Aspergers related to socionics type?

[Reuben]

Wrong Way Ticket, I think you misread her post. She did not mean to blast peeps with Asperger's. Rather, she is sympathetic.

However, there are those who falsely diagnose themselves with Asperger's to, just as you say it, explain away their social awkwardness.

Also, I am suddenly inclined to believe that Asperger's is a completely reversible condition. Just to qualify, it is as reversible as it is possible to drag the moon towards the earth. It is 1) too time consuming 2) too resource consuming 3) too stressful for sufferer. These of course, compounds the older you are. I am guessing that above the age of 5, it may be practically impossible to completely reverse Asperger mindset and thinking patterns, but for certain, vast improvements can be made if proper techniques are used. Up to a certain point, it is possible that close to an infinite amount of energy will be necessary to completely cure one of Asperger's.

To clarify, it may seem that by using the terms 'Asperger mindset and thinking patterns', I am of the standpoint that Asperger is the fault of the person. My view is this: it may or may not be.

It may, if the person does not seek help or is willing to help himself or herself to the fullest. Now before you jump at me, I'd say that it is not always the best to help yourself to the fullest due to the fact that you require and extreme unrewarding amount of energy to fully perfect any task. But if you do not help yourself to the extent that you are able to, and if it is a simply a matter of will, then it is your fault for being lazy. If it is a matter of misinformation, which it usually is, then it is the fault of he or she who conceals such information.

It may not be, because the root cause of Asperger's is so far, not certainly known. As such, I cannot make any conclusions at this point, other than that I know nothing about this for certain.

Finally, let me share with you something that I saw on a youtube comment. Based on an intuitive logical calculation involving very few variables, I would say that the commenter was not lying.

ddviolinist:
"Indeed, there are some that have been "turned around." One of my best friends in California had her son treated with speacial methods from 3 years old upward. He shows zero signs of autism now. None. But, it doesn't work for everyone. They got lucky. But, indeed, some people are cured with these methods. It has to do with retraining the brain from a VERY young age. It was a grueling process and would occur at all hours of the day and/or night, never allowing a learning moment to slip by"

If you hate relatively intellectual rants that borders on excessive self-indulgence, then please ignore the following.

The variables involved to decide whether of not she was lying were

1) what does he or she stand to gain? (assuming she is lying, then most probably fame and money when people approach her for solutions, assuming also that she charges or stands to gain from the solutions proposed)

2) if he or she stands to gain something, is that something valuable enough that one should resort to sneaky methods? (probably not, but there is a small chance that her 'autism healing' business will spark off a huge wave that may cause her to gain much)

3) If so, then does the poster possess enough intelligence to pursue such a plan without being caught? (judging from the english, the commenter is probably too emotional to manipulate others through lying - either that or he or she is extremely brilliant, and soulless. I do not discount the latter possibility, but based on the fact that human behaviour is mostly consistent assuming lack of maliciousness, I would say that he or she is not lying. I assume lack of maliciousness.)

[tcaudilllg]

Up to a certain point, it is possible that close to an infinite amount of energy will be necessary to completely cure one of Asperger's.

Are such thoughts really worth actually having? Is it really worth trying to understand how to do something that is impractical?

"Indeed, there are some that have been "turned around." One of my best friends in California had her son treated with speacial methods from 3 years old upward. He shows zero signs of autism now. None. But, it doesn't work for everyone. They got lucky. But, indeed, some people are cured with these methods. It has to do with retraining the brain from a VERY young age. It was a grueling process and would occur at all hours of the day and/or night, never allowing a learning moment to slip by"

This illustrates the profound dangers of using spectrum-level classifications. True Aspergers cannot be cured. Period. There is no such mechanism to turn signals into more capable brain cells. The individual you are talking about did not have Aspergers as Piaget describes it (that is, they are not "little professors"), or no treatment now available would be able to affect it.

[Reuben]

That thought was worth having. It basically means, don't go there. But at the same time, I'm saying that it is possible to reverse Asperger's to an exponentially decreasing extent the older the sufferer is.

[tcaudilllg]

That thought was worth having. It basically means, don't go there. But at the same time, I'm saying that it is possible to reverse Asperger's to an exponentially decreasing extent the older the sufferer is.

Actually the reverse is true: the symptoms decline with age because the person's sense of subjectivity is "locked" in their shadow. They see people as being too sentimental to be responsive to the reality before them, and generally associate, I think, sentimentality with criminality. I need to develop this line of thought, so I'll come back to it.

Here's a very famous individual with Aspergers.



Aspies try to see the world as essentially mechanical. For this reason they make exceptional physicists and engineers.

As for Alan Keyes, he doesn't develop new ideas because he is conservative. (which is unrelated to autism) Conservatives generally avoid creating new concepts and ideas.

[Reuben]

Ah. But if they're locked to their shadow side, doesn't that mean that their asperger-ism is harder to correct?

This is because they think it's a way of life now, to put it in simple terms.

I'm not sure if there's actually a contradiction between being locked in their shadow side and their symptoms reversing. I thought it'd be more of they'll be more accepting of their symptoms in that they'll stop bothering about how different they are and instead just be comfortable in contributing their logical ideas? In other words their asperger-ness will be harder to correct.

Am I making sense here?

[tcaudilllg]

The reason they are autistic is that they see a million and one reasons not to be sentimental, not to "get personal". When they open themselves up to this possibility, they get exceptionally personal.

Think of it this way: suppose that you created a system of thought more complex and quite frankly amazing than anything else that had come before it. You were able to accomplish this by completely distancing yourself from your own fears and values, and so have created something that is alien to typical human concerns. Most people can only barely understand you, if at all. Now let's say that you all of a sudden choose to express an opinion which reflects how you really feel. There is a good chance that the people who barely understand your ideas will feel exceptionally threatened by your opinion, because how are they to know that it isn't an alien production of your (typically detached) perspective? To understand your perspective, must they first adopt your opinion?

In the 1933, Einstein tried to immigrate to the U.S. (to escape Nazi persecution). Unexpectedly standing in his way was a group of angry women's rights activists who were upset about comments he had made about women being "over fussy" and "in need of proper management" by their husbands. This was only the second time this had happened: in 1924 he had gotten in some serious hot water with Amercan editorialists by arguing that American men "did not properly discipline their women". It was a paradox of his genius that this man who could see deeper into the processes of nature than seemingly anyone else had, with respect to all matters of personal conduct, a decidedly chauvinistic attitude belonging to the 19th century, as opposed to the 20th. I think this peculiarity can be explained, though, in the fact that the shadow is always opposite ideologically to the ego: an ardently progressive reformer like himself would be expected by have a shadow that is static in every sense of the word. Einstein often described himself as the tool by which God investigated the question of whether or not he had a choice in creating the universe. His belief in a god (although not the Yahweh of his ethnic faith) eventually led him to insist on the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, which eventually led to his falling away from the mainstream in physics. Certainly it never availed Einstein to share his personal beliefs about anything, because his friends always had personal reasons of their own not to listen.

One person who did listen to Einstein was the very conservative and authoritarian Sigmund Freud, in whose work Einstein took a great deal of interest. Einstein's person was also "borrowed" on behalf of all sorts of causes: people frequently attempted to exploit his fame. That may be another reason for his reclusivelness, in that he may have feared people close to him were trying to use him.