![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 22 to 46 of 74. Go back in thread:
Posted by noa on June 29, 2000, at 8:18:09
In reply to Re: Asperger's...Ted Kozinski is likely one... » Johnturner77, posted by Sara T on June 28, 2000, at 22:54:34
Thank you for pointing out the distinctions. I think what John Turner was focusing on in thinking kaczynski might have had aspergers is the shunning of stimulation and people, the high proficiency for math and science and home-made technology.
But the differences in "theory of mind" are enormous, as you point out. In aspergers, there is the absence of theory of mind, while in paranoid schizophrenia, there is almost an overactive theory of mind, ie, attributing intentions that are not really there.
I think, however, that there are probably plenty of folks who have been labeled as schizophrenic who might better be described as having something akin to aspergers, but they grew up before aspergers was widely understood by professionals. And, I imagine that to a certain degree, there might be individuals with aspergers who were misunderstood and mistreated because they were different, who subsequently developed feelings of paranoia based on their very real experiences of being picked on by peers and treated harshly by teachers and others. But I suspect that it would be the extremely rare occurence that this would develop into a full blown fixed paranoid delusional system, unless such a psychotic disorder was in the cards for them anyway, separate from the aspergers.
Posted by Johnturner77 on June 29, 2000, at 8:43:21
In reply to Re: Asperger's...Ted Kozinski is likely one... » Johnturner77, posted by Sara T on June 28, 2000, at 22:54:34
>
> Just on the basis of that I'd say Kaczynski probably didn't have Asperger's syndrome. Also, most people with Asperger's syndrome recognize their disabilities just like people with ADD recognize their impaired functioning. Whereas Kaczynski never believed he was ill.
>
> It's this kind of misunderstanding of neurological disorders that fuels myths about people with Asperger's syndrome as being violent. It perpetuates inappropriate negative responses on the part of the larger society that these people live in.
>
> Sara T.Yeah your right. I will consider my knuckles rapped! 8>) And I really Americanized his name spelling, too. I didn't follow the story that closely. I seem to remember some rather eccentric childhood interests mentioned. A double diagnosis is still a small possibility. That would really be a double whammy, wouldn't it.
Posted by Sara T on June 29, 2000, at 12:14:49
In reply to Re: Asperger's...Ted Kozinski is likely one..., posted by Johnturner77 on June 29, 2000, at 8:43:21
> >
> Yeah your right. I will consider my knuckles rapped! 8>) And I really Americanized his name spelling, too. I didn't follow the story that closely. I seem to remember some rather eccentric childhood interests mentioned. A double diagnosis is still a small possibility. That would really be a double whammy, wouldn't it.Thanks John,
I'm probably over sensitive on this issue since my son has Asperger's. My apology for getting on my high horse. And yes, that would be a double whammy!!
Noa - you are correct that many who were dx'd in the past were dx'd incorrectly as Atypical Schizophrenia - or with Schizoid Personality. As a result they weren't given the right treatments and really suffered.
Asperger was active at the same time as Kanner, who originally described classic autism. But with WWII, since Asperger was in Austria, his work was largely ignored until the 1980's when a British researcher translated his original thesis from the German. So it has been around for awhile but not in this country as a diagnostic category. However it has been in the WHO's diagnostic categories since the 80's.
Interestly, the word Autism was orginally used in connection with the withdrawal seen in schizophrenia. Kanner used it to describe the severe withdrawal of the children he described. Asperger, perhahps describing a set of higher functioning children used the term schizoid. There is or was a diagnostic category of Childhood Schizoid Disorder, but it apparently not very useful because it is so vague.
Nowadays, all disorders in the Autistic Spectrum are under the umbrella of Pervasive Developmental Disorders.
Thanks - Sara T.
Posted by harry b. on June 29, 2000, at 12:24:54
In reply to Re: Asperger's...Ted Kozinski is likely one..., posted by dj on June 29, 2000, at 2:19:27
> There is a reason for everything, ever action
>and every re-action...
>A take on a basic law of physics, applicable to
psychology and society.
>and if we look deeply and carefully enough at
>causes and effects we can see them, without reverting
>to simplistic diagnostics, third hand or so...I agree, with reservations. One constraint
is time, our very limited time. If, in my 50yrs,
I am unable to decipher the myriad causes and effects that
led me to who I am, how can we propose to know and explain
anothers psyche and motives? We can briefly examine the known
and supposed causes, the perceieved effects, and reach a conclusion.
That conclusion inevitably will fall short of the
reality and will inherently be subjective.Nature vs nurture is also a part of the equation.
Finally, we have the Chaos Theory. We are, after
all, creatures of the universe.Sometimes 'simplistic diagnostics' are adequate.
hb
Posted by Sara T on June 29, 2000, at 12:32:23
In reply to Re: Asperger's...Ted Kozinski is likely one..., posted by dj on June 29, 2000, at 2:19:27
> > Interesting thought. I think with Kaczynski, though, there developed a co-existing delusional >disorder (paranoia).
>
> Kaczynski's reasoning, from his published treatise on society and technology, was described as credible (though not the violence he took on himself to commit), logical and a genuine reason for concern by the chief scientist from Sun Microsystems in a widely reported cover story in Wired magazine, back in April or so (can't figure out which pile of mags. I've go it in).
>
> As well, in a recent (May or June I believe) cover story in the Atlantic a fellow Harvard student from Kaczynski's era details how Kaczynski was very young and driven when he arrived at Harvard (from what would now be termed as a dysfunctional family), how the values he promotes are in line with the values he learned in his studies at Harvard and in some cruel psych. experiments he was coerced into participating in...
>
> There is a reason for everything, ever action and every re-action and if we look deeply and carefully enough at causes and effects we can see them, without reverting to simplistic diagnostics, third hand or so...
>
> As Einstein noted: "Make things as simple as possible and no simpler." If we all followed that dictum our society would be much saner and healthier. Instead we have a society addicted to mass trivia and idiotic, pseudo-events like: Survivor which demontrates clearly the thesis behind the brilliant book: "Amusing Ourselves to Death: by Neil Postman.dj
Interesting stuff you cite. And you're right, of course, people are always more than any diagnosic category we would like to put on them. I did read, however, that Paraniod Schizophrenia was the "official" diagnosis they gave Kaczynski. Diagnostic categories are only useful in describing a set of symptoms. To reiterate, they don't describe the complexity of a whole person. Certainly not someone as brilliant and complex as Ted Kaczynski.Anyway, however logical any of his thoughts and reasons were, blowing up people is a little off the charts. Unless it were for some achievable goal, like in a war situation where it is part of an orchestrated strategy. NOT that I believe in blowing up people for any cause (although there are times....).
I agree, too, about Survivor. It's ,IMHO, boring to watch voyeuristic programs. I have enough of my own conflicts, thank you. I don't find anything particularly instructive or enlightening or thought provoking about any of it. It's more than trivia, it's like a version of Jerry Springer. And I hate those daytime shows! Setting up a conflict situation in the name of resolution, BS, it is voyeuristic showmanship. Just my opinion.
Sara T.
Posted by Cass on June 29, 2000, at 14:57:56
In reply to Re: Asperger's...Ted Kozinski is likely one... » dj, posted by Sara T on June 29, 2000, at 12:32:23
I think Ted Kosinski had strong principles and ideals which vary greatly from the mall culture in which we live. Maybe there was nothing wrong with him at all. Maybe he is one of the few sane people, a person who has the courage of his convictions. I agree with a lot of Kosinski's ideas as summarized in the Atlantic article, but I don't have the courage to alter my life accordingly. The author and former class mate of Kosinski did not seem to think Ted Kosinski had paranoid schizophrenia. His unconventional ideas make us uncomfortable. His actions made us uncomfortable, too, so we label him and dismiss his ideas. I think we overlook a lot of destruction caused by industry, but we are not willing to overlook the comparatively little destruction Kosinski accomplished. I don't condone murder. These are just thoughts I have not drawn conclusions for. Please don't judge me for having questions.
Posted by dj on June 29, 2000, at 18:14:52
In reply to Re: Asperger's...Ted Kozinski is likely one... » dj, posted by harry b. on June 29, 2000, at 12:24:54
> Sometimes 'simplistic diagnostics' are adequate.
>
As Einstein said: "Make it as simple as possible and no simpler. Too often we err on either side of that spectrum individually and jointly...and the media only distort and accentuate those extremes...
Posted by dj on June 29, 2000, at 18:26:37
In reply to Re: Asperger's...Ted Kozinski is likely one... » dj, posted by Sara T on June 29, 2000, at 12:32:23
>... however logical any of his thoughts and reasons were, blowing up people is a little off the charts. Unless it were for some achievable goal, like in a war situation where it is part of >an orchestrated strategy.
Ahhh, but it was an orchestrated and rational approach to attempting to create awareness about the potentially lethal effects of technology run amuk. And it was successful given the amount of coverage he received in having those issues seriously addressed by some foremost thinkers and public leaders in public forums.
And his methods distract from his message to some degree but who is to say he wouldn't have received the coverage he had, otherwise. Whether you agree with his means or not (and most rational and moral people wouldn't but some would...), his ends are commendable.
>
> I agree, too, about Survivor. It's ,IMHO, boring to watch voyeuristic programs. I have enough of my own conflicts, thank you ... Just my opinion.
>
And an opinion many others share. Check out http://www.adbusers.org (which did a recent issue on depression and the links with our media culture) However fear and other people's perceived fortunes and misfortunes sell to too many. As H.L. Mencken wrote years ago and it unfortuntately still is relevant: "No one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American people."Fortunately the converse also applies to some degree...
dj
Posted by dj on June 29, 2000, at 18:29:47
In reply to Questions about Kosinski, posted by Cass on June 29, 2000, at 14:57:56
> I think Ted Kosinski had strong principles and ideals which vary greatly from the mall culture in which we live. Maybe there was nothing wrong with him at all. Maybe he is one of the few sane people, a person who has the courage of his >convictions. ...
Nice overview of the issues raised by K. and the article!! Edward Abbey's "The Monkey Wrench Gang" is one of the bibles of deep ecology which is the viewpoint that K. and many such folk come from. And perhaps they are right...whether their methods are, or not...
Posted by claire 7 on June 29, 2000, at 22:03:33
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski, posted by dj on June 29, 2000, at 18:29:47
What an amazingly interesting thread!! Issues I've wrestled with all my adult (18yrs on) life.
When friends object to spiking trees, I say, yeah, but we need extremes to make the rest of us environmentalists look reasonable, and to create a perceived need on the part of others to "compromise"; and we need extremes to call attention to the problem, a task that unfortunately usually requires violence or the threat of violence. I personally can't squash a spider, can't kill the snakes that haunt my potting shed, couldn't even in good conscience disrupt philosophy classes with anti-war demonstrations during Vietnam. But we need the people who can do these things. ( Jesus was one.)
Ted, I think, was too far gone to be taken seriously, or to be taken as anything other than a wacko, which is a tragedy. And I must admit I can't accept the idea of blowing off a relatively innocent person's hand. (Hitler, O.K. A few others I can think of, O.K. But a small cog in the apparatus, no.)
Note that this topic has, in my opinion, quite a bit of relevance to recent events on this board.
Posted by Cass on June 29, 2000, at 23:19:13
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski, posted by claire 7 on June 29, 2000, at 22:03:33
> Ted, I think, was too far gone to be taken seriously,
Just out of curiosity (I'm not trying to debate the subject), why do you think Ted was "too far gone"?Note that this topic has, in my opinion, quite a bit of relevance to recent events on this board.
I agree.
Posted by Janice on June 29, 2000, at 23:20:35
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski, posted by claire 7 on June 29, 2000, at 22:03:33
I'm pretty sure you were.
Posted by Cass on June 29, 2000, at 23:27:14
In reply to weren't you a grandmother last week Claire 7? nm, posted by Janice on June 29, 2000, at 23:20:35
Janice, I think Claire 7 was referring to the issues she has thought about starting at age 18. I don't think she was saying she is now 18, or that it has been 18 years since her childhood. She could be any age over 18 and could therefore be a grandmother. That's my interpretation of her mention of her age :)
Please correct me if I am wrong, Claire. That's the way I read it.
Posted by Janice on June 30, 2000, at 0:33:28
In reply to Re: weren't you a grandmother last week Claire 7? nm » Janice , posted by Cass on June 29, 2000, at 23:27:14
Hi Cass,
I didn't really read the post thoroughly. I just find that all bobb's character's are poorly developed, but prehaps he is improving his skill at this.
The real problem is my impulse control. I had to go off the Dexedrine which helped wonderfully, perfectly for my impulse control which I so desperately need help with, but it makes me very, very obsessive and compulsive (maybe I'll start a thread about it).
Sorry for the interuption folks.
Janicetrying to keep my mouth shut!
Posted by dj on June 30, 2000, at 1:20:10
In reply to Re: Asperger's...Ted Kozinski is likely one..., posted by dj on June 29, 2000, at 18:26:37
> Check out http://www.adbusers.org (which did a recent issue on depression and the links with our >media culture)
http://www.adbusters.org, that's it...
Posted by claire 7 on June 30, 2000, at 7:12:11
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski » claire 7, posted by Cass on June 29, 2000, at 23:19:13
I think I meant that his methods were so scary to most people that there wasn't room to think about his ideas. Everyone was just relieved to have him caught so they wouldn't have to think about him anymore. Or something like that. My post wasn't very well-formed! And yes, I did mean that I'd been thinking a lot about these things since I was 18---though I think it began earlier than that.
>
>
Posted by claire 7 on June 30, 2000, at 7:21:20
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski, posted by claire 7 on June 30, 2000, at 7:12:11
>
Posted by Oddzilla on June 30, 2000, at 9:13:58
In reply to Questions about Kosinski, posted by Cass on June 29, 2000, at 14:57:56
> I think Ted Kosinski had strong principles and ideals which vary greatly from the mall culture in which we live. Maybe there was nothing wrong with him at all. Maybe he is one of the few sane people, a person who has the courage of his convictions
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Cass I think you raise a good point. This is a quote from the interview with Theodore Roszak at the adbusters link dj posted:Psychology, especially in its therapeutic form, has a treacherous function: namely, it convinces people that their happiness – their sanity, their personal fulfillment – is limited to their social relations. It’s almost an act of censorship. If you do psychology in an industrial society, the one thing you need most to hide or suppress is the damage we do to the natural environment. If you took that seriously as factor in personal sanity, you would probably have to call off industrial progress
I thought this really fit Kosinski. Just because someone is socially inept doesn't make him crazy. Just because someone is a criminal or a murderer doesn't make him crazy. Just because someone is fighting industrial progress doesn't make him crazy. Just because someone is miserable and unemployed and unhappy (gasp!!) doesn't make him crazy.
Anyway them's my reactions of the moment. (Of course we should probably just ignore this ecopsychologist Roszak guy-he sounds a LOT like BBob to me. Another alias no doubt ;-)
Best wishes O.
Posted by claire 7 on June 30, 2000, at 10:00:46
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski, posted by Oddzilla on June 30, 2000, at 9:13:58
>
As soon as I pushed the post button last night I thought: that was a garbled, contradictory, and misleading post, old girl. One of the misleading things was "couldn't in good conscience disrupt etc". Technically I guess that was true. I did do that once, but I felt ashamed of myself in the middle of it, and never did it again, even though I don't disapprove of such action. WHEW. Talk about conflict! Talk about contradiction! But sometimes I wonder if the struggle to line up all one's ducks in a neat, tight little row may not be at the heart of much dis-ease. (I like that formulation, dj.)
This post is as lame as my original post! I need to get outside and hoe!
(This week-end we're going to celebrate events that were considered by many to be extreme, crazy, disruptive, and violent. Hmm.)
Posted by claire 7 on June 30, 2000, at 10:56:50
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski, posted by Oddzilla on June 30, 2000, at 9:13:58
>
Great quote. If any creatures come after us, and look at our dead planet, they will debate for centuries about the nature of our insanity.
Posted by Johnturner77 on June 30, 2000, at 11:46:57
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski » Oddzilla , posted by claire 7 on June 30, 2000, at 10:56:50
Chicken Little says "The sky is falling".
If the whole thing comes unglued(its amazing in a way that it hasn't) our perspective on people like Ted Kaczynski and Tim LaVey may change. We may see them as heroes, having clearer insight into the social emergency we live in. We may say we should have listened.
Its probably just legend, but some say that if you put a toad in a container of water and heat is slowly enough you can cook the toad without it jumping out. Isn't that what is happening with our environment?
To a considerable degree we come here because we are casualties of our society. I remember sitting on a island in Maine a few years back without a single human sound and no human lights. In the peace and quiet I realized that there were probably too many humans on this planet. Also, we are subjected to a lot of stresses that we aren't even aware are stressors and probably aren't designed to handle.
Time and again throughout history whole nations snap and stop behaving in their self interest. Maybe relative calm will continue for another hundred years. Or a mess like WW2 only more up to date will engulf us all. Who's crazy then? The "reasonable" Neville Chamberlains? Or the pain in the neck types that we said were over reacting?
Posted by Cass on June 30, 2000, at 18:14:58
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski, posted by Oddzilla on June 30, 2000, at 9:13:58
> Psychology, especially in its therapeutic form, >has a treacherous function: namely, it convinces >people that their happiness – their sanity, >their personal fulfillment – is limited to their >social relations. It’s almost an act of >censorship.
I think that was a really interesting quote. I'm really happy to say that my pdoc has had patients other than myself who have been totally ostracized at mistreated for having the courage of their convictions, and he admires and supports those patients. One of his patients was a cop who stood up against corruption in the force. A serious source of oppression came for me during my childhood, especially my teen years. I was aware of the dangerous pathology in my family, spoke up about it and was rejected and abused for it, by my family and by the community (Alice Miller's "Thou Shalt Not be Aware" was a very validating book for me). My pdocs goal in therapy seems to be directing his patients toward finding truth and not necessarily encouraging them to be "part of the norm" or "most popular".
>
>(Of course we should probably just ignore this >ecopsychologist Roszak guy-he sounds a LOT like >BBob to me. Another alias no doubt ;-)ROTFL!!!!
Posted by Cass on June 30, 2000, at 18:23:17
In reply to AllTheWorldIsCrazyExceptMeAndThee and you're here!, posted by Johnturner77 on June 30, 2000, at 11:46:57
>
> If the whole thing comes unglued(its amazing in >a way that it hasn't) our perspective on people >like Ted Kaczynski and Tim LaVey may change. We may see them as heroes, having clearer insight into the social emergency we live in. We may say we should have listened.
>
Really well put. That is always the nagging question in the back of my mind. As Claire pointed out, Jesus was a social rebel. Iconoclasts who threaten power structures are quickly destroyed. And then once they are out of the way, we can safely "worship false idols" of them.
Posted by shar on July 1, 2000, at 1:39:18
In reply to AllTheWorldIsCrazyExceptMeAndThee and you're here!, posted by Johnturner77 on June 30, 2000, at 11:46:57
Sorry, need to jump in here for a moment.
>
> If the whole thing comes unglued(its amazing in a way that it hasn't) our perspective on people like Ted Kaczynski and Tim LaVey may change. We may see them as heroes, having clearer insight into the social emergency we live in. We may say we should have listened.
>
>
This may be true. I remember when Arafat and the PLO were blowing up schools, and school buses, and children and the general consensus was that he was very, very bad and nuts. And, today...well... I am stunned every time I see him welcomed into some political function, handshaking all around, smiling, pats on the back. I shudder.I don't think that any man that could commit such heinous acts, as he did, for any purpose whatsoever is "sane" as I define it. He may walk and talk and act in functional ways, but there is a constitutional defect (my opinion) in such a person that makes him axiomatically out of touch. Perhaps it is "only" megalomania in an extreme form.
I believe killing of the innocents in bulk to be irrational, indefensible, and not the act of a sane person(IMHO). I cannot imagine ever believing that Kosinski and/or McVey were sane, rational, reasonable, or in control of themselves, nor that they furthered their cause.
>
>
Its probably just legend, but some say that if you put a toad in a container of water and heat is slowly enough you can cook the toad without it jumping out. Isn't that what is happening with our environment?To a considerable degree we come here because we are casualties of our society. I remember sitting on a island in Maine a few years back without a single human sound and no human lights. In the peace and quiet I realized that there were probably too many humans on this planet. Also, we are subjected to a lot of stresses that we aren't even aware are stressors and probably aren't designed to handle.
>
>
Re: the environment being passively allowed to self-destruct (or other-destruct), I don't believe so. Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in the 60's and environmental concerns have been in the world consciousness ever since (to varying degrees at various times). Some people do not hesitate to sell out the environment, they take action to make a profit. Others harm (or get harmed) to make a living. Others are unwilling to do harm, and take action to protect the environment. Other people recycle their newspapers and cans.I believe in most of the world, people are slowly becoming aware of what we've wrought over the decades. It's starting to affect people's livelihood now, and that's turning them in to (perhaps unwilling) environmentalists (as in the salmon fishers for one example). And even scientists are hoist with their own petard because their "clean" plastic test tubes contain enough contaminants to interact with the substances they hold.
And, people in cities everywhere are no longer content to let the new company move in so everybody can have a job--when it means the contamination of their environment.
There is a history here that is worth remembering. The mindset of "better living thru chemistry" was true for most people for a while. It did seem that much of what was happening (in the 40's, 50's) was good. But, people had to learn along the way--take DDT for example. It did do an excellent job at pest control, but it took time for people to learn about the other awful things it did. And that knowledge grew a community of people dedicated to protecting people and the earth from DDT.
Or practicing what to do in school if there was a nuclear attack (get under your desk of course). Now we know much better, and we've come a long way from "get under your desk." It will take time for us to learn everything.
There are few angels (and a number of SOB's) in the arena, but I think using such a broad brush to paint the picture about our environment and humanity is just as misleading as saying there is nothing wrong.
>
> >
> Time and again throughout history whole nations snap and stop behaving in their self interest. Maybe relative calm will continue for another hundred years. Or a mess like WW2 only more up to date will engulf us all. Who's crazy then? The "reasonable" Neville Chamberlains? Or the pain in the neck types that we said were over reacting?
>
>
I don't think it's that simple. I think we may well kill off a bunch of ourselves on a massive scale; especially when we try to solve the problems we caused with more chemistry...And, we should remember that there are also problems in existence as a result of efforts on behalf of the environment. Not much in this world is linear.It also depends on how one defines "overreaction" or "crazy." Many accomplishments benefiting the world and the environment have been attained without having to kill children, or mail out incendiary devices, or call out the dogs and night sticks, or hold hostages or blow up jets, or gas people in the subways.
I believe in every era, there have been events that appeared to be leading to the end. Humans (and the earth), however, evolve (learn) and adapt, and there are always people around who will devote their energy to positive change and harm to none.
There is also a whole population of people who are so involved in trying to care for and feed their families, they haven't begun to consider some of the issues.
We won't all of us be reaching the same conclusions at the same time, and we won't all consider the same issues equally important, but I don't plan to kill anyone to make my point, nor will I abandon my efforts to change things.
Shar
Posted by Sara T on July 1, 2000, at 8:58:07
In reply to Seeing the Forest and the Trees, posted by shar on July 1, 2000, at 1:39:18
Shar-
Great post. Very well said. Right on!!!
Sara T.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.