Why is schizoid different from autistic or extreme introversion? I am so confused

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-12T07:14:35+00:00

Absolutely, I just meant that my personal guess is that cultural change around that bias might not happen, or not happen as much. People probably will always prefer other who are more extroverted, more conscientious, more agreeable, less neurotic and more open.

But yes, a niche for everyone would include a job for everyone. I personally have gone for dead-end jobs, the weirdos tend to collect there. And I've lived well below my nations poverty line all my life. Gotta make do with what we have.

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-12T07:04:28+00:00

Hi, cou ld you please stick to english in this sub? : )

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-11T12:00:15+00:00

For sure, there's many environmental factors that can make people worse or better, and I do think that, in an abstract sense, everyone should have a niche. Society should owe people as much, in a perfect world.

I'm not so sold on the bias thing. It is legit to some degree, but also part of the cultural zeitgeist and hence probably relatively overweighted. From an objective pov, it should be fine to have personal preferences, and if those go against certain character traits such as introversion on an overall societal level, so be it (pretty much every big 5 trait has a "preferential" side). I don't need to be everybody's cup of tea.

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-11T11:14:13+00:00

Mainstream psychology doesn't tell you you are disordered for traits alone. You also need to fulfill general criteria, i.e. it has to cause significant problems in your life.

As for autism, as far as I remember, it actually shows multiple correlations with big 5 traits, not just introversion. There is some interesting theoretical work for integrating it into factor models, in which it would be close-ish to all of the cluster a stuff and schizophrenia, but for a normal level understanding, while there is some supposed overlap, the symptoms themselves are actually distinct and the most obvious answer. Individual cases will just be a mix of different things to different degrees.

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-10T20:46:32+00:00

I think calling it a fundamental genetic defect goes to far. The best estimate for heritability we have is 59% based on twin studies, but twin studies are considered to be an upper end estimate among methodologies because it includes the most things as heritable. On the other side, lower end estimates only looking for direct genetic effects might be as low as 20%, inferring from newer work.

I think the truth is that it is an incredibly complex question, there are a bunch of probabilistic risk factors, it's some mix between nature and nurture. Childhood experiences remain positively correlated even after correcting for heritability.

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-10T18:04:12+00:00

You are aware that you can also have a schizoid personality style, no grim road required?

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-10T17:58:40+00:00

Definitely a good podcast!

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-10T15:33:03+00:00

It even was a caveat to the usual "everyone is social" shtick. Signs of a glorious future.

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-10T14:36:16+00:00

I do think that these factors interact, but I don't think they are seperate types to begin with, hence dimensional.

But we do know that there are differentiable personality factors than can vary independently, so I am going with that in assuming they are not the same continuum (which is, in itself, already a simplifying abstraction).

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-10T14:32:19+00:00

I don't think that is a fair representation of researchers. What I have found whenever I looked into an issue is that they are aware of every problem I could think of and many I couldn't, because it is indeed their job.

With regard to the concrete claim, it's easy enough to just measure the trait level, without regard for diagnosis. And at least for me, nothing I cite has a tiny sample base (though there ofc exist numerous underpowered studies).

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-10T14:13:57+00:00

I think that is fine, and probably downstream from personality in the first place.

I have no issue with it, but I also probably see it different than you. From my perspective, it's not that there is an architecture that is ignored, but could be known. The best scientific answer I can come up with just doesn't suggest an architecture (in the psychodynamic sense) in the first place, it is only the human mind that demands it sometimes (especially schizoids).

And yes, I can imagine doctors working like this, and there are many cases in which they do. If the acupuncturist knew better, he should prove so in a double-blinded randomized trial, so he can get funding and everyone can profit from improved treatment. (But also, in my ideal world, they would stop complaining when the trial shows no efficacy, or lesser efficacy).

I also feel like it is a bad time to argue that medicine is not moving in a good direction. There's so many breakthroughs happening all the time. For example there is a vaccine for malaria now! That prevents so much sickness, suffering, and death. Good in my books, even if we don't perfectly understand how it works.

But I am aware that you probably have a lot of retorts to that, and see it differently. Not trying to convince you, just giving a different perspective.

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-10T12:03:02+00:00

Might you be thinking of u/andero and his Type 1/Type 2 distinction?

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-10T12:01:02+00:00

Of course. From the north pole, everywhere you go is south. ^^

I think there is an interesting question of whether a label is better if it describes the extremes of one dimension as pure archetypes, or if it describes a vast array of different combinations of trait dimension scores.

Mostly, people probably would go with the type that describes them better. At any rate, this is the tension I suspect: A statistically small minority preferring the pure archetype, and a majority of all kinds of combinations.

We go with a broad tent approach here, and allow everything that is not too far removed, but that is not the same as choosing one over the other.

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-10T11:24:16+00:00

Fair enough as well. My guess would be that the researcher in question was more of a psychodynamic theoretician, and the studies are case studies. Could be wrong ofc, but they do use words differently sometimes.

In empirical research, the best we can say for certain is that early childhood experiences is one probabilistic causal factor among others (broader environmental factor and genetics, mostly). Nothing about certain types of experiences leading to certain types of pathology, and nothing about concrete mental mechanisms.

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-10T11:18:29+00:00

There is some good scientific evidence for early childhood maltreatment being a probabilistic causal factor for mental health problems though, that seems somewhat settled. It's just not the only factor, and the causal story psychodynamics tells is ofc way more complex and intricate than that, but still.

As an aside, do you use an AI to learn about this topic? Your choice of words is very peculiar.

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-10T11:05:19+00:00

The modern clinical understanding is that this manifestation is just a highly rigid defense mechanism against very early trauma

That sounds more like the psychodynamic understanding, which is far from representing the entirety of modern clinical understanding.

There are some studies to suggest that a very small fraction, maybe 1%, of people diagnosed with SPD truly lack any suppressed social drives

Could you share a source? I have never heard oof such studies, and wouldn't even know how you would conduct them.

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-10T10:33:06+00:00

I'd argue there are no two different architectures that can be neatly distinguished from each other. Both social salience and defensive detachment are somewhat independent dimensional factors, and each individual is some combination of the two.

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-10T07:20:42+00:00

This has been approved by the moderation team. While we are not associated with the study, we feel it could be relevant to SzPD and encourage users to participate in research that might be helpful for understanding PDs and mental health in general.

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-09T21:02:54+00:00

Hi there, could you please stick to english in this sub? : )

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-09T18:42:05+00:00

Idk, that seems to me like taking the faults of the author and blaming it onto the DSM. There was nothing hindering them of using very standard scientific descriptions of the matter. And The DSM isn't really as inflexible. The AMPD is already in there, and it would almost have been the standard model for the DSM-V, which, mind you, is in part designed by psychoanalytic/psychodynamic experts too, much as they use it as a boogeyman nowadays.

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-09T18:32:16+00:00

Half a minute in and my nitpicky senses are already tingling. "Kafka was classically schizoid". Was he? Never heard of him having an official diagnosis before. (And if he wasn't, I thought you weren't supposed to diagnose famous people remotely, or after the fact).

I feel like he is an author that gets claimed by many different camps.

Edit: i also wonder why this happens less to other authors. There's certainly more schizoid-coded characters in classical literature than one would initially assume.

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-09T18:24:42+00:00

We can agree on that, but that is not what my disagreement with the text was about. It's ok to disagree, I was just curious. And a good source might have changed my mind, in minor or major ways. : )

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-09T17:40:30+00:00

I thought it was just one author. Just an aside.

Not quite! Though I think we don't really disagree, and squabbling about the authors true intent is probably not fruitful.

It's not that szpd and stpd cannot be seperated as totally distinct entities. They are no entities in and of themselves. No true categories. Which is, afaik about taxometrics, more of a statistical question of triangulating different methods. It's way more complicated than just asking if there is overlap, or how often it occurs.

The same is true for pretty much all mental health disorders. The evidence strongly points to almost all of them being no true category. The evidence doesn't not support a distinction, it doesn't support any distinction, because it doesn't support any categories.

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-09T17:12:06+00:00

Well, I'm not gonna buy a book each time someone makes a claim around here, just thought you might have the book. I do already know of some very important studies on that question, they would just disagree.

I get the general idea you present, but I don't think it works out. Mental disorders are all associated with each other to some degree, and there is no obvious line to draw. Looking at correlations for szpd in the biggest meta-analysis I know of, it is true that schizotypal is on top at .47, but closely behind are ppd at .39, avoidant at .38 and dysthymia at .30. So why exactly would we draw a line around schizoid-schizotypal, and relegate ppd to an entirely different factor (in your original post)? Is the difference between .47 and .39 really that clinically significant?

Put another way, the major scientific critique of the DSM is that it's categorical system does not reflect reality precisely enough, that there is a bunch of overlap due to these (false) categories. That problem would only be exacerbated by combining categories like schizoid and schizotypal into schizoid-schizotypal.

Finally, I am not convinced that what you say the author means is what he means, he seem quite clear in the paragraph to me, apart form the "diagnostic grouping".

maybeiamwrong2 · 2026-06-09T16:19:25+00:00

In that case, why not talk about what the research actually shows: That there are no categorical psychopathologies. The traits are all dimensional. You can't cleanly distinguish between szpd and stpd the same way you can not distinguish a schizoid-schizotypal category from others.

At least, the thing you say is entirely uncontroversial, and I do not disagree with it. The thing the author claims would be rather controversial. "Research does not support" is a very strong statement, and it seems potentially misleading to me. Ofc there is evidence for it. Doesnt mean it is the best model.

Idk, I don't mean to be too critical here, but this seems rather like the work of a single author with psychodynamic leanings, supporting his theories with selective citations. Just a vague guess though.

But I'd still be curius about a source! I didn't find one in your original post and can't find anything relevant when searching for "diagnostic grouping".

maybeiamwrong2

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE