Asperger Syndrome

[entheogensmurf]

I have noticed that a couple people mentioned that they have aspergers syndrom. Are you just joking or for real?

The reason I'm asking is cause my stepson's mother claims he has that although the doctors have not confirmed it. Nevertheless, he's on medication, I think Resperdal, and I think it's all JUST wrong to have him on this heavy medication especially at his age. He's only 14.

I would appreciate any of your advice.

You should find useful info on:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/

I will be testing for AS later this week or next. There is a high probability that an official diagnosis will yield "Yes sir, you do in fact have AS." It will be interesting to convey the results to my parents, as it will explain quite a bit from my childhood.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

Aspergers is a severe form of introversion and a minor form of Autism. It falls directly in between the two.

"Introversion" isn't a disorder, it's a symptom. And aspergers isn't a form of autism - mild or otherwise.

Do you mind if I ask where you got your psychology/neurobiology/psychiatry degree?

Asperger's is a form of high functioning autism.

[WizShaw]

Aspergers is a severe form of introversion and a minor form of Autism. It falls directly in between the two.

"Introversion" isn't a disorder, it's a symptom. And aspergers isn't a form of autism - mild or otherwise.

Do you mind if I ask where you got your psychology/neurobiology/psychiatry degree?

Did I say it was a disorder? Do I even have the power to classify things as such? No, I said it was one path of many that brain development can take.

And it is a form of Autism in my opinion, there are people on both sides of the argument though.

[Mr.Samsa]

Aspergers is a severe form of introversion and a minor form of Autism. It falls directly in between the two.

"Introversion" isn't a disorder, it's a symptom. And aspergers isn't a form of autism - mild or otherwise.

Do you mind if I ask where you got your psychology/neurobiology/psychiatry degree?

Asperger's is a form of high functioning autism.

It's on the autistic spectrum - along with autism (which arguably can be split into mild and severe) and pervasive developmental disorder. But Aspergers is not a form of autism as aspergers and high-functioning autism are separate conditions (although confusable due to similar symptoms, they have different classification criteria).

Aspergers is a severe form of introversion and a minor form of Autism. It falls directly in between the two.

"Introversion" isn't a disorder, it's a symptom. And aspergers isn't a form of autism - mild or otherwise.

Do you mind if I ask where you got your psychology/neurobiology/psychiatry degree?

Did I say it was a disorder? Do I even have the power to classify things as such? No, I said it was a one path brain development can take.

Just the way you phrased it is confusing. You said that aspergers falls between introversion and autism - since autism is a disorder which can include the symptom of introversion, I assumed that you must be using some definition of introversion where it is a disorder.

The main point was that Aspergers is not a form of autism. If you don't understand the distinction then I don't think you should be pushing your ideas of "logic minus emotion = mental disorder" until you do some serious study into the science behind these disorders and psychology in general..

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

Aspergers is a severe form of introversion and a minor form of Autism. It falls directly in between the two.

People with AS aren't always introverted. I was as a little kid, but I outgrew it by my mid-teens. However, non-introverts who have it often have difficulty with appropriate social interaction.

That is completely true, it depends what parts of the brain are affected. Which in turn affects the way the person functions.

You are going to have to elaborate on the "difficulty with appropriate social interaction."

But essentially what I think you mean, is that extroverted people with AS have trouble with the conscious part of the expression and fitting in to a social situation. Ether by making weird comments that don't allow proper integration into the conversation, or they have subjective insight that throws people off. In my opinion, this means that the Limbic system is healthy, but the pre-frontal cortex is still dominate and retains the cyclical nature of thought patterns that are more based on observation then expression creating that difficulty in relating to a rather objective situation where everybody is just sitting around talking.

As a kid I hated group situations. Hated, hated, hated. I don't mind them now, but they're not my favorite. Yes, I would throw in weird comments that I would never hear the end of. I still make weird comments, but I make them knowing that they're weird and people who hear them understand that I'm just trying to exhibit my quirky sense of humor. If someone seems genuinely weirded out, I just say, "What? You're looking at me like I have three heads," as a way of laughing it off but communicating that I understand I sounded weird.

Okay, let me give you an example of a social cue that someone with AS might miss:

When I was at the Dawkins signing at Barnes & Noble a couple weeks ago, I gave RD a drawing of his funniest moments and a short pro-life satire I'd written, "The Menstruation Ban Trilogy." To my great surprise, he thanked me enthusiastically. Then I went on to say that I'd met him twice before. I reminded him that I was the one who had asked him to write, "I don't dress women; they dress themselves!" in my book just days before (which he did remember). Then I started to tell him that the previous year when I'd met him I had told him that The Blind Watchmaker made me an atheist (I knew he probably wouldn't remember, but I figured it didn't hurt to ask). Before I could finish the sentence, the moderator said, "Okay, thank you," and Dawkins followed suit. I recognized this was my cue to exit-- after all, I had been talking to Dawkins for about two minutes, and he'd been kind enough to give the drawing genuine attention despite the long line forming behind me. Someone with Asperger's might interpret the "Thank you" as "Thank you, continue." I can't say exactly when I would have interpreted that way, but I'm sure I would have at some point in my life. Maybe when I was 10...

Julie

That is still a form of introversion, self serving tendencies designed to express one self based on a immediate need. Therefore, the problem is the relation to the way information is processed. This would outline a dominate right hemisphere, and a healthy limbic system. Expression + Understanding words - the concept of the intention (Left hemisphere). But in this case, the expression serves a subjective need by the brain itself, one that lays in the unconscious and out of sight.

Now since the hemispheres are used in a unbalanced way, there is a lack of integration and social cues will be missed.

I was kinda the same way, what I gave you, was me, I wanted to be extroverted growing up, but I simply could not. But as I hit about 22 or so, I just started throwing myself into regular situations (usually high) and I was able to adapt with time. I still have a uncontrollable hunger for information and I still make weird comments from time to time, but all in all, just by getting myself into the world I made huge strides in basic communication and became much happier as a result.

I read somewhere that it's only the male brain that has the right side responsible for certain tasks and the left for others. With the female brain the distribution is different.

[WizShaw]

Aspergers is a severe form of introversion and a minor form of Autism. It falls directly in between the two.

"Introversion" isn't a disorder, it's a symptom. And aspergers isn't a form of autism - mild or otherwise.

Do you mind if I ask where you got your psychology/neurobiology/psychiatry degree?

Asperger's is a form of high functioning autism.

It's on the autistic spectrum - along with autism (which arguably can be split into mild and severe) and pervasive developmental disorder. But Aspergers is not a form of autism as aspergers and high-functioning autism are separate conditions (although confusable due to similar symptoms, they have different classification criteria).

Aspergers is a severe form of introversion and a minor form of Autism. It falls directly in between the two.

"Introversion" isn't a disorder, it's a symptom. And aspergers isn't a form of autism - mild or otherwise.

Do you mind if I ask where you got your psychology/neurobiology/psychiatry degree?

Did I say it was a disorder? Do I even have the power to classify things as such? No, I said it was a one path brain development can take.

Just the way you phrased it is confusing. You said that aspergers falls between introversion and autism - since autism is a disorder which can include the symptom of introversion, I assumed that you must be using some definition of introversion where it is a disorder.

The main point was that Aspergers is not a form of autism. If you don't understand the distinction then I don't think you should be pushing your ideas of "logic minus emotion = mental disorder" until you do some serious study into the science behind these disorders and psychology in general..

Thanks for your opinion. But I think you should reserve it for somebody who doesn't understand it. Ive done loads of reading on a ton of dif disorders, the brain and the like. I completely understand the distinction between them.

Just because you have an opinion on a controversial subject, doesnt make it right, information changes all the time. As far as I can tell, you learn things directly from the text book and never cross reference any of it.

Context is king when trying to understand something like a disorder. Without it, you just have information, pride and comments like where is your degree on the subject.

In my opinion, its completely ignorant and are only adding to the problem that a one track mind creates.

[WizShaw]

I read somewhere that it's only the male brain that has the right side responsible for certain tasks and the left for others. With the female brain the distribution is different.

That’s incorrect, in the new magazine I just picked up, they did a feature on a women who only had her right hemisphere and she exhibits the exact same problems that you’re outlining.

The difference in my opinion between males and females is that one thinks with emotion and one thinks with logic. Each translates to the way they view the world and when they come together they balance each other out. Logic is an outward trait and one used to assess the environment, needed for hunting, obtaining new mates and survival. Emotion and interpersonal connection was enhanced by living in large groups which created roles within the community dividing positions based on sex and physical capability. Essentially one feeds the other. It’s also the reason why the brain in a women is more integrated, as the development is based on social relations and networking while a males brain has a larger limbic system and frontal cortex. Essentially our actions and roles in the environment influence the makeup of the brain. And brain function strengthens over time accentuating those traits.

[Mr.Samsa]

Well that's a weird argument...

Thanks for your opinion. But I think you should reserve it for somebody who doesn't understand it. Ive done loads of reading on a ton of dif disorders, the brain and the like. I completely understand the distinction between them.

So you claim that aspergers is a mild form of autism, despite the fact that you know that it isn't? Why would you do that? (It's also disingenuous to make it sound like the scientific consensus on this particular topic is simply my "opinion").

Just because you have an opinion on a controversial subject, doesnt make it right, information changes all the time. As far as I can tell, you learn things directly from the text book and never cross reference any of it.

This is the weird part. Yes, science changes all the time. But that doesn't mean we should assume that it's currently wrong and make stuff up. Your argument is equivalent to saying: "Yes, all the evidence currently supports evolution. However, science changes all the time, therefore creationism is correct".

Disagreeing with scientific consensus is fine, in fact it's encouraged. But you need reasons. So why do you think the current classification is wrong?

Context is king when trying to understand something like a disorder. Without it, you just have information, pride and comments like where is your degree on the subject.

In my opinion, its completely ignorant.

What is context? It's information.

Pride? I don't know what you're talking about. I've just been pointing out the parts of your posts that are inconsistent with science.

As for "comments like where is your degree on the subject", you'll note that I didn't say that. I politely asked if you would mind telling me where you gained your information on mental disorders. I asked because you seem to be making the same mistakes a first year psych student would make.

It's great that you're interested in teaching yourself but you have to realise that your ideas are either inconsistent with the current understanding of mental disorders, or sometimes are so ambiguous they don't even make sense. Talking about "logic" and "emotion" as if they are discrete categories whose presence or absence creates some sort of mental disorder is just... honestly, nuts.

Read some journal articles. Scour google scholar, it's a great resource. Stay away from any psychology books that don't reference experimental research. And definitely stay away from Freud, Jung or anyone who calls themselves an psychoanalyst.

...and are only adding to the problem that a one track mind creates.

How is honestly studying the research and investigating all viable options a one track mind?

[WizShaw]

So you claim that aspergers is a mild form of autism, despite the fact that you know that it isn't? Why would you do that? (It's also disingenuous to make it sound like the scientific consensus on this particular topic is simply my "opinion").

No I never made the classification, nor do I have the power too. But I do claim that the symptoms are in fact connected. I also acknowledge that there are certain traits about the disorder that would allow somebody to not function properly in society and in that sense, its just a series of compromises leading to a state of brain development that performs in a certain way.

The problem I have with the whole basis of DSM classification is that it is a bunch of standard stamped classifications to outline a disorder. Yet the process leading up to such objective observations lacks the fundamental component that evolution provides. The integration simply isn’t there and the theory behind why it happens HAS to include this otherwise the connections between thought patterns and the disorders is never connected. So in that regards, it’s just a bunch of limited data.

This is the weird part. Yes, science changes all the time. But that doesn't mean we should assume that it's currently wrong and make stuff up. Your argument is equivalent to saying: "Yes, all the evidence currently supports evolution. However, science changes all the time, therefore creationism is correct".

I didn’t make anything up. And your example is completely false as I am only considering what is currently known about the disorder but integrating it all in a different way. Why would I change the emphasize over to something completely different?

Disagreeing with scientific consensus is fine, in fact it's encouraged. But you need reasons. So why do you think the current classification is wrong?

The only difference between Aspergers and Autism is that one is able to accept emotion (while not giving it back) and the other completely rejects it. This clearly points to greater integration between the regions of the mind and better development overall. That’s not to say that there aren’t different types of the disorders, because there are, but in order to explain it, you need a universal constant that takes into account the two fundamental components of evolution. Expansion and consolidation. This rule applies to the brain, nations, and business. Everything that you can think of and always results in some type of compromise. A compromise that remains dynamic as long as you can establish all the variables. In the brains case, there are 4 components. Logic, emotional expression, memory and the dynamic factor that drives everything is stimuli. These four things make up ALL disorder. Well all the disorders associated with psychological influence/deficits in the brain etc... minus things like chromosome malfunction, mental retardation etc.

What is context? It's information.

Context is information that is properly assessed and integrated. Our DSM is just information.

Pride? I don't know what you're talking about. I've just been pointing out the parts of your posts that are inconsistent with science.

Only to you and what you deem as science.

As for "comments like where is your degree on the subject", you'll note that I didn't say that. I politely asked if you would mind telling me where you gained your information on mental disorders. I asked because you seem to be making the same mistakes a first year psych student would make.

No it’s the constant reference to it that is the issue. It also relates to how you process information. That’s why I included an explanation.

It's great that you're interested in teaching yourself but you have to realise that your ideas are either inconsistent with the current understanding of mental disorders, or sometimes are so ambiguous they don't even make sense. Talking about "logic" and "emotion" as if they are discrete categories whose presence or absence creates some sort of mental disorder is just... honestly, nuts.

It’s not nuts. Break down the mind fundamentally into four components. And everything (except whats stated above) falls under one of the categories or is a combination of said categories.

Read some journal articles. Scour google scholar, it's a great resource. Stay away from any psychology books that don't reference experimental research. And definitely stay away from Freud, Jung or anyone who calls themselves an psychoanalyst.

Do you even know what you’re saying? There are two sides to the coin and one affects the other, their teachings come from a point of view where thought patterns influence brain physiology, where as science, not surprisingly attacks the subject from the other end. You are going to find that the real answer lies between both. And more and more evidence as of late is coming to that conclusion.

How is honestly studying the research and investigating all viable options a one track mind?

[/quote]

But you’re not, your only studying/reading it from the science angle. And that limits your insight into causation.

[Mr.Samsa]

So you claim that aspergers is a mild form of autism, despite the fact that you know that it isn't? Why would you do that? (It's also disingenuous to make it sound like the scientific consensus on this particular topic is simply my "opinion").

No I never made the classification, nor do I have the power too.

But you said: "Aspergers is a severe form of introversion and a minor form of Autism."

If that's not what you meant and you didn't mean to suggest that apsergers is a form of autism then that's fine.

But I acknowledge that there are certain traits about the disorder that would allow somebody to not function properly in society.

Obviously.. If the person could function in society then it wouldn't be a mental disorder, by definition.

The problem I have with the whole basis of DSM classification is that it is a bunch of standard stamped classifications to outline a disorder. Yet the process leading up to such objective observations lacks the fundamental component that evolution provides. The integration simply isn’t there and the theory behind why it happens HAS to include this otherwise the connections between thought patterns and the disorders is never connected. So in that regards, it’s just a bunch of limited data.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Understanding the causes of something is not relevant at all to classification. Knowing someone's evolutionary history is irrelevant when looking at how they are currently functioning in society. That being said, understanding how certain evolutionary events could bring about or cause these mental disorders is a valid area of science, and that's why it's currently one of the most popular fields of psychology. The results of which are at odds with your ideas.

This is the weird part. Yes, science changes all the time. But that doesn't mean we should assume that it's currently wrong and make stuff up. Your argument is equivalent to saying: "Yes, all the evidence currently supports evolution. However, science changes all the time, therefore creationism is correct".

I didn’t make anything up. And your example is completely false as I am only considering what is currently known about the disorder but integrating it all in a different way. Why would I change the emphasize over to something completely different?

You're using terms like "logic" and "emotion" and "mind" as if they are real things that cause genetic defects during pregnancy! What part of science is that?

Disagreeing with scientific consensus is fine, in fact it's encouraged. But you need reasons. So why do you think the current classification is wrong?

The only difference between Aspergers and Autism is that one is able to accept emotion (while not giving it back) and the other completely rejects it.

No.. No, that's not a difference between the two at all. There are many, many differences but that certainly isn't one of them. Are you able to link me to some research suggesting that this is a difference between the two?

This clearly points to greater integration between the regions of the mind and better development overall. That’s not to say that there aren’t different types of the disorders, because there are, but in order to explain it, you need a universal constant that takes into account the two fundamental components of evolution. Expansion and consolidation.

Expansion and consolidation? What part of evolution is that?!

This rule applies to the brain, nations, and business.

Nations and businesses aren't living organisms so they can't evolve, except in a metaphorical sense.

Everything that you can think of and always results in some type of compromise. A compromise that remains dynamic as long as you can establish all the variables. In the brains case, there are 4 components. Logic, emotional expression, memory and the dynamic factor that drives everything is stimuli. These four things make up ALL disorder.

Four components? Why do you think this? The things you have listed are learned traits, not actual parts of the brain.

What is context? It's information.

Information that is not properly integrated.

Why do you think this? Psychology, as an entire field, is based on the idea of context.

Pride? I don't know what you're talking about. I've just been pointing out the parts of your posts that are inconsistent with science.

Only to you and what you deem as science.

No, it's what science deems as science. It's not my opinion.

As for "comments like where is your degree on the subject", you'll note that I didn't say that. I politely asked if you would mind telling me where you gained your information on mental disorders. I asked because you seem to be making the same mistakes a first year psych student would make.

No it’s the constant reference to it that is the issue. It also relates to how you process information. That’s why I included an explanation.

Constant reference? I don't remember asking before. I probably have but that's just because your ideas don't fit into science.

It's great that you're interested in teaching yourself but you have to realise that your ideas are either inconsistent with the current understanding of mental disorders, or sometimes are so ambiguous they don't even make sense. Talking about "logic" and "emotion" as if they are discrete categories whose presence or absence creates some sort of mental disorder is just... honestly, nuts.

It’s not nuts. Break down the mind fundamentally into four components. And everything falls under one of the categories.

The mind doesn't objectively exist - it's the collective name we give to how we understand the integrative processes of the brain. And no, the brain (and our interpretation of it) does not fall into four components - and certainly not the components you argue for. Can you back up any of your claims with research? What scientist argues that the "mind" is composed of "four components" and how did they establish this?

Read some journal articles. Scour google scholar, it's a great resource. Stay away from any psychology books that don't reference experimental research. And definitely stay away from Freud, Jung or anyone who calls themselves an psychoanalyst.

Do you even know what you’re saying? There are two sides to the coin and one affects the other, their teachings come from a point of view where thought patterns influence brain physiology, where as science, not surprisingly attacks the subject from the other end. You are going to find that the real answer lies between both. And more and more evidence as of late is coming to that conclusion.

We already know that what we think and learn affects the structures of the brain - we know this because we performed experiments and tested it. This is the position of science - that the brain affects thoughts, and our experiences affect brain matter. Your assertion that science "attacks the subject from the other end" is not only demonstrably false, it's also demonstrates a very poor understanding of what science is and how it works.

This still doesn't support your position though, and Freud etc are still very, very wrong. If you're getting your information from books written by psychoanalysts, then that's your problem. Burn them, use them as door stoppers, fuck wipe your ass with them - they have many uses but providing useful information on human psychology is not one of them.

How is honestly studying the research and investigating all viable options a one track mind?

But you’re not, your only reading it from the science angle.

The science angle? What other "angle" is there? The "make shit up" angle?

EDIT: Fixed quote tag.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

You don't take medication to treat Asperger's. You take it to treat conditions that are comorbid with it... like OCD for example.

I heard that many girls with AS tend to be very tomboyish. Well, if the theory that more testosterone in the womb is a factor leading to AS is correct, then that would make a lot of sense... as I, myself, am a tomboy. My mom goes to a neurologist with AS, and she dresses unfeminine too. So does someone with AS that I have since lost touch with... I'd like to see more studies on this.

Also, as for an out of control kid, before you do medications, try a strict healthy diet and exercise. I've heard that many cases of ADD, for example, are caused by poor nutrition and no exercise.

[Mr.Samsa]

You don't take medication to treat Asperger's. You take it to treat conditions that are comorbid with it... like OCD for example.

I heard that many girls with AS tend to be very tomboyish. Well, if the theory that more testosterone in the womb is a factor leading to AS is correct, then that would make a lot of sense... as I, myself, am a tomboy. My mom goes to a neurologist with AS, and she dresses unfeminine too. So does someone with AS that I have since lost touch with... I'd like to see more studies on this.

Also, as for an out of control kid, before you do medications, try a strict healthy diet and exercise. I've heard that many cases of ADD, for example, are caused by poor nutrition and no exercise.

I'm not sure what the evidence is behind the testosterone idea, but I think I've heard something like that as well. To be honest though, I think a more plausible explanation (off the top of my head) would be that because people with AS have difficulties with social interactions, they are less susceptible to culturally enforced gender roles. If people don't pick up on the subtle clues that suggest they should wear dresses, or act "like a lady" then obviously they won't and so their behavior will appear to be tomboyish.

This would also explain why boys with AS don't act more 'masculine' than their peers - since if increased testosterone levels were a factor, you'd imagine that theirs would be even higher than their peers?

Interesting idea though, I'll have to read up on it.

[A Monkey Shaved]

I was diagnosed when I was 7 in the days when Asperger Syndrome was not recognised in much of the English speaking world. Since Aspergers was unknown to most mental health professionals I was diagnosed with autism instead for my ritualized behaviour, poor social skills and lack of affective contact which is the old Kanners criteria for the condition. I was and still am a very poor communicator but better than average with logical an diagrammatic skills. A child with the same condition these days would probably be diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome or "high functioning autism".

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

You don't take medication to treat Asperger's. You take it to treat conditions that are comorbid with it... like OCD for example.

I heard that many girls with AS tend to be very tomboyish. Well, if the theory that more testosterone in the womb is a factor leading to AS is correct, then that would make a lot of sense... as I, myself, am a tomboy. My mom goes to a neurologist with AS, and she dresses unfeminine too. So does someone with AS that I have since lost touch with... I'd like to see more studies on this.

Also, as for an out of control kid, before you do medications, try a strict healthy diet and exercise. I've heard that many cases of ADD, for example, are caused by poor nutrition and no exercise.

I'm not sure what the evidence is behind the testosterone idea, but I think I've heard something like that as well. To be honest though, I think a more plausible explanation (off the top of my head) would be that because people with AS have difficulties with social interactions, they are less susceptible to culturally enforced gender roles. If people don't pick up on the subtle clues that suggest they should wear dresses, or act "like a lady" then obviously they won't and so their behavior will appear to be tomboyish.

This would also explain why boys with AS don't act more 'masculine' than their peers - since if increased testosterone levels were a factor, you'd imagine that theirs would be even higher than their peers?

Interesting idea though, I'll have to read up on it.

That could be part of it, but I think a lot of it might be biological. I was excruciatingly aware that people wanted me to be more feminine, and I fought tooth and nail to not be crammed into a dress or be forced to do anything that was considered "gender appropriate." It felt wrong and inauthentic.

[anunseenruler]

My six year old son and I are both Aspie. Last year was his first year of school and he was having trouble with his fine motor skills, so he was assigned an OT to help him. Whilst he was working with her she noticed that he had some Aspie traits and she told us about them. When she told us, I thought holy shit I'm like that too. So we both went and saw a specialist and we were both diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome. It has been good because knowing that I have Asperger's Syndrome has answered a lot of questions that I've had through out my life.

Same here. My son just turned seven. He was flagged at four and finally diagnosed at age six. As he was being tested for his diagnosis, many things began to ring true for myself. I sympathized with my sons struggles in school and social interaction because they reminded me of my own. I understand his struggles, his frustrations, and the general nastiness he received due to his differences as they were the same for me. The clincher was reading Tim Page's own account of a life with undiagnosed AS in The New Yorker. His experiences of school, music and even dating resonated with my life. I self tested, received an extreme score for AS, and was finally diagnosed at age 41.

I read this through this entire thread in turns angry by the prejudice and assumptions (the echoes of"Refrigerator Mom" syndrome in the OP and some of the posts), heartened by the supportive and considerate advice of some, and frustrated by the misunderstandings of others.

Coincidentally, I am writing this on the day of a victory for my Aspie son in the educational system. Today was his hearing to have his suspension from grade 1 expunged from his record. It is a great victory as it now seems the school board is willing to acknowledge his condition and help us to help him get the support he needs. It is a necessary step toward changing attitudes (the Educational Assistant in his classroom simply believes that he is "overindulged". If she only knew.)

Some thoughts:

On the OP

I don't know the mother in question or her son and not even a psychologist worth his/her salt would diagnose or make a judgment without a first person assessment. That said, if the boy does have Asperger's, treatment outside of professional intervention could be very damaging (as noted by someone else). Arm chair psychological techniques, punishment, and tough love can backfire as Aspies do not respond in the same emotional way that NTs do (the term means Neurotypical)

Kudos to you for wanting to help the boy and it sounds like he has come a long way. The mother did not "cause" the disorder in her son, though her actions may have exasperated it. Taking him out of that environment may have been the best thing for him. It also seems like the mother may need the same sort of help and understanding, though I it may be difficult to give for all sorts of reasons. AS is an inheritable disorder. Most AS individuals require "taking care of" to some extent. One of the hallmarks of AS is an impairment of what is called Executive Function. They often cannot organize, keep a job, and have disastrous financial abilities (I have declared bankruptcy myself though I am determined never to be there again). Her choices make sense if she is truly AS. I have considered homelessness many times myself as I have often thought my family would be better off without me. This is a rational choice to those who cannot perceive or understand the emotional consequences in others of such decisions.

Tim Page's book "Parallel Play" opens with an apt and wonderful quote: "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle."

Asperger's and Autism

The DSM IV(1994) classifies Asperger's Syndrome as one of the autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and is a subset of the broader autism phenotype. Outside of the DSM there is hardly consensus and in fact there is a proposal for DSM V to fold ASD and PDD etc. into the general autism category preferring to assign degrees of severity (similar to calling AS "mild" or "high functioning" and as opposed to full or severe autism).

Characteristics and Function

Through my life I have adapted to some extent. I have a career and hold down a good job. This is due to a lot of cognitive therapy since age 33 (I was initially diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder, a common diagnosis for AS adults especially at point of change in their lives.) Growing up I preferred the company of adults and girls as they were "safe". Boys who thought you were weird and different tended to thump you. I also had a lot of oddball friends. A good number of my adolescent friends turned out to be gay. I associated with "safe" outsiders.

I have a difficult time with social situations. In my twenties, the woman who would become my ex-wife (and helped and took care of me) would admonish me for sitting through dinner parties without saying one sentence. I developed communication skills by and by though I find parties, meetings and social gatherings exhausting to the point where, in extreme cases, I might need an entire weekend to recover. As a comparative, a large social gathering is as exhausting to an Aspie as an iron-man marathon might be to a long distance runner (main difference being that the runner might actually enjoy the marathon).

I don't look people in the eye or if I do it is through concerted effort. If I don't do it properly some may interpret it as me being "creepy". It seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation sometimes. Eye contact for me is at best distracting and uncomfortable. At worst it is painful. Some studies suggest that Autistic individuals may avoid eye contact because it over stimulates the part of the brain that processes fear and emotion. As one Aspie describes it: "Looking at faces is quite mentally demanding. We get useful information from faces when listening to someone, but human faces are very stimulating and all this takes processing. So when we are trying to concentrate and process something else that's mentally demanding, it's unhelpful to look at faces."
When making eye contact it is very easy for me to lose my train of thought. A general strategy is to look at the forehead just above the midpoint between the eyes.

My obsessions as a child ranged from sharks, to astronomy and the Apollo Space program, to logos and typefaces. In college, I become obsessed with database programming and data collection. I programmed my own planisphere in Turbo Pascal.

Thankfully the overarching obsession in my life was music. It was more socially acceptable to talk about than say vacuum cleaners or washing machines, which is the subject that I could have I latched on to. Nevertheless, making too fine a point about the Kosmische influence on David Bowie's Berlin Trilogy can turn more than a few people off.

Medication

I am not sure what to say about this. Low dose anti-psychotics have been recommended for me in order to help take the edge off my reaction to certain situations. I can go into rages when pushed (though I do this in the "comfort" of home rather than at work). I do know that if I were a diabetic, I would take insulin. I see little difference between the two. I cannot comment on giving children or adolescents drugs as I am a not a doctor, though I know it would be a last ditch resort where my son is concerned.

Most Aspies, including myself, suffer from anxiety and often depression. There are complications that arise from this including bowel and digestion difficulties and it has been suggested, blood pressure abnormalities (as mentioned be Kiki in the case of the boy in her care).

Iron deficiency isn't uncommon either. I and my son supplement and it seems to help with fatigue.

In conclusion, I hope that these insights might clarify and help. In the interest of understanding this disorder, I welcome any comments and am willing to answer any questions anyone might have.

Cheers!

[A Monkey Shaved]

Temple Grandin is a good example of a very Tom-boyish female with autism as I was watch the documentary "the woman who thinks like a cow" she so strongly scoffed at taking any interest in woman's beauty magazines or taking any interest in girly soap operas which had strong emphasis on female relationships. I assume that would be particularly true with "the Bold and the Beautiful" which is one show I really despise. She was much more interested in scientific magazines such as Scientific American.

[InYourFaceNewYorker]

Temple Grandin is a good example of a very Tom-boyish female with autism as I was watch the documentary "the woman who thinks like a cow" she so strongly scoffed at taking any interest in woman's beauty magazines or taking any interest in girly soap operas which had strong emphasis on female relationships. I assume that would be particularly true with "the Bold and the Beautiful" which is one show I really despise. She was much more interested in scientific magazines such as Scientific American.

Yeah I met her. She is pretty butch. Had I not known she was asexual, I would have thought she was gay.

[WizShaw]

But you said: "Aspergers is a severe form of introversion and a minor form of Autism."

If that's not what you meant and you didn't mean to suggest that apsergers is a form of autism then that's fine.

How else could I describe such things, is it not currently the best way to convey an idea? Just because I used them, doesnt mean I completely agree with the end result and how they were diagnosed.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Im not going to explain it again.

Understanding the causes of something is not relevant at all to classification. Knowing someone's evolutionary history is irrelevant when looking at how they are currently functioning in society. That being said, understanding how certain evolutionary events could bring about or cause these mental disorders is a valid area of science, and that's why it's currently one of the most popular fields of psychology. The results of which are at odds with your ideas.

But it is relavent to understanding where the tree of disorder comes from and gives insight on how these events relate to eachother, and in my opinion gives a broader more complete understanding of the disorder itself, and this would change the system in how things are classified.

You're using terms like "logic" and "emotion" and "mind" as if they are real things that cause genetic defects during pregnancy! What part of science is that?

Im just referring to how plastic the brain is and thought patterns as well as hormonal conditions definetely influence the physiological make up of how the brain ends up, that is science, and I never said Autism is a genetic defect. And in my opinion its not. Just because twins are subject to the disorder doesnt mean it has a genetic basis, it means that they were predisposed to the same hormonal conditions. We know this when we compare the various causation of the disorder. The vaccine for example creates an aggressive response from the body which overloads the nervous system expanding the neural state in the amygdala. Or a cold mother never develops the proper synapse connections in the brain causing aspergers. In all the cases, it comes down the expansion vs. consolidation principle. You just have to find the universal constant between all the types and you have the culprit.

No.. No, that's not a difference between the two at all. There are many, many differences but that certainly isn't one of them. Are you able to link me to some research suggesting that this is a difference between the two?

Yes it is the main difference, just generalize for just a second and you can clearly see that, the other examples all relate to it in some way. The more rigid the impairment, the less expressional capability there is to be seen. As expression increases, so does imagination, repetition subsides and general action becomes better over time.

Aspergers

Asperger's disorder, which is also called Asperger's syndrome (AS) or autistic psychopathy, belongs to a group of childhood disorders known as pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs) or autistic spectrum disorders. The essential features of Asperger's disorder are severe social interaction impairment and restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior and activities. It is similar to autism , but children with Asperger's do not have the same difficulties in acquiring language that children with autism have.

Autism

The term "autism" refers to a cluster of conditions appearing early in childhood. All involve severe impairments in social interaction, communication, imaginative abilities, and rigid, repetitive behaviors. To be considered an autistic disorder, some of these impairments must be manifest before the age of three.

Each child diagnosed with an autistic disorder differs from every other, and so general descriptions of autistic behavior and characteristics do not apply equally to every child. Still, the common impairments in social interaction, communication and imagination, and rigid, repetitive behaviors make it possible to recognize children with these disorders, as they differ markedly from healthy children in many ways.

There are 4 levels of behavior that can classify the bulk of disorder.

Extroverted Objective - Healthy development
Extroverted Subjective - Healthy development with more prefrontal cortex influence over decisions being made.
Introverted Subjective - Compromised development, still can relate to environment but in a more subjective way.
Introverted Objective - Completely compromised and cyclical tendencies are objective to the environment through organization tendencies, this brings out savant abilities as only certain areas of the brain are used.

Autism falls at the bottom, where as aspergers is higher up on the scale.

Expansion and consolidation? What part of evolution is that?!

It refers to the tendency of the organism in relation to the environment which influences physical development. Its the sole reason why only 3 percent of life practices monogamy, as well as group settings and experiences enhanced brain development. It also takes into account sexual tendencies and social group status. But it can also be applied as a fundamental rule to the way things interact with eachother.

Nations and businesses aren't living organisms so they can't evolve, except in a metaphorical sense.

But they all adhere to certain rules, rules that have been expanded upon through evolutionary relationships.

Four components? Why do you think this? The things you have listed are learned traits, not actual parts of the brain.

Not learned, required, its part of evolution itself. Logic is organization, this is seen everywhere, Stimuli is the dynamic factor or what is known as movement, Memory is stored stimuli, and emotion is expression. This can be seen in all aspects of the universe. Life is an extension of it.

Why do you think this? Psychology, as an entire field, is based on the idea of context.

But it is segregated from the other fields and that is where it falters, I try and combine all fields of information which offers better insight into theory.

No, it's what science deems as science. It's not my opinion.

Then your view of it is limited in scope.

Constant reference? I don't remember asking before. I probably have but that's just because your ideas don't fit into science.

I believe you did in the other thread.

The mind doesn't objectively exist - it's the collective name we give to how we understand the integrative processes of the brain. And no, the brain (and our interpretation of it) does not fall into four components - and certainly not the components you argue for. Can you back up any of your claims with research? What scientist argues that the "mind" is composed of "four components" and how did they establish this?

The limbic system is the expression or emotional unit of the brain. Makes perfect sense as the nervous system feeds into it.

The frontal cortex is where the logic is processed, ironically, right behind the eyes where observation occurs. This is the logic center of the brain.

Memory resides in the parietal lobe, temporal lobes with both sensory and motor integration components. Obvious choice, right smack dab in the center. Where all memory can be accessed.

And stimuli is fed in through the nervous system, gives us something to compete for and even creates addiction in many disorders.

There are a few more components but they play secondary roles to the main four, like the motor function which is located right beside the emotional center of the brain. Again makes perfect sense.

We already know that what we think and learn affects the structures of the brain - we know this because we performed experiments and tested it. This is the position of science - that the brain affects thoughts, and our experiences affect brain matter. Your assertion that science "attacks the subject from the other end" is not only demonstrably false, it's also demonstrates a very poor understanding of what science is and how it works.

But that was the assuming right up till the early 80's, late nineties. Its only recently that the assumption has changed, but it is still assumed that it is a deficit in the brain that causes disorders, nobody is connecting the two, which is completely wrong in my opinion. Is everyone scared to stick their neck out because of the castration that will occur?

This still doesn't support your position though, and Freud etc are still very, very wrong. If you're getting your information from books written by psychoanalysts, then that's your problem. Burn them, use them as door stoppers, fuck wipe your ass with them - they have many uses but providing useful information on human psychology is not one of them.

You cant say he is all wrong, he layed out the anatomical mind and visualized how the brain worked via synapse connections among other things. Have you ever seen his exibits and his drawings, they are actually quite accurate and he did it all from subjective thought. There is some merit to that. I dont agree with his dream theories, as I have my own, but he mapped out the mind fairly accurately and you have to give credit where credit is due.

The science angle? What other "angle" is there? The "make shit up" angle?

You are practicing a limited angle of observation. Which limits your perspective on things. Just like the Autism/Aspergers thing. Really go over the details, recognize the compromises and connections between the two and they are pretty much the same disorder, only with differences in expression.

[WizShaw]

Im going to bed, got to get some sleep.

[Mr.Samsa]

Understanding the causes of something is not relevant at all to classification. Knowing someone's evolutionary history is irrelevant when looking at how they are currently functioning in society. That being said, understanding how certain evolutionary events could bring about or cause these mental disorders is a valid area of science, and that's why it's currently one of the most popular fields of psychology. The results of which are at odds with your ideas.

But it is relavent to understanding where the tree of disorder comes from and gives insight on how these events relate to eachother, and in my opinion gives a broader more complete understanding of the disorder itself, and this would change the system in how things are classified.

I don't see how understanding causes would change classifications. But it's a huge area of study so I don't understand what your issue with science is.

You're using terms like "logic" and "emotion" and "mind" as if they are real things that cause genetic defects during pregnancy! What part of science is that?

Im just referring to how plastic the brain is and thought patterns as well as hormonal conditions definetely influence the physiological make up of how the brain ends up, that is science, and I never said Autism is a genetic defect. And in my opinion its not.

It's great that you have opinions, but science disagrees with you.

Just because twins are subject to the disorder doesnt mean it has a genetic basis, it means that they were predisposed to the same hormonal conditions.

Yes, it's likely there's an epigenetic component, but the genes need to be there to begin with.

We know this when we compare the various causation of the disorder. The vaccine for example creates an aggressive response from the body which overloads the nervous system expanding the neural state in the amygdala.

Interesting idea. It's certainly wrong though given all the evidence we have to show that vaccines don't cause autism.

Or a cold mother never develops the proper synapse connections in the brain causing aspergers.

Also wrong.

In all the cases, it comes down the expansion vs. consolidation principle. You just have to find the universal constant between all the types and you have the culprit.

You haven't explained what this "expansion/consolidation" thing you've made up is though.

No.. No, that's not a difference between the two at all. There are many, many differences but that certainly isn't one of them. Are you able to link me to some research suggesting that this is a difference between the two?

Yes it is the main difference, just generalize for just a second and you can clearly see that, the other examples all relate to it in some way. The more rigid the impairment, the less expressional capability there is to be seen. As expression increases, so does imagination, repetition subsides and general action becomes better over time.

No, "accepting emotion" is not a difference between the two. No matter how hard you "generalise".

Aspergers

Asperger's disorder, which is also called Asperger's syndrome (AS) or autistic psychopathy, belongs to a group of childhood disorders known as pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs) or autistic spectrum disorders. The essential features of Asperger's disorder are severe social interaction impairment and restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior and activities. It is similar to autism , but children with Asperger's do not have the same difficulties in acquiring language that children with autism have.

Autism

The term "autism" refers to a cluster of conditions appearing early in childhood. All involve severe impairments in social interaction, communication, imaginative abilities, and rigid, repetitive behaviors. To be considered an autistic disorder, some of these impairments must be manifest before the age of three.

Each child diagnosed with an autistic disorder differs from every other, and so general descriptions of autistic behavior and characteristics do not apply equally to every child. Still, the common impairments in social interaction, communication and imagination, and rigid, repetitive behaviors make it possible to recognize children with these disorders, as they differ markedly from healthy children in many ways.

Remember, plagiarism is bad. You got your information from here: http://www.minddisorders.com/ You need to state that.

There are 4 levels of behavior that can classify the bulk of disorder.

Extroverted Objective - Healthy development
Extroverted Subjective - Healthy development with more prefrontal cortex influence over decisions being made.
Introverted Subjective - Compromised development, still can relate to environment but in a more subjective way.
Introverted Objective - Completely compromised and cyclical tendencies are objective to the environment through organization tendencies, this brings out savant abilities as only certain areas of the brain are used.

Autism falls at the bottom, where as aspergers is higher up on the scale.

None of those are behaviors. They are labels given to sets of behaviors. Extroversion is no more "healthy" than introversion, and neither is being objective over subjective. Your categories don't even relate to autism or asperger's, as you'd know if you'd ever met some of these people. You can put them into 4 categories as easily as putting everyone else into 4 categories - i.e. you can't because they're much too diverse.

Expansion and consolidation? What part of evolution is that?!

It refers to the tendency of the organism in relation to the environment which influences physical development. Its the sole reason why only 3 percent of life practices monogamy, as well as group settings and experiences enhanced brain development. It also takes into account sexual tendencies and social group status. But it can also be applied as a fundamental rule to the way things interact with eachother.

What? That doesn't even make sense. Because organisms "expand and consolidate", some of them become monogamous? What the fuck dude.

Nations and businesses aren't living organisms so they can't evolve, except in a metaphorical sense.

But they all adhere to certain rules, rules that have been expanded upon through evolutionary relationships.

Uh no, they adhere to certain rules that are created to make the most profit. Some selectionist principles may apply, but not evolution.

Four components? Why do you think this? The things you have listed are learned traits, not actual parts of the brain.

Not learned, required, its part of evolution itself. Logic is organization, this is seen everywhere, Stimuli is the dynamic factor or what is known as movement, Memory is stored stimuli, and emotion is expression. This can be seen in all aspects of the universe. Life is an extension of it.

People learn logic, people's memories are developed by the environment, and I don't even know what you mean by "emotion is expression". Why do you think that this is seen in all aspects of the universe? That doesn't make sense.

Why do you think this? Psychology, as an entire field, is based on the idea of context.

But it is segregated from the other fields and that is where it falters, I try and combine all fields of information which offers better insight into theory.

No it's not, it's integrated with the other fields. That's why we have evolutionary psychology, behavioral economics, organisational psychology, health psychology, sports psychology. By saying psychology is segregated from other fields is just a further demonstration of your ignorance of psychology and science.

No, it's what science deems as science. It's not my opinion.

Then your opinion is limited in scope.

No other method in the history of mankind is anywhere near as successful at describing/explaining reality as science. Relying on methods other than science to understand reality is a huge, huge flaw in your thinking.

Constant reference? I don't remember asking before. I probably have but that's just because your ideas don't fit into science.

I believe you did in the other thread.

I apologise for bringing it up again then. I didn't remember your answer.

The mind doesn't objectively exist - it's the collective name we give to how we understand the integrative processes of the brain. And no, the brain (and our interpretation of it) does not fall into four components - and certainly not the components you argue for. Can you back up any of your claims with research? What scientist argues that the "mind" is composed of "four components" and how did they establish this?

The limbic system is the expression or emotional unit of the brain. Makes perfect sense as the nervous system feeds into it.

The frontal cortex is where the logic is processed, ironically, right behind the eyes where observation occurs. This is the logic center of the brain.

Observation occurs in the back of the head, in the occipital lobe.

Memory resides in the parietal lobe, temporal lobes with both sensory and motor integration components. Obvious choice, right smack dab in the center. Where all memory can be accessed.

That's debatable. The study of memory has very mixed results. We have some idea of parts of the brain that are necessary to develop memories, but aside from that we are fairly clueless. We have no definite idea of how the storage and retrieval methods work.

And stimuli is fed in through the nervous system, gives us something to compete for and even creates addiction in many disorders.

That is certainly not how addiction works.

There are a few more components but they play secondary roles to the main four, like the motor function which is located right beside the emotional center of the brain. Again makes perfect sense.

Why does it make sense? You're just making stuff up.

We already know that what we think and learn affects the structures of the brain - we know this because we performed experiments and tested it. This is the position of science - that the brain affects thoughts, and our experiences affect brain matter. Your assertion that science "attacks the subject from the other end" is not only demonstrably false, it's also demonstrates a very poor understanding of what science is and how it works.

But that was the assuming right up till the early 80's, late nineties. Its only recently that the assumption has changed, but it is still assumed that it is a deficit in the brain that causes disorders, nobody is connecting the two, which is completely wrong in my opinion. Is everyone scared to stick their neck out because of the castration that will occur?

Why do you think that the current science suggests that disorders are "caused by deficits"? Who says that? Most disorders are caused by our learning histories - this is the current position of science. That's why the terminology was changed from mental illness to mental disorders in the 80s.

This still doesn't support your position though, and Freud etc are still very, very wrong. If you're getting your information from books written by psychoanalysts, then that's your problem. Burn them, use them as door stoppers, fuck wipe your ass with them - they have many uses but providing useful information on human psychology is not one of them.

You cant say he is all wrong, he layed out the anatomical mind and visualized how the brain worked via synapse connections among other things. Have you ever seen his exibits and his drawings, they are actually quite accurate and he did it all from subjective thought. There is some merit to that. I dont agree with his dream theories, as I have my own, but he mapped out the mind fairly accurately and you have to give credit where credit is due.

I didn't say Freud was all wrong - he made some good observations with regards to traumatic experiences and the development of mental disorders and these ideas were taken and refined over the years. His ideas on the mind are entirely wrong though. You can't say he mapped it fairly accurately because that assumes the mind actually exists in objective reality.

The science angle? What other "angle" is there? The "make shit up" angle?

You are practicing a limited angle of observation. Which limits your perspective on things. Just like the Autism/Aspergers thing. Really go over the details, recognize the compromises and connections between the two and they are pretty much the same disorder, only with differences in expression.

I have gone over the differences, I've studied the research, I've conducted the research, I've worked with the people and there are clear differences between the two and the difference is not "expression".

[WizShaw]

I don't see how understanding causes would change classifications. But it's a huge area of study so I don't understand what your issue with science is.

Because everything is connected all the way down the line. Information influences information and changes the understanding of the end result.

It's great that you have opinions, but science disagrees with you.

You cant say that without getting specific. I have tried to get specific in how my ideas fit into the spectrum of science, and yet all you can say is that science disagrees with me because you cant seem to apply my ideas, in fact your not even trying.

Again its the focus of science that is the problem, yet the brain has to be looked at as a single entity and then torn apart piece by piece to understand it. That is where we are clashing here in opinion.

Yes, it's likely there's an epigenetic component, but the genes need to be there to begin with.

This is flawed at the fundamental level, because life is supposed to be un-restricted, its the standards of society that has taken the challenge out of living giving more emphasize to the conscious, and hence the bulk of disorder. If you take a look at the introduction of disorder, then the bulk is introduced at the time when structured repression was introduced, from the epigenetic level, this stopped some of the dynamic adaptation creating compromises in brain development which lead to abnormal function.

Interesting idea. It's certainly wrong though given all the evidence we have to show that vaccines don't cause autism.

What evidence is that? There are a few studies confirming that people with Autism who received the vaccine have bloated amygdalas. I can pull them up if you like, I have 2 or 3 publications outlining it. This leads to cyclical activity as the bridge between the body and the mind is severed.

And again, its not the Vaccine that causes it. Its the accumulative effect of the brain expanding and the body reacting. This creates superficial expansion. When the brain is trying to adapt, it is basically looking for stimuli to integrate. Thats why chidhood development is so crucial to later development. If this process is screwed up, then there is a lack of emotional connection the environment and thoughts become cyclical in nature. One is directly related to the other.

Also wrong.

Its not wrong, its only wrong because of objective information has said the cause is the result of genetics or some other cause because of a lack of insight into data, actually saying it is wrong outright flatly denies the link between positive reinforcement and blossoming emotional expression, the one thing that you said was science and openly expressed, so why dont you take the time and connect the two, I mean how can you even say that? Again you are focusing on the science take on the situation and neglecting how the emotional component affects development. This also neglects the other causes completely as Autism is reached in a number of dif ways, Full blown Autism has less defined surface area in the brain, larger brain etc, Aspergers is almost normal, this is caused by a lack of expression and means that the anatomical make up of the brain is related to its size and parts that are not working properly leading to certain traits in mental function, this means that the same stimuli that is supposed to be released is actually cycled around fueling growth and keeping everything active but without the superficial expansion that high levels of androgens provide. Again, go back and look at the traits of the disorder and start linking them. All the information falls into place once you begin to link, brain surface area, neural development, thought patterns and the relationship between expression and repression. Its all there, we have to make sense of it.

You haven't explained what this "expansion/consolidation" thing you've made up is though.

Its the intent of the organism to influence the environment in a given way that works on the basis of co-evolution to provide the needs that one is required to survive. The organism influences the environment and the environment influences the organism. Its not hard to understand how this relates to Autism and disorder in general and even how it affects genes at the epi level.

No, "accepting emotion" is not a difference between the two. No matter how hard you "generalise".

So what is the difference, so I can break it down and show you its the same exact thing, in your terms so there is no mistake.

None of those are behaviors. They are labels given to sets of behaviors. Extroversion is no more "healthy" than introversion, and neither is being objective over subjective. Your categories don't even relate to autism or asperger's, as you'd know if you'd ever met some of these people. You can put them into 4 categories as easily as putting everyone else into 4 categories - i.e. you can't because they're much too diverse.

Your wrong.

The overall development of neurons directly relates to the expression capability of the neuron giving rise to expression. Its the same thing with humans, can a human relate to a situation in the same way if they never had the positive experience needed to properly express themselves? No, because the neurons holding the stimuli, would be underdeveloped and non expression, one relates to the other here. And in extreme cases you are going to get Autism. The body does things for an internal need and the brain should be viewed as one entity. We know this when we cut the corpus callowsum in half and it becomes two different sets of conscious. They begin to argue with each other and senses strengthen because the cycles of stimuli have been condensed which affects the neural capacity to be even more responsive.

You can put them in to four categories yes, but depending on development, they influence each other in different ways relating to severity in disorder and giving rise to different personality. In each category there is a range of influence and development. Its not just cut and dry but they are all there.

Extroverts = The mind feeds the body
Introverts = Body feeds the mind.

We know this when we find that introverts are usually smaller but have a higher intelligence ratio then their extroverted counterpart and there have been studies to confirm this.

Both exibit needs and this is accentuated in our unconscious expression. Mainly through how we view the world.

Thats because brain development encompasses Autism as a part of the categories, you have to take it deeper and begin to fit everything in again looking at it as an entire entity, this is what I mean by understanding the tree of influence and how living in groups affects our development at the challenge level.

What? That doesn't even make sense. Because organisms "expand and consolidate", some of them become monogamous? What the fuck dude.

The majority of the animal kingdom is extroverted objective in their function towards the environment because of the unrestricted lifestyle. This affects their physical development in the form of physical challenge, take that away, and intelligence increases when they start living in groups which takes that physical challenge away. Crows, dolphins, humans, certain types of parrots all exibit this behavior among other species like certain types of vole. This is the basis of brain consolidation and as a result intelligence and adaptation towards information increases. Its the result of environmental changes that influence our development in an upwards sense towards increased intelligence, or what is known as linking ideas.

Uh no, they adhere to certain rules that are created to make the most profit. Some selectionist principles may apply, but not evolution.

Profit is the end result of expansion and is a direct result of systemized consolidation within a sphere of influence, companies always want to obtain more of it, but when things go faulty, they fall back on their roots, which exibits the expansion/consolidation relationship. Again you have to think beyond what you can see and pick up on the universal rules that govern life.

People learn logic, people's memories are developed by the environment, and I don't even know what you mean by "emotion is expression". Why do you think that this is seen in all aspects of the universe? That doesn't make sense.

A star dies the same way as a human cell. Therefore the theory of everything exerts its influence over different levels of development and organization in the same way. People dont learn to logical organize things, its very much a part of them but it can be certainly influenced with practice.

Another example is that the brain works the same way as a community of people does, in this example a person is a neuron working among other neurons and they all band together for the good of the community. Its just another extension of the rules that govern everything. A cycle within a cycle and it will continue in different forms. All with dynamic approach but all with the same rules governing them.

If you cant see the universe is in a constant state of movement and expansion, dynamic relationships, expression etc, then I dont know what to say. The rules that govern the universe is the expression.

No it's not, it's integrated with the other fields. That's why we have evolutionary psychology, behavioral economics, organisational psychology, health psychology, sports psychology. By saying psychology is segregated from other fields is just a further demonstration of your ignorance of psychology and science.

Its not integrated enough, I include rules of philosophy, aspects of geographical math, probability etc. There is more to be done and there simply isnt enough of the bigger picture influencing the final decision. Research needs some type of guidance and it is there if you look for it.

No other method in the history of mankind is anywhere near as successful at describing/explaining reality as science. Relying on methods other than science to understand reality is a huge, huge flaw in your thinking.

Im still using science as a basis, I just try and link scientific facts to other scientific facts but on a much broader range.

Observation occurs in the back of the head, in the occipital lobe.

Thats not true, thats where observation information is processed, not made sense of, there is a huge difference. Without the logic capability, you are just left with information. Ironically the same exact thing we are debating here. The bigger picture vs. Details. Both are relavent but they affect each other as well.

That's debatable. The study of memory has very mixed results. We have some idea of parts of the brain that are necessary to develop memories, but aside from that we are fairly clueless. We have no definite idea of how the storage and retrieval methods work.

Is it? I mean its the most logical place for it, where it can all be accessed by all parts of the brain. Neurons are used universally for all functions and it is an adaptation towards information. The key is how they are linked and the stimuli associated with it.

That is certainly not how addiction works.

Evolution picks a path and stays course, and if that path is influenced in a negative way then the end result will also encompass that information. Its just how things work and this premise can be applied to addiction as well as many other things.

An addiction is a high point in stimuli that the mind tries to get back too, evolution works on the basis of trying to constantly evolve and needs the stimuli to adapt too. ADHD is an addiction to high bouts of stimuli in youth and rates go down in stable culture, this clearly points to environmental influence and unbalanced development to the brain during key growth periods, again outling the line between stable development, goals, stable chemical levels in the brain etc. Drug/alcohol addiction burns glucose at a higher rate consolidating brain function to certain areas, this creates a superficial high point in stimuli in that area and the brain always tries to get back to it because it creates deficits in chemical function, or it blocks certain receptors creating consolidated instances of that chemical in other parts. Addiction deals with a flood of chemical or the restriction of it. Both deal with consolidated instances of a drug of some kind and throw mind development out of balance. Science has focused on the details again here, and they clearly say it is due to dopamine or seritonin or whatever, thats down right false. Its because these chemicals collect in the brain and create high points of stimulus which is favorable to evolution which is based on stimuli. These are only two examples but there are many. Take a look at the MRI imaging, the pictures speak for themselves. Again its the larger picture and viewing the mind as a whole. Not just what the drug does to it.

Why does it make sense? You're just making stuff up.

Thats a common answer for your personal lack of insight.

Why do you think that the current science suggests that disorders are "caused by deficits"? Who says that? Most disorders are caused by our learning histories - this is the current position of science. That's why the terminology was changed from mental illness to mental disorders in the 80s.

Read a few books on the subject. There is a lack of linking deficit to mental function and brain patterns.

I didn't say Freud was all wrong - he made some good observations with regards to traumatic experiences and the development of mental disorders and these ideas were taken and refined over the years. His ideas on the mind are entirely wrong though. You can't say he mapped it fairly accurately because that assumes the mind actually exists in objective reality.

But it does, you just have to dig a little deeper and there have been studies on how this breakdown actually reflects the physiological makeup of the mind pretty accurately.

I have gone over the differences, I've studied the research, I've conducted the research, I've worked with the people and there are clear differences between the two and the difference is not "expression".

Then your not putting it together properly.

Ill check back later. I have to finish some things.

[Marié]

I have noticed that a couple people mentioned that they have aspergers syndrom. Are you just joking or for real?

The reason I'm asking is cause my stepson's mother claims he has that although the doctors have not confirmed it. Nevertheless, he's on medication, I think Resperdal, and I think it's all JUST wrong to have him on this heavy medication especially at his age. He's only 14.

I would appreciate any of your advice.

I don't think anyone should be on any heavy medication without a proper diagnosis from a qualified doctor. How is it even possible to get such drugs without a proper diagnosis?

[kiki5711]

I have noticed that a couple people mentioned that they have aspergers syndrom. Are you just joking or for real?

The reason I'm asking is cause my stepson's mother claims he has that although the doctors have not confirmed it. Nevertheless, he's on medication, I think Resperdal, and I think it's all JUST wrong to have him on this heavy medication especially at his age. He's only 14.

I would appreciate any of your advice.

I don't think anyone should be on any heavy medication without a proper diagnosis from a qualified doctor. How is it even possible to get such drugs without a proper diagnosis?

Because his mother is a controlling freak. She made him feel like he could not do anything without her help. She even wanted someone to take him from class to class because she thought he was incapable of doing that himself. My stepson is now living with us and doing excellent in school and behavior and doing it on his own. The only medication he has to take now is for high blood pressure. He is now 16. I really don't understand why such a young person would have high blood pressure but maybe that will correct itself with time I hope.

[WizShaw]

You know what, lets just agree to disagree. I dont even care if you reply. I dont want to go through typing a huge msg like that again for a long time.

[SamanthaJane]

Because his mother is a controlling freak. She made him feel like he could not do anything without her help. She even wanted someone to take him from class to class because she thought he was incapable of doing that himself. My stepson is now living with us and doing excellent in school and behavior and doing it on his own. The only medication he has to take now is for high blood pressure. He is now 16. I really don't understand why such a young person would have high blood pressure but maybe that will correct itself with time I hope.

I was diagnosed with high blood pressure when I was a teenager, mostly related to a genetic issue ... it certainly wasn't my diet. My doctors have since decided that my blood pressure just runs on the high of normal. Although pregnancy has dragged it squarely to normal.