My New Theory on the Spectrum

Post Reply New Topic

The opposite of Autism isn't Narcissism, it's Schizophrenia. According to a book I've read called The Imprinted Brain Autistics and Schizophrenics have completely opposite patterns of brain development related to differences in how maternal and paternal genes are expressed in the brain. For example: Autistics tend to have not enough pruning of connections in the pre-frontal cortex while Schizophrenics have too much pruning. Autistics tend to have "poor central coherence" while Schizophrenics have too much. Autistics tend to be blind to non-verbal communication while schizophrenics are so sensitive to non-verbal signals that they become paranoid and/or delusionally think they can read others' thoughts.

There are people who are both autistic and schizophrenic. There is an overlap between autism and schizophrenia. See this article Overlap Found Between Autism, Schizophrenia-Spectrum Disorders, published in 2008: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/cont ... 43/19/20-a .

I have many doubts about all studies comparing ASD and SSD - the external symptoms are so similar that probably there is many misdiagnosis between the two categories (in practice, many psych diagnoses by age of onset).

Autism is a hardwired differance, while the DSM says unless there is another reason that comes first.

It is not that Autism cannot exist with any other condition, depression being the most common NT ailment, or being left handed.

The same range of personalities, physical disorders, and mental conditions as the general public.

Autism stands out as, in an otherwise normal person, there is a lack of reading body language, making proper eye contact, and a strong turn toward their own inner life. This can reach disabling levels, or just be really annoying.

Autism+broken leg, treat for broken leg.

Any human trait, getting traffic tickets, killing people, education levels, divorce, has been shown to be the same for the autistic.

Considering autism was recently called Infantile Schizophrenia, some long for the good old days, before peer review.

Now Webism is a distinct case, those who live on the internet do have some type to them. While it does work for the autistic, it also works for others who hold strong views and lack a local peer group.

i think that there are 2 factors that are responsible for ones position in a spectral gradient of autism.
one is intelligence, and the other is the degree of some sort of demyelination of neurons such as mirror neurons.

without considering intelligence, i think there is a degree of opacity in the mind of an autistic person with reference to the perception of the intentions and feelings of others.
i think it is very difficult for an autistic person to discern what non autistic people automatically "sense" with respect to other people.

so i think the degree of "opacity" of the sense of automatic connectedness with others intentions is one factor in the identification of the severity of autism in an individual.

things that non autistic people "sense" automatically, have to be gruelingly calculated by me.

so that is where i think intelligence enters the scenario of spectral placement.
everyone has a native intelligence that is a measure of the ease with which their brain cells find low resistance connections that are efficient facsimiles of the world they see and live in. it facilitates multiplexing of notions, and therefore promotes speculation.. resulting in hypotheses that are reasonably accurate reassemblies of what to expect nect time.

what i am trying to say is that i have rather severe autism, but i also have a reasonably powerful brain. it is similar to thinking that i am like a disabled 70 tonne vehicle stuck in the mud, but i have a 1000 hp winch of a mind that can drag me out of the bog of my supposed level of autism.

it is only 1000 hp however and it hauls me up out of my autism to only where simple normal people can be.

if i did not have a logical capacity i would require hospitalization.

i ithink i am organically very autistic, but i am functionally able to live in the world un stewarded because people want to pay me to solve their computorial problems and make money for them.

anyway i am waffling and i did not answer the question very well, so i will look for another thread now.

I completly agree with b9 but I want to add that there is another thing, as I said in my previous post to consider = personality.

So we have autistic brain wiring
Analytic intelligence (I.Q. - left brain analysis)
Whole intelligence (right brain mind if you want)
Personality

Obviosly those 4 things interact with each-other but yes there are difference. I don't have a "strongly" strange brain wiring but it's strange enough to be autistic. What make me "normal" and "functioning", many things:

- Why I consider myself autistic: I basically lack "mirror neurons", I lack "empathy", I have stimming behaviour and not a disabling but an hiigh sense perception (I watch tv without volume for example), I tend to be obsessive-compulsive, etc.
- I'm very intelligent, as already said I usually score between 150 to 170 in IQ test (non-verbal), still verbal IQ is above average (120-130)
- I've also a very good functioning right brain, I think mainly with ideas, metaphores, generalization
- I'm basically narcisistic, I want to make something great, I love when people came to me to solve their problems, etc..

All those things together: personality give me the will to go out my shell, intelligence give me the chance to do that. When I'm in a "social" situation my mind goes nuts computing all possible outcame, it's not natural, but I can do it due to my "brain power". But also, I WANT to do it because of my personality.

We have a great example in Temple Grandin. She was/is classical autism but she is also very intelligent and have a personality toward goals and big things. She stated a lot of times in his biography that what make her functioning is her will to "put her name in history" and "finding a sense for life".

I never meant to infer any of what you got out of the personality situation. I'm not sure why you would think that's what I meant. It's not de-humanizing because it's just one personality trait as opposed to the makings of your entire personality. I don't think there is such a thing as the makings of an entire personality being lumped into one word. You still have all the aspects of your personality. It's almost like the Myers Briggs scale could add a section of narcissism vs autism to describe portions of both. But it would only describe portions which is why I'm seeing it more as a globe now than a line scale.

I could be wrong on this. I am curious what aspects of Aspergers couldn't be considered a personality preference and be more like a disability or disorder? Every question on the "are you AS?" tests online as well as what psychologists ask to diagnose the condition reminds me too much of the same questions you find on any personality test. Again, I'm talking mild autism. I already said I don't know enough people with severe autism to have an opinion.

I hoped and had more or less inferred that was the case.

Actually I strongly suspected that you did not understand the necessary implications of what you propose in respect of Asperger Syndrome being a “personality”.

You did not call it “more a personality trait”, you called it “more a personality”, and although you left it hanging, I presume that “disability” is what is being juxtaposed.

Either way it makes as much sense as the same statement with “congenital deafness”, or “Downs Syndrome”, or“diabetes”, or “being born to rich parents” replacing the subject Aspergers Syndrome. It makes as much sense as claiming “diabetes is more a personality”, or “diabetes is more a personality trait”, or the even sillier “pre diabetic states are more a personality trait, although I am not so sure about actual diabetes”.

Personality has particular meanings. When you call something a personality, you are making a statement that entails those meanings. The necessary implications of calling AS more a personality are those that I have outlined for you. You might not have these implications foremost in your mind when you make these comments, you might not have ever considered them before, but they are none the less the necessary implications of comments to that effect.

The diagnostic traits.

To be very clear, saying that a trait caused by AS is not a personality trait is not saying it is something that cannot be the result of a personality trait, or even that it is not consistent with the personalty traits of someone with AS. An analogy would be “tics” in Tourettes. None of these behaviours at the gross level are things that someone could not choose to do because of their personality traits. The significance (the reason that Tourettes is a disorder) is that whether or not they want to, or would (in the absence of Tourettes) do these things, it is Tourettes rather than their personality driven choices or preferences that are causing these things.

So to compare to AS, it might be that with AS one has a preference for hyperfocus tasks, just as the same can occur in someone without AS (or any kind of attention disorder or deficiency). Either person might choose because of their personality to not control their behavior and hyperfocus inappropriately, however, only the person with AS will be unable to exert normal (age appropriate) levels of control over the tendency to hyperfocus.

At an even more fundamental level, the diagnostic criteria that refer to communication deficits are referring to a failure to acquire skills and competencies of a kind and to an extent that cannot be explained by volition, intelligence level (based on comparisons with “low IQ” subjects with Downs Syndrome) or some environmental stimulus deficiency (since it is occurring in instances where lack of stimulus can be excluded). That is a failure to develop an ordinary, necessary, typical species competency, like being a seagull that cannot fly, or a leopard that cannot run. Failing to develop this competency is no more a personality or personality trait than being congenitally deaf.

Primarily because of deficiencies in technology and ease of use. The questions concerned are relying on the fact that there are trends in human behavior. Present humans with a stimulus, and there will usually be “clustered responses”, in some cases the reaction of the majority can be predicted. Additionally, certain traits predispose particular reactions to a stimulus.

For example, if we put actors in a room and tell them to ignore indicators of a fire, and place a test subject in the room with them, the overwelming majority of males will follow what everyone else does, at least until smoke starts billowing into the room. Women have a much greater propensity to first vocalize their concern, and then leave promptly. We could then tell someone that person A responded by looking at others and if they did not leave, then person A stayed put, whereas person B left promptly when the fire alarm was triggered, and they could infer person A was a male and person B was a female, with a higher chance of being right than being wrong.

None of which makes being male or female a personality, nor does gender determine how one will respond. The fact is a male and female of the same personality type are more likely to respond differently (to each other) on the basis of this stimulus, than two males with different personality types, or two females with different personality types.

So we can predict that humans as a group are likely or unlikely to respond particular ways, and add traits that are not personality traits per say, nor determinative of or determined by personality, to make even more particular and less general predictions about responses to stimulus.

In application, this means that if the stimulus is an inability to understand non verbal communication, we can make predictions that would be true of a large number of people in such circumstances, regardless of their underlying personality. The predictions will not be comprehensibly true, but rather generally. Much like predicting most people would respond negatively to being urinated on, even though this is not true of everyone. If you look at the questions as being predictions about how people generally (regardless of personality) are likely to respond to some very atypical stimuli (specifically the atypical features of their neuro environment), you can see that in many instances these are generalizations that would apply to lots of people.

So for instance asking if someone prefers loud parties to the museum; if someone is discomforted by noise, easily overwhelmed by having to keep track of multiple people, has difficulty with small talk and finds communicating and socializing challenging, and often is unable to generate anything other than negative feedback from those around them, is it not very likely that regardless of their personality and preferences generally, they will want to avoid discomfort and so will avoid the party? Avoiding discomfort is a fairly pervasive trait among humans, so if we know that a stimulus would be discomforting as a result of neurological traits, we can predict that most humans with those neurological traits will tend to avoid that stimulus.

Evidently, the diagnostician who diagnosed me asked a lot of questions that are not really to do with personality. He was interested in my behaviour, not my preferences.

I think that you're becoming confused by the idea that the spectrum is linear.

As far as I can tell it doesn't go.

NT <---------- Aspie ---------High Functioning Autism--------------Autism------------> Severe Autism

Instead it's a web.

RDOS seems to have captured something more appropriate in his aspie quiz but in reality, I'd say that there are probably 100+ points on the web instead of about eight.

Since Aspergers is subjective and based primarily on observable criteria, the web would need to have various strengths of each criteria to accurately represent a person.

I'm not totally understanding your point.

First of all, let's define personality.



Most of what we gather on personality is a theory; however, we do give these theories more weight than let's say my theory that I'm tyring to develop here because they've been around for so long. Myers Briggs is one of the most popular personality tests out there; however, many other personality tests do exist. So we are pretty much accepting that "personality types" do in fact exist, and we can almost accept (at this time until research states otherwise) that these types are a product of genetics, other biological influences, and environment. We can also almost accept that these influences will cause a "personality type" meaning, we can in fact generally predict certain general behaviors from people who fall into certain categories because personality influences behavior and is displayed in our thoughts and feelings, etc.

A syndrome is defined:



Definition of a disease:



Lists of syndromes:
http://www.doctorslounge.com/studlounge ... dromes.htm
http://www.cureresearch.com/lists/syndromes.htm

The bulk of the syndromes you see on the list can easily classify as a disease if we knew more about it, the causes, etc.

The problem with Aspergers is we don't have symptoms like many of the other syndromes. Syndromes are very medical in nature because they are not less severe than a disease which, by definition, affects the body's condition. Aspergers affects the mind's condition and behavior, that is until they discover exactly what part of the brain is affected neurologically.

To me, if you read the definitions, Aspergers and mild autism tends to fit more perfectly into the components of a personality as opposed to the definition of a syndrome or disease.

Now, let's look at one other possibility, and that's the disorder.



To me, it doesn't quite fit in that category either because I will never see it as a dysfunction, and the "distress" is always argued with "NT's do that too." So based on the claim that our distress is really no more severe than what other people go through (you've had to of seen these arguments before on this site), then it's not a disorder but a personality type/trait.

It still is my opinion, but I have a logic to it, and now you know it. Someone could argue that the distress is worse than everyone else's and therefore a disorder or mental illness; and someone could argue that there is a neurological defect or immaturity and therefore a disease; and they can argue that it's cause by mercury from vaccinations or Vitamin D deficiencies etc. and still be placed into the category of disease. The point is that nobody knows enough about this to be able to classify for sure into any other category. Possibly that's why it's a syndrome meaning there's a bunch of people complaining of similar symptoms and that's all we know. So until science and medicine proves otherwise, the whole subject is open to opinion, and in my opinion thus far, what we know of it thus far fits more into a personality than any other category. I'm going by what we know for sure about Aspergers/mild autism as opposed to what we assume.

We know for a fact genetics play a role, and we know that the genetics are so complex like the genetics that help create personality, and we know that it creates behaviors and preferences and certain thoughts and feelings, and we know that environment plays a massive role in how it develops. Sounds like a perfect fit to personality's definition. When we discover otherwise, we change it.

4th corner: Autism + empath.

Treating for broken leg with aspergers can be difficult - it doesn't seem they're in any pain. just complaining (cos they can't do stuff)

The interesting question here is how you define "disabling"? ASDs are disabling in and of themselves as they usually cause the affected to be isolated from society, which can result in problems in every facet of life - from finding a job, to supporting oneself, to getting married and having children. Added to this is that there are no known corrections, cures, or workarounds for ASDs, so they are not only "disabling", but are "permanently disabling".

I think it is a silly idea to try to theorize about the nature of the spectrum, although I myself am guilty of it. There is little to be gained in studying your own mind, or even the mind of a few fellows on the internet. You cannot be certain about your conclusions because you do not understand how the circuitry of any mind works. Until humanity gains the capacity to fully understand and reproducibly program the human mind we will not be sure of what the spectrum is and what is and is not on it.

Nonetheless, I think many would agree that ASDs result in the same manifest problems - non-verbal communication difficulties, eye-contact problems, repetitive habits, etc... but I see no reason why the affected couldn't take different neurological paths to arrive at the same problems. This would mean that the specific neurology involved is irrelevant in that all who truly have an ASD show the same manifest non-correctable problems. An ASD is what it is.

I suspect that there are a wide variety of Autism/Asperger's/PDD brains with an "infinite" number of combinations in terms of circuitry. I would say that is almost obvious from reading Wrong Planet.

One thing personality most certainly entails is how one responds to negative circumstance, as an enduring pattern of behavior. If one person gives up, if another engages in counter productive rage behaviors, and if another finds healthy coping means, these people are very different in personality-(on_this_dimension). People with AS might respond any of these ways.

Whether we respond to authority with cooperation, open defiance, or covert defiance, is a matter of personality. While skills in this area are impacted by AS, the fact is as individuals, we all have different enduring patterns of behavior in this area. AS might make someone seem uncooperative because they do not understand what is going on, but comprehension tends to be an enlarging body of skill whereas whether one wants and intends to cooperate is a matter of personality. AS does not choose these things for us. We have our own personalities, our own enduring patterns of behavior.

AS would be much easier to diagnose is we all have substantially similar personalties. Part of the diagnostic difficulty is that assessment is based on behavior which is mediated by personality. A dozen random people with AS could all manifest the same criteria differently because even though the underlying neuro component is materially similar, their personalities drive their experience of the symptom and their responses, over time as part of an enduring pattern. Our manner of responding to the traits of AS is all about our personality.

I honestly do not understand the inferences you are drawing from the information you present. Aspergers Syndrome is not a disease, just as Downs Syndrome is not a disease. Evidently, we know plenty about Downs Syndrome. We know what causes it, we know the health complications associated, we know the set of symptoms/markers that all people with Down Syndrome share some sub set of. We still call it a Syndrome, and it’s not a disease either.

Further, I suggest that Downs Syndrome is significantly more “serious” than the common cold-(all-diseases), but probably a heck of a less to worry about than Small pox. I really do not understand the connotations you are placing on disease.


I have to say I honestly cannot understand what the heck you mean Tantybi. You’ve put together what appears to me to be an intelligently argued description of your point of view, but I really just do not get it, or even get quite what I am supposed to get.

I will re read it tomorrow, sometimes ideas sink in with me better if I try them again once I’ve encountered them the first time.

Maybe we are not nuts...just on the wrong planet

I have always viewed the spectrum as a 3D sphere much like rsdos draws it 2D. Thing is, in my mind a sphere is a slick surfaced ball in the shape of a globe readily viewable from all sides. This creates a problem of perception blindness. The chrome colored meditation garden sphere is an example of this self-imposed illusion. Ask someone to describe what the object is; somewhere in the definition will be the reference to earth. Earth is a sphere yes, but not limited to one color, sound, surface or smell. Viewed from afar, it looks like a star, the closer we get we realize it has many features, none of which have ever been denied, quite the opposite happens, all the features are explored and meticulously mapped out to the greatest detail currently available.

I view the spectrum in the same way, a three dimensional sphere with many facets. Each facet is different in shape, size and color. The fascinating part is the prism effect one gets depending on outside variables such as current lighting, point of view and which facet one is looking at. In the light of recent discoveries and ongoing research in the field, more is being revealed on a personal level as well as a global one. The whole concept is similar to a typical color pallet with numbers representing the variable amount of color. The main difference with the spectrum is the amount of variables and defining a facet as typical.

It appears we are at the stage for someone to prove the spectrum is not as flat as the earth once was. With the activity on this one site alone, it is obviously relevant that by looking outside the box, there are more than six sides to said typical box, or aspie. I have often wondered if such a model is possible by giving all of the faceted parameters their value in regards to size and relevance. It seems as though it would require answering millions of questions to attain the ratio each facet has in relation to all the others. After pondering this for quite sometime, the resultant figure would appear to be in the shape of a human brain.

Stop (for now)

This. You can have people on the spectrum with completely different personalities; you'll find some who are extremely self-absorbed, as has been noted, and some who are extremely humble. You'll find ones who are more introverted and ones who are extroverted. Ones who enjoy jokes and ones who are very serious. Those are personality traits.

You may find people who are not on the spectrum who have a collection of personality traits - being quiet and studious, for instance - that may appear to be in line with others on the spectrum, but there's a difference. Someone who's quiet on the spectrum may be so because they don't know how to interact properly. Someone who's quiet because of personality may just enjoy the time to think by themselves or may just enjoy observing. It's not that someone on the spectrum cannot enjoy the same things in quietness or even be quiet because of it, but someone who's not on the spectrum isn't going to be quiet because they don't know how to interact unless they have some other disorder.

None of the spectrum disorders are defined by personality. They are defined by a list of symptoms, including some social ones. Those social symptoms may give an impression of a personality consistency, but the cause of those symptoms differs from what the cause of others' personality traits will be, and they're not always present; a person with AS doesn't have to be quiet, for instance. It's no more a personality trait than having brown hair is; if you're born with brown hair, that affects how you look, but it doesn't affect your personality.

That being said, it should be pretty obvious that I too disagree with narcissim being the opposite of the autistic spectrum.

I apologize for missing this text earlier when I responded, I was in a hurry because I was supposed to_be cooking dinner at the time.....oops

I would just like to point out that you have not posted a definition of disorder but of mental disorder or mental illness. AS is most certainly not a mental illness, nor is it a psychiatric disorder. I personally would not describe it as mental disorder, anymore than I would describe dyslexia or epilepsy as mental disorders. In my view these things are neurological disorders.
This makes no sense if we apply the definition you supplied. The definition refers to distress that is not a normal part of development or normal within the culture. Being distressed because even though you are socially gregarious, you lack the core competencies needed for social intercourse with your age peers, is not part of normal development, nor part of normal culture.

No one is saying that people without AS will be free from distress, but rather that the distress people with AS are dealing with arises from causes that are not part of normal development, nor part of normal culture.

This “NTs’ do that too” thing is as sensible as suggesting deafness is more a personality because deafness refers to impairments that make hearing difficult (or impossible) and NTs sometimes fail to hear things too.


There is no meaning of personality that is consistent with calling AS a personality. By any definition of personality there are areas where if AS is a personality, everyone will behave the same behavior, but our behavior in such areas is as differentiated and diverse as the same behaviors among non Autistic people. The “definition” you yourself provided is not consistent with calling AS a personality. In terms of our enduring patterns of behavior, we differ from one another as much as any other group. That is why some respond to social problems by becoming angry, some by becoming defeated, some by trying harder, some by becoming alienated, etc. Such responses for any individual will pattern in common with their own responses to other forms and types of adversity. It is quite clear that so far as personality traits and measures, people with AS can be easily differentiated from each other on the basis of their enduring patterns of behavior, no less than people without AS, who clearly have more than one personality type among them.

If AS is a personality or personality_type, then everyone with AS has the same personality and personality type. Therefore we would manifest the same enduring patterns of behavior of the kind referred to in personality tests, quite aside from any behavior that the overwhelming majority of people (regardless of personality) would manifest in the face of the stimuli that constitutes AS. Very clearly we do not (manifest the same enduring patterns of behavior of the type and kind most significant to personality types), so AS cannot be sensibly described as a personality. Any and all similarities that we might share in behavior is easily explained as typical human behavior when faced with particular stimulus.