Marginalised Researchers In Neurology

All that you are now doing in response to my assertions is to flatly contradict me, without providing any reasons."

This is the same problem I experience with Richard. What I notice is he contradicts whatever is stated and will do this repeatedly. Reminds me of The Beatles' song Hello, Goodbye.
Freudian psychology isn't really my line. I do tend to pick things up along those lines, in the course of my reading, but for the most part my area is to do with information processing. And neurological deviation.
As I understand, Richard asserts psychiatry and psychology doesn't suffer any lack of insight from researchers who themselves experience significant neurological deviation. I explained my background, a bit of my medical history and details of my present work. I am more than happy to print my next essay from my website so anyone who chooses can express an opinion.
I maintain that virtually zero imput to modern psychology and neurology ever came from people with actual experience of major disorders. This view was likewise stated in Neurotribes.
Having experienced similar debates to this many times, I figured to narrow the theme down somewhat. Otherwise, the debate was just deadlocked in a cycle of contradictions for contradictions sake.
Plus, to contradict someone to such an extent surely requires background knowledge? That is, how Kanner and Asperger differed or why Wing's diagnosis was scrapped from the DSM. It's much easier to throw doubt on a view than add factual information.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:So a list you created of 12 researchers you personally believe are "neurologically typical" is what you offer as evidence that work by autistic researchers is marginalized?

You see no flaws in the above evidence?

Surprisingly, yes, I do check researchers out. I take the trouble to do that. This is open to check by going back a page where you see I mentioned G Suhareva's background. Wing also had an autistic daughter. Tony Atwood's son has Asperger Syndrome:

"How did a world expert in autism miss a diagnosis right under his nose?
That’s the question that Professor Tony Attwood still mulls over and deeply regrets.
The clinical psychologist is recognised as a leading authority in the diagnosis and management of Asperger’s syndrome.
But all his skills and research couldn’t help his son Will."

This is not to knock Tony Atwood in any way. Just pointing out to you I always check backgrounds of leading researchers.

davidbanner99@ wrote:This is the same problem I experience with Richard. What I notice is he contradicts whatever is stated and will do this repeatedly.

Yes. I sometimes find it necessary to repeat myself when the person that wishes to make a claim goes on long tangents that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion.

You claim 99% of research is by neurotypicals. I had to ask repeatedly what percentage you believe should be conducted by non-neurotypicals. You kept avoiding the question and never demonstrated how this is in any way factual or supported by anything other than your personal opinion.

The only evidence you have presented to support your claim is a list of 12 researchers that you believe are "neurotypicals" and apparently do not see any issue with this being presented as evidence of non-neurotypicals being marginalized.

Instead, you go off on another tangent that has nothing to do with supporting your claim.

It's much easier to throw doubt on a view than add factual information.

Yes. YOU do seem to find it easier to "throw doubt" than add factual information. Where is the factual information supporting your claim? That a "world expert" in autism missed a diagnosis has ZERO to do with your claim of autistic researchers being marginalized. It is an irrelevant observation, it is just yet another tangent that has nothing to do with your claim.

Let me guess, your response will be yet another tangent that has nothing to do with providing any factual information that research from non-neurotypicals is marginalized.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:This is the same problem I experience with Richard. What I notice is he contradicts whatever is stated and will do this repeatedly.

Yes. I sometimes find it necessary to repeat myself when the person that wishes to make a claim goes on long tangents that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion.

You claim 99% of research is by neurotypicals. I had to ask repeatedly what percentage you believe should be conducted by non-neurotypicals. You kept avoiding the question and never demonstrated how this is in any way factual or supported by anything other than your personal opinion.

The only evidence you have presented to support your claim is a list of 12 researchers that you believe are "neurotypicals" and apparently do not see any issue with this being presented as evidence of non-neurotypicals being marginalized.

Instead, you go off on another tangent that has nothing to do with supporting your claim.

It's much easier to throw doubt on a view than add factual information.

Yes. YOU do seem to find it easier to "throw doubt" than add factual information. Where is the factual information supporting your claim? That a "world expert" in autism missed a diagnosis has ZERO to do with your claim of autistic researchers being marginalized. It is an irrelevant observation, it is just yet another tangent that has nothing to do with your claim.

Let me guess, your response will be yet another tangent that has nothing to do with providing any factual information that research from non-neurotypicals is marginalized.

Maybe you should research and publish an essay to show that Kraepelin, Leo Kanner et al all actually suffered from Childhood Autism and that was the secret to their insight.

Or maybe you should be able to factually support the claims you make.

Found this last night:

"Второй вид встречается гораздо чаще, это аутизм с внутренней бедностью, внутренним опустошением. Вовне никаких контактов с внешним миром нет, но и внутри ничего нет. Это можно увидеть в психиатрической клинике практически у каждого пациента с шизофренией. И этот вид аутизма встречается значительно чаще."

"The second type is much more common, this is autism with internal poverty, internal devastation. Outside there is no contact with the outside world, but there is nothing inside either. This can be seen in almost every patient with schizophrenia in a psychiatric clinic."

The Russian psychologist was discussing how rare it can be for autistic withdrawel to be productive - as it was in the case of Hans Christian Anderson (who wrote The Ugly Duckling).
Not sure I agree but it was an interesting comment. This author was also very clear. I found Schizophrenia more tricky to understand because some writers made it incredibly garbled.
I hope to have answered my own question soon - Are Asperger Disorder and Schizophrenia related? As Starkova claimed.
To date, I find a lot of inconsistancies in current research.

Where inwardness and isolation meets science. Quote Tesla:
“The mind is sharper and keener in seclusion and uninterrupted solitude. No big laboratory is needed in which to think. Originality thrives in seclusion free of outside influences beating upon us to cripple the creative mind. Be alone, that is the secret of invention; be alone, that is when ideas are born. That is why many of the earthly miracles have had their genesis in humble surroundings."
Whether the mind degrades from isolation from others is the absolute core issue of my approach. In the majority of cases it does degrade and enters the sphere of therapy and pharmaceuticals. However, in essence isolation is the catalyst for invention and creativity.

And I just found this...it is rather interesting...

Recent accounts of the usage of psychological tests (Lubin, Larsen, & Matarazzo, 1984; Lubin, Larsen, Matarazzo, & Seever, 1985) leave the disturbing impression that little has changed in psychological assessment practices over the past 30 years. Surely that is not because the art of assessment had already reached its zenith in the mid-1950s, nor is it attributable to clinicians' unwillingness to adopt im- proved methods, as attested to by their ready acceptance of computer test administration 'and scoring.
In part, the problem may be due to the perception that few advances in the assessment of individuals have actually been made. Clinicians who have turned to the literature in personality psychology in the past 30 years have seen chiefly controversy and skepticism.

From...

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1986). Clinical assessment can benefit from recent advances in personality psychology. American Psychologist, 41(9), 1001.

Here is something else I found...for anyone that might be interested...

In addition, the terms compliance, self-discipline, self-control or effortful control, self- management, and self-monitoring or metacognitive monitoring provide us with a progressive application of self-regulation across the human developmental continuum. Compliance implies a contextualized relationship between a child and an adult specifically when a child is ‘‘obeying a request or command given by an authority figure’’ (Zahn-Waxler, Cole, Richardson, Friedman, Michel & Belouad, 1994, p. 104). Self-control or effortful control is the overall internal application of ‘‘inhibitory control, attentional focusing, low-intensity pleasure, and perceptual sensitivity’’ (Rothbart, Derryberry, & Posner, 1994, p. 86).

Post, Y., Boyer, W., & Brett, L. (2006). A historical examination of self-regulation: helping children now and in the future. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(1), 5-14.

davidbanner99@ wrote:All that you are now doing in response to my assertions is to flatly contradict me, without providing any reasons."

This is the same problem I experience with Richard. What I notice is he contradicts whatever is stated and will do this repeatedly. Reminds me of The Beatles' song Hello, Goodbye. .

Richard's behaviour is no doubt ingrained. He may not even know he is behaving in this contradictory fashion.

Speaking for myself, I have many ingrained behaviours that I have been trying to shed over the years. I have had some success, but some behaviours are more difficult to eradicate than others.

And neurological deviation.

Care to explain what neurological deviation means? Would autism come under this title, for example?

As I understand, Richard asserts psychiatry and psychology doesn't suffer any lack of insight from researchers who themselves experience significant neurological deviation. I explained my background, a bit of my medical history and details of my present work. I am more than happy to print my next essay from my website so anyone who chooses can express an opinion.

I'd be interested to read your essay, but cannot promise to express opinions on it.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

littlebrowndragon wrote: I refer you to your post #36 in reply to mine. You said, and I quote: "It was well written but I hardly agreed with a single point. Will elaborate later." So, oh yes you did!

Post #36 was not my post.

Correct. My apologies.

That said, my assessment of you still stands. You have resorted to flatly contradicting any point I make or opinion I express. .

littlebrowndragon wrote: That said, my assessment of you still stands.

Ok.

littlebrowndragon wrote: You have resorted to flatly contradicting any point I make or opinion I express.

I disagree. I am focused on a single point, that being your claim regarding "good communication". I think you make a weak argument in this area, e.g. you implying that it requires meeting face-to-face. I do not think you know very much about what makes communication good or bad.

littlebrowndragon wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:All that you are now doing in response to my assertions is to flatly contradict me, without providing any reasons."

This is the same problem I experience with Richard. What I notice is he contradicts whatever is stated and will do this repeatedly. Reminds me of The Beatles' song Hello, Goodbye. .

Richard's behaviour is no doubt ingrained. He may not even know he is behaving in this contradictory fashion.

Speaking for myself, I have many ingrained behaviours that I have been trying to shed over the years. I have had some success, but some behaviours are more difficult to eradicate than others.

And neurological deviation.

Care to explain what neurological deviation means? Would autism come under this title, for example?

As I understand, Richard asserts psychiatry and psychology doesn't suffer any lack of insight from researchers who themselves experience significant neurological deviation. I explained my background, a bit of my medical history and details of my present work. I am more than happy to print my next essay from my website so anyone who chooses can express an opinion.

I'd be interested to read your essay, but cannot promise to express opinions on it.

You touched upon a significant factor. Is autism a neurological deviation? So many essays on that matter.
Firstly, I like to stress when I refer to myself as "autistic" I mean that as a child I retreated into my own world. I was too self-absorbed in my daydreams to pay attention in class. This was so pronounced a cut-off that it affected my education and overall development. I couldn't deliver at school what was expected. This resulted sometimes in mockery from the odd teacher and other children. The term "retarded" was used in my reference. Or "spastic kid". I did have the odd friend here and there but mostly I was in my own world. I say all this because these days I write well enough and am a poliglot. It would be easy to offend parents whose autistic children can do nothing for themselves or in any way express any view. Autism therefore has a variety of meanings and limitations. In public I would never tell people I refer to myself this way as most relate the term to very limited intelligence. Having said all that I think autism is the key to all my other symptoms such as slowness, lack of physical motivation, face blindness, limited social awareness (instinctively). Currently, as I study Schizophrenia it seems to me autism is the centre of the condition. I'm finding the positive and negative theory of symptoms interesting but somehow a long path to take. I am currently finding the idea of Schizophrenia as being governed by development of a process a bit hard to square. However, I do agree the personality mechanism can fragment into opposing factors of self.I need more time to solve this puzzle.

littlebrowndragon wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:All that you are now doing in response to my assertions is to flatly contradict me, without providing any reasons."

This is the same problem I experience with Richard. What I notice is he contradicts whatever is stated and will do this repeatedly. Reminds me of The Beatles' song Hello, Goodbye. .

Richard's behaviour is no doubt ingrained. He may not even know he is behaving in this contradictory fashion.

Speaking for myself, I have many ingrained behaviours that I have been trying to shed over the years. I have had some success, but some behaviours are more difficult to eradicate than others.

And neurological deviation.

Care to explain what neurological deviation means? Would autism come under this title, for example?

As I understand, Richard asserts psychiatry and psychology doesn't suffer any lack of insight from researchers who themselves experience significant neurological deviation. I explained my background, a bit of my medical history and details of my present work. I am more than happy to print my next essay from my website so anyone who chooses can express an opinion.

I'd be interested to read your essay, but cannot promise to express opinions on it.

Part of my own therapy is forcing myself to confront my defects. I have many. Adapting to my poor external attention span and difficulfies fitting into groups, I over-compensated by developing a super ego. A good dose of narcissism. I tend to openly let others know of any accomplishments I make (in real life). I'm very selfish although not on purpose. Very distrusting and suspicious. Often unaware of the feelings of others. I guess I learned to sort of create an identity of a psychologist within that looks at myself from a distance. How do other people act by comparison? The big difference is most of the people I know tend to share much more of themselves. Seems as if they give part of themselves up in exchange for sharing experience. With me it's all about goals. I live around my goals and pursuit of personal objectives. However, I guess I have made progress over the last five years. I hope to be a better person. There are good qualities I can also list such as devotion to animals.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:Here is something else I found...for anyone that might be interested...

In addition, the terms compliance, self-discipline, self-control or effortful control, self- management, and self-monitoring or metacognitive monitoring provide us with a progressive application of self-regulation across the human developmental continuum. Compliance implies a contextualized relationship between a child and an adult specifically when a child is ‘‘obeying a request or command given by an authority figure’’ (Zahn-Waxler, Cole, Richardson, Friedman, Michel & Belouad, 1994, p. 104). Self-control or effortful control is the overall internal application of ‘‘inhibitory control, attentional focusing, low-intensity pleasure, and perceptual sensitivity’’ (Rothbart, Derryberry, & Posner, 1994, p. 86).

Post, Y., Boyer, W., & Brett, L. (2006). A historical examination of self-regulation: helping children now and in the future. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(1), 5-14.

There's a Columbo episode that touches on this. The one with the psychologist who lectures on words as control mechanisms. Such as "father", "mother", "sex," "death". It was a good episode. Always enjoy watching Peter Falk in Columbo. Especially his looking like an unmade bed.