Marginalised Researchers In Neurology

[davidbanner99@]

The so-called "safe steering" is often used on forums. The person who objects will not get deep into the fact and theory of a debate but keep it more generalised. Then it becomes a Punch and Judy affair - "Oh yes he did. No he did not." The objector can appear to be quite well-informed by simply casting doubt on the author. The whole debate can then be turned into an ego status contest which suits the objector quite well. In maths this is much harder to pull off as ultimately a numerical issue can be proven in the end one way or another. With Psychology this is more tricky and there's plenty of room for plays on words or verbal gymnastics. One tactic is to put words into the mouth of the author that he, or she, never stated. This happens a lot in politics. This may be as an extreme interpretation of what someone said and a certain twist of the meaning. When such a pattern continues I always found a way out is to steer the debate into the area of factual information. Let the objector demonstrate a knowledge of source material and explanations of core principals. And a debate should not be a point scoring contest.

[davidbanner99@]

The same happened to Leo Kanner. He apparently never stated "refridgerator mothers" are the cause of autism. He stated intellectual and formal parents often are a factor in the anamnesis. However, the association remained.
I myself never stated autists have zero emotion. Most specialists agree emotional impairment is a diagnostic factor. That is all.
My questions above still stand.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

There is a difference, however. I myself have not contradicted you in your given sphere of knowledge.

Of course you have. You may not recognize it a such, but when I explain the fundamental role that emotion plays in decision making, including the decisions that you or anyone else on the spectrum make, you contradict me. You have entered my sphere of knowledge.

When you make a claim that you are using logic rather than emotion, you have entered my sphere of knowledge. When you deny the role of emotion in pursuit of an "obsessive interest" or any form of OCD, you have entered my sphere.

You, like almost every person on the planet, use both emotion and logic. Without emotion you would be in a mental facility, unable to make the simplest of decisions, including what you might want to eat for dinner. You would be a mental zombie. That's what happens when emotion is removed from the equation.

What is interesting is that when you provide evidence that those on the spectrum have emotional deficits and you show videos of emotional flatness, I don't contradict you. I understand those with autism struggle with emotion, but this does not negate the role emotion plays when they make decisions.

A person with autism will be more likely to rely on logic because of an emotional deficit. This doesn't mean emotion isn't involved. It doesn't mean the amygdala and adrenal glands are bypassed.

In fact, it might be one of the issues you have encountered in other forums, because you are so narrowly focused on German/Russian research on autism/schizophrenia, that you have no way of even realizing when you may have contradicted a person in their sphere of knowledge.

[davidbanner99@]

There is a difference, however. I myself have not contradicted you in your given sphere of knowledge.

Of course you have. You may not recognize it a such, but when I explain the fundamental role that emotion plays in decision making, including the decisions that you or anyone else on the spectrum make, you contradict me. You have entered my sphere of knowledge.

When you make a claim that you are using logic rather than emotion, you have entered my sphere of knowledge. When you deny the role of emotion in pursuit of an "obsessive interest" or any form of OCD, you have entered my sphere.

You, like almost every person on the planet, use both emotion and logic. Without emotion you would be in a mental facility, unable to make the simplest of decisions, including what you might want to eat for dinner. You would be a mental zombie. That's what happens when emotion is removed from the equation.

What is interesting is that when you provide evidence that those on the spectrum have emotional deficits and you show videos of emotional flatness, I don't contradict you. I understand those with autism struggle with emotion, but this does not negate the role emotion plays when they make decisions.

A person with autism will be more likely to rely on logic because of an emotional deficit. This doesn't mean emotion isn't involved. It doesn't mean the amygdala and adrenal glands are bypassed.

In fact, it might be one of the issues you have encountered in other forums, because you are so narrowly focused on German/Russian research on autism/schizophrenia, that you have no way of even realizing when you may have contradicted a person in their sphere of knowledge.

I notice you are steering this debate back to safer ground. O.K. to be fair, my questions were maybe not the best. However, I still think it's reasonable to ask you to summarise how you would identify Asperger Disorder or Kanner autism. In your own words and not copy and pasted text. You should also be able to define the affective curve of emotion because that is fundamental. And ideally you should be able to define the elemental types of Schizophrenia.
The affective curve of emotion in Autistic Psychopathy is crucial here. Also the apparent fact you don't accept thyroid issues do indeed relate as a symptom of Autistic Psychopathy or Schizoid Disorder. Gland issues were recorded in Suhareva's essays. As well as somatic abnormalities, sexual malfunction, eunochoid abnormality and other symptoms. The problem is whenever I point this out and quote from accepted sources, you ignore this totally.
The fictional character of Mr Spock was created on the model of Autistic Psychopathy. The overall symptoms glamorised to create a stereotype without the defects. They didn't portray Spock as emotional and full of energy as you claim should be the case. The character encapsulated known characteristics.
Here is the difference. When I discuss this topic my motivation is acquisition of knowledge. On the other hand, I detect your own motivation is based on instinct and emotional factors. Much of this will be culturally connected. The desire to be right hinders the more important need for knowledge. Also, more than likely, an emotional drive to defend what you define as your territory. Over the years I got much better at reading emotion in communication but you yourself will not be aware of this as most people process information predominantly using emotion. I myself do not. Of course, that doesn't mean my emotional capacity doesn't exist. This is where the affective curve must be understood. And how Kretchmer distinguished the somatic and emotional processes of human beings. If you do not know Kretchmer's work that is not good. He pioneered the knowledge we have of the psychopathic personality.

[davidbanner99@]

German research is indeed fundamental. Russian research I view as pretty valuable. I suspect a lot of the Russian research came from German sources.
I very rarely use material published in the UK and US. There was no knowledge of Asperger's work in either country till around mid 1980s. In the USSR his work was already familiar. For this subject you must be familiar with Kretcmer, Kraepelin, Bleuler, Suhareva, Asperger and Kanner. To not have read these core sources tends to weaken a realistic grasp of the subject. Being myself higher functioning autistic I can relate to these texts even if I may disagree with certain points.
The key question to ask is what monumental observation did Asperger make that allows us to group all his listed patients together? What one major symptom did they all have in common?

[davidbanner99@]

One point to bear in mind is some psychiatrists distinguish between Autistic Psychopathy and Schizophrenia. Psychopathy tends to be the deviation where emotion is very flat and reduced. Bleuler claimed Schizophrenics were very emotionally driven but I thought his ambivalence definition could just as well be applied to many normal people.
If as Richard keeps claiming, emotion drives me, ambivalece would be a factor. It would indicate I create convenient information at a delusional level to construct a desired conclusion. However, I see this so often take place with "like buttons". Modern I.T. dumbs us down and teaches us that "like" governs fact. I do not myself believe I am governed by "likes". I hardly ever get any and don't use them often. Far better to add comments. Plus, when I process information I make use of sources and add quotes. Or compare quotes. The only time I recognised ambivalence was in the sexual context of role-play. These days emotion registers less. Psychopathy is therefore very present but you can have comorbid Schizophrenia or a whole mix of syndromes.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

(Re-published from my site):
For decades autism research has been monopolised by institution approved psychiatrists, psychologists, neurologists and acclaimed authorities on the subject in question. However, what needs to be stated in clear terms is 99 per cent of these specialists are not themselves on the autism spectrum.

Why, you might ask, should it matter if research is being carried out and published in a system that apparently marginalises those who suffer from autism related disorders?

I think we have different goals.

Your goal seems to be to demonstrate that your knowledge about autism is sufficient not to be marginalized. I think this might be why when you are asked to support a specific claim you go off on a tangent to demonstrate even more knowledge. You list a quote from a source to prove you have knowledge, yet that quote is entirely irrelevant to what was asked.

Or instead of addressing the question you attempt to demonstrate the other person does not have your depth of knowledge as you ask, "What are the 4 "A"s of Schizophrenia? Prove to me you know about autism." Again, it is entirely irrelevant. No one need demonstrate they know the 4 "A's of schizophrenia in order to question a claim that research by those with autism is being marginalized.

When a person goes into a public forum and starts a thread, my goal is to provide advice, feedback, or review where the claims they are making might be lacking and therefore where the claim might be improved.

For instance, I don't need to demonstrate the 4 A's of schizophrenia to point out that if 99% of research is conducted by academics that it still means 1% is published by those with autism. Why is this 1% successful? What makes it possible for their research to be recognized rather than marginalized?

Basically, I don't think your work is received very well, because it is difficult for a coherent discussion to take place that doesn't devolve into you going on some tangent to demonstrate even more irrelevant knowledge about autism.

Now, you might trace your inability to communicate back to autism, but this doesn't mean your work is marginalized because of autism. It only means you work is marginalized because you are unable to effectively engage in a dialogue without going off on side tangents. There is a significant difference.

In fact, if you were to look at the 1% that you claim are successful researchers I bet you will find that one reason the work they submit is not marginalized is because they are able to communicate effectively. They don't go on side tangents and are able to adequately participate in discussions about what they have written.

[davidbanner99@]

(Re-published from my site):
For decades autism research has been monopolised by institution approved psychiatrists, psychologists, neurologists and acclaimed authorities on the subject in question. However, what needs to be stated in clear terms is 99 per cent of these specialists are not themselves on the autism spectrum.

Why, you might ask, should it matter if research is being carried out and published in a system that apparently marginalises those who suffer from autism related disorders?

I think we have different goals.

Your goal seems to be to demonstrate that your knowledge about autism is sufficient not to be marginalized. I think this might be why when you are asked to support a specific claim you go off on a tangent to demonstrate even more knowledge. You list a quote from a source to prove you have knowledge, yet that quote is entirely irrelevant to what was asked.

Or instead of addressing the question you attempt to demonstrate the other person does not have your depth of knowledge as you ask, "What are the 4 "A"s of Schizophrenia? Prove to me you know about autism." Again, it is entirely irrelevant. No one need demonstrate they know the 4 "A's of schizophrenia in order to question a claim that research by those with autism is being marginalized.

When a person goes into a public forum and starts a thread, my goal is to provide advice, feedback, or review where the claims they are making might be lacking and therefore where the claim might be improved.

For instance, I don't need to demonstrate the 4 A's of schizophrenia to point out that if 99% of research is conducted by academics that it still means 1% is published by those with autism. Why is this 1% successful? What makes it possible for their research to be recognized rather than marginalized?

Basically, I don't think your work is received very well, because it is difficult for a coherent discussion to take place that doesn't devolve into you going on some tangent to demonstrate even more irrelevant knowledge about autism.

Now, you might trace your inability to communicate back to autism, but this doesn't mean your work is marginalized because of autism. It only means you work is marginalized because you are unable to effectively engage in a dialogue without going off on side tangents. There is a significant difference.

In fact, if you were to look at the 1% that you claim are successful researchers I bet you will find that one reason the work they submit is not marginalized is because they are able to communicate effectively. They don't go on side tangents and are able to adequately participate in discussions about what they have written.

Your difficulty is in some ways the same one most Schizoids experience. You cannot relate to a kind of thinking that is very different to your own. You would be amazed how much difference there is. As a clinical peculiarity Schizoid thought processing is known to the experts For us too, it is nearly impossible to conceive how normal people think. My own thought patterns are not usually constant but divided and fragmented. Association is enhanced. Emotion is hardly used in thought processes. Emotion does become very dominant in times of severe meltdown but hopefully I learned to control that. What I found over many years is pretty much all so-called normal people can't understand the way I process information. This is why Asperger discovered we cannot be taught in classrooms, groups or in any way using emotional feedback (as normal people do all the time). The accepted problem with research in the USA is this kind of condition is viewed as Geek Syndrome. It is nothing of the sort. What Asperger studied was psychopathy. Kids who couldn't function at all socially. Fritz for example was covering desk tables in saliva and eating paper. People to him were objects in a sense. You would really have no conception what Autistic Psychopathy is like but it isn't like Bill Gates as is claimed in the US. Either you bypass your emotions and adapt to alternate information processing or you become institutionalised. For me it was somehow possible to adapt. And I proved dyscalculia can be eliminated. More recently the penny dropped how to read normal people without using emotions but by observation. This took many many years to click. So, for you to relate to a totally different neurological disposition is definitely impossible unless you use your own intellect. Same as I did. Likewise for me to teach others on this forum how I do maths, for example, is very difficult. Biggest mistake I made years ago was to try to teach languages. I couldn't remember the faces of the students or get them to relate to my linguistic conception. Pretty much all my jobs would end abruptly but back then I had no idea. I was also scared by the fact I couldn't recognise faces and figured it equated to madness. Knowledge is what makes the difference. Knowledge is a powerful tool to acquire. Once you know who you are you can work according to the hand you were dealt. Psychopathy is a severe condition but there are also worse things such as paralysis or parkinsons.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

You cannot relate to a kind of thinking that is very different to your own.

Assume this is true. I cannot relate. Neurotypicals cannot relate. Yet, according to you 1% of research is by those on the spectrum. Why is their work not marginalized? Why is their work appreciated?

What is the difference between what you offer and the work of the 1%?

[davidbanner99@]

You cannot relate to a kind of thinking that is very different to your own.

Assume this is true. I cannot relate. Neurotypicals cannot relate. Yet, according to you 1% of research is by those on the spectrum. Why is their work not marginalized? Why is their work appreciated?

What is the difference between what you offer and the work of the 1%?

I can only think of Paul Cooijman who still runs a very successful intelligence testing society. Paul is Dutch and has been diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome. He has written similar articles to me although his field isn't specifically autism research. Incidentally he has had personal threats made against himself and hate mail. He has had positive feedback too.
To answer the question in more detail I am quite sure I need to form a plan to muscle in on autism research. In fact I can state I discovered things about this subject not noticed by other researchers. None of this I ever published. What I write about here, on this forum, is what I call orthodoxy. I'm mostly piecing together and analysing what other reaearchers have written. My own research is a lot broader and uses a different approach. It's not simply clinical psychology by any means. That is just a small part of it. I am not bothered by trying to fit in with convention or persuading others that just maybe I understand my subject matter. Simple fact is autism research today is pretty static. No change of direction. No awareness of implications for neurology.
Only elite German scientists could see the implications and that same generation put a man on the moon in the late 1960s.

[davidbanner99@]

Here is an interesting quote from a Paul Cooijman interview:

Question: How important do you feel emotions are to the decision making process and I.Q. in particular?

Answer: Quite important, in the sense that in order to make good and wise decisions they should be left out of that process, and this is something that has to be learnt with difficulty. It is the "counting to ten". I think the broad tendency is that persons of higher I.Q. are better at that, and that rational, cerebral persons tend to have higher I.Q.s than emotion-driven ones. This correlation is less than unity though - temperament and emotionality being partly independent of mental ability - but is positive nevertheless. An example of temperament differing independently of I.Q. is seen between northern and southern Europeans, and reflected in the current Euro crisis, and in the past in the differential inflation rates of the original currencies, the south having weak currencies with high inflation and high denominations, and the north having strong currencies and low inflation. This difference in temperament - which consists of non-cognitive aspects of personality - is not accounted for by a corresponding difference in I.Q."

[quietvoice]

. . . and that same generation put a man on the moon in the late 1960s.

Are you sure, and if so, how can you be so sure?

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

I can only think of Paul Cooijman who still runs a very successful intelligence testing society. Paul is Dutch and has been diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome. He has written similar articles to me although his field isn't specifically autism research.

When is the last time that you talked with Paul? What advice has he offered about why his research is not marginalized?

Incidentally he has had personal threats made against himself and hate mail. He has had positive feedback too.

You do not need to have autism to receive personal threats and hate mail. It happens to me fairly often.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

Here is an interesting quote from a Paul Cooijman interview:

Question: How important do you feel emotions are to the decision making process and I.Q. in particular?

Answer: Quite important, in the sense that in order to make good and wise decisions they should be left out of that process, and this is something that has to be learnt with difficulty. It is the "counting to ten".

How does a chess master make good and wise decisions in split seconds? Have you ever thought about it? They don't count to ten. In speed chess the average move is less than 6 seconds. Counting to ten in a speed match would eventually cost you the game as the clock runs out.

Have you ever thought about how a firefighter can make "good and wise" decisions as they enter a home to rescue a child from a burning building? Again, they don't count to ten. The fire is spreading quickly. By the time you have counted to ten the situation has changed.

Both the chess player and firefighter don't leave emotion out of the process in order to make "good and wise decisions". In fact, emotion plays a critical role in helping them to make "good and wise" decisions.

As they respond to the situation if they make a less than great decision they will experience the pain of regret. If they make a solid decision they will experience feelings of satisfaction. With each decision they anticipate the potential for regret. This emotion actually contributes to the decision they inevitably make. This is Zeelenberg's Regret Theory 1.0.

I won't beat up on Paul's lack of knowledge in this area for two reasons; (1) he doesn't study decision making, he studies I.Q and (2) he is not here to clarify what he meant. It is an isolated quote.

[davidbanner99@]

Here is an interesting quote from a Paul Cooijman interview:

Question: How important do you feel emotions are to the decision making process and I.Q. in particular?

Answer: Quite important, in the sense that in order to make good and wise decisions they should be left out of that process, and this is something that has to be learnt with difficulty. It is the "counting to ten".

How does a chess master make good and wise decisions in split seconds? Have you ever thought about it? They don't count to ten. In speed chess the average move is less than 6 seconds. Counting to ten in a speed match would eventually cost you the game as the clock runs out.

Have you ever thought about how a firefighter can make "good and wise" decisions as they enter a home to rescue a child from a burning building? Again, they don't count to ten. The fire is spreading quickly. By the time you have counted to ten the situation has changed.

Both the chess player and firefighter don't leave emotion out of the process in order to make "good and wise decisions". In fact, emotion plays a critical role in helping them to make "good and wise" decisions.

As they respond to the situation if they make a less than great decision they will experience the pain of regret. If they make a solid decision they will experience feelings of satisfaction. With each decision they anticipate the potential for regret. This emotion actually contributes to the decision they inevitably make. This is Zeelenberg's Regret Theory 1.0.

I won't beat up on Paul's lack of knowledge in this area for two reasons; (1) he doesn't study decision making, he studies I.Q and (2) he is not here to clarify what he meant. It is an isolated quote.

Then the clock shouldn't run out. These thoughts aren't new to me. For example, in crossing a busy road I realised my brain can very quickly estimate when space, time and velocity allow me to cross before the car hits me. I could work it out mathematically but really there's no need. Emotion here isn't needed.
The point you raise ignores people like Perelman who is a very slow and deep thinker. I am the same. No good judging me at IQ level as for me questions need to be totally specific. The answers may come slowly. I am not at all fast learner. However, my abstract thought patterns are useful. I tend to spot maths mistakes frequently in books. In some cases slowness is an advantage in my analysis of data.