New Test For Neurological Variation

davidbanner99@ wrote: I don't think either Wing or Munhin were curious over any of that.

So you believe;

-1- that Aspergers has a hereditary/genetic component and;
-2- that neither Wing or Muhin were curious about the hereditary/genetic component.

Fair enough. I understand.

Will add that I believe what Wing and Muhin thought is no longer relevant. The current consensus is that ASD is a combination of hereditary and environmental factors. New technology, which was unavailable to Wing and Muhin, has added to the science.

http://oldwsrj.lbp.world/UploadedArticle/277.pdf

The link is from 2017. From the article:

"It is not a solitary issue, and it is comprehensively thought to be a multi-factorial issue coming about because of hereditary and non-hereditary hazard factors and their communication. Hereditary investigations of ASD have recognized changes that meddle with run of the mill neurodevelopment in utero through adolescence. These buildings of qualities have been included in synaptogenesis and axon motility. Late improvements in neuroimaging considers have given numerous critical experiences into the neurotic changes that happen in the mind of patients with ASD in vivo. Particularly, the part of amygdala, a noteworthy segment of the limbic framework and the emotional circle of the cortico-striatothalamo-cortical circuit, in perception and ASD has been demonstrated in various neuropathological and neuroimaging thinks about."

So if you believe the general public and the scientific community are currently misinformed about ASD, I would reach out to the authors of this article. Maybe they can provide you with additional information or a way to further your investigation.

What you quoted sounds pretty similar to documents I have from the USSR. The reason I read those documents was there was a lot of detail in the patient profiles.
Basically, I'm not a great fan of trying to understand neurological deviations via biology. What I did pick up from the Soviet research was, sure, processes in the organism can interact with the brain.
My own particular approach is a totally different angle. So far, I wrote nothing about it and mostly concentrated on existing material. My actual, main field is transmitters, modulators, oscillators and a bit of physics. Later on, in time I came to see how the brain is essentially a bio-electrical mechanism. We transmit and receive communication signals and we interpret them. In fact, this was what the Serbian Nichola Tesla has referred to.
For example: I can transmit ideas to another person just the same way as a regular transmitter uses an amplifier to produce audio communication through a speaker. We have vocal chords that likewise serve the same purpose. We can accept or reject signals. I noticed much of this has a "social bias" so, from early childhood, we are conditioned. Just as Asperger carefully outlined, in the case of his patients, they didn't respond to such conditioning. Praise or criticism didn't seem to induce modified behaviour. And here's the big point: People who are neurologically normal do respond to positive or negative feedback and will adapt themselves in such a way as to gain acceptance. I'm quite sure a series of random questions based on culturally, socially accepted ideals would produce pretty uniform responses. Nobody wants to be an outsider.
Here is one thing I tried and tested repeatedly. Even amongst relatively elite scientists, there is a remarkable tendency to follow whoever is designated a leader. We under-estimate the way social communication and hierarchy eclipses purely rational reasoning. So much communication today prioritises social elements of communication.
I tend to view neurological deviation as certainly problematic but believe such deviations have a certain positive purpose. Anyone who has resistance to social conditioning from early childhood is not going to be neurologically healthy or socially valued. Such an individual may well be unemployed and may have low self esteem. A lesser few may adapt to their many disadvantages and adapt in their own way. Remember the entire education system is geared towards group-based information processing. Those individuals who process information very differently are left at a huge disadvantage. Asperger's children had been removed from normal school as mostly unteachable.
One thing that puzzled me was how come on occasion you get the odd maths genius with schizoid disorder but no leading psychologists. You would think more patients would want to research why they are misunderstood and out of phase with normality. Well, it seems that such people struggle to conceive the idea of others not imagining the world the way they do. If you can make a juxtaposition, it becomes easier to view yourself not just inwardly.

davidbanner99@ wrote: We under-estimate the way social communication and hierarchy eclipses purely rational reasoning. So much communication today prioritises social elements of communication.

As it should. Prioritizing social communication over "reason" is adaptive. It leads to better outcomes for the community. The assumption that "irrational" decisions or decisions made that do not rely largely on reason is a flawed assumption. It is an is/ought fallacy.

I'm not saying you hold that assumption. I don't know. I'm saying it is a common assumption. Many people assume that a "rational" decision-maker, a person that uses purely rational reasoning, will outperform the decision-maker that fails to use reason.

I tend to view neurological deviation as certainly problematic but believe such deviations have a certain positive purpose.

I agree. Deviations often allow for different perspectives, reframing, and lead to new discoveries.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote: We under-estimate the way social communication and hierarchy eclipses purely rational reasoning. So much communication today prioritises social elements of communication.

As it should. Prioritizing social communication over "reason" is adaptive. It leads to better outcomes for the community. The assumption that "irrational" decisions or decisions made that do not rely largely on reason is a flawed assumption. It is an is/ought fallacy.

I'm not saying you hold that assumption. I don't know. I'm saying it is a common assumption. Many people assume that a "rational" decision-maker, a person that uses purely rational reasoning, will outperform the decision-maker that fails to use reason.

I tend to view neurological deviation as certainly problematic but believe such deviations have a certain positive purpose.

I agree. Deviations often allow for different perspectives, reframing, and lead to new discoveries.

My experiences with social pecking orders, status emphasis and hierarchy has been pretty negative. I think the majority of people bought into the idea that the majority view must be correct, by virtue of numbers. Going back to ancient Athens reveals that Socrates was a wandering thinker who liked to take on the sophists. These sophists were the professional philosophers who had money and status. They were idealised by the masses. History tends to show Socrates was a far deeper philosopher. I liked his theory of forms, which in a certain way relates to the non-practical, abstract thought Asperger considered to be scientific. In more modern times, Columbo took on the role as the scruffy, disorganised crank who chatted to his dog in a banger of a car. The murderers he investigates are normally far wealthier and socially admired.
Especially I paid attention to the time Muhammad Ali fought George Foreman in Zaire. 95 per cent of the press, media and boxing fans thought Ali would go two rounds.
The more people believe something, the more others assume it must be so.

This man remains a role-model for me. Nobody knows if he has Schizoid Disorder, or is simply a very reclusive mathematician. I lived myself a short time in St Petersburg and sometines you saw a lot of poverty.Perelman lived on something like 100 odd dollars a month, at one time in a spartan flat.

"Perelman was a perfectionist who rarely made mistakes and had a number of behavioral tics—like humming or moaning—when engrossed in solving a problem. By the time he entered university, he had long curling fingernails and already evinced hermit tendencies, preferring to hole up in his room to work, subsisting on black bread and fermented milk.

"He labored in relative obscurity until 1994, when he shot to mathematical fame with his proof of a topological conundrum known as the soul conjecture, and was offered positions at both Stanford and Princeton in the US. In a hint of things to come, Perelman turned down both—supposedly rejecting Princeton’s offer because he was offended they deigned to ask him for a CV, when he felt his work should speak for itself. He returned to Russia and a position at the Steklov Institute.
When the European Mathematical Society considered awarding Perelman a prize for his work, he threatened to cause a nasty scene. Apparently he thought the work was incomplete and he was the best judge of when it would be deserving of a prize.

From the few public statements made by Perelman and close colleagues, it seems he had become disillusioned with the entire field of mathematics. He was the purest of the purists, consumed with his love for mathematics, and completely uninterested in academic politics, with its relentless jockeying for position and squabbling over credit.

davidbanner99@ wrote:My experiences with social pecking orders, status emphasis and hierarchy has been pretty negative.

Of course. That is the very nature of hierarchies. Those that feel that they are at the bottom of the hierarchy tend to struggle. In fact, everyone struggles. Some struggle to maintain status and others try to improve their perceived status, etc.

All of the people you mentioned from Plato to Foreman are engaged in the social pecking order. The entire point of boxing is for two fighters to establish a pecking order.

I agree that the majority view can be wrong. Yet the majority is how communities not only survive, but thrive. Over a lifespan, the individual only exists as part of the group (somewhere in the social pecking order). It is impossible for the individual to outperform the group because a group can divide the labor. One person is a dentist while another is the solider and yet another is a baker.

Again, this is an issue of is verses ought. There is a thought that in the universe of humanity that hierarchies ought not to exist. But this is fantasy. Hierarchies exist because they are indispensable, an integral part of living as a social creature.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:There is a thought that in the universe of humanity that hierarchies ought not to exist. But this is fantasy.

Hierarchies are the drivers of evolution: adapt or die.

Candid wrote: Hierarchies are the drivers of evolution: adapt or die.

Yes. David's posts are a great example. While expressing he is not a fan of the social pecking order, he writes about wanting people with Aspergers to be viewed differently. He is not arguing for equality of the social pecking order, just that he wishes people with neurological variation would not be viewed (stereotyped) as they are.

This is normal. We all find ourselves in this situation and respond accordingly.

Perelman, for instance, adapted by becoming a recluse and focused almost exclusively on mathematical perfection. While understandably receiving admiration for his accomplishments in that area of life, it comes at a high cost to other areas.

Maybe social intelligence is the lower level of the evolutionary chain?
I gave a lot of thought to emotional communication, the issue of hierarchy and reputation. First of all, it appears to me emotional interaction serves the purpose of bonding people together for the reasons you already outlined. Women in ancient cultures lacked the physical strength to hunt for meat so would choose men who seemed most successful - as hunter-gatherers. I view it as a survival mechanism.
However, social intelligence has disadvantages too. For example, a decline in the overall education system or cultural decline, will force communities to go back, instead of forwards. Sometimes this is referred to as "dumbing down" to fit in and seem "normal".
My view is that I'm aware of social intelligence and its role. However, the point about the collective always being at an advantage over the individual I don't consider to be so accurate. It appears that the greatest inventors and scientists were mostly rejected by communities, institutions and hierarchies.
Probably the world's greatest inventor Nichola Tesla I found to be a college drifter who couldn't settle in any institution.
“I am credited with being one of the hardest workers and perhaps I am, if thought is the equivalent of labour, for I have devoted to it almost all of my waking hours. But if work is interpreted to be a definite performance in a specified time according to a rigid rule, then I may be the worst of idlers.” (Nikola Tesla)
Tesla was publically ridiculed and pretty much ignored by comparison with more orthodox scientists. He died unmarried.
Someone wrote in an article that combining Eaton and Oxford students and teachers in one room still wouldn"t match one Tesla or Einstein. There's the old Zen saying: "Two birds tied together, although they have four wings, cannot fly".
It took teams of global experts some months of combined effort to confirm Grigory Perelman's mathematical theory. Economically, this man made less money than a cleaner.
It would be reasonable to assume social intelligence mostly contradicts science and actually opposes it by trying to preserve a status quo.

Speaking of Perelman, I tend to disagree with what's quoted below.
I find most people with Asperger Disorder had major problems with maths. This is very often noted amongst children with autism. However, the fact a smaller few do have maths ability makes me wonder what it is that creates the difference?
Baron Cohen (global authority on Asperger) feels sure Grigory Perelman has this condition and sought to interview the Russian mathematician as a psychiatrist. The latter refused all contact.
Personally, I figure Perelman's noted good performance at school seems to contradict that theory since no major learning irregularities were ever recorded. He was apparently an A1 student throughout.
The AQ test Cohen devised ran into the problem hundreds of people passed it. I thought it was too easy and open to interpretation. I hope my own will be an alternative when completed.
My own maths was straight dyscalculia as in the majority of cases. However, 6 years ago I crammed maths for 4 or 5 hours a day. Now, aspects of my maths are quite advanced and I make my own formulae. What's odd is my maths responded to specialization.

"A summary from the book of Baron-Cohen's results on the relation of mathematical skill and Asperger's: "When he (Baron-Cohen) tested his theory on a population of Cambridge University undergraduates, it turned out that the mathematicians among them were three to seven times more likely than other students to have a diagnosis of an autistic condition. Baron-Cohen also developed the AQ, or the autism-spectrum quotient, test, which he administered to adults with Asperger's or high-functioning autism as well as to randomly selected controls and Cambridge students."

davidbanner99@ wrote:Maybe social intelligence is the lower level of the evolutionary chain?

Focusing on this single question.

-1- Evolution requires mating. Those lacking in social intelligence failed to mate.

-2- Tribes lacking in social intelligence found it more difficult to form teams, eventually being wiped out by tribes with greater social intelligence.

Therefore:

-3- You exist today only as a fortunate recipient of being one of the lucky offspring from a tribe with the evolutionary adaptation of social intelligence. Lowest level? I think not.

Those you wish to cite as low social intelligence being "rejected" by society is inaccurate in evolutionary terms. You only know of their work, precisely because they survived long enough and had enough social intelligence to not be banished, culled, or otherwise eliminated by the tribe.

It is a type of cognitive bias known as "survivor bias" whereby you are ignoring those individuals actually rejected, fully rejected by the community in evolutionary terms. You are handpicking survivors and labeling them as "rejected" because you see them as having lower social intelligence. But you are failing to consider that the very fact you are able to read about them is proof that ultimately they were not rejected.

Even the eccentric mathematician you label as having low social intelligence is by definition part of the community. He has been offered awards for his contributions to the community. He may never get a chance to mate, maybe he will, but the fact you can read about him and share his story is proof that he is part of the social fabric that makes up society.

If anything, species that did not evolve or have yet to evolve a form of "social intelligence" are most likely extinct or on their way to being extinct.

davidbanner99@ wrote:"A summary from the book of Baron-Cohen's results on the relation of mathematical skill and Asperger's: "When he (Baron-Cohen) tested his theory on a population of Cambridge University undergraduates, it turned out that the mathematicians among them were three to seven times more likely than other students to have a diagnosis of an autistic condition.

More evidence that those with Aspergers, while possibly lower on "social intelligence" are not rejected by the community. They are apparently accepted (the opposite of rejected) to Cambridge University where they excel in mathematics.

What am I missing?

"Evolution requires mating. Those lacking in social intelligence failed to mate."
So far as genetics is concerned, surely it"s a trade-off? Nicola Tesla never married and appeared to fear deeper relationships. He was somehow afraid normality might rob him of his inventiveness. So, Tesla introduced alternating current and today we transport high voltage supply on a global basis. He died unmarried and was overlooked in comparison with, say, Marconi. Yet, Tesla's genes still would have been passed forwards by siblings. His legacy would be undeniable. Described as the embodiment of a "mad scientist", Tesla was quite neurotic and suffered synthesia with obsessive, compulsive disorder.
"You are handpicking survivors and labeling them as "rejected" because you see them as having lower social intelligence. But you are failing to consider that the very fact you are able to read about them is proof that ultimately they were not rejected. "
It's more the case I'm always emphasising great ideas don't often emerge from the classrooms. From what I can gather too, a lot of discoveries came by trial and error, or by accident. The last point: I think it's fair to say we owe the Theory Of Relativity to Einstein and not the system that rated him not good enough to study electrical engineering. Einstein then funded his own research and without that determination there would have been no Relativity. as we know it.

"Even the eccentric mathematician you label as having low social intelligence is by definition part of the community. He has been offered awards for his contributions to the community. He may never get a chance to mate, maybe he will, but the fact you can read about him and share his story is proof that he is part of the social fabric that makes up society."
You wouldn't probably know about this but Perelman refused his one million dollar award from the International Maths Community. The geometry maths discovery didn't resonate with most people but the refusal of a million dollars did. Perelman wants no part of the maths community but gives lectures to packed audiences. I still have to admit I admire him for his sincerity and devotion to his field. I've no real idea if Perelman has schizoid disorder or whether he's just a very isolated mathematician. He does have status now and he always had status as a student in Russian faculties.

Tried to make this clearer. Hopefully the numbers all match. Eventually it should be accurate as I can get.
If you agree that will be + , which is one. A disagree choice is - so no point.
Take care with 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19

(1) I experienced significant difficulty at school and struggled to concentrate on explanations made by teachers. (Agree) (Disagree)
(2)I was considered by many to be quite bright but my actual performance in class was below standard. (Agree) (Disagree)
(3 During my school years I daydreamed and would often lose track of what was being explained by teachers. (Agree) (Disagree)
(4) My time at school was full of conflict, tension and apprehension. (Agree) (Disagree)
(5) I found reading far easier than maths as I was growing up. I suffered mental blocks with arithmetic. (Agree) (Disagree)
(6) I showed a very high ability in maths from an early age and was fascinated by patterns in numbers.
(7) In some subjects, I did quite well at school but feel this was the result of my own efforts and not a direct result of what was communicated in class.(Agree) (Disagree)
(8) I consider myself more capable of learning new skills or subjects without the need to find a class, study group or teacher. (Agree) (Disagree)
(9) I tend to notice small details that most people would not pay importance to. (Agree) (Disagree)
(10) I often find I can solve more complicated problems by using my own methods as opposed to trying to understand accepted explanations. (Agree) (Disagree)
(11) I have noticed that my overall perception of standard subjects and way of thinking in general seems not to relate to the norm or resonate with others. (Agree) (Disagree)
(12) I prefer to direct my energy towards being productive and practical. (Agree) (Disagree)
(13) I tend to be governed more by my intellect and understanding than my emotions. I don’t react spontaneously but carefully consider facts as they appear before me. (Agree) (Disagree)
(14) I am very methodical and prefer a systematic, organized approach to any new subject I approach. (Agree) (Disagree)
(15) I am very organized and motivated to see each task completed to the finish. I am purposeful and animated in my work. I always prefer to be physically occupied (Agree) (Disagree)
(16) I get bored when I have to follow a rigid system of beginning and end, using an”A” to “Z” approach. I dislike organised, mechanised systems of tuition. (Agree) (Disagree)
(17) I am very much guided by my emotions and tend to express my feelings quite openly. (Agree) (Disagree)
(18) I smile a lot and appear bubbly as well as interested in what’s going on around me. ((Agree) (Disagree)
(19) I would consider myself to be facially expressive in such a way as people can usually guess my mood through my expression. (Agree) (Disagree)
(20) I rarely smile or show my emotions during everyday interaction. (Agree) (Disagree)
(21) I may sometimes offend others by a general insensitivity towards their feelings or misinterpretation of boundaries. None of this is intentional. (Agree) (Disagree)
(22) I have never had a boyfriend or girlfriend, or have seldom had partners. (Agree) (Disagree)
(23) I have significant difficulty forming close friendships or bonding with other people. (Agree) (Disagree)
(24) I am not very good at being sympathetic or understanding and prefer to offer structured, rational advice to solve problems more pragmatically. (Agree) (Disagree)
(25) I always feel unable to meet the basic expectations demanded of me in everyday life. (Agree) (Disagree)
(26) I appear to have no status where groups, organizations or teams are concerned. I often feel ignored and passed by. (Agree) (Disagree)
(27) I consider myself to be popular and tend to follow the latest trends and areas of interest as others. (Agree) (Disagree)
(28) I would describe myself as introverted, reluctant to socialise or just not good at socialising. (Agree) (Disagree)
(29) I dominate a conversation and steer it towards my own point of interest. (Agree) (Disagree)
(30) I have always been in conflict within family circles or at work. (Agree) (Disagree)
(31) I would describe myself as obsessive over my interests and very goal orientated in these areas. (Agree) (Disagree)
32) I am not suited to work that requires physical dexterity or co-ordination. I find mechanical work to be difficult. (Agree) (Disagree)
(33) In the opinion of others, my handwriting is poor and scrawly. (Agree) (Disagree)
(34) I tend to struggle with personal appearance and hygiene. (Agree) (Disagree)
(35) I am very sensitive to noise and may be annoyed by dripping taps or rustling caused by wind. (Agree) (Disagree)
(36) I prefer to wear my familiar, worn clothes and may feel uncomfortable in stiff shirts or wooly fabrics on my skin. (Agree) (Disagree)
(37) My overall motor movements are slow and awkward. I struggle to catch a ball and was very poor at team sports. (Agree) (Disagree)
(38) People notice me as “different” very quickly and pick up on my awkwardness. I have suffered discrimination from childhood onwards to adulthood. (Agree) (Disagree)
(39) I often feel angry, resentful and very negative towards other people. (Agree) (Disagree)
(40) I have suffered from (or still suffer from) obsessive, compulsive disorder or obsessive, repetitive behaviour. (Agree) (Disagree)
(41) I am sometimes unable to recognise people I know in unfamiliar surroundings. I may mistake a total stranger for someone I actually know. (Agree) (Disagree)
(42) I feel no mental connection with other people and feel disconnected from them. It is similar to watching chatacters on TV but not being a part of the show. (Agree) (Disagree)
(43) I often don’t make eye-contact or engage with those who initiate conversation. (Agree) (Disagree)
(44) I sometimes feel as if no specific gender is dominant in my personality. (Agree) (Disagree)
(45) I cannot normally share in the experiences of other people and tend to view life from my own perspective. (Agree) (Disagree)
To sketch a profile, add a point every time you select +. Take care with 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19.
+ = 1 point
- = zero point
KEY: 1: add + agree, - disagree. 2: add + agree, - disagree 3: add + agree, - disagree 4: add + agree, - disagree. 5: add + agree, - disagree. 6: add + agree, - disagree. 7: add + agree, - disagree. 8: add + agree, - disagree. 9: add + agree, - disagree. 10: add + agree, - disagree. 11: add + agree, - disagree. 12: add + disagree, - agree. 13: add + agree, - disagree. 14: add + disagree, - agree. 15: add + disagree, - agree. 16: add + agree, - disagree. 17: add + disagree, - agree. 18: add + disagree, - agree. 19: add + disagree, - agree. 20: add + agree, - disagree. 21: add + agree, - disagree. 22: add + agree, - disagree. 23: add + agree, - disagree . 24: add + agree, - disagree. 25: add + agree, - disagree. 26: add + agree, - disagree. 27: add + disagree, - agree. 28: add + agree, - disagree. 29: add + agree, - disagree. 30: add + agree, - disagree. 31: add + agree, - disagree. 32: add + agree, - disagree. 33: add + agree, - disagree. 34: add + agree, - disagree. 35: add + agree, - disagree. 36: add + agree, - disagree. 37: add + agree, - disagree. 38: add + agree, - disagree. 39: add + agree, - disagree. (40: add + agree, - disagree. 41: add + agree, - disagree. 42: add + agree, - disagree. 43: add + agree, - disagree. 44: add + agree, - disagree.45: add + agree, - disagree