Schizophrenia (split from Evolutionary role of diversity of personality)

[Michael McMahon]

“Overall, schizophrenia is about 3.6 times as common among people with autism as it is in controls, the researchers found.”

https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/schizophrenia-prevalence-may-threefold-higher-people-autism/

Some symptoms of schizophrenia:

“Delusions. Hallucinations. Disorganized thinking (speech). Extremely disorganized or abnormal motor behavior. Negative symptoms.”

Some symptoms of autism:

• Abnormal Tone of Voice
• Avoidance of Eye Contact or Poor Eye Contact
• Behavioral Disturbances
• Deficits in Language Comprehension
• Inappropriate Social Interaction
• Intense Focus on One Topic
• Lack of Empathy
• Problems With Two-Way Conversation
• Repeating Words or Phrases

I notice that the symptoms of schizophrenia are superficially the opposite of autism; as if they were at opposing ends of a spectrum. For example the disorganised thinking style in schizophrenia contrasts with the obsessive and intense focus in autism. A complex word salad is wholly different to repeating simple words and phrases. I’m wondering if autism has a lowered understanding of mental empathy then is it like schizophrenia has an excess of that empathy? It might be as if a schizophrenic patient can project their mind too easily on their environment and attach themselves to strange beliefs. So then it’d be understandable that variations in that spectrum would result in hybrid symptoms like the link above. I’m not an expert so I don’t know. I understand empathy in this medical sense is all about a self-aware theory of mind and not the usual sense of the word concerning the morality of someone’s behaviour.

[Michael McMahon]

"However, there is most often no obvious single point of structural damage (a "lesion") to point at as the specific location in the brain where schizophrenia is happening."

https://www.mentalhelp.net/schizophrenia/evidence-its-a-brain-disease/

 

Could partial amnesia contribute to schizophrenia? For example if a patient forgot most of their long-term reasoning skills and remembered only their flawed logic in the previous moments then they'll habitually develop disconnected thoughts. So a disjointed memory could disorient a person in a downward spiral even if the other sections in their brain are working well.

 

Also, there are fast thinkers and slower thinkers along with variations in verbal speed. One isn't inherently better than the other and it depends on what the task is. Writing a short story suits fast and impulsive thinkers because they can more easily develop the rhythm to focus on the connection between paragraphs and instinctively elaborate on new points. Slower and more reflective thinking suits poetry seeing as you can dwell on the significance of each word. So if the speed of your thoughts are mismatched then could this aggravate symptoms of those with Aspergers for instance? One way to ask what Asperger's is, is to ask what isn't Asperger's. People who are comfortable in social situations tend to have a style of thinking that suits the flow and intensity of whatever the conversation is about. Therefore people who feel awkward in social settings might have a discrepancy between what they're thinking and what they're saying. This would be worsened by extended periods of isolated activities. Time spent with others will begin to have an effect over a long period of time. That is to say someone who spends each evening hanging out with others will have much more practice at friendly interaction than someone who stays inside more often. However other factors are also at play and I know that there are far more complexities and nuances between genetics, theory of mind and whatnot in the autistic spectrum and Aspergers. 

 

Not only is the commentator talking fast but he's also thinking fast in a free-flowing way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2jVXigWqhA

REPLICAS - Keanu Didn't Deserve This... - Elvis the Alien

 

Edited December 30, 2021 by Michael McMahon

[AlexSlater1234567]

The main thing about Schizohprenia and any psychotic disorder, is the lack of empathy.  The ability to put ourselves into someone else's shoes when they're suffering in pain.  In reality, nobody is so cold and heartless.  But we can have this issue if we're not SMART enough to know what people are going through, or are simply too heated in anger.

 

That is why you could say Aspberger's and Autism are similar that way.  But a schizophrenic might not have inability socializing.  The issues with language tend to be more Dyslexia and speech disorders, while autism remains more of a social behaviour disorder.  And ordinary delusionment disorder or hallucinations doesn't mean you're a psycho, because a psycho's delusions are much different.  Things like positioning several dead bodies in their home and talking to them like they're real people!

[Peterkin]

On 5/18/2021 at 3:05 PM, Michael McMahon said:

I notice that the symptoms of schizophrenia are superficially the opposite of autism; as if they were at opposing ends of a spectrum.

I think the operative word there is "superficially". Both conditions are more complicated and involuted than a list of symptoms. Also, both conditions have a great deal of variation from patient to patient.

On 5/18/2021 at 3:05 PM, Michael McMahon said:

I’m wondering if autism has a lowered understanding of mental empathy then is it like schizophrenia has an excess of that empathy? 

Interesting idea. But apparently, on the wrong track.

Quote

Schizophrenia patients showed lower empathic accuracy than controls, and their empathic accuracy was less influenced by the emotional expressivity of the target. These findings suggest that schizophrenia patients benefit less from social cues of another person when making an empathic judgment.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3928128/

It seems to me that schizophrenia patients are too busy inside their own heads to deal effectively with external reality, including communication from other people. It's not necessarily lack of feeling for others so much as poor quality reception due to emotional static.

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It seems to me that schizophrenia patients are too busy inside their own heads to deal effectively with external reality, including communication from other people. It's not necessarily lack of feeling for others so much as poor quality reception due to emotional static.

This was my definite impression.

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Genady said:

This was my definite impression.

The simple things are often missed...

[Michael McMahon]

On 3/3/2022 at 2:55 PM, Peterkin said:

It seems to me that schizophrenia patients are too busy inside their own heads to deal effectively with external reality, including communication from other people.

 

Any belief that could be deemed psychotic could also be called non-democratic. In other words they're making a judgement based on their own perception rather than out of deference to shared beliefs.  We don't necessarily owe anyone democratic decision-making seeing as our self-awareness concerns only ourself. Societal worldviews are more than mere elections in that they've been honed over many generations. Therefore adopting an idiosyncratic belief means you'd have to start it from scratch. This might be one reason why someone's subconscious mind could struggle to make sense of their own conscious beliefs. Perhaps this could lead to various thought disorders. 

 

"Consensus reality is that which is generally agreed to be reality, based on a consensus view."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_reality

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Michael McMahon said:

Any belief that could be deemed psychotic could also be called non-democratic.

I don't see that. I mean, I see that it can be called that, but I have problems with using the term. 

1 hour ago, Michael McMahon said:

In other words they're making a judgement based on their own perception rather than out of deference to shared beliefs. 

This statement is even more contentious. A baby makes judgments and decisions according its own perception - which is mainly internal; very limited as regards the world beyond its own skin. It doesn't have access to shared beliefs. At what age, then, has a human child learned to override its own perception and defer to a version of reality received from others?  I don't think psychosis or schizophrenia would be a viable diagnosis at age 3 or 4 or even 5  - but after that, the cut-off line can be set arbitrarily, like the age for driving, drinking, marrying and making war, depending on the society's shared notion of maturing.

Since we are incapable of forming a telepathic interweb, we can't ever all share the same reality in all particulars.  What percent of one's personal take on reality has to be congruent with the prevailing one in order to be considered sane? What degree of deviation to be considered neurotic? psychotic? It's true that people who fail or refuse to subscribe to the dominant beliefs are often diagnosed as [fill in the name by which a mental deviation from norm goes in a given time and culture] - but they may as easily be called heretics, traitors, nonconformists, geniuses or saints.

2 hours ago, Michael McMahon said:

Societal worldviews are more than mere elections in that they've been honed over many generations.

They also change quite radically over time and distance, and sometimes over quite short periods and distances. Whatever your present culture's world-view is at the moment, I'm willing to bet it differs in significant ways from what it was three, six and ten generations ago. 

2 hours ago, Michael McMahon said:

Therefore adopting an idiosyncratic belief means you'd have to start it from scratch.

Why? Can't you collect ideas from the literature of another culture? From personal observation and experience? Or build it up through tearing down - in the way that christians convert to Buddhism or monarchists turn republican?  Anyway, I question the substance of "scratch". In the earliest part of life, we have only visceral beliefs (the existence and utility of  physical objects, trust in one's caregivers, the less confident belief that certain acts and vocalizations will elicit the same response as last time) until we acquire language. But language comes with pre-existing freight: the more language we acquire, the more attitudes and preconceptions it brings. We can't formulate original ideas without it; we can't formulate complex ideas without extensive knowledge of it - but to the extent that we use it, we are incorporating part of our culture's shared reality.  

2 hours ago, Michael McMahon said:

This might be one reason why someone's subconscious mind could struggle to make sense of their own conscious beliefs.

It might. But it might equally be that the culture - or one of its agents - has convinced someone of lies and distortions, and a different perspective on some facet of external reality shattered that conviction. If some crucial issue is at the center of such a disruption, the individual's whole belief system might be fatally damaged; they may be left clinging to an unrecognizable piece of wreckage, or they might attempt to barricade the doors of their perception against further assault.  

The problem here is using 'belief' 'world-view' and 'reality' interchangeably, or as a single, continuous entity.

If  we divided the terms into strict and well defined categories, discussing the phenomena might be less difficult. 

[Genady]

13 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The problem here is using 'belief' 'world-view' and 'reality' interchangeably, or as a single, continuous entity.

Why the discussion on schizophrenia is focused on believes / world-view / societal judgement while the most obvious and objective disturbance is hallucinations?

[Peterkin]

28 minutes ago, Genady said:

Why the discussion on schizophrenia is focused on believes / world-view / societal judgement while the most obvious and objective disturbance is hallucinations?

That's why it's essential to separate the concept of reality - external, objective reality - from belief, judgment and societal norms.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Why the discussion on schizophrenia is focused on believes / world-view / societal judgement while the most obvious and objective disturbance is hallucinations?

How do you know which is witch?

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

How do you know which is witch?

You test it.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

You test it.

I don't care...

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I don't care...

I know...

[dimreepr]

Just now, Genady said:

I know...

Why do you?

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why do you?

Experience.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

Experience.

Are you schizophrenic?

Or are you like me, stoned in the middle of a welsh field...

[Genady]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Are you schizophrenic?

Or are you like me, stoned in the middle of a welsh field...

No.

[Michael McMahon]

On 3/20/2022 at 1:30 PM, Genady said:

Why the discussion on schizophrenia is focused on believes / world-view / societal judgement while the most obvious and objective disturbance is hallucinations?

 

On 3/20/2022 at 12:10 AM, Peterkin said:

At what age, then, has a human child learned to override its own perception and defer to a version of reality received from others? 

 

When we've a stomach ache it's normal to attribute the sensation to pain fibres and the physical brain. However it might also be possible to interpret the pain as originating from our unconscious mind. In that case it'd be the unconscious that actually initiates the pain where the pain fibres serve to distribute the pain. The nature of how the unconscious mind and pain perception interact is not fully understood scientifically. If we were to view physical pain as being subconscious then we'd be left to conclude that the unconscious mind is far stronger than our conscious mind. We can't induce extreme pain intentionally and our involuntary pain response is far more severe than our voluntary pain and stress thresholds. Maybe one reason illnesses like schizophrenia can be baffling is that we underestimate the power of the unconscious mind.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Michael McMahon said:

When we've a stomach ache it's normal to attribute the sensation to pain fibres and the physical brain.

When we have a stomach ache at age 4 months, it's most often colic and we don't 'attribute' it; we respond to by making noises of distress. When we get a stomach ache at age 4 years, we begin to suspect food intake or a disease process as its cause. At age 14, we often attribute it to fear of exams or falling in love, but it's more likely to be ice cream on top of hot dogs, or influenza. At age 40, we consider overindulgence, a toxin, a virus, overproduction of stomach acid, and we may wonder whether it's caused by stress or anxiety. It's certainly normal to know about pain receptors, nerves and the brain by that age. 

1 hour ago, Michael McMahon said:

However it might also be possible to interpret the pain as originating from our unconscious mind.

It's possible but not 'normal' to consider that the first avenue of investigation. We are aware of psychosomatic pain and its most likely causes: fear, guilt and empathy. It' usually traceable to a specific event, experience or emotion. 

1 hour ago, Michael McMahon said:

 If we were to view physical pain as being subconscious then we'd be left to conclude that the unconscious mind is far stronger than our conscious mind.

That's a fairly big IF.

1 hour ago, Michael McMahon said:

Maybe one reason illnesses like schizophrenia can be baffling is that we underestimate the power of the unconscious mind.

Maybe. but it doesn't answer my question about you thesis regarding shared vs subjective perception of reality:

On 3/19/2022 at 8:10 PM, Peterkin said:

At what age, then, has a human child learned to override its own perception and defer to a version of reality received from others? 

 

Edited March 23, 2022 by Peterkin

[Michael McMahon]

14 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That's a fairly big IF.

 

One illness that has both physical and mental characteristics is dementia. We don't know what the future of medicine holds but on first impression it seems subjectively more likely that there'd be a cure to a physical illness like cancer before a cure to a neurological disorder like Alzheimers. This is because Alzheimers not only affects your physical energy but it also detracts significantly from your mental energy. So if you somehow cure the physical disorder in the brain you'd then be left with the problem of recovering they're alertness. It'd kind of be like the problem of critical periods but in reverse. Their conscious awareness would be habituated to a certain energy level after many years and suddenly retrieving their lost memory might be like a congenitally blind person being confused by their newfound vision after an operation in childhood. 

 

"But plasticity has its limits. Collignon and his colleagues studied a group of adults in Canada who were born with cataracts but had corrective surgery before they turned 1. Despite at least 2 decades of restored sight, every individual had slightly impaired vision. Their 3D perception and their ability to detect movement were also compromised, according to unpublished results. The researchers found that the brains of these individuals appear to be wired differently: Unlike normally sighted people, their visual cortexes also process sound, they reported in August in Current Biology."

https://www.science.org/content/article/feature-giving-blind-people-sight-illuminates-brain-s-secrets

Edited March 24, 2022 by Michael McMahon

[Peterkin]

So... Moving on? 

No response on the shared/democratic belief thingie? Or schizophrenia? OK

Edited March 24, 2022 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

29 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No response on the shared/democratic belief thingie? Or schizophrenia? OK

The belief thingie is what we share, I can't belive we're all sick...

[Michael McMahon]

On 3/20/2022 at 12:10 AM, Peterkin said:

I don't think psychosis or schizophrenia would be a viable diagnosis at age 3 or 4 or even 5  - but after that, the cut-off line can be set arbitrarily, like the age for driving, drinking, marrying and making war, depending on the society's shared notion of maturing.

 

Why is autism common in children but not schizophrenia? Schizophrenia and autism are both disorders of self-awareness and so all things being equal schizophrenia should be just as common during childhood. Sensory perception doesn't change drastically as we get older and so it might be their subconscious interpretation of those senses rather than the sensations themselves that contributes to schizophrenia. Perhaps the older ages for the the onset of schizophrenia is correlated with other adult-specific traits like spirituality.

 

"Until the 1970s, many clinicians used ‘autism’ and ‘childhood-onset schizophrenia’ interchangeably. Today these conditions are recognized as separate, but there are similarities. For instance, the social difficulties present in autism can resemble the social withdrawal seen in schizophrenia."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-schizophrenia-and-autism-share-the-same-root/

[Peterkin]

30 minutes ago, Michael McMahon said:

Schizophrenia and autism are both disorders of self-awareness

An observed resemblance is not an absolute correlation.

From the linked article:

Quote

The new findings, published 21 January in Schizophrenia Research, support an alternate theory: Autism and schizophrenia are independent outcomes of the same genetic syndrome.

If there is a relationship between the two conditions, “that can only be a very small, probably negligible effect,” says lead investigator Jacob Vorstman, assistant professor of child psychiatry and genetics at the University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands.

 

37 minutes ago, Michael McMahon said:

Perhaps the older ages for the the onset of schizophrenia is correlated with other adult-specific traits like spirituality.

How? By what route and mechanism?

For that matter, what do you mean? That people with the genetic predisposition are more likely to develop schizophrenia in adult if they have spiritual influences than those not exposed to spirituality?  Or less likely? What is 'spirituality', exactly?

42 minutes ago, Michael McMahon said:

Sensory perception doesn't change drastically as we get older and so it might be their subconscious interpretation of those senses rather than the sensations themselves that contributes to schizophrenia.

Again, how? When? What percent, and what kind of "reality" is actual, physical, objective, and what % is subject to interpretation? How much is each individual influenced in their interpretation of their own physical sensations by other people? Autistic children are presumably less subject to interpreting according to the democratic standard than children who appear normal, even though they have the same gene deletion, but it's the ones who did not exhibit the symptoms of autism in early childhood, and were therefore more receptive to the societal interpretation of phenomena who later develop schizophrenia. So how does that work? 

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to follow the reasoning, and even the vocabulary.