If the mind is a kind of "prediction machine", wouldn't that make ALL psychiactric disorders a specific variation of faulty prediction mode though?

That is fascinating, I have seen the schizophrenia model of having "trapped priors" before.

I figured that this is probably something Scott Alexander has written about, and lo and behold: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/12/11/diametrical-model-of-a...

I think I understand what you mean.

You're saying that relative to the 'typical individual', autistic brains weigh sensory inputs more heavily than their internal model. And that in schizotypal brains, relative to the 'typical individual', the internal model is weighed more heavily than the sensory input, right?

I don't know much about this area, so I can't comment on the correctness. However, I think we should be cautious in saying 'over-weigh' and 'under-weigh' because I really do think that there may be a real normative undertone when we say 'over-weigh'. I think it needlessly elevates what the typical individual experiences into what we should consider to be the norm and, by implicit extension, the 'correct way' of doing cognition.

I don't say this to try to undermine the challenges by people with autism or schizotypy. However, I think it's also fair to say that if we consider what the 'typical' person really is and how the 'typical' person really acts, they frequently do a lot of illogical and --- simply-put --- 'crazy' things.

> BTW, there's research that shows that schizotypy (schizotypal/schizophrenia) is sort of the opposite of autism.

And I disagree with that. There is a wide overlap of symptoms in all mood disorders. People with ASD show many traits of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. This paper might change your mind:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8931527/

> The day-to-day impact of being diagnosed is practically non-existant for me.

Yeah, as the old adage goes: with an ADH?D diagnosis you get to try drugs like lisdex or methylphenidate (or the non-stim options if those aren't suitable), but with an Autism/ASD diagnosis you get some pamphlets, coffee morning invites and a reading list.

I don't have a formal diagnosis but my child does and that made me read lots on the subject. Authors like Eliza Fricker, Ellie Middleton, Pete Wharmby amongst others.

It's opened my eyes to many other related aspects, specifically Rejection Sensitivity Dysphoria (RSD) and Pathalogical Demand Avoidance (PDA) and how those play into both ADH?D and ASD. In reading about them I've worked out just how much they apply to my-undiagnosed-self and how understanding the triggers and recognising the early behaviour has allowed me to adapt to minimise their impact.

Being able to laugh about it, and know what is going on however is huge. Especially compared to being shit on all the time by others and self blaming (a common pattern!).

For my sister, getting diagnosed was important to her because she always felt like she was broken but now sees herself as simply different. I'm not aware of any workplace accommodations she has requested but it has been good for her self-esteem, which is a benefit in of itself.

This is the wrong framing: We all have degrees of “diagnosable” traits, it’s only when those traits become problematic do we need to seek help. For example, obsessive tendencies can help you stick with a tough problem or they can become an unhealthy fixation.

Also, if someone is mean they are mean: Diagnosis is not a “get out of jail free” card for bad behavior.

I used to be an educator, and many of my students had an autism diagnosis. I would get to know them and often eventually decide that they were "just like" me, except that whatever their problems were, I had it worse.

So then I would look at these autism checklists and say, "yep, that's me," but when I actually looked at the strict diagnostic criteria, it wasn't that clear.

Looking at this article, I get it. There are other, more focused criteria that can be more appropriate. But those diagnoses don't trigger the special services, so they don't get used often enough.

What is my takeaway? People often don't conform to a model of average human behavior. Being unusual isn't necessarily a grave character flaw (which is what my mother had me believe) but merely an expression of the great variety of human intellect and behavior. It gives me license, without official diagnosis, to enjoy being who I am without shame or embarrassment.

You could add "I'm a HN regular" as a diagnostic criterium.

The HN crowd is surely over-represented in ASD, which makes sense for people enjoying debating nerdy topics and pedantry.

And "I like Lisp" should be an automatic qualifier.

As a diagnosed autistic, I think I would ask -- does ticking these boxes make you feel like, "oh shit, this could explain some difficulties..." or just go, "huh, interesting?"

I tend to invite people to think about how their lives have been impacted. For example, I experience anxiety at late invites to events I'd enjoy. I panic and decline them because I'm experiencing a highly irrational anger fear response to changing schedules. This causes me to miss events I would otherwise enjoy, and then I feel guilty. Having to process all those feelings takes a lot of energy, and it's really draining. That has significant impact on my life.

Compare to a friend of mine who just prefers quiet evenings. She declines things all the time but never gives it a second thought.

Disability vs preference. It's ok if it's either! Neither of us are wrong, we just experience different impacts in our lives.

Autism diagnosis has targeted screening questionnaires. So what kind of general purpose screening do you mean?

It's worth noting the UK already commissioned a review that was published this year, that showed ADHD is in fact under-recognised here[0]. I can only assume they're commissioning a new one because that one gave the "wrong" answer.

For a long time ADHD was ignored or dismissed in the UK as an "americanitis", so it's no surprise that there's a backlog of people who weren't diagnosed in childhood.

[0] https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/report-of-the-independe...

I am in the same boat as you (Schizoaffective, OCD, Panic Disorder). My therapist said I had many traits but the overlap in these disorders is quite substantial.

I was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital once and my behavior had them thinking I was Autistic.

And then they enroll their patients in the Drug of the Month Club.

It feels like that whatever you seek to get diagnosed with you can get it.

extremely high comorbidity rates

It's not "the internet". It is "this internet".

Back in the 90s early 00s the internet made us mesh together because each one of us there was a specific person. We had forum signatures and every single post was clearly made by a person, for a person.

Then social media took over and relegated every single person into a tiny unidentifiable avatar next to a non-prominent name, not unlike NPCs in CRPGs.

In turn this has been exploited by the powers that be to ensure the social glue gets even weaker: a society barely held together won't revolt. There's only one thing left to do: productivity, productivity, productivity.

The political opponent is no longer a person. Just a nameless, faceless NPC (personifying everything that's wrong) spawned there to be defeated and collect their social loot tokens.

But I might just be an old fart rambling about the good, old days.

I wouldn't say Internet is a problem, but centralisation towards big tech algos and clearly gamed social media comment sections do control the narrative of what the majority of people see most of the time.

Probably but at the risk of giving a bad analogy maybe the distinction here is like that between an itchy wool sweater (uncomfortable, broadly decreases mobility by making you not want to move) and a garment that actually restricts movement (a too small blazer that won’t let you reach straight up or, in the extreme, a straight jacket).

I read it as "without other psychological or psychiatric issues which cause social difficulties."

It seems very tightly focussed, and more behavioural - and open to behavioural training - than other categories.

> Isn't social awkwardness sort of inherently impairing in social relationships?

Yes, but I think the distinction is explained in the article: "show significant improvement with practice and maturity" and "generally achieve life goals despite awkwardness".

To put it another way, those who are socially awkward can get better, whereas some of the other diagnoses are lifetime impairments with little or no possibility for improvement or cure.

This is a remarkably stupid comment. I’m not going to go into detail refuting it, but you might want to read more about autism in children or just think before you type.

Let’s also shed light on what behaviors neurotypicals usually have a problem with that they cast as negatives in high-functioning autists:

1) Not being mindful of hierarchy

2) Not being mindful of socially determined rules, that is rules which are not codified in any official language of conduct

3) Not wanting to socialize, or wanting to socialize differently

4) Trouble with emotional regulation, possibly due to social issues

Tell me, which of these points, and there are many more, point to this being an individual’s problem?

For high-functioning autists, the problem is other people.

People need to realize that they’re not great to deal with on average, and if someone chooses to not engage with you, don’t take that as an insult. Maybe you’re all better off not interacting with each other, but that doesn’t imply causing someone financial, emotional or physical harm just because they’re autistic.

Society both explicitly and implicitly punishes high-functioning autism.

Based on personal experience with others, for some I think the diagnosis is a substitute for an identity that then brings belonging into a group, filling a need for them that has been otherwise unfilled.

People nowadays are just desperate to have a diagnosis. Everybody wants to be special and unique, everybody wants a stamp on their forehead that says "I have [x]" "I am [x]". People cant accept that the issues they have might just be not special at all and are mere human issues all of us have. Its the result of aggressive sensationalism and the desire to stand out from the crowd.

Lot to unpack from what you said, but whatever you want to make of the classifications (created by people much more knowledgeable than you or I in this field, but with plenty of conformist baggage), my time with ADHD or whatever you'd like to call it has absolutely shaped the experience of my life, and taking medication has objectively helped. My brain objectively processes things differently from whatever you'd like to call the median of people, and functions different with different chemicals. Personally, because of this medication that allows me to focus, I have been able to remain on par with my peers, if not with more elbow grease -- so I quite benefit from the label, weird and fluid as it may be.

An interesting fact is that caffeine will often affect the "ADHD mind" differently. It's been reported to have no effect, or have very limited effect, or make people even sleepy, but almost always something non-standard. Once, in high school, without the supervision of my parents, I drank maybe 2 red bulls and 2 cups of coffee, 1 black. I remember feeling disappointed it didn't work, and I didn't feel any rush of energy.

> I find all these conversation around neuro-divergence extremely weird, for the simple reason that I have a never seen a proper definition of what a "normal" person actually is, and for good and obvious reasons:

The problem is that no-one can easily understand how their brain works compared to other people. People on both sides don't talk about it enough or openly enough. If you look at the science it quickly descends in to endless confusing/impenetrable psychiatric terminology.

You can study things like anaemia as you can objectively measure the red blood cell count of a patient's blood. You can't objectively measure a patient's "focus" or "motivation". It's really hard to even get a good subjective measure of those things.

For example, it's just one aspect, but prior to diagnosis and taking methylphenidate (Ritalin/Concerta) I thought everyone had hundreds of competing thoughts running through their head all the time. I thought everyone just had better ways of dealing with it than I did. I had no idea that's not the case. I'd got to 50+ years old, got several degrees, married and had a family, had a successful career, not quite FAANG but earning more than 6 figures, all in spite of how my brain works. Surely there can't be anything "wrong" with me.

But when the medication first kicked in I was simply astounded how quiet my brain became and how clearly I could think about just one thing (it may not be the thing I actually wanted to focus on at that time but that's another facet of the fun). How the hell did I manage to get by all this time without this? It's only then in speaking to other people do I find out that, no, most other people don't have hundreds of competing thoughts running through their head all the time snapping at their focus.

> On that premise, the whole idea of neuro-divergence and the idea that you can classify people in arbitrary categories such as ADHD, Autism, etc ... and that this classification will lead to a way to "fix them" is complete and utter BS.

I agree with point about broad classifications, but medicine is far from the exact science that people believe it is. Got these symptoms? Does medication A improve them? Can you live with the side effects of medication A? Does medication B help with the side effects of medication A and not interfere with the improvements given my medication A? etc...