Object personification in autism: This paper will be sad if you don't read (2018)

$ date everything

date: invalid date 'everything'

(UNIX commands _are_ sentient)

le/el/il = ille, la = illa.

It literally means he and she in Latin. Then people started using these to indicate that something was a specific object instead of an object in general.

I was using one aspect of schizophrenia, which isn't this "salience disregulation" feature you're talking about -- but something more schizotypal, a general feeling of being slighly askew from reality, ie., a kind of magical thinking. Maybe better put as "the qualitative feeling of being around someone schizotypical", than exactly the clinical issue.

I would say in dreamer-type autism, the magical thinking doesnt have the same character -- it's more abstract, typically. In schizotypalism you have a literal sort of paranoia often behind this. However, I think the clinical study of autism very often focuses on the literal-minded type, i think who are probably more common amongst the low-functioning -- but I don't believe this exhausts the autistic.

One common feature of autism, imv, is a stickyness to one's own context and a resistance/difficulty in "social contextual osmosis" which is common both to schizotypals and autists (, schizoprhenics of course, but by way of severe impairments of functioning that would apply to any extreme mental disorder ).

In any case, one of my "clinical cultural analysis hot-takes" is that a lot of intellectual culture war issues are schizophrenics arguing with literal autists -- that was my analysis of the "richard dawkins vs. jordan peterson" youtube debate/video which you can find. If you attend to peterson's trains of though, he's barely able to obtain any deductive depth. At one point i think he manages two sequential premises, before another tangent. Highly characteristic of flight-of-ideas thinking.

Whereas dawkins is basically wholly deductive and literalist in his thinking, anti-wonder and anti-free-association. It make the "debate" primarily interesting as a clinical case study.

It's just another retred of the eternal war between these modes of thought.

I think socrates is a worthwhile case study of someone i'd say of a mixed schizophrenic-autistic type, fully in the dissociative category i outlined -- an ironist. Though, that he's so fully in that ironic category, the alleged schizoprehnic elements to his psychology could simply be a performative ploy to indict his audience -- using their own commitment to the divine against them.

One can see socrates' internal compulsion to question those around him as this dissociative-mode autism at work, ie., an inability to exist in the social-fantasy context of others, but an ability to impose a kind of (ironic-)fantasy context of his own. "I know that I know nothing" is this ironic self-characterisation which kinda stages both contexts at once: I (literally) know that... + (fictionally,) I know nothing.

In a sense, in this mode of autism, you have Richard Dawkins in one ear in war with Jordan Peterson in the other.