Is autism the opposite of schizophrenia?

Post Reply New Topic

I am in agreement with TPE2. Where is any form of psychosis equated to psychopathy?

Autistic savantism is characterized by outstanding, if isolated, mechanistic skills or expertise set against a background of general mentalistic deficits. Accordingly, we might predict that psychotic savantism should show the exact opposite cognitive configuration: remarkable, if perhaps highly circumscribed, mentalistic talents coexisting with more general mechanistic deficits. By this term we do not mean to suggest that the savants in question are in fact psychotic, only that their cognitive configuration puts them on the psychotic side of the mentalistic spectrum. Nevertheless, the symmetry cannot be exact.

For a start, the normally sad plight of autistics reminds us that mentalistic deficits are typically much more significant socially and have an enormous impact on people’s personal relationships in a way in which mechanistic deficits seldom if ever do. Not being able to program the video, change a plug, or read a map is one thing, but failing to understand other people’s motives, actions, and intentions is quite another – and much more damaging
from a social point of view. Hyper-mentalistic tendencies of the kind seen in psychotic savants might normally promote a person’s social adjustment because of the skill these consummate mentalists have in manipulating others and exploiting them thanks to their natural empathic understanding – particularly of other people’s weaknesses. Consequently, psychotic savants are likely to be identified at worst as cranks or charlatans rather than psychopaths, and at best we should not expect psychotic savants to be as noticeable as autistic ones usually are, or as readily diagnosed as such.

Again, the areas of expertise involved in psychotic savantism might not be so obviously striking as calendar-calculation, photographic memory, or computer-like maths skills are. By contrast, hyper-mentalistic savantism might be expected in skills and areas of expertise that are much closer to normal social life and everyday concerns.
Examples might be outstanding achievement in religious and political evangelism; literary and theatrical culture; litigation and the law; hypnosis, faith-healing, and psychotherapy; fashion, advertising, and public relations; and commerce, confidence-trickery, and fraud of all kinds.

And autism is not an extreme male brain. That's just one guy's method of selling books. He force-fits his theories. Parts that don't fit are dismissed. His idea even of what a male brain looks like is not all that scientific. One scientist told me that some autistic traits are more characteristic neurologically of females. But even that is talking averages, not absolutes. (And that part is about actual cognitive science. Not how people answer a bunch of biased surveys.). The extreme male brain theory is pop science, the worst of the "science for nonscientists" that autism research represents. Most autism research seems to involve pulling something out of your butt and manipulating your data (whether consciously or unconsciously) to fit. Schizophrenia can't possibly be an extreme female brain because it's not a thing, it's a collection of unrelated things bound together by sloppy thinking.

we are thus not proposing that these conditions are caused in any exclusive sense by alterations to genomic imprinting ... Our main goal instead is to integrate predictions from evolutionary theory and genetics with psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry, to further our understanding of the major disorders of human cognition, affect, and behavior.