What It’s Like to ‘Wake Up’ from Autism After Magnetic Stimulation
nymag.com
nymag.com
I wonder how relevant his experiences with autism and TMS would be though to those of us with less extraordinary lives. I mean I'm guessing that having a life like this would tend to suggest that someone's internal mental makeup is somehow rather non-mainstream as well.
- Jack went to trial as a teenager, facing 60 years (!) in prison for chemistry experiments (http://www.masslive.com/localbuzz/index.ssf/2009/06/actionre...)
- Here is John showcasing guitar for Kiss, built by whole family (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXZi4UZjiiI&t=10)
- John's brother is Augusten Burroughs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusten_Burroughs)
(this is a reposted comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11313452, but people found it interesting last time and I butter my toast with karma)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7060
In short, the time and energy normally spent on social interaction instead is spent on other aspects of life.
I consider myself very smart but wouldn't write this kind of arrogant drivel :)
At this point in my life, I'm realizing one's value ought to include the impact on one's social environment, your ethics, your integrity, liberal fuzzy wuzzy things. ESR certainly has had some impact on society in a beneficial sense, but how does he treat the people around him? I don't know... Jobs had an impact, but he was difficult. Gates... well, don't get me started.
Humanity needs to move beyond the hierarchical monkey social structure thought patterns and behaviors. Glorifying the 'great and good' does not serve this.
Of course the danger is that if you ignore these rituals and you don't become wildly successful, either because your intelligence, though significantly above normal, is a bit below that needed for making world changing discoveries, or maybe even because of bad luck, then you risk personal catastrophe because you will have cut yourself off from the primary mechanisms society provides for maintaining one's livelihood.
In the end though I guess I believe that a person should try to be who they fundamentally are, rather than what society wants us to be. If you do that as life progresses you become ever more strongly who you authentically are. The risk of ultimate disaster is one that must be faced with courage.
Perhaps one day society will evolve to the point where it will allow each of us a little more affordance for following our true path. Unfortunately that isn't the world in which I have lived.
Has Asperger's been homogenized with Autism? I know asp has always been classed as an ASD but I thought it was still possible to obtain a distinct diagnosis.
Sorry, I can't.
>I was thought to be a child prodigy with exceptional mathematical gifts; in 1975 I was the first high-school student in the institution’s memory to present original research at the annual meeting of the American Mathematical Society. Unusually large working memory, check. I’m pretty sure the authors would consider me a genius, unless they know a lot of people who have been all of: A-list software architects, New York Times bestselling authors also nominated for a Campbell Award, musicians good enough to do session work on two albums, world-championship-level players of strategy games, speakers who’ve drawn packed crowds on six continents, martial-arts instructors, sought-after advisors to investment bankers, and founders of successful reform movements that arguably changed history.
If that's not enough for you, there's other articles in which he fancies himself a skilled pick up artist.
Raymond reminds me of Aleksey Vayner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_Is_Nothing_(video_r...
A mix of middling competence, unremarkable anecdotes, half truths, and apparent lies. None of which is reason for such arrogance.
Anyway, I don't find his hypothesis very convincing. Not caring what others think of you gives you plenty of time to read novels, play video games, and watch television.
I don't necessarily think accurately presenting one's accomplishments for the purpose of explaining the life basis for one's views constitutes arrogance, and even if it does a little arrogance in extraordinary individuals seems like a very minor fault compared against the spectrum of human defects responsible for the state of the world today. That isn't to say that arrogance can't lead to dangerous thought leadership but I think if you take harmless displays such as this as a signal to reject a person's entire viewpoint you will miss out on some ideas that are worth considering. What if everyone had shunned Linus Torvalds because of some of his personality traits ?
I have no idea what he's on about here, but just by making this kind of grandiose claim he makes me skeptical.
>New York Times bestselling authors also nominated for a Campbell Award
I can't find any evidence he has a New York Times Bestseller and would be rather surprised to see that TCATB was one.
>world-championship-level players of strategy game
This is more the level of half truth. From what I can find, he says once he placed top 5 in Power Grid at a convention with 2000 participants and 100 games in Lancaster PA. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6125
All you have left after that is his genius programming ability (which to my understanding isn't widely agreed upon).
>I don't necessarily think accurately presenting one's accomplishments for the purpose of explaining the life basis for one's views constitutes arrogance
I would agree with you if that kind of self congratulation wasn't endemic to his writing (in this post and others). And anyway I did consider his viewpoint and don't find it convincing.
I think he's referring to the free software movement.
EDIT: Or maybe the open source movement, I don't recall which of the two he is most associated with.
jere, you do make a good point that there is more to it than just having free time and energy. e.g. There is also the "systemising" impulse often seen in high-functioning autistic individuals that seems suited to success in modern times.
Autism can make the lives of some sufferers extremely difficult, and also those of their carers. We all know this, yet the typical response to 'my child is autistic' is an assumption, often verbalised, that that child would 'at least' be good at mathematics, music or 'computers'. Sometimes they are not.
It's similar to how the terms low- and high-functioning are not particularly helpful in most cases [0]. In general I think we need to become a little more nuanced in our approach to autism.
--
[0] - http://www.stuartduncan.name/autism/low-functioning-autism-v...
Some are better than average programmers or something. But their autism is a greater burden than their increased skills are a help in their life.
It's not that they just sit at home all day, avoiding people and creating awesome stuff en masse. Most of the suffer from their inability to interact socially.
I know that having a meet up group for autistic people sound contradictory, but as long as it creates a sense of safeness* where people are free to share their experiences, even if they struggle badly doing so, it would still be incredibly comforting. Sharing stories and tips may or may not be helpful, but at the very least, nobody should feel alone in their struggle.
*e.g. those who are too intimidated to be physically there can listen/communicate via Skype etc. Naturally the group leader would have to be someone with expertise in autism or well-experienced in adjusting to society socially
Ironically, I feel left out. I am on the other end of the spectrum. Kind of like what this guy described after the treatment, although I've been dealing with it my whole life, so I don't get all worried.
I feel like the only programmer who is intensely aware of the emotional state of my colleagues. I can sometimes tell people what they are feeling (when they are opening up) and it shocks them because I know it better than they do.
Of course, I listen to trance-music at work so I can pretend to be autistic (please understand it's a bit of a joke) and ignore all the swirling emotions.
Anyway, I've found others like me, but they seem to be more rare than autistic people. It seems to me like it would be nice to not be aware of all the emotions all the time.
I sincerely envy the "insensitive" people quite often.
It seems like it would be a lot easier if I were able to be selfish to a normal level without caring that someone's emotions might be unsettled.
One of my personal quotes is "caring is the first step towards insanity".
Over-caring/empathy can also push one towards an unhealthy level of isolation as a coping mechanism. Granted that is a choice whereas someone on the spectrum faces isolation by default.
Throughout her teens and twenties she really struggled emotionally because she had this unconscious ability to absorb other people's emotional states. Then she went to an energy healer herself, discovered she had a gift and finally developed the coping mechanism not to let other people's energy affect her so much. Now she uses her ability to help people instead of just flailing around.
With a username like yours...? Or is it much more quantized drum machine and less anything else?
I find myself torn when friends say things like this to me. I feel that such religious beliefs are overall harmful to my friends and leaving them unchallenged allows believers to promulgate that horse shit to others. On the other hand true believers seem to be so invested in these beliefs that they would be psychologically harmed by any debate that would be strong enough to persuade them. I've never known what the responsible way to act regarding these strange but heartfelt beliefs. Usually, I just let them know that I don't see things that way and leave it at that.
And if you're an engineer, if something works, then use it. Whatever the 'patient' thinks is ... shamans have to play engineer sometimes, along with priest, psychologist, doctor, PR man, confidence trickster...
but yes, there are a lot of shallow thinking people out there, and not just in the New Age world, who can't grasp metaphors - e.g. the concept of the dead and dying god, who is reborn, as a metaphor for a psychological process.
There is a lot of pain in the world, but it doesn't really hurt you. You don't have to be afraid of pain.
Indeed, I am still able to make rational decisions, but it would be a lot easier if I didn't feel their pain wouldn't it?
See, being on the other end of the spectrum isn't a choice. I will feel everyone else's emotions, whether I want to or not. I might even think they're completely insane, or immature, but I still can't help but feel empathy. Doing so can be extremely exhausting.
Autistic people don't choose to not care, and I didn't particular choose to care (or more accurately, feel), it's just the way I am.
Since they are incapable of determining the maximum effect of their dollar (at least, not without intense effort), they simply make the choice that feels the best, and that will usually be determined by the proximity of the suffering.
Secondly, many people invest in cancer research because everyone might get cancer. They aren't hoping to reduce suffering generally. They are thinking "I or my friends might get cancer and collectively this research might save my (or my friends) life."
Nobody cares about the suffering of people they've ever met. I mean, intellectually we all do, but emotionally, no, you have to see the person (or at least talk/text with them) to care.
As depressing as it is, your "average" human being is not making any decisions based on a rational estimation of the best way to achieve their goals. If they have goals at all. They pretty much just try to muddle through.
I accidentally got in a condition that can be compared to the ones describing autism. I remember how it is to be emotional but I choose not to go back (even if theoretically it is in my power). Autism has its drawbacks but it also has its perks. There may be others like me who actually just choose not to care (emotionally) or not to become a(n emotionally) caring person.
Of course, it's not something to do in the midst of a discussion, but very helpful at work to just take a quick walk when something is going on.
In my family my mother and one of my brothers is this way, and my daughter didn't have much chance of not being this way (since my wife is such as well).
Excluding the ladies for the sake of discussion, my brother and I would be the targets of your question.
Neither of us would have resisted such societal pressure as we don't have any reason to. Although we were both in the gifted program, so we had enough confidence to not really care what society thinks :)
Also, I don't know that we necessarily expressed emotions any more than our peers. The social sharing of emotions seems to be more a female role in society, but our social handling of emotions would be considered normal.
The difference between the men in the women who are like this is quite interesting. While I feel others' emotions strongly, it doesn't affect my thinking. Whereas with my wife we she feels someone else's emotions it clouds her thinking.
I don't have the citation off-hand, but this aligns with several studies of how men and women's brains are wired a little differently.
The nuance between feeling others' emotions strongly (or not) and having emotions affect your thinking (or not) is probably where the line between the autism spectrum and gender differences lies, although of course, there are exceptions.
http://psychologia.co/mirroring-body-language/ http://westsidetoastmasters.com/resources/book_of_body_langu... http://www.theemotionmachine.com/the-unconscious-influence-o...
Yes, relaxing this is a good way to exercise independent thinking. You can make the choice whether you prefer to build rapport or assert independence each time you interact with a person by choosing to mirror or not.
You are not alone. I often feel the same way. I'm going to assume that you work primarily with male programmers, since that's the makeup of our industry. (In all of my jobs, most of the programmers I've worked with have been male).
I think guys generally are actually quite emotional, much much more than they let on. But our culture has very strange notions around masculinity and what it means to be male. Vulnerability, empathy, intuition, these things are not instilled in us as positive character traits for a man. Instead, rationality, self-reliance, self-confidence, and detachment from emotion are elevated as things to aspire to.
There is absolutely value in being rational, self-confident, and being able to not get taken out by your emotions in a crisis situation. But when you use those things all the time in your life to get by, they become a real handicap.
I can't tell you how many times I've worked with guys who I knew were going through a lot (parents with mental illness, divorce, troubled home life) but tried so hard not to let on and at the same time never talked about it when given an opening.
We have really screwed ourselves over as a culture and we owe it to our sons to redefine what masculinity is so that they don't have to endure the same emotional hangups as us.
However, the one brother was seriously sick all the time and all the drugs he had to take (prescription) turned him into quite the jerk. So to some degree it may be that I just wanted to make sure I was nothing like him.
But after a long diagnostic process combined with reading up on autism and in particular about the Intense World theory ([quick introduction][1], I became pretty convinced that 1) autism is hella complicated and still not well understood, and 2) it may well be that autism, or at least a subtype of autism we might one day discern, is the opposite of how we commonly think of it. It's not a blindness to emotions or inability to empathize that is autism, rather it's (too) high sensitivity expressed poorly, especially in men with autism. Like wearing night-vision goggles on a bright day.
And the thing is, not only is this much more fitting to how autists tend to self-report their experiences (which is thankfully something that is finally listened to), but there's existing and growing evidence too.
For example, a significant portion of autists score as high or higher on 'affective empathy'. It's the interpretation where they go wrong (cognitive empathy). Or when it comes to eye contact, it's not so much that autists lack the social skills or mirroring ability to understand that this is important, but rather that it's too intense. Mind, I'm not saying all autists are like this, but this is how I would describe it when it comes to my issues with eye contact, and almost every autist I know or have read about says the same (including some who are rather far on the spectrum).
Anyways, the important thing is that you function and are happy. If that's the case, I'd say the diagnosis of autism isn't necessarily beneficial. It can even be detrimental.
I'm reminded of the vulcans in Star Trek. I remember I wanted to be like them because my emotions were becoming too much for me. And only afterwards I watched the episode where their 'true' nature is revealed...
[1]:https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/feeling-too-much/201407...
At the time this was against prevailing wisdom but AFAIK is now considered accepted wisdom.
[1] https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=165456960940191... [2] https://www.autism.com/understanding_theoryofmind
It wasn't exactly a fun process though. I'd try to "act normal" and then get feedback that taught me I was breaking a social norm. Feedback = kids making fun of me or cringing out of pity and embarrassment for me. And I wasn't very sensitive to the feedback so it took a lot of feedback to learn.
Now I seem normal-ish and life is peachy and my different ways of thinking feel like a superpower rather than a handicap. But man, teenage life was hard.
Disclaimer: I was never actually diagnosed with ASD (I was just called "weird" and "nerdy" and other things), but I have no doubt I would be diagnosed ASD if I ever got diagnosed.
But equally I find it hard to explain emotional states and have a real hangup on fairness to the extent that as people say "I cut my nose of to spite my face".
THink of emotions like book openings in a chess game, normal people know this naturally persay and other have to learn them, yet are able for all intent able to play chess and play well. Yet because they do not do the standard book openings, they end up with a slightly off balanced game with the other person getting upset you did not do a standard move. Not sure if that helps explain it, but for me is a good analogy.
Still emotions and body language is in effect a form of communication that many use to say what they would not say directly and that is not autisims fault for not playing that game and being upfront and direct and honest, however blunt. With that, I console myself that if over 50% of the World was autistic, ther ewould be less liars and normal would be autism with those with emotional hidden communication being the ones deemed too have an issue by society.
Still I do wish I had the skill set to cold-read people, certainly save much time.
My son is ASD (as I probably am). And I want to help him out so that he doesn't have to learn the hard way as I did. I'm going to buy the Social Stories book (mentioned in your link) off Amazon. I'd love to hear any other helpful ideas.
I also read several body language books over the years. The best is What Every Body is Saying, in case that's helpful for anyone. Unfortunately, reading a book is not as good as practicing.
An Experimental Autism Treatment Cost Me My Marriage https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11313452 (26 days ago, 560 points, 313 comments)
Believing that a "cure" for autism is required is also a rejection of neuro-atypicality as a valid state of being, which is a common form of subconscious Ablism (discrimination against disabled people). That is not to say that no autistic people want to try treatments, simply that we should not forcibly treat all of them (least of all children, which is a line even Robinson himself doesn't argue for crossing.)
[1] https://soniaboue.wordpress.com/2016/04/06/a-shot-in-the-dar...
Do you mean to say "believing that if a cure is found that it should be forced on people"?
I liken the position to ocular or aural implants (like cochlear ear implants) - I'd say certainly a cure is required [by many people] but once found we shouldn't then force it on people. Which I think is what you're saying too?
To claim we shouldn't cure autism because doing so would "reject neuro-atypicality as a valid state of being" (a typical non-statement) is as absurd as saying we shouldn't grow people new limbs (assuming we had the capability) because it's a rejection of amputeeism as a valid state of being.
In a perfect world, autistic children would be found extremely young and cured before they suffered any real harm from their condition.
But this is very much not the case with milder forms of autism. Many high-functioning autists can take care of themselves and even have very successful careers, and there are a number of characteristics typical of autism that are very beneficial to the 'sufferer' and/or society.
I'd say autism, or at least some forms of autism, are like being born with wings. In a society made for arms you have a clear disability. But if you find your way and the right environment, well, you might be able to fly and provide things that 'arm-ies' cannot.
You might want to look at the social model of disability, because there are people who do say this. For example, wheelchair using disability rights campaigners have often said that their wheelchairs are not the problem, but the lack of ramps in shops and workplaces is what causes them to be disabled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability
That's not a new concept; it's been around since the 1970s.
It's created large amounts of social change. American disability law derives from it, for one example.
Here's a cite from UK goverment mentioning the social model: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-gove...
> We encourage the use of the social model as a way of understanding disability. It says that disability is created by barriers in society.
> The barriers generally fall into 3 categories:
> the environment – including inaccessible buildings and services
> people’s attitudes – stereotyping, discrimination and prejudice
> organisations – inflexible policies, practices and procedures
You probably need to be aware of this, because not being aware of it creates a risk if you ever have any management role.
A disability is when you have less ability than everybody else. We can mitigate that by addressing {everything you list above}.
What percentile?
For example, homosexuality is rare and decreases the chance of having direct descendants. But would that qualify as an illness or a sickness? In some parts of the world being homosexual can result in a significantly reduced qualify of life, but is that a problem with the person or with society?
Now switch homosexuality for some far less socially acceptable (at least in Western cultures) attractions. How does things change?
Now, say we count out humans for a second (so messy legal/moral concepts like consent are less involved), and apply the thinking to different species of animals. When does abnormal behavior become illness?
Look at honey bees... most of the colony doesn't reproduce and takes roles that limit any ability to directly pass on their genes, but that is how the species works.
The difference between normal and abnormal, well and sick, mentally healthy and mentally ill are problems with not just autism, but with abnormal psychology in general.
The gene for male homosexuality is actually propagated via over-fertility in females with the gene (i.e. gay guys' sisters have more children to compensate). So, reduced direct descendants yes, but reduced passing on of genes no.
> Now switch homosexuality for some far less socially acceptable...How does things change?
That involves moving out of the realm of consenting individuals. That is what changes.
I agree that there is a point at which abnormality becomes illness - my (draft) definition is drawn when the abnormality causes pain (especially chronic pain), or early death.
That applies to most old-school illnesses, but not to homosexuality, or autism, or some other disabilities like being short a leg. Specifically on being able to reproduce, I wouldn't say that a mule was disabled, even though it has an odd number of chromosomes and is therefore sterile. Same with the bees; although hive-based species are always going to seem weird to mammals like us.
Other disabilities, like arthritis, do meet the illness threshold because they do cause chronic pain. With this definition, those with disabilities may ask for additional equipment, support, or perhaps even elective interventions like TMS, but only those with illnesses need medical interventions (whether to mitigate or cure).
Note that I also said we can avoid this by only looking at other animals where notions of consent don't apply. Ideally psychology should realize that consent is a human abstraction.
>I agree that there is a point at which abnormality becomes illness - my (draft) definition is drawn when the abnormality causes pain (especially chronic pain), or early death.
Look at honey bees again. How much longer could individual drones live if they didn't sacrifice themselves for the colony. But wouldn't selfishness be a big problem for the colony as a whole? We cannot optimize on either the individual nor the colony to determine what is a mental illness.
Also, consider issues of causing pain to others. Every animal that eats meat causes pain to the victim it consumes. But that is clearly normal behavior.
And I'm sure we can find other examples of things that cause pain to self or others which we would find normal.
We don't really know if the TMS actually cured his alexithymia or if it was due to psychological/behaviour factors of the treatment. That would require a placebo-controlled trial. It's certainly plausible that the treatment cured him, as there is a part of the brain that attaches emotions to experiences (the insular cortex). On the other hand TMS will have a huge placebo effect, so this needs to be considered.
It also seems plausible that his lack of emotions is a protection mechanism that protected him from his highly dysfunctional childhood. I would recommend reading John Sarno's books: he has spent 50 years treating people who's problem is the opposite of this. Too much emotion tends to cause chronic pain/fatigue/depression and other issues. So I'm not sure it's generally a good idea to do something like this.
Overall, I don't really see this as being any better than a behavioural treatment designed to help people identify with their feelings. TMS seems too much like hitting your computer with a hammer to fix a bug.
Stay in the dark maybe I don't know I wish the light bulbs we already found were legal, but me myself I'm signing up if this technology becomes so and a few other folks take the risk before me first ...
Are you hinting at psychedelics? I'm familiar with their documented ability to open up different kinds of doors, but not this particular one. Colour me skeptical.
Skeptical seems a rational stance, and was mine prior to my experience.
[1] https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/1082819... (psychadelic forum posting asking about autism experience with psilocybin)
"I have aspergers syndrom myself. I feel that psychedelic drugs allow me to feel like a person without aspergers syndrom temporarily or atleast give me a feeling that mimics empathy."
"I have symptoms of aspergers, in the past they were much more prominent. I feel that psychedelics make us more aware. As we become aware corrections can be made"
He talks about customers coming into his shop and then him worrying about their problems. "Normal" to me is to be able to empathize with them, much like the skinned knee example in the article, but then being able to quickly move on. I mean I see someone get a skinned knee, I think to myself "ow! I bet that hurt!", but I don't think about it for the next hour. It's just a quick thought. The same would go for empathetic emotions, and like the knee, they're at a muted level compared to the original person's feeling of it.
Hope that helps. It's hard to put into words.
I know people that are very emotional, and can get overwhelmed by seeing others suffer -- but people that are absolutely "normal". I wouldn't call it "average" (for adults anyway) however.
I do think he's wrong about not having had a limited form of empathy: literally feeling other peoples pain is empathy. That doesn't mean he didn't care, or loved before - but it absolutely sounds like he had trouble: "understanding and entering into another's feelings" (from WordNet, my emphasis).
It's a fascinating story, like a real-life "The Speed of Dark", by Elizabeth Moon (in part inspired by her son):
http://www.amazon.com/Speed-Dark-Ballantine-Readers-Circle/d...
I read this story thinking about how difficult it would be to go from not feeling it, to feeling it. I've spent decades learning and adapting, he had no time. That would certainly be very overwhelming.
Sort of.
Pre TMS Robison was unable to distinguish subtle facial expressions. What does this really mean? It means he could not decode other peoples facial expressions and more importantly fire the mirror neurons that allow recognition of emotion. The research mentioned is important in that it shows some linkage to mirror neurons and activation in specific sections of the brain (inferior frontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex and superior parietal lobe) which is the machinery unavailable to Robison before the experiment.
What does this really mean? Well the post TMS Robison recognises facial expressions and the neuronal machinery now understands how that expression effects others and acts on it. There a relationshipt with mirror neurons and facial reading ability. If you test people for facial recognition who have botox, they loose that ability to decipher emotion much like Robison.
You can view the episode Dr. David Eagleman talks to Robison about this very article on The Human Mind, Ep 5, "Why Do I Need You?" ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDR_0Co4ycU
"Then, my first job was on the crew for a rock-and-roll tour. I worked in music and sound engineering into the early ‘80s."
Remember that exploding guitar Ace Frehley used in KISS? That was all Robisons' doing ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE0RmdkR9s0
I'm not sure when this started but I remember a moment a few years back when I realized this trait for the first time.
Is there a short check I can do to find out more?
In your case, topics like emotional attachment style come to mind. Some people just grow up learning to condition their emotions become more numb... though in some cases it also becomes harder to become excited about things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory#Anxious-avoi...
This is not to say that this is how you are... since it's not like I actually know you or your childhood, etc. But this is certainly a topic that I'm reminded of when I hear your example, and something like therapy can be an interesting way to dive into this.
For someone that's high functioning only with experiences like these is it really possible to see what things are still "missing".
Now I have no desire to get off the spectrum.
I'd rather be more in tune with reality, if new technology (or older ones like psilocybin or lsd) can provide this, sign me up.
The effect initially was a very intense feeling of being connected with everyone. The intensity faded over time but the effect still remains. For example I actually enjoy small talk.
After some reaearch I believe that TMG facilitates the breakdown of tonic dopamine (background dopamine outside of neurons) and high levels of tonic dopamine relative to tonic serotonin suppress the release of oxytocin.
LSD is serotogentic and may work in a similar way by stimulating serotonin receptors and simulating raising the level of tonic serotonin vs dopamine.
Oddly people on SSRIs complain about reduced empathy as a side effect so there may be a U shaped curve or something else going on.
It was surprising to me that these tonic neurotransmitters have an active role in the brain. Their random activation of receptors on the receiving neuron make it more sensitive, putting it on a hair trigger if you will. The random activation of auto-receptors on the sending neuron inhibit further neurotransmitter release. And when these tonic neurotransmitters diffuse out of the synaptic cleft they can sensitize other neurons nearby or even trigger cell death (in the case of glutamate)
The way that I like to think of it is that a phasic neurotransmitter carries an immediate signal while a tonic neurotransmitter carries a longer term record of phasic activity.
MAO and COMT are two important enzymatic pathways for enzymatic degradation. MAO degrades norepinephrine, serotonin and dopamine while COMT degrades norepinephrine and dopamine. COMT operates by attaching a methyl-donor to the neurotransmitter which is donated by SAM-E. With some consumer grade genetic testing I discovered that I had a defect in betaine homocysteine S-methyltransferase (BHMT) which is one pathway to recycle SAM-E. Supplemental TMG, also called betaine, simulated more BHMT activity for me.
My guess is that lower levels of SAM-E had the effect of elevating tonic dopamine and norepinephrine relative to serotonin by plugging one of the drains.
In the popular press dopamine was known as the pleasure or reward neurotransmitter because of its associating with drug addition but with new research that view is slowly changing. While drugs like cocaine or meth produce euphoria research has also shown that dopamine is also released in response to unpleasant stimuli like stubbing your toe or the near miss at the roulette table. My view, which is shared by some researchers, is that dopamine is primarily involved with the salience, or whats important, about an object or situation.
For example, walking down the street the sudden appearance of an aggressive dog or stumbling on gold coin would trigger the release of dopamine and norepinephrine. The release signals to the rest of the brain that something important has happened and to pay attention (focus). The release also simulates memory formation and learning and it makes us slightly less empathetic. It also deactivates sensory suppression and makes us more aware of our surroundings and puts puts movements on a hair trigger. All of which probably facilitates survival.
However in my case the compromised ability to break down dopamine and norepinephrine via the COMT pathway left that system always on. While this contributed to some of my strengths only retrospectively do I now recognize that there were downsides. Enhanced memory formation and learning also means never forgetting and intrusive thoughts in vivid detail an awkward social situation a decade ago. Heightened sensory awareness means that you can't filter out somebody tapping in the next cube or unfamiliar clothing. Twitch like reflexes compromise fine motor skills (like handwriting). And while reduced empathy can help slice through the politics to "do the right thing" it is pretty much a downer in every other way.
Looking back there are also some other things that I can now see with more clarity. I believe that the brain uses the relative levels of tonic dopamine versus tonic serotonin to measure the levels of wanting (or desire) versus getting (or consummation) which I think is the brains proxy for social status. My compromised COMT pathways resulted in my perception of always being subordinate in any work or social situation. Other than the obvious it has some other subtle side effects including an exaggerated sense of justice and rapid escalation of a perceived threat. This seriously hampered career advancement for a long time because it ruled out a leadership role to other people.
There's was no mention of the warmth you feel when someone who loves you genuinely smiles at you. It's rare, but a great feeling.
My life isn't worse, just different. I meet friends online, including lovers. I like being who I am, and don't want to be someone else. Granted, I'm the good outcome: there are a lot of bad outcomes associated with autism at the severe end, and everyone would like to see those stop happening. But the big problems for a lot of people are social acceptance and low expectations.
And if I could experiment with inducing autism in myself I totally would. I'm going to research this treatment more because it sounds totally fascinating and I'd love to experiment with it.
You can. You distance yourself from people, suggesting yourself over and over that you don't really need much social interaction, communicate with people only outside perceptions and feelings and the entire world around you starts to change. Each time you'll catch yourself analyzing emotions you'll stop due to its error-prone nature and switch to analyzing facts and social mechanics. There are of course many other things but this should do for a start.
My belief is that emotions were a capability developed in social creatures to cope with social intricacies given the limited rational capabilities. Emotional behavior is a kind of mechanisms to produce simplified response out of vast amounts of information that had to be processed fast (and not necessarily in great detail). Things changed a lot since then and nowadays the game-of-life competition includes a lot of gimmickry which relies heavily on exploiting emotions¹! The said autistic nature may be as well the direction in which the entire humanity is heading to.
¹ This started long ago before Edward Bernays and it will get more and more intense with time.
I don't agree with your spock like view of emotions. As if they were the enemy of the rational. You can be rational and emotional. They are orthogonal.
I think of emotions are sort of a utility function. They tell you what you want. Rationality just tells you how to get what you want. They complement each other. Without emotions there'd be no point in doing anything.
This is a mantra supported by the (still) majority of our current society. I presume that people who believe it don't really bother to investigate other beliefs or if there might be another base for "doing anything". To give you a hint, "emotion" and "feeling" are not the same (and "feeling" is more than "sensation"). For example, curiosity made you want to learn about the world around you and logical (mental) stimulation is the expected reason for wanting challenge and accomplishment. Emotions are just another kind of mental stimulation, one that (as I've mentioned before) played out its role and become a liability for far too many.
As a side note, when you'll drop again references in the future, don't make it too hard for your audience to pick them up. As a non-native English speaker it wasn't obvious to me that "spock" is a character (whose name I would have capitalized) instead of a less used word.
I've spent most of my twenties pursuing social interaction because I felt that I should and that it would be healthy. I even had a few girlfriends, which was all kinds of agonizing. At the end of my twenties I 'took a break'. To my surprise I discovered that I felt so much happier with a life that, too outsiders, was lonely and sad. The 'break' became a new way of life for me.
However, first of all I don't regret pushing myself to socialize. I learned many skills that I feel I wouldn't have learned had I not pushed myself. I can be comfortably normal when I need to, and that gives me many advantages.
Second, even though I'm quite happy being mostly alone, I definitely notice that I a more healthy person if I force myself into some social interaction (including deeper personal and emotional connections).
For me it's a bit like eating. Much of the time I don't really eat well or enough unless I force myself to. But when I do, I have more energy and and a better general sense of well-being. Similarly, when I forego socializing and/or fostering some deeper emotional connections, I have a tendency to spend way too much time thinking about unimportant things, I forget to properly verbalize or structure my thoughts into something 'worthwhile', and my rhythm and structure disappears, including normal sleep. Even minimal interaction with others in the form of flatmates or meetups significantly alleviates much of the bad stuff.
The weirdest part is I can physically feel that part of my brain isn't awake; it's like a weight in my head, pressing on my eyes. When I was little I called it 'the brain fuzzies.'
Genuinely interested...
MRI machines also use much smaller modulated magnetic fields during a scan. It's conceivable these could have TMS like effects but as far as I know they don't in practice. I imagine TMS uses fields which are stronger than these since I believe the excitation coils are placed in very close proximity to the head.
It may. It would enlarge the amount of things we use to relate to when we're communicating but it's not essential for a natural-perceived relation. The mechanics may be all what's necessary. From what I've noticed, all that non-autistic persons are really interested in this regard is the belief that the other person is emotionally-empathetic, and that interest can (more or less) be catered for.
That being said, I have to admit that autism gets somewhat easier with age because of increased general tolerance and endurance in individuals. Small children need close contact and may even die (in the first days of life) without, even with the basic needs taken care of.
I recently read part of an Oliver Sacks book, it's incredible how different everyone's experience can differ.
In fact, I'd go so far as saying that having sex is one of the few 'states' in which I feel that I can just let go and do the right things. It's one of the things I love about sex!
No biggie. I've a partner, am employed and happy. Kinky too as far back as I can remember. It certainly made for a different kind of sexual development in my teens and early twenties. There was some sense of frustration and disappoint as I couldn't fathom how my sexual trajectory had become so misaligned to that of my peers. It was just different enough that I'd considered I might be the only one so kept quite about it. It took a while longer (post university) to realise there were plenty of others with similar interests.
On occasion I've bumped into or met/seen some professional peers (same research interest) in these settings. Slightly unsettling to say the least from a practical point of view as I could end more directly working with any of these people in the future. I've felt such incidents are difficult to put down to coincidence.
I felt more reassured when scientists were promising there was no interaction between EMR and organic matter.
- Look Me in the Eye: My Life with Asperger's (2007)
- Be Different: My Adventures with Asperger's and My Advice for Fellow Aspergians, Misfits, Families, and Teachers (2012)
- Raising Cubby: A Father and Son's Adventures with Asperger's, Trains, Tractors, and High Explosives (2014)
- Switched On: A Memoir of Brain Change and Emotional Awakening (2016)
Well, it is 20 years later now, and we should see the affects of this supposed cell phone radiation. If I had to guess, I would say the version of the future we were predicting is the one we live in today ... where lots of people now have autism.
The article says "magnetic" waves through the brain can "fix" autism. If magnets and electro waves are the fix, then maybe cell phone and radio waves were the cause that disturbed the brain to be this way.