Marginalised Researchers In Neurology

The Asperger children demonstrated extreme distancing from socially motivated communication interaction, and their view of the world was abstract. This would typically manifest itself in some degree of facial agnosia and assumed low empathy.
Despite Asperger taking pains to recognise traits of Psychopathy in females could be recognised, he made his position clear he only observed the full pathology in males. I recall Candid once asked me my view on this.
All those listed by G Suhareva were boys, Russian and Jewish ethnicity. All patients I looked at from USSR clinics were boys. It would be very rare to find a female with Autistic Psychopathy.
I have only met one possible case. Most others, to my mind, showed relatively normal mimicry (facial expressiveness), tone modulation, motor normality. Most had boyfriends and more or less socially competent.
The bottom line is we need to stick to sources and stay within the confines of clinical pathology.

davidbanner99@ wrote:Autistic or psychopathic?

David originally claimed it was those "on the autism spectrum" being marginalized. Once again, he wants to move the goal post. This time to a subset of autism.

Remember, my area of research tends to narrow down to the criteria that fits me. Selfish as that may be.

So David wants to use the general label of "autism", but what it really boils down to is a narrow subset that consists of criterion that describe him personally.

When you state Monique is autistic, I must say the area I work in is very specific and here you are generalising. What classification of autism does Monique have?More to the point, I repeat once more that when you assert those with autism are actively contributing to research, this just assumes such people really are representative of the said pathology.

I understand. David struggles to get his own work recognized while others on the spectrum are successfully conducting research, publishing, and are actively growing the community. His defense, "Well, they are not really autistic."

What is nice, is that using this forum or on a webpage David can self-publish. David can grow his own "sub community". He can be the personal gatekeeper of who is and is not "really autistic". He can develop his own version of DSM, that a subset of a subset of people might recognize as helpful to them. That is great. It's a positive step forward.

At the same time, others can continue growing their "fake" autism communities, growing the number of researchers on the autism spectrum and help to reduce the stigma and make changes to the actual DSM. David will not be part of this, because he wants to be the gatekeeper of what it means to be autistic.

Here is what Asperger wrote. What he states is that Autistic Psychopathy (or Schizoid Disorder) is rarely found amongst females. When it is expressed in females it tends to differ somewhat. Asperger wrote:

"Abstract association - to which the male psyche is generally inclined, (whereas females are more governed by feelings and act instinctively) - this process reaches such an extreme that connection to concrete things and people are, to a significant degree, severed. Adaption to the outside world, which basically takes place through instincts, hardly attains any significant measure of development.
Meantime, as already stated, we have not encountered any girls who demonstrate the full autistic diagnostic criteria, although we have encountered mothers of autistic children whose behaviour revealed autism traits. " (Hans Asperger)

Richard seems not to understand the following:

(1) Yes, my research covers pretty much my own diagnostic grouping which Hans Asperger outlined in the 1940s. This was so named Autistic Psychopathy (a pathology)

(2) This condition I maintain has been widely misunderstood and very much misdiagnosed in the USA. And I quote:

"Judith N. Miller's very helpful research already suggested that the disorder Asperger describes remains incomprehensible in today's context:
“Asperger's Syndrome may not be covered by current diagnostic criteria. Implications for future research are being discussed. ” (Judith N. Miller, Sally Ozonoff PHd)."

(3) Richard continues to quote evidence people who genuinely are affected by Asperger's Pathology today actively take part in research, influence the DSM and in no way are marginalised. Yet, this is based on Richard's own conception of diagnosis and draws upon random Google references often influenced by the Neurodiversity Movement.

"His approach ( Silberman Neurotribes) is unhelpful. Autism is a complex condition in need of medical research. His simplistic but highly influential advocacy of neurodiversity does not aid such research. Rather, it stands in its way." Yuval Levental

Paul Cooijman:

"In reality, Asperger syndrome is a severe handicap which makes life very much harder than it would be for a person of the same intelligence without the condition. It is always hard to express the severity of a handicap, but a safe guess is that Asperger is on par with for instance missing both legs (not just one) or with being completely blind (not just having very bad eyesight). In any case, the severity of the handicap is underestimated in popular publications about Asperger syndrome."

(4) Richard is unaware of how the Neurodiversity Movement inevitably marginalised the voices of those severly affected by the condition discussed. Given movements or associations function through social mechanisms and structure, actual representation is poor.

"It was also clear that it has become common to describe people who are introverted or suffer from social anxiety, as being autistic. During the dot-com boom, the media began to diagnose apparently awkward geeks like Bill Gates as suffering from Asperger’s Syndrome." Ivo Vegter

(5) Richard misunderstands my work. The essay I quoted by Judith Miller exposed problems and errors in the DSM that led to the scrapping of a perfectly functional diagnostic method ( Hans Asperger's A.P.) Possibly to cover up the mess, charges were made against Dr Asperger's reputation to scapegoat a genial German researcher. This left many people in no-mans-land.

" I wish they'd all agree on criteria and use one universal source. In the UK, there is not yet even a standard assessment pathway, there is much difference depending on where you live. If the criteria were clarified and universal that would help everyone to start off on the same foot at least."

Solution? I believe I will soon fix up the current mess with fuller explanations of Asperger's work.

"I understand. David struggles to get his own work recognized....."

I have never published my own research. I have published clarifications of existing opinion with comparison. For example, how Suhareva differs from Schneider or Wing from Ivanov. And so on.
My actual research is quite advanced and widely focused. I chose so far to not make it known.

"David can grow his own "sub community". He can be the personal gatekeeper of who is and is not "really autistic".

Does that include Miller and Ozonoff?

“Asperger's Syndrome may not be covered by current diagnostic criteria. Implications for future research are being discussed. ” (Judith N. Miller, Sally Ozonoff PHd).


"At the same time, others can continue growing their "fake" autism communities....... "

There is no such thing as an autism community.

"αὐτός, when used in the nominative, is an emphatic pronoun meaning "he himself"."

davidbanner99@ wrote:I have never published my own research. I chose so far to not make it known.

You don't participate, yet you claim "marginalization". Okay.

davidbanner99@ wrote:My actual research is quite advanced and widely focused.

Maybe. But you have no way of knowing. The only way to actually determine if it is "quite advanced" is to participate in the research community.

It's like me saying my martial arts skilled are quite advanced, but I never practice with others. In the privacy of my own home I might truly believe my skills are advanced, but how can I know? I will never truly know if I don't get out and participate in the martial arts community.

davidbanner99@ wrote:There is no such thing as an autism community.
"αὐτός, when used in the nominative, is an emphatic pronoun meaning "he himself"."

Play semantics all you like. Call it groups, organizations, communities, etc. There are people "on the spectrum" that connect with each other to share and support each other. You have participated in some of these groups.

Beyond semantics...

https://tacanow.org

I think "The Autism Community in Action" would strongly disagree with you. And this is only one community of hundreds, if not thousands all around the globe.

Of course, I must remember that you are the self proclaimed "gatekeeper" of what is or is not autism. You will say it is not a "real community" or it is full of members that are not "really autistic".

I suggest you stop hiding your work. You seem to be interested in sharing. Otherwise you would not be posting here and on a webpage. I encourage you to do so. At the same time, I encourage you to stop setting yourself up for failure by trying to play gatekeeper.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:I have never published my own research. I chose so far to not make it known.

You don't participate, yet you claim "marginalization". Okay.

davidbanner99@ wrote:My actual research is quite advanced and widely focused.

Maybe. But you have no way of knowing. The only way to actually determine if it is "quite advanced" is to participate in the research community.

It's like me saying my martial arts skilled are quite advanced, but I never practice with others. In the privacy of my own home I might truly believe my skills are advanced, but how can I know? I will never truly know if I don't get out and participate in the martial arts community.

davidbanner99@ wrote:There is no such thing as an autism community.
"αὐτός, when used in the nominative, is an emphatic pronoun meaning "he himself"."

Play semantics all you like. Call it groups, organizations, communities, etc. There are people "on the spectrum" that connect with each other to share and support each other. You have participated in some of these groups.

Beyond semantics...

https://tacanow.org

I think "The Autism Community in Action" would strongly disagree with you. And this is only one community of hundreds, if not thousands all around the globe.

Of course, I must remember that you are the self proclaimed "gatekeeper" of what is or is not autism. You will say it is not a "real community" or it is full of members that are not "really autistic".

I suggest you stop hiding your work. You seem to be interested in sharing. Otherwise you would not be posting here and on a webpage. I encourage you to do so. At the same time, I encourage you to stop setting yourself up for failure by trying to play gatekeeper.

Here is the somewhat dark background to Hans Asperger:
The current argument (and it's a big argument) is that Asperger supported the Nazi Party and was aware some autistic people would be eliminated according to extremist ideology. On the other hand, Steve Silberman c!aims Asperger was playing the Schindler card, using his position as a doctor to save as many patients as he could.
My own investigations indicate a surprising third alternative. It seems Silberman's view comes close but Silberman portrays Asperger as a closet dissident. From what I found, the truth seems to be Asperger was one of many German doctors who appeared to take a very positive view of Autistic Psychopathy. Genetically, it was viewed by German neurologists as a natural deviation, with some of the characteristics possibly idealised. After all, Hitler was hardly normal himself.
I don't think these studies in Vienne were motivated the same way as in the USSR where such children were merely patients. I believe it eventually evolved into studies in genetics. Quote:
"Often we found among our children descendants of famous dynasties in science and art, but sometimes there was an impression that from all their greatness, only oddities and quirks remained in the child, which are often inherent in great scientists." (Asperger)
Not that my own research would ever profit from unethical conduct. Just simply my own research focuses on the way information can be processed.
Still, the unpalatable truth is this: Most of the psychology knowledge we have today comes from Germany and some of it was motivated by studies in genetics. A great deal of this advanced German science filtered through to the USSR and the Apollo scientists migrated to the USA.
Amazingly when Lorna Wing made use of Asperger's papers in the 1980s she probably thought it was just about making people well again.
Was Asperger really a Nazi sympathiser? I doubt it but he wasn't in a position to not bide his time till the war ended.

"I think "The Autism Community in Action" would strongly disagree with you. And this is only one community of hundreds, if not thousands all around the globe. "

I severed my connection almost two years ago. The start of my beginning to doubt was when Gary Mckinnon (a self-taught hacker, UFO fanatic) was facing extradition. Suddenly all of these people who "identified as aspies" were disowning Gary. And Gary himself was very unstable, diagnosed professionally with Aspergers. He believed he could hack into databases and find evidence of UFOs.
Of course, I'm not suggesting autism excuses breaking laws. Just that I am very aware how obsessiveness can get out of control. Yet to the Autism Community Gary's public spectacle was an eyesore. Aspies are supposed to be huggy and nerdy geeks, not degenerates (the term first used by Kraechmer). In the end it was Theresa May and Obama who decided to cut a little slack.
Well, after this, I started to notice more how the Autism Community was being represented by people who, from what I saw, had the geeky personality type, had jobs and a partner - posted on Facebook et cetera. The few I did meet who seemed authentically autistic, tended to indeed be marginalised. Myself, I was even more just not understood. You would ask about symptoms and people were clueless.
Glad to be out of it. I'd rather study genuine psychology at a clinical level. Sadly this can never be a community. People who don't function in groups can't be a community. This is because communities depend upon social communication. True Aspergoids socialise poorly.

davidbanner99@ wrote:. . . and the Apollo scientists migrated to the USA.

Yes,

. . . to take part in the Grand Hoodwinking of America.

quietvoice wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:. . . and the Apollo scientists migrated to the USA.

Yes,

. . . to take part in the Grand Hoodwinking of America.

Not at all. The Soviets were themselves very close.

davidbanner99@ wrote:

quietvoice wrote:Yes,

. . . to take part in the Grand Hoodwinking of America.

Not at all. The Soviets were themselves very close.

You're funny.
They were very close to what, exactly?
Do you think that man walked the moon?

davidbanner99@ wrote: The few I did meet who seemed authentically autistic, tended to indeed be marginalised. Myself, I was even more just not understood. You would ask about symptoms and people were clueless. Glad to be out of it. I'd rather study genuine psychology at a clinical level. Sadly this can never be a community. People who don't function in groups can't be a community. This is because communities depend upon social communication. True Aspergoids socialise poorly.

So you marginalize people that don't "seem" authentically autistic to you. You are the self appointed gatekeeper of what is or is not "true" autism. Good luck with that.

No wonder you feel marginalized. When you go around marginalizing other people, it is human nature to return the favor.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote: The few I did meet who seemed authentically autistic, tended to indeed be marginalised. Myself, I was even more just not understood. You would ask about symptoms and people were clueless. Glad to be out of it. I'd rather study genuine psychology at a clinical level. Sadly this can never be a community. People who don't function in groups can't be a community. This is because communities depend upon social communication. True Aspergoids socialise poorly.

So you marginalize people that don't "seem" authentically autistic to you. You are the self appointed gatekeeper of what is or is not "true" autism. Good luck with that.

No wonder you feel marginalized. When you go around marginalizing other people, it is human nature to return the favor.

I'm afraid the system in America seems broken in the sphere of clinical psychology. The reason Russian research is so much more serious isn't because Russia is more developed as it stands today. It's due to the legacy of research in the USSR as a whole. And trans!ated texts from East Germany. Above all, the fact autism research in the USSR was confined to special schools. Often called schools for neurotics.

Now in the USA autism research is bogged down by a balancing act between two poles of interest:
(1)Clinical psychology
(2)The Neurodiversity movement, which portrays autism as simply a personality type. As far back as 1925 prominent German psychologists (including Kretchmer) stressed we must not confuse "Shizotimia" with types of Clinical Psychopathy.

It's essential to understand and make a note of this point. Here I add a Russian dictionary summary

Pазновидность характера и биотип (тип телосложения), сходный с биотипом больных шизофренией[3][4]. Понятие введено немецким психиатром Эрнстом Кречмером[5]....
Schizotymia
A variety of character and biotype (body type), similar to the biotype of schizophrenia patients [3] [4]. The concept was introduced by the German psychiatrist Ernst Krechmer [5]. A distinctive feature is sensitivity [3], a closedness (introversion) and distance [3], as well as a weak expressiveness of emotional manifestations (felt of the affect)......Schizotic is not a sign of mental disorder,

Cannot stress this enough. Failure to be aware of this basic distinction led Steve Silberman (Neurotribes) down a path that totally distorted Asperger, G Suhareva, Van Krevelin and others. It totally distorted German psychiatry in the USA, except in more serious university departments.

"So you marginalize people that don't "seem" authentically autistic to you. "

It's not "seem", it's factual psychology, agreed by the leading researchers in the field. You may not like it but this was the overall conclusion we cannot mix two distinct categories of psychology.

To clarify myself, I accept there may well be psychology students who really do suffer clinical autism. Paul Cooijman is a good example. However, it is not unreasonable of me to hesitate to accept your claims without knowing some background of people you quote as "being on the spectrum". Were they non functional in school? Were they genuinely limited socially and professionally? Are we discussing clinical psychology or a diversity movement? This isn't just me. Check out blogs like Cortical Chauvanism by Dr Manuel Casanova.

Last point. The fact I am not popular as you note has two pluses:
(1) I am not educated to follow a trodden path which these days appears to not include solid sources.
(2) I am not going to tell people what they want to hear. I just want to consolidate an accurate portrayal.

Please study the quotes above and check their validity.

This quote by Suhareva is fundamental. It shows Autistic Psychopathy is not at all widespread but a sub-type of Schizophrenia, outlined by Kraepelin:

"Определение шизоидный психопат может быть оставлено лишь для небольшой группы психопатических личностей. Тип шизоидного психопата почти совпадает с тем, что описано Крепелином как Verschroben. Существование шизоидных психопатов в этом узком смысле слова признается многими авторами."

"Determination of the Schizoid psychopath diagnostic can be left only for a small group of psychopathic personalities. The definition of schizoid psychopath almost coincides with what is described by Kraepelin as Verschroben. The existence of schizoid psychopaths in this narrow sense of the word is recognized by many authors."

So, yes, this is one diagnostic pathology I research. There is a real need to preserve knowledge handed down to us and not to simply shrug off modern distortion and misperception.
I seek to define this diagnosis as it is now widely misunderstood.

Like I said, good luck. As long as you continue to marginalize others and their work, they will return the favor. Given your current strategy of marginalizing others, and removing yourself from the community, your work will die with you. No one will ever find anything you have published, because it requires support of others to help promote what you have researched.

This is not right or wrong. It's simply reality. The way a good idea becomes known is by having others help promote that idea. Otherwise, the idea is relegated to page 100 of the search engine results.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:Like I said, good luck. As long as you continue to marginalize others and their work, they will return the favor. Given your current strategy of marginalizing others, and removing yourself from the community, your work will die with you. No one will ever find anything you have published, because it requires support of others to help promote what you have researched.

This is not right or wrong. It's simply reality. The way a good idea becomes known is by having others help promote that idea. Otherwise, the idea is relegated to page 100 of the search engine results.

It's fundamental to seek accuracy over popularity. Asperger himself was mostly ignored. Even more so today.
I may not have stressed how narrow my clinical research is. It applies to a sub group of Schizophrenia. There are other types of autism. Funnily enough in Russia people just seem disinterested in the old essays I dig up. It all helped me a lot but people don't usually relate to it. Many dislike the old term of Psychopathy.