Quote from the wikipedia article that also quotes "Body structure and character. Studies on the constitution and theory of temperaments";

>In general, friendship among schizoids is usually limited to one person, often also schizoid, forming what has been called a union of two eccentrics; "within it – the ecstatic cult of personality, outside it – everything is sharply rejected and despised"

Somehow I feel the last part could be the pure definition of some marginal imageboards, not necessarily this one.

>>25528
>Maybe it's about perceived worth. You either have to be somebody important or act like somebody important for people to value a relationship with you.
People have often thought I was rich when they see photos of my room, or when my well off father comes up. Hasn't really changed anything. Makes me think that "X factor" can't be made up for with wealth, or even perceived wealth. Saying that does remind me of a depressed and mentally unstable guy I met online a few years back who was wealthy and very desperate to find a mate, and in his case he would flaunt his wealth and directly tell people he was rich in hopes they'd accept him. Needless to say, the guy was a mess and his financial situation wasn't working on anyone. Assuming that's what you mean by "worth" anyway. If you mean worth as in social status, then yeah that's all that a lot of people seem to care about, regardless of how insane or disturbed the person might be.

>>25529
>but could be your expectations were unrealistic too.
I think they very well could be. Probably from a life of obsessively watching film, tv, anime, ect. It can imprint ideas of what things are supposed to be like, how they should work, and when reality doesn't work the way it does on the screen that can be disappointing to say the least. It's made me also wonder if anything I thought I might have wanted was what I'd actually want, or just more programing from decades of media saying how things should be. Most of the stuff that appeals to normals means little to nothing to me. People seem to enjoy talking to each other for the hell of it, but I just want them to get to the point. I see people like my father spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on cars and planes and it just seems like a waste of money to me. Same for name brand fashion, expensive vacations, parties, concerts ect. If/when I do try anything like that out just to see what the appeal is, at best I find myself getting little or nothing out of it and instead see them more as curious learning experiences that I wouldn't bother with a second time. For example when I owned a sports car for a shot time, I didn't find it particularly fun or exciting, it didn't make me feel superior to anyone or like I achieved something. Which is what I assume normals get out of them. Seemed like more maintenance and trouble than it was worth if anything. Likewise, the first time I went to a con I was completely miserable and hated it, and started to have my first ever panic attack while trying to make my way through a packed crowd at another one. It's funny but one time they were having an edm concert. I liked the music so I hung out there for a while, tried joining the crowd to maybe learn how to cut loose and have fun, doing like they were, but that quickly felt very wrong, like I was forcing myself to try and fit in, as if I was oil trying to mingle with water. It felt like I didn't belong and it was silly to try. If I didn't stand out then, I must have surely stuck out when I proceeded to sit at the back wall chairs alone, and just enjoy the music while playing games on my vita, observing as everyone else danced in the middle of the room and mingled with each other while I might as well have been on another planet. This is after all, what comes naturally to me. I've always kept to myself and watched from afar as others enjoyed each other's company. Even with work, I picked a field that would allow me to be alone and play games watch anime ect. when the jobs I'm assigned to don't allow this, I'd try to find ways to sneak these things in. From bathroom breaks where I pull out a DS, positioning myself so no one can see my Bluetooth headphone playing audio books, or keeping a tiny game pad on me so I can play emulators on my phone. I even got into the habit of half watching programs on my car's display going to and from work.

Instead of what seems to drive most people, I find pleasure in solidarity, practicality, and creativity. Status and power mean little to me, but I can respect someone who's intelligent and proficient in their field.
Honestly, I found myself feeling much more content once I started to accept being schizoid and not fighting it or questioning it but instead rejecting what the TV says I should be striving for. The idea has always been there, but being constantly told that I should want this or that is what really had me questioning things, wondering if maybe I've made mistakes and lived wrong as mentioned before. I've bent over backwards to try and appease people countless times, only to often hurt myself in the process, for people that at the end of the day I don't even really want to be involved with anyway. Really doesn't make much sense does it? It's like I want to make people happy sure, just, happy away from me. Sometimes that might mean giving people gifts and walking away, or leaving/sending them something and being far away when they get it. Even the way I often talk to people, trying to crack jokes and puns and what not, probably just comes from years of sitcoms and being thought that this is how normal friends are supposed to interact. Could even be why I took to online communications, as media always shows people taking turns talking where as in reality people always interrupt each other and try to talk over each other. You may even have something relevant and important to say but the other person will derail the conversion to the point where it'd be weird to mention it anymore.

>>25551
Sorry for the post from the other place but I think pic related really summarizes part of what you explained. As I see it the problem isn't getting into normal conversations with normal people in normal relations. With a certain effort that is possible for some, but once it's done we discover it's enormously disappointing. It's not filling, it's boring, it takes nowhere. So we can't keep doing that, what's the point?
Maybe in some point of our lives we craved for something, but it wasn't this.

>rejecting what the TV says I should be striving for.

I hear it almost every week in one context or another. Humans are social animals, we can't live alone, we need relations, you can't fight your nature, etc. But as I said before once you have a taste of what's supposed to be so necessary you see it does nothing for you.
That's really conflicting for an individual exposed to that, if you can't attain it you will be unhappy (you're told to be), but if you can and you do it you will be unhappy anyway. You need to discard, both consciously and unconsciously an idea as accepted as helliocentrism or you can't find peace.

That's why it's refreshing to see something different from time to time, sure it's better than my badly written posts; https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/health/psychology/21case.html?ex=1321765200&en=6030af72aae03e77&ei=5088partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

>>25552
I'd say the post certainly hits the nail on the head. I've noticed what you said about unhappiness in one's goals time and time again with normals, but they never seem to learn from it and try to change their approach. Instead they go at it (whatever it might be they're after) more and more aggressively with diminishing returns. They're constantly struggling for better jobs, better relationships, more pay, nicer material items ect. It's like watching people try to scoop water out of a sinking boat faster and faster and faster rather than trying to plug the leak.
A few weeks back the building manager at my job who loves the sound of his own voice, was recounting his career and said "If you're not constantly moving up, there's something wrong with you." To me, I don't see the point. The way I see it, I rather be paid less to have a stress free job I can enjoy, than be paid more for one I'd hate. I probably know my way around computers better than half the people in the office building of 400+ I'm a guard at, but I'll be damned if I'll let myself die a slow death in a cubical surrounded by assholes I can't stand.

I feel this way too. I thought if I went to study I'd improve my mental health by being in society, but it just ended up with my goals going from 'crappy job that gives me free time' to 'good job as i realised crappy jobs also have free time so why not get paid £££' which caused more stress as my expectations in life took a giant leap while my talents did not.

I've fallen for the trap! Anything was better than what I previously had, but now I need more... perhaps since a lack of NEET stopped my hobbies as I had to study too much.

How do you know if you're having an anxiety attack?
I always had an stomach ache, trembled and difficult breathing after certain unfortunate encounters with other people, but now it's happening more often and it can lasts for hours or even the whole day at some degree. I always thought it was "normal", but thinking about it, it isn't. Also it's not even the physical effects, I get fucked physcologically and having repetitive thoughts for too much time after.

>>25525
Quite possibly you don't have high functioning autism at all or merely have the similar but non-identical aspergers. As someone with high-functioning autism I can tell you that autism has some very real physical effects as well as the mental. Hyper sensitivity to light, noise, and texture, speech development problems like extreme stuttering at a young age and even minor stuttering as an adult. The worst for me is dyspraxia, an inability to develop fine motor control and coordination that has given me much pain in trying any competitive tasks and athletic activities. The mental aspects of autism are only second to the physical aspects in terms of making ones quality of life substantially lesser. Yes, autism is a developmental disorder, meaning much of the characteristics are traits that a person does not properly develop as a child. However, it is a genetic disorder and prevents development through force, the high-functioning autists are the ones who DID overcome their disability, as opposed to simply being neglected as children. Aspergers is almost certainly just an extreme personality type and nothing more, and grouping it with Autism is not only inaccurate but also has a side effect of reducing the perceived severity of real Autism. It is incredibly uncomfortable for me to see the growing movement of people who are misunderstanding mental disorders being convinced that it is not real or some sort of snake oil salesman trick. For someone actually suffering it and having suffered at the hands of people who believed that martial discipline could cure all problems in a child, I am horrified to think that there will be generations of children who are going to suffer because of the backlash caused by "fashionable mental illness". This phenomenon of people claiming autism, depression, etc because they felt sad once or had trouble talking to girls is highly dangerous for the kids who will be born with a very real disability.

I saw at least two people in real life who were diagnosed with "autism" and did not have it.

>>25562
>the kids who will be born with a very real disability
Don't worry, genetic engineering will sort everything out.

>>25563
That's very optimistic.

>>25562
>Hyper sensitivity to light, noise, and texture,

That's part of the brain fixating on physical things and such as it can't deal with people.

>speech development problems like extreme stuttering at a young age and even minor stuttering as an adult.

Again, that's due to a lack of socialisation from a young age.

>The worst for me is dyspraxia, an inability to develop fine motor control and coordination that has given me much pain in trying any competitive tasks and athletic activities.

This one is harder to explain but there would be a reason for it as well, probably to do with subtle effects in how the brain is wired due to severe isolation.

>>25565
So you don't think a disability which impairs a person's innate ability to interact with others regardless of their circumstances is possible?

>>25566
Well that's vague, being mute would impair your ability to interact with others, other disabilities would to. I just don't think Autism is a genetic disability but something caused through environment.

>>25567
>I just don't think Autism is a genetic disability but something caused through environment.
Why would two children in similar circumstances end up differently then? How do you explain low functioning autistic people? It doesn't seem like everything can be boiled down to enviroment. Studies have also suggested otherwise. While i'm also skeptical of the diagnosis "autism", I don't see why an inability to understand other people's motivations and emotions along with other symptoms(which can appear in babies) couldn't be hereditary.

Post edited on 14th May 2020, 6:45pm

>>25568
The same reason twins can grow up with different personalities and doing different things. No two environments are ever the same even if they are similar and as children grow they grow in different ways and see the word and interact with it in different ways which further alters how the world itself shapes them.

>Studies have also suggested otherwise.

Such studies are also flawed, usually they go along the lines that if group x has y then their children have a higher chance of inheriting y than the wider population. The things is, parents tend to raise children in similar environments to what they themselves were raised in, it's not genetic.

>>25569
Except specific genes have been linked with autism and that still doesn't explain low-functioning people. There's also no such thing as genetically identical twins, even identical ones have differences. Your viewpoint is fringe and baseless. Also, you've really got to stop quoting like that.

Post edited on 14th May 2020, 7:03pm

>>25562
Reading this makes me feel like I'm full of shit and I'm just a normal person who happens to be an idiot/asshole/etc. and it's just looking for excuses. Not the greatest feeling but maybe you're right about everything.

>>25570
That doesn't mean as much as you think, all it means is that at best certain genetics make you more vulnerable to it, you would still have to have been subject to the environment effects to trigger it. Alcoholism has also been linked to certain genes, many things have but this does not mean that if you have a certain gene you are guaranteed to be an alcoholic or Autistic or that if you don't have that gene you then cannot become one of the aforementioned.

>Also, you've really got to stop quoting like that.

Why?

>>25572
>you would still have to have been subject to the environment effects to trigger it
That is just bullshit. A person with low functioning autism would not have been a normal person if their circumstances were different. There is zero evidence to support that.

>Why?
Because nobody does it but you and it's basically the same as a forum signature.

Post edited on 15th May 2020, 6:19am

>>25573
If something is genetic then it's genetic. It can't be caused by genetics just when you feel like it whilst you ignore all the cases of people with the gene not having it and without the gene having it.

>Because nobody does it but you and it's basically the same as a forum signature.

Is this 4chan? Why should I change my posting style just to fit in?

>>25574
Exposure to excess androgens or toxins during pregnancy are also potential causes. Everybody agrees though that there's factors outside of interaction with others, good or bad, that causes the disorder, especially in its extreme forms. If somebody is born with a severe form of autism, they're born with it. There's symptoms during infancy. There's no way you could control the social circumstances of that person to make them grow up into a normal person. There's no experiences that could fix them. Likewise, if a person is not born with the condition, they will never under reasonably normal circumstances, or even relatively bad ones, develop a severe form of the disorder. Social expierences alone cannot have that effect on the brain. Your idea that it's all just bad experiences and it could happen to anyone is complete bullshit.

>Why should I change my posting style just to fit in?
Because this isn't facebook or a forum and the whole point of anonymity is defeated if somebody uses an avatar or feels the need to put some obvious identifying quality in their posts. I don't want to know that i'm arguing with the same person i've argued with multiple times already. I think their diagnosis of you is accurate. I even pointed it out before.

>>25565
>That's part of the brain fixating on physical things and such as it can't deal with people.
Absolutely not. You have no idea what you are talking about. It causes physical pain and has been documented to cause physical, cellular damage.
>Again, that's due to a lack of socialisation from a young age.
Again, incorrect. There have been multiple studies proving that the brain is physically different and that the speech centers are undeveloped at a level which mere differing types of social interaction cannot cause.
>This one is harder to explain but there would be a reason for it as well, probably to do with subtle effects in how the brain is wired due to severe isolation.
You probably already guessed, but this is beyond incorrect and is once again proven to be caused by major nervous system deformities and significantly shrunken motor control centers.

The majority of cases diagnosed with autism like that described are people who went to public school and often even had friends groups. Your theory is pure bullshit and sounds like the kind of bad pseudoscience I'd expect from a place like 4/b/ or any other board on that god forsaken site. Everything you have posted has been wrong, uninformed, and hilariously based only on some belief you have that no doubt assumes nurture is unopposedly dominant to nature. I don't usually go off like this on here but seeing someone talking like a sub-80IQ dudebro trying to figure out muscular biology on his own is just too offensive to my average intelligence.

Suppose the "autism is a loser's maladaptation/excuse" theorists are correct, what solutions are they proposing?

>>25578
I dunno maybe we should ask them what excuse they think down syndrome is for.

>>25577
Well if you become more sensitive to something that's possibly going to happen.


>There have been multiple studies proving that the brain is physically different and that the speech centers are undeveloped at a level which mere differing types of social interaction cannot cause.


And studies have been done showing the same impact on children who lacked social interaction, you seem to not understand how brain development works and how vital it is for children.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/07/21/166538.full.pdf

>proven to be caused by major nervous system deformities and significantly shrunken motor control centers.

Read my above reply, it addresses this same point.

>>25578
There probably is no solution. But more preventative measures could be taken to ensure that children are raised properly to avoid this.

>>25580
Feral children who never interacted with other humans and deaf children who never learned proper sign language, are not the same as children who had early, negative social experiences, which this paper doesn't talk about. There's also nothing in there about hypersensitivity to physcial stimuli. You're cherrypicking and conflating tangentially related things.

>>25582
>are not the same as children who had early, negative social experiences, which this paper doesn't talk about.

Uhh, it actually does though, it mentions a Romanian study done on Orphans, I found the link to the study itself.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25622303

>There's also nothing in there about hypersensitivity to physcial stimuli.

Because they are really going to be able to get that information from a feral child... That's not what the paper was about and it's not an easy thing to find out from a feral child but they do seem to be hypersensitive, whether that is due to something like autism or just being in a completely alien environment is not clear though(you can't exactly just ask them).

>>25583
Being neglected, lacking any close interpersonal relationships and being discouraged from speaking at all, is not the same thing as early negative social experiences with peers.

>Because they are really going to be able to get that information from a feral child
It's called a pain response. Celluar damage can also be observed without talking to them.

>>25584
It's not a radical new theory, it's been known for a while, just google child brain development. All you are really doing is arguing to what degree.

I'm sure they had other things to think about at the time(like doing the study they were actually there to do and not some random side quest for the benefit of some guy on the internet).

>>25585
Alright. Arguing with an autistic person is pointless. I should just try and feel bad for you since I know you can't help it.

The very intersting fact about schizoids, are they really less sucessful than schizophrenics. I mean i saw a graphic some time ago, they were really below the line of sucess compared to schizophrenics. Also do you people feel a strong need to be loved? Explain how, because I would imagine Tohno-chan is a place where the users have long abandoned such feelings in real life. But it could be abstract also.
And weak ethnic affiliation and involvement with others. Involvement with others doing what sort of things, and what does it mean by ethnic affiliation?

>>25587
>Explain how
Robots for me personally.
>what does it mean by ethnic affiliation?
If you go to any more popular imageboard, you'll see. There's many people who dislike society, but blame culture rather than normalacy in its entirety. They think everything would be peachy if the culture around them changed to be more tradtional or whatever their preference is because they feel a "connection" with their own ethnic group. If only members of their ethnic group had the correct mindset they think they'd be happy. I think these notions are less common in schizoid people.

Post edited on 16th May 2020, 8:08am

>>25588
>but blame culture rather than normalacy in its entirety.

It's the same thing. The norms of a society are the culture of a society.

>>25587
>Also do you people feel a strong need to be loved?
Yes.
>Explain how
No, it's self explanatory.
>I would imagine Tohno-chan is a place where the users have long abandoned such feelings in real life.
This is a NEET site, not I-don't-need-to-be-loved site.

>25587
>The very intersting fact about schizoids, are they really less sucessful than schizophrenics.

Curiously I just watched that John Nash movie some hours ago. What you said makes sense to me, socializing is the biggest skill for success, more than anything else, and being schizophrenic doesn't necessarily fucks with that, while being schizo necessarily does it.

>Also do you people feel a strong need to be loved?

That was in the covert list right? At least I wouldn't define something I experience that way, or in any conventional way, but sometimes I would like to know someone to share certain things, someone with a similar mindset so I can contrast my thoughts (a second opinion) or someone who could teach me things and viceversa.
But that's one individual, not a family, not a group of friends, I don't wish for that.
And what I could certainly define as an strong need is of being at peace and not having to deal with the shit that even the minimal social interaction involves. It exhausts me, it makes me feel sick, physically, and I can cause negative effects to others the same way.

>and what does it mean by ethnic affiliation?

I have parents from different countries, I don't feel identified with my country or my culture, even when I talk my maternal language it doesn't feel like my language at all. I feel like a foreigner, often finding myself criticizing my countrymen as if I was some sort of tourist or immigrant. I guess it means something like that.

>>25591
Sorry, meant for >>25587

>>25588
>>25590
>>25591
Oh, now I understand it better, thanks a lot. I see, the need to be loved not necesserialy implies affection for specific living people the schizoid has no relation with. It's more of a feeling of desire for a equal comrade, or something.
Ethnic affiliation, yes now that you mention I also mentally criticize the countrymen too. Sometimes there's people who say the worst thing about the country of theirs is weather or the price of living, sometimes I think the worst thing about my country is the people who live in it.
Social skills are sought after because they are a very important thing for success. Even with psychosis and barely being able to write a coherent sentence schizophrenics fare better in the research than schizoids, really impressive.
Also the fantasy
>four of the schizoid boys reported having exclusively internal violent fantasies (concerned with Zulu wars, abattoirs, fascists and communists and a collection of knives, respectively), which were pursued entirely by themselves, while the only non-schizoid subject to report a violent fantasy life shared his with a group of young men (dressing up and riding motorcycles as a self-styled "panzer" group)
Is funny and relatable. Tohno-chan should set up a panzer gang as well.

>>25587
>what does it mean by ethnic affiliation?
I don't feel any strong ties to any ethnicity. I have no interest in my peoples culture, race, or even my family tree and my family name means nothing to me. That could just be because I'm a half breed however, or because I'm very separated from the groups my family comes from as well as most of my family itself, so I can't speak for other schizoids.
>do you people feel a strong need to be loved?
It sounds good on paper and seems like it would be nice, but could also be burdensome. Chances are I likely wouldn't be able to reciprocate this person(or people's) feelings.
>are they really less sucessful than schizophrenics.
Makes sense. I've been content in the past with low paying jobs that allowed me isolation and freedom to do as I please. Ideally I'd have enough to live alone and fund my hobbies, preferably without having to work so as to have more time for anime and games, anything past that is unnecessary.

>It's more of a feeling of desire for a equal comrade

You totally get it and used better words than I.

About the violence, I don't rememeber that well what I read about it, but it seems schizoids don't tend to use it. I'm personally unable to do it, even when I'm not against it in moral grounds, it's like something physical, I can't even yell. This has been a great source of pain for me since it makes me thing it's because I'm weak, a coward, fag, etc.

>>25587
I think it's silly that some people think an ethnically homogeneous state would somehow make life more bearable in a substantial way for total outcasts and people who are that far from the norm. Yeah sure there would be less worry about going into poor areas in cities, but it's not like abnormal people have exactly been accepted in society before modernity. I've seen the old hermit concept before but that is nothing like what people think and those people were not liked by anyone in society, including the rulers. Other types of monks that were accepted in society spent more time on missions helping the poor or preaching, and would certainly be expected to be able to have normal conversations with other people. A truly schizoid person would have been the wild man who is sent out of the city and left to die, begging at its gates and eventually starving. There is nowhere on this earth for socially abnormal people.

>>25597
That's exactly what I meant by normalcy. People are limited in how they can be and certain types of people will always be more common. A person who is not one of those types will never comfortably fit in. To make everyone fit in, you'd need to change people on a fundamental level.

>>25573
>it's basically the same as a forum signature
It's some undesirable outsider trying to stir shit up. Now there's TWO of them on /ot/, bitching about the core users of this very imageboard, white knighting for the poor poor normalfags burdened by the plague of hikki NEETs. What the fuck is going on and why is this allowed?

>>25503
I've never had the issue you seem to have with tests. I used to be a bit frustrated that I had low to middling values on most things. I knew something was different about me, but could never find what from those stupid online tests. Figured maybe I was just wired differently - but that's really what most personality disorders are.
I'm not sure if this is a trait for all schizoids or just me, but I find it very easy to analyze myself and realize my personality traits. So reading through articles like the wikipedia one I can tell which parts fit me and how well they fit me. Nothing has matched me quite as well as SPD. It's not perfect by any means, but it's over 90% accurate at least. Perhaps you should think about and write down traits you have. Try to discover who you are (on a brain level). Then compare those traits alongside your own memories and experiences to the descriptions of various disorders or conditions. Don't rely on some test. Nobody should know you better than you know yourself. So you are the best person to diagnose yourself.

>>25508
>At this point I'm not so sure if it's a mental disorder or just some a personality type.
If schizoids were regularly successful it'd likely just be a rare personality type or a disorder that doesn't need treatment. Sociopath behavior is common in CEOs, but nobody is clamoring to get them treated for it. I think SPD is only seen as a problem because it's hard to classify something that often negatively impacts an individual as a personality type.

>>25601

I always heard diagnosing yourself is a terrible mistake you should never do. Almost all psychologists repeat the same, everytime you hear a psychologist in media talking about some disorder/pathology it's almost sure he will starting saying that. But I don't trust psychologists, maybe it's just a way to keep having clients or to embellish their profession so people don't think it's something you can do by yourself by reading their manuals.
Problem is I don't trust myself either.

I did what you said, and I also share like a 90% of traits described. Problem is I've been researching more, and schizoid personality disorder is described differently and contradictorily in multiple sources. I listened some psychologist saying SPD is defined essentially by a total absence of pleasant or unpleasant feelings, and that automatically would discard me. I can't help but feel psychology and it's professionals aren't serious; I have a niece with mentals problems (which I have no relation with) that have been diagnosed with mental retardation, asperger, other autism disorders, basically every doctor gives a different dyagnose.

I will try to read DSM-5, I think that's basically what most doctors only do anyway, but this is just a newer version of the same manual that considered homosexuality included in mental disorders until not that long ago and changes definitions and categories with every new edition.

>>25602
>Problem is I've been researching more, and schizoid personality disorder is described differently and contradictorily in multiple sources.

I found that too. There was somebody that lumped then into different groups which made more sense, I can't find it though. One group was is the emotionless group, one group was a energy-less group, one group was a hermit group and another group was normalish, plus you have over and covert. I think part of why it is so contradictory is that it's probably actually only a part of the total diagnosis(the reclusive anti-social part) but you can have people with the disorder who have other issues and personality types and they get lumped in as well, it's likely that many schizoids would suffer from depression due to their lifestyles and that would give them the emotionless traits but it would not be schizoidal itself.

>considered homosexuality included in mental disorders until not that long ago

Because it is one. Not being insulting or rude or anything but it's what it is.

>>25603
>Because it is one. Not being insulting or rude or anything but it's what it is.

That wasn't my point though, I don't really know if it's a mental disorder or not, but if it's like that then why to take it out because political reasons? If it's supposed to be a scientifical manual then it doesn't make sense it can change that much just because that. I know other sciences can be affected by politics and society changes, but not at that degree.

>>25604
>>25603
The fundamental pillars in psychopathology are looking at the harm, risk, distress, impairment a condition causes. Notice how abnormality isn't included. Categorizing a condition as a mental disorder is stating that it merits treatment.

Homosexuality was depathologized and removed from the DSM because the APA determined it didn't meet those parameters. They looked at homosexuality through the scope of its objective harm as a condition, not through the various theories that aimed to explain its cause. Nothing political about it.

After watching this lecture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXiHStLfjP0 I've been reading The Master and His Emissary which is about the left and right brain hemisphere and how the left is taking over, and it's made me wonder about some things.

I've officially been diagnosed with schizotopy, although it might as well have been schizoid, and in the end I don't really feel it. I can relate to the things in the wiki article as well, but something seems to be off about it, as if it's really just one symptom listed as many. It could probably be described with "wanting to connect, but somehow being unable to". For some reason deep feelings like being hungry for love and having intense need of being involved with others are combined with being aloof and withdrawn which suggests the disconnect and also a wanting for it not to be so. It's like there's a war going on between the part that wants to connect and the part which wants to disconnect; it's like a war between the right and left hemisphere, in which the left hemisphere is winning.

I've been thinking lately how my surroundings coincide with my mental state. It's like my mind is closed, just as I've closed myself away from the world. Back when my parents got divorced, my dad kept a fairly large house and got a 3DPD soon after. I never ended up getting along with the 3DPD for different reasons, and most of the time I was secluding myself in my room on the upper floor with the 3DPD having the entire bottom floor, at least that's how I saw it. I never invited anyone over ever because I wasn't happy, but I didn't want to show it either. I couldn't talk to my parents either, and me and my sister was on bad terms as well. To sum it up I ended up secluded physically and emotionally, and I still am to this day. And while I call it seclusion, what it really is is a lack of connecting, a lack of seeing and being seen, hearing and being heard, feeling and being felt, a lack of physical, emotional and mental connection. I bottle things up, have a hard time voicing my thoughts, which in turn secludes me more.

If you live like someone who's mentally ill, you become mentally ill.

>>25606
>it's like a war between the right and left hemisphere

I think I always thought about the same you are talking but in completely different terms; more like the confrontation between expectations and reality. It's like the suicide dilemma, the suicide mostly loves life but because loves life that much he can't keep living in what it is a bad substitute of it or of the ideal he has of it.
For a more simple example, it's like having an exquisite palate and being given dry bread and nothing else. You will turn depressed and stop eating, then someone who can't catch the situation will say "this guy hates food".

>>25605
Question is then, why it did meet those parameters before? They just changed the parameters? I don't know but I can't help but feel it had nothing to do with a serious analysis or scientific methodology but because society just changed their views and they adapted to it.

>>25608
>They just changed the parameters?
The revisions to the DSM is a reflection of how plastic pychopathology as a whole is. For example paraphilias like sadomasochism used to be broadly represented but today a distinction is made between atypical sexual interest and a disorder. Earlier revisions routinely receive criticism for arbitrary definitions of normality, and the field as a whole was very also slow to adapt to new research on homosexuality.


It's a bit like how left-handedness used to be taught out of schoolchildren through the 1970's.