New Test For Neurological Variation

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote: So, after the Ozonoff study it was decided to scrap the Asperger diagnosis, which is where I parted company. I have found the original studies by Asperger, Suhareva and S. Munhin to be far more accurate. I have an 18 page essay covering the subject that is open to read to anyone interested.

Great.

It still is not clear the purpose or goal. Who is the audience of your 18-page essay? What do you hope to accomplish with the test?

My best guess, based on what you have provided thus far, is that you have the goal of changing stereotypes. It is an admirable goal, yet I'm still trying to clarify if that is in fact the main goal.

You seem to have dedicated a significant amount of time to studying the subject. You have also spent significant time writing an essay and developing a test for others. That is no small task. What is not clear...at least to me...is your purpose.

The goal is simple: In the 1970s we had no translated German texts. These were translated by Sulla Wolf in the mid eighties and Lorna Wing introduced Asperger Syndrome as a "syndrome" in the late 1980s. The Soviet Union was well ahead, however, as I cover in my essay. They already had lots of German neurology/psychology translated.
The ideal? We should use quality research. Did you know the technology that made the Apollo lunar landing possible comes from German science of around the 1950s? The V2 rocket, for example. Of course, I'm not German but the point is science at that time was probably better than today. I don't follow the idea science is valid or invalid due to age. Around Suhareva's era, psychology and neurology was a major science.
So, I think we should dig back in time and re-read the pioneers of research.
Same in other sciences. Generally I find 1940s engineering books really in depth.

davidbanner99@ wrote: It's very detailed and is now recognised as a turning-point.

Who recognizes it as a turning point? Again, what is the purpose of your work?

As an after-thought.....
My approach ultimately places focus on diverse thought-processing. Just as Asperger did, I hope to understand very different mechanism in solving problems. Especially where the individual may have behavioural imbalances. We're looking at unexpected and uneven development of the brain. I seriously doubt Asperger sought to categorize patients as Wing did. The two approaches were really not the same in my view. Sure, my tests aspire to narrow down a working diagnostic pattern but what really interests me is how people deviate in information processing.

davidbanner99@ wrote: Sure, my tests aspire to narrow down a working diagnostic pattern

So the test is to be used for diagnosis.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote: Sure, my tests aspire to narrow down a working diagnostic pattern

So the test is to be used for diagnosis.

Only partly. My honest belief is Asperger's work was misunderstood by L. Wing in the mid eighties. Her focus was different and she appeared to miss the whole basis of Asperger's approach. To her these were simply defective people who lacked common sense, as she put it. To Asperger, genetics was of great importance. He noted links in family lines between extreme neurotic disorder and flashes of brilliance. Crazy and brilliant people. What's crucial is that linebcontradicts Nazi ideology where health and normality was idealised. Dr Dean Falk has in fact challenged accusations made recently that Asperger supported Nazi ideals. So, really this whole subject has deep significance and ought to force us to consider how the borders of creativity are blurred. Of course only a tiny per cent of Asperger's overall patients responded to his very different teaching system. Many of his patients were deeply impaired. Many of those I referenced were institutionalised. I can't really give you a concrete goal as to what motivates me but it's not career or money. Nobody funds me and neither is this my only field. I tend to work obsessively. Sometimes I don't switch off and take time to relax.

davidbanner99@ wrote: I can't really give you a concrete goal as to what motivates me

I'm not asking what motivates you. I assume, right or wrong, that your motivation derives from a connection to Aspergers which provides a passion for the subject. Your motivation is not relevant to my question of what you are hoping to achieve with the test or your essay.

I'm asking what is your goal.

Currently your stated goal, regardless of motive, is to "partly" provide a diagnosis for Aspergers. As the title of the thread suggests, to provide a "new test for neurological variation", more specifically Aspergers.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote: I can't really give you a concrete goal as to what motivates me

I'm not asking what motivates you. I assume, right or wrong, that your motivation derives from a connection to Aspergers which provides a passion for the subject. Your motivation is not relevant to my question of what you are hoping to achieve with the test or your essay.

I'm asking what is your goal.

Currently your stated goal, regardless of motive, is to "partly" provide a diagnosis for Aspergers. As the title of the thread suggests, to provide a "new test for neurological variation", more specifically Aspergers.

Aspergers in my view was a flawed diagnosis from the start. I rarely use "Asperger Syndrome* as it never was a "syndrome" It was a broad term used to describe children with schizoid avoidant disorder. What many people aren't aware of is Asperger had been studied by psychiatrists in the USSR prior to Wing's discovery of Leo Kanner and Asperger.
Simple reality is Asperger's research was misinterpreted in English speaking countries. The HFA vs Asperger Syndrome debate I found most confusing - much of it was based on the idea of early or delayed speech in infants.
Asperger's as interpreted in the USA and UK seems not to have the same approach as the Austrian studies and it misses a lot of diagnostic points I only recently read.
If you decide to read the politics side of the debate, Wing'd diagnosis was scrapped mainly because practitioners couldn't interpret it. And yet it is quite valid.
Cause? Too much dismembering of symptoms and over-complication of what was a broad but functional system.
To really understand Asperger Disorder, Dutch psychiatrist Van Krevelen is a lot closer.

Worth noting these quotes. I'm currently analysing Suhareva's work and there is no doubt her patients were identical to Asperger's. Except maybe one she described. Note here how Wing dismissed any connection. Not just a mistake but a linguistic one at that.

"There is no question that Asperger syndrome can be regarded as a form of schizoid personality. The question is whether this grouping is of any value. This will be discussed below in the section on classification. "(Lorna Wing)

By contrast here we see...

"According to Sukhareva, schizoid psychopathy was characterized by "lack of facial expressiveness", isolation and lack of social interaction, and odd and socially inappropriate behavior. They also had a "tendency towards automatism": stereotypic behaviors and speech, obsessive interests, disliking interruptions, and wanting things to always happen in the same way. She also held that these children had normal or superior intelligence, were sensitive to noise and smell, and were sometimes musically gifted. "

davidbanner99@ wrote: Note here how Wing dismissed any connection.

"There is no question that Asperger syndrome can be regarded as a form of schizoid personality. The question is whether this grouping is of any value. This will be discussed below in the section on classification. "(Lorna Wing)

What connection is dismissed?

Asperger = form of schizoid...That is a connection Wing is making in this quote. Where in this quote is a connection dismissed by Wing?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote: Note here how Wing dismissed any connection.

"There is no question that Asperger syndrome can be regarded as a form of schizoid personality. The question is whether this grouping is of any value. This will be discussed below in the section on classification. "(Lorna Wing)

What connection is dismissed?

Asperger = form of schizoid...That is a connection Wing is making in this quote. Where in this quote is a connection dismissed by Wing?

I was just going to point that out, re-reading it. It could be read two ways:
(1) There is no question that ..= It cannot be that

As in, "There is no question that he's always late

(2) It cannot be doubted that

I read it as "there is no room for debating A = Z

Overall, personally it seems obscure. If it"s not how I read it at first, then I never read yet Suhareva mention varieties of Schizoid Disorder.

Still, maybe I read this sentence other than intended.

"Despite the eventual good use of grammar and a large vocabulary, careful observation over a long enough period of time discloses that the content of speech is impoverished and much of it is copied inappropriately from other people or books (No.3). The language used gives the impression of being learned by rote. The meanings of long and obscure words may be known, but not those of words used every day" (Wing)

Here, for example, this simplifies a wider perspective. Personally I would rate language in such cases as far more associative based than communicative. I studied three languages and in these my weakest point would be conversational. Yet, word association is very strong and written translation comes more naturally. More theory against practical everyday. Every subject I think has various aspects.

"There is no question that Asperger syndrome can be regarded as a form of schizoid personality."

davidbanner99@ wrote:I was just going to point that out, re-reading it. It could be read two ways:

(1) There is no question that ..= It cannot be that

As in, "There is no question that he's always late

(2) It cannot be doubted that

I read it as "there is no room for debating A = Z

(1) is not a correct reading.

There is no question = there is no doubt

That is (2)

There is no doubt, there is no room for debating that A = Z, that Aspergers (A) is a form of schizoid (Z).

Wang is making a connection between Aspergers and schizoid, saying that there is no doubt, there is no room to debate that Aspergers = a form of schizoid.

Wang does not dismiss a connection. It is the opposite. Wang makes a connection and even says it is a connection that is unquestionable, without a doubt. There is no room to debate that A = Z. Wang does not dismiss the connection.

davidbanner99@ wrote:"Despite the eventual good use of grammar and a large vocabulary, careful observation over a long enough period of time discloses that the content of speech is impoverished and much of it is copied inappropriately from other people or books (No.3). The language used gives the impression of being learned by rote. The meanings of long and obscure words may be known, but not those of words used every day" (Wing)

Here, for example, this simplifies a wider perspective.

Okay. You submit this as a simplified example of Wing's wider perspective. I'm not clear on your point? Are you saying you agree or disagree with Wing's perspective?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:"There is no question that Asperger syndrome can be regarded as a form of schizoid personality."

davidbanner99@ wrote:I was just going to point that out, re-reading it. It could be read two ways:

(1) There is no question that ..= It cannot be that

As in, "There is no question that he's always late

(2) It cannot be doubted that

I read it as "there is no room for debating A = Z

(1) is not a correct reading.

There is no question = there is no doubt

That is (2)

There is no doubt, there is no room for debating that A = Z, that Aspergers (A) is a form of schizoid (Z).

Wang is making a connection between Aspergers and schizoid, saying that there is no doubt, there is no room to debate that Aspergers = a form of schizoid.

Wang does not dismiss a connection. It is the opposite. Wang makes a connection and even says it is a connection that is unquestionable, without a doubt. There is no room to debate that A = Z. Wang does not dismiss the connection.

Whatever the case may be, she's not particularly clear.
Sometimes "question" can be like "talk". As in, "there can be no talk of phobia as a valid diagnosis".
Or
"There can be no question (talk) Aspergers is a form of"
To be fair, she probably didn't mean it the way I read it which was as a subjunctive.
Therefore, if she states Schizoid Disorder has various forms and Asperger Disorder is one of them, so far I haven't noticed this. That is, I see no real difference. I know for sure Wing had read S Munhin so imagine she got this categories classification from his essays.
Personally, as of yet I see no difference. Schizoid Avoidant Disorder seems identical to Autistic Psychopathy and, moreover, we assume Asperger had read Grunya's study.
Sure, I don't deny you can go on making clinical distinctions but this risks over complication and a drift away from intelligence testing. By intelligence testing I mean different thought processing as opposed to just expected IQ based on hierarchical ranks and systems.
That's really why Wing never appealed to me. She saw her patients in black and white and never really tried to penetrate their neurological deviations. Like most of her colleagues she tended to patronise her patients - who were after all mostly children too immature to provide more personal feedback.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:"Despite the eventual good use of grammar and a large vocabulary, careful observation over a long enough period of time discloses that the content of speech is impoverished and much of it is copied inappropriately from other people or books (No.3). The language used gives the impression of being learned by rote. The meanings of long and obscure words may be known, but not those of words used every day" (Wing)

Here, for example, this simplifies a wider perspective.

Okay. You submit this as a simplified example of Wing's wider perspective. I'm not clear on your point? Are you saying you agree or disagree with Wing's perspective?

Yes, I disagree with her approach. She missed the whole point of the German research. This seemed to be delving into genetics. What we see is possibly unstable, unpredictable genes and this is why Suhareva and Asperger carefully detail family history. I noticed the grandfathers often seem to be closer to the patient in terms of schizoid or schizophrenic personality. In one family line there were two suicides and some very odd relatives. Others were neurotic but intellectual. All these genes seemed to create either social misfits or genius recluses. I don't think either Wing or Munhin were curious over any of that. I admit there was a dark side. Nobody can say for sure where Asperger stood. Naturally it fascinates me as I suffered quite badly from the same problems - no different to the actual patients. I still have major struggles but now understand much more.