Are autistics a subspecies of human?

Post Reply New Topic

I agree that it's very complex with so many different factors interacting, and those are not fully understood yet, and you are right this is a question of families being genetically different from the norm.
I see your definition of encapsulation, but do you mean when that happens in "low-functioning" classic autism, or just when we "higher-functioning"(/more NT) are withdrawn or introverted? I do agree withdrawing into the self can be a response to trauma, but being very extroverted and directed towards the external world is not the natural way to be for everyone. Being introverted could even be beneficial as it facilitates deeper thinking. Introverts are just valued less in modern day society. I have some thoughts surrounding introversion and extroversion - it is almost like extroverted people need others to be able to think. Feedback and discussion can be good for deep thinking (and as always I enjoy talking to you), but to not be able to think deeply if they are not surrounded by others is a bad thing. But the primary difference/definition of introversion and extroversion is not how much we socialize, it is if we gain energy be being alone or by being with others. But there have been almost no research done on extroversion as it is assumed to just be "natural" and not something that has to be explained.
Anyway I agree totally that those that are able to learn how to fit into society might be more intelligent, but then there are others that are able to, but do not want as it is so different from what they find valuable. And there are others that are not given the resources needed to be able to learn. I guess that NTs are more easily culturally influenced and that is where our biggest difference is, as NTs learn whatever is appropiate in their culture and it is not innate...
Concerning jews and asians, yes - that is fascinating, they and women of any ethnicity are more neotenized than the rest of the worlds population.

Hi Anomiel. I enjoy talking with you,. too.



It could happen in either, but obviously if it happened in the latter, it might tend to function more around interests and ideas. It really is a little difficult to completely grasp the concept of autistic encapsulation, but one can sort of intuit how it works especially if one can see oneself doing it. Also, the way I am looking at it can be related to psychoanalytic object-relations theory.I am not as big on psychotherapy as people may think,though I am study object relations theory now, but it was from a psychoanalytic journal I found in a free box at a book store that I got turned onto this, and it was a big eye opener (about myself)..



I looked up this word, neotonized, but still have no idea what you mean in the way you used it. By looking at ashkenazi jew and asians, I meant because they have a much higher IQ then other populations. I cannot see that it has anything to do with juvenile development. Well, actually when writing this last sentence just now I did have a flash of what you might mean. That is interesting. You're thinking is way out there, girl:-) You seem to me to have a deeply intuitive and insightful way of processing data..

Well if someone have such extensive knowledge (and original ideas) as you do it is easy to assume things, but I understand what you mean.
I'm very interested in psychology, but I read a bit here and there and then extrapolate on that and put something of my own together, as I'm sure you do too. I was not really aware of object-relations, thought I've heard about it, but I've read about it now (I plan to read other sources after I've responded to this - the beauty of the internet). Wow! Thank you for mentioning it! It explains a lot about me and my personality (and also why I use the word "thing" so much) They even mention the detail focus/interest that comes with not putting objects together into a whole... This is probably more complex than they think though... It does have some connection to the older "blame the parents for all autism"-thinking, almost. But... If our brains are structurally "younger", than NTs that might cause us to stay in these states and they might affect us up to an older age than NTs! Or forever. See below for an extended explanation about neoteny (which explains how the juvenile states are extended into adulthood).



I explained the concept of neoteny in this post http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5398657.html#5398657 and it's role in human evolution, but I should go into more detail. Please ask if there is something I missed. Basically it's about that evolution is not a guided process, as we all know (though I love to personify it when I talk about it), and when the mutation that caused humans to retain their more youthful body proportions into adulthood appeared (either by deleting or never switching on the genes that cause us to change proportions with age), it also caused us to have a bigger brain relative to body size. This is correlated to intelligence amongst other things (some of the other being "cuteness", "youthful behavior" and probably more creative thinking), and as such was beneficial for the survival of those that carried it. It is proven that it's how humans have evolved from our earlier versions (species) into what we are today, and evolution is still happening. The changes we see in autistics (and women, and jews and asians) is because the same process is happening to us now, the families (but really: family) that carry this, in time dividing us fully from what Homo sapiens was. Why this is not talked about even though it is confirmed this is how we evolve, maybe because it is distasteful to speak of someone as "being more evolved" even though that does not always lead to only good things, as we can see; but different, yes. And it should be "more neotenized" rather than "more evolved"...

Thank you! Lucky I can use being this weird for good and stumble upon things like this that other people are not weird enough to consider (though I like how you describe it, and yours seem to be as well) Did you know what you did when you lobbed this to me? Thank you.

Anomiel wrote:

This is how I see it---lucky you're smart enough to see see the potential significance of this theory. However plenty of other people do, as it has greatly influenced the profession of psychoanalysis or should I called it psycho analysis, as it exists today---but re this theory, there are many different versions with their own slants and flaws...it is all highly subjective, and I do not know if it is possible to find enough info on the internet to be able to understand how such a theory developed, and so to grasp how subjective this approach really is, even though there is real truth there.. Basically, imo, and it is pretty easy to demonstrate, the people in this profession because of the desire for financial gain by exclusivity are kind of keeping their theory from the general public. Also, many are trying to develop a scientific approach using this kind of theory, but it is all very hit and miss...nothing really scientific about it.

If you are interested, it would be best to get a good text, and I do not think there are so many. The one I have is called Object Relation Theories And Psychopathology--A Comprehensive Text by Summers.. is really very good, and you can probably find it used on Amazon, but if not I highly recommend to even buy it new. I found my copy in a free box:-) Another book which I plunked down $30 for at a used book store, even though it had pencil underlines, is Borderline and Other Self Disorders by Rinsley. This goes into object relations theory and is good, too. The former book was written in 1994 but I think is still being used as a text today. I cannot imagine anything better being written, though it is kind of hard to understand. Also, I do not know if there are any more recent developments in this kind of theory, but probably not, as you can only go so far with it..I would buy both books, as the second one goes into the mechanism of splitting in rather great detail.

Again, if you try to read about this on the internet, you are going to get one particular school's approach and miss getting the gist of the entire theory in its historical context. One of the main problems is apparently the attempt to reconcile drive theory with the representation of objects. These two approaches, it seems to me, are intellectually basically kind of irreconcilable in that the integration can only be acted out in present time, so, speaking either literally or symbolically, by dance. Something always kind of represents something else. That is how the two sides of the brain integrate material, so there has to be an approach where meaning, by its own device, transcends its subjective limitations, but Dr, Suess said, "Two fish in a tree---how can that be?" We will have to put on our magic thinking caps:-)

I do not think psychology as it exists today is capable of solving this kind of connundrum,, though there is still some value there.

I want to write much more, but no time now.

You could look at this link: I just glanced at the article, but it looks interesting:

http://www.frances-tustin-autism.org/en ... nPower.pdf

Thank you thank you thank you! I'm in the process of reaching a much deeper understanding of the world.
Thank you for the book recommendations, I am ordering them today, together with other important books - I just have to find out what they are first and would appreciate more recommendations but you do not have to feel pressured, I can manage without. What you said about context is very important as it builds up a solid framework - which means deeper understanding. I realized that very early on in my life, as the facts I knew all were disjointed as a child, but as soon I started to be able to categorize the skill to build frameworks appeared. I'm still not as good at initially building frameworks as NTs are as I begin with the details and work my way up, but I do know they are very useful and incorporate that bit by bit together with the disjointed facts now until it is finished and I have the whole picture. It's a way that works very well for me, though it would absolutely not for an NT, and NTs way of understanding the world does not work for me. I do however first look at the big picture before I start to learn something new, so it will be easier to build the framework.
I am both comforted and horrified that they already know, in a way. Of course I do not think I am the absolute first to discover this, as all this information is already available in some form, but it does feel like that sometimes.

I want to talk a bit about the paper you linked, but I don't know if you read all of it:
It was very interesting and helpful to me to see autism from how an analyst perceives it - I had absolutely no idea - and it's interesting he came to the conclusion that our mere presence can force someone into a more autistic way of thinking! He seems to have had to forgot that other neurotypical individuals can do exactly the same to others to view it as so remarkable that we can make someone see life from our perspective, but it was a new revelation for me too so I guess it's understandable he forgot. I also understand a little more of what you meant with encapsulation now. This actually made me realize further what parts might be unhealthy (I try to see what is unhealthy in me and what is healthy and then change as needed, rather than listening to people that view anything non-normal as bad)
Speaking of "making someone see life as you do" - humans have been proven to be able to advance the intelligence in other animals (even shrimps!) just by frequent interaction, sometimes with marvelous results.

[I had a long part here about how I view object-relations according to what I read this far, if you want to read it just ask ]

That paper you gave me show how a younger brain affect autistics, it is only natural we would be like this and there might be ways to mitigate some of the "bad" parts but too big change is impossible. Though autism absolutely do not only cause bad things, and some of the things labeled bad are not, as have been the consensus for too long. The intolerance for difference traumatizes us further...

So, we have the neurology of a supercharged neurotypical child, in some ways. Not only autistics. Neurotypicals have a neotenic version of the brain of the earlier species. This fragmentation had already begun a long time ago. This explains the id, ego and superego that we all experience. In the beginning, there might have been one mind.

Last edited by Anomiel on 18 May 2013, 3:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

So. There's this book that apparently just came out that I guess discuss exactly this conundrum! I wasn't aware of it until this Wired article from today. I'm so buying this.
Psychology/psychiatry as a field will look very different very soon.
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/05/le ... o-illness/

Something off-the-wall to throw into the ring - Autistics aren't so much substantially different (to others) as unhinged from the ordinary human reactions which ground others' being. Whereas NTs feel 'y' in response to 'x' -and feel that that feeling as a reflection of their essential being- autistics feel anything or nothing, the latter being the likely outcome in the many situations whose sensory information hasn't been analysed or even fully processed by the subconscious mind of the autistic present.

Anomiel. I think you should go kind of slow on the books....there is time...what I want to say is that I became disillusioned after reading these two books, as it is easy to see that the approach of psychotherapy as it exists today is way too hit and miss and highly subjective. I am glad I have these two books in my library, and am still studying them and have learned something......if you want an overview of object relations theory and how the psychiatric profession is trying to use it, then they are helpful and you might want to have them in your library, but if you are trying to help yourself then there are other approaches to the subject- object relationship that might be simpler. You know, human beings have been dealing spiritually and philosophically with understanding the subject-object relationship and how to use it for transformation long before anyone ever heard of psychiatry.

Anyway, if you're interested in the DMS, I refer you to my new hero (as of yesterday), Paula Caplan, who has been fighting the DMS for years. I found her book in a free box a while ago and grabbed it to take to work with me as I got temporarily sick of those other two books...The book is They Say You're Crazy---How the World's Most Powerful Psychiatrists Decide Who's Normal...all I can say is wow! I could not put it down. I will be buying more of her books as soon as I can get my hands on them.. This particular book is from the 90's but in no way outdated. She describes, among other things, her battle to keep PMS out of the DMS Manuel.

I would like to see what you wrote about object relations but maybe we could wait a little bit...as this is getting a tad overwhelming....there is so much to share....

Did you ever get the book Depression And The Body? You can probably get it in paperback very easily for just a few dollars. He does touch on object relations theory in there in a way which is very simple and easy to understand, thouh, again, he has his own unique perspective based on bodywork. I have to go to work today...but below are some Paula Caplan links...love, littlebee

Paula J. Caplan PHD

http://freakoutcrazy.com/category/paula-caplan/

http://psychiatrybuster.blogspot.com/20 ... uthor.html

http://www.paulajcaplan.net/

http://www.narpa.org/caplan.htm

http://www.paulajcaplan.net/works.htm

Anomiel wrote:

Anomiel, I read the first seven pages. I found it very painful to read, which is why I did not read it sooner even though I found it seven months ago and knew it would be interesting, as I was already digesting previous material from this psychoanalytical journal I found which was in that issue devoted to autism/ In fact I had to stop reading even that, as it was too painful, but now am reading it again. I think this could turn into a very deep and lengthy discussion and have to think about where it would be appropriate to have such a discussion. Perhaps we could pm about this, but for now am willing to discuss it a little bit here.

Apparently this material did not affect you in the way same way that it affected me, as the original journal I found and this article bring me back to my infancy ,and I am actually forced to rexperience the original experience---not pleasant:-) I may be on more of an emotional level here and you more kind of intellectual though with other stuff I wrote about object relations etc. I was functioning on an intellectual level and that felt right.

Anyway, I am willing to discuss a bit here for now if you want to, but might ultimately need to find a venue that is more private--am not sure, or maybe it should be shared--for the good of humanity, ha ha...anyway lets go slow, meaning look at pone idea little by little. I guess I am okay with discussing this material from an intellectual perspective.

Yes, after reading only the first seven pages I can see there is something that is going to be skewed in what is to follow. For one, it seems he is going to be seeing this person as an infant. Now who would do that? Personally it makes me sick/ Yes, he does not see himself as interdependent with her. Right, maybe he is autistic himself, ha ha. You are very smart, plus amazingly intuitive....no wonder you've had a rough time..lit is a miracle and a blessing that you have kept your sensitivity alive....

We do tend to overstimulate each other, in terms of inquiry, but maybe we can learn to work with it....

Oh, another thing, and this makes me mad...all those hours each week on the couch??? How much did that cost? Is this the real solution for humanity? Obviously not...to have such an exclusivity society like that already indicates to me some kind of wrong ideas and wrong thinking...which wrong thinking is part of the problem rather than the solution to the problem....

littlebee, sorry for the delay!
Re: overstimulation - yes! But that is good thing too. I have not felt well now for a few days and saved reading this thread until I knew I could handle it better. This will be short - as I'm still sick - and I will pm you right away so we can find a more private place for further talking.
That paper was hard for me to read emotionally too, mostly because the analyst was so unforgiving in her displays of coping techniques. What did he expect in his job as analyst?! To only have NT clients?! But it was very interesting... One thing to keep in mind while reading about perspectives like his is that everyone has opinions, which aren't necessarily correct, about who someone really is and what's healthy or not.
Thank you so much for the book tips! I believe they will be very worthwhile if you vouch for them What I've read of Paula Chaplan now seems promising, and I will order some more by her at the same time.

Another possibility is that the evolutionary explosion of brainpower associated with the development of humankind has progressively 'teetered', and that the mutations that have diverged from the main thrust of this process (and into a 'top-heavy' reliance on thoughts and reflections over and above actual information-processing) have produced the interesting cases we see as autistics. More brainpower means more room for manouevre, within a single species, where anything brain-related is concerned.

At most, only one of my parents aspie/autistic, and it's not even my mother.

Last edited by undefineable on 21 May 2013, 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I agree - I've barely observed anyone seriously trying to work out WHAT the differences between autistics and NTs actually are. Which leads me to:

To NTs - yes; to those with profound autism - I doubt it

If we agree that 'disordered' means 'less than x', and 'different' means 'both less than x and more than x in different ways', then I don't think we can say our communication is 'different/not disordered' if we also agree that 'communication' refers to an interaction of two or more individuals.

Are you describing the internal communication of an individual with itself?


It's not that bad

Last edited by undefineable on 21 May 2013, 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nonsense wrapped in nonsense.

The neanderthal theory of autistic origins is pure speculation.

No real evidence is behind it.

Second- you're saying that we are a 'once-and-future' subspecies which makes absolutely no sense.

Austistics were originally neanderthals who got absorbed into the population of anatomical moderns. But now autistics are somehow getting UN-absorbed and are somehow emerging an incipient species again.

Really?

Even so there is no aspie mating call that results in aspies mating with other aspies to produce strains of more aspies in a way that is analogous to the way that Indian lions know to mate with Indian lions and not with Indian tigers ( and tigers with tigers and not with lions in the same region).

Aspie humans either fail to mate, or they mate with NTs,and only extremely rarely with other aspies. So there is no evidence of an emerging autistic 'subspecies'.

If the theory were right there would be a sorting effect-nts with nts, and aspies with aspies. But that is not the case at all.

Yes, they assume everyone already knows what "normal" is. I tried to find out by reading about what is considered abnormal.



That was littlebee

I doubt that was about the (consciously used) doublespeak of NTs. We do have drives.



The NT/AS mutual communication problems have turned into AS communication problems. They don't understand us either. So do we say we are the sole ones with communication problems because we are in the minority? What is a communication problem? The NTs might not like it if an AS talks at length and goes into great detail, but is the NT not non-accommodating then and so the one with a communication problem? Or if an AS is silent when a NT wants to talk - many describe being both uninterested and not knowing how to perform small-talk to NTs liking. Is everything that doesn't please an NT a problem? Are we supposed to be subservient? Their ways of communication is not pleasing for us either. How is being literal a communication problem around others who don't use as much doublespeak?

Sorry to be crude, but there is; it's called being direct and telling someone you'd like to f**k. Seriously, aspies of any gender do not have that NT sexual behavior from what I've seen which is part of what causes NTs to run.
Who knows what it would be like in a world with 50/50 NTs and aspies?