Marginalised Researchers In Neurology

In my latest essay I am highlighting how Bleuler and Asperger had very different experiences. You will not likely find my type of comparison in English language essays today. I now have access to a lot of source material.
Here is a quote from my current essay:

"The first observation here is that Asperger draws a distinction between autism (as perceived in his patients) and Schizophrenia. Swedish psychologist Eugene Bleuler, in actual fact, described a different kind of autism with regard to Schizophrenia. Bleuler's patients were considered to be more governed by emotion than logic and intellect. These Schizophrenia patients lived in their own reality, which was the preferred reality - subject to desire. When reality and fact tend to contradict the inner reality, any unwelcome information is rejected and filtered out. This leaves the remaining thought processes fragmented, distorted and lacking logic. Desired, subjective reality substitutes actual reality. Bleuler considered Schizophrenics suffered from defective thought processes and autism.
Asperger's interpretation of autism in his own patients was another thing altogether. The Asperger children displayed the typical symptoms of Childhood Schizophrenia but were perceived to show deficits in the sphere of emotional interaction and instinctive learning processes. The Asperger children retreated to a world of their own because they were unable to respond to the emotional demands made of them by others. They lacked mechanisms to process information through shared emotional contact and experience with human beings. They could only intellectualise and rote-learn the rules of social interaction. Their overall ability to process incoming information was poor but not on account of cognitive delay. "

There is actually a huge advantage in this area if you have experienced clinical autism. The main point Richard missed. Several years of my education was pure experience but no interpretation. You know something is wrong but can't represent it. When you can accurately interpret such an experience, the process will eventually show up in colour. You get a far bigger vision.
It's like those who have never in their life been drunk then studying the phenomenon of intoxication by observing people who are drunk. Yet if a drunk then absorbs the same data, he or she, can verify what fits with experience and what does not. Not the best analogy but an analogy nonetheless.

davidbanner99@ wrote:It's now up to you to examine the background and calculate percentages.

Why do you think it is logical that we can demonstrate that research on autism by those with autism is marginalized by calculating percentages?

Look at science fiction. While females make up roughly 50% of the world's population, they only make up 30% of those that write science fiction. Is the reason because the science fiction community marginalizes the work of female writers? Or might there be other reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with being marginalized?

You have mentioned that you enjoy deep thinking. I hope you do not think that the way you prove that work is being marginalized comes down to something as simple as just calculating percentages. It is much more complex than that. There are many factors that might explain why significantly more men than women tend to write science fiction. Wouldn't you agree?

If we did want to show if research was being marginalized, what approach might we take?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:It's now up to you to examine the background and calculate percentages.

Why do you think it is logical that we can demonstrate that research on autism by those with autism is marginalized by calculating percentages?

Look at science fiction. While females make up roughly 50% of the world's population, they only make up 30% of those that write science fiction. Is the reason because the science fiction community marginalizes the work of female writers? Or might there be other reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with being marginalized?

You have mentioned that you enjoy deep thinking. I hope you do not think that the way you prove that work is being marginalized comes down to something as simple as just calculating percentages. It is much more complex than that. There are many factors that might explain why significantly more men than women tend to write science fiction. Wouldn't you agree?

If we did want to show if research was being marginalized, what approach might we take?

I think nothing could be simpler and more direct than the formula I suggested. Very basic and effective logic. Define the question and then seek any data to support or dismiss its validity. Well worth reading too the Socratic dialogues. Now there's a man who had little reputation in Athens but championed the merits of logic. A wandering eccentric who was rejected for teachings against the gods of Greece.

davidbanner99@ wrote:I think nothing could be simpler and more direct than the formula I suggested. Very basic and effective logic.

Ah, okay, so then you would also think it fair to say that if 100% of all academic work is published by those with IQ's above 70, but 2% of the population has an IQ below 70, that this alone is sufficient proof that research conducted by those with IQ's below 70 is being marginalized.

Fair enough. I disagree with you. I think it is not such a simple calculation. I think there are other factors that might better explain why less than 2% of academic research is conducted by those with IQ's below 70.

Glad we cleared up what you believe is logical.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:I think nothing could be simpler and more direct than the formula I suggested. Very basic and effective logic.

Ah, okay, so then you would also think it fair to say that if 100% of all academic work is published by those with IQ's above 70, but 2% of the population has an IQ below 70, that this alone is sufficient proof that research conducted by those with IQ's below 70 is being marginalized.

Fair enough. I disagree with you. I think it is not such a simple calculation. I think there are other factors that might better explain why less than 2% of academic research is conducted by those with IQ's below 70.

Glad we cleared up what you believe is logical.

As I said, to answer your own question is very simple. That is, if you can break the question down to precise stages.
You could try reading Plato's Socratic Dialogues. This is philisophical problem solving with ways to explore all possibilities. Then narrowing down.

Recalled this quote from Steve Silberman:

"First, Kanner insisted that autism was a condition of infancy, putting the spotlight on early childhood and rendering adolescents and adults with these traits invisible."

Seems that Neurotribes scored the odd point - namely that no articulate adults with similar traits as children were ever not "invisible".

Hopefully I can change that over time.

Your logic for determining if research on autism by those with autism is marginalized is to (1) list people you consider to be prominent researchers on autism, (2) look into their background to determine if they have autism and calculate relative percentages.

So let's use your logic to tell me how research conducted by pediatricians marginalizes the research produced by children age 5 years or younger. I will help you out. Currently 100% of research conducted by pediatricians is conducted by people older than 5 years of age, yet roughly 6% of the population are 5 years old or younger.

Why? Why isn't at least 6% of research on pediatrics published by young children? According to your logic, this is proof that pediatricians are marginalizing the research of children.

I disagree with you. I find your logic flawed.

Different equation altogether.There is Paul Cooijman and that's pretty much it. And Paul specialises in intelligence testing mostly.
So far as I know it's just me with a background of more severe impairment. That is pretty identical to the children described by Dr Asperger. Oh, and Temple Grandin of course. Notwithstanding, Asperger wrote Autistic Psychopathy in females is very rare.

davidbanner99@ wrote:Different equation altogether.

No it isn't. The equation is exactly the same.

The lesson to be learned here overall is allowing information to enter. This isn't the same as simply agreeing with the thoughts others may have. It just means allowing information to enter and allowing time to process it. Rejecting new information in a reactive manner is pretty awful for purposes of research. It creates a blockade and a brick wall.

davidbanner99@ wrote:The lesson to be learned here overall is allowing information to enter. This isn't the same as simply agreeing with the thoughts others may have. It just means allowing information to enter and allowing time to process it. Rejecting new information in a reactive manner is pretty awful for purposes of research. It creates a blockade and a brick wall.

I agree with you. It would probably be good for you to process that the equations are exactly the same.

I think Richard should submit his essay. Here. I have one I'm publishing on my site soon. I suppose the title would be, "How people with neurological deviations have contributed to mainstream Psychology research."
As long as the essay supplies source quotes and knowledge of the subject matter, I am happy to give it a chance.
Ultimately it would be read and considered by psychology students and fellow writers such as Steve Silberman. After all.Steve did very well with Neurotribes.

davidbanner99@ wrote: I have one I'm publishing on my site soon....Steve did very well with Neurotribes.

Nice irrelevant tangent.

The equations are the same. You should take some time to reflect on what that means for your claim that research by those with autism on autism is marginalized.

In a short time, I will be releasing a large essay that I believe will theoretically cause a few headaches. It will also justify my thread here. And, as ever, those who attempt to disprove my research will be forced to look at the source quotations. That is, original texts.
When Steve Silberman wrote neurotribes, I read (and can quote him) that all his research assistance came from what he called "autism gurus", who he adds were not themselves in any way autistic. Yet, my impression is Steves sources were kind of shallow. He mentions Leo Kanner and Hans Asperger a lot. I am not sure if he ever read Asperger's own sources. Neither am I sure if Steve scrutinized early sources on Schizophrenia. That is quite essential as Kraepelin, Kretchmer and Bleuler's work defined modern psychology.
I think Steve's major mistake was he confuses Schizotypic personality type with clinical Schizoid Psychopathy and Psychotic conditions. This mistake goes all the way back to the 1920s and was already corrected by the leading German psychiatrists. This mistake in my view has tainted American psychology because Steve's very socialised and palatable definition of autism is shared by hundreds of American psychologists. The American definition of "Asperger Disorder" bears little relation to the patients described in the German texts.
To really understand the inconsistancies in modern Psychology, it's essential to go back to Kraepelin's work on Dementia Praecox. This attempted to shape defining factors in disorders such as Catatonia, Paranoia and Paraphrenia. This same outline then fell under the influence of Jung and Freud, who influenced Bleuler.
What's the problem?
Basically too much fragmentation of terminology and definition. It's like a big picture partially seen subjectively by many viewers. The picture is never clear because the co-ordination is lacking. All these clinicians helped us understand major new realities but full agreement never materialised. Each one found things of value but never the whole picture. In my view Asperger and Kretchmer stand out as the closest. Asperger, for example, understood you can't really fit individuals into diagnostic groupings. Always you find something that doesn't fit. The way we react to stresses as an individual is very unique. What we need to do is determine key fundamental principles that are as broadly expressed as possible. This issue is so complex it will never be resolved by researchers who are not themselves autistic. It's not possible to solve an inside problem from the outside. And soon this will be demonstrated in my essays.