Origins

HungryJoe wrote:

Alex Foster wrote:I believe that one of the tenets of SPD is that it's naturally occurring; meaning that it's the way a person is from birth.

I'm totally unaware of any such tenet. Have you got a source for it?

When diagnosing me, my therapist had to be certain I wasn't just repressed due to trauma or experience before saying I was schizoid. If I had some sort of abuse in my background she wouldn't have diagnosed me as schizoid--she would have gone with some other dysfunction.

A personality disorder is really a personality type--it's just who you are and though you can adapt to some degree it's pretty fundamental. That's the way it was presented to me. If something causes you to be the way you are then you're an Axis I disorder whereas congenital conditions are Axis II.

Alex, from what I've read, I tend to agree with you. That this is not a result of conditioning.

The problem from my personal standpoint is that, if my schizoid tendencies are a result of conditioning, then I should be able to 'therapy' my way out of them. I've tried to do that for 20 years, and have been unable to do so.

I have actually spent a lot of energy trying to be different, to feel differently, to get satisfaction from relationships. But I haven't been able to do so; it's as if I see 'through' such relationships and reduce them to some self serving denominator. And I am unable to committ to such an equasion....to simplify relationships to cost and benefit - I think it must be something more to be worthwhile...to be worth the effort.

After all, I can take care of myself, without having to play some game, to dance some dance, to get something I can't even acknowledge that I need.

Perhaps adopting a schizoid personna is a result of 'tesing reality', and finding that the a schizoid perspective makes more sense than any other.

Or perhaps the schizoid personna is knowing in advance that such a perspective makes sense.

Is it any less 'schizoid' to test those assumptions, than to accept them without reservation.

Not that I care, but I like the intellectual discourse.

Alex Foster wrote:When diagnosing me, my therapist had to be certain I wasn't just repressed due to trauma or experience before saying I was schizoid. If I had some sort of abuse in my background she wouldn't have diagnosed me as schizoid--she would have gone with some other dysfunction.

A personality disorder is really a personality type--it's just who you are and though you can adapt to some degree it's pretty fundamental. That's the way it was presented to me. If something causes you to be the way you are then you're an Axis I disorder whereas congenital conditions are Axis II.

I think your therapist was talking through her hat here, mind you I did have a therapist who said something similar. In wikipedia there is no etiology given for SPD, but if you look at avoidant you'll find this:

Wikipedia Avoidant wrote:The cause of avoidant personality disorder is not clearly defined, and may be influenced by a combination of social, genetic, and biological factors. The disorder may be related to temperamental factors that are inherited. Specifically, various anxiety disorders in childhood and adolescence have been associated with a temperament characterized by behavioral inhibition, including features of being shy, fearful, and withdrawn in new situations.

For Borderline they're even more explicit:

Wikipedia Borderline wrote:Researchers commonly believe that BPD results from a combination that can involve a traumatic childhood, a vulnerable temperament, and stressful maturational events during adolescence or adulthood.

Source for this is given as: Zanarini, MC. & Frankenburg, FR. (1997) Pathways to the development of borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorder. Spring;11(1):93-104.
And finally for Paranoids:

Wikipedia Paranoid PD wrote:One Norway twin study found paranoid personality disorder to be modestly heritable and to share a portion of its genetic and environmental risk factors with schizoid and schizotypal personality disorder.

Here is a surprisingly good (in my opinion), though brief, site about SPD which I stumbled on when looking for the etiology:Schizoid PD. It is written by an undergraduate in psychology at a smaller university so it's more or less someones lecture/reading notes. The advantage of this being that it doesn't push a pet theory, but tries to find/sum up several views.

So to sum it up there are many speculations about the causes of disorders, but it's certainly not a given that AXIS II disorders are congenital, though I think it's obvious that there is a congenital element to all of them. SPD is even more in the fog than the rest and there is precious little research into it, possibly because we don't make as much of a splash in society as, say, borderlines or antisocials (understatement of the year).

It seems that many people here see a clear distinction between SPD and extreme introversion. I don't see much difference.

Wikipedia wrote:Introverts lack the exuberance, energy, and activity levels of extraverts. They tend to be quiet, low-key, deliberate, and less dependent on the social world. Their lack of social involvement should not be interpreted as shyness or depression; the introvert simply needs less stimulation than an extravert and more time alone to re-charge their batteries.

What do schizoids have that extreme introverts lack? We are just emotionally reserved loners. Of course some here have depressive features but that is not an inherent schizoid feature. If schizoid is simply the name given extreme introverts then the mystery of etiology is solved since introversion and extroversion are widely considered genetic.

phineas wrote:It seems that many people here see a clear distinction between SPD and extreme introversion. I don't see much difference.

Wikipedia wrote:Introverts lack the exuberance, energy, and activity levels of extraverts. They tend to be quiet, low-key, deliberate, and less dependent on the social world. Their lack of social involvement should not be interpreted as shyness or depression; the introvert simply needs less stimulation than an extravert and more time alone to re-charge their batteries.

What do schizoids have that extreme introverts lack? We are just emotionally reserved loners. Of course some here have depressive features but that is not an inherent schizoid feature. If schizoid is simply the name given extreme introverts then the mystery of etiology is solved since introversion and extroversion are widely considered genetic.

Your question is interesting. SPD might well be a label that is simply applied to extreme introverts by a society dominated by extraverts. The article you quoted from doesn't say that introversion is genetic, however. On the contrary it says:

Wikipedia wrote:The relative importance of nature versus environment in determining the level of extraversion is controversial and the focus of many studies. Twin studies find a genetic component of .39 to .58. In terms of the environmental component, the shared family environment appears to be far less important than individual environmental factors that are not shared between siblings.

I've looked at the DSM-IV TR and bolded what will also apply to an (extremely) introverted person
1.neither desires nor enjoys close relationships, including being part of a family
2.almost always chooses solitary activities
3.has little, if any, interest in having sexual experiences with another person
4.takes pleasure in few, if any, activities
5.lacks close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives
6.appears indifferent to the praise or criticism of others
7.shows emotional coldness, detachment, or flattened affectivity
This is of course debatable, but I find that only 1 (possibly) and 2 (definitely) apply to introverts as such. The remaining 5 don't and in my opinion traits 3, 4 and 7 are what make schizoids dysfunctional/disordered. Schizoid is a personality type, but not "just a personality type". If you like you could see it as introversion getting out of control.

On the site mayoclinic.com if you look up SPD they have stuff about it etc.. and in their causes they say about the same thing that wikipedia says about AvPD.

It says "The exact causes of schizoid personality disorder are unknown, although a combination of genetic and environmental factors — particularly in early childhood — are thought to contribute to development of all personality disorders."

HungryJoe wrote: The article you quoted from doesn't say that introversion is genetic, however.

I have heard and read form many sources over the years that introversion is heritable, but I must say that I am impressed by actual numbers.

This is of course debatable, but I find that only 1 (possibly) and 2 (definitely) apply to introverts as such.

I would say that criterion 1 is the fundamental meaning of introversion. What is introversion if not indifference to socializing and friendship. I would include 3 also. Many of us enjoy the usual pleasure of sex but prefer the solitary method. We don't do it with others because we wish to avoid the inevitable emotional attachment. Five is almost the same as 1, it is simply 1 put into practice, although there is some difference on the matter of family (but family in what sense - spouse and children, or parents and siblings?). Six seems to be a species of 7, flattened affectivity in particular. If we call 7 "reservedness" for short, it seems to correlate with the simple definition of introversion ("solitariness"). We are described as lacking exuberance and energy, we are quiet, low-key, and deliberate. I doubt that solitariness causes reservedness or vice versa* but rather that they are perhaps genetically correlated, just as mental retardation and unusual facial fat distribution are genetically correlated in Downe's Syndrome without any cause and effect relationship between the two. There could even be an evolutionary explanation for the correlation between solitariness (1,2,3,5) and reservedness (6,7). Steven Pinker (I forget which book) says that we don't really know what emotions are from a neurological point of view; how can a biological computer feel anything? but we do know what they are for - to regulate the relationships with others. Finally there is a possibility that 4 is related to soitariness. I can think of activities that would be fun to do with others, travel, outdoor activities and such, but I don't do them because I don't want to get involved with other people; I merely enjoy solitary activities such as reading and building things (without anyone else messing up my designs). To me all the criteria fit neatly together.

* On second thought I have in the past wondered whether reservedness could cause chronic frustration in our relationships because people can't read us owing to our lack of facial expression and body language.

phineas wrote:I have heard and read form many sources over the years that introversion is heritable, but I must say that I am impressed by actual numbers.

well, heritable has a wider meaning than genetic at least as it's used in everyday language. Basically it's the observation that children tend to be a bit like their parents. The mechanisms behind this may be both genetic and upbringing/role models.

phineas wrote:I would say that criterion 1 is the fundamental meaning of introversion. What is introversion if not indifference to socializing and friendship.

To me the fundamental meaning of introversion is preferring thinking to talking. This desn't really imply that you don't enjoy the company of others, only that you're quiet and withdrawn. Thats why I had it down as a "maybe". Then again from discussions here it has been shown that very few actually prefer being completely solitary.

phineas wrote:I would include 3 also. Many of us enjoy the usual pleasure of sex but prefer the solitary method. We don't do it with others because we wish to avoid the inevitable emotional attachment.

The part about emotional attachment is the clue here I think. There is nothing in the straight introvert suggesting that they want to avoid emotional attachment. And having sex with another person is in fact possible without it so I still disagree here.

phineas wrote:Five is almost the same as 1, it is simply 1 put into practice, although there is some difference on the matter of family (but family in what sense - spouse and children, or parents and siblings?).

5 and 1 looks basically the same yes, the difference appears to me to be the communication aspect. I think 5 is just poorly formulated and that it really concerns how prone you are to tell others about your problems. Schizoids generally don't. I don't know about straight introverts, maybe they don't either.

phineas wrote:Six seems to be a species of 7, flattened affectivity in particular. If we call 7 "reservedness" for short, it seems to correlate with the simple definition of introversion ("solitariness"). We are described as lacking exuberance and energy, we are quiet, low-key, and deliberate. I doubt that solitariness causes reservedness or vice versa* but rather that they are perhaps genetically correlated, just as mental retardation and unusual facial fat distribution are genetically correlated in Downe's Syndrome without any cause and effect relationship between the two. There could even be an evolutionary explanation for the correlation between solitariness (1,2,3,5) and reservedness (6,7). Steven Pinker (I forget which book) says that we don't really know what emotions are from a neurological point of view; how can a biological computer feel anything? but we do know what they are for - to regulate the relationships with others.

6 and 7 are harder to relate to because they both concern how you appear and not how you are. I think the emotional coldness and flattened affectivity in 7 go way beyond ordinary introversion which is only described as calmness and composure. Most introverts would experience sadness at the death of relatives, such as grandparents, I'd think. They may not express it, but they will feel it. Same with love. I've never felt love I think. At least not ever while being with someone else, but maybe once or twice while being alone, at a safe distance. As far as I can tell introverts are capable of it. At least there is no suggestion in the description of introverts that would suggest that they're not.

phineas wrote:Finally there is a possibility that 4 is related to soitariness. I can think of activities that would be fun to do with others, travel, outdoor activities and such, but I don't do them because I don't want to get involved with other people; I merely enjoy solitary activities such as reading and building things (without anyone else messing up my designs). To me all the criteria fit neatly together.

Also in the case of 4 this goes beyond introversion. Even when I can do them alone I take pleasure in "few, if any activities" and this is why I consider it a disorder/dysfunctional. It robs life of pleasure.

I think there is an obvious link between introversion and being schizoid in the sense that all schizoids are introverts (rather bizarrely I'm not absolutely convinced about this as my prolific writings here lately suggests extraversion more than introversion in my case), but not all introverts are schizoid and even when you move onto the extreme end of introversion you've still not arrived at schizoidism. To me the main difference, and for all I know the only difference, between SPD and extreme introversion is that the first is a disorder and the latter is not. That it is a disorder means that it has consequences for the happiness and life quality for you and/or those that have an interest in you (whatever I mean by that).

Rather than redefine all schizoids as extreme introverts has it occurred to you that you might be an extreme introvert rather than a schizoid? Without knowing you I have no real reason to offer an opinion either way of course. That you've managed to carve yourself a solitary living on a ranch suggests to me that you're not under as much psychological strain as those of us who live and work in cities. It's under pressure that the latent weaknesses become evident, and very real, as I'm sure you know.

HungryJoe wrote:To me the fundamental meaning of introversion is preferring thinking to talking.

Wikipedia wrote:According to Carl Jung, introversion and extraversion refer to the direction of psychic energy.
.
.
.

Hans Eysenck described extraversion-introversion as the degree to which a person is outgoing and interactive with other people.

This seems to be the locus of our disagreement. Now, which one is right? Well, both of course - that can happen in psychology, where traits are more like recipes than ingredients. Though both definitions in the Extroversion article are muddled, what attracts me more to the Eysenck definition is the potential for a more mathematical definition, e.g. how many hours/year do you wish to spend socializing on your own initiative with other people simply for the sake of socializing rather than for other purposes such as business, work and unavoidable family obligations? Or, how many friends do you wish to have? If we take a highly simplified version of the Eysenck definition, schizoid and strongly introverted are very close.

It would be interesting to study how strongly genetically determined introversion by such a simplified definition would be. I suspect it would be quite strong. In the animal world species are fairly well divided between social and solitary, and no-one questions the genetic theory as the explanation. There is an interesting example in North America in the difference between the wolf and the coyote; the coyote could well be described as a schizoid wolf. The two species are so genetically similar that they can interbreed but seem to do so only because the domestic dog is involved in the mix. Unlike us human schizoids they reproduce and have flourished throughout the continent. Coyotes are smaller than wolves but what distinguishes them as a separate species is their solitary behavior.

Same with love. I've never felt love I think.

You may be on to something here. There are people I like and I have had friends in the past and may in the future but I don't think I can love. I did as a child but it faded away by adulthood. The most I can offer is loyalty, but that is more a moral position than an emotional commitment.

Rather than redefine all schizoids as extreme introverts has it occurred to you that you might be an extreme introvert rather than a schizoid? Without knowing you I have no real reason to offer an opinion either way of course. That you've managed to carve yourself a solitary living on a ranch suggests to me that you're not under as much psychological strain as those of us who live and work in cities. It's under pressure that the latent weaknesses become evident, and very real, as I'm sure you know.

My condition,whatever it should be called does not cause me distress or unhappiness but it certainly limits my choices. I don't think I could live happily any other way than as I do.

HungryJoe wrote:

phineas wrote:I would include 3 also. Many of us enjoy the usual pleasure of sex but prefer the solitary method. We don't do it with others because we wish to avoid the inevitable emotional attachment.

The part about emotional attachment is the clue here I think. There is nothing in the straight introvert suggesting that they want to avoid emotional attachment. And having sex with another person is in fact possible without it so I still disagree here.

I'd imagine that most other introverts would find the physical closeness of sexual interaction disturbing or off-putting, if not the possibility of emotional intimacy. I've known non-schizoid introverts who enjoy being around people every so often, and strongly desire close relationships, but find that physical closeness quickly becomes too much.

I do agree, though, that the major difference between extreme introversion and schizoid PD is that one is a disorder.