Marginalised Researchers In Neurology

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:I can only think of Paul Cooijman who still runs a very successful intelligence testing society. Paul is Dutch and has been diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome. He has written similar articles to me although his field isn't specifically autism research.

When is the last time that you talked with Paul? What advice has he offered about why his research is not marginalized?

Incidentally he has had personal threats made against himself and hate mail. He has had positive feedback too.

You do not need to have autism to receive personal threats and hate mail. It happens to me fairly often.

Of course my research is marginalised. Especially in telecommunications. It's marginalised because I'm not a product of an institutionalised grant funded mechanism. I don't bother over the need to display where I studied and who approved what. I just do my research and am free to use a different approach. Not just in this but in radio engineering (my main area). Whether the majority "likes" my research is neither here nor there.
Here is the bottom line: I would say forget mainstream psychology approval. This is an "Old Boys Club" where content is censored to fit with an orthodox line. I will be publishing what I choose to publish where I choose to publish. On my own terms.

davidbanner99@ wrote:Then the clock shouldn't run out.

What is verses what ought to be. It's like saying, "Then the fire shouldn't expand." The firefighter needs to make very quick decisions.

For example, in crossing a busy road I realised my brain can very quickly estimate when space, time and velocity allow me to cross before the car hits me. I could work it out mathematically but really there's no need. Emotion here isn't needed.

Not a single time in your life have you mathematically made those calculations. You, like everyone else on the planet, use emotion to help get you safely across a busy road.

The point you raise ignores people like Perelman who is a very slow and deep thinker.

Nope. Perelman, assuming he crosses busy roads in his life, uses emotion. That is how people cross busy roads.

What has Paul told you about how to avoid being marginalized? What about Perelman?

Here is some evidence of marginalisation. It was written by Kagan and Isaev probably around the Gorbachev era.
The term "tense relations" would exaggerate the status of disagreements between my views and Richard's but, in general terms, there are clear deviations in outlook. Pretty much in most cases, the way autistic individuals process information actually unsettles peers. I recall, in fact, major conflicts on electronics forums where members were supposed to blindly accept false assertions.
Note with capital "N" Kagan is clarifying those he describes as autistic psychopaths don't attain status or popularity.
Richards equivocations here are multiple:
(1) He claims a researcher who suffers an autism related condition ought to be popular (maybe change their way of thinking to accommodate those who make up the community).
(2) He continues to assert mainstream psychology is inclusive of researchers who have clinical high functioning autism. Where are they? Grandin, Paul Cooijman....?
(3) He makes evaluations but dismisses feedback. In this case perhaps from V Kagan.

"Чаще же из-за раздражающей откровенности и неуместной прямолинейности, неумения наладить и поддержать контакт, несоблюдения общепринятых правил и субординации они оказываются в довольно напряженных отношениях с воспитателями и сверстниками. Их двигательно-спортивная неловкость также снижает возможности завоевания и поддержания авторитета в коллективе."

"More often, due to annoying frankness and inappropriate straightforwardness, inability to establish and maintain contact, non-observance of generally accepted rules and subordination, they find themselves in rather tense relations with educators and peers. Their motor awkwardness and poor athletic level also reduces the chances of gaining and maintaining authority in groups."

Paul Cooijman quote:

Ideals.

Complete lack and incapability of prejudice (on the understanding that prejudice is judgment not based on fact); able to observe objectively without being influenced by "emotion" or "empathy"; able to revise a held view when new evidence requires such, and repeatedly having done so; therefore always learning, improving, advancing, and in some fields arriving at conclusions so advanced, so far removed from ruling doctrine and cliché, that those of lesser judgment can no longer recognize them as such and mistake them for rigid or prejudiced;
Incapable of dogma or doctrine, always using objective facts and logic to independently form one's own mind;

davidbanner99@ wrote:
Note with capital "N" Kagan is clarifying those he describes as autistic psychopaths don't attain status or popularity. Richards equivocations here are multiple:
(1) He claims a researcher who suffers an autism related condition ought to be popular (maybe change their way of thinking to accommodate those who make up the community).

Grandin, Cooijman, and Perelman are not "autistic psychopaths" correct? Therefore they can and have gained popularity. You are not an "autistic psychopath, correct? So you in theory could gain popularity.

I'm not claiming they "ought to be popular". I have stated there is no reason to believe their work is marginalized. And you have been kind enough to provide evidence of examples of people with high-functioning autism that have been successful. Their work has not been marginalized and in fact it has been embraced. Why? If your argument held true, their work would not be recognized.

(2) He continues to assert mainstream psychology is inclusive of researchers who have clinical high functioning autism. Where are they? Grandin, Paul Cooijman....?

Paul is a decent example. Why are you not working with him? He is easy enough to get in touch with.

And I'm not making the claim that they are inclusive. I have only noted that you have not demonstrated that they are excluded. There is a big difference. You began the thread making the claim of exclusion. Prove it. It is not my job to prove inclusion.

(3) He makes evaluations but dismisses feedback. In this case perhaps from V Kagan.

"More often, due to annoying frankness and inappropriate straightforwardness, inability to establish and maintain contact, non-observance of generally accepted rules and subordination, they find themselves in rather tense relations with educators and peers. Their motor awkwardness and poor athletic level also reduces the chances of gaining and maintaining authority in groups."

Again, this is not being marginalized. It says it creates "tense relations". Tense relations is not proof of being marginalized. And it says awkwardness reduces the chances of gaining/maintaining authority. That isn't being excluded from the group. It isn't not being allowed to publish your research. It isn't that they are not being allowed to participate in the group.

While your specific contributions may not be gaining much traction, others with autism seem to have success. Why? What makes the difference? Why are the people you point to successful?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:
Note with capital "N" Kagan is clarifying those he describes as autistic psychopaths don't attain status or popularity. Richards equivocations here are multiple:
(1) He claims a researcher who suffers an autism related condition ought to be popular (maybe change their way of thinking to accommodate those who make up the community).

Grandin, Cooijman, and Perelman are not "autistic psychopaths" correct? Therefore they can and have gained popularity. You are not an "autistic psychopath, correct? So you in theory could gain popularity.

I'm not claiming they "ought to be popular". I have stated there is no reason to believe their work is marginalized. And you have been kind enough to provide evidence of examples of people with high-functioning autism that have been successful. Their work has not been marginalized and in fact it has been embraced. Why? If your argument held true, their work would not be recognized.

(2) He continues to assert mainstream psychology is inclusive of researchers who have clinical high functioning autism. Where are they? Grandin, Paul Cooijman....?

Paul is a decent example. Why are you not working with him? He is easy enough to get in touch with.

And I'm not making the claim that they are inclusive. I have only noted that you have not demonstrated that they are excluded. There is a big difference. You began the thread making the claim of exclusion. Prove it. It is not my job to prove inclusion.

(3) He makes evaluations but dismisses feedback. In this case perhaps from V Kagan.

"More often, due to annoying frankness and inappropriate straightforwardness, inability to establish and maintain contact, non-observance of generally accepted rules and subordination, they find themselves in rather tense relations with educators and peers. Their motor awkwardness and poor athletic level also reduces the chances of gaining and maintaining authority in groups."

Again, this is not being marginalized. It says it creates "tense relations". Tense relations is not proof of being marginalized. And it says awkwardness reduces the chances of gaining/maintaining authority. That isn't being excluded from the group. It isn't not being allowed to publish your research. It isn't that they are not being allowed to participate in the group.

While your specific contributions may not be gaining much traction, others with autism seem to have success. Why? What makes the difference? Why are the people you point to successful?

What is an autistic psychopath and, yes, I am one.
This is one big problem in modern psychology. You need to know what Psychopathy is and how "psychopathic" differs from "psychotic".
Psychopaths are pretty much "degenerates" and at odds with society. They are not really Bond like criminals or killers but they are at odds with the environment. A popular autistic psychopath is a contradiction in terms.
This term was used by Asperger and Van Krevelin.
Kagan would have described Paul as an autistic psychopath and at the above average intellect range.
Of course, you are right autistics sometimes have great success in life but not socially. The story of the Ugly Duckling written by Hans Anderson reveals his marginalisation. However children came to love his stories.

Not wanting to be too forward but you seem to have a very ingrained tendency to reject information that contradicts your "more desired" conclusion. I mean you just ignored what V Kagan pretty much spelled out in black and white. You skipped by the part of the quote that was very direct.
You may not be aware of this but you don't allow information to process within or even settle and file for evaluation. Instantly it's dismissed. And very often you take the new information at its most extreme value rather than in context. Not only that but you rush forwards without clarifying definitions of words or concepts. I know I have information processing difficulties but perhaps you never realised the same about yourself. What you set up is a blockade and you interpret my information according to how they resonate with your own thought processes. Maybe you can tell us what subjects you did best in at school and which ones were difficult. For example creative arts or maths. Practical or theoretical.

That may have sounded a bit harsh but I know in my own case I've had various processing issues.

davidbanner99@ wrote: I mean you just ignored what V Kagan pretty much spelled out in black and white.

What I have a hard time processing is where you think the quote from V Kagan applies only to "marginalized researchers in neurology" or being a researcher in mainstream psychology?

Was V Kagan talking specifically about the fields of neurology and psychology? I didn't get that from the quote. I think V Kagan was talking about people with autism, regardless of what field of study. Correct?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote: I mean you just ignored what V Kagan pretty much spelled out in black and white.

What I have a hard time processing is where you think the quote from V Kagan applies only to "marginalized researchers in neurology" or being a researcher in mainstream psychology?

Was V Kagan talking specifically about the fields of neurology and psychology? I didn't get that from the quote. I think V Kagan was talking about people with autism, regardless of what field of study. Correct?

The quote is above in post 183. It was one from Viktor Kagan essay. I think he was based in Lithuania as a Soviet Dr but later rose very high in the ranks of E.U. psychologists. Like pretty much all doctors he was not affected personally by autism. However, I never had any issues with the basis of his writing. I find Russian psychology to have been useful.
You can re-read the quote and in it Kagan states autistic psychopaths are at odds with peers and teachers. Above all, remote from community status and loners.
At this stage, I think you could consider this point about rejecting information on the spur. Information needs to be allowed access and given time to filter and process. I don't by any means agree with everything I read but I may still use it. Over many months I read essays that reflect lots of different opinion. Autism reaearch is incredibly complex due to the sheer volume of terminology. That means pretty much all the main authorities may get things wrong.
When you ask questions I get the impression curiosity is not the motive. The questions later turn out to be traps to try and "catch out" an interlocutor. Whereas questions "must" be driven by curiosity. A question should be "What are your thoughts on....? The answer should be filed in the mind for later analysis.
I don't expect people to simply agree with me on the basis that (1) I researched this area extensively and (2) I was an outpatient for some years. What's expected isn't blind agreement but some acceptance that information offered is sincere and attained by very harsh experience. If I suddenly got Cancer and Lance Armstrong shared his views on recovery, I wouldn't contradict his every statement and dismiss his life experience.
That's all I can say. I stand by my work and the fact (in my view) that autism research needs imput from people who experienced it. Otherwise it's like trying to learn German without ever going to Germany.

davidbanner99@ wrote:. . . and that same generation put a man on the moon in the late 1960s.

Are you sure, and if so, how can you be so sure?

quietvoice wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:. . . and that same generation put a man on the moon in the late 1960s.

Are you sure, and if so, how can you be so sure?

I find it odd how today real science is looked back on with skepticism.
I did myself once tackle the radiocommunications issue surrounding Apollo. Not all radio waves can make it into space. For the moon, you're looking at just over one second. If it were Vega it would take about 25 years to transmit and receive. Transmission itself was tricky.
To land on the moon itself was complex but made use of the V2 rocket provided by Germany. Prior to that we already had Gagarin orbit the earth some time after Sputnik was launched.
It's stalled today due to budget concerns and priorities. The Cold War maybe provided the impetus to fund the wbole program.

davidbanner99@ wrote: What's expected isn't blind agreement but some acceptance that information offered is sincere

I do believe the information you offer is sincere. I think you hold a sincere belief that research on autism by those with autism is marginalized by the academic community.

If I suddenly got Cancer and Lance Armstrong shared his views on recovery, I wouldn't contradict his e very statement and dismiss his life experience.

I have not contradicted every statement nor dismissed your life experience. I have agreed with you or been neutral on most everything you have said. I disagree that you have demonstrated sufficient evidence that those with autism have their research marginalized.

That is not contradicting every point. It is asking what support you can provide, and so far all you do is go on some irrelevant tangent or provide a general claim such as V Kagan shows people with autism struggle with social interaction. That is not proof of being marginalized in the field of psychology. That is just pointing out a generalization about people that have autism regardless if they have an interest in music, art, math, agriculture, etc.

.... autism research needs imput from people who experienced it.

I agree. It would be nice. That doesn't mean research from those with autism is being marginalized.

It would be nice if blind people contributed their own research on blindness. I'm sure some do, but understandably it is a bit difficult to overcome certain challenges with conducting that research. It would be nice if toddlers contributed research to the field of pediatrics, but understandably toddlers do not yet have the cognitive skills to contribute to the academia. It would be wonderful if people with less than an IQ of 70 contributed to research on living with an IQ less than 70, but understandably it is not that easy for them.

Just because it would be nice, the absence of research is not evidence that it is being marginalized.

Otherwise it's like trying to learn German without ever going to Germany.

A false equivalency. It is like saying it is like trying to learn about cancer without ever having experienced cancer. Or maybe you want to apply it to obstetricians and say that since men have not experienced or lived pregnancy that contributions from women, but only women that have had children should hold more value.

Again, I agree with you 100% that it would be nice. It would be wonderful if people with autism produced research that contributed to the field of autism. I'm sure there are some that do. Maybe we do not even know about them, because when they submit their work for peer review there is no place or box on the form they need to check that asks if they are autistic.

The bottom line, you have provided ZERO evidence that any work from an autistic person has ever been marginalized by those that research autism. I'm not saying it has never happened. I'm saying you have provided no evidence.

You have not even provided evidence that your own work has been marginalized for being autistic. The only thing you have demonstrated is that in public forums you get banned, silenced, censored etc. You assume it is because of autism.

"The bottom line, you have provided ZERO evidence that any work from an autistic person has ever been marginalized by those that research autism. I'm not saying it has never happened. I'm saying you have provided no evidence."

It's totally obvious. We already covered this point and I recall I quoted you pretty much most of the core researchers in the field. And I added that, yes, I had done some background checks. Yet, I maintain you have a tendency to skip by any information forwarded.
Logical deduction to acquiring information works effectively and here is how you can solve your current problem:

(1) Statement one = Modern research into autistic conditions has relied mostly upon observation of children.
Vs
(2) Statement two = Plenty of researchers are probably autistic. No evidence to the contrary has been supplied. There is no actual problem of representation which prevents full understanding.

How to solve the equation:

(a) Make a list of the main names of pioneers in said field. Here, we refer to the scientists modern students read in class. We must use these pioneers who handed down the knowledge accepted today.Clue, Darwin hugely influenced anthropology. Krechmer hugely influenced psychology.

(b) Having made the list, read the relevant profiles. Ascertain percentage of neurologically deviant researchers.

Problem solved.

Big clue:

Most of the core knowledge of autism research today comes from:
Kretchmer
Bleuler
Kraepelin
Suhareva
Schneider
Kanner
Asperger
Muhnin
Van Krevelin

And more modern interpretative work

Wing
Ivanov
Shaepelin
Kagan
Goulde
Atwood
Silberman
Baron Cohen

It's now up to you to examine the background and calculate percentages. Good luck with that.