Albert Einstein: High Functioning Autistic

[physicsdude30]

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:

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:

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:

 

[ViewsofMars]

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.

 

[Kajahtava]

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:

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:

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.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Hi 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

 

[DanP]

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

 

[ViewsofMars]

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.

 

[DanP]

DanP, I am an adult

I don't think anyone here contested the fact you are an adult.

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".

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.

 

[Kajahtava]

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.

 

[rhody]

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"

(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" 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...

 

[DanP]

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.

 

[Kajahtava]

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.

 

[rhody]

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...

 

[Kajahtava]

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?

 

[physicsdude30]

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?

 

[physicsdude30]

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.

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.

 

[Kajahtava]

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/

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.

 

[Kajahtava]

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.

 

[apeiron]

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.

 

[Kajahtava]

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?

 

[Freeman Dyson]

Many greats have been claimed to be on the autism spectrum. I wouldn't doubt it. People like Einstein and Newton were socially awkward and had other hallmarks of the condition. Like this guy.

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-03-24-grigory-perelman-the-maths-genius-who-said-no-to-1m

 

[physicsdude30]

Also, an interesting thing about social intelligence tests is that they often assume that every solution works the best for each person.

I think this one was extremely straightforward in reading a child's ability with mechanical cause-effect and understanding the intentions of others -


Mechanical cause-effect: Young normal, Down's Syndrome, and autistic children had to put the four randomized pictures in the correct sequence. Also not just this particular one but many other mechanical cause-effect sequences to get a mean score, along with the other two categories found below. Looks straightforward but the normal vs. downs vs. autistic consistantly scored differently.

Descriptive

Intentional

Remember in school how they teach us about experiment and control groups? Using the concept of controlling for other variables, if it was only because the high functioning autistic children were over analyzing thus missing what was going on, then how do you explain why they did well with all the Descriptive and Mechanical cause-effect sequencing of pictures, but not the Intentional category? The Down's Syndrome children did better than the high functioning autistic, which means there's something more than "intelligence" involved. Might there be actual impairments in delays of neurologically learning how to relate to others, knowing their intent, etc?

That other study when four year olds would figure out where such and such would look for an object even after someone else moved the object is quite straightforward to most, but most of the young autistic children whle the Down's Syndrome children got it.

(From earlier)

All those graphs look quite "quantitative" to me.

 

[physicsdude30]

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.

Just to clear up any misunderstanding here, did any of us say autism/Asperger's is an illness? Remember, it's a psychological disorder, but not illness. There is a difference even if many don't know.

As a comparison, OCD is a psychological disorder, impairment, but not illness or disease. They use brain scans and have found some "common patterns", but haven't found any brain scans which are the same for all with clinical symptoms of OCD. If they did, they'd use brain scans to actually medically diagnose OCD. Does that mean OCD is fake? Does that mean that there aren't those out there which are impaired to the point it's clinical? Remember, everything "psychological is also biological", so eventually they'll always find something for everything. The thing which matters is if it clinically impairs.

I think there's plenty of evidence for those with high functioning autism/Asperger's being impaired in certain areas of communication/social aspects/obsessive interests/repetitions to the point it clinically interferes.

 

[physicsdude30]

I doubt Einstein had trouble communicating. What's more, there is a difference between avoiding social contact, and being inept at it. As far as I know he acted normally in his social interactions.

You're absolutely correct that Einstein was great at “writing”. In addition to that, something to keep in mind is many with Asperger's are the same way. I would think speaking in person and written communication are two different things. I've heard for Asperger's communication abilities that doesn't mean written communication or semantics (which it's said they're good at that, particularly when on the Internet, and that many are surprised by their abilities), but rather using context/social communication to help others know where they're coming from because AS/HFA constantly take others out of context and vice versa. A lot of them will also get into unnecessary weird fights because of that and they take things literally.

Some other food for thought, I thought it was interesting earlier when I took a speech class and in the introductory chapter it used Einstein as an example of why an intelligent person may have extreme trouble getting their point across during one of their lectures if they don't adapt their speech to the audience and speak like they're talking to a wall. Although, that doesn't necessarily mean he had mild autism/Asperger's. It's an interesting thought, none the less.

 

[physicsdude30]

FOR AND AGAINST ALBERT EINSTEIN AND ISAAC NEWTON HAVING ASPERGER'S/HFA


I found it interesting looking at both sides of the argument.


Against Einstein and Newton having Autism:

Oliver Sacks against it. Glen Elliot, a psychiatrist from the University of California at San Francisco, said Einstein/Newton were “socially inept” and “impatient with the mentally slow”, thus making them isolated and difficult. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3676

Others have said similar things, and that the above issues don't necessarily mean mild autism.


For Einstein and Newton having Autism:

Although the following experts say you can't diagnose someone with disorders after they're dead, Ioan James, Michael Fitzgerald, Simon Baron-Cohen, and Tony Attwood said Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton had “personality traits very consistent” with Asperger's Syndrome. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539373/?tool=pubmed
(Einstein: brain and behavior.) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11261475
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3676
http://www.tonyattwood.com.au/pdfs/attwood4.pdf

Einstein and Newton had intense interests in specific limited areas consistent with someone with Asperger's. They had trouble reacting appropriately in social situations and difficulties communicating (remember, in the post above they're not talking about the same thing as “written communication”). Newton spoke little and was bad-tempered with the few friends he did happen to have. If no one was at his lectures he just spoke to an empty room. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2988647.stm

Illana Katz points out that Einstein often through his life “was a loner, solitary, suffered from major tantrums, had no friends and didn't like being in crowds.” http://www.jewishjournal.com/education/article/does_autism_offer_special_gifts_20050527/

Also check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRRNeAilrnM&feature=related


I think it is intriguing to think about both sides of the issue.

 

[Kajahtava]

Just to clear up any misunderstanding here, did any of us say autism/Asperger's is an illness? Remember, it's a psychological disorder, but not illness. There is a difference even if many don't know.

I treat 'psychological disorder' the same as ilness, in fact, you may call it a 'category' for all I care. I'm just saying it's not a hard category but vague and most importantly on a gradient.

There's no (approximately) binary destinction between people that have autism and those that don't. There is a binary destinction between people that have down syndrome, and those that don't, either you have three chromosomes there, or you don't. It's not even a linear gradient where one can say 'more autistic' or 'less autistic', there's just so many different variables, it's like trying to say that one complex number is larger than another, you can't, because you have multiple dimensions.

There's just so many factors coming into play. Let's say that X has more troubles reading facial expressions than Y, but Y takes things more literally than X. Which of these is then 'more autistic', you can't say that. It's just so vague what 'autism' is, it's purely opinion and the links I gave back already show that different professionals have completely different ideas about the same person regarding this as long as they haven't been given a prior diagnosis, and if that prior diagnosis was purposely made wrong, the new psychiatrist will see things that aren't there in the subject (stickiness of labels), it's just so vague.

As a comparison, OCD is a psychological disorder, impairment, but not illness or disease. They use brain scans and have found some "common patterns", but haven't found any brain scans which are the same for all with clinical symptoms of OCD. If they did, they'd use brain scans to actually medically diagnose OCD. Does that mean OCD is fake? Does that mean that there aren't those out there which are impaired to the point it's clinical? Remember, everything "psychological is also biological", so eventually they'll always find something for everything. The thing which matters is if it clinically impairs.

Oh, I'm willing to say autism impairs, I'm willing to say being ugly impairs, that doesn't mean to me that being ugly is an illness or a category, you can't class people into 'ugly' nor 'not ugly', it's just a very vague distinction.

I'm also a big fan of treating people on the relevant properties, I don 't think people should get help because they have a diagnosis in autism. I think they should get help because they have some difficulties to function socially, if this is autism or not isn't relevant. As in, I don't stand up for old people, I stand up for people that have poor legs, if they are old or young is irrelevant, of course, old people are sooner to have poor legs.

I think there's plenty of evidence for those with high functioning autism/Asperger's being impaired in certain areas of communication/social aspects/obsessive interests/repetitions to the point it clinically interferes.

Well, sure, but that doesn't make it a hard category. As I said, so do ugly people, but you can't class people into 'ugly' or 'not ugly' by the some evaluation of a 'professional opinion'.

Also, assuming that it can, there is still very little indication that psychiatry is effective to solve this problem, and a lot of scary indication that psychiatry is counter-effective. Psychiatry in most countries is sanctioned by law as medicine, even though formally it's alternative medicine that operates on unproven theories and even if it's shown to work, no one knows exactly how it works and what the long term effects of pharmaceutics may be. Psychotropic drugs are still basically made by trial and error, it's stuff they inject into your central nervous system and they've observed that one effect of it is helpful, but they don't really know how that effect is achieved in the end, and what other things are caused with it. More often than not, it turns out that these drugs have quite severe side effects which only show up after about 15 years of use.

I'm not contesting that people who are socially impaired need help. What I'm contesting is:

A: that this is a hard category that means any thing more than 'socially impaired'.
B: that psychiatry / clinical psychology can provide this help

All the research into the effectiveness of psychiatry simply shows that formally it's a form of alternative medicine, and that psychiatrists have the authority to legally put diagnoses on people and in some cases even can require people to submit their freedom is dangerous to me. All it takes is a psychiatrist saying that a person is in danger to commit suicide to effectively lock that person up in a variety of legal jurisdictions without any indication that psychiatrists are able to correctly assess this, and in fact a lot of indication to the inverse. It has already been shown that if you put a fake diagnosis of 'depressed' on a normal happy person a psychiatrist will see all sorts of confirmation in it. Psychiatry is alternative medicine and even quackery for a very large part, if people want to seek it out for themselves that's their business, but to give it legal sanctioning is a line too far for me.

 

[Kajahtava]

Einstein and Newton had intense interests in specific limited areas consistent with someone with Asperger's. They had trouble reacting appropriately in social situations and difficulties communicating (remember, in the post above they're not talking about the same thing as “written communication”). Newton spoke little and was bad-tempered with the few friends he did happen to have. If no one was at his lectures he just spoke to an empty room. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2988647.stm

This is interesting for me in two ways.

One: Why can't you diagnose the dead? I mean, autopsies are common right? A doctor should be able to determine if I died from a heart attack or from hanging myself, a doctor should also be able to determine if I drank too much during my life from the state of my liver. I mean, autism has some vague guidelines for diagnoses, if one can diagnose the living by those, surely also the dead? There are enough videos and letters available in which Einstein spoke about himself and his life, why not then? I'm not saying that diagnosing the dead with autism makes any sense, I'm just saying it makes no less sense than 'diagnosing' the living with it. I just think that the term 'diagnosis' is praetentious in this context, I would call praefer to substitute 'diagnosed with autism' as 'Psychiatrist John Friedman, M.D. find that in his perception I behave within the paramatres of how the autist behaves.' Which means the same as 'Kajahtava thinks I'm a cat person.', I don't think psychiatrists at better at determining personality than any random person by the way, I haven't seen any indication of it, and a lot of indications, documented, to that they are just as susceptible to the power of suggestion and the stickiness of labels.

Two: I said before that I was 'misdiagnosed' (read: later psychiatrists had different opinions) as 'asperger' for a couple of years. In those years psychiatrists seemed to believe that I had confined interests, despite being the antithesis of that, I would say that I have 'no interest' and I simply swallow up information for the sake of it being information and find reading of about anything a nice activity. I do have some hobbies but they are as variant as making music, painting, computer games, solving mathematical puzzles, having sex, watching comedies and walking outside. But in those years, psychiatrists all seemed to for the most part treat me as a person who does nothing but mathematics, though some seemed to treat me as a person who has no interest except high art. You sit there and suddenly they find out that I play the piano, and then they just put in their report, without even asking me, without a single indication thereof that I approach music 'mathematically'...? I do anything but... my compositions violate all the rules and guidelines of musical theory, I learned it, I know it, but I wish I never did and try to forget it when I compose. But they always treated me as if I either was only interested in mathematics, or only in high art, and only now do I realize why after I saw that here. I never knew that was a property of 'autism'. Which pretty much summs up why I think stuff like 'autism' should be dropped in favour of 'socially impaired'. I wasn't even socially impaired, I was just socially not motivated, I made little contact because I had, and still am, introverted and praefer except a close circle of friends whom I know very well to just keep to myself. Then misinterpreted that as 'socially impaired', then stuck 'autism' on it and suddenly began to see all the other criteria of autism which I never had, like not being able to stand loud noises, taking things literally despite simultaneously trying to help me with my strange speech pattern that used strange neologisms like 'dampened mindscreams' instead of 'sadness' simply because I found it to better communicate the concept than 'sadness', as at that time I was myself not yet aware that most people take words more literal than I.

As I said, autism supposedly includes:

A: troubles reading facial expressions
B: taking things literally
C: unable to cope with loud noises
D: confined interests
E: troubles feeling what others feel

There is no indication that A,B,C,D,E all come from a common cause, in fact, if you look at it that way, they aren't remotely related. They just were by convention, by this dude called Hans Asperger grouped together because he studied a pack of children which all, probably by sheer coincidence, displayed these, and it got on. So on, that if you only satisfy three of those nowadays, people will try to see for themselves the other two. The absurdest thing is, that I, and two people I know, have and had none of those but we were all misdiagnosed because some professional mistook introversion for some combination of A and E, and from that extrapolated the rest. I mean, this girl I know, eighteen, creative sense of verbal humour, no trouble sensing what you feel, all sorts of diverse interests from absurd Chinese action films to Kafka to, slavonic linguistics to Vladimir Putin, goes to concerts all the time. But guess what, she's also really shy so she doesn't like it to look people in the eyes hmm? Only a year back did they drop the diagnosis she had for 11 years long. She doesn't look to the ground because she doesn't appreciate the value of eye contact, she appreciates it all too well and the intimacy of it scares her... and in her case too, psychiatrists extrapolated, wrongly, the rest from that.

Edit: Let's build on this particular girl for my arguments. Yes, she's impaired, her shyness and lack of confidence border into the obsessive to find all things that are wrong with herself, understanding what she says is an art on its own because it's so soft and mumbly, she's also unable to talk to strangers, not because of any lack of social understanding, but insecurity, fear that they will be angry at her. So, she needs help right?

Well, she was diagnosed with autism, psychiatrists aren't that able to see the difference between shyness and lack of social understanding, they see a girl making no eye contact, they conclude the latter. So, she gets social skill training, which is something she doesn't need, because though the symptom is the same, she can't talk to strangers, the cause is different, it's not that she doesn't know what she has to do, it's an irrational fear that the strangers will become angry at her for bothering them. So, social skill training not only doesn't work, it works counter-effective, each and every time you put her there, you remind her subconscious mind that she is supposedly socially weak, which will make her all the more afraid of offending strangers as now you've given her another thing, you've planted the possibility in her mind that she doesn't notice when she offends strangers, which is a sign of autism, making her see offended people when they are not offended.

This sounds quite believable right? Well, this happens a lot of times in a lot of different ways, and often psychiatrists themselves fail to realize what's going on. I've seen them talking to people, it's just scary, I can already see it, she would be sitting at that training, the psychologist telling her 'what would you do in this situation', she being afraid to answer because she's afraid of being wrong and confirming her own fears, the psychologist concluding from that that she doesn't know how to handle the situation, patronizing her and in that driving her deeper and deeper into her shell with each single session.

Also, take this as an argument, Einstein survived didn't he, so did Newton, in fact, people whom we retroactively put 'autism' on all survived, in fact, before autism was invented these kids just had some difficulties but managed. But now that the label is on it, suddenly these children are having amazing difficulties in the popular appeal, I see three possible conclusions.

A: These amazing difficulties are in fact cause by psychiatry. Indeed, many people who were diagnosed with autism later on, really managed quite well in their lives, some problems, but still, they managed, they as hell hadn't all the problems many people seem to have who are diagnosed at a younger age.
B: Because of the power of suggestion, people see problems that aren't actually there. Same thing as the above applies.
C: There is more attention to the problems now that went unnoticed before.

A and B, naturally I don't like, C is good, but I honestly doubt it's C after having read countless reproducible tests that all show the same thing:

1: psychiatrsts give completely different evaluations on the same patient if they are told they are the first to evaluate that patient.
2: psychiatrists keep to the evaluation of a former psychiatrist and see confirmation of that in the patient, even if the former evaluation has been purposefully made wrong and the patient is in fact an actor told to act out a normal person.

With this in countless literature, it seems a done deal to me, studying psychiatry is not enough a mental conditioning to overcome the basic human flaws of naïve realism and the power of suggestion.

 

[apeiron]

Einstein and Newton had intense interests in specific limited areas consistent with someone with Asperger's.

Even the quickest skim of wiki would give you an idea of Newton's range of interests, from alchemy to optics to maths to mechanics to theology. He was practical enough to be master of the mint.

Of course if you define asperger's by the trait of social awkwardness, that would rope in all sorts of different people - the introverts, the narcissists, and those just a lot brighter that the people around them (telling them what to do, how to behave).

That is why you need some specific traits that distinguish asperger's, such as trouble with reading facial expressions, or trouble with metaphoric speech. If you have evidence that Einstein or Newton exhibited these specific traits, then you might have the start of a case.

Interesting you say Sacks says thumbs down. Any reference for that? Sacks is certainly someone I would give weight to - and yet he himself is a great example of someone who is socially awkward, accident prone, very socially empathic but also very eccentric in his manner. Baron-Cohen would probably diagnose Sacks as asperger's in other words.

Baron-Cohen on the other hand is socially slick, quick to latch on to popular ideas like the theory of mind module (evopsych claptrap) and then "all your favourite geniuses are actually mentally handicapped, ha, ha". So slick but shallow, whereas Sacks is un-slick but actually clever.

 

[apeiron]

As I said, autism supposedly includes:

A: troubles reading facial expressions
B: taking things literally
C: unable to cope with loud noises
D: confined interests
E: troubles feeling what others feel

All these do fit with a general story of a problem with perceptual integration. At the lowest level, perception relies on memory and expectation just to clump together the whole panorama of sensation flooding in every instant. At the highest level, broad contextual meaning has to be given to ambiguous things like facial expressions and figures of speech.

If you are only mildly affected so far as integration goes, then you will do a reasonable job on the low level stuff and only start to struggle with the high level stuff, such as reading subtle social cues, getting humourous double meanings.

If you are affected at the lowest levels of integration, then even sensation is jumbled, fragmented. This is when "volume" control becomes a problem. This is when a person learns to focus narrowly on what can be controlled, such as mechanical skills like music, arithmetic, repetitive actions.

Rich stimulation is only enjoyable when it all makes sense, when there is a smooth flow. It becomes threatening and anxiety-making to those who cannot create this experiential flow. So the way to self-regulate is to avoid social gaze, social interaction, to retreat into head-banging or other behaviours which give simple, predictable, flow of stimulation.

None of this sounds like the hidden recipe for genius does it? Apart from the fact that some savants will put 10,000 hours of effort into drawing, piano-playing, mental arithmetic and other reassuringly structured activities.

 

[Kajahtava]

All these do fit with a general story of a problem with perceptual integration. At the lowest level, perception relies on memory and expectation just to clump together the whole panorama of sensation flooding in every instant. At the highest level, broad contextual meaning has to be given to ambiguous things like facial expressions and figures of speech.

If you are only mildly affected so far as integration goes, then you will do a reasonable job on the low level stuff and only start to struggle with the high level stuff, such as reading subtle social cues, getting humourous double meanings.

If you are affected at the lowest levels of integration, then even sensation is jumbled, fragmented. This is when "volume" control becomes a problem. This is when a person learns to focus narrowly on what can be controlled, such as mechanical skills like music, arithmetic, repetitive actions.

Rich stimulation is only enjoyable when it all makes sense, when there is a smooth flow. It becomes threatening and anxiety-making to those who cannot create this experiential flow. So the way to self-regulate is to avoid social gaze, social interaction, to retreat into head-banging or other behaviours which give simple, predictable, flow of stimulation.

None of this sounds like the hidden recipe for genius does it? Apart from the fact that some savants will put 10,000 hours of effort into drawing, piano-playing, mental arithmetic and other reassuringly structured activities.

Assume it is perceptual integration, then why are aspires stereotypically held to have nigh photographic memories, a keen sense of balance, fast reflexes, a fine attention to details and observing quirks which other people don't as a compensation to this?

I mean, aspies are both known to have trouble recognising faces, but to be able to recognise individual buses of the same series and tell them apart. In fact, I know two people that can do the latter, one has troubles with recognising faces and also rigidly obeys rules without ever bending them, the other has no trouble recognising faces and has a terrible tendency to never keep her promises. In fact, the former is a guy with glasses, almost bald 'because it's practical' pays no attention to his appearance and clothes which his mother buy. The latter is a girl who's 1.81 metres long, looks like Mary-Jane Watson, energetic, different hair colour every two weeks and too much time in front of the mirror. But yeah, they both are able to recognise individual buses of the same series, same for all forms of public transport, I have no idea how but they just see it and wonder why others don't, they're like different people to them. The former looks very stereotypically aspie and I believe his diagnosis is quite accurate as far as it goes. The latter not so much, of the former people would probably expect it that he sees it. Of the latter, no one would expect that or the fact that she can program in Common Lisp and Scheme because her father taught her from a young age? I'm pretty convinced that the latter would have also gotten that diagnosis if only she looked a little less like the most popular girl in high school.

This is also the point that you should realize that I've met a fair deal of strange people, and this is the point you should also ask yourself 'But wait, how did he then know that the latter girl recognises buses?', if not (probably) you've failed to see the pattern. Most people indeed don't know she recognises buses, most people don't ask, I bet you know a couple of people that recognise buses, you just never asked, you will only ask once that person has autism as a diagnosis, because then you expect them to recognise buses. As you already noted, I've noticed that most people sadly don't see patterns as easily as I, I don't recognises buses no, I do recognise people that recognise buses, it's just the way they look at objects like trains and buses, they're not looking at them, they're making eye contact, so I just asked her 'You recognise them, don't you?' and she first didn't understand it and then in that conversation realized that most people really can't see the difference between two buses of the same make and series, she never really thought of it.

Which brings us back to the original point about autism, I doubt these famous traits a lot of aspies have that 'compensate' for their inabilities are in any way linked to the inabilities they have, or that being mathematically brilliant implies social awkwardness. People just don't notice those things unless you have some disability because then it's your special thing. I bet you know a fear deal of people that have a nigh photographic memory or an attention to detail which people would call 'amazing' if only that person had some difficulty, but otherwise you don't find out, as people often themselves, as illustrated above, don't realize that others lack it. Synaesthetes don't find out that they're synaesthetes remember? They always find out that others are not synaesthete. To me, experiencing a sound without the appropriate colour and smell is more alien than not doing so, I was fourteen, found out that others don't, from that moment on I learned the name too, I never really thought about it. It's the same thing with a photographic memory and recognising buses I suppose, one doesn't really think about it until one finds out that to other people, what is obvious and in plain sight to you like the difference between individual buses of the same make for some reason is not obvious. Like how it's obvious how people feel from their facial expression, hard to realize that some people can't see it, eh? If you were the only person on the planet who could do this, it was seen as a nigh psychic trait, being able to tell how people feel without asking them, imagine it. But really, you wouldn't have noticed or thought about it until you're confronted with the fact that others are unable to read facial expressions.

At this point in time, seeing that all configurations and permutations of skills and inabilities seem to occur, I have no reason to believe that any skill or inability is linked to another and in fact they all occur independently and just coincide by accident, and I also think that what most people see as one skill are in fact two different skills, or the inverse. As in, mathematical intelligence can come from:

A: great ability to see patterns.
B: penchant for praecision

together or:

C: ability to reason and think at a high speed
D: being great at conceiving abstract properties


Now, A,B together or C,D together would give the impression of 'mathematically skilled', even though there is thus not necessisarly any intersection of skills between two people that are 'mathematically skilled', again, same symptom, different cause. A alone would enable a person to learn languages very fast. (Which could explain why some mathematicians are also excellent in learning languages, while others notoriously suck at it.), A,D would not only mean learning the syntax of a language swiftly, but also get a good feeling of the meaning of the new words and their connotation. C,A makes a chessmaster (some mathematicians are excellent at chess, but a lot of great chess players are bad at maths?) and so on.

It's just a hypothetical configuration to show how easy it is to fall for the naïve error. That it appears as one similar thing to human perception needn't mean that it also is.

 

[apeiron]

Assume it is perceptual integration, then why are aspires stereotypically held to have nigh photographic memories, a keen sense of balance, fast reflexes, a fine attention to details and observing quirks which other people don't as a compensation to this?

Asperger's is usually associated with motor skill problems - dyspraxia - rather than excellence. Another reason for stressing perceptual integration as the core neural issue.

The over-analysing of social situations would be evidence of a basic difficulty extracting information about socially complex stimuli in a quick and easy way.

The photographic memory would again be about perceptual integration. Eidetic memory is common in kids and fades away. The more we react to the world in a learned and habitual fashion, the more it becomes a forgotten blur. Remembering every detail is a sign that the brain is overloading itself with undigested novelty rather than bedding down smooth routines of sensorimotor integration.

 

[Kajahtava]

Asperger's is usually associated with motor skill problems - dyspraxia - rather than excellence. Another reason for stressing perceptual integration as the core neural issue.

The over-analysing of social situations would be evidence of a basic difficulty extracting information about socially complex stimuli in a quick and easy way.

The photographic memory would again be about perceptual integration. Eidetic memory is common in kids and fades away. The more we react to the world in a learned and habitual fashion, the more it becomes a forgotten blur. Remembering every detail is a sign that the brain is overloading itself with undigested novelty rather than bedding down smooth routines of sensorimotor integration.

I don't think so, especially not in the last part, kids have more appreciation to detail, I don't think that's because they've not yet learned to filter out irrelevant details, I think it's because they can afford it, children are simply more intelligent than adults. That is, they learn quicker and their brains have a higher activity.

I don't have a scientific study to this, but it's simply a thing I know from some friends, call it a rational opposed to an empirical argument. But my hypothesis is that this pattern re-emerges the moment brain activity again increases, including simply when being tired or when you're feeling fit after a good night sleep.

Now, we know that children are more open to accept new ideas, call it a dogma or an axiom but I doubt many people will disagree to this. I don't think this is as much a mentality as an ability. I think human beings lose the ability to solve problems with time, I don't think adults can truly solve problems, what they can do is apply solutions they've made in the past as children to new problems the mind finds 'similar', which is again naïvely interpreted by human perception as 'leaving out (irrelevant) details' as of course the solutions are not as purely accurate as if every variable was again encountered. We also know that in a variety of cases, people that have not learned an essential skill beyond a certain age will never learn it. If you never added numbers before you're seven you won't add numbers ever in your live, if you've never been exposed to human language before a certain, including sign language, you simply have no concept of grammar.

Now, let's say you punish a child for bad behaviour, that's a problem, the child doesn't want to be punished, so the mind creates a solution, don't perform that behaviour again, imprinting at its basics. Now, we all know that children take over the morals of the society that they are grown up in via this, and this is nurture, not nature, adopt a baby to another country, it will also assimilate those morals, this goes progressively less well as the child is older and it moves. If a five year old child is ported to Iran, that child will assimilate a certain sense of decency and modesty afforded do women by covering their God-given beauty to men they aren't intimate with. If a 40 year old man is sent there, he will see that practice as chiefly suppressing females. (It's decent in the west for females to not show their God-given beautiful breasts while males can walk bare-chested, remember? Is that oppression of women?)

So, we like to think this is a thing related to age right, not being open to those ideas. Well, what if it was solely related to the brain's ability to make new solutions and not having to rely on old ones, which just happens to diminish with age? Partly because the brain deteriorates like any organ, and partly because infants simply need five-odd years of pure brilliance to be able to learn a language and learn some things by just observing with no one being able to teach them.

Observe these patterns:
- scientists tend to be more open to other cultures, it's no big secret that academica voted Obama en masse. Especially the sciences which require creative solving of problems, those scientists tend to be very culturally open minded.
- people get a lot sooner annoyed with what other people do and a lot less quick to ask quaestions before getting angry when they're tired, ill, or any other state in which they find it hard to concentrate and have little brainpower to expend, this is a thing we all know, but have you ever asked yourself why?
- Take this one, look at it once you're completely fit of mind, and once you're really tired, the bottom one should be shorted far more clearly in the latter case, in fact I know some people which claim that when they just woke up well rested and feel like doing some mental exercise, both lines just look the same length. Could it be that when the brain has enough resources to expend to individually solve the problem, it no longer has to rely on an old solution found for a similar pattern which implies that the last line is longer, but in fact can solve it now to come to the accurate conclusion that both are the same length? Really, if you're tired mentally, optically illusions seem to have a far more lively effect. My hypothesis is that optical illusions only work because of the brain applying an older solution to a similar pattern.

- Lastly, Ritalin, a brain pep, officially to help ADHD patients concentrate, in reality mild cocaine that peps the brain, some people I know take it before tests to get higher marks, old trick and it works. Well, you guessed it, those very same people claim that once they've taken Ritalin, a lot of optical illusions start to have a less dramatic effect, or lose it altogether.

So, assuming that all is true, isn't it far more conceivable that rather than that adults have learned to filter out useless information, being that the brains of adults just operate on less power, adults simply make a compromise, which the brain also decides to make in real time depending on how fit it is? I mean, if people start to stop seeing optical illusions if they take a brain pep, and of those very same optical illusions other researches, which I really can;'t name now so you can either try to find them or believe me, have shown that people that have never seen a picture of rail-roads don't fall for them. Then maybe it's just the mind making a compromise and those details aren't 'useless' at all? They just appear useless to the people that make a compromise because they do so? I mean, every person that likes to include those details is going to tell you 'they're not useless at all!', and often results are simply wrong and would have been right if some extra variables were assessed. If you have a headache and your daughter approaches you saying 'Daddy, can't you...?' you say 'WHAT IT IS NOW?', you didn't have the brain power to explore all the details. Maybe she was trying to say 'Daddy, can't you just go to bed, I'll finish cleaning this up for you.', however, if you aren't tired and fit of mind, you will let your daughter speak and extrapolate based on a little bit more variables.

I also think that in the end the fact that people subconsciously place things into 'categories' is a product of this, a category is nothing more than a set of problems which the mind deems 'similar' and thus applies the same solution on, regardless of it very often being wrong. Often creating a self-fulfilling prophecy with people not realizing that they were wrong. I think that when time is not an issue, one can never assess enough details, and the brain often seems to guess just how many details it can handle at any given moment to produce an 'instantaneous' solution to a problem, those details it can't handle at that time, it fills up with solutions from older situations which were 'similar' to it.

I mean, it's not a scientific empirical study, but it is a compelling rational argument at the least.

 

[apeiron]

I mean, it's not a scientific empirical study, but it is a compelling rational argument at the least.

Here is a neuroscience view based on some psychology research as well then...

Children's memories are undoubtedly different. One long-standing neurodevelopmental puzzle is eidetic imagery, or so-called photographic memory. The ability is fairly common in children but becomes vanishingly rare in adults. An eidetic image is like having a picture before the eyes.

Subjects are tested by showing them a photo of a street scene or an illustration from Alice in Wonderland for about half a minute. It's best if they scan the target carefully but don't try too hard to pick out particular details. Then they are asked to project a mental image onto a blank surface. Successful eidetikers can do this even after an interval of some minutes. And the memories are so vivid that they will be able to count the stripes on the Cheshire Cat's tail or read the number plates of cars in the street scene.

One of the most celebrated cases was that of "Elizabeth", a 23 year old language student and talented artist who was unusual in being an adult eidetiker. Elizabeth was tested with random dot stereograms in which a different pattern of scrambled dots is presented to each eye. When such a stereogram is fused by binocular vision, a 3D image of something like a square or the letter T is revealed floating above the page. It was reported in Nature (Stromeyer and Psotka, Nature, 1970) that Elizabeth could look at half the stereogram one day and then use her eidetic powers to project it onto the other half up to three days later!

Elizabeth's abilities suggest there was something fascinatingly unique about her brain. Unfortunately there were never any follow-up studies to find out just what. Rumour has it she was the wife of an eidetic imagery researcher and found the attention just too embarrassing. Nevertheless, her story did prompt a more careful study of eidetics and it was shown that reasonably persistent imagery - of the order of minutes - was present in about one-in-20 children. The surprise was that there seemed no particular pattern to the kids who had it.

Eidetic ability did not relate to IQ, educational level, or any other cognitive variable. Nor did its prevalence change with age. If you had it as a young child, you still had it as an older child. It was only at puberty that eidetic imagery suddenly vanished, leaving very few adults with the ability.

The study of eidetic imagery fell from favour in the 1980s. But recent research seems to give the glimmer of a neurodevelopmental explanation. One early theory was that the learning of language and a resulting shift to a more verbal conceptual style might erode a "primitive" childhood capacity for imagery. However now it is felt the loss of eidetic imagery may be due to changes in the neural circuitry underlying the habits of attention.

Psychologists have shown that our perception of the world is a mix of bottom-up and top-down processing. The bottom-up activity binds together the sensory elements - James's blooming, buzzing, confusion. Top-down attentional effects then act to filter this perceptual state. In adults, the brain perceives in an educated way, emphasising only the essential and suppressing both awareness and memory for unnecessary background details. The theory is that children have a much less developed ability to filter the world in terms of personal meanings and so have a rawer perceptual response. Eidetic imagery would be just an extreme example of leaving the background detail intact. The whole scene could then linger a few minutes in working memory.

This leaves the question of why the apparently abrupt loss of eidetic powers at puberty? Well, recent brain scan studies have shown that both the prefrontal and parietal cortex - precisely the regions associated with the top-down attentional focusing effects - undergo a phase of synaptic sprouting and pruning at this age. So perhaps the cortical pathways needed to exert a strong attentional constraint on perception only mature right at the end of childhood.

Haber RN. Eidetic images. Scientific American, 220:36-44 (1969).

Haber RN. Twenty years of haunting eidetic imagery: Where's the ghost? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 2:583-629 (1979).

Wolfe JM. Where is eidetic imagery? Speculations on its psychophysical and
neurophysiological locus. In The exceptional brain: Neuropsychology of talent and special
abilities, eds Obler LK and Fein D, Guilford Press (1988).

Gray CR and Gummerman K. The enigmatic eidetic image: A critical examination of methods, data, and theories. Psychological Bulletin, 82:383-407 (1975).

Giray E et al. A lifespan approach to the study of eidetic imagery. Journal of Mental, 9:21-32. (1985).

Janesch E. Eidetic Imagery, Harcourt Brace (1930)

 

[Kajahtava]

That's not as much a view as one case study and a lot of 'perhapses' though. The neurological data I already knew and based my post on.

 

[apeiron]

That's The neurological data I already knew and based my post on.

Oh, I must have missed it. Apologies.

 

[Kajahtava]

Oh, I must have missed it. Apologies.

So ehh, is there a particular reason you always only quote the top paragraph and waltz over the rest? Are you still trying to find the profound pattern under the superficial chaos?

 

[apeiron]

So ehh, is there a particular reason you always only quote the top paragraph and waltz over the rest? Are you still trying to find the profound pattern under the superficial chaos?

How do you mean? I offered a neurological view and you claim you had already covered it. You certainly did not engage with the data I supplied. And I still cannot find those same facts in your prior post. So what am I meant to not waltz over here?

 

[Kajahtava]

How do you mean? I offered a neurological view and you claim you had already covered it. You certainly did not engage with the data I supplied. And I still cannot find those same facts in your prior post. So what am I meant to not waltz over here?

Well, 'waltzing' might be an incorrect term, it's more that in all I post, you seem to only quote the first paragraph, respond to that correctly, but ignore the rest. It's not like you waltz over it, you just act as if it isn't there, ignore it.

Is that to say you agree, or that you hadn't read it, aren't able to read it (hence I started about the chaos) ?

 

[apeiron]

Is that to say you agree, or that you hadn't read it, aren't able to read it (hence I started about the chaos) ?

In this thread it would be that you have not constructed a case to which a response is really warranted. There are some bits I could vaguely agree with, a lot which is just over the top rhetoric (like all psychiatry is bunk).

I have argued a particular approach based on my familiarity with the neuroscience and psychological literature. People can take it or leave it. But the facts are out there and not terribly hard to find.

 

[Kajahtava]

In this thread it would be that you have not constructed a case to which a response is really warranted. There are some bits I could vaguely agree with, a lot which is just over the top rhetoric (like all psychiatry is bunk).

I have argued a particular approach based on my familiarity with the neuroscience and psychological literature. People can take it or leave it. But the facts are out there and not terribly hard to find.

Well, to be honest, if you call that illustration you just gave a 'neuroscience view' which contained a single case study of a person that did not report back for more research and some other research which lacked a praedicting value... am sceptical to compelling nature of the rest.

In fact, the article itself wasn't bad, it made no more conclusions that it was allowed to make from its data, in fact, it made little conclusions, it just outlined some experimental data and left readers to make up heir own mind. It's not a view, it's the result of some experiments, of which a lot are not scientific experiments / studies but rather 'remarkable documented cases.'

Also, a thing you do indeed 'waltz over' though is my continued point that it needn't be so that what humans perceive as 'one thing' like eidetic memory or 'musical talent' is 'one thing' that has a single defined cause instead of multiple and different causes. These researches all assume it as 'common sense' or in fact implicitly assume it because it's just grounded in human naïve realism, but fail to prove it in the end. Once you assume explicitly the possibility that 'eidetic' memory can have a thousand different neurological causes the researches suddenly become quite quaestionable, same for autism, as the researches fail to prove themselves that in all cases of eidetic memory encountered, the neurology is the same.

 

[apeiron]

Once you assume explicitly the possibility that 'eidetic' memory can have a thousand different neurological causes the researches suddenly become quite quaestionable, same for autism, as the researches fail to prove themselves that in all cases of eidetic memory encountered, the neurology is the same.

But instead I seem to make the mistake in your eyes of presuming that Occam's razor should apply in scientific explanation. I indeed search for a common root cause such as "perceptual integration" or "anticipation".

However on the other hand, I am protesting about the collapsing of the category "autistic" and the category "extreme genius" based on some notion of a shared social awkwardness (which indeed is not a wise move, because, as I argue, social awkwardness does have "a thousand causes").

 

[Count Iblis]

http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~greenfie/mill_courses/math421/int.html"

Then we sat down and the interview began.

"Professor," says I, "I notice you have quite a few letters in front of your last name. Do they stand for anything in particular?"

"No," says he.

"You mean I can write my own ticket?"

"Yes," says he.

"Will it be all right if I say that P.A.M. stands for Poincare' Aloysius Mussolini?"

"Yes," says he.

"Fine," says I, "We are getting along great! Now doctor will you give me in a few words the low-down on all your investigations?"

"No," says he.

"Good," says I. "Will it be all right if I put it this way --- `Professor Dirac solves all the problems of mathematical physics, but is unable to find a better way of figuring out Babe Ruth's batting average'?"

"Yes," says he.

"What do you like best in America?", says I.

"Potatoes," says he.

"Same here," says I. "What is your favorite sport?"

"Chinese chess," says he.

That knocked me cold! It was sure a new one on me! Then I went on: "Do you go to the movies?"

"Yes," says he.

"When?", says I.

"In 1920 --- perhaps also in 1930," says he.

"Do you like to read the Sunday comics?"

"Yes," says he, warming up a bit more than usual.

"This is the most important thing yet, doctor," says I. "It shows that me and you are more alike than I thought. And now I want to ask you something more: They tell me that you and Einstein are the only two real sure-enough high-brows and the only ones who can really understand each other. I won't ask you if this is straight stuff for I know you are too modest to admit it. But I want to know this --- Do you ever run across a fellow that even you can't understand?"

"Yes," says he.

"This well make a great reading for the boys down at the office," says I. "Do you mind releasing to me who he is?"

"Weyl," says he.

The interview came to a sudden end just then, for the doctor pulled out his watch and I dodged and jumped for the door. But he let loose a smile as we parted and I knew that all the time he had been talking to me he was solving some problem that no one else could touch.

But if that fellow Professor Weyl ever lectures in this town again I sure am going to take a try at understanding him! A fellow ought to test his intelligence once in a while.

 

[apeiron]

Well, Dirac comes across as the neurotypical one in this exchange.

 

[Kajahtava]

But instead I seem to make the mistake in your eyes of presuming that Occam's razor should apply in scientific explanation. I indeed search for a common root cause such as "perceptual integration" or "anticipation".

Hmm well, maybe this is related to my view on human 'consciousness', but I did not attempt to point to Ockam here.

However on the other hand, I am protesting about the collapsing of the category "autistic" and the category "extreme genius" based on some notion of a shared social awkwardness (which indeed is not a wise move, because, as I argue, social awkwardness does have "a thousand causes").

I agree. However autism in DSM-IV is more than that. But I find any category which says 'either ... or ...' or 'at least three of ...' hard to believe. If it was a hard category it would use (and ... ... ... ... ... ...) and psychiatrists would McCarthny-short-circuit on the first #f encountered and stop evaluating the rest.

But as I illustrated above, apart from not being a category, the danger is also that by the power of suggestion people have a tendency to see things that are not there, symptoms one doesn't have simply because one has enough symptoms to 'have' autism on the neck, and then start seeing the rest too. Or in the case of that girl even worse, having no symptom at all.

I still don't really understand why you called me 'rhetoric' though, if my vocabulary serves me rhetoric is being concerned with prose and elegant use of language to sway by praesentation rather than content, beforehand you accurately said that my posts are chaotic and badly structured, which is true, as I don't really put a lot of intention into how I phrase things and which words I use, making numerous 'stylistic errors' and having my sentences span the totality of paragraphs so I really don't see how one could find my posts to posses any 'rhetoric'