Impertinent Questions: Autism, Freudianism & Materialism

Post Reply New Topic

Hmmm.....I think it's half true. I wish more people who say or insinuate that their idea is the only right one would embrace questioning, as long as it's genuine and serious. But questioning can be taken too far, particularly when you're trying to get anything done. It's counterproductive to be constantly unpicking rules and assumptions, because then nobody knows what the rules are any more. Sometimes it's better to run with a lie, than to bury the truth with obfuscation.

The doctor-patient extract from your book is interesting, but I don't see what it has to do with the debate question.

Apparently I must wait another day until I can now post a link to my book, Few impertinent Questions about Autism, Freudianism and Materialism. The book is about my autistic son, but the questions are general philosophical questions, with optional answers. I think of Aspies as nonconformists, and have enjoyed your answers to my questions. Someone suggested such discussion belongs on another forum. Which would you recommend?

Question 5 What is intelligence?
Excerpt:
One reason for my vulnerability was probably an awareness of being a little different. I sometimes found it difficult to accept commonly held beliefs. At election time I often voted for the loser. Sometimes I was sceptical of the most universally accepted, scientific pronouncements. Also, my interests were often not those of a typical woman. I rarely felt the usual feminine enthusiasm about dresses, hats, hair-do's, sterling silver or the colour of kitchen curtains - or even whether I had any kitchen curtains. I had other interests, but maybe Tony didn't regard anything people did, including talking, as worth imitating.

Non conformity is not an ability; it is the lack of an ability. Nor is weird behaviour typical of a nonconformist. I assure everyone that most nonconformists make an effort to appear inconspicuous. We just occasionally think differently, and it is not something one chooses to do. Most children effortlessly absorb the language, beliefs and attitudes of adults, thus ensuring that each generation doesn't have to create a culture from scratch. I'd compensated for my inability to emulate the attitudes of people around me, but did the doctor think my differences qualified me as abnormal?

I'm still trying to post a link to my book about my autistic son.

A Few Impertinent Questions about Autism, Freudianism and Materialism.
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
excerpt:
Question 6. Are psychoanalytic theories profound? Or just convoluted?

I have a simple, straight-forward, uncomplicated mind. I was born that way and I don't see why I should have to apologize for it. Perhaps the people who find psychoanalytic theories profound really do have more complex, complicated minds than mine. On the other hand, maybe some people are just drawn to any concept that is too convoluted for human understanding. Nevertheless, considering all the emotional problems of people involved in psychoanalysis, if I had any choice, I'd sure choose simple over complex. And I can't resist the humour I see in some of their theories. For instance, after his first ride on an airplane, Carl Jung's profound observation was: People shouldn't fly. It's too fast, and people leave part of their psyche behind.

Question 5 What is intelligence?
In my view, intelligence is a false concept. I can see how a person can have a measurable aptitude for a stated, specific task such as tying shoelaces or solving a particualr kind of mathematical problem. But to create a test for "general intelligence," a value judgement would have to be made on what tasks were worth including in the test. That value judgement is subjective and always open to challenge. So I would define "intelligence" as an aptitude for solving the kind of problems that somebody happened to view as universally important problems. It's not so much "the intelligence quotient" as "an intelligence quotient," and its relevence to the actual demands on a given test subject is rather depatable.

Question 6. Are psychoanalytic theories profound? Or just convoluted?

I think they're profound allright - i.e. they're deep, they look way beyond the superficial - I guess the big question for me is, are they useful/correct?

I wish I knew. I haven't seen any good methods of testing the theories. It's also rather worrying that Freud was so arrogant....compare the behaviour of Freud and Darwin in the face of question and criticism, and you'll see what I mean. Darwin was always open to the idea that he could be wrong, while Freud simply wasn't. It doesn't mean that Freud's theories were necessarily wrong, but it doesn't inspire confidence in them either, to know that he wanted so much to be right that he was hostile to all objections.

I've often womdered what Freud, who reckoned that sexual desire was the main thing that most people repressed, would make of the 21st century, in which many chavs and "pro-porn" people make no bones about their liking for sex, particularly the "forbidden" variety? Seems to me that he fell into the trap of assuming that his culture (middle-class Victorian Vienna) was representative of general human nature.

In favour of psychoanalytical theory is the apparent fact of unconscious mental processes...it seems fairly well accepted that people do "fool themselves" sometimes, and we don't always know why we do this or that. Some things do seem ignored as if they're too painful to think about. But I don't know whether repression is all that common....maybe the mind just normally has a lot of invisible stuff going on, and rather than forcibly repressing our ideas, we just don't happen to be able to drag them into consciousness?

Question 5 What is intelligence?
In my opinion, intelligence cannot be defined as a single trait, but has many different incarnations. For example a poet who effortlessly rattles off an original epic poem can be considered as intelligent as the mathmatics whiz who is able to do complex equations in his head. But it doesn't end there, there are also those who ponder the abstracts of philosophy and religion, knowing just the right questions to inspire thought in others.. and yet others who seem to always be able to read peoples expressions and body language, thereby knowing uncannily(and creepily) what others are thinking.. all of these traits owe their roots in the ability to make connections between bits of knowledge and forming something meaningful.. but the bits and connections are endless, as are types of intelligence..

Question 6. Are psychoanalytic theories profound? Or just convoluted?
I believe that by its nature, being a hybrid of philosophy and hard science, the entire field of mental health is a constantly evolving entity. As more hard science reveals about the complex nature of the electrochemical processes that occur in the brain, there become as many more questions as answers. I really doubt they will develop a scanner that would look in the brain and find the you, so, there will always be someone to ask "How are you feeling?"

I do enjoy people-from-the-wrong-planet’s comments to my questions.
It is true that Darwin was tentative, ToughtDiamond. However that is not true of today’ Darwin supporters. The following is a definition of Neo Darwinism.

Which brings me to Question 7

If life is intrinsically creative, how relevant are mechanical explanations of living processes? A Few Impertinent Questions about Autism, Freudiansim and Materialism
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

If life is intrinsically creative, how relevant are mechanical explanations of living processes?
Hmmm.......I don't think that life is "intrinsically creative." I think that much, if not all, of it is explicable in terms of mechanical concepts. Some of the things that life does may look creative to us, but I don't see why that should stop us analysing the mechanics of the processes.

What to you mean by intrinsically creative? Creativity requires intention.

What do you mean by mechanical explanations? If you mean mathematically deterministic, then they are of some use but fail in more complex systems.

Agreed, Tough Diamond. Just so we don’t insist that mechanical formulas be accepted as ultimate explanations.


Why deny intention as an aspect of any part of the universe,Wavefreak58? It is unquestionably a aspect of the biology of we humans.

Agreed, Wavefreak58. And what could be more complex than life. The trouble comes when failed concepts are incorporated into such things as medical treatment.

Question 8. Is scientific research ever more important than the individuals being studied?

Excerpt:
.My childhood seemed to have left me with the conviction that life was a glorious adventure, and until now I‘d been satisfied with my life. Perhaps I would have accomplished more if I had taken life more seriously. However I was an individual, not a statistic. I'd never had any trouble convincing people I didn't fit the statistical generalization about boys being better than girls at math. Surely after he got to know me, Dr. Zircon would soon realize I was not emotionally damaged by a traumatic childhood and didn't need "fixing".

A suspicion was creeping into my mind that these psychologists might not be the infallible experts I’d thought them to be. However in spite of my growing suspicion of psychotherapy, I was still too much under the influence of “modern science” to deny Tony treatment the medical profession was insisting he must have. Thus I had found myself agreeing to join Dr. Zircon’s group.

http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

I made no denial of intention. What makes you think that. I was questioning how you defined "intrinsically creative". Even if creativity is a part of human biology, it does not follow that it is a part of biology as a whole. If that is your claim then you are venturing into a realm not amenable to scientific process. This is not a value judgment, just an observation. The problem for me is that your terminology borrows from scientific discourse but what you are asking extends into non-scientific concepts.



What makes a failed concept in medical treatment any more or less harmful than a failed concept in sociology? Or physics? Or any other discipline? Seems you have an implied ranking of values here.



An ethical question without any purely logical answer. My best answer is that each research effort must be evaluated on a case by case basis within the context of an ethical structure. My own personal ethics places the importance of the individual very high.

+1, and animals...

Agreed, Wavefreak58. But I have hopes that science will eventually break out of its prison of deterministic materialism. It is true that belief that purpose is an aspect of reality would be a philosophical assumption. But the assumption that reality is a purposeless, mechanical devise is also a philosophical assumption. Please don’t let my agreement stop you from making comments though. I find them insightful, and I’ve rarely interacted with people as tolerant as this website. Many people who disagree with me become angry.

Question 9.
Are neuroses a form of mental illness? Or merely deviations from average? Which deviations from average should psychiatry declare abnormal and try to repair?

The Freudian view seemed to be that people consist of Ids, ego's and superego's. People are supposedly also inhabited by something called a subconscious, a mysterious entity with a tendency to think naughty thoughts and keep them a secret from one's conscious self. When this naughty subconscious takes over and controls one's actions - without permission - people become neurotic. If the patient lies on a couch and talks, and a psychiatrist listens, the subconscious might be tricked into revealing itself. Once enticed out into the open by a therapist, the subconscious supposedly looses its power to cause neurosis.
***
How do psychiatrists decide the difference between mental illness, neurosis and mere deviations from average? Actually, they do it by ballot. The psychiatric profession publishes a list (presently numbering 374) of mental illnesses in a "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders". Psychiatrists add to, and delete from this list every few years by popular vote. Some of the listings include: paranoid personality disorder, schizoid personality disorder, schizotypal personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, avoidant personality disorder, dependent personality disorder and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.

http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

Question 9.
Are neuroses a form of mental illness? Or merely deviations from average?
If we define neurosis as a class of functional mental disorders involving distress but neither delusions nor hallucinations, whereby behavior is not outside socially acceptable norms, then I suppose they are a kind of mental illness.

Which deviations from average should psychiatry declare abnormal and try to repair?
Those which the client wishes to be repaired, i.e. those which cause the client distress. Also - and this is more difficult - those which pose a threat to self or others....it's more difficult because it's hard to evaluate the danger in some cases, and if the client doesn't consider themself dangerous or in danger, then from the client's point of view it's an unjustifiable invasion to try and treat them. There's also the question of how much of its labour power society wants to invest in psychiatry - if it's to be rationed, then there'll be a threshold of distress or danger below which intervention will be deemed unimportant. And there's also the question of whether or not psychiatry is worth bothering with at all......are there any statistics on client satisfaction?