Addressing the veterans here

You see me now a veteran of a thousand psychic wars...

I'm glad you enjoyed some of my contributions. I guess Zoned Out is in the midst of battle in the attempt to secure the borders of his new home at the moment.

I agree with naps – the question is very broad; and I'm going to use it maybe also to quote some stuff, that hasn't been quoted yet, so brace yourself.

What is my current understanding regarding my disorder.

Lately I'm thinking about ethnological applications. Two numbers and two names: 90%, 150, Dunbar and Calhoun.

1. 90%. In a conversation about a topic we've never heard about, only 10% of our opinion is based on the literal meaning of what is said. The rest is made up from how we feel, if we're hungry, do we like the hair of the opposite, does the topic make us look good and so on.
An example is maybe favorite school subjects. Kids only in the rarest of cases have a favorite subject but don't like the connected teacher. More often than not, it's their favorite subject because they like the teacher; 10% on-topic content, 90% emotion.
One conclusion can be our sensory impressions aren't tailored towards factual content, it's way more about assessing another person on an emotional level, which is limited by

2. a hundred and fifty. The Dunbar Number is, based on our brain-size, the average amount of people we can maintain stable relationships with.
If animals are forced to live in higher populations than they can deal with, stress reactions right up to suicide are documented among others by

3. Calhoun, a ethologist, that researched behavioral effects to overpopulation on rodents. The population density was doubled and over three generations the following social behavior emerged:

The consequences of the behavioral pathology we observed were most apparent among the females. [...] An even greater number, after successfully giving birth, fell short in their maternal functions. Among the males the behavior disturbances ranged from sexual deviation to cannibalism and from frenetic overactivity to a pathological withdrawal from which individuals would emerge to eat, drink and move about only when other members of the community were asleep.(1)

Autistic-like creatures, capable only of the most simple behaviors compatible with psychological survival, emerge out of this process.(2)

Individuals born under these circumstances will be so out of touch with reality as to be incapable even of alienation.(2)

There is also talk of super-aggressive male packs that violate territorial rights, a regression, partially into nonexistence, when it comes to mating behavior or nest-building, but I wanted to focus on what appears schizoid to me.

So, what do I make of that.
The exterior conditions for Calhoun's experiments would be met for us, if we would be forced to live in a village of 300 souls. Not 3000, not 300 000, not 8,550,405; three hundred is double the average amount of people our psychological structure can deal with undamaged. I think spd is a blatantly obvious reaction to blatantly obvious species-inappropriate living conditions. Therapy is consequently an attempt to gradually reduce alienation, to chip away maybe the last natural response.

Unless forced by circumstances it's improbable we'll go back to groups of about 150. So, to deal with our sheer number in relation to our surroundings we will need a technical and more so emotional revolution. It's vital that a majority can pick up information based on the literal meaning by lets say more than 50%, if democracy is the choice that is.

I'm not stressed by my emotionality but by the horrendous dirt that happens solely because of the so called healthy emotions of everybody else, a majority too sick to be alienated.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)Calhoun, John B. (1970). “Population Density and Social Pathology”
Calif Med. 113(5), 54, paragraph 3
(2)Calhoun, John B. (1973). “Death Squared: The Explosive Growth and Demise of a Mouse Population” Proc. roy. Soc. Med. Volume 66, 86, paragraph 2 and 5

Oh please, don't let these shakes go on.

I have this feeling that my luck is not too good...

Dalloway wrote:What is my current understanding regarding my disorder.

Lately I'm thinking about ethnological applications. Two numbers and two names: 90%, 150, Dunbar and Calhoun.

1. 90%. In a conversation about a topic we've never heard about, only 10% of our opinion is based on the literal meaning of what is said. The rest is made up from how we feel, if we're hungry, do we like the hair of the opposite, does the topic make us look good and so on.
An example is maybe favorite school subjects. Kids only in the rarest of cases have a favorite subject but don't like the connected teacher. More often than not, it's their favorite subject because they like the teacher; 10% on-topic content, 90% emotion.
One conclusion can be our sensory impressions aren't tailored towards factual content, it's way more about assessing another person on an emotional level

We tend to move toward, or are attracted to things that are agreeable, pleasurable, and in many (but not all) cases, beneficial to us. So is the fact that logical thinking is frequently influenced by emotion/ and or self-interest a good thing? I would say, in some cases, yes. But only because that's the way it works. It's the way it has always worked. I think it's a faulty and self-deluding process, but then again, man is a faulty and self-deluding species.

One example of how this process can be detrimental involves people with power, most notably in politics. Politicians who takes bribes. Politicians who enact laws in their own self interest, despite the overwhelming opposition of their constituents. Donald Trump is a good example. I honestly believe Trump doesn't give a damn about 'making America great again' (his campaign slogan). Trump is not an American the way other American's are. He's not even human the way other human's are. He's lived a gilded life in his palace of money and privilege, completely disconnected from any kind of significant resistance to his well-being and pleasure/wealth seeking. Like anyone with wealth or power, he had surrounded himself with yes-men who are all to eager to stroke his ego and give him what he wants. "Did the sun rise just for me today?" "Yes, Mr. Trump, it has." And after a while, he starts to truly believe this. He got rich. He got celebrity status. He married an upper class whore (a bunch of them). He even got his own TV show. Sooner or later, he realized he already had everything his money could buy, so why not be president? What else would a shallow, ego-bruised, smart-but-not necessarily-bright man yearn for when he already has everything else? Power! He doesn't want to make America great again. He wants to make HIS America great again. The problem is he truly believes his motivations are altruistic in nature.

I've over-embellished my example to the point of straying a bit from the main topic. But I'll leave it be.

Dalloway wrote:a hundred and fifty. The Dunbar Number is, based on our brain-size, the average amount of people we can maintain stable relationships with.
If animals are forced to live in higher populations than they can deal with, stress reactions right up to suicide are documented among others by

3. Calhoun, a ethologist, that researched behavioral effects to overpopulation on rodents. The population density was doubled and over three generations the following social behavior emerged:

The consequences of the behavioral pathology we observed were most apparent among the females. [...] An even greater number, after successfully giving birth, fell short in their maternal functions. Among the males the behavior disturbances ranged from sexual deviation to cannibalism and from frenetic overactivity to a pathological withdrawal from which individuals would emerge to eat, drink and move about only when other members of the community were asleep.(1)

Autistic-like creatures, capable only of the most simple behaviors compatible with psychological survival, emerge out of this process.(2)

Individuals born under these circumstances will be so out of touch with reality as to be incapable even of alienation.(2)

There is also talk of super-aggressive male packs that violate territorial rights, a regression, partially into nonexistence, when it comes to mating behavior or nest-building, but I wanted to focus on what appears schizoid to me.

So, what do I make of that.
The exterior conditions for Calhoun's experiments would be met for us, if we would be forced to live in a village of 300 souls. Not 3000, not 300 000, not 8,550,405; three hundred is double the average amount of people our psychological structure can deal with undamaged. I think spd is a blatantly obvious reaction to blatantly obvious species-inappropriate living conditions. Therapy is consequently an attempt to gradually reduce alienation, to chip away maybe the last natural response.

re: the text in bold: I partly agree, but I believe SPD occurs only in a portion of us. Becoming a schizoid is only one of many possible reactions to this. Those who have no predisposition to becoming a schizoid personality may react in other ways, such as a feeling of chronic dissatisfaction, depression, and, as was mentioned, aggression. None of us are immune to the effects of an overly complicated world. So what is different in those who react to an over populated, over stimulating environment by developing SPD?

Getting back to the original idea here, I'm wondering if the tendency for people to distort their reaction/interpretation of things is something that schizoids should be glad and proud to be largely immune to. Emotion is a big factor in these mechanisms, but not for a schizoid. One of the identifying criteria for SPD is to remain calm/unaffected in the face of unpleasant situations.

Lets say a group of people are involved in some kind of disaster. Action needs to be taken so that everybody may get out alive and in one piece. Imagine this group as a microcosm for all humanity; you'd have the people who panic and become useless. The people who chose to deal with the situation by getting on their knees and begging their fairy-tale prince to swoop down and rescue them (i.e. the religious types), you have the knuckleheads who take this as an opportunity to take charge and be all Bruce Willis about it, regardless of whether they have the smarts or leadership qualities needed to do so (they frequently don't)......and then you have the schizoids (well, schizoid, since it's unlikely there would be more than one schizoid in this group). Unaffected by the emotionality of the situation, they would be able to calmly and reasonably find a solution.

Looking at it this way, schizoids are evolutionarily superior. Who wouldn't want a schizoid around when things go bad?

Dalloway wrote:Unless forced by circumstances it's improbable we'll go back to groups of about 150. So, to deal with our sheer number in relation to our surroundings we will need a technical and more so emotional revolution. It's vital that a majority can pick up information based on the literal meaning by lets say more than 50%, if democracy is the choice that is.

Don't count on it. What has technology given us these days? Social media. And what is social media if not a cesspool of emotional and knee-jerk reaction to things? I think a giant meteor would be a better solution.

Dalloway wrote:I'm not stressed by my emotionality but by the horrendous dirt that happens solely because of the so called healthy emotions of everybody else, a majority too sick to be alienated.

My God that's beautiful.

Kimberly wrote:To the great veterans of this forum ZonedOut, smirks, MotherRussia, Dazz, Dalloway, naps, Runestone =) (Might have missed someone ) Thought I'd say thanks. I've been lurking here for a while and I've found all your posts really meaningful, especially ZonedOut's.

I was also hoping you could share some of your general experiences with SPD here. Like what is your current understanding regarding your disorder, your difficulties, what helped you before and what is your current attitude/situation. I'd be really interested in hearing =)

Thank you Kimberly, I'm very flattered you found my posts meaningful.

I'm not diagnosed btw. Its hard to say what my main difficulties are. Honestly its probably having to deal with external expectations, coming from family, etc. They have ideas about what they want me to do. I'm more a minimalist and am content with not very much. They project their own wishes onto me (want to live vicariously through me, want me to acccomplish the things they didn't) and I don't like it when they try to push me in a direction I don't want to go on. I think my Schizoid traits makes me someone who just wants a simple life and I don't react to social pressures or do things just to fit in, just because its the thing to do. For me the difficulty comes in dealing with my family when sometimes they take it as a personal affront or their own failing that I am not living the life they want for me.

How do I deal with it? I just have to show a lot of patience. When they start nagging me, I listen to them, let them vent, and then go and do my own thing anyways. I might do something to appease them now and then. I guess they are only showing they care, and that is their way. I do get tired of other people trying to force me into a box though.

naps wrote:So is the fact that logical thinking is frequently influenced by emotion/ and or self interest a good thing?

It's more like there is only emotional thinking; logic merely has a part if it supports the emotion.

I've read they want to shut down every Trump-Hillary-discussion in here. You know my opinion. I'm saying, to keep it as neutral as possible, if we want democracy, the faces, the history and family of people that stand for election are irrelevant. What counts is the agenda and the results. If they can't deliver they should get suspended and punished. Everything else is a farce.

And the thing is they know they just have to win you emotionally. They show you the family and the history and his face on giant screens to make their candidate one of your 150, one of your tribe. Because if you sympathize, if you accept him for your tribesman you will support him above and beyond. If logic had any say America wouldn't have voted for either.

What was Obama's promise? Close one of the American torture prisons and end one of the wars? Well that didn't happen. Why was there no overthrow? Torture and murder isn't enough? Not so free and brave after all?

naps wrote:straying a bit from the main topic. But I'll leave it be.

Me too.

naps wrote:Who wouldn't want a schizoid around when things go bad?

 
In some subsequent experiment they did put all the rats that didn't mingle anymore into one enclosure. By the way they were called “the beautiful”, since they hadn't any bite marks and spent their time with grooming themselves.
They ignored each other and just died off.
It appears when things go bad, you'll need at least one that goes Bruce Willis on you.

I just want to add reading about Calhoun blew my mind. To see withdrawal as such a natural reaction … I thought it would cause more of a commotion in here. Does the idea interfere with self-pity? Do people that cried to be as dull as everybody else now feel dumb?

That's the only experiment I know of, that very expressively recreated schizoidism in a mammal. And it wasn't even hard or complicated. He made these experiments in the 70's. In 12 years of this board the name Calhoun wasn't dropped once. But I won't complain, we got all of your eye colours instead.