safe that you have a good idea of someone genetics from their racial self-identification. There’s a reason why self-studies don’t ask whether someone is gay but asks for whether they belong to the group of men-who-have-sex-with-men.
If you wanted a new science of how to build racial categories about how to guide medical decisions, there’s research you could fund do gene sequencing and do a lot of work, nobody really wants that or at least I have seen nobody who advocates it.
The motivation for using the standard racial categories is equity. It was a policy to fight distrust of minorities in mainstream medicine. While the decision might be older then the term DEI but it still seems to be the principle of DEI.
In the time, I was interacting with Pasek, he was male. In the interaction with Ziz (as far as I can assess from data Ziz published), they adopted Ziz’s idea of being bigender with one hemisphere being male and the other female.
The Chris Pasek, I meet was very much into TDT. Maia, the female personality that developed in the interaction with Ziz, cared more about feeling good. As far as I understand, the post laying out the case for committing suicide was not written by the female personality but the male one.
I know that I can create a male or female tupla via hypnosis in someone who’s open to accepting that mental change work regardless of the gender they had before. I can see the path of how someone might make that created tulpa the new main actor in the person.
When looking at multiple of the Zizians who commit violence, people who knew them before say that the person who committed the violence is very different from the person they knew beforehand.
I don’t have a good reason to believe that the personality that’s created through the Zizian techniques is more legitimate than the older personality and thus is more deserving of the overall identity of the person when using pronouns.
I did not make that claim. I said that FDA policy about required racial representation in studies is DEI. Having a list of 6 (or so) options of possible races that people can have and then treating people based on which of those races they self-identify with is quite different than treating people based on genetic studies.
If you would use genetic studies to guide clinical trial representation for a drug to combat heart disease you would look at the genes associated with heart disease and see that mutations in those genes are evenly distributed in your clinical trial representation. You would not focus on the race with which people self-identify.
Don’t confuse with race as a social construct with genetic studies. The FDA policy uses race as a social construct. DEI overemphasizing self-identification as very important is what holds back genetic studies.
EDIT:
Someone asked me for more details on the suicide. I asked one of the people with whom Pasek lived and according to them it was suicide by jumping from a building in Poland.
I asked Claude a few questions. I’ll just give snippets of the answers:
Are there scenarios where doctors recommend different doses of a medication, or other variations in a medical plan, based on a patient’s race?
Yes. “For instance, some Asian populations metabolize certain antidepressants and antipsychotics differently, requiring adjusted dosages”; “African American patients often respond differently to certain blood pressure medications. Guidelines recommend specific first-line treatments like calcium channel blockers for this population.”
In these scenarios, have people found out the relevant genes that make the difference?
Yes in some cases. “CYP2D6 gene: Affects metabolism of antidepressants, antipsychotics, and pain medications. Variations are more common in certain ethnic groups”; “HLA-B*1502 gene: Associated with severe skin reactions to carbamazepine in Asian populations, particularly those of Han Chinese descent.”
Are there cases where doctors adjust the treatment plan by race but don’t yet know which genes are relevant?
Yes. “Kidney Disease: African Americans show different progression and treatment responses compared to other racial groups, with ongoing research to identify genetic factors”; “Differences in heart disease risk and medication response across racial groups are recognized, with some genetic pathways identified but not fully mapped.”
So. If you do know what genes make the difference, then of course that’s the best type of information to work with. But, particularly for polygenic effects, it may be that you have information about the relevance of race without knowing the genes in question. In that scenario, either you use the race information or you use nothing, and the former seems the better choice (though, yes, to the extent that “self-identification” means that someone would say “I’m X” instead of “I’m half-X and half-Y”, that makes the information lower-quality).
For background, I’m coming from Germany, where our liberals protest when they ask asylum seekers for their ethnic identity to find out whether they are discriminated in their homeland for their ethnic identity, because we believe treating people different based on ethnic identity is wrong.
Obese people show different effects to all sorts of clinical interventions compared to people that are underweight. Yet, the FDA makes no attempt to have a representative sample of obese people and underweight people in their clinical trials. When Big Pharma companies recruit patients for clinical trials, they don’t try to a representative population when it comes to weight. In many cases they have a hypothesis that their drug will be more effective if the trial population is based to have less preconditions and then they recruit a clinical trial population that’s biased by design.
Clinical trials have trial populations that are sized to find clinically significant effects in the total trial population. If you have a clinical trial that sized to find an effect in the general population but only have that effect on Native Americans or on Black people, you are unlikely to find a statistical significant effect if you have Native Americans and Black people at their normal representation of the population.
The way doses for antidepressants and antipsychotics are chosen in clinical practice is often that you start with the lowest dose and change the dose for a single patient till the dose is good for the patient.
It’s also worth noting that genetic differences between different populations in Africa itself are higher than genetic differences between Whites and Asians. When people like Elizabeth Warren identify as Native Americans even when they are genetically mostly White, it’s not very safe that you have a good idea of someone genetics from their racial self-identification. There’s a reason why self-studies don’t ask whether someone is gay but asks for whether they belong to the group of men-who-have-sex-with-men.
If you wanted a new science of how to build racial categories about how to guide medical decisions, there’s research you could fund do gene sequencing and do a lot of work, nobody really wants that or at least I have seen nobody who advocates it.
The motivation for using the standard racial categories is equity. It was a policy to fight distrust of minorities in mainstream medicine. While the decision might be older then the term DEI but it still seems to be the principle of DEI.