Looking at your family................

Janie wrote:Gareth,
My friend, the child psychiatrist said that adults aren't diagnosed with 'aspergers'. Adults get the schizoid label instead.

I was diagnosed 3/4 years ago, I'm 16.

Gareth,
I suppose that you might still be considered a child, since you aren't yet an 'adult' but somewhere in between. If you were 25, rather than 15, you would have been diagnosed as schizoid. LIkewise, if you were 5 or 8, you would have been diagnosed with aspergers.

My friend, the child psychiatrist said 'they're the same diagnosis', only the age is different.

All of my relatives, as far as I know, were/are very much to the norm, socially and in most ways very average. My father was not a real talkative guy but was always social to a normal degree though as he's gotten elderly he gotten more asocial.

I had a serious brain fever when I was 8 years old which caused some minor brain damage and some developmental difficulties. Also had various other ailments as a child which kept me inside a lot and a somewhat overprotective mother who didn't much encourage me to have many friends. I also learned to read quite well when I was quite young and spent a lot of time as a child reading books rather than playing with other children. That would account for a lot of it I would think.

When you start talking genetics then you must consider evolution or how those genes came to be. There is a whole field of Evolutionary Psychology these days. A very basic reason why humans are social animals is because it used to be (and still is in many places) of great evolutionary advantage to be a member (in good standing) of a group or tribe. Throughout history physical conditions have often been quite harsh and single human beings could simply not adequately feed or care for themselves outside of a community. You were part of a tribe or group or city-state or else you died. You didn't get to reproduce or pass your genes along. Plus the fact of the time it takes to raise each human child, as well as energy investment makes it a community endeavor. Only in recent times have single parents been able to raise children by themselves without heroic efforts and they still need community resources in the form of daycare centers, schools etc. Therefore, natural selection was quite effective in selecting for humans who had whatever genes were necessary for successful affiliation, including such genes as those that make humans desire to be with one another. One supposes that "naturally solitary" individuals passed their genes along far less than more social ones. Any genes determining solitary preferences or behavior should tend to get weeded out. On the other hand, one could suppose that in the case of many men who were "loners", might tend to leave their original tribe - and though many might perish along the way - enough would eventually make it to become affiliated with another tribe or group and mate and have children, and maybe move on again after that... so that enough of those "solitary" or "loner" genes stayed in the population that a small percentage of people always ended up with some. And that under the right (or Wrong) conditions, such solitary individuals could become "schizoid".

Just a theory. Any real explanation would have to look into developmental, psychological, cultural, environmental and maybe even philosophical factors as well. I think many different causes could lead to the "mindset" that we call schizoid.

Gary

Gary,
Interesting thoughts and they sound correct to me.

I've read one scientist who believes our modern society has produced more aspergers syndrome because of our mobility. In the past men and women had to marry someone who lived very close by. Now, men and women travel all over and meet people who they would never have met in the past. People with tendencies toward aspergers, with aspergers and/or schizoids in their family, now meet and marry. Many more marry than ever would have married in the past, thus more asperger children than ever before.

I found it an interesting theory. I'll see if I can find the article again.

Bluesnowleopard wrote: When you start talking genetics then you must consider evolution or how those genes came to be. There is a whole field of Evolutionary Psychology these days.

i just studied EP for my philosophy bit of a course - i didn't like it. the tutor was quite clearly dead against it, but also, it just didn't quite add up i don't think. i do totally understand their arguments, but i just don't think it explains stuff. but i may be wrong

i have to disagree about the single parent thing tho - death rates, particularly in mothers (childbirth), were so consistently high until almost the 20th century that there were a great many single parents over time. of course they often remarried or lived with other people, but that still happens. also, communities were closer knit, in many cases, so there would be a more collective parenting. but you are right that this is really the first couple of generations where to be a single parent through choice rather than death is really seen as acceptable generally.

Janie wrote:Gareth,
My friend, the child psychiatrist said that adults aren't diagnosed with 'aspergers'. Adults get the schizoid label instead.

Your biological parents may not be living. Or it may be too painful for them to inquire about you. Young women find surrendering their child to be the most painful thing ever in their lives, it takes a great deal of courage. They do it for their child, because they love them and want them to have a better life, but they mourn the loss forever.

I was diagnosed last year and I'm 22... I'm pretty sure I'm still not classed as a child... at least, not legally, haw haw.

What I am saying basically.. is that your friend is full of poopies. Aspergers is still Aspergers, child or adult. There is no official rule that states that any adult that presents with aspie symptoms are dxed as SPD, unless that is how things work wherever she works.. which would maybe be illegal, I don't know. As it happens, it says on NAS site (uk) that aspies are often mis-dxed as spd.

Surely Aspergers is completely different to SPD? I've been reading through the diagnostic criteria for Aspergers again recently because the counsellor I saw had never heard of schizoid (thought it was schizophrenia, which is normal I guess) but said she thought I might be Aspergers, and I should have another look at the criteria. And there are huge differences. Some of the major ones I can think of right now are failing to make eye contact, failing to read even basic facial expressions or body language, obsessive fascination with things, and having rituals. It is my understanding that schizoids generally do make eye contact, can read facial expressions and body language, and don't tend to be obsessive about much, if anything, and don't necessarily have rituals. I'm sure there were a lot more differences, I just can't remember them right now.

For a clinician, there may be difficulty in distinguishing SPD from AS, and I think this might be not only because some of the signs and symptoms overlap, but also because SPD people can mimic AS behaviour in some circumstances. To give an example from my own experience, many years ago, before I had a definite diagnosis, one of the doctors I spoke with noted that I had difficulty making eye contact with him (an AS sign), which puzzled me until I realised that I wasn't making eye contact because there were many things in the room that were at least as interesting to look at as the eyes of the person I was listening to. I had no problem with eye contact; I just didn't see much point in it.

(On a side note, I also deliberately avoid eye contact with people in the street and in shops, because they'll be more likely to start a conversation if I'm looking at them. That's my Tip of the Day for reclusive people.)

I've read books and watched documentaries about AS, and I don't understand AS people and their problems any better than I understand "normal" people and their problems. I can better understand people who have Narcissistic PD or Avoidant PD, and suspect that I may have more in common with them.

So I think that while there's overlap between SPD and AS, and I'm also aware of a theory that they might both be manifestations of the same hard-wired brain problem, they're NOT the same, from the point of view of the person experiencing them. To put it another way, I think Janie's child psychiatrist friend is wrong - excusably wrong, I suppose, since SPD is never diagnosed in children, and a child psychiatrist therefore has no reason to know much about SPD.

However, I've sometimes pretended to have AS when the pretence of being normal has broken down. it's less frightening for acquaintances to think that I have AS (which they associate with harmless oddness and special abilities) than a Personality Disorder (which the media have led them to believe is associated solely with being a serial killer).

If a child is never diagnosed as schizoid, what are they diagnosed as? Children who are solitary, have very poor social skills, have no friends, what are they diagnosed as having?

The children I know like that are said to have Asperger's syndrome. If they were diagnosed as adults, they would get the label of ASP, wouldn't they? Thirty year old people with no friends and no social skills are not diagnosed as having Aspergers syndrome. But an 8 year old would be.

What am I missing here?

Well I really don't think they're related. From Wikipedia:

A person with AS may have trouble understanding the emotions of other people: the messages that are conveyed by facial expression, eye contact and body language are often missed. They also might have trouble showing empathy with other people. Thus, people with AS might be seen as egotistical, selfish or uncaring. In most cases, these are unfair labels because affected people are neurologically unable to understand other people's emotional states. They are usually shocked, upset and remorseful when told that their actions are hurtful or inappropriate. It is clear that people with AS do not lack emotions. The concrete nature of emotional attachments they might have (i.e., to objects rather than to people), however, often seems curious or can even be a cause of concern to people who do not share their perspective.[19]

Literal interpretation is another common, but not universal hallmark of this condition. Attwood gives the example of a girl with AS who answered the telephone one day and was asked, "Is Paul there?" Although the Paul in question was in the house, he was not in the room with her, so after looking around to ascertain this, she simply said "no" and hung up. The person on the other end had to call back and explain to her that he meant for her to find him and get him to pick up the telephone.[24]

It seems a big part of AS is an inability to communicate, whereas SPD is a lack of interest in communication. Nowhere in the AS article is anything on a lack of interest in sex, a preoccupation with fantasy, or a lack of drive to succeed that most people with SPD have. Also, nowhere in the SPD article is anything about literal interpretation, missing nonverbal cues, or being 'too' honest (it seems like people with SPD lie very often to avoid attention).

I seem to have very strong symptoms of both except I have no trouble understanding people, which I'm pretty sure rules out AS. But I speak rather formally (I use 'necessarily' a tonne, in the way someone studying logic would), have problems with motor control (although I suspect it has to do with depth perception; I bump into things a lot), and am very honest to very direct questions.