• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Monotropism

Balanced polymorphism. The same principle allows sickle cell anemia to persist despite being a lethal gene if you have a matching pair. Only in our case there are many gene locations instead of just one. The more genes involved and the more environmental influence there is, the closer you get to a classic Bell curve.

The superiority of heterozygotes over homozygotes favors the maintenance of a pool of otherwise damaging genes in a population. We are one tail of the Bell curve. People with very few or no autism-related genes end up on the other tail of the Bell curve. Neither tail survives well, but the middle survives better. And then environmental influences further muddy things up, potentiating or inhibiting traits.

There's a theory. Go test it.
What does it predict?
How do I test it?
How is this reflected in nature by other species?
Are humans special? Therefore they have disorders that do not exist in other species?

I know I sound arrogant and self assured… but I think a lot about this and have since I was a child.

So if you can define tests that prove that the nature of humanity is hand wavy…

I am not trying to be rude or arrogant but I have questions that the standard view doesn’t answer.

We are living beings and follow the natural rules of living beings. Life is based on function. Of course there is “wiggle room” but not as much as we may think.

I may be blind… I may not see clearly… my theories may be incorrect… but we need to ask new questions.

Fun fact… the DSM didn’t allow a dual diagnosis of adhd and autism!

Thought moves forward through questioning the paradigm of thought. This is what interests me. It doesn’t matter if I am a fool or a genius. These things don’t exist.

I feel that we are on a hamster wheel in psychology. The last big theorist was BF Skinner… whew!
 
Disorder, by itself, just means means that a condition is atypical (like left-handedness). It does not have to be a defect.
What is atypical? What is typical? How are we to say that we don’t have a type?

Disorder means not part of the order… how do we prove that what we are is a disorder? Are NTs ordered?
 
Here’s something I think should be on the monotropism list:

You have absolute confidence when talking about an area of interest and no confidence when talking about all other topics.
 
What does it predict?
How do I test it?
How is this reflected in nature by other species?
Are humans special? Therefore they have disorders that do not exist in other species?

I know I sound arrogant and self assured… but I think a lot about this and have since I was a child.

So if you can define tests that prove that the nature of humanity is hand wavy…

I am not trying to be rude or arrogant but I have questions that the standard view doesn’t answer.

We are living beings and follow the natural rules of living beings. Life is based on function. Of course there is “wiggle room” but not as much as we may think.

I may be blind… I may not see clearly… my theories may be incorrect… but we need to ask new questions.

Fun fact… the DSM didn’t allow a dual diagnosis of adhd and autism!

Thought moves forward through questioning the paradigm of thought. This is what interests me. It doesn’t matter if I am a fool or a genius. These things don’t exist.

I feel that we are on a hamster wheel in psychology. The last big theorist was BF Skinner… whew!
Humans are special. A chimp is utterly unable to do intellectual tasks that a human child does effortlessly. Since our brains are different, of course, we will have conditions a chimp does not and chimps will have issues that we don't. There will also be many shared conditions.

Chimps are equally special, just different. They do things humans cannot. A human child would not survive long in chimp-world, no matter how much maternal care it got.

I was not impressed by Skinner as a teenager because he didn't discuss instinctive behaviors. These are not easily modified by rewards, learning, or by manipulating the environment. (If you are gay, you are gay and there's no changing that.) However, in the 70s, it was popular to believe that humans were born with nearly clean slates, and behavior beyond the first year or two was entirely due to learning. It was a way of telling ourselves that we weren't animals. (This is also a fundamental tenet of Marxism. If humans are inherently selfish and competitive regardless of their environment, large-scale communism doesn't work.)

He did have a lot of interesting ideas, but they were often impractical.


https://neuroclastic.com/why-autism-aba-goes-against-everything-b-f-skinner-believed-in/
This is something I found very interesting. "Polygenic risk" describes my multiple gene/Bell curve theory but doesn't specifically argue for balanced polymorphism.

 
Last edited:
Monotropism Score: 228 / 235

Your Average: 4.85


This score suggests that you are more Monotropic than about 98% of autistic people and about 100% of allistic people based on data from the initial validation study.
 
Humans are special. A chimp is utterly unable to do intellectual tasks that a human child does effortlessly. Since our brains are different, of course, we will have conditions a chimp does not and chimps will have issues that we don't. There will also be many shared conditions.

Chimps are equally special, just different. They do things humans cannot. A human child would not survive long in chimp-world, no matter how much maternal care it got.

I was not impressed by Skinner as a teenager because he didn't discuss instinctive behaviors. These are not easily modified by rewards, learning, or by manipulating the environment. (If you are gay, you are gay and there's no changing that.) However, in the 70s, it was popular to believe that humans were born with nearly clean slates, and behavior beyond the first year or two was entirely due to learning. It was a way of telling ourselves that we weren't animals. (This is also a fundamental tenet of Marxism. If humans are inherently selfish and competitive regardless of their environment, large-scale communism doesn't work.)

He did have a lot of interesting ideas, but they were often impractical.


https://neuroclastic.com/why-autism-aba-goes-against-everything-b-f-skinner-believed-in/
This is something I found very interesting. "Polygenic risk" describes my multiple gene/Bell curve theory but doesn't specifically argue for balanced polymorphism.

I admit that I can be a bit reactive when it comes to these things.

I have spent most of my life trying to understand what it means to be “broken”, “disordered”, atypical, special needs, autistic and ADHD. 20 years ago, I met a younger person who spoke the language of my mind.

This led me to question my differences and see it as part of a pattern. I have worked on a theoretical framework for the past 20 years that is predictive.

This framework helped me to have a loving and healthy relationship. This is something I see all people on the spectrum being able to have.

The models predict most human behavior from war to the challenges we face on the spectrum.

Humans are special in that they think they are special. Biology isn’t concerned with being special. It is concerned with function.

Humans are not functional at this point, primarily because we think we are special. I don’t need to remind anyone here of how we destroy our environment or label people different from us.

Humans build tribes based on identity. The most primal building block of human culture is superiority and victimization. This is actually one thing that takes two words to say.

Special, superior yet victimized by the others not like us. Ego, identity and culture are bound together.

The “cause” of autism is constantly debated. When viewing it as a “disorder” we cannot see its function. Humans have a “pre-eusocial” survival strategy. We have different types of humans that are part of this survival strategy.

The models predict autism to be epigenetic. I call it “extra cultural”. We are not supposed to be comfortable in our own “tribe”. We are part of the “order” not a disorder.

Polymorphism is life because life has memory. That memory is part and parcel of function. Function and form are part of a type of stuff that reacts to its environment. This stuff is life.

Humans are living and have function. We also have technology that changes our environment in ways that we functionally were not evolved for.

Autistic people are the generators of most technology. We have an “important” place in this world

Adding a bit here about balance polymorphism:

Yes, there are “genetic memories” previous forms that can be dysfunctional, non-functional or functional when expressed. DNA is a type of environmental memory.
It makes sense that these genetic traits can exist unexpressed in most people but are expressed in others to detrimental effect in others. At some point, the environment may again change allowing these traits to become functional and their expression will be “chosen for”.

I feel that “autism” (what I call extra cultural) itself is actually expressed based on social/environmental factors in a tribe.
Some expressions are functional and some are more dysfunctional within the environment.

The human functional environment is tribal culture. The current state of most human environment is national/regional culture which is not what we evolved for. This leads to dysfunction.

Gangs are simply groups of humans that re-tribal-ize under extreme stress.

War, racism and oppression come directly from the human survival strategy.

My tribe is superior to yours… you take the resources that my tribe needs so we band together tightly in our culture to prevent or avenge our victimization (loss of resources) Different types of humans with different types of brains are part of this strategy.

Autism plays a role in genetic health of tribes through refreshing of genes in foreign tribes (we leave our birth tribe/get kicked out and find a new one without bringing culture with us). We are also involved in tribal splitting and formation of new cultures.

These genes express themselves in functional ways in the tribal environment.

Humans are all dysfunctional in a non-tribal environment. One word: war.


The idea of balance polymorphism is fully in line with the theoretical models I have worked on.
 
Last edited:
There's only a small amount of news on Monotropism - and even less news on the Monotropism assessment.

It's probably best to avoid taking numerical scores on Monotropism too seriously.
 
Monotropism Score: 202 / 235

Your Average: 4.30


This score suggests that you are more Monotropic than about 67% of autistic people and about 98% of allistic people based on data from the initial validation study.
 
Monotropism Score: 194 / 235

Your Average: 4.13


This score suggests that you are more Monotropic than about 48% of autistic people and about 95% of allistic people based on data from the initial validation study.
 
I have spent most of my life trying to understand what it means to be “broken”, “disordered”, atypical, special needs, autistic and ADHD.

There are both objective and subjective definitions for these terms. Those terms could mean various things, depending on context and personal opinion. A psychologist might have a different definition from a random layperson, who might define them a thousand different ways. I don't worry about such.

I try to figure out the definition the other person uses and go from there rather than cooking up one for myself and pushing it. Usually, people aren't trying to be neutral when using such terms; they spin them according to their emotional needs.

Take the term "disorder." According to the DSM-V, to be a disorder it has to be a pattern of behavior that causes distress or impairment in an important area of functioning. It isn't an expected response to common stressors and losses. It does cause conflict with society. You have to hit every point or it isn't considered a disorder. It may still not be a disorder, depending on context and duration.

To a physician, it means some kind of illness or condition that impairs your health. That usually means tiredness, loss of function, physical pain, early death, or something along those lines.

To Joe Dokes on the street, it means you behave in a way he doesn't understand and doesn't like. Different people dislike different things.

To a physicist, it means you're full of entropy.

Humans are special in that they think they are special.
Every species is special.
Humans are not functional at this point
Functional in what sense? A species doesn't have a purpose. It does what it does, and what happens, happens. Unless you are religious the notion that humanity has a function to fulfill makes no sense.
The most primal building block of human culture is superiority and victimization.
If that were true, we would have gone extinct long before becoming technological. The most "primal" building block of any culture is cooperation. Without cooperation, we have a war of all against all, and no culture can develop. Of course, within a culture, there will also be competition. There will also be both cooperation and competition between cultures. The amount of competition is usually determined by resource scarcity. Probably why chimp culture evolved to be more competitive than Bonobo culture. We have a little of both in us, I suspect.
The models predict autism to be epigenetic.
I've seen no model predicting autism to be epigenetic. Every model I have seen shows genes are the primary influence. Statistically speaking, autism is mostly an inherited condition, either rare single-site autistic genes or a product of polygenic risk - many possible genes each increasing the cumulative risk. Epigenetics may influence how and if these genes are expressed but it is very much secondary.
 
Last edited:
There are both objective and subjective definitions for these terms. Those terms could mean various things, depending on context and personal opinion. A psychologist might have a different definition from a random layperson, who might define them a thousand different ways. I don't worry about such.

I try to figure out the definition the other person uses and go from there rather than cooking up one for myself and pushing it. Usually, people aren't trying to be neutral when using such terms; they spin them according to their emotional needs.

Take the term "disorder." According to the DSM-V, to be a disorder it has to be a pattern of behavior that causes distress or impairment in an important area of functioning. It isn't an expected response to common stressors and losses. It does cause conflict with society. You have to hit every point or it isn't considered a disorder. It may still not be a disorder, depending on context and duration.

To a physician, it means some kind of illness or condition that impairs your health. That usually means tiredness, loss of function, physical pain, early death, or something along those lines.

To Joe Dokes on the street, it means you behave in a way he doesn't understand and doesn't like. Different people dislike different things.

To a physicist, it means you're full of entropy.


Every species is special.

Functional in what sense? A species doesn't have a purpose. It does what it does, and what happens, happens. Unless you are religious the notion that humanity has a function to fulfill makes no sense.

If that were true, we would have gone extinct long before becoming technological. The most "primal" building block of any culture is cooperation. Without cooperation, we have a war of all against all, and no culture can develop. Of course, within a culture, there will also be competition. There will also be both cooperation and competition between cultures. The amount of competition is usually determined by resource scarcity. Probably why chimp culture evolved to be more competitive than Bonobo culture. We have a little of both in us, I suspect.

I've seen no model predicting autism to be epigenetic. Every model I have seen shows genes are the primary influence. Statistically speaking, autism is mostly an inherited condition, either rare single-site autistic genes or a product of polygenic risk - many possible genes each increasing the cumulative risk. Epigenetics may influence how and if these genes are expressed but it is very much secondary.
Ok, so all definitions are worthless as they are totally subjective.

This includes all definitions in the DSM.

Eurocentric Disorders in the past are:
Being a woman
Being not white
Being gay
Being trans

Basically anything that is not a white Christian male is disordered in its oldest definition. So disorder is a culturally bound concept.

Humans define humanity through what is culturally relevant at the time… definitions should be based on reality not subjective ideas.

You are broken to most people. I don’t think you are broken. You are incredible to me. That is MY subjective feeling!

Objectively… disorders are a cultural concept. Weeds are a subjective concept to gardeners who may not understand that dandelions can make a nice salad.

You are not broken but a different functionality in humanity that is not understood.

This is my subjective view ;-)

I just happened to built predictive theories that can actually be tested. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong. Maybe I am right about some things and not about others… that is science. My theories are just a first step.

I simply cannot see any other predictive theories about human psychology out there. This bothers me.
 
Ok, so all definitions are worthless as they are totally subjective.

This includes all definitions in the DSM.

Eurocentric Disorders in the past are:
Being a woman
Being not white
Being gay
Being trans

Basically anything that is not a white Christian male is disordered in its oldest definition. So disorder is a culturally bound concept.

Humans define humanity through what is culturally relevant at the time… definitions should be based on reality not subjective ideas.

You are broken to most people. I don’t think you are broken. You are incredible to me. That is MY subjective feeling!

Objectively… disorders are a cultural concept. Weeds are a subjective concept to gardeners who may not understand that dandelions can make a nice salad.

You are not broken but a different functionality in humanity that is not understood.

This is my subjective view ;-)

I just happened to built predictive theories that can actually be tested. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong. Maybe I am right about some things and not about others… that is science. My theories are just a first step.

I simply cannot see any other predictive theories about human psychology out there. This bothers me.
Definitions are not useless. Two people have to agree on a defintion before effective communication occurs. The more concrete a word becomes, the easier this is. We fail in psychology because what is a "disorder" to one is just a normal variation in human behavior to another and disgusting perversity to yet another. If we agree on the nature of the trait, we can communicate. If we don't, we may get into an arm wrestling match.

If the engineer tells a technician to take the wrench and tighten a specific nut to 50 lbs of torque and we have different definitions of wrench, tighten, nut, and what exactly 50 lbs of torque means, the job doesn't get done, and someone won't get paid. Or maybe the joint fails and the machine we're working on falls apart.

All of human technological progress depends on scientists agreeing on definitions. Electronics work because we share a pre-defined set of terms. You don't get to disagree on what a volt is or how resistance is measured and be taken seriously. Engineered structures would be problematic if the definition of static and dynamic loading varied by how we felt about a project. When a physicist speaks of entropy, his emotional state is irrelevant. If they don't think the accepted definition of entropy is useful or broad enough, they will add a qualifier to make the term more specific. (Like loop quantum gravity and Newtonian gravity instead of just gravity. Or calling Pluto a minor planet instead of a planet.) Or they create a whole new term and apply a defintion.

OTOH, psychology is not a science. The crisis in replication in psychology demonstrates this. Sociology is even less of a science. It is buried in agenda-driven politics.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/basics/replication-crisis
 
Last edited:
You don't get to disagree on what a volt is or how resistance is measured and be taken seriously.
Unfortunately there's quite a few people who think you can do exactly this. I worked with some of them, and it was the most infuriating period of employment I have ever been in! :smilecat:
 
The state of Tennessee legislated that Pi was equal to 3.2 in Tennessee. Fortunately the law didn't stay on the books long after the legislators were educated on the matter
 
3.2??? 3.14159265357 lol! That's as much as I seem to retain. Assuming I remembered it right :-)

I can't believe that anyone would try to legislate the value of Pi, particularly rounding it up rather than down? Or why not just stop at 3.14??? Argggh! People confuse me lol!
 

New Threads

Top Bottom