Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

You chose to ignore the requirement of "significant difficulties in social interaction". These are also not the only diagnostic criteria.

When you make comments like this, it becomes very hard to take your other criticisms of psychology seriously, as it raises the question as to what else you're ignoring/leaving out or unaware of.

The entire point of a syndrome is that it is a grouping based on the presence of a certain set of required symptoms combined by some threshold of additional symptoms, rather than a clearly identifiable underlying cause.

Many individual symptoms of a syndrome can be perfectly normal on their own or even strong desirable at certain degrees, but become substantial problems for the individuals involved when combined together, or when the trait is too intense. There's in other words no contradiction between the positive treatment of grit vs. the description of Asperger syndrome as a disorder.

But my eyes always glazed over while listening to him talk about tapping into the "Infinite Intelligence".

If nothing else, I would like to thank this article for gently reminding me that I do not know everything there is to know about this universe.

> You chose to ignore the requirement of "significant difficulties in social interaction". These are also not the only diagnostic criteria.

But much field experience shows that the absence of the full symptom set doesn't prevent the diagnosis, therefore the comparison is valid. During its tenure as a serious syndrome Asperger's diagnoses went completely out of control, due to ambiguous diagnostic criteria and (my point) how much like normal behavior the symptoms are.

Allen Frances, the editor of DSM-IV (the edition that introduced Asperger's), now thinks the inclusion of Asperger's was a mistake that led to what he now describes as a "phony epidemic" of diagnoses. Over the protests of many psychologists, Asperger's has been removed from the new DSM.

> There's in other words no contradiction between the positive treatment of grit vs. the description of Asperger syndrome as a disorder.

False. The contradiction is obvious -- they both describe the same behavior. And when it was pointed out that many very successful people exhibited Asperger's symptoms (or "Grit" symptoms, depending on one's outlook), psychologists responded by labeling those people mentally ill. As a result, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, and Bill Gates have been labeled mentally ill. The evidence? They accomplished something noteworthy by focusing their attention on a few activities, or just one.

But you're missing the point, which is that psychology proceeds based on descriptions, not explanations. Asperger's is a description without an explanation. "Grit" is a description without an explanation. Science requires explanations. This is why the DSM, psychiatry and psychology's central authority, is in the process of being abandoned as unscientific.

> There's in other words no contradiction between the positive treatment of grit vs. the description of Asperger syndrome as a disorder.

That's true, and it shows what's wrong with psychology -- its superficiality and willingness to accept mere descriptions in lieu of explanations.

The mind is not -- cannot be -- a source of empirical evidence. Science requires empirical evidence.

> The hypothesis is testable as shown by the research.

What research is that? Which scientific theory did the research either shape, or test, or potentially falsify?

> I'm not sure why you are saying it is unscientific.

The article describes, it doesn't explain. Science requires explanations, explanations that can be generalized into principles, tested, and potentially falsified.

> I grant you there may be alternative explanations for the data ...

But the data aren't explained, they're described. Test subjects were more likely to answer correctly if they received positive encouragement. That's a description. No one has tried to explain or generalize that description, turn it into something falsifiable.

> it is often true that science has been lead astray by incorrect framing of the question,

Absolutely true.

> but it's still science...

Absolutely false.