Albert Einstein: High Functioning Autistic

In summary: We all have trouble understanding sarcasm and social situations at one point or another, and it's a spectrum that we all fall on. The difference with high functioning autism is that it's more severe and pervasive, affecting a person's ability to navigate social situations and understand social cues. As for needing little social interaction and being an expert in a chosen field, those are also common traits among high functioning autism individuals, but again, it's the severity and extent of these traits that puts them on the spectrum.
  • #36
rhody said:
In the video he performs an experiment that suggest that impairment in visual integration is associated with something underneath, that of dynamic information processing associated with autism, which he proves from the experiment that there is evidence to suggest that it is.

Thanks Rhody, a good link. Perceptual integration is based on anticipation. And this is the kind of general, fine grain, deficit I was talking about.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
apeiron said:
Thanks Rhody, a good link. Perceptual integration is based on anticipation. And this is the kind of general, fine grain, deficit I was talking about.

Yeah, I know what you mean, I sometimes can be influenced by persuasive subjective arguments of others, both pro and con, and my opinion is what it is, at best subjective.

It is hard to argue with experiments that can be conducted a number of times, and if consistent with peer review oversight and consensus, science can then assign a "best test we have at the moment" for the diagnosis being considered.

Rhody...
 
  • #38
DanP said:
Not necessarily. You see a behavior, but from this picture alone you cannot say the motivations behind it. You can even have a very precise goal to behave aggressively against anyone crossing a certain path.

The main difference between the two types of aggression is whatever it is goal oriented or it is not.
Might be so, but read this piece above:

Now, my claim is that:

A: type I requires a completely different solution to effectively combat from type III. (For one, one can more effectively reason with a person who suffers from type III than from type I. Type I really has no solution except restraining and letting cool down, type III however can be reasoned with.)

B: psychiatrists (and people in general) have a tendency to not observe the difference and either treat all cases as Type I, or all as Type III, either trying to reason with cases one can't reason with, or restraining people forcibly who really pose no danger but in fact can become Type I due to being restrained.

Also, interesting is that though Type I and Type II always show on the outside, Type III and Type IV needn't show that visibly at all. Concealed (cropped up) hatred and anger is quite possible, however cropped up aggression occurs far less so to nil.

Now, would you agree with A or not? Would you agree that, in your terms, a person that acts aggressively towards only one person, or towards all people and does so either permanently or only due to a temporary rage requires a different solution in each of the four permutations thereof?

And B: would you concede that psychiatrists (and people in general) have a tendency to treat people 'that act aggressively'

- towards all people, and permanently
- towards only one person, and permanently
- towards all people, and momentarily
- towards only one person, and permanently

In the same way.

Since aggression is a behavior, "some one" is the target of aggression.
All right, if in your definition of 'target' it is defined so? Then why do you even talk about directed or not?

In your definition of directed, every action/behaviour is directed, the distinction becomes meaningless.

My definition of directed is quite meaningful, we say it is direction if only a specific entity satisfies the desire, the desire (in this case to beat up) is then said to be directed at that entity. Thereby creating a meaningful distinction.
 
  • #39
Kajahtava said:
And B: would you concede that psychiatrists (and people in general) have a tendency to treat people 'that act aggressively'

No, I would not.

First of all, you cannot make such a claim without statistical data. You can't expect a claim of this magnitude to be taken seriously on the basis of a "I believe that...". It remains unsubstantiated. And "people in general" do not treat other humans. Clinicians do.

Second , I can tell you that aggression is always treated by clinicians within the context of specific disorders, and types of aggression, targets of aggression (male/female , male/male), developmental stage of subject are considered.

Third, I am not a psychiatrist and so I lack qualification in determining the best methods for treatment of certain disorders. It is highly unlikely that anyone with a truncated , subjective and low level view of clinical psychiatry can make any meaningful contribution to treatment methods.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
DanP said:
No, I would not.

First of all, you cannot make such a claim without statistical data. You can't expect a claim of this magnitude to be taken seriously on the basis of a "I believe that...". It remains unsubstantiated.
You know you already before placed them all under the banner 'aggression', while I in my first post made a firm distinction between what you call 'motivational aggression' and 'blind aggression' and see them as unrelated, sure you already said that you treat them as the same?

Second , I can tell you that aggression is always treated by clinicians within the context of specific disorders, and types of aggression, targets of aggression (male/female , male/male), developmental stage of subject are considered.
Probably, but that wasn't my point, as I said, that these disorders exist as categories is still a form of naïve realism.

My point was the difference in treatment of 'aggression' directed towards only one person where a patient is calm against other people (what I call hatred) or indiscriminate aggression.

Third, I am not a psychiatrist and so I lack qualification in determining the best methods for treatment of certain disorders. It is highly unlikely that anyone with a truncated , subjective and low level view of clinical psychiatry can make any meaningful contribution to treatment methods.
Really now?

http://www.srmhp.org/0301/labels.html

There has been countless literature and experiments on it, and they all reproducibly establish that 'trained professionals' are not able to overcome the human power of suggestion, training apparently is not enough. This is not an opinion, this is a documented fact, put a sane person with a fake diagnosis such as 'schizophrenic' next to a psychiatrist and that psychiatrist, just like any other person, will see things that confirm that diagnosis, this is a documented behaviour of human beings called 'the power of suggestion', ideally, a trained psychiatrist would be immune to it, but there is thusfar no indication that this is true and a medical education apparently is not stronger than the human mind's ability to warp reality to what it expects / wants to see.

The power of suggestion is as much a scientific fact that your pupil's contract if you shine a light on them. It has been reproducibly documented and confirmed by countless independent experiments. If you take a completely sane person, put it in a room with another person and tell the latter that the former person is diagnosed with for instance autism, that person will see a confirmation in that in things that person would not have seen it if there wasn't planted a suggestion, research into the matter has shown that psychiatrists are not an exception tot this. This is not subjective, this is objective, any objective person reviewing these researches must come to the conclusion that:

- the power of suggestion is real.
- psychiatrists are not an exception to it.

Read the source, there is even a test in it which shows that psychiatrists are 20% more inclined to think about aggression disorders if you suggest the person the transcript is about is black.. There is really no way to deny the fact that in psychiatry A: diagnoses are given based on suggestions. B: diagnoses are sticky, if you have once been given a wrong diagnosis, it stays because of the power of suggestion the psychiatrist is subject to.

Furthermore, psychiatry admits from itself that what it did 20 years back was in fact incorrect treatment and in many cases averse, and 20 years back it did so from 20 years back, and so on and so on. Most likely what they do today is also averse. Psychiatry and psychotherapy is not a science based on controlled conditions and double blind experiments. It is a form of alternative medicine. The treatments they employ for the largest part have not been proven effective in double blinds beyond the placebo effect, by definition, it is alternative medicine that for some quirky reason enjoys legal sanction. The existence of categories like 'autism' or 'schizophrenia' or 'depression' is no more proven than the existence of the types of people in enneagrams.
 
  • #41
MotoH said:
Everyones got a damn disease now-a-days. Hell if I ever went to one of those quacks they would diagnose me with everything possible.

Bunch of bollocks.

You beat me to it. Maybe not in the case of Autism,... but I believe that psychologists have catagorized every type of human PERSONALITY, that everything different from normal is a disorder. Einstein was a genius and most people here would trade a lot to have his ability.
 
  • #42
Kajahtava said:
You know you already before placed them all under the banner 'aggression', while I in my first post made a firm distinction between what you call 'motivational aggression' and 'blind aggression' and see them as unrelated, sure you already said that you treat them as the same?

You do not give an answer to my statement, you respond a different question . And you use another question as response. What I asked you is statistical data to substantiate your belief on treatment methods. Short of statistical proof, all you have is what you believe to be right.

Second, you did not make any distinction whatsoever between emotional aggression and instrumental aggression, you dismissed this method of categorization altogether as "completely nonsense" (although the distinction is used in the clinical field), and now you come around and pretend you see them unrelated ...

Kajahtava said:
That classification is completely nonsense ..
Kajahtava said:
My point was the difference in treatment of 'aggression' directed towards only one person where a patient is calm against other people (what I call hatred) or indiscriminate aggression.

It is addressed within context.

Kajahtava said:
Really now?

Really. Indeed, no one is immune to cognitive biases. But the issue I raised is different fundamentally.

What makes you think that a person who is:

1. Lacking any training whatsoever (med school or MS in clinical psych st least)
2. Lacking clinical experience
3. Subject to all kinds of cognitive biases as well (unless you consider yourself the only being on the Earth immune to this )

will be better than a trained professional ? He will be not. He will fail miserably at all counts.

Psychiatry field is ever evolving, it might not be perfect, but it;s hardly a field where a untrained person can make any meaningful contribution whatsoever. You need a solid base and clinical experience. Lacking it, and pretend you know better, all you have is just another bias , "unskilled and unaware of it".
 
Last edited:
  • #43
MotoH said:
Everyones got a damn disease now-a-days. Hell if I ever went to one of those quacks they would diagnose me with everything possible.

Actually, you will probably come out clean from a psychiatric evaluation. There are many jobs and classifications where you are required to undergo evaluations, and it's far from being a free for all, assign the disorder, frag fest.
 
  • #44
DanP said:
You do not give an answer to my statement, you respond a different question . And you use another question as response. What I asked you is statistical data to substantiate your belief on treatment methods. Short of statistical proof, all you have is what you believe to be right.
How can you possibly verify this statistically?

As soon as you put an observer there to verify it, you influence your experiment. You can't verify this statistically. Yeah, it's a personal experience, but a compelling one nonetheless.

Second, you did not make any distinction whatsoever between emotional aggression and instrumental aggression, you dismissed this method of categorization altogether as "completely nonsense" (although the distinction is used in the clinical field), and now you come around and pretend you see them unrelated ...
Nope, I said I make a distinction between my types I, II, III, and IV. (which you flat out ignored by the way, just as the majority of my post, you reply to one or two paragraphs of nine every time.)

It is addressed within context.
What is this supposed to mean?

Really. Indeed, no one is immune to cognitive biases. But the issue I raised is different fundamentally.
Which isn't mine issue with psychiatry in the first post I made.

In the first post I made the issue that psychiatry is prone to naïve realism. It has a tendency to categorize things based on that they appear similar to human beings. Rather than categorize things that have the same cause together.

What makes you think that a person who is:

1. Lacking any training whatsoever (med school or MS in clinical psych st least)
2. Lacking clinical experience
3. Subject to all kinds of cognitive biases as well (unless you consider yourself the only being on the Earth immune to this )

will be better than a trained professional ? He will be not. He will fail miserably at all counts.
As far as case 1 goes: This is far from true if the person in quaestion is trained in alternative science. Psychiatry is a form of alternative science. And just as a random person can be better at medicine than a homoeopath, so can a random person be better than a psychiatrist.

Your assume that what they teach you at psych school is also true, this is very much debatable.

For instance:

The World Health Organization conducted two long-term follow-up studies involving more than 2,000 people suffering from schizophrenia in different countries. These studies found patients have much better long-term outcomes in developing countries (India, Colombia and Nigeria) than in developed countries (USA, UK, Ireland, Denmark, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Japan, and Russia), despite the fact antipsychotic drugs are typically not widely available in poorer countries, raising questions about the effectiveness of such drug-based treatments.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11087016

Also, read the other source I gave you.

There are serious indications that psychiatric treatment is counter-effective and that no treatment is superior to psychiatric treatment in many conditions including schizophrenia, Asperger's syndrome and depression. I restate that there is no hard evidence to support that psychiatry is any thing more than alternative medicine. It's quackery, there exists no more proof for the existence of autism than for meridian lines.

As far as case 2 goes: I have rather extensive experience in therapy, nothing accordingly formal protocols (Which I believe should always be bent or broken when warranted) But I have in the past helped people overcome to some extend things like failure anxiety, social phobia and obsessive compulsions and all those people claimed I did as hell a better job as their therapist. My strategy usually, but not always, consists of asking people the quaestions that makes them think about the issue such that they figure out their own solution. I believe that giving advice is a fundamentally flawed notion to help people, for when people give advice, they don't give the advice for what's best to do for the person they give advice to, but rather what's best for themselves were they in that person's shoes. The best way is to try to give people an as complete as possible picture of the situation so that they can choose themselves with their own desires. I also believe that in most cases the best way to let people overcome phobiae and anxieties is to let them realize for themselves what part they are actually afraid of, and then remove it. People are never afraid of 'social interaction', they are afraid of a certain part of it that can usually be removed without compromising the social interaction. I've seen situations were the answer to all the problems was as simple as simply taking a step backward when talking or having conversations mainly by asking quaestions instead of telling things.

As far as 3 goes, I am not immune to cognitive biases no, but less susceptible than most people. I for instance am immune to most optical illusions, which are powers of suggestion:

Ponzo+Size+Illusion.jpg


Why is the top line longer to the mind? Because that's what the mind expects.
Psychiatry field is ever evolving
No, it's changing.

Unlike physics, in psychiatry, old theories are not special cases of new theories. They contradict them, in physics and other proper sciences, the new theories are the old one's, but more praecise, in psychiatry, a new theory often outright contradicts an older theory instead of introducing a new variable to it. And in fact, this can happen in a cycle. In 1950, they thought homosexuality could be cured. In the 1980's, the search for the 'gay gene' was hot, and they all thought one was born with it. Now, more and more specialists are again turning open to the idea that homosexuality is indeed for a deal acquirable and at least subject to culture. (IT IS SPARTAAAA)

Same with autism, in the 1960's, it was 'childhood schizophrenia', then they were firm you were born with it, then they started to grow back to the idea that it had a nurture component, and now a lot of them change their opinion back to the first in some way as more and more seem to believe that it has connexion to schizophrenia.

Psychiatry doesn't evolve or improve, it changes, for better or worse. And it's mostly subject to the culture of the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania

?

As homosexuality became more accepted, people stopped classing it as illness, as gender roles started to fade in the west, professionals started to see it as more fluid, and even giving rise to such labels as 'omnisexuality'.

it might not be perfect, but it;s hardly a field where a untrained person can make any meaningful contribution whatsoever.
A contribution to psychiatry is the same as a contribution to homoeopathy or acupuncture, the discipline has no objective standard to verify correctness, again, it's alternative medicine.

You need a solid base and clinical experience. Lacking it, and pretend you know better, all you have is just another bias , "unskilled and unaware of it".
Oh, I would not contest that I know less of psychiatry than the average psychiatrist, I would also not contest that I know less of homoeopathy than the average homoeopath.

I do however that for both:
- The evidence to their effect is vague to interpret, inconclusive and does not result from controlled, double blind experiments.
- Assume they are effective, how exactly they are effective is still unknown.

I'm not claiming to contribute to psychiatry, I'm claiming the practice is ineffective altogether, my criticism on it is the same as the criticism most people have on astrology or homoeopathy.

Now however: I would like to see from you any sources that via controlled scientific experiments verify:
- The existence of autism (the proof that there is a clear, not open to interpretation neurological difference between people we class as 'autistic', or 'not autistic')
- If it exist, the ability of some one who has studied psychiatry to correctly identify this (double blind research, we take a sample group of people who have never been diagnosed, do the brain scan, put the results in an envelope and tell no one. And put this group to a group of psychiatrists and see if they with at least 95% accuracy can pick those out that have been scanned positively, without telling them how much have been scanned positively, if possible, also set up an experiment were all subjects have been scanned negatively)
- The proof of the effect of psychiatry treatment for autism if autism exists, take a group of people who have been scanned positive, send half of them to trained psychiatrists, send the other half to actors told to do as if they are trained psychiatrists, and see if the neurological state can be reduced beyond the placebo effect in the group sent to trained psychiatrists that do not receive placebo medications.

If you cannot produce these results, I would like to ask you why you think that without these results, psychiatry (at least that dealing with autism) is not a form of alternative medicine / quackery.
bassplayer142 said:
You beat me to it. Maybe not in the case of Autism,... but I believe that psychologists have catagorized every type of human PERSONALITY, that everything different from normal is a disorder. Einstein was a genius and most people here would trade a lot to have his ability.
He wasn't thaaat smart, he's a biiit overrated, certainly not worth the popular appeal of the greatest genius of all times.

It's also so that the more practical implication your work has, the more the populus is going to class you as brilliant. Supposedly the three greatest mathematicians are Newton, Gaus, and Euler, the first divided by zero, and none of those did any pure/foundational maths.

But it's probably also a thing for aspies to feel special about themselves I guess.
 
  • #45
Kajahtava said:
As far as 3 goes, I am not immune to cognitive biases no, but less susceptible than most people. I for instance am immune to most optical illusions, which are powers of suggestion:

Have you heard of Lake Wobegon, the place where everybody is better than average ?
 
  • #46
Way to ignore my entire post and only pick out the ONE point that's the easiest to attack which is also largely irrelevant to my point that psychiatry is alternative science. Give meh those sources.

But to show myself the better man and reply to your one point again:

Knowing that I'm immune to most optical illusions is easy to verify for me, as I don't get them and as a child while other people were amused by them I didn't get them, I just got those quaestions like 'which line is longer?', and I got a drawer and they said 'no, on your eyes', and I said 'that's a tough one, they're virtually the same length, I need a drawer.'

I'm however only immune to length based optical illusions, not co colour based optical illusions
 
  • #47
Kajahtava said:
Way to ignore my entire post and only pick out the ONE point that's the easiest to attack which is also largely irrelevant to my point that psychiatry is alternative science. Give meh those sources.

It is not I who tries to change the staus quo, so I really do not need to give you sources proving anything. Psychiatry is a recognized medical sciences specialization. The fact that you do not recognize it doesn't change the fact that medical sciences do recognize it as a valid field.

Kajahtava said:
It's quackery, there exists no more proof for the existence of autism than for meridian lines.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then it's a duck.

If one manifests severely impaired social interaction , impaired communication skills and repetitive behaviors , we call the the phenomena "Autism".

Now you can pretend that no person on the globe fall into the criteria above, and demand all kind of proofs, but it won't change the reality that there exist humans affected by it.
 
  • #48
DanP said:
It is not I who tries to change the staus quo, so I really do not need to give you sources proving anything. Psychiatry is a recognized medical sciences specialization. The fact that you do not recognize it doesn't change the fact that medical sciences do recognize it as a valid field.
Bollocks, you're using an argument to authority, and psychiatry is not that recognised as you think, antipsychiatry is quite a large movement.

And what of it? even if every person in the world recognised the Earth to be flat, it's still not true.

I have given countless sources already which demonstrate the ineffectiveness and counter-effectiveness of psychiatry. (which you didn't reply to and quite possibly never read)

Psychiatry is recognised within psychiatry, that an alternative discipline of medicine is recognised within it is no new thing.

If you believe in psychiatry because of this recognition (which is overstated) without having read any research to back it up, you're guilty of an argument to authority.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then it's a duck.
So this is what you call science? That explains a lot...

If one manifests severely impaired social interaction , impaired communication skills and repetitive behaviors , we call the the phenomena "Autism".
No we don't, the diagnostics criteria are a lot more complex. What you describe here can also fall under, but not exclusively:

- Obsessive compulsive disorder
- tics
- amnesia / alzheimer

Have you ever read the diagnostics criteria? I have, I have a copy of DSM-IV right here, in fact, I stole it from a psychiatrist, in fact, she found out that I did and said I could keep it.

http://www.autreat.com/dsm4-autism.html

As you can see they are remarkably more complex and over to interpretation than you sketched them.

I've come to notice that the people that have faith in psychiatry are often wholly ignorant about how it works and it's lax standards on verifiability and controlled experiments and basically seem to think it's probably scientific because it's taught at universities, most of them have never read DSM-IV. Go read it, you will be amazed by how extremely vague the diagnostics criteria are and how the methodology used in it completely eschews controlled conditions, falsifiability, blinds and so on. (I'm not talking about pharmacology, that's another field).

Same applies to things like sociology and evolutionary psychology by the way.

Now you can pretend that no person on the globe fall into the criteria above, and demand all kind of proofs, but it won't change the reality that there exist humans affected by it.
That's not proven either, in fact, in many cases it seems to be that the problem is what you make of it. As soon as you think there's a problem, the power of suggestion does the rest.

Let's assume that Einstein had autism hmm? He managed quite okay didn't he? If he was born today maybe he would be diagnosed with it, get to all sorts of treatments and not being able to study any more because of them. I talked with a psychotherapist while I studied for some problems with depression, missed whole lectures because of that and it never helped, it was my mother's idea, not mine, I never had any significant problems in life and I managed, then they suddenly diagnosed me with depression and gave me drugs, I first took them for a while, I practically fell asleep due to them, then stopped taking them outside their knowledge, and I managed a lot better, yeah, I felt worse, but I had energy, I could do stuff and actually feel emotion. Yeah, drugs cure depression, but the side effects just aren't worth it in a lot of cases. But the most awkward thing was that I didn't tell them, and then my dosage was increased, but I didn't take them any more, for a year already, and then they said 'I can really see you're doing better now.' after that. They were A: not capable of noticing that I stopped taking them. B: after they thought my dosage increased their own bloody placebo forced them to see things were getting better. They later on found out and told me that I should take them because I was a suicidal time bomb. I NEVER mentioned suicide to them, and no one ever placed me into that context before I got that diagnosis, I refused and said that I hadn't taken them for more than a year and they couldn't notice and even said I improved when my dosage was 'increased'. Then I suddenly was diagnosed schizophrenia because I was irrational as I refused to take those drugs, I could cite all the researches I wanted into documented side effects, I could pull the invincible argument that they didn't even notice that I didn't take them. It didn't matter, they had the title M.D. behind their name, they were right ex se they needed no argument and gave none, I studied physics and mathematics at that point, my knowledge of proper scientific methodology far exceeded theirs, in fact, they admitted that, but still they proceeded to dogmatically say I needed drugs.

Then came the ultimatum, I would take them, or I would be forced into an institute because I'm a danger to myself (what?), they can't force you to take them, but they can force you to go to an institute if you don't take them, and typically only let you go out once you take them. I was lucky though, when they put me there, I asked so many quaestions about procedures and how things were done (and taped this beyond their notice with my MP3 player) that they failed to answer a lot of my quaestions which I legally had a right to know. I eventually was in that room, they told me, 'you can go out of it as soon as you take this drug', I said back 'Why can I go out then? The incubation period of this drug is two weeks, it would take two weeks before I'm not 'a danger to myself' any more? Why can I go out now then, and not in two weeks?', they sighed and left, but I TAPED it god bless. I was able to secure a release by threatening lawsuits after reading the legal documents I found out I could get them behind bars for five years if it came to it. Then I'm suddenly no longer a danger to myself?

I haven't begun studying after that, I ended up far, far worse than before this whole **** began, it just started with some talks to a councillor, ended with being institutionalized.

secondly: Your arguments also assume that psychiatrists follow legal protocols in general, well, they don't. Once you're working with insane people it's quite tempting to break them as no one can prove a thing as they're insane any-way?

thirdly and most importantly: even if these conditions exist, and even if some of them are quite threatening, that is still not a guarantee that psychiatry has the capabilities to solve. As I said, there has been NO conclusive evidence to support the idea that psychiatry is effective. And it wouldn't be the first time in human history that the populace at large believed in some big hoax. I take it you will concede that psychiatry of 1920 destroyed more than that it cured. But people believed in it then didn't they? It was a 'recognised discipline back then?' wasn't it? Even though no shred of evidence existed to back it up back then hmm? People have at all times clamped hopefully unto alternative medicine which simply either didn't work, or even worked counter-effectively. The status quo has more often been wrong than correct, appealing to it is not an argument.
 
  • #49
Kajahtava said:
Bollocks, you're using an argument to authority, and psychiatry is not that recognised as you think, antipsychiatry is quite a large movement.

And what of it? even if every person in the world recognised the Earth to be flat, it's still not true.

I have given countless sources already which demonstrate the ineffectiveness and counter-effectiveness of psychiatry. (which you didn't reply to and quite possibly never read)

Nothing of what you posted demonstrates ineffectiveness of psychiatry. You and I seem also to have very different opinions on meaning of "countless" .

I didnt made any appeal to authority, I just informed you that you want to change the status quo, so you must present solid evidence.
Kajahtava said:
No we don't, the diagnostics criteria are a lot more complex. What you describe here can also fall under, but not exclusively:

- Obsessive compulsive disorder
- tics
- amnesia / alzheimer

You forget correlation. Anyway, I find this discussion is eating too much of my time so I will relinquish from the floor.
 
  • #50
DanP said:
Nothing of what you posted demonstrates ineffectiveness of psychiatry. You and I seem also to have very different opinions on meaning of "countless" .

I didnt made any appeal to authority, I just informed you that you want to change the status quo, so you must present solid evidence.
Have you read the sources I linked?

Some of them were quite long, and your reaction time is quite high.

Also, that's nonsense, you assume the status quo is always right. I have given a variety of sources which make the validity of psychiatry dubious. You have not given a single source which solidifies as any thing more than alternative medicine (that it 's the status quo means you don't need to give it is absurd, there have been countless examples of unproven alternative medicine been status quo)

You forget correlation. Anyway, I find this discussion is eating too much of my time so I will relinquish from the floor.
I forget correlation, what?
 
  • #51
Kajahtava said:
My cousin is a neuroscientist, and he couldn't find it. Also, I've searched, it's not that hard to search for it, I'm quite capable of understanding most neuroscience papers. There hasn't been any evidence for that supposedly aspies have different brains. There are some parallels, but other aspies lack it altogether.

Of course, once whether you're an aspie or not depends on the 'professional opinion' of some one having spent 9 years learning a pseudoscience that diagnoses people based on conversations rather than X-rays it's quite easy to say that those were never truly aspies to begin with. In fact, whether or not asperger is caused by a neurological state, be it one or many cannot be answer at the moment because there is no hard definition of asperger to begin with.

Something I find interesting, everyone will say Down's Syndrome is real because it's obvious. Then holding onto that, there are tests to see how good you are at reading social situations, describing what another's intents are, etc. As far as what you can make measureable, high functioning autistic children generally score worse than those with Down's Syndrome on these tests, indicating that they lag in this area of development and something beyond any regular cognition skills. Although you can't get into their heads to see if there's a medical condition, you can make it measureable that in general they're worse than Down's Syndrome at these skills. "Psychological disorder" isn't the same thing as condition, but rather means impairment. Check this out:

autistic-vs1.jpg


In picture sequence tests for young children, the autistic children did better at putting pictures in order for object mechanical cause-effect skills. However, they did worse than Down's Syndrome children for putting pictures in order requiring "Understanding Intentions". There were also control questions to guarantee the children were comprehending the "details" to make sure it was something rather dealing with "putting things together".

Another look at that same data:

autistic-vs-2.jpg


Then I also find it very interesting how there was a study where researchers had four years olds listen to a story. In the story a character brought something into the room and left. Someone else then moved the object. The original character came back.

The four year olds had to guess where the character would look to find it. Most of the Down's Syndrome and normal developing children guessed correctly that the main character would look in the original place since the character didn't know that it was moved. However, most of the autistic children couldn't figure this out and guessed wrongly that the character would look in the place that "it was really moved to", although the character from the story didn't actually know this happened because because of being in a different room:

false-belief-test.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • #52
Nowhere in the American Museum of Natural History does it suggest to me that Albert Einstein was autistic. "Look deep, deep into nature and then you will understand nature better." -Albert Einstein
Einstein's imagination is not a precursor to one having autism.

Einstein's Revolution
He was daring, wildly ingenious, passionately curious. He saw a beam of light and imagined riding it; he looked up at the sky and envisioned that space-time was curved. Albert Einstein reinterpreted the inner workings of nature, the very essence of light, time, energy and gravity. His insights fundamentally changed the way we look at the universe—and made him the most famous scientist of the 20th century. . .
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/revolution/index.php

Nobel Laureate John Nash was autistic and later became a schizophrenic . Most children today that have autism are on medication.
 
Last edited:
  • #53
physicsdude30 said:
Something I find interesting, everyone will say Down's Syndrome is real because it's obvious. Then holding onto that, there are tests to see how good you are at reading social situations, describing what another's intents are, etc. As far as what you can make measureable, high functioning autistic children generally score worse than those with Down's Syndrome on these tests, indicating that they lag in this area of development and something beyond any regular cognition skills.
Well, I'd call down more objective because it can be more or less objectively verified, if some one acts retarded, does retarded, looks typical, but does not have a triplet there. It's not down.

The interesting thing I noticed though, is that all those tests you find on the internet always say 'Don't substitute this for the opinion of a professional.', buuut, I'd reckon, indeed, I would dear to place a substantial amount of money on it. That those tests are far more reproducible that the opinion of a psychiatrist.

Let the same person make two different of those tests, and send the same person to two different psychiatrists, both unaware of that it's also going to another (went in one case of course), and my guess is that those tests are waaaay more similar in their evaluation than the psychiatrists.

Also, if IQ is tested with tests, why not autism? Strangely, the IQ test hard number overrule the opinion of a psychiatrist if you're smart or stupid, but not with autism tests, which are about as shaky, but less shaky than the opinion of a professional.

Although you can't get into their heads to see if there's a medical condition, you can make it measureable that in general they're worse than Down's Syndrome at these skills. "Psychological disorder" isn't the same thing as condition, but rather means impairment. Check this out:

autistic-vs1.jpg


In picture sequence tests for young children, the autistic children did better at putting pictures in order for object mechanical cause-effect skills. However, they did worse than Down's Syndrome children for putting pictures in order requiring "Understanding Intentions". There were also control questions to guarantee the children were comprehending the "details" to make sure it was something rather dealing with "putting things together".
Well, you're going to be hard pressed to convince me of this, I had asperger's, it was later found a misdiagnosis, I'm about all things not that aspies are except for a fixation to 'small details' and an obsession with paedantry and praecision (hence the ae spelling) but I tend to focus on what people intend to say with their words, not what they literally mean, am for breaking all rules when they do not serve their purpose, I never make any tight planning am without any principles, and more of that. But how did I get this diagnosis that was taken away six years later and stuck? Well, I'm not completely sure but I think it was this decisive moment I only found out later:

Imagine an eight year old child, school goes bad, no motivation, tells the teacher he's unconvinced that 1+1=2 by the example of two apples, because one of the apples could have gained extra mass by placing them together, thus 1+1 could actually be 2.000000000000001 without people seeing it. IQ tests show high intelligence, but he gets crap marks and has a tendency to sit under the table, instead of above it and simply asks 'Why?' if he's supposed to do his work on his chair. Yeah, you got yourself a 'problem child', all right. So you place him in front of this decisive test:

1: a person enters the room with a toy, there are two cushions in the room, he places it under one of the cushions, and goes away.
2: a different person enters, he looks under the cushion, sees the toy, displaces it to the other cushion, and goes out of the room also.
3: first person enters again, where will he look for his toy?

I was dumbstruck by this test? What were they asking me? It had to be some kind of trick quaestion right? It's just too obvious? So, my only explanation to why this could even take place is that the first person stole the toy from the second, in the chase the first person needed to hide it, so he did in that room and the second caught up with him just as he exited the room again, he said 'I don't have it', the second says 'Oh yeah, I'm going to check in that room, wait here.', he enters, he sees the toy, but he knows he can't just take it out without the other stealing it again, so he displaces it, hoping to be able to pick it up later. He leaves, and says 'Yeah, you really didn't have it.', hoping to drive the other insane that when he comes back and checks, it's really gone. But the first's not stupid, he's up to his plan... so, he checks the other cushion.

I later found out what this test was all about, long after I had lost this diagnosis, I think that was the faithful moment they decide I couldn't live in another's shoes. The evaluator never even asked 'Why do you think that?', he just asked a binary 'first cushion' or 'second', I wanted to say 'He checks them both, and the entire room.', but that wasn't one of the options. So I worked with what I was told, and went for the bluff, but not the double bluff.

And as we all know, labels are sticky, I was treated for Asperger for years and years, six or five, I went to social classes which told me things I already knew, basic ****. The obvious reason why I didn't get along with my classmates and didn't make contact was because I didn't like them, I'm particular about people, I observe them first, then maybe approach them. I don't like most people, that says nothing about my social skills. Despite the obvious signals, I comforted my mother when her boyfriend died when I was eleven, same for my grandmother, instead of then seeing that the diagnosis was wrong, they said 'even though he has Asperger, amazing how good he can listen, being able to overcome his disorder.', WHAT? if not being able to be a good listener is a requirement to being Asperger, then I simply don't have that condition if I'm a good listener and comfort people well. It took until I was 14 for one psychologist to think outside the box and quaestion the diagnosis and let me read some facial expressions, voilla, scored 34/36 correct, most people do 22, most aspies 8 apparently...

But that aside, I'm rambling my hatred to this discipline off, the bottom line is that after this, I don't really believe these tests to be full proof any more. but, for sake of argument let's say they are.

Another look at that same data:

autistic-vs-2.jpg


Then I also find it very interesting how there was a study where researchers had four years olds listen to a story. In the story a character brought something into the room and left. Someone else then moved the object. The original character came back.

The four year olds had to guess where the character would look to find it. Most of the Down's Syndrome and normal developing children guessed correctly that the main character would look in the original place since the character didn't know that it was moved. However, most of the autistic children couldn't figure this out and guessed wrongly that the character would look in the place that "it was really moved to", although the character from the story didn't actually know this happened because because of being in a different room:
OMFG, that is it, that's the test I did. That's the one.

SEE, SEE, that can happen? I was just there, I didn't know what kind of situation could require that, so I had to gamble. It was this very test.

So, I hope you now see that these tests are ultimately nonsense. They didn't ask why I thought he would look there to begin with, he just scribbled it down, next quaestion.

I think the main hazard with disorders is this:

A: they don't exist, obviously, it's hard to deny that they're just a group of symptoms put together by convention with no hard link between them.
B: psychiatrists tend to assume that if you're a 'problem child', as in 'things don't go that well at school', there is a diagnosis, they have to put you into one. Well, those symptoms are just there for convention, so a lot of people aren't going to fit in one, but they'll make up interpretations to make you fit, believe me. Not liking a film because it was just a crap film suddenly becomes being afraid of social situations and not liking the crowdedness of the cinema.

Now let's say a person x has some traits of autism, he has an obsession with what others would find 'small details', he talks in a flat monotonous voice (though has a quirky ability of being able to copy the exact intonation of about any person he met and fool people over the phone), he has some qualities of depression, he sleeps little, has little ambitions or motivations, shows apathy when insulted, he has some qualities of paranoid schizophrenia, a running commentary, but no hallucinations, he has some qualities of schizioid personality disorder, he's indifferent to being praised or insulted and tends to work alone.

So, where are you going to put him ehh? 'He' has thus far had asperger, McDD, major depression, schizophrenia, schizotypical, schizoaffectiveness, bipolar depression, depending on which psychiatrist you speak with. And 'he' knows a lot more people that went through the same crap. I know this girl, apparently officially she has a form of autism, she as no inability whatsoever to read people's emotions, she's just very afraid to speak up loudly and rarely approaches people due to some anxiety. She's also afraid to make claims. If you ask her a quaestion, she always says 'I don't know', she will only give an answer if she's completely certain; also if you ask quaestions about emotions. She's just what some people would call 'lacking confidence'. I know tonnes more of people that have gotten all kinds of stupid diagnosis because of the psychiatrists inability to see the pattern. Yeah, if person says 'I don't know', on a facial expression, it might be autism, but look further and you see the same person says 'I don't know' on virtually all quaestions, then you know you're with a different thing.
 
  • #54
Hi:smile: I'd like to make it very clear to our readers that the topic is about Albert Einstein. There is absolutely no evidence suggesting Albert Einstein was autistic. I gave a reference earlier stating such.

My concern is that young people reading this topic won't be swayed or confused by posts that are now strictly reflecting a discussion about autism. If you wish to learn about autism you can go to the National Academy of Sciences for further information.

http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=autism&submit=yes

Thank you,
Mars
 
  • #55
ViewsofMars said:
My concern is that young people reading this topic won't be swayed or confused by posts that are now strictly reflecting a discussion about autism. If you wish to learn about autism you can go to the National Academy of Sciences for further information.

http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=autism&submit=yes

Thank you,
Mars

So what's the issue ? No talk about a disorder like Autism because you think it can confuse young readers ? Let ppl talk . It the best thing you can do :P
 
  • #56
DanP said:
So what's the issue ? No talk about a disorder like Autism because you think it can confuse young readers ? Let ppl talk . It the best thing you can do :P
DanP, I am an adult. I decide for myself the best thing I can do. I gave a two notices by way of a message. When or if the page turns over to the next (p.5) my messages may not be read. Your conversation will more than likely continue with Kajahtava which could lead some people including youth reading this topic to assume you are both talking about Einstein. I only wanted it to be documented that I have provided evidence on this page that Einstein was not autistic.

Furthermore, talking about a serious topic like autism requires the very best and latest research in the area of autism by professional scientists. The link I provided by the National Academy of Sciences is peer-reviewed by the scientific community. It is a valuable resourse. I have yet to see you or Kajahtava use any information from that source.
 
  • #57
ViewsofMars said:
DanP, I am an adult

I don't think anyone here contested the fact you are an adult.
ViewsofMars said:
I only wanted it to be documented that I have provided evidence on this page that Einstein was not autistic.
.

Actually, Einstein being dead, it's close to impossible for us to diagnose him. Hence I don't think you can provide evidence for either case. Hence it is OK to consider him normal.

But let me make it very clear, it is my position that your out of context quotes provide no proof whatsoever about the position where Einstein might be on the autistic spectrum.
That what you posted does not constitute any evidence whatsoever. Don't be so concerned about the readability of your posts, and don't overstate their importance, and ask others to refrain from posting so young humans see your "evidence".

ViewsofMars said:
I have yet to see you or Kajahtava use any information from that source.

So what;s your point ? I have yet to see you using any information from your own sources as well.
 
  • #58
I think diagnosing living beings is about as irresponsible by the way. Or at least when the diagnostics criteria are as vague as in DSM-IV.

Diagnosing a living person with cancer is fine, in fact, diagnosing a dead person to have died form cancer after an autopsy is also awesome business as far as I'm concerned.

Living in the praetence that a psychiatric training fosters a mental discipline to overrule the power of suggestion is not, all research into it clearly shows that psychiatrists are just as prone to mental biases as you and I, in fact, probably the average psychiatrist is more so than either you or I DanP. Studying physics trains one to be able to handle 'counter-intuitiveness', a thing psychiatrists seem to have less of a mental discipline for.
 
  • #59
Here is some hopeful research being done to diagnose autism, (without applying DSM IV criteria) and then treat it.

http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=5146301" [Broken]
(LOUISVILLE) -- New findings could mean an incredible treatment for people with autism -- so incredible that a researcher at the University of Louisville is digging into his own pockets to make it happen as quickly as possible. WAVE 3 Medical Reporter Lori Lyle has more in this exclusive report.

Dr. Manuel Casanova, a neuroscientist at the University of Louisville, is passionate about his research. His most recent published study finds drastic differences in the brains of autistic individuals. And now, with this knowledge, he's eager to move to the next step: treatment.
The breakthrough discovery is the result of a 3-year study involving top scientists around the world.

Dr. Casanova's team at the University of Louisville was responsible for conducting the study that analyzed tissue from 12 brains -- six of them taken from people with autism.

He says the results are unquestionable, and explain symptoms exhibited from autistic patients, such as trouble speaking.

"It means that we have uncovered something very important, because it has explanatory powers," Casanova says.

The brain strands or minicolumns of autism patients have more cells, but they are narrower and more densely packed -- which can limit the brain's ability to send messages.

Dr. Casanova says that's because "there's not enough juice to actually power very long connections in the brain."

Examining tissues from a normal brain and the brain of an autistic person, Dr. Casanova explains the differences. "The more bluish staining actually means more cells present," he says.

More cells and smaller cells, making up tiny brain strands, or minicolumns. These minicolums take in information, process it and respond to it.

But the increased amount of cells works to increase other abilities -- like mathematics.

Armed with this knowledge, Dr. Casanova is ready to begin working on wiping out autism entirely. "Knowing the pathology, what is wrong with the brains of autistic individuals, opens the door to potential strategies that may actually even lead to a cure."

Dr. Casanova's first step: developing a brain stimulator to bulk-up the brain strands. And he feels so strongly about the potential that he's ready to pay for it with his own money. "I approached the university, told them I needed equipment for preliminary studies and I would match the money with my own money."

The cost for the equipment that could forever change the diagnosis of autism: $40,000. Dr. Casanova is confident he's on the verge of a major breakthrough. "Something good is about to happen," he said.

Prevention is of course the main goal for a cure, and Dr. Casanova is working on that, too. He says research findings so far point to both genetics and the environment.
This finding dovetails almost perfectly with my last https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=387517&page=2" in this thread reproduced in part here for ease of reading, that provides evidence that in fact people with autism have "delayed motor skills" in following the ball in the test. Dr Casanova's findings provide physical evidence for the delay. He says that the bundles provide evidence for increased ability in mathematics.
In the video he performs an experiment that suggest that impairment in visual integration is associated with something underneath, that of dynamic information processing associated with autism, which he proves from the experiment that there is evidence to suggest that it is.

Here is a http://www.ted.com/talks/pawan_sinha_on_how_brains_learn_to_see.html" [Broken] TED video by Pawan Sinha: Visual Neuroscientist at MIT.

If you want to see how he tests for it with an experiment, fast forward the video as directed below:

15:40 hypothesis described as suggested above

16:05 Experiment, child without autism anticipates where the ball in the pong game will be and the red dots on the game board reflect this, the eyes are always in FRONT of the moving ball, anticipating its next move.

16:30 Experiment, (child diagnosed with autism, I know, this is subjective based on the clinical diagnosis, which is not perfect) cannot anticipate where the ball in the pong game is going. The red dots FOLLOW the moving ball.

Rhody...:wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
I believe advances in various neurosciences and various new grain imaging techniques will help a lot in helping persons afflicted with various disorders, and will contribute to more objective diagnostic criteria.
 
  • #61
Now that is what I'm talking about. No psychiatrist giving a 'professional opinion', brain scan, done, minimize human interpretation at all costs.

And of course, if the treatment is corporal in nature too, we've a done deal.
 
  • #62
Kajahtava said:
Now that is what I'm talking about. No psychiatrist giving a 'professional opinion', brain scan, done, minimize human interpretation at all costs.
And of course, if the treatment is corporal in nature too, we've a done deal.

At the end of the day for me at least, ones opinion's matter little if the evidence at hand is convincing, is scrutinzed for safety using double blind studies, and Phase I, II, III Clinical Trials are conducted, documented and passed by the FDA.

It is a shame though that many treatments, for example herceptin to treat HER2-New type breast cancer approved almost ten years ago, would have never made it for FDA approved use if it were not for private funding of Phase III Clinical Trials (it cost over 50 million dollars and two years to conduct, and if it were not for private contributions from Revlon Cosmetic's and the determination of a single doctor, we would not have it today). This fact has not gone unnoticed. I have family member's who are alive today as proof of it and am deeply grateful.

Rhody...
 
  • #63
Well, the point is. A lot of drugs indeed ease the symptoms of their targeted condition, the side effects are simply often not worth it, a common thing with antidepressants and anti-psychotics is that they simply make you emotionally flat and make your mind numb.

Also, together with the hypothesis of depressive realism, the fact that drugs that are supposed to curb paranoia and depression all have in common that they remove one's awareness and attention to detail appears to me as quite dubious... when I was under psychiatric care, the psychiatrists clearly simply labelled every dark thought under delusion. Maybe some were, but a lot of things the psychiatrist couldn't have checked the validity of, how's the psychiatrist going to know if some people in my year don't like me I wonder?
 
  • #64
Kajahtava said:
long after I had lost this diagnosis

Some research with

Neuroscience
http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/images/neuroscience_66x89.gif
http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/neuro.asp

Genetics and Proteomics
http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/images/genetics_66x89.gif
http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/genpro.asp

Hormones
http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/images/hormones_66x89.gif
http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/hormones.asp

Perception and Cognition
http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/images/percog_66x89.gif
http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/percog.asp


You say you were “misdiagnosed”? Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding here, you're not saying because of that autism and Asperger's don't exist?
 
  • #65
Kajahtava said:
So you place him in front of this decisive test:

1: a person enters the room with a toy, there are two cushions in the room, he places it under one of the cushions, and goes away.
2: a different person enters, he looks under the cushion, sees the toy, displaces it to the other cushion, and goes out of the room also.
3: first person enters again, where will he look for his toy?

I was dumbstruck by this test? What were they asking me? It had to be some kind of trick quaestion right?

Although I haven't heard of that being a diagnostic test, I do know most normal four year olds and those with Down's Syndrome get these types of questions right if they see a video or play for what's going on; however, most four year olds with high functioning autism don't get it right. There are many tests that find similar results. Regardless of whether autism is "a condition", if you don't thnk it is a "clinical impairment" of understanding certain aspects of social communication, then maybe you can explain to all of us why the Down's Syndrome out do autistics on these?

If those with Down's Syndrome and normal children “consistently” do better than those with Aspergers/HFA on "many tests" of ability to find out what another person is aware of/intents, plus their social isolation, doesn't that mean something? As far as social communication impairment goes, quantitatively you can say those with autism consistently generally “score lower on these tests” than Down's Syndrome.

autistic-vs_11.jpg


false-belief-test_11.jpg


This may explain why some Asperger/High Functioning Autism individuals might be very intelligent but have troubles with communication and social abilities to the point it “clinically” interferes. By communication abilities that doesn't mean written communication or semantics (which it's said they're good at that, particularly on the Internet), but rather using social communication/context to help others know where they're coming from. AS/HFA constantly take others out of context and vice versa, to the point it causes issues and the AS/HFA constantly thinks everyone around them have issues. A lot of them will also get into unnecessary weird fights because of that and since they take things literally.
 
  • #66
physicsdude30 said:
Some research with

Neuroscience
http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/images/neuroscience_66x89.gif
http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/neuro.asp
So, what's the point if it also appears in their relatives?

I'm sure you can find some neural difference between people that are creative, and those that aren't, that's not to say that being not creative is some mental illness or hard category.

You can also find patterns in people's metabolism that gain weight sooner, and also in their relatives.

My point is that it's not a hard binary distinction between having autism and not having it. There is at this point no justification whatsoever to just say that they lack some social aptitude, just as you can say some people lack creative aptitude.

Now, a different situation is people who got a blow to the head and can't recognise faces any more but can recognise inanimate objects, or the reverse, that's a binary distinction, you either have it or you don't. It's not a professional 'opinion', it's hard and hard to miss.

Genetics and Proteomics
http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/images/genetics_66x89.gif
http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/genpro.asp
Same argument applies, I bet you can also find some genes that are more common in creative people, or people that like to have pets.

You can find these things for all kinds of categories you make up. What I want is hard unmistakable binary thing. So hard in fact that it suffices to make a diagnosis based on that, and that alone.

If *** existed as hard category, than talks and evaluations are not necessary . A doctor can diagnose cancer without having ever spoken to a patient based on X-ray's alone, that's hard.

http://blog.teenmentalhealth.org/2009/02/10/your-brain-and-the-internet-use-it-or-lose-it/ [Broken]

Not being able to use Google? psychiatric illness that can be cured by using Google to train?

Or maybe, just maybe, every skill you can have or lack is in some way caused by how your neurons are wired?

Hormones
http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/images/hormones_66x89.gif
http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/hormones.asp

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh307/bafw/Photo78.jpg

Little beard growth, hormonal illness or maybe just a continuum amongst people?

Perception and Cognition
http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/images/percog_66x89.gif
http://autismresearchcentre.com/research/percog.asp

Not understanding physics: mental illness that 90% of the population has, or 95%, or 85%, or 70%, or 99%, where do you draw the line?

The line for autism has been drawn up more and more over the past years, people with very minute lackings in social skills that 20 years back would have just been called 'nerds' now have some medical reason behind.

You say you were “misdiagnosed”? Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding here, you're not saying because of that autism and Asperger's don't exist?
No, I mean the last psychiatrist that I had's 'professional opinion' is that I don't have it.

The only way in psychiatry to be misdiagnosed is if a later psychiatrist disagrees, as I said, it's not a hard discipline.

http://www.autreat.com/dsm4-autism.html

This is just too vague, I can justify creatively for 80% of the planet that they have these if I try my best to interpret things to fit them. And in fact, as I linked, that's what psychiatrists do, there have been countless studies that gave a subject, often an actor told to act a normal person a vague diagnosis and the psychiatrist then saw confirmation of that in the most stupid of things, writing a letter to your mother suddenly becomes neurotic note taking.

Besides, any diagnosis that uses 'or' is dubious, ideally it should have a set of requirements that are all fulfilled. If we assume for sake of argument that all those items can be objectively tested, it's possible that two people have the same illness while sharing no symptoms.

I've had (psychiatrist's opinions were), in order of appearance: depression, PDD-NOS, Asperger's syndrome, Multiple-complex Developmental Disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, depression, autophobia, psychosis, schizoaffectiveness

The very simple truth of the matter is that in terms of complications I have this: emotional flatness, obsession with small details, lack of a desire for social interaction, pessimism. These are things that all people can have and there is no indication that they come from a common source, but as I said before, diagnoses in psychiatry are just grouping some symptoms together without a proof that they have a common cause. As soon as some get's a wacky idea to group those symptoms together and call it ehh, I don't know 'paedantic social self-exclusion syndrome'? then I'd fit it yes. And it wouldn't be any less vague than any other diagnosis, I would just happen to have all the symptoms.

Psychiatry based on diagnoses is a bad idea, at max they should just get a list and check which complications you have and which you don't and don't group them together arbitrarily to then give them a name.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
physicsdude30 said:
Although I haven't heard of that being a diagnostic test, I do know most normal four year olds and those with Down's Syndrome get these types of questions right if they see a video or play for what's going on; however, most four year olds with high functioning autism don't get it right. There are many tests that find similar results. Regardless of whether autism is "a condition", if you don't thnk it is a "clinical impairment" of understanding certain aspects of social communication, then maybe you can explain to all of us why the Down's Syndrome out do autistics on these?

If those with Down's Syndrome and normal children “consistently” do better than those with Aspergers/HFA on "many tests" of ability to find out what another person is aware of/intents, plus their social isolation, doesn't that mean something? As far as social communication impairment goes, quantitatively you can say those with autism consistently generally “score lower on these tests” than Down's Syndrome.
That's all perhaps true, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make, the point I was trying to make is what reason does the child have to say what it says?

I mean, I choose the wrong one, while I obviously was aware of what was going on right? I was aware of the perspective of the other? I just didn't make the error the clinician there made, I was trying to find a reason why some one would place a toy under a cushion, and why another person would enter and displace it. The only thing I could think of is that the first must have stolen it or hid it for the other, and found the option of the single bluff the most likely, though the double bluff did cross my mind.

But look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A4fN7FEzjc#t=4m40

Famous scene right? But Kenobi can't see the lightsaber, his view is obstructed? There is no way he can see it, so why is he turning his head? Maybe he felt it through the force, makes you wonder why maul didn't? But he turns his head and looks at it (a thing he can't see), thereby giving his plan away to maul to begin with. Force powers is X-ray eyes?

Another one:



They are standing on an isolated platform, cutting the scene to the part where they climb out of it seems to trick the audience, also, they had in any case take a good time to get to the portal and jump out of it. So why does he start discussing that only when they jump out of it? Also, they had the whole time to think of an escape plan and they had no guarantee that that ship was waiting for them, it's unthinkable that one of them doesn't get the idea 'We go out of that portal, set the portal to some planet, and jump into it again to avoid the explosion', and why isn't the portal the first part of the trap that blows up to trap the people inside the core? Flint's not that smart eh?

I could go on here about about any film, series, book, and what-not. It all falls apart the moment you start to see it from the characters perspective. Characters in many media for instance are apparently silent when the camera isn't targeted at them, it's of course done for the obvious reason that the audience wants to hear all they say. But it seems that the only reason to explain how the conversations always continue after the camerae cut is that they are simply silent when they have no screen time. They always just pick off where they left, even if it's days later in narrative time.

So what I'm trying to say is, if this happens in every book, every film, in fact, every reality show and every pop-Idol like thing would fall apart as staged as soon as you see it from the perspective of the characters itself, then no one does this?

And they don't, are not capable of diving in another's shoes, they are only capable of putting themselves their, not seeing it through the eyes of another person. Almost every reality show on TV is clearly, and I mean clearly staged the moment you see it from their eyes and realize that it no longer makes an iota of sense then.

This may explain why some Asperger/High Functioning Autism individuals might be very intelligent but have troubles with communication and social abilities to the point it “clinically” interferes. By communication abilities that doesn't mean written communication or semantics (which it's said they're good at that, particularly on the Internet), but rather using social communication/context to help others know where they're coming from. AS/HFA constantly take others out of context and vice versa, to the point it causes issues and the AS/HFA constantly thinks everyone around them have issues. A lot of them will also get into unnecessary weird fights because of that and since they take things literally.
Maybe it does, but it still doesn't justify it as an illness any more than for instance being easily offended, which also socially impairs.

Another thing is, that as a child, I used to think I lacked empathy, lacked a good sense of time, and a good sense of temperature and a good sense of people's intentions. I didn't, I was as good as any person, the difference was that many people simply stated their opinions about such things when they were also wrong. My mother would say 'person x is offended now.', and I couldn't see it so I thought I lacked a sense to that, but later on I began to see that about 50% of the time my mother said that, she was simply wrong about it. All that was happening is that I was more conservative to make an opinion, I simply had a better sense of knowing when I didn't have enough certainty to make a claim. I was as often right as my mother, my mother simply also said it when she was wrong, and I didn't, giving off the impression that she knew more about those things. I thought I couldn't estimate length and she could, it turned out that we both were about as good at it, she just gave her estimates any way even when they were grosely off, while I simply didn't give them unless I was sure they were accurate.

I don't think people are so correct that often when they estimate people's emotions, I'm not saying people who have autism are better, far from it, I'm just saying that from what I've observed around me, people make as much inaccurate as correct estimates at these things. The people that make their estimates regardless of how incorrect they are though give off the impression of being good at it, as often there isn't a thing that comes around to test it.

Also, an interesting thing about social intelligence tests is that they often assume that every solution works the best for each person. I am highly sceptical to that. If you ask me 'Say, a friend of yours is crying because her girlfriend left her, what would you do?' I would reply 'depends on the friend?', different people, different needs, many social intelligence tests however don't leave room for such a clause, and I've indeed come to observe that about all people try to help every person in the exact same way, and that was is the way that they, themselves, like to be helped. Same with advice, people don't give advice, they just tell people what they would do were they in their position.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #68
Kajahtava said:
I mean, I choose the wrong one, while I obviously was aware of what was going on right? I was aware of the perspective of the other? I just didn't make the error the clinician there made, I was trying to find a reason why some one would place a toy under a cushion, and why another person would enter and displace it. The only thing I could think of is that the first must have stolen it or hid it for the other, and found the option of the single bluff the most likely, though the double bluff did cross my mind.

It is fascinating what you describe. Especially your alertness to fake aspects of on-screen interaction. I know that would be the last kind of thing I would notice.

But consider this. Are you using your intelligence to over-compensate perhaps? A "normal" person doing tests or watching movies would just respond to the implicit social cues of the situation. They would give the simple answer that they knew was expected from fine-grain and "obvious" social information. But if you find it difficult to pick up this kind of information at an automatic, preconscious level, then you might respond by over-analysing consciously to work out what must be the social expectations implicit in a standard cultural situation.

A "normal" person would just respond without thinking, and respond to a socially acceptable level of effort. This would also be why you feel many people don't really consider the viewpoint of others that deeply at all. They really don't rise above a habitual response.
 
  • #69
apeiron said:
It is fascinating what you describe. Especially your alertness to fake aspects of on-screen interaction. I know that would be the last kind of thing I would notice.
You wouldn't be the last, if people noticed it, then surely these films would not be as profitable? It doesn't ruin a film per se if you notice it. But it's just a point that always removes the willing suspension of disbelieve and reminds you that it's a film you're watching. It's breaking the fourth wall.

But consider this. Are you using your intelligence to over-compensate perhaps? A "normal" person doing tests or watching movies would just respond to the implicit social cues of the situation. They would give the simple answer that they knew was expected from fine-grain and "obvious" social information. But if you find it difficult to pick up this kind of information at an automatic, preconscious level, then you might respond by over-analysing consciously to work out what must be the social expectations implicit in a standard cultural situation.

A "normal" person would just respond without thinking, and respond to a socially acceptable level of effort. This would also be why you feel many people don't really consider the viewpoint of others that deeply at all. They really don't rise above a habitual response.
Well, analytical reasoning requires prompt, if some one asked you 'what is wrong'? it's just hard to miss from my perspective, it's as if one of them had a big smile on their face in that situation, it just makes no sense from their perspective, it's hardly a thing one's to think a bit, it just makes no sense at all. I just see him stepping through that portal saying 'you gave up...' and it's completely out of character for him (or for about any person) to have waited so long to say that, I can't find a reason why he would wait so long, and then you realize 'Oh yeah, you're watching a film, sport, it's not supposed to make any sense', and you forget and move on.

By the way, some guys at tvtropes.org are also excellent in taking films apart for these things, not so much perspectives of characters, but some times too, they just really like to point out the things that don't add up.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosRoulette

This is one of my favourites, writes use it a lot to create the illusion of a brilliant strategic planner, while if you like at it from the perspective of the planner, he or she usually took huge risks that would more often than not kill him or her if a tiny thing goes differently than expected. Of course, only revealing the plan afterwards tends to mask this for the audience that doesn't hang around on tvtropes.org.

As far as social settings go, a riddle for you here:

Jill is sleeping with her friend Jack. Jill goes to the bathroom at night, and so does Jack. The following morning Jack tells Jill that his mother complained that they should be more quiet in going to the bathroom, as his mother woke up twice because of the noise. Jill calls Jack a fool, why?
 
<h2>1. Who was Albert Einstein and why is he famous?</h2><p>Albert Einstein was a theoretical physicist who is widely regarded as one of the most influential scientists of the 20th century. He is most famous for his theory of relativity and his equation E=mc^2, which revolutionized our understanding of space, time, and energy.</p><h2>2. Was Albert Einstein really autistic?</h2><p>While there is no definitive diagnosis, many experts believe that Albert Einstein displayed characteristics of high functioning autism, such as intense focus and exceptional mathematical abilities. However, it is important to note that autism was not well understood during Einstein's lifetime and he was never formally diagnosed.</p><h2>3. How did Einstein's autism affect his work as a scientist?</h2><p>Einstein's autism likely played a role in his unique way of thinking and problem-solving, which allowed him to make groundbreaking discoveries in the field of physics. However, it is impossible to say for certain how his autism specifically influenced his work, as it is just one aspect of his complex personality and intellect.</p><h2>4. What challenges did Einstein face as a high functioning autistic individual?</h2><p>Einstein faced challenges such as difficulty with social interactions and communication, as well as sensory sensitivities. However, he was able to overcome these challenges and use his strengths to excel in his scientific pursuits.</p><h2>5. How has Einstein's legacy impacted our understanding of autism?</h2><p>Einstein's legacy has helped to break down stereotypes and misconceptions about autism, as he is an example of someone who was able to thrive and make significant contributions to society despite being on the autism spectrum. His success also highlights the importance of recognizing and valuing neurodiversity in our society.</p>

1. Who was Albert Einstein and why is he famous?

Albert Einstein was a theoretical physicist who is widely regarded as one of the most influential scientists of the 20th century. He is most famous for his theory of relativity and his equation E=mc^2, which revolutionized our understanding of space, time, and energy.

2. Was Albert Einstein really autistic?

While there is no definitive diagnosis, many experts believe that Albert Einstein displayed characteristics of high functioning autism, such as intense focus and exceptional mathematical abilities. However, it is important to note that autism was not well understood during Einstein's lifetime and he was never formally diagnosed.

3. How did Einstein's autism affect his work as a scientist?

Einstein's autism likely played a role in his unique way of thinking and problem-solving, which allowed him to make groundbreaking discoveries in the field of physics. However, it is impossible to say for certain how his autism specifically influenced his work, as it is just one aspect of his complex personality and intellect.

4. What challenges did Einstein face as a high functioning autistic individual?

Einstein faced challenges such as difficulty with social interactions and communication, as well as sensory sensitivities. However, he was able to overcome these challenges and use his strengths to excel in his scientific pursuits.

5. How has Einstein's legacy impacted our understanding of autism?

Einstein's legacy has helped to break down stereotypes and misconceptions about autism, as he is an example of someone who was able to thrive and make significant contributions to society despite being on the autism spectrum. His success also highlights the importance of recognizing and valuing neurodiversity in our society.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
Replies
4
Views
9K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
729
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
117
Views
13K
Back
Top