Poor socialisation-ASD/NVLD traits vs severe MI?

Continuing the discussion from What Level Was Your Sociality Before Incurring SCZ?:

I have always wondered how much my poor social functioning/interaction is down to ASD/NVLD traits vs severe mental illness. I first started developing overt signs of mental illness with what is now known as social anxiety just before I was 14. I got my first diagnosis(has changed several times) of schizophrenia at 18. For some/many with schizophrenia and other severe mental illnesses the difficulties with socialisation kick in after the illness starts. There is a circle of friends which diminishes due to illness effects.
For me though difficulties with socialisation are a chronic factor stretching back many years before the overt signs of sever mental illness . I had no friends to lose due to the effects of illness. As the mental illness symptoms have become less acute over the years the social functioning/interaction has not really improved. For sure I had a wife I met in hospital but outside of her there were no friends. For me it was very much her and I with additional contact with our respective families. Now I will have been widowed 13 years in September and have had no friends in that time. I seldom mix with anyone outside of family. There have a few interactions with other mentally ill people through groups run by mental health trust and a mental health charity but even less so with the general public.

It has to be said I really don’t know how to form friendships /relationships ,the process of doing so . The only person I would say has ever been a true friend was my late wife. There was however no courting ritual/dating . We just clicked and despite our age difference left hospital together. I am not even sure how to go about forming a friendship with anyone else.

It also has to be said that I am quite asocial and make little attempt to socialise.

Thoughts welcomed.


it mightn’t mean much @firemonkey, but you have many friends here on the forum


I love u @firemonkey…!!!


@karl That raises an interesting question as to the definition of friend vs acquaintance . However well you regard someone online and they regard you can you really call them a friend, or does there need to be the element of face to face contact?
I know for many of us here it is easier to interact with others through the medium of the internet than it is to engage with others in 3D.

What is the criteria for distinguishing an acquaintance from a friend? Facebook seems to lower the threshold by automatically calling everyone you sent a request to, or who sends a request to you, and it’s accepted a “friend”. Yet what percentage of these people are seen with anything approaching regularity or indeed at all ?

Again thoughts welcomed.

i also had social anxiety in certain situations developed around puberty but i was able to be social when i didnt have anxiety. Seems like you have some other problem than just social anxiety.

It’s my understanding that the phenomenon of sociology is “expression of information in exchange…”

5,000 to 10,000 years ago there was hardly any language no written language, and there were hardly any truths known about this place or about themselves. There was hardly anything to talk about. They all did seem to worship a statue or something like that which controlled and watched all of their thought via the pseudo science of telepathy. This was the highest order to them as it was the most social. It was the highest social relationship they had, and it actually was only their brains’ sociality with their own brains, thus the bicameral mind era.

A brain is a brain to me. Take a horse brain for example. They have very minimal language ability, but they have some. Many species have some language abilities which is just a memorized reaction to an informational signal sent their way.

So the horse which knows to react to the bit in its mouth for turning, stopping, jumping etc is in a bicameral situation. That bit is the most important relationship higher than any other with anything else in nature, and they react to it as though they have no other choice in the world.

I’ve seen gators trained to give children rides. I’ve seen all kinds of pet videos of all kinds of species. These are brains too, but they just are not as lingually adept.

I have seen kids in kindergarten in metros that are more socially adept than many adults. I have seen one of my nieces when she was about five have more social intuition, manners, and vocabulary in the most genuine character greater than 99% of all other adults I’ve ever seen.

When I was 19 I thought that humans were telepathic, but it was just that the people I was around were decades more socially advanced than I was. If an AI can rationally anticipate what you are going to by or go next, then is it telepathic, or is it just good at processing information about people first, and then about you with the information it gathered about you? That’s all those people were doing when I was 19, and since then I have been scz which is just by brain acting like this is a telepathic world which is stupid and so wrong. I also believe that those people were screwing with me as in contributing to what I thought was telepathy which can be done. I can do it if I want. I can make people believe there is telepathy not all people but a lot of them, but I am just good at playing games with their minds.

All of these things actually come down to bicamerality of the mind. On one hand the brain sees what it believes is the world and how it works, and on the other hand in the brain sees what is happening in the moment whether under the horse’s feet, the pet’s toys, another person’s voice, the bit in the horses mouth, the taps on the gator from a person, the person’s voice to the pet… Then it reacts instinctively like people say, but I don’t think it is instinct. I think it is learned just like any language is learned.

When that rider pulls up on the bit, that horse brain reacts without even thinking about anything except to react to the way the bit moved. The bit is the language. All of these brains do that including the human brain.

Rather than being trained with a sociality bit, you were left “wild” or “feral” so to speak to a degree I suppose relatively speaking of course. :slight_smile: Some people are trained with the sociality bit from very young. Some are trained with a music instrument bit from very young. Some are trained with a math bit, reading bit, science bit… That is how their brain sees things from thereafter, and it does it in a way that other people not trained that way in those matters cannot see like. For instance you can only “see” in the language and culture customs you know but not in ones that you do not know while they can only “see” in theirs and not yours. It’s the same with the things like sports, musicianship, science, math, reading etc, etc, etc.

So for people like you and I sticking a sociality bit in our mouths even though the people are right there in front of us is a whole other 360 degree whole world experience than it is for someone who’s been developed in sociality since before they could even talk or hold their own baby bottles.

If you go stick a bit in an old wild stallions mouth, and try to talk marching orders that way to him, he will not be thinking anything like left, right, left. He does not know that language.

If you go talk to a tribal man that has never seen modern people this year or 10,000 years ago all the same, you cannot talk logic and philosophy with him or her whichever is the case. This is not how they understand reality.

My theory is that self-to-self language internally developed as a loner and under a lot of stress with beliefs in a pseudo science called telepathy which is taught to people since they are a very young age is the bridal bit that we were trained with. We basically conditioned ourselves with it, so our “instinctual” understanding of ourselves, our mind, and all of reality is that like a horse and rider, but for us it is ourselves riding ourselves in our own minds. That’s the bicameral mind. One part pulls, and the other part reacts, but neither one is good for us because it’s fake.

If we were conditioned to be social from the time we were very young, then when a person pulls socially, our immediate, “instinctive” reaction is something social in reply as well as a pull back to the other person who “instinctively” replies as well back and forth. They are each others’ horses and each others’ riders as well. That kind of bicamerality just works, and it has for a very long time.

When the kid is taught to hit a baseball with a bat, the ball is being the rider, and when the ball “pulls,” the batter instinctively swings with a level of precision that can only begin to be learned as a youth not as an adult. After a certain age a baseball player cannot learn baseball and ever get into the minors or majors. But again this is a bicameral relationship.

It’s like this in all kinds of things such as musicianship for example or people’s regular jobs. I personally have written so much in my life, that I have a writing one.

Then there’s all of the brains that work very much like this in the other species.

So, Trigger, when I pull the reigns, and nothing comes to mind, it’s because you were never corralled in such a way that something would come up…in a friendly, jolly, good time way. But if I asked something about some scz news, you certainly know which way to lead me then, eh.

Every brain has a bit no matter what species or who or where or when.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.