Recently Lion of the Blogosphere blogged that the game Dungeons and Dragons is not “autistic” because it’s a social activity that requires imagination.
Autism is such a vaguely defined concept that it’s hard to say anything definitive.
A team of scientists gave members of the general population a bunch of questionnaires measuring how many autistic and schizotypal traits they had, and then performed a Principal Component Analysis.
PC Analysis takes a bunch of correlated variables and reduces them to a smaller number of hypothetical variables that can explain the data more parsimoniously. For example, if we had measurements of the human body (leg length, arm length, chest circumference, bicep circumference, neck length, cranial circumference, etc) a PC analysis might find that most of the variation in all these dozens of measurements could be explained by just three latent traits: 1) general body size, 2) general body length, and 3) general body width.
PC analysis of the the psychiatric questionaires found the following:
So even through the questionnaires had 12 subscales, The PC analysis found that 29% of the psychiatric variation in this general population non-clinical sample could be explained by the first principal component, while 15% can be explained by the second principal component. If you think of PC1 as a vertical dimension, and PC2 as a horizontal dimension, then you can see in 2-dimensional space how several important traits seem to cluster:
We don’t have to give these clusters names, but the higher and further to the left a trait is, the more “autistic” it’s considered to be. The higher and further to the right a trait is, the more “schizophrenic” it’s considered to be. Of course it’s important not to take this too seriously because none of these correlations are anywhere close to strong, so it’s unclear how meaningful these clusters are.
It’s also unclear how the bottom two quadrants should be labelled, but if I had to label all four, I would guess something like this:
As I’ve discussed before, because Social Genius is more closely related to Schizophrenia than it is to Autism, a lot of our most charismatic leaders encourage magical thinking in the masses. Muhammad gave us Islam, Jesus gave us Christianity, and Oprah helped give us The Secret.
Many would consider Donald Trump a social genius and he too is prone to magical thinking when he endorses fringe conspiracies or promotes the discredited claim that autism is caused by vaccines. This is diametrically opposed to the hyper-rational tech genius Bill Gates who not only supports vaccines but is on a mission to vaccinate the Third World.
I’ve also noticed striking differences between Social Geniuses and Math/Tech Geniuses in how they explain their success. Hyper-rational Gates and Buffett have a mathematical appreciation for randomness and credit their success to luck, while Oprah does not believe in luck, and credits her success to finding what she was put on this Earth to do. The more developed social brain has a tendency to anthropomorphize the universe (it has a plan) and has a greater sense of self (I have a purpose).
Pumpkin Person 
The last paragraph is interesting. Schizos do have a greater need for “closure”, or need to see that everything has some kind of ultimate purpose or reason. That’s part of their conspiracy theory tendencies and tendency to make strong connections between things that have nothing to do with each other.
Ironically autism has an overlap with obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, which causes a person to prefer routine and cleanliness/order vs. randomness. But at the same time autists can accept the randomness of the human species and the universe….interesting….
The Universe is Deterministic so Bill is wrong that it is luck that got him where he is. Over a period of the past 3 years, I sent intentions and listened to the universe. Strange sh*t happened. I’m still doing it. I tried doing technology but I am just above average, not a genius. I am above average in social skills. The doctor has me down as a magical thinker.
When they talk of imagination they do so in the abstract, not the concrete. Imagination is a metaphor for creative thinking. They do not actually mean people see things when they close their eyes but are talented with words and ideas and concepts. People call me imaginative all the time but it is just a metaphor. Even if people think I am seeing what I am saying. They probably do see what I am saying and think I am so imaginative.
Luck and probability is just magical thinking for math people. Regardless….
“Everybody here has the ability absolutely to do anything I do and much beyond, and some of you will and some of you won’t. The ones that won’t, it’ll be because you get in your own way. It won’t be that the world doesn’t allow you to. It will be because you don’t allow yourself to.”
That’s what Buffett says…seems quite magical to me.
I’d put me on x = -10, y = -10
Sometimes I am social, sometimes I’m creative.
”The more developed social brain has a tendency to anthropomorphize the universe (it has a plan) and has a greater sense of self (I have a purpose).”
I have aspergers, i suck at social skills and i would consider myself geekish. But i feel universe has a plan.
“But i feel universe has a plan.”
???
do you mean to ask why i feel that way?, or do you mean to ask what the plan is?
Both.
Why would universe create all this…. for nothing?
In the sense of believing in determinism, you could be right 😀
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=determinism+meaning&rlz=1C1CHBD_enIN791IN791&oq=determinism&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.4642j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
We are part of the universe so our will is is part of the universe. I feel free will doesnt exist technically, as our behavior is influenced by a lot of stuff like our genes, surroundings, circumstances, situations, sleep quality and quantity, nutritional status, hydration status, knowledge, personality, hormones, even bodily enzymes, and wait for it…date and time, year of birth and also many more.
But people need to believe free will exists. Other wise they wont make an effort to reign it in when necessary or use it when necessary. They can slightly modify their will if not fully. People should feel responsible for their actions even if they are fully arent.
I think this is part of the universe’s plan too. That could also be why it keeps people in a dilemma that free will exists/doesnt exist. Same with belief in god. To maintain ‘equilibrium’ in human societal behavior. If everybody believed in god, nobody would have done anything and would leave everything to god to take care of. Also some could have exploited these beliefs and manipulated their co-religionists even more. If nobody believed in god, society would have been less orderly.
“behavior is influenced by a lot of stuff like our genes,”
It’s either “B iff G” (behavior B is possible if and only if a specific genotype G is instantiated) or “if G, then necessarily B” (genotype G is a sufficient cause for behavior B). Both claims are false; genes are neither a sufficient or necessary cause for any behavior.
Evan Charney makes similar arguments in his paper Behavior Genetics and Postgenomics.
And I should make it clear: genes can’t explain behavior, neither as a necessary nor sufficient cause for a specific behavior B, but genes are needed for behavior to occur (they’re a necessary and sufficient pre-condition for behavior, but they cannot explain behavior, neither as sufficient or necessary causes for any behavior B).
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hausman/341/Skill/nec-suf.htm
Genes, among other things, cause behavior. Words aren’t objective. If they are a necessary precondition for the propagation of behavior then they do infact cause said behavior, but biological systems are feedback loops, so there are many conditions or causes that interact holistically to create said results. Secondly, gene expression is how neuronal communication takes place which is of course how our inner machinations coalesce to produce behavior. Q.E.D
“If they are a necessary precondition for the propagation of behavior then they do infact cause said behavior,”
False. They’re only a necessary pre-condition because no genes=no organism; genes are neither a sufficient nor necessary cause for any behavior B.
Behavior is dispositional; it is non-normative.
“They’re only a necessary pre-condition because no genes=no organism”
Is that not a big deal to you? If genes make up the phenotype of organisms that have behaviors then they are a necessary part of the process. Without an organism there are no behaviors.
Sure it’s a “big deal”, the point is, genes themselves aren’t a necessary nor sufficient cause for behavior B.
Genes are like a code base which determine structure/layout and quantity of grey/white matter also. These in turn give rise to thoughts which give rise to or influence behavior too.
Kinda relevant: Cognition is intentional; behavior is dispositional; therefore cognition isn’t responsible for behavior.
“Genes are like a code base which determine structure/layout and quantity of grey/white matter also. These in turn give rise to thoughts which give rise to or influence behavior too.”
DNA is not a code; or dies not determine X. DNA does not five reuse to thoughts, nor does it influence nor give rise to behavior, because there are no psychophysical laws.
So yea it’s either ‘G iff B’, or if ‘G, then necessarily B’. Both are false.
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a biomolecule that holds the blueprint for how living organisms are built.
also notice i said ‘too’.
“the point is, genes themselves aren’t a necessary nor sufficient cause for behavior B.”
No. They are necessary to produce a full explanation, but they aren’t sufficient alone as an explanation. That doesn’t mean Genes don’t cause behavior.
“they aren’t sufficient alone as an explanation”
So we agree.
“So we agree.”
You stated they weren’t necessary, which is wrong. Other than that, yes, we agree.
“You stated they weren’t necessary”
Not necessary to explain any behavior B, but necessary to explain behavior, yes other than that we do agree.
“Not necessary to explain any behavior B, but necessary to explain behavior,”
So you’re saying genes are not necessary to fully explain any individual behavior?
“DNA sequences (genes) are a necessary condition for any behavior. This does not mean that DNA sequences are necessary or sufficient conditions to explain behavior B—they’re not. As a condition, DNA is a necessary condition for behavior.”
So there is a technical genetic basis to every behavior, only because no genes means no human. But after that necessary condition (a human needs genes to act and humans need genes to behave) is set, they do not explain any behavior.
“But after that necessary condition (a human needs genes to act and humans need genes to behave) is set, they do not explain any behavior.”
How semantic could someone be? That’s so pretentious. You may have have well literally said nothing at all. Even then, neuronal dynamics are influenced by gene expression, So genes are always apart of the process.
The “semanticism” matters, what I said is true:
“B iff G” (behavior B is possible if and only if a specific genotype G is instantiated) or “if G, then necessarily B” (genotype G is a sufficient cause for behavior B). Both claims are false; genes are neither a sufficient or necessary cause for any behavior.
“Both claims are false; genes are neither a sufficient or necessary cause for any behavior.”
They are not sufficient but they are necessary. Because Behavior A is only possible if Genotype A is instantiated. This is true because Cell mechanics is individualized through genomic expression
Behavior is possible only if a genotype is instantiated—not saying which behavior, because genotypes don’t cause specific behavior. Genotype A is not sufficient for behavior A. It is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to explain behavior.
Saying something is not sufficient is not the same as saying it’s is not causal. That’s fallacious.
Also i feel aspergers or HFA’s to be precise, have incredibly good imagination
This is not to say neurotypicals dont. I mean to say the above dont lack imagination.
ASD doesn’t have biological or construct validity.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40489-016-0085-x
Furthermore, there are solid RCTs showing that pertinent nutrients lower certain symptoms of ASD. I’ll leave citations later.
Dr. Eric Courchesne explains the underlying brain biology of autism
People with autism have too many brain cells at birth.
Patches of brain cells obstruct functioning.
Many abnormal connections.
Frontal lobes grow too fast for social development.
The paper is on sci-hub.tw.
”The more developed social brain has a tendency to anthropomorphize the universe (it has a plan) and has a greater sense of self (I have a purpose).”
What does this make people with existential depression/despair as?
Why does thing switch to the universe being alive to it being so empty?
That nagging feeling that needs to be released.
Hasn’t gone away since 7 years old. (it is just so empty, all alone)
The alive feeling never lasts long, the despair always comes back.
meaninglessness
Over and over and over.
How do you live with it for 23 years?
Because meaningful things happen.
but defaults to meaninglessness, emptiness, sadness.
How does the universe and social skills relate to that?
Schizophrenia is defined as ego dissolution. . Autism is simply the opposite. This dissolution occurs because of an overabundance in exitatory neurons which hinder the filtration of signal noise from stimuli. which is why some patients exhibit hallucinations and magical thinking. Autism is characterized by higher amounts inhibitory neurons, which may have the opposite effect, and is probably why we see obsessive interests in Autistic people. Their brains are essentially unable to “switch gears” which can have adverse affects on social ability and imagination.
It’s a good theory. And if conscious brain inhibits too much automatic function, you loose the benefits of what archaic brains teach you, and that implies social constructions, like familiarity with people or the building of the self.
The default mode network may be completely désactivâtes. For schizo, I guess their cortex is entirely controled by the archaic brain. But here archaic doesn’t mean less sophisticated. It’s probably more because how to run kidney or liver or guarantee homeostasis suppose lots of sophistication .
But when schizo confront a formal problem, something that doesn’t come out of nature or society, who implies sophisticated logical thinking, they are a gorilla in a library.
But in most important matters, autists should take notice of what schizo said. I try to read what Philo has to say 😉 .
As far as i know, there’s no biological test that can reliably diagnose autism.
I agree Pumpkin. And I don’t really identify with Asperger nor HFA. The only atypicity I know I have are much more narrow and specific (no internal imagery, no memories, no familiarity).
Dungeons and Dragons is nerdy, but not autistic,no. Autists usually prefer really technical things, or collecting things or looking at maps, timetables for hobbies.
I read Terry Tao plays a lot of video games. Asians seem to really be into them a lot more than other races.
I like trivial pursuit a lot. I used to like scrabble. But I played this indian-jewish guy and he started using stupid made up words that are in the scrabble dictionary and not in the real one. Scrabble dictionary is probably jewish.
Monopoly is ok. Bit simple though.
Creative geniuses are both imaginative and rational, eccentric but grounded. Etc. Genius is rare because in addition to IQ, it requires a collection of negatively correlated traits.
That’s very true . Intelligence , consciousness and creativity. And I would say it’s even rarer because you have to get proportionate doses. Too much relative intelligence would kill the lateral thinking of creativity.
neurotypicals are not tech geniuses nor social geniuses yet they are not deficient. They are average.
James Cameron seems to be in the middle between tech and social genius. Yet you could say he is neurotypical. He looks normal. I bet he has a high IQ. He developed most of the technology for his films but the stories were just above average. He’s famous along with Spielberg. The talk together a lot. One thing is that to make a movie you need to understand stories and that takes social intelligence. Michael Bay makes his films for people with 100 IQ, that is why the Transformers movies suck yet they make the most money.
As both a mother of a child with severe ASD as well as having worked inpatient psychiatric I have had a great deal of interaction with both disorders. Though yes some scizotypical behaviors can be noted in autism the genesis and function of the outward behaviors are different. It is said that all behavior is communication and that all behavior serves a function. For instance in both “disorders” a level of high anxiety can be expressed in similar ways i.e rocking back and forth but the purpose for that behavior will serve differently. For the individual with ASD it serves as a comfort and regulation and for the person affected with scizophrenia it can serve as a direct result of paranoia or as a response to internal stimuli. Though there is an apparent overlap of symptoms their functions serve a different purpose. As far as D&D not being autistic there is no blanket answer for this assertion. With autism being a spectrum it is hard to note the function of the game. Im sure we can all agree that those at the lower end of the spectrum would struggle with the abstract non-linear aspects of the game where as those higher on the spectrum would use this game to connect with people as there is an almost scripted aspect to the game.