History is one long war between autistics & schizophreni

Post Reply New Topic

I'm good at writing, music, and technology. Outside of mental arithmetic and geometry, math is rather arcane to me.



Look up The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, by Julian Jaynes.

Schizophrenia's negative symptoms are, incidentally, very similar to autism (not identical). They include a lack of emotional affect, monotone voice, and social isolation. Being highly social is not a typically schizophrenic trait. You're trying to turn schizophrenia into something it's not. It's not the opposite of autism, it's another neurological difference that has specific associated traits.



I wouldn't dismiss it as an insulting stereotype. I would dismiss it as factually wrong. It is true that autistic people tend to lack social imagination, but there's research that has found that autistic people can be better at some kinds of creativity than NTs.



I am creative and logical. The two do not exist in opposition. If anything, logic supports creativity by making it easier to give it a framework to grow into.

I like the idea that people with schizophrenia perceive the world differently and have things to contribute.

(however because of experiences as a teenager, I am not a fan of organized religion)

Actually many people believe hitler was schizophrenic. On the it her hand, some believe he was autistic. One problem with testing these theories is we don't really have scientific tests to diagnose anyone with, only the opinions of psychologists.

Psychopaths/sociopaths are not the opposite of autistics. Yes they are good at manipulating people but it's mostly because they feel no guilt about hurting others and not because they have neurologically superior social skills. They may gradually acquire good social skills, but that's just from practicing manipulation, not from innately superior social cognition.

But Im actually quite good at withholding information from people. And keeping a very straight face while doing so.
Also i am horrible at maths. I hate numbers. I love music and especially music that strays from the mold.

This is probably the most ignorant post I've seen in a long time. Um, do you realize that autism and schizophrenia were once considered the same thing?

You seem to be really apathetic toward schizophrenic people.

1. I am not good at math but I don't consider myself to be a stupid aspie. Do you have scientific proof that all schizophrenics excel in the arts?
Some autistics are religious or spiritual and some schizophrenics or atheists.

2. If you are an atheist than you would believe the bible to be fiction and not believe in prophets. They were believed to be schizophrenic? Not proven?

3. I am autistic and I have a very strong imagination. That proves that your theory is wrong since all autistics are not good at math and science.
You cant prove that all autistic people are good at math and science
4. What the hell?

John Nash proves your theory wrong. He was an atheist mathematician. According to you that is an autistic only trait.
It is not uncommon for people to go from aspergers to schizophrenic.

Do you have something personal against schizophrenia?

We both feel isolated from society so it's no use declaring war as your thread suggests.

THE neurological spectrum? i think human neurology is more complex than could be defined by a single encompassing spectrum, or even a handful of spectrums if we know all there was to know about it, and we know very little


I can see somewhat where your inspiration for this idea comes from, but I think the explanation for the existence of religion has a less strange basis than being entirely authored schizoids. Keep in mind for example, that science as we know it is in its infancy. I think the release of The Origin of Species is a good marker. Before this science was not far separated from theistic undertones. The Origin has only lived on this Earth for about 150 years. Anatomically modern humans, have walked the Earth for around 200,000 years. So lets say science has existed for 1% of our species existence. (this is more than ten times the resulting number of 150/200000, but i thought it was fair because there have been advances in our knowledge and process of thinking long before Darwin, which I think were absolutely necessary precursors to him being in any situation to realize natural selection)

We're talking about the last 1% of our history, and i think religions grasp is already hanging by a thread. that isn't very slow at all.

Another thing to think about, is that religion as we know it is also relatively young. Its hard to know much of anything about our spiritual ideas in pre-history, before the agricultural revolution, and the industrial revolution some time later. Lets allow the Neolithic Revolution to be our definition of the agricultural revolution. Though the agricultural revolution proper is rather later, the Neolithic Revolution was the initial transition from hunting and gathering to settled agriculture. This was 10,000 years ago, so 5% of our species existence.

So religion as you know it I think is safe to say is just haphazard result of our population explosion set in motion 10,000 years ago. It seems like it is necessarily a perversion of what it is descended of. Our population is presently living in a density far exceeding the conditions we evolved in. The way I see it we have accidentally transported ourselves to an alien environment, and we are in a free-for-all scramble trying to figure out how stabilize the state of affairs.



i do dig this, though substituting slowly with suddenly as above discussed. and i must interject that to be a helping hand in this force we should see that speculations, such as the pseudoscience that spurred this thread, are speculations. . leave them in the realm of fiction if there is not scientific substantiation to assert otherwise.

ok this is also an important issue i didnt touch on but thought about. why are we autists here? society doesnt understand autism, and is too busy worshiping the television to learn about us. to each his own. BUT we of all people should be the last to make generalizations of people with differently wired brains, based on little or no research into their actual conditions.

ill admit i dont know a lot about schizophrenia, because autism is my issue, and as such i am more drawn to the study of that which directly affects me. However i would definitely do more research before making such accusations.

Charles Manson was more on the lines of a narcissist and sociopath.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9jRDHGabp8[/youtube]

I'd have to disagree. Sociopaths have no problem with theory of mind which is how they become so manipulative. Sociopaths do however have a problem with empathy and caring about others.

Autistics have difficulty with theory of mind. Autistics do not however have problem with empathy and caring about others. Most people when reading the word empathy think about the caring empathy. It's not right that people have to read the "lack of empathy" instead of "difficulty with theory of mind" because people instantly assume, we have the lack of empathy sociopaths have. Lumping in theory of mind with empathy has caused alot of ignorance.

Why is there this constant need to turn people into targets to fight against each other for? Psychiatry is full of psychopathic behavior. Has anyone ever walked into a psychiatrist's office and was told "Nope, nothing is wrong with you, go home."

Everyone has had at least one problem listed in the DSM. Psychiatry has never cured anything and has an usual past dealing with patients including frontal lobotomies. Basically all people are still doing is trying to subscribe to this survival of the fittest and persuade society into allowing people to torture those that psychiatry has deemed not good enough for society.

Pyscho-i-atry.

Who really believes Freud was sane?

You are forgetting that Albert Einstein is also supsected of being "borderline schizophrenic", and the case for Einstein being in schizophrenic spectrum is even more strong is even more strong for the case for him being in the autistic spectrum (he had a schizophrenic son, after all).

These are not several reasons, are only one - your points 2, 3 and 4 are dependent of the premisse that "schizophrenia is the opposite of autism" then are simply recapitulations of point 1 (not additional arguments).

Thinking in another way: it is possible that two conditions almost identical in terms of external presentation could be opposites? Yes. It is probable? No.

Last edited by TPE2 on 03 Jan 2012, 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Btw, and Newton, in your theory was autistic or schizophrenic? He, basically, was a relious mystique who spend most of his time wrinting about occultism and the devil (and has signs of having lost his mind in the last years of life, a typical schizo- trait), but, in the free time of their main interest, made some amazing scientifical discoveries.

Analysing (and debunking) more in deep your theory. If your understand, your points are:

1 - Schizophrenia is supposed to be the opposite of autism

2 - Logical and imagination are opposites, and autism is associated with logic and schizophrenia with imagination

3 - There is a long conflict between religion and science, and religion is the work of schizophrenics and science of autistics

(correct me if I did not understand well your position)

Now, point for point.

1 - First, even Crespi and Badcock don't think that schizophrenia is the opposite of autism; their theory is that psychosis (the positive symptoms of schizophrenia) is the opposite of autism.

In the last two years, some experiments had been conducted about that and the thesis had been largely rejected - the empirical evidence is that "autistic symptoms" and "positive symptoms of schizophrenia" are independent of each other (not opposed), and that "autistic symptoms" and "negative symptoms of schizophrenia" are strongly associated. Apparently, the only autistic symptom that is not common in schizophrenia is the "attention to detail".

Btw, it makes sense that autistics have the symptoms of schizophrenia with the exception of the delusions and hallucinations, and schizophrenics have the symptoms of autism with the exception of attention to detail - because is in this way that both conditions are defined in the diagnostic criteria: autism is "social isolation + restricted interests" and schizophrenia is "social isolation + hallucinations and/or delusions" (btw, schizoid personality disorder and many - most? - cases of PDD/NOS have social isolation but neither restricted interests nor delusions; they should be included in the autistic or in the schizophrenia spectrum?).

2 – Logic and imagination are not opposites (not more than dogs and airplanes are opposites), they are independent and unrelated things – imagination has to how you generate hypothesis and logic has to do how you test your hypothesis. Probably we can create a four-squares matrix relating logic and imagination (high logic and high imagination – science, technological inventions, mathematics and philosophy; low logic and high imagination – art and heretic religions; high logic and low imagination – applied technology; low logic and low imagination – “common sense”, tradition, established religion)

3 – many scientifically discoveries and reflections were made by brahims, priests, monks, etc - look to Mendel, Pascal, etc. I suspect the followers of religions tend to have low scientifically orientation, but it is not necessarly the case of the “priests” – the fact that many scientifically oriented people followed the religious life seems to indicate that, at least in some historical and social contexts, the religious career had been the better professional career for intellectual people. Specially a "co-morbid" interest in mathematics and religion seems very common (probably becuse both fields appeal to abstraction)

"Autism" is a part of Schizophrenia. Other than the delusions and hallucinations, autism is the most noticeable symptom.

Kanner and Asperger both got the various manifestations of the word "autism", from Bleuler, one of the schizophrenic pioneers. He described the aloof behavior and social withdrawal seen in schizophrenia as "autism".

To add, I don't really know what the opposite and competing human behavior to autism is. I suppose "normal" would be it if it's the social stuff you focus on.

I was under the impression that when it comes to schizophrenia, high intelligence is actually a drawback in terms of lifelong happiness. Basically, low-intelligence schizophrenics become hyper-religious, get viewed by society as charming-but-nutty, and tend to live in relative (if weird) happiness. However, schizophrenics with HIGH intelligence try to actively understand their condition, rationalize it, engineer around it, and end up making things a hundred times *worse* for themselves in the long run (coming up with bizarre conspiracy theories, tend to become depressed alcoholics in an attempt at self-medication, and occasionally try to bring their physical surroundings into consistency with their perceived reality -- often, with disastrous results for themselves and others).

If you're looking for an appropriate nemesis for aspies to anchor the other end of a hypothetical power spectrum, perhaps a combination like bipolar schizoid sociopathy with high intelligence might be a better choice (kicking them into power during mania, then inducing them to lead their followers to ruin during depression).