Marginalised Researchers In Neurology

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:Ah, okay so in your opinion for a wide perspective 50% of autism research should conducted by those with autism. Implied in that is that a wider perspective = better results.

Why not make the case for over 50%? In your opinion would over 50% widen the perspective even more?

What about cancer research? Should 50% of research on cancer be conducted by those with cancer?

It is not important if it is possible. These are hypotheticals to help me understand how you think research works.

Cancer isn't a psychological pathology. The essence of my own investigation is how neurologically diverse people process information. My conclusion differs from the mainstream in as much as major neurological deviation by no means prevents effective processing of information. It may well confine this processing to the abstract area but isn't simply a defect. Asperger himself veered towards similar conclusions.
Of course, I should add many many researchers view clinical neurological deviation as a biological illness. This has an element of truth but I conclude the current focus on biology to explain neurological deviation has missed the more obvious explanations. The problem with researchers today is they tread the same path. They do not engage with their patients but remain in a cocoon of academia.
Prolonged study of this subject (totally outside grant funded psychology) has clarified it isn't possible for a neurologically "normal" researcher to understand others who have major deviations in associative thinking. Most of the research comes from observation of children. 99 per cent of it is constrained by the assumption such children are inferior and impaired. That is too simple an explanation and relies excessively on social evaluation. In reality, autism is a mix of positive and negative. In the overwhelming majority of cases adults with my own condition are totally marginalised, unemployed, hospitalised or even criminalised and anti-social. Fortunately, I am comparatively better off.
Also I repeat that in cases of high functioning autism, even gifted mathematicians have no awareness of "self" compared to normality. Most are just not interested or aware that they act so strangely. For some reason they hardly ever analyse themselves from a relative perspective. It took me years to discover how "normal" people know how to smile at the right time and how they depend upon emotional interaction. In psychopathology emotions are very reduced and abstract, associative thought processes shape perception of the world. Soon my next batch of essays will delve deeper.

davidbanner99@ wrote:Cancer isn't a psychological pathology.

True.

So you are saying:

-1- 50% or more of research on psychological pathologies should be conducted by those with psychological pathologies.

-2- But the same does not hold true for other areas of research, e.g people with cancer researching cancer.

So if we follow your logic then research on psychopathic behavior should be conducted by psychopaths. Those with schizophrenia should conduct research on schizophrenia, so on, and so on. And if society does not strive for this to happen, then it is systemic marginalization of the academic work of those with psychological pathologies.

Very interesting. I don't agree with you, but it is interesting that you find that approach to research rational.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:Cancer isn't a psychological pathology.

True.

So you are saying:

-1- 50% or more of research on psychological pathologies should be conducted by those with psychological pathologies.

-2- But the same does not hold true for other areas of research, e.g people with cancer researching cancer.

So if we follow your logic then research on psychopathic behavior should be conducted by psychopaths. Those with schizophrenia should conduct research on schizophrenia, so on, and so on. And if society does not strive for this to happen, then it is systemic marginalization of the academic work of those with psychological pathologies.

Very interesting. I don't agree with you, but it is interesting that you find that approach to research rational.

Which I think demonstrates the logic of my point. You aren't understanding my thought processes. Don't take that personally, however. The same applies to the most highly qualified psychiatrists such as Wing and Gould.
Let me elaborate: To successfully research those whose thought processes differ from normality, there must be insight from within. Not observation of children from without. The same applies to me. I do not process information the way you do. Classroom systems are pretty much out of the question. I imagine too emotion or social influence will distinguish our thought processes. Not that I suggest my thinking is better or worse. It is just very different. And very abstract using associations normal people struggle to relate to. It took me years to understand how normal individuals interact. This applies to facial expression, voice modulation, emotional nuance, instinctive evaluation and so on. The best I can do is analyse interaction as it exists but I can never "resonate" at the same level. If I could, I wouldn't need to bother over the subject.
Cancer isn't the same as neurology.
Also, my 50 per cent is merely an ideal. To arrive at a resonant frequency you need 2 balanced opposites. Therefore, in a perfect world you need a balance of two opposite perspectives. At present we have simply a closed circle of neurologically typical analysts who attempt to understand a complex subject, mostly via chemistry.

A good example: Someone I knew who has severe Schizophrenia. This person would talk with himself in shops and dressed in ridiculous clothes. In many ways, as mad as a hatter. To talk with him even for me was barely possible. I have disconnected thought processing myself, but his speech was totally disassociated. His thoughts wandered from A to Z. And yet....This man was a genius in physics. A human computer with deep mathematical skills. And that is one thing I learned. Totally racing thought processes don't cancel knowledge. The greatest mistake is to evaluate neurological deviation through a prism of - normality = correct perspective.

davidbanner99@ wrote:Let me elaborate: To successfully research those whose thought processes differ from normality, there must be insight from within. Not observation of children from without.

At present we have simply a closed circle of neurologically typical analysts who attempt to understand a complex subject, mostly via chemistry.

I get the goal. In the field of criminology, 50% of the researchers are not criminals. The typical researcher has a different thought process than the criminal. Would it be a good idea for criminals to participate in the scholarly production of research on criminology? Absolutely.

And to my knowledge, there exists no closed circle of non-criminals marginalizing the contributions of criminals. It is that criminals typically don't have the motivation or skill set to provide solid academic work.

I think autism faces similar challenges. I don't think there is any desire to keep autistic people from participating in the scholarly pursuit of research on autism. You are a good case study. You are more than welcome to pursue the scientific publication of your work. You disagree? You have submitted your work to a peer review journal and it has been rejected?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:
Why not make the case for over 50%? In your opinion would over 50% widen the perspective even more?

What about cancer research? Should 50% of research on cancer be conducted by those with cancer?

Autism is a condition which affects the mind. Cancer is a physical condition. That makes a big difference with respect to research, which is primarily an intellectual activity. However……..

I recently saw the film Temple Grandin, which is about an autistic woman written about by Oliver Sacks, I think it was. She was/is severely autistic. I would not want someone with her condition to be carrying out research which is then used by, for example, governments to create policies any more than I would want my bus to be driven by a blind driver. This because Grandin has such a low awareness of self and virtually no awareness of others. (This lack of awareness of others and self is also clearly demonstrated by politicians. Teresa May was particularly bad, but Johnson? Geez. Something is very seriously amiss with the state of the minds of a country’s electorate when they see fit to vote the likes of Johnson or Trump into power.)

Aside from Grandin, and even more worryingly, Oliver Sacks himself had various severe mental conditions, one of which was that he could not recognise faces. At his own parties, guests apparently wore ID labels. This man had severe social problems, was autistic whether or not he recognised it, and yet he was a neurologist, working with people with autism like Grandin. I mean, oh, p-lease.

People with autism should not be conducting research. In fact, the reliance of science on technology, on replacing the use of scientists’ senses by technology (there are limits, of course - scientists do still need to use their eyes, but how long before even eyes are replaced by some digital implant or other?) is distancing scientists from their environment. Their awareness levels have become so low that this of itself invalidates science and its findings.

Further, people with autism are increasingly seen as “different”, and autism itself, rather than being seen as an illness for which sufferers need help, is increasingly regarded by scientists as an “evolutionary advance” in humans.

This idea of a “evolutionary advance”, is utter tripe, of course. How on earth could my friend’s autistic boy ever live, ever survive, as an independent human being? The idea that he could is complete twaddle. And the aforementioned idea about evolution is a further indication of the state of mind of scientists generally.

(One or two parents of autistic children who have spoken on the media still regard their autistic children as sick and desperately want to help them but, living in a society under the tyranny of science, such parents are fewer and further between.)

littlebrowndragon wrote: She was/is severely autistic. I would not want someone with her condition to be carrying out research which is then used by, for example, governments to create policies any more than I would want my bus to be driven by a blind driver.

If the research is accurate, that is all that matters. If the bus arrives safely, that is all that matters. It doesn't matter who conducted the research or who was driving the bus.

I will also point out that these examples are not equivalent. There is zero risk in an autistic person conducting research. The potential benefits of any research are peer-reviewed after the fact. This is not the same as getting on a bus operated by a blind driver, where there is a high level of risk that must be embraced upfront.

littlebrowndragon wrote:

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:
Why not make the case for over 50%? In your opinion would over 50% widen the perspective even more?

What about cancer research? Should 50% of research on cancer be conducted by those with cancer?

Autism is a condition which affects the mind. Cancer is a physical condition. That makes a big difference with respect to research, which is primarily an intellectual activity. However……..

I recently saw the film Temple Grandin, which is about an autistic woman written about by Oliver Sacks, I think it was. She was/is severely autistic. I would not want someone with her condition to be carrying out research which is then used by, for example, governments to create policies any more than I would want my bus to be driven by a blind driver. This because Grandin has such a low awareness of self and virtually no awareness of others. (This lack of awareness of others and self is also clearly demonstrated by politicians. Teresa May was particularly bad, but Johnson? Geez. Something is very seriously amiss with the state of the minds of a country’s electorate when they see fit to vote the likes of Johnson or Trump into power.)

Aside from Grandin, and even more worryingly, Oliver Sacks himself had various severe mental conditions, one of which was that he could not recognise faces. At his own parties, guests apparently wore ID labels. This man had severe social problems, was autistic whether or not he recognised it, and yet he was a neurologist, working with people with autism like Grandin. I mean, oh, p-lease.

People with autism should not be conducting research. In fact, the reliance of science on technology, on replacing the use of scientists’ senses by technology (there are limits, of course - scientists do still need to use their eyes, but how long before even eyes are replaced by some digital implant or other?) is distancing scientists from their environment. Their awareness levels have become so low that this of itself invalidates science and its findings.

Further, people with autism are increasingly seen as “different”, and autism itself, rather than being seen as an illness for which sufferers need help, is increasingly regarded by scientists as an “evolutionary advance” in humans.

This idea of a “evolutionary advance”, is utter tripe, of course. How on earth could my friend’s autistic boy ever live, ever survive, as an independent human being? The idea that he could is complete twaddle. And the aforementioned idea about evolution is a further indication of the state of mind of scientists generally.

(One or two parents of autistic children who have spoken on the media still regard their autistic children as sick and desperately want to help them but, living in a society under the tyranny of science, such parents are fewer and further between.)

"People with autism should not be conducting research. "

Presumably you mean with regard to autism? Or possibly other fields as well? If the latter case is intended, did you know that one of the Asperger children Fritz F discovered a mistake in Newton's theory? And very likely Grigory Perelman the reclusive mathematian is Schizoid type.

As to research into autism, I wouldn't recommend for myself therapy based psychology. This latter requires some degree of empathy and emotional connection. However, I don't research that particular area. My main area is the same as Asperger's - Information processing. This area addresses exactly the same field as reflected in German psychology in the 1920s - 1930s. It seeks to address differences in neurological thought processes.

The "faces" condition you refer to is called "facial agnosia" and I experience this myself. It's caused by extreme abstract thought patterns so that people are interpreted outside of personal connection - abstractly.

Back to the point: The reason hardly any autism-affected researchers exist (and here I mean, clinical HFA), is because in, usually all cases, even the most intellectual Schizoid types have no awareness of "self" in relation to others. The only way that ability came to me wasn't instinctively but "intellectually". I started to study "normal people". I then gradually became aware how significant is the difference. However, I would never be able to genuinely understand how neurologically normal people process information. I do know in all cases it's a collective process with a huge social ingredient that biases perception. By the same token, I maintain it's not really possible for non-autistic psychologists to understand how, say, schizophrenics process information.

davidbanner99@ wrote: I maintain it's not really possible for non-autistic psychologists to understand how, say, schizophrenics process information.

Agreed.

But so what?

The schizophrenic, to the extent he or she is capable, is more than welcome to participate in the academic community.

You even provide an example of Fritz F participating in academia.

In other words, the idea that those with autism are marginalized in academia is a fake barrier that you have created. That barrier doesn't actually exist.

"Further, people with autism are increasingly seen as “different”, and autism itself, rather than being seen as an illness for which sufferers need help, is increasingly regarded by scientists as an “evolutionary advance” in humans."

This is the cause of a Cold War in research people here should be aware of. It was started by Steve Silberman's Neurotribes, which became a best seller. Silberman argued in his book that autism has been misunderstood, yet states Hans Asperger correctly interpreted the connection between autism and genius.
All of this led to a big divide. Parents of autistic children who struggled on a daily basis to cope with rages, bed-wetting and chronic disability were outraged. They felt a serious disorder was being portrayed as an identity movement, such as transgender equality. When Steve urged autistic people to come out and battle for neurodiversity rights, many autistic people were offended. The majority, you see, cannot self-advocate. Many psychiatrists and autism societies likewise opposed Silberman.
My problem is I'm in the middle. I see both perspectives quite clearly.
I think Neurotribes maybe failed to point out differences between "Shizotimia" (reactive psychopathy) and clinical conditions that leave many totally disabled.
Putting my own experience as objectively as possible:
Mental illness was genetic in my family. My mother has been unwell for the last 20 years. A grandfather I never knew in Scotland was said to be very introverted. In childhood I didn't function at all in school except for being a good reader. I suffered nightmares, hallucinations, fear of objects and chronic OCD. Didn't often interact with other children. Picked at food and was sent to have my blood tested. No physical problem found. After school, employment was sporadic and short-lived. Too slow and resistant to being taught very basic skills. Psychiatric intervention started in the mid 1980s (before Wing and Gould's Asperger Syndrome). All in all it was a nightmare. I should stress the level of awareness of the condition back then was pretty shallow. These days my attitude to Kanner or Asperger autism is it's a mix of disability and compensation. Schizophrenics, for example, tend to be gifted in music.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote: I maintain it's not really possible for non-autistic psychologists to understand how, say, schizophrenics process information.

Agreed.

But so what?

The schizophrenic, to the extent he or she is capable, is more than welcome to participate in the academic community.

You even provide an example of Fritz F participating in academia.

In other words, the idea that those with autism are marginalized in academia is a fake barrier that you have created. That barrier doesn't actually exist.

I need to repeat my definition of the obstacle. For sure, Schizoid types sometimes shake up the world of maths or astronomy. Such as Grigory Perelman:

"Russian mathematician Grigory Perelman doesn't talk to journalists. Actually, he doesn't talk to anyone anymore. So we'll have to settle for insights via his biographer, Masha Gessen, who, strangely enough, has never talked to him either. But she has spoken with just about everyone who has ever had any significant interaction with Perelman, and the result is the book Perfect Rigor, which more than adequately explains why Perelman has gone into self-imposed exile, and why he probably won't collect the million dollars he won by solving the Poincare Conjecture. "

The irony is the tiny percentage of people like Fritz F or Perelman lack any perspective of "self". They aren't interested in themselves or anyone else. Top researcher Baron Cohen tried his utmost to contact Perelman as a patient and got nowhere.
People such as Fritz who became a successful astronomer are unable to perceive themselves in relativity to others. They perceive no pathology related to themselves. It can only be done if they approach the entire problem as if it were a subject. Of course that demands interest.

David...

Let's assume that everything in your last two posts is accurate. I agree with it 100%. What does this have to do with "Marginalized researchers"?

Fritz F participated in research. You can participate in research. Those with autism are not prohibited from conducting research.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:David...

Let's assume that everything in your last two posts is accurate. I agree with it 100%. What does this have to do with "Marginalized researchers"?

Fritz F participated in research. You can participate in research. Those with autism are not prohibited from conducting research.

I am indeed participating. My main field is radio engineering, mostly based around the now dated Amateur Radio Network. So, I study C.W. and Shortwave transmission.
Psychology came about somehow by chance. The interest grew. I have a small blog but often publish essays elsewhere. I take almost a kind of pride in being able to analyse normal people as well as those with deviations. My priority is how we process information as opposed to therapy.
I have had very significant breakthroughs developing Asperger's ideas. At the moment I'm engrossed in Bleuler's definition of Schizophrenia and very carefully trying to bring out a few angles on his overall outline. The snag I have is nothing quite squares out in a fixed definition. Soon more will be published. Always lots of source quotes and parallels.
Why study so much? Mostly for me it's therapy. It occupies the mind. Were I not to study, I'd waste energy on more negative thoughts. It's a kind of meditation.

davidbanner99@ wrote: I take almost a kind of pride in being able to analyse normal people...

Well, as you have pointed out that is impossible. You are incapable of this ability.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:
If the research is accurate, that is all that matters. If the bus arrives safely, that is all that matters. It doesn't matter who conducted the research or who was driving the bus. .

The end justifies the means? Your claims are absurd. It matters very much who drives the bus. I would not wish to put my life in the hands of a 5-year-old bus driver, any more than I would put my life in the hands of a blind bus driver. A blind driver cannot drive a bus. Nor can a child. Full stop. Given what you have said, I take it you would be perfectly happy to submit to the knife of a blind surgeon and allow him to perform heart surgery on you.

There is zero risk in an autistic person conducting research. The potential benefits of any research are peer-reviewed after the fact. This is not the same as getting on a bus operated by a blind driver, where there is a high level of risk that must be embraced upfront

You have too much faith, blind faith, in fact, in both science and scientists.

Peer review: Firstly, this is an example of scientists policing their own discipline. Yet scientists are not impartial. Far from it. Science is a rat race. Even more so now that it is in the pocket of business. Scientists will stop at nothing to get their papers published to get promotion. They will lie and cheat and steal. They will stab each other in the back. Science is a vicious, dog-eat-dog world.

My older sibling was a published research scientist. She entered science wide eyed and innocent with high ideals. Within a few years she left science, disillusioned and, well, heartbroken, because of the lying and cheating and stealing she witnessed. Further, she was part of the peer review system herself. She was asked to review papers in branches of physics, her science, about which she knew very little. That is how trustworthy science is. That is how competent science is to police itself. That is how safe science is.


Other aspects of safety: No safety is offered within the peer review system. Quite the reverse. However, science takes many other risks. And these risks are irrespective of whether the scientist is autistic. Further, the rest of humanity is put at extremes of risk on the whim of scientists.

Take, for example, The Manhattan Project. When scientists tested the first atomic bomb, they did so despite a recognized possibility that the explosion would create a chain reaction and destroy the planet. But, playing god, they went ahead anyway. Currently, scientists are proposing all sorts of measures to protect the environment. Like that first atomic bomb, none of these measures has been tested. Scientists are treating the entire world as one vast laboratory. They have absolutely no idea about the outcome of their experiments. How could they? The environment is far too complex, and way, way beyond their competence to understand. Yet scientists are nonetheless prepared to go on tinkering with the environment regardless while not only endangering their own lives, but endangering the survival of humanity itself.

That science is highly dangerous, that the experiments she was conducting involved the use of extremely dangerous equipment, was another reason my sibling left science. As she put it, for example, she knew she was not competent to run a nuclear power station. However, the reason she was against the building of nuclear power stations was that she understood that other scientists believed, incorrectly, that they were competent. In other words, scientists are unable to assess their own competence, and have long since lost their grip on reality.

Science knows nothing about how the mind works. Science does not know what a healthy mind looks like. Therefore, to suggest, as you did earlier, that the end justifies the means, is not only absurd but extremely dangerous. Take Freud. He carried out the most appalling experiments on people, both psychologically as well as physically, without the least idea what he was doing. He was behaving with respect to the mind, the same way scientists today are behaving with respect to the environment.

That you are not aware of these issues, that you do not sense the dangers, that you do not “see” scientists, tells me that your awareness levels, too, are low. This makes my point about autism and science.