I don't really talk much on this show. I'm much more the lurker. I want to say thank you for making this topic. As someone who's neurodivese myself, it's nice seeing a respectful conversation on the topic. Thank you. Back to my doodles.
@@real_pattern I really gotta work on my hair-trigger responses.. Umm... think self-aware pedagogical savant. That's essentially my place in life atm. I like it. Granted, I'm not an expert. I just know I have a bad life story where it effectively knocked the wind out of me. I'm going to stop before I talk before I ramble about it (again). But, I intend to go see a psychologist when I settle on insurance. It's not my place. But, I recommend looking simple examples like Daniel Johnston or whatever. All I know truly is that I'm the kinda personality that 40 percent are possibly impressed by and the other 60 is baffled by. If that's not neurodivergent, I don't know what is. In terms of the spectrum of human intelligence, I'm relatively unique. Let's leave it at that. That means both good and bad. I hope that made sense? I typically only associate with circles nowadays on a personal level with other people who get it. (or who are capable of getting without me getting attacked because people might be mad I changed sides. Ugh.) Here's to hoping that made sense,
@@real_patterni think it's fine to let people use the language that comes most easily to them given their lived experience rather than tell them it doesn't make sense to describe it that way. making sense is a relative concept anyway.
Excellent discussion. I know a little about the history from family experience. Both my Great Aunts were lifetime patients in a local asylum, one probably for being neurodivergent (diagnosis was sketchy) and one for having a child out of wedlock as a teenager! We used to go visit them with my great-grandma, all of whom were very elderly. As we were kids, we used to play football with the younger patients. This is back in the early 1980s.
Google put this video in my feed today, and I'm glad it did, as the topics covered track very well with my own neurodiverse perspective. I have begun my own attempt in concert with a fellow schizoid to discuss the failings of the DSM and ICD in the incomplete and counterfactual presentation of clinical criteria which necessarily propagates stigma toward "disordered" individuals. While it is true that many of us in all "clusters" suffer levels of dysfunction and disability due to early childhood attachment and other issues, the DSM and ICD present a grossly one-sided and one-dimensional observers' perspective without mention of the lived experience of those living with the adaptation, and omits any correlation with societal and cultural stressors in the formation of them. Since the 1980's these classification systems have steadily dtifted away from the psychoanalytic origins of psychology in the humanities toward a medicalized and corporatized system of checking boxes for purposes of insurance billing, prescribing of pharmaceuticals (which only mask symptoms, let's be honest), and for cataloging of research findings, but in a way that does nothing to prepare or aid practitioners in delivering effective therapeutic assistance. I am not a professional psychologist nor an academic, just your "average" dysfunctional schizoid, but my observations are shared and confirmed by many well-known and influential professionals. Inaccurate models and flawed data do real harm and promote attitudes that further the absolution of society's injurious influence in the formation of these conditions through intergenerational and cyclical patterns, pushing more people into the "unacceptable" fringes and despair with each generation. I have coined the term "clusterf*ck" in reference to the "cluster" system of classification of adaptation to trauma, in hopes of raising greater awareness of the need for a more realistic and humanistic approach. Thanks to you and your guest for including this facet in your discussion of very compelling and important concepts, I hope to acquire a copy of his book soon, and hope to see further discussion of topics like these on your channel in the future. New subscriber.
I like that this can be viewed as a call to action from the perspective of the proletariat. Or an absurdist joke mocking the perspective of the bourgeoisie. Democracy? In OUR Economy?!!?!
True, but the majority is usually wrong. I'm not saying I'm against socialism, or whatever. Just think of when in most countries slavery was legal, it was even in Democratic nations. Just an example of when the majority could be wrong. People change their minds often and can be influenced easily.
It's not that it's not interesting, but it's so dry.... I've been listening, really I have, and the last thing I remember hearing is that people in prison are mostly ND. Makes sense, but it 's a new fact.
It's a pity that Matthew Sweet did a sub par and careless job whwn Robert appeared on his Radio 3 programme. Normally he's pretty good but on this occasion i felt he did not much comprehend, was lazy and had absorbed prejudice.
Talking about pseudoscience, neuroticism is a word that hasn't been used in scientific communities for fifty years. Have you even heard of complex PTSD or relational psychology? Both understand the psyche as structurally engendered. Just because you can conform to the normative discourses around you without detriment doesn't mean others can. If you want others to simply conform to what works for you, then you're no better than a fascist.
neuroticism is an important concept in the theoretical space psychoanalysis provides, and is relevant notwithstanding its historical deployment, in unsophisticated and distorted form, by patriarchy and capitalist medicine. The "scientific community" you valorize takes a brittle physicalist-behaviorist view of the psyche that reduces the complexity of the self in a way that renders it unhelpful for treating serious structural and personality issues at play in complex trauma.
the core idea of eugenics - selective breeding in order to improve the species - has not been debunked. This is the same idea that is successfully used in animal breeding to produce desired characteristics, such as breeding cows that produce more milk, or pigs that carry more meat, or racehorses that are faster runners, or the many different types of dog breeds. It would be possible, from a biological POV, to selectively breed humans to have a much higher average aerobic capacity for instance. And there is no downside to this - people with higher Vo2 max have fewer health problems throughout life and live longer, and with no decrement to other abilities. Similarly, there is no downside to improving the average intelligence of the population.
Except there are downsides: people's personal agency and rights. At any rate, "intelligence" is an abstraction. The notion that you could selectively breed for it is a non-falsifiable claim.
your understanding of 'improve' is spectacularly reductive, oppressive, ableist, speciesist, and elitist to its core. everything else you assert collapses as a result.
@@stiofanmacamhalghaidhau765 im using the word in the usual sense, but if you insist that 'improve' can mean whatever you like, then it can also mean whatever i like, or whatever anyone likes - and that is a far worse situation. The real problem with eugenics is not that selective breeding can be used to improve the species but the ways in which this might be achieved are pretty oppressive and unacceptable, forced sterilization for example. If everyone with an IQ lower than 100 simply decided not to procreate then there is no doubt that subsequent generations would be on average more intelligent. In my view this would be an improvement
Neuroticism and neuro-diversity are both on the raise (hand in hand) - and none of them is good. Stop destroying normativity, only because you don't/can't fit in. Stop making pseudo-scintific arguments of the form "if we can't define A, then we can't define B -> therefore C". You might think that this imply logically non-A or non-B but people make up simply a new C, which is in this case aquivalent to A - just a made up statement in an endless repetitive circle! Biology is neither pure logics nor mathematics nor pure physics as far we know today. Actually, no knowledge about any theory is needed to know for yourself where you belong or not. But nowadays, people are so broken in their "rational minds", that they really believe, that this feeling of belonging is something one can construct through social engineering or politics. And what then? Do you really think changing the whole world will make you "normal and less neurotic and atypical"? Isn't that your deepest wish - to appear atypical, even though you feel the difference? Isn't this a lie to yourself?
Neurodivergence is not "on the rise." The number of neurodivergent folks who spent their entire lives undiagnosed is enormous... The issue is simple: if you do more tests, if the topic is brought to public opinion, you will necessarily detect more neurodivergents (the same kind of argument was made in the 80s with the AIDS "crisis": "it's a fad, they want to turn us all into gays." When in reality people only showed themselves publicly; they were always there, without openly showing it
You're not "normal" you just make up the bulk of humanity. Neurodivergents have been a part of the social structure since the beginning. Who do you think were the first shamans? first hermits? First philosophers and thinkers? it wasn't you people. You were focused on taking land, making babies and killing others, while we were trying to figure out why the sun and the moon moved in the skies.
This is essentially a claim that social forces are entirely beyond our control, which is just silly. Of course we can change norms. Social cohesion does not simply happen as a consequence of proximity, it is constructed through shared values and deliberate acts. Those values and actions are under our control as people.
That's not what I meant. I said you can't believe that if you change social norms you'll get what you want or imagine. You are not determined by them, nor can control everyone through them. As you say, we can set our own values and actions. And that's exactly where opinions differ and why cohesion is not simply a consequence of proximity, because not everyone can practice the same values and actions. And this is probably where your pain comes from, that you can't practice the values and actions of others as they do. @@nondescriptname
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
I don't really talk much on this show. I'm much more the lurker. I want to say thank you for making this topic. As someone who's neurodivese myself, it's nice seeing a respectful conversation on the topic. Thank you.
Back to my doodles.
it doesn't make sense to say that an individual is neurodiverse.
@@real_pattern I really gotta work on my hair-trigger responses..
Umm... think self-aware pedagogical savant. That's essentially my place in life atm. I like it.
Granted, I'm not an expert. I just know I have a bad life story where it effectively knocked the wind out of me. I'm going to stop before I talk before I ramble about it (again). But, I intend to go see a psychologist when I settle on insurance.
It's not my place. But, I recommend looking simple examples like Daniel Johnston or whatever. All I know truly is that I'm the kinda personality that 40 percent are possibly impressed by and the other 60 is baffled by. If that's not neurodivergent, I don't know what is.
In terms of the spectrum of human intelligence, I'm relatively unique. Let's leave it at that. That means both good and bad. I hope that made sense? I typically only associate with circles nowadays on a personal level with other people who get it. (or who are capable of getting without me getting attacked because people might be mad I changed sides. Ugh.)
Here's to hoping that made sense,
@@NY_Mountain_Man cool. i just mean that 'diversity' of any kind is a population/group level concept.
@@real_pattern Haha. Whoops. My bad.
Thank you for being cool about it.
@@real_patterni think it's fine to let people use the language that comes most easily to them given their lived experience rather than tell them it doesn't make sense to describe it that way. making sense is a relative concept anyway.
I read and finished this book recently. It's very very good. I love it.
Excellent discussion. I know a little about the history from family experience. Both my Great Aunts were lifetime patients in a local asylum, one probably for being neurodivergent (diagnosis was sketchy) and one for having a child out of wedlock as a teenager! We used to go visit them with my great-grandma, all of whom were very elderly. As we were kids, we used to play football with the younger patients. This is back in the early 1980s.
1980s or 1880s?
Ha early 1980s, though institutionalised since the late 1920s.
Google put this video in my feed today, and I'm glad it did, as the topics covered track very well with my own neurodiverse perspective.
I have begun my own attempt in concert with a fellow schizoid to discuss the failings of the DSM and ICD in the incomplete and counterfactual presentation of clinical criteria which necessarily propagates stigma toward "disordered" individuals. While it is true that many of us in all "clusters" suffer levels of dysfunction and disability due to early childhood attachment and other issues, the DSM and ICD present a grossly one-sided and one-dimensional observers' perspective without mention of the lived experience of those living with the adaptation, and omits any correlation with societal and cultural stressors in the formation of them. Since the 1980's these classification systems have steadily dtifted away from the psychoanalytic origins of psychology in the humanities toward a medicalized and corporatized system of checking boxes for purposes of insurance billing, prescribing of pharmaceuticals (which only mask symptoms, let's be honest), and for cataloging of research findings, but in a way that does nothing to prepare or aid practitioners in delivering effective therapeutic assistance. I am not a professional psychologist nor an academic, just your "average" dysfunctional schizoid, but my observations are shared and confirmed by many well-known and influential professionals.
Inaccurate models and flawed data do real harm and promote attitudes that further the absolution of society's injurious influence in the formation of these conditions through intergenerational and cyclical patterns, pushing more people into the "unacceptable" fringes and despair with each generation.
I have coined the term "clusterf*ck" in reference to the "cluster" system of classification of adaptation to trauma, in hopes of raising greater awareness of the need for a more realistic and humanistic approach. Thanks to you and your guest for including this facet in your discussion of very compelling and important concepts, I hope to acquire a copy of his book soon, and hope to see further discussion of topics like these on your channel in the future. New subscriber.
Well put. The DSM has a lot to answer for and I like the way you anatomized its failings. Kudos.
Really appreciated this, thank you and more please. SO IMPORTANT.
A good complimentary essay on this subject would be the magistral «Éloge de la fuite» from french neurobiologist Henri Laborit. (1976)
17:00 capitalist NORMS
20:00 emotion/cognitive
30:45
32:00
40:00 parasitic/ benefits
Socialism: democracy in OUR economy. Nothing scary. Just us as a majority having a say
I like that this can be viewed as a call to action from the perspective of the proletariat. Or an absurdist joke mocking the perspective of the bourgeoisie.
Democracy? In OUR Economy?!!?!
True, but the majority is usually wrong. I'm not saying I'm against socialism, or whatever. Just think of when in most countries slavery was legal, it was even in Democratic nations. Just an example of when the majority could be wrong. People change their minds often and can be influenced easily.
That's what the hippie boomers said. Look at how that turned out.
@@MarcelloNicolas Who benefited from slavery? You think that working class people are the slaveholders?
Socialism is an economic system, democracy is a form of governing; hence social democracy.
It's not that it's not interesting, but it's so dry.... I've been listening, really I have, and the last thing I remember hearing is that people in prison are mostly ND. Makes sense, but it 's a new fact.
Fine this was fascinating even if you didn't mention Canguilhem...😅❤✊
It's a pity that Matthew Sweet did a sub par and careless job whwn Robert appeared on his Radio 3 programme. Normally he's pretty good but on this occasion i felt he did not much comprehend, was lazy and had absorbed prejudice.
AWW HELLYEAH
44:00
Neurocommunism! 🏳🌈
Neurodiversity, or: the Logic of Late Neoliberalism
Talking about pseudoscience, neuroticism is a word that hasn't been used in scientific communities for fifty years. Have you even heard of complex PTSD or relational psychology? Both understand the psyche as structurally engendered. Just because you can conform to the normative discourses around you without detriment doesn't mean others can. If you want others to simply conform to what works for you, then you're no better than a fascist.
neuroticism is an important concept in the theoretical space psychoanalysis provides, and is relevant notwithstanding its historical deployment, in unsophisticated and distorted form, by patriarchy and capitalist medicine.
The "scientific community" you valorize takes a brittle physicalist-behaviorist view of the psyche that reduces the complexity of the self in a way that renders it unhelpful for treating serious structural and personality issues at play in complex trauma.
Neuroticism is one factor in the five factor model of personality, which is still a mainstay of contemporary psychology.
the core idea of eugenics - selective breeding in order to improve the species - has not been debunked. This is the same idea that is successfully used in animal breeding to produce desired characteristics, such as breeding cows that produce more milk, or pigs that carry more meat, or racehorses that are faster runners, or the many different types of dog breeds. It would be possible, from a biological POV, to selectively breed humans to have a much higher average aerobic capacity for instance. And there is no downside to this - people with higher Vo2 max have fewer health problems throughout life and live longer, and with no decrement to other abilities. Similarly, there is no downside to improving the average intelligence of the population.
Except there are downsides: people's personal agency and rights. At any rate, "intelligence" is an abstraction. The notion that you could selectively breed for it is a non-falsifiable claim.
cool, and all it requires is treating people like chattels
your understanding of 'improve' is spectacularly reductive, oppressive, ableist, speciesist, and elitist to its core. everything else you assert collapses as a result.
@@stiofanmacamhalghaidhau765 im using the word in the usual sense, but if you insist that 'improve' can mean whatever you like, then it can also mean whatever i like, or whatever anyone likes - and that is a far worse situation. The real problem with eugenics is not that selective breeding can be used to improve the species but the ways in which this might be achieved are pretty oppressive and unacceptable, forced sterilization for example. If everyone with an IQ lower than 100 simply decided not to procreate then there is no doubt that subsequent generations would be on average more intelligent. In my view this would be an improvement
@@bobbrian6526 you actually think you're smart huh. wow. case closed. tis a troll, milord.
Neuroticism and neuro-diversity are both on the raise (hand in hand) - and none of them is good. Stop destroying normativity, only because you don't/can't fit in. Stop making pseudo-scintific arguments of the form "if we can't define A, then we can't define B -> therefore C". You might think that this imply logically non-A or non-B but people make up simply a new C, which is in this case aquivalent to A - just a made up statement in an endless repetitive circle! Biology is neither pure logics nor mathematics nor pure physics as far we know today. Actually, no knowledge about any theory is needed to know for yourself where you belong or not. But nowadays, people are so broken in their "rational minds", that they really believe, that this feeling of belonging is something one can construct through social engineering or politics. And what then? Do you really think changing the whole world will make you "normal and less neurotic and atypical"? Isn't that your deepest wish - to appear atypical, even though you feel the difference? Isn't this a lie to yourself?
Neurodivergence is not "on the rise." The number of neurodivergent folks who spent their entire lives undiagnosed is enormous... The issue is simple: if you do more tests, if the topic is brought to public opinion, you will necessarily detect more neurodivergents
(the same kind of argument was made in the 80s with the AIDS "crisis": "it's a fad, they want to turn us all into gays." When in reality people only showed themselves publicly; they were always there, without openly showing it
You're not "normal" you just make up the bulk of humanity. Neurodivergents have been a part of the social structure since the beginning. Who do you think were the first shamans? first hermits? First philosophers and thinkers? it wasn't you people. You were focused on taking land, making babies and killing others, while we were trying to figure out why the sun and the moon moved in the skies.
You don't understand what you are talking about!
This is essentially a claim that social forces are entirely beyond our control, which is just silly. Of course we can change norms. Social cohesion does not simply happen as a consequence of proximity, it is constructed through shared values and deliberate acts. Those values and actions are under our control as people.
That's not what I meant. I said you can't believe that if you change social norms you'll get what you want or imagine. You are not determined by them, nor can control everyone through them. As you say, we can set our own values and actions. And that's exactly where opinions differ and why cohesion is not simply a consequence of proximity, because not everyone can practice the same values and actions. And this is probably where your pain comes from, that you can't practice the values and actions of others as they do. @@nondescriptname
What a joke
What do you mean by that, hmm?