{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0338849487785658, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0007880220646178094, 'mean_word_length': 5.287128712871287, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Which Self Represents Sapiens? Biological, Psychiatric, Psychological or Religious?

Background: The physical science of biology and social sciences of psychiatry, psychology and religion address “self” as one of their main themes of investigation. Objective: to find out which self-described by these sciences represents “sapiens” distinguished from all other organisms because of having wisdom. Methodology: a representative text of biology was chosen and subjected to textual and statistical analyses and contrasted to those of psychiatry, psychology and religion. Results: Biology, psychiatry and psychology employ the eight-taxon structure of Linnaeus [1] in which wisdom has no role to play and thus “sapiens” are treated as if they were similar, if not the same as, all other species of plants and animals. Religion, however, divides “sapiens” to three types of self-based on whether they exercise their wisdom or not. Conclusion: Biology, psychiatry and psychology render all selves including “sapiens” subject to life on the earth and justify whatever they do in terms of securing and enjoying it. Religion, however, lifts “sapiens” to the vicegerency of God and holds them responsible for the type of self they choose to become by extending life to hereafter.