Are all schizoids the same?

Invisible wrote:So a person who simply doesn't like to socialize or connect with others because he finds them dull and relationships meaningless, yet is not reacting out of some pathological fear or difficulty involving intimacy, is he then schizoid?

Possibly not. At one extreme there's a person who doesn't enjoy parties because people aren't very interesting; at the other extreme is a person who is stressed by receiving an invitation to a party because even the amount of human contact involved in refusing the invitation is unpleasant.

Of course with the fact that personality disorders have large cross-overs, as well as the fact that many people sharing their experiences here are self-diagnosed, further blurs the lines of what defines a schizoid.

Also, the diagnostic criteria weren't handed down by a heavenly psychologist on tablets of stone. They've differed in different places and at different times, and are based on theories about inaccurately observed symptoms rather than on knowledge of causes. There's no possibility that cholera and malaria will ever be combined as a single disease, but SPD and Avoidant PD (for instance) might easily be seen as variants of the same problem next time the diagnostic criteria are revised.

Some schizoid individuals omit/deny the inabilities, anxieties, fears, depression, anger, confusion, depersonalization (etc.) that they may experience when faced with the prospect of emotionally intimate relationships. They have pathologically withdrawn to a place of solitude and then blur the distinctions between reactionary withdrawal and 'spontaneous' retreat, in an attempt to dignify their schizoid state.

That rings true for me, though the phrasing of the last part seems disparaging rather than factual. "In an attempt to avoid sympathy, suggestions for therapy and similar unpleasantness" would be my subjective way of accounting for my reluctance to tell doctors the truth about myself.

For example: a few years ago a doctor arranged for me to meet somebody once a week to play chess. This was fine for a while; I enjoyed the chess and didn't mind the limited social contact with a "friend" who had had my problems explained to him. But then the "friend's" wife started working from home and his son returned from university, and they insisted on talking to me "normally" when they saw me. I was trying to think of a way of extricating myself from an unbearable level of interaction with them when the family solved the problem by moving away.

The point of this anecdote is that I now avoid offers to provide me with the limited kind of social activity that I find tolerable, just in case it leads to something intolerable again. But by far the simplest way of accounting for this to the doctor was to say that I hadn't really been interested in playing chess at all.

I think people who say they choose solitude because they love it and not because they are afraid or anxious about socializing are in denial. There are likely deeper issues than simply finding people to be "dull". Or, they are not schizoids at all, and simply have solitary personalities.

I do prefer solitude. For instance, my chess needs are now satisfied by software and anonymous games played on the Internet better than they ever were by playing across a real board with a real person. But that may be adaptive behaviour; it's possible that in a forgotten stage of early childhood I had a slight preference for being alone that has been growing ever since as a result of bad social experiences.

jradetzky wrote:

Invisible wrote:Meaning that if difficulty with intimacy is not the reason you don't socialize with people, then you are probably not schizoid. You could otherwise simply be misanthropic, cynical, or nihilistic.

Like, how do I differentiante between being misanthropic, cynical, nihilistic or having difficulties with intimacy? Can't they all be related? Actually, I think I'm misantropic--people hater--, cynical--too much--and when it comes to opening up to people, I feel they will hurt me if I do, so I don't.

Are you really misanthropic? Let's take the 9/11 attacks as an example.

When you saw the planes crashing into the towers, did you
a) celebrate the fact that a lot of puny humans died
b) take pleasure in the fact that human fallibility allowed it to happen
c) enjoy the spectacle without thinking about human lives at all
d) worry that somebody you liked or admired might have died
e) mourn for the dead

(a) would be the most misanthropic reaction, (e) the least.

Are you really cynical?
a) Nobody is ever genuinely altruistic; even people who die to save others are thinking about their own posthumous fame
b) Most people are concerned with their own advantage most of the time
c) People are little more than automata; random influences could turn heroes into villains and vice versa
d) People sometimes overcome selfishness and are genuinely nice
e) Even bad people aren't too bad if you understand them well enough

(a) is the most cynical, (e) the least.

In both questions, I think (c) would be the likeliest answer for a Schizoid to give, but I don't think any answer is absolutely impossible. I'd be a (d) in both cases.

I can't do a quiz for nihilism, because it seems to me to be a philosophical/political attitude rather than an attitude to people. And the other questions and answers are merely ones I've made up myself, so don't take them too seriously.

When you saw the planes crashing into the towers, did you
a) celebrate the fact that a lot of puny humans died
b) take pleasure in the fact that human fallibility allowed it to happen
c) enjoy the spectacle without thinking about human lives at all
d) worry that somebody you liked or admired might have died
e) mourn for the dead

When I first heard the news about it I really worried that it could bugger my plans to study in England (I left for England on Sept 27th, 2001). Apart from that, my inner reaction was "you (USA) deserve it, you can't go around bombing foreign countries without retailiation". Actually, most people in my home country thought the same. So I guess my answer would be (b).

Are you really cynical?
a) Nobody is ever genuinely altruistic; even people who die to save others are thinking about their own posthumous fame
b) Most people are concerned with their own advantage most of the time
c) People are little more than automata; random influences could turn heroes into villains and vice versa
d) People sometimes overcome selfishness and are genuinely nice
e) Even bad people aren't too bad if you understand them well enough

(a), no doubt about it. I think even Jesus Christ and Gandhi were thinking about fame when they snuffed it.

Are you really misanthropic? Let's take the 9/11 attacks as an example.


d) worry that somebody you liked or admired might have died
e) mourn for the dead







Are you really cynical?
a) Nobody is ever genuinely altruistic; even people who die to save others are thinking about their own posthumous fame

psychology,philosophy

b) Most people are concerned with their own advantage most of the time

Economic principle



c) People are little more than automata; random influences could turn heroes into villains and vice versa


d) People sometimes overcome selfishness and are genuinely nice

Selfish and self interested are 2 different things. also economic principle
e) Even bad people aren't too bad if you understand them well enough

Bad and good. philosophy

Joe Dirt wrote:e) Even bad people aren't too bad if you understand them well enough

Bad and good. philosophy

Absolutely. It is very interesting to delve deep into the logics of evil and try to understand it. Once you do, you realise it's all a matter of interests and perceptions what defines right and wrong.

Bloggs wrote:When you saw the planes crashing into the towers, did you
a) celebrate the fact that a lot of puny humans died
b) take pleasure in the fact that human fallibility allowed it to happen
c) enjoy the spectacle without thinking about human lives at all
d) worry that somebody you liked or admired might have died
e) mourn for the dead

Didn't see it live. I was 11 at the time, and uninterested.

Are you really cynical?
a) Nobody is ever genuinely altruistic; even people who die to save others are thinking about their own posthumous fame
b) Most people are concerned with their own advantage most of the time
c) People are little more than automata; random influences could turn heroes into villains and vice versa
d) People sometimes overcome selfishness and are genuinely nice
e) Even bad people aren't too bad if you understand them well enough

c) and a).

I'm not fussed about the exact definition of schizoid, although I can tell that there's a wide range of people here considering the DSM sieve.

I think my social anxiety and need for time alone are unrelated. I feel social anxiety, yet I've always had more fun whilst alone anyway. I'm socially anxious when I feel like more "normal" people are encroaching on my space, which is sacred to me, and I feel no need to overcome my anxiety and make relationships of my own accord.

"I'm hopeless at architecture, but I was never interested in building anyway".

I've been over good and evil before. Even the word "evil" is silly. Instead of "good and bad" why not "like and dislike"?

Gareth Williams wrote:"I'm hopeless at architecture, but I was never interested in building anyway".

This is pretty cool. I bet this quote is by Old Dear Uncle Adolf.

Bloggs wrote:When you saw the planes crashing into the towers, did you

d) worry that somebody you liked or admired might have died

There are a lot of americans I admire and I couldn't imagine how their art, motivations and purposes would be affected by it. Like in the case of the Madrid bombings, I was pissed off because viewpoints I regard as highly inappropiate could win out in the end by killing every opposer. I wouldn't do that, damn it.

Bloggs wrote:Are you really cynical?

b) Most people are concerned with their own advantage most of the time

I was going to chose a, but some people surprise me by doing anonymous acts of kindness that only them would remember. I still think it's egotistical (not that there's anything wrong with that) because they want to feel good about themselves.

Gareth Williams wrote:I think my social anxiety and need for time alone are unrelated. I feel social anxiety, yet I've always had more fun whilst alone anyway. I'm socially anxious when I feel like more "normal" people are encroaching on my space, which is sacred to me, and I feel no need to overcome my anxiety and make relationships of my own accord.

Same case here. My body reacts negatively when most people breach my privacy and that doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't want them around anyway.

Gareth Williams wrote:I've been over good and evil before. Even the word "evil" is silly. Instead of "good and bad" why not "like and dislike"?

I'm way beyond good and evil, but I believe the local laws are a good frame of reference for considering which actions are more or less appropiate, as long as they are reasonable and democratic. As a rule of thumb, you can do whatever you want as long as you don't take away other people's liberties. I dislike people that consider certain things good and evil because "that's what they are". Of course, this relies on tradition, religion, etc.

Gareth Williams wrote:I think my social anxiety and need for time alone are unrelated. I feel social anxiety, yet I've always had more fun whilst alone anyway. I'm socially anxious when I feel like more "normal" people are encroaching on my space, which is sacred to me, and I feel no need to overcome my anxiety and make relationships of my own accord.

Amen. That's a good way of describing my own situation. It's probably social pressures that have made my tendency to isolation so extreme.

Instead of "good and bad" why not "like and dislike"?

No, I chose morally-loaded terms because non-cynical people are likely to believe in morals.

The question isn't whether you and I believe in good and bad, but whether we think other people are motivated by a belief in good and bad. I think they are - and so am I , to the extent that my early moral conditioning hasn't worn off.

Joel Overbeck wrote:I'm way beyond good and evil, but I believe the local laws are a good frame of reference for considering which actions are more or less appropiate, as long as they are reasonable and democratic.

I think I'll only be beyond good and evil when I snuff it.