Genetics

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry, I don't want to tread dangerous water here. It seems important to me, though, to try to understand Asperger's in the context of us as a species, because I'm already familiar with its tendency to make a life a pain in the ass. I spend a lot of time thinking; why does mental illness exist? It's an anomaly from a religious standpoint, because organized religion pressupposes clarity of mind. If you're a Christian, why would god create a person who is less capable of making or understanding the decision to commit to good or evil? It's not something the bible explains. It's not geared towards people who are schizophrenic. It's about tangible problems, physical illness, whatever people could define in that era. If you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint, what possible function does mental illness have? Were there depressed tribesmen in the Neolithic Age, or is it something that's come about recently because of societal pressures, and was it always a potentiality in our brain, or did it mutate somewhere along the way?

I'm trying to figure out if Asperger's is a mental illness or not. I know no one here wants to think of it that way, but when I look at the way I live my life and see everything I f**k up on, the possibility needs to be considered. The condition is what it is no matter what label you put on it, and life stays the same... there's no reason to be afraid to read more into it.

From a subjective mainstream point of view, I think most people who don't know much about AS would consider it a mental illness. How far down the evolutionary timeline does a species have to get to develop mental illness? Is it like a physical handicap, which just randomly mutates in an animal that ends up not being about to spread its seed because of it?

Here's another way to explain the point I'm trying to make. Most people get by on instinct. People perform manual labor by instinct and climb the social or professional hiearchy by instinct; the same way a cat attacks mice by instinct. There is no animal in existence that does not survive purely by instinct.

Do we as aspies survive by instinct? I'm pretty sure that I don't. I can do things that other people do by instinct, but it takes me time to learn and some things I can do better than others. To a person on the outside, it looks like I'm just not as good as they are. But they're going off instinct and I'm going off what I've learned. When that person is put into a situation where he's expected to do something that his instinct doesn't cover, like write an essay, I'll inevitably do better than he does, whether or not writing an essay comes as an instinct to me (which I don't see how it could, heh).

So. When a group in a species has to learn to "feign" instinct, is that a sign of advancement or of bad genes? The only reason any animal survives is because of instinct, but if a group has evolved that does not have instinct but has the ability to learn, what does that imply? Not only can we survive, but we have our special talents and the ability to extrapolate on different aspects of sensory information that no one else has. That is not something that can randomly develop at any other period in the history of this species, I think.

Very bottom line of the whole post: Most people are firmly convinced that we as humans are better than animals because we as humans have the ability to act outside of instinct.

There's definitely a mental difference. I'm
not sure whether it's an illness or not. One
way of looking at it is that a capacity for
learning, rather than acting on instinct
seems to be a part of the process of
evolution, in higher animals.

What happens is that areas of the
space are more easily explored by
learning - but at the cost of losing
the advantages in speed involved
in purely instinctual acts. Eventually
though, the traits which are absolutely
essential are eventually instinctualized.

The problem may be that humanity is
making such rapid changes that we
can't even solidly embed our social
behavior into the equivalent to instinct.
Thus, aspies. Though, honestly, it seems
that NAS's have an easier time learning
new social behavior as well, so I'm not
convinced that this points anywhere good
for us.

Listen. A private conversation between Myself and Zannemarie led me to some insight.

A type of person we discussed(not AS) completely lacks theory of mind and is known to be both cunning and highly intelligent. Socially they can do as well as they like, being unbound from preoccupation of correctness. This type of person IS almost universally considered mentally ill, although I dont think they are.

Now comes my revelation: Freedom from base instinct, desire and preconception allows a mind to achieve a higher intelligence. While there are drawbacks to the equation, AS actually enhances the possibility for deep pool knowledge. We just need to stop whining about the difficulties and focus on benefits.

Amen

Sorry for the length of this post, but you hit on a favorite subject of mine, and I would love to hear supporting/opposing opinions of the ideas I have so far, which I haven't ever really shared with anyone:

I think it's worth looking at another, related subtopic with regards to evolution of intelligence. It is nearly universally true that the "higher" an animal is, here defined as possessing superior ability with regards to learning and problem solving behavior, the longer the young are dependent on the parents before being able to survive without support. This is partly due to physical development, but is also because instinct does not automatically translate into skill. Looking at, say, tigers, for example, the tiger cub has a clearly demonstrable instinct for activities relating to hunting (stealth, pouncing, running, slashing, biting, etc.), but is not necessarily very good at them. Over time, through play (aka practice), the tiger will take advantage of its relatively high capacity for learning to refine these instincts into a usable and complex set of skills. All of this is traded off for a longer amount of time spent helpless in the early lifespan. Humans seem to represent the most extreme end of both the ability to learn and time spent needing direct care.

Attempting to get back to the topic, the point of all the above crap is that the reason the trade off is one that is evolutionarily worth making, is that the disadvantage (short term inability to survive and prosper on one's own) is made up for by the ability of the society (even if that society is just mother and child) to provide for the needs of the "junior member," who then grows up and provides care to new children and so on and so on.

But there are some species that have members that are never capable of independent function. Queen ants, for example, cannot possibly survive on their own. But the service they provide to the community, rapid production of new eggs, makes them worth supporting their entire lives.

Human life in its earliest form used to more resemble the "tiger" model of existence: an individual human, as he or she grew an adult, had to learn the complete skill set of the species; one human's skills would be pretty much the same as any other's in the surrounding area, just as one tiger's skills are much like another's. The difference in the quality of these skills determined the "fittest" for survival. But from very early on in human history, we began to specialize. Different individuals provided different skills, and though all in the tribe might hunt and make protective clothing, for example, one man might be a better hunter, and another a better maker of protective clothing. They were both valuable to each other and to the tribe, and therefore desirable as mates, and their different genes could both prosper. Nevertheless, they retained a remarkably similar overall set of skills, with a great deal of overlap.

Fast forwarding through an Agricultural Revolution, an Industrial Revolution, and a lot of stuff in between, we now live in an age where specialization is everything. Do one thing and do it well, be it science, business, or even stocking shelves, and society provides the rest. I never learned how to make shoes, or grow food, or build a house. I could reason a great deal about these things, but why, when there is someone who can do each better than I ever will?

Finally coming back to the original topic, what if AS is simply an evolutionary trend towards hyper-specialization? After all, we don't lack all instinct. Most of us in the AS world seem to have an inexplicable drive to learn in great detail about subjects that often seem very narrow to the outside observer. If this were the stone age, this consumption with one or two skills would kill us. But in the frame of a society in which, as one example, a small handful of the top wine tasters' opinions affects millions and millions of dollars worth of wine and grape business, it seems only natural.

All just conjecture of course

I don't think "instinctualization," strictly speaking, is something that we do. These things just become routine. Although to what extent we rely on instincts, which of us have sharper instincts and how the instictually-challenged fascillitate the insincts we do have are all up for debate, by definition an instinct ceases to be an instinct if it must be learned.

Fuzzy I very much agree with your point, and that would be my basic motivational message to anyone who reads this.

Wobbit, I definately think that AS does give rise to hyperspecialization, but I think it's a lot more also. AS is an evolution of fundamental human drives - a move past basic animalistic "instinctual" drives that would eventually lead to this species blowing themselves up. The more complex life becomes the more hyperspecialists we need, and what we don't need are the do-nothing football players, politicians and celebrities being exalted. Different drives lead to different role models, and many hyperspecialists lead to many acute improvements in fundamentally important areas. This society has problems.

I think all of the above could be true, but if it is then I'm the anomaly. Fuzzy was talking about my mother who certainly didn't take care of anything and had no nuturing instincts. If her progeny was dependent on her as you state, we'd all be idiots. The reverse was probably true for us in that our early intelligence allowed us to survive her.


Back to the orignal post. No, I do not believe it or Schizophrenia or Sociopathy or the like are mental illness. If I stuck a spike into your skull, your brain most assuredly would work differently afterward but it would not be caused by illness. It would become a brain difference based on traumatic injury. If you are born with different functionality in your brain, that is not an illness, it's a difference. It might be developmental or a mutation. I don't know and to be honest, researchers don't either. What I do know is this, Psychologists/Psychiatrists would love to think it's an illness so they can fill your head with even more garbage and pump you full of drugs. That is precisely why they want you to believe you will be absolutely miserable and an astounding failure in all aspects of life if you are not NT. This despite the fact that 80% of people are mindless sheep who don't even understand themselves, their lives or what is happening in the world around them. If you don't believe that, you need to become obsessed with history for awhile and it will become apparent in very little time. I don't need to be a sheep to be happy and frankly, I don't care what sheep think or how they live. I don't bother them, they don't bother me and that's our agreement. I could care less what the Psych world thinks about that.

Scientifically you have a brain difference. End of story. You are not "mentally ill." Most things they thought of as mental illness are now explained by science instead of witch doctors. And speaking of witch doctors, that is what happened in society to most mentally ill people...they were the shamans and healers. That's pretty well known.

What is this obsession to think you are mentally ill? Do you need to feel you can have a drug cure that badly? Trust me, if they could have spun it that way, they would have because they could have made more money off you if it were deemed a mental illness they could use chemical interference on to "cure."

I suggest you read a Clockwork Orange before you go running after cures or you'll be cured all right.

You have to look at this objectively to receive a fair answer; it’s unfair to humanity to say I’m me; you’re you and stick your tongue out at them without listening to what they have to say.

Current theory states that autism spectrum disorders arise from multiple factors that all end at the same stage of mental disability due to said factor: social retardation. An illness, a chemical, a genetic defect; or none of these and it’s something you’re supposedly born with [due to the causative agent being unrecognized]. This is current theory by objective people who’re much more knowledgeable than me on the workings of neurological disorders. If I’m to accept the label “autistic” I must accept everything that goes with it [when it applies to me], otherwise I’m hypocritical – the choice of treatment is mine but I should at least listen to their reasoning for why they’d think treatment is good for me. They’re the ones who name this disorder, I don’t and they associate said disorder with symptoms I exhibit; they say I have it bad enough that I can easily get financial aid from the government, which we both should be thankful for when they expect me to live in their society by their rules that I’m unable to do.

Whether it’s an illness or not is an interesting [though most likely useless] discussion: if I were unable to care for myself without outside support, i.e., I’d drift to and fro, break law without flaw and kill/take whatever I wish because I don’t recognize society – this is how I was born, is this enough to be called mentally ill by the majority of humanity? If I were unable to leave the bathroom due to malignant OCD…if no one was there for me and I die, is this severe enough to be called a mental illness by collective society?

I see collective society as a mental illness, needing to rely on each other for safety, support and companionship is completely counterintuitive to how I think; it doesn’t mean that it is mental illness.

I don't know the official definition of mental illness, but maybe I should have clarified. I define mental illness as consistently feeling sh***y for no good reason, and there are plenty of people with schizophrenia and Asperger's also that fit this description. It doesn't have any meaning to me in any other context - I don't care if that term carries a stigma, or if that's what they use to denote people who are psychotic or whatever. That's not my point. My point is, why are people produced that are forced to go through such hell just for the same damned thing everyone else gets? The shittiness is not proportional to the output! It has no application, any way you look at it.. I wish you would read further into what I said rather than just stopping when you decide you are offended by my choice of words. Like I said, what is there to be afraid of? It is what it is what it is. I hate sheep too, and I wouldn't be anyone else.

I see it as a mental illness: when you're unable to function in modern society without help from an outside source, that definitely satisfies the criteria in my mind, just like physical illness (the brain is an organ, but you know...) that disallows people to partake in sporting activities; even if they don’t like said sport it’d still be nice to experience it, or so they say tell me....

Sport; society, it’s the same thing.

When people who’re far smarter than I am tell me it's a mental illness due to the amount of pain it causes me when I try to fit into society, hey…why should I argue with them?

Daniel, the troll in that other thread accepts himself for who he is.

Its a tricky, though very important thing to discuss, dont you think? That being said, I am not sure if I am agreeing or disagreeing with you. So take from me what you wish, and I am not pointing any attacks at you, I guess!

We must strive to say "This is who I am", but it cannot end right there. We must append another statement to it... "but this is who I wish to be!" If we do not do this, we are disavowing our humanity. To accept and live by our natures is to become like animals. But we are humans, and that means that we should think, and rationally, to the greatest degree possible. Anything else is a affront to ourselves, to humanity, the universe and any high programmer in the sky!

But that doesnt mean we cannot feel. True morality is rationality and altruism overcoming instinct. There is joy, love and happiness in that.

Young people as a whole are being increasingly taught to live by feeling, and you see vast swathes of them exhibiting anger and unhappiness. We older aspies strive towards rationalism, that is, we set aside emotionally based judgements, and are seemingly happier for it.

An example seems merited. As a youth, I displayed certain antagonistic attitudes towards people of other beliefs, colours and sexualities. While I certainly did not act on those beliefs, they were pointless, irrational, and down right wrong. I dropped them. Soem of my familiy members have retained those traits though.

But I am the smartest one in my family. Certainly I am the least functional, but my mores and morals are the most rational.

If someone were schizophrenic in my family, they would be, by the very definition, someone that acts irrationally, or experiences non-rational things. Assigning degrees or rationality as a measure against mental illness, I am the most sane person in my family. I am the only Aspie. Nobody else in my family is clinically insane in any sort of way. Their prejudices are minor and not atypical.

I'm babbling.

While the rest of them were busy with the "he said, she said" business of life, I was reading and thinking. I had that extra study time, and I believe that is why I am smarter, and less prejudiced than they. I also didnt pick up on the conveyed feelings.

So no, AS spectrum is not a mental illness.

Ah…that’s that thread not this one. I don't think he accepts himself personally since he cannot accept others.

Yes, I am definitely who I am; I don’t wish to change to what I’m not. Changing…forcing myself to be “normal” causes unbearable pain to me, so I live how I am without lie. Professionals tell me that how I live is an “illness” because I’m…uh, different and disabled compared to who they are and how they want me to be, i.e., "normal". *SHRUG* I cannot argue with that when they’re the majority and I’m the minority. Luckily they don’t try and force (physical force) us to live like them anymore….

I certainly felt ill when I grew up as a “normal” individual, I still feel ill now as an human with a mental disorder…far worse than any viral infection I’ve experienced, and they call that an illness.

I know what I want to be; the thing is this: how much is that from "me" and how much is that from the "me" who sees things as too difficult [due to the social retardation]? Which “me” is the true “me”?

Very interesting viewpoint.

That lies at the heart of it all. There is a threshold, is there not, that we must climb. At the bottom lies dysfunction, and over the hill lies perfection. But nobody ever gets over the hill.

I am told by occupational therapists that I have little awareness of self improvement. Every NT hits a limit, and thats as far as they advance in their careers. There is a book on it, called, I believe, "the peter principal" or something. You rise to your personal level of minimal incompetence, and there you stay! Choosing the right career will allow your aptitudes to advance you to a greater degree. The peter principal is lessened.

I should track that book down.

So we struggle up the metaphorical hill. The higher we climb, the more the warm winds of perfection blow over us, but the harder it gets to climb. Its steeper too. At some point, we are simply kicking our feet furiously and sliding back at the same rate as we are going forward. Its painful. I am not talking about AS people, but rather all humanity. Those that stop struggling find peace, but stagnation.

No pain, but no joy either. And no joy is painful in its own right.

But thats common failure of mind with AS. We dont see that to grow, to change, doesnt negate who we are. Its not becoming someone else, or someone you dont want to be. To change means that you can scramble sideways too, to find a better path upwards. But to think that we can choose not to change is fallacy. It will be thrust upon us one way or another, and we cannot always see pleasant ways that we may grow.

The degree of pain is an indicator of how much our limits are being stretched, and NTs feel that too. I cannot see it, but I am told it is there, and its logical to believe in it.

I should say that to grow means that you fullfill your potential rather than becoming something else. That trollish poster makes minimal use of his 90 IQ. Mine is 127 or so, but if I wanted to be a defeated twat, mine would be too. In grade one, I tested at 99. I was mortified. It never occured to me that half the class would be the same or lower!

So I use big words. I type the same sentence five times over if I need to, just to say exactly what I want. I have a dozen books on business, people networking, body language... and I am still not functional enough to support myself!

But I owned my very own business for 4 years. I was in the clear with no debts on it. It was social failure on my part that brought it down, but I know I can get there again if I want. And that gives me a peace of mind that giving up never could.

Eloquently said, Fuzzy. I find that if things are becoming too comfortable in my life, it tends to drag me into a complacency that is hard to step away from. The effort put forth to stretch out is painful at times but is necessary. Some of the things I want to accomplish in life require that I go beyond my current comfort level. For the most part, this is an acceptable risk to my psyche.

I struggle with what limits to push with my son's experience and therapies. It is not a matter of achieving anyone's notion of perfection but to be able to be part of society when it is needed; not to be of the same collective mentality that everyone is supposed to blindly follow.

Interesting stuff.

Not going to say much more then one word. See if that might enter in at some point or someone might find it relevant.

"imprinting"

From a physiological standpoint, there are neuroanatomical differences in cerebral structure that point to "causes" for the autism spectrum. Specifically, ASDs tend to have a smaller amygdala and hypothalamus than normal (both structures are implicated in memory formation and overwhelming emotion). Further, postmortem dissection of autistic brains has shown that where a normal brain has a higher concentration of "gray" cells, which can transmit signals over greater distances quickly, autistic brains tend to have a higher concentration of "white" cells, which form more local connections. (It's rather like an NT's thoughts get on the freeway, and head for the express lane, while ours take the side streets and pick up the occasional hitchhiker.)

Evolutionarily speaking, our AS ancestors would have been at a disadvantage in the wild - the NT tendency to pay attention to exactly what everyone else is doing, rather than focusing on the task at hand, would have given them an edge in a world where one's death was likely to come leaping out of the jungle at any moment. Once civilizations started forming, though, AS became more evolutionarily practical, even necessary. Somebody's got to invent architecture and maths and logic and positional notation, after all. If it weren't for those early Aspies, we'd probably never have moved beyond the tribal stage of organization. (Hey, maybe that's one of the underlying causes of all that mess in the Middle East - maybe they don't have enough Aspies in their population to pull it all together!)

In conclusion, while AS is a mixed blessing, it should not of itself be considered a mental illness. On the other hand, certain serotonin-related functions of the autistic brain can leave an ASD at greater risk of developing Major Depressive Disorder, which is a mental illness, and is treatable with medication.