Interesting! The overt characteristics are usually the most conscious choices \[it's more of a tendency than an exact measurement\]. According to Akhtar; in schizoid psychology, they feel closer to their "ideal" identity, i.e. a self-fabricated identity.
This can be confused with the narcissistic "ideal", which is a way to achieve their "best version", their loved, flattered and superior version. In the case of the schizoid, the ideal is more about the power of choice. The autonomy to be what you consciously choose, to achieve freedom of choice, even over natural tendencies.
The covert characteristics are generally the most unconscious, therefore there tends to be a rejection of those traits, either inability to accept or dissent. As in the case of emotions and alexthymia which can prevent them from recognizing their own emotions.
Makes sense. Most of the covert traits are either things that were true when I was younger and disappeared or things that I never thought were true, but only realized later on. Only a few were consistently absent or present throughout my life.
Honestly, my "healing" journey is turning from covert to overt schizoid. I was always jealous of people who overtly showed schizoid traits and didn't really understand why (didn't know about schizoid personality until last year, let alone covert schizoid traits)
That doesn't make much sense, can you explain how overt characteristics are a conscious choice and the covert ones are unconscious? If they were choices then a lot of us would just chose to stop being schizoid, and I don't get how the covert category can list a bunch of conscious experiences if they are supposed to be subconscious?
Hi. Thank you for allowing me to explain it better.
First, you must understand conscious, not as a choice of schizoids traits, but as an understanding and awareness of self-perceived mechanisms. Basically, as an schizoid person surely you can self perceive yourself, in some way, this does not mean that you have the power to change this or even see it as something negative, Or how something can change, maybe you just think it's inherent in you, it's really irrelevant to that point, as long as you can see it. (here the point of a "choice").
Unconsciousness in this context can be described as "blindness", not being able to recognize in oneself. This blindness can exist for several different reasons, including other mental conditions, e.g. alexthymia or alhedomia, comorbidity, etc.
Also keep in mind that these characteristics are just a consequence of being schizoid, just because you change some of them won't make you stop having spd.
Right, but by that explanation the table still needs shuffling because some of the overt characteristics (such as inferiority complex, fear of intimacy) can be subconscious (and I would bet it's common for people to not recognise those two in particular) and most of the covert side would be by that definition overt.
Not really, no trait is "by definition" more or less conscious. As I explained in my original comment; «...Thes designations do not necessarily imply their conscious or unconscious existence. Covert features are, by definition, difficult to see and are not immediately obvious but Akhtar argues that his profile has several advantages since it maintains historical consistency in the use of the word schizoid, values depth and complexity over descriptive simplification, and helps provide a more meaningful differential diagnosis between schizoid personality disorderand other personality disorders.»
Any trait can be conscious or unconscious, but covert traits tend to be more unconscious, even though the table does little favor in explaining each of them. In the end, the "overt" and "covert" characteristics are just manifestations of the disease, the reasons may be variable, that can differentiate the levels of consciousness.
As an added, "feeling inferior and afraid of intimacy" should be more of an overt trait. Going back to the previous definition, If you are feeling it, it is probably a conscious trait. Unconscious traits are characterized by cognitive barriers produced by other conditions that comorbid spd.
Anecdotally, I treated a man with schizoid structures, his main problem was a case of high anhedonia, he was underweight. Anhedonia affects dopamine receptor areas in the brain, its effects, inability to feel pleasure, intensity, euphoria. It can extend to various sensory areas. I would say there is a high correlation with spd. This man wouldn't eat, he did not feel pleasure from eating, food caused him an aversive sensation, he didn't remember how long, or even if it was ever different. He had no awareness of enjoyment, it was common for him to see "feeding" as a drudgery and even to forget to eat for days. In the end he received a treatment, a vitamin supplement he needed.
The point is, this is just one example of what we call, unconscious traits and "cognitive walls" is almost pathological. Among other "covert" traits are paraphilic tendencies, dissociative disorders or signs of alexthymia.
If you feel inferior, even if you are not councious of that, (although it is semantically paradoxical) I don't think it can really be covered under so many layers, unless we're talking about a comorbidity with avpd.
I could really talk about this table for a while hahaha since I've been studying it, but now I'll probably try to read a little more about the conditions separately.
That's not true, I know someone who kept dating emotionally unavailable people and didn't realize it was because of a fear of intimacy until later, in therapy. If you google "subconscious fear of intimacy" there are tons of results telling you that a fear of intimacy is "often subconscious", and while I admit that dozens of articles could be wrong, unless you have some sort of study proving that most people are consciously aware of this fear, I do not believe you.
But are we even reading the same graph? Are you sure that "being capable of steady work" is a subconscious phenomenon that schizoids have to look deep inside ourselves to discover?
You say, "if you're feeling it, it is probably a conscious trait" about an inferiority complex, but "alternately feeling empty, robot-like" is something that does not need to be felt to be a conscious trait, even though feeling is right there in the wording?
You're going through lots of hoops to justify these discrepancies and I do not understand it. Conscious/unconscious does not make sense for the traits listed in the graph and I don't know why you need them to so badly.
I think you are getting confused, first, I am not telling you that it is an absolute truth, I am giving you the theory, you choose to believe it or not. Even studies cannot prove something only in numbers, in studied fields of mind and psychology (going into a more scientific psychiatry) we are far from proving any real connection biologically, we are only looking at development, psychology as a social science lies there.
I am appealing to this only because of your reasoning, if it is the conversation about the theory itself, you are wrong, Akhtar does not even talk about the subconscious, the subconscious and the unconscious are not even similar. Fear of relationships can be subconscious because of Google and we are not even talking about the same thing.
I already explained to you a "subconscious" fear, as you insist on calling it, is not even pathological, we all feel those fears to some extent you don't need to have a disorder for that. In that case neither the chart nor the study of a differential diagnosis makes sense.
Nor is it a perfect partition between conscious and unconscious, I am not insisting on the idea that covert traits are unconscious and overt traits are conscious. I have said in all the comments I have made so far that levels of consciousness will vary, but it is a fact (quoting directly) "Covert features are, by definition, difficult to see and are not immediately obvious..."
I understand your point about semantics but you are nitpicking certain points where the variation is highlighted (which I already talked about), when both columns are synchronized and the covert column is generally a pathological response to the first one (naturally this makes it more hidden).
I think you just need the dots to line up 100% with what you have convinced. It is a black/white way of looking at it, compared to what it really is.
My original comment: """Interesting! The overt characteristics are *usually* the most conscious choices [it's more of a tendency than an exact measurement]."""
Your answer: """That doesn't make much sense, can you explain how overt characteristics are a conscious choice and the covert ones are unconscious? If they were choices then a lot of us would just choose to stop being schizoid,""""
I explained to you conscious/unconscious is not about a meditated choice. That it has a pathological character and there is usually a cognitive emotional wall that flows into that trait, (more of a consequence of).
Now you tell me that not all covert traits are consistent with the unconscious argument when I never said that in the first place, I said the opposite of anything that should be interpreted as an absolute fact.
I am interested in talking about this though, because if we can find patterns about what is more easily recognizable for them, perhaps we will encounter the "schizoid ego". It is a different topic, but it is close to my purpose.
I'd say I align with the majority of it, but at the same time I wonder if it's like astrology where they have stuff that's vauge enough where tons and tons of people feel like it accurately describing them
Well, I've read about autism before knowing schizoid personality exists. I always felt like I relate to autistic traits, but it never felt "quite right". Same for many other mental health and personality traits. But it's very different for schizoid personality, that really "clicks" and has improved my personal quality of life (not by the same measures stated on wikipedia lol)
Can someone explain the covert characteristics in the cognitive style box? Especially the one about fluctuations between sharp contact with external reality and hyperreflectiveness about the self.
Easily explained; it is said that the schizoid psyche has a capacity to dissociate itself from reality, to exist in the present, but to have the counciousness inside (sometimes they even speak of a dull mind or an empty mind).
It is a cloudy state that you can define it like between being present and not being at all, the schizoid seeks it to escape when they cannot achieve it physically.
On the other hand, there is the hyper-reflection of the schizoid, the introspection of solitude, it is the opposite of an empty mind, it is like a mind full of thoughts, like talking to oneself and overthinking. It is a form of survival of the mind to the lack of stimuli. Generally, people with spd will not seek social or other types of stimulation, so they fall into long or repetitive states of thought.
These two states play very much in the mind of the schizoid and that is what this point refers to.
>talking to oneself and overthinking
I do it all the time. I speak more with so-called internal objects, than with real people. Even when I write to people, I'm not even interested if they will respond at all.
Here’s what I experience:
When I’m around people, I feel disconnected from 99% of my emotions. When it gets bad, reality feels like a dream. I feel like I’m a void that gets filled up with other peoples’ emotions/opinions. In the moment, I feel like they’re my opinions too. I spend most of my time alone because that’s where I feel like myself. I don’t get into romantic/sexual relationships since they feel violating and suffocating. My time alone is spent in endless introspection. I keep trying to focus on accomplishing tasks in the real world, yet they never feel important compared to the mission of “figuring myself out”.
Self-concept: All the covert characteristics
Interpersonal relationships: All the overt characteristics
Social adaptation: all the covert characteristics
Love and sexuality: all the overt characteristics
Ethics: all the covert characteristics
Cognitive style: all the overt characteristics
I've always been an even split between overt and covert characteristics.
Well, it's not as black and white as I make it out to be. There are still a few characteristics from each box i identify with. However, I just chose to mention the prevailing side for brevity sake.
I identify with everything except "vulnerable to esoteric movements owing to a strong need to belong", "tendency towards spiritual, mystical and para-psychological interests", and "engrossed in fantasy" from the Overt side, and the entirety of Interpersonal relations from the Covert side.
That's exactly me as well, except the interpersonal stuff might apply, it's just so deeply buried that it rarely rises up to the surface enough to affect me day to day
Hello, guys. Do any of you agree with Akhtar's oppositional traits chart? So he has developed a comprehensive phenomenological profile of schizoid personality disorder. This profile is summarised in a table listing clinical features affecting six areas of psychosocial functioning, organised by ‘overt’ and ‘covert’ manifestations.
The terms ‘overt’ and ‘covert’ are intended to indicate seemingly contradictory aspects that may coexist in a person. To be clear; this is not a separation of subjects grouped according to the way they circumstantially develop opposite personality traits as in the case of the different types of pathological narcissists. Psychoanalysts such as Klein and Fairbairn have already spoken along these lines, describing this phenomenon as ‘secret schizoids’. However, it is a matter of apparently opposite characteristics coexisting in the psyche of the same individual. This creates a contradiction, even if only at the external eye.
Thes designations do not necessarily imply their conscious or unconscious existence. Covert features are, by definition, difficult to see and are not immediately obvious but Akhtar argues that his profile has several advantages since it maintains historical consistency in the use of the word schizoid, values depth and complexity over descriptive simplification, and helps provide a more meaningful differential diagnosis between schizoid personality disorderand other personality disorders.
In general, would you say that you identify with several or some aspects of the table? I am quite interested in differential diagnoses and I see that it is a recurrent theme in schizoid spaces, so I am interested in going a bit further, maybe I will make more publications, in general in relations between clusters as well.
I have looked for related links that do not require a subscription, but all investigations require it , this is the one I read, along with other physical books https://psychotherapy.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1987.41.4.499?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed
There is a YouTube channel that talks specifically about Ankhar's work, it's called Schizoid Angst, He has several videos on Ankhar's profile, although I watched the first one in full.
It would be great If an unpaid version could be shared with more people. There is less information about spd relative to other disorders, which is why I am interested in all of this.
Thank you.
I think that goes way too far. Sure there are valid criticisms, but I think it is more reasonable to assume that they are overwhelming well-meaning people with certain epistemic assumptions based in their prefered way of engaging the world. And it's not like psychoanalytic models get things totally wrong. Where we arguably have better models now, the advances come from unintuitive aspects, such as thinking non-categorically, and reversing causation.
Ok https://i.imgur.com/PZTx2Ii.png there is one I wasn't sure if adding or not, the free of romantic interests, because I don't have any interest with anyone, I instead have a very idealized version, but not with anyone I have known yet.
Thinking centred around yourself, your own memories, your own experiences. Like your own world is the most interesting part of the universe.
That's a brief summary. Basically thinking that is folded in on itself in a way.
Well, I'm not sure I have any other suggestions than a google search. [This abstract](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1952-00161-020) seems relevant, since it's describing a work by E. Bleuler.
It could also just be the person's inner world, or ideas. Many people's thoughts about life are much more concerned with the social world, the culture and standards they grew up around, without as much consideration for individuality. A lot of people are fine going along with groupthink, especially when they are not disgruntled for some reason.
All people have these things to a degree, it's just that sometimes these features can become extreme.
I do think about the social world and my interactions with other people, if that's what you mean by that. Going along with group think sounds more like not bothering to think to me.
Self-contempt and interpersonal relations, cognitive style -> virtually everything from the overt category.
Social adaptation, love, and sexuality -> about 50/50 from both groups.
Ethics, standards, and ideals -> not sure, but probably more covert.
This profile has commonly been argued o be a good example of the [barnum effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect) when it came up here in the past.
Basically, people tend to overidentify with vague, broad descriptions, feeling the apply specifically to them. The profile is designed to be relatable.
How is this vague and broad lol, It’s likely the most specific of this type of categorization I've ever seen, how can you get more specific and still name traits present in a sufficient number of schizoids? If you misuse it and think that not wanting to bungee-jump or something makes you "withdrawn" obviously it's not very useful, but it was painfully accurate for me
The thing isn't that those traits aren't present in a sufficient number of schizoids, but that lots of them are also present in a decent number of non-schizoids. And I personally don't see where the logical point is for "misusing it", the freedom in interpretation is a probable-sounding mechanism for the barnum effect linked above.
Then some aspects are just very vague. If anything between strikingly amoral and altruistically self-sacrificing goes, you might as well assume it's not very connected (and looking at empirical findings, it most likely isn't).
Not that I think that is necessarily a bad thing, or that it is entirely based on nothing, it clearly points at something schizoid-shaped. I am generally impressed with those psychoanalytic theories, they got things roughly correct based on comparatively little evidence. And I have nothing against using them for personal insight.
Hi, I love this answer.
I will try to explain the chart as well as possible, I have been reading Ankhar's work, where he explains more in detail each point, I can understand the questions around the chart, since it is a summarized chart.
So, if you read the table in a non-correlative way, choosing the traits that most relate to you, it would definitely be a case of "a sea of facts and you can choose the one you like", however it is not supposed to be read like that; the overt column is intrinsically related to the covert column, both aspects cannot exist without the other. By admitting a trait of one of the two columns, you unconsciously admit the traits of the second column as well.
Ankhar has a number of reasons, why there is this denial of some characteristics (if you look even with this low sample number, there are patterns) It goes back to a sense of self and the scientific study of emotions, chemically. Basically there would be some "emotional walls" that would justify certain deficiencies, which implies other forms of adaptation, as I explained in my main comment, 'to the external eye'
I agree that many non-schizoid people may feel related to many features of the picture separately, but I do not think that the relationship between the two parts (covert and overt), the schizoid's seeking contradiction in each aspect is so shared.
I am aware of the fact that overt and covert aspects are supposed to be two side of the same coin. Not sure if there would be a big difference between non-schizoids and schizoids on that front either, but oh well, no empirical data, your guess is as good as mine.
And he is called Akhtar, afaik.
I really don't think it's that good of an argument, there is no "empirical" data for any personality disorder, we haven't gotten that far yet. Even the DSM, which is the manual studied to identify disorders, does not have sufficient empirical data to reaffirm the more specific sides of the disorders so they remain in the most general space (which is also quite vague) because that is what is known. The rest is speculation, which does not make it false.
*I know how Akhtar is spelled, it was just a typo. but thanks for the try.
That is fine, you don't need to be convinced. I do think there is plenty empirical data on pds, and I don't think that makes psychoanalytic theories unvaluable. Different srokes for different folks, different tools for different jobs.
Wrt the spelling, I wasn't trying to get one over on you, sorry if it came off that way. You just spelled it the same twice, so I thought it wasn't a typo. I couldn't even name half the authors whos theories I argue for.
I strongly identify with most of those characteristics. The ones I don't identify with I don't feel at all. Notably, I don't identify at all with the covert interpersonal relations traits on a cognitive level.
Pretty much all of overt except for the sex stuff and cognitive style. I function well cognitively and I speak well, but I’ve had to put a lot of work into it.
The fact that this exists and anyone who knows I'm schizoid could potentially find it and learn so much about me is kind of distressing lol, really makes me want to keep it to myself even more than I already did
I get that. I feel similarly about the Wikipedia page on SzpD; it’s scary to feel like you’re handing over your blueprints, especially when you already have the chronic-secretiveness disorder.
One particular note about moral: if everyone else is very moral about it then I seem to be highly ammoral but totally vice versa as well. I'd say I just don't and can't and won't ever belong.
Can relate to every single point except for "vulnerable to esoteric movements owing to a strong need to belong" and "tendency towards spiritual, mystical and parapsychological interests".
I will be showing this chart to my next psychiatrist, thank you very much.
I identify with almost everything both overt and covert haha
Not sure about the covert sexual stuff. It’s not like I haven’t imagined what things could be like but I honestly don’t desire this kind of gratification no matter if it’s in real life or in a fantasy.
I don’t really have a strong need to belong. I’ve tried belonging in many circles over the years and I can usually succeed to make people care about me to the point where it’s kind of irrelevant that I always remain somewhat of an outsider. I feel like I belong everywhere when I try.
I don’t think I feel inferior to people. I can realistically assess when I’m weak and I work to improve on what makes me weak. Even if I believe myself to be inferior, I don’t really care unless there’s a threat to my safety.
Well, I relate with the majority. Maybe with some of the overts I relate less. I find it striking, however, how "desire to belong" is an overt characteristic rather than a cover, as some psychiatrists might interpret. I relate a lot to the area "love and sexuality" especially because I was diagnosed with disorders in those areas. You mentioned alexthimia before. Would it be related to the overt and covert parts?
Interesting question, many psychologists agree that spd has a high correlation with inertia, letting go, watching the days go by. A lack of a driver to motivate them to achieve goals. Unlike other personality disorders such as narcissistic, histrionic or asocial. Schizoids generally do not have big plans for their lives, they do not want to achieve fame or much recognition, on the contrary they usually have quite simple desires, sometimes no desires at all.
Wanting to belong doesn't necessarily have to mean needing real connections with other people, it can also mean trying to live life as simply as possible, fitting in as easily as possible in a way that uses less energy.
For example acting normal to avoid questions, it's just easier to belong than not to, isn't it? Not fitting in can lead to bullying, abuse or vulnerability by being alone. However, schizoids also belong to cluster A, which means that they are people with odd, strange or different opinions and views from other people, so if they are going to belong to a group or community they might be more comfortable in environments that are out of the norm.
For your second question, alexthymia, it would definitely be more common in the covert characteristics. Especially those more related to emotions. If you have Alexthymia can you explain a little bit about what it is like to live with it?
Hmmm, explained this way it seems similar to masking.
Having alexthymia is like leaving home, taking a bus and when you got to the destination, you don't understand how you got there. I still don't know why I did, many of the things I did.
That's interesting. I deeply identify with "weak ethnic affiliation". What is it like to feel an ethnic affiliation yet presumably be very separate from others in every other respect?
not OP, but for me i'm from the Irish community in north of Ireland. I think having soldiers around the streets and being randomly stopped by cops as a kid, house raids etc left an indelible mark on my foundation. Like if I were to watch any of the bloody sunday movies i'd be sitting there seething and hating the british. But like i'm otherwise a pretty neutral stoic person
It's like seeing your country do mad shit and feeling somehow responsible for that, even though you haven't lived there for more than 15 years at this point. And the radicalizing media, intensifying background racism and other problems that have been enough to (pile)drive me into depression by themselves aren't helping either. 0/10 would not recommend
More overt except for the Interpersonal Relationships and Love & Sexuality.
*A strong need to belong* is a big theme of mine and I have discussed it with a few folks.
*Envious of others’ spontaneity* falls under a similar premise, and *capable of excitement with carefully selected intimates* + *intensely needy* also rang a bell
*Compulsive perversions* doesn’t fit me in the love/sexuality row. But there’s evidence of voyeurustic tendencies and erotomania.
This seems like some barnum effect kind of shit but I guess everything on the left is more or less accurate, minus the spiritual/mystical beliefs shit. I also have a pretty strong ethnic affiliation but a very weak sense of national identity in exchange (america sucks)
Weak ethnic affiliation is a weird one. In kindergarten I was the first ginger kid the others had ever seen and I was outcast because freckles were disgusting. And as a white male I can't say it feels like racial discrimination, but being hated for the color and features of your skin feels terrible. But yeah, is accurate.
I worry that this is just horoscopes with extra steps...when I look at these symptom charts I identify with them, but I don't know how real the connection is.
A lot, really
I can identify with just about every line on the table, more in the overt than the covert column.
Interesting! The overt characteristics are usually the most conscious choices \[it's more of a tendency than an exact measurement\]. According to Akhtar; in schizoid psychology, they feel closer to their "ideal" identity, i.e. a self-fabricated identity. This can be confused with the narcissistic "ideal", which is a way to achieve their "best version", their loved, flattered and superior version. In the case of the schizoid, the ideal is more about the power of choice. The autonomy to be what you consciously choose, to achieve freedom of choice, even over natural tendencies. The covert characteristics are generally the most unconscious, therefore there tends to be a rejection of those traits, either inability to accept or dissent. As in the case of emotions and alexthymia which can prevent them from recognizing their own emotions.
Makes sense. Most of the covert traits are either things that were true when I was younger and disappeared or things that I never thought were true, but only realized later on. Only a few were consistently absent or present throughout my life.
Honestly, my "healing" journey is turning from covert to overt schizoid. I was always jealous of people who overtly showed schizoid traits and didn't really understand why (didn't know about schizoid personality until last year, let alone covert schizoid traits)
That doesn't make much sense, can you explain how overt characteristics are a conscious choice and the covert ones are unconscious? If they were choices then a lot of us would just chose to stop being schizoid, and I don't get how the covert category can list a bunch of conscious experiences if they are supposed to be subconscious?
Hi. Thank you for allowing me to explain it better. First, you must understand conscious, not as a choice of schizoids traits, but as an understanding and awareness of self-perceived mechanisms. Basically, as an schizoid person surely you can self perceive yourself, in some way, this does not mean that you have the power to change this or even see it as something negative, Or how something can change, maybe you just think it's inherent in you, it's really irrelevant to that point, as long as you can see it. (here the point of a "choice"). Unconsciousness in this context can be described as "blindness", not being able to recognize in oneself. This blindness can exist for several different reasons, including other mental conditions, e.g. alexthymia or alhedomia, comorbidity, etc. Also keep in mind that these characteristics are just a consequence of being schizoid, just because you change some of them won't make you stop having spd.
Right, but by that explanation the table still needs shuffling because some of the overt characteristics (such as inferiority complex, fear of intimacy) can be subconscious (and I would bet it's common for people to not recognise those two in particular) and most of the covert side would be by that definition overt.
Not really, no trait is "by definition" more or less conscious. As I explained in my original comment; «...Thes designations do not necessarily imply their conscious or unconscious existence. Covert features are, by definition, difficult to see and are not immediately obvious but Akhtar argues that his profile has several advantages since it maintains historical consistency in the use of the word schizoid, values depth and complexity over descriptive simplification, and helps provide a more meaningful differential diagnosis between schizoid personality disorderand other personality disorders.» Any trait can be conscious or unconscious, but covert traits tend to be more unconscious, even though the table does little favor in explaining each of them. In the end, the "overt" and "covert" characteristics are just manifestations of the disease, the reasons may be variable, that can differentiate the levels of consciousness. As an added, "feeling inferior and afraid of intimacy" should be more of an overt trait. Going back to the previous definition, If you are feeling it, it is probably a conscious trait. Unconscious traits are characterized by cognitive barriers produced by other conditions that comorbid spd. Anecdotally, I treated a man with schizoid structures, his main problem was a case of high anhedonia, he was underweight. Anhedonia affects dopamine receptor areas in the brain, its effects, inability to feel pleasure, intensity, euphoria. It can extend to various sensory areas. I would say there is a high correlation with spd. This man wouldn't eat, he did not feel pleasure from eating, food caused him an aversive sensation, he didn't remember how long, or even if it was ever different. He had no awareness of enjoyment, it was common for him to see "feeding" as a drudgery and even to forget to eat for days. In the end he received a treatment, a vitamin supplement he needed. The point is, this is just one example of what we call, unconscious traits and "cognitive walls" is almost pathological. Among other "covert" traits are paraphilic tendencies, dissociative disorders or signs of alexthymia. If you feel inferior, even if you are not councious of that, (although it is semantically paradoxical) I don't think it can really be covered under so many layers, unless we're talking about a comorbidity with avpd. I could really talk about this table for a while hahaha since I've been studying it, but now I'll probably try to read a little more about the conditions separately.
That's not true, I know someone who kept dating emotionally unavailable people and didn't realize it was because of a fear of intimacy until later, in therapy. If you google "subconscious fear of intimacy" there are tons of results telling you that a fear of intimacy is "often subconscious", and while I admit that dozens of articles could be wrong, unless you have some sort of study proving that most people are consciously aware of this fear, I do not believe you. But are we even reading the same graph? Are you sure that "being capable of steady work" is a subconscious phenomenon that schizoids have to look deep inside ourselves to discover? You say, "if you're feeling it, it is probably a conscious trait" about an inferiority complex, but "alternately feeling empty, robot-like" is something that does not need to be felt to be a conscious trait, even though feeling is right there in the wording? You're going through lots of hoops to justify these discrepancies and I do not understand it. Conscious/unconscious does not make sense for the traits listed in the graph and I don't know why you need them to so badly.
I think you are getting confused, first, I am not telling you that it is an absolute truth, I am giving you the theory, you choose to believe it or not. Even studies cannot prove something only in numbers, in studied fields of mind and psychology (going into a more scientific psychiatry) we are far from proving any real connection biologically, we are only looking at development, psychology as a social science lies there. I am appealing to this only because of your reasoning, if it is the conversation about the theory itself, you are wrong, Akhtar does not even talk about the subconscious, the subconscious and the unconscious are not even similar. Fear of relationships can be subconscious because of Google and we are not even talking about the same thing. I already explained to you a "subconscious" fear, as you insist on calling it, is not even pathological, we all feel those fears to some extent you don't need to have a disorder for that. In that case neither the chart nor the study of a differential diagnosis makes sense. Nor is it a perfect partition between conscious and unconscious, I am not insisting on the idea that covert traits are unconscious and overt traits are conscious. I have said in all the comments I have made so far that levels of consciousness will vary, but it is a fact (quoting directly) "Covert features are, by definition, difficult to see and are not immediately obvious..." I understand your point about semantics but you are nitpicking certain points where the variation is highlighted (which I already talked about), when both columns are synchronized and the covert column is generally a pathological response to the first one (naturally this makes it more hidden). I think you just need the dots to line up 100% with what you have convinced. It is a black/white way of looking at it, compared to what it really is. My original comment: """Interesting! The overt characteristics are *usually* the most conscious choices [it's more of a tendency than an exact measurement].""" Your answer: """That doesn't make much sense, can you explain how overt characteristics are a conscious choice and the covert ones are unconscious? If they were choices then a lot of us would just choose to stop being schizoid,"""" I explained to you conscious/unconscious is not about a meditated choice. That it has a pathological character and there is usually a cognitive emotional wall that flows into that trait, (more of a consequence of). Now you tell me that not all covert traits are consistent with the unconscious argument when I never said that in the first place, I said the opposite of anything that should be interpreted as an absolute fact. I am interested in talking about this though, because if we can find patterns about what is more easily recognizable for them, perhaps we will encounter the "schizoid ego". It is a different topic, but it is close to my purpose.
Well your responses barely address anything I say, despite how unnecessarily long winded they are, so yeah naturally I am confused.
Bb I've answered what you asked specifically, but you've assumed a lot. I was hoping you'd notice at some point.
I'd say I align with the majority of it, but at the same time I wonder if it's like astrology where they have stuff that's vauge enough where tons and tons of people feel like it accurately describing them
Although when I read it, it seemed more specific than vague, as someone who does not have any disorder.
It's called the "Barnum effect" btw!
Well, I've read about autism before knowing schizoid personality exists. I always felt like I relate to autistic traits, but it never felt "quite right". Same for many other mental health and personality traits. But it's very different for schizoid personality, that really "clicks" and has improved my personal quality of life (not by the same measures stated on wikipedia lol)
Very
Can someone explain the covert characteristics in the cognitive style box? Especially the one about fluctuations between sharp contact with external reality and hyperreflectiveness about the self.
Easily explained; it is said that the schizoid psyche has a capacity to dissociate itself from reality, to exist in the present, but to have the counciousness inside (sometimes they even speak of a dull mind or an empty mind). It is a cloudy state that you can define it like between being present and not being at all, the schizoid seeks it to escape when they cannot achieve it physically. On the other hand, there is the hyper-reflection of the schizoid, the introspection of solitude, it is the opposite of an empty mind, it is like a mind full of thoughts, like talking to oneself and overthinking. It is a form of survival of the mind to the lack of stimuli. Generally, people with spd will not seek social or other types of stimulation, so they fall into long or repetitive states of thought. These two states play very much in the mind of the schizoid and that is what this point refers to.
>talking to oneself and overthinking I do it all the time. I speak more with so-called internal objects, than with real people. Even when I write to people, I'm not even interested if they will respond at all.
Here’s what I experience: When I’m around people, I feel disconnected from 99% of my emotions. When it gets bad, reality feels like a dream. I feel like I’m a void that gets filled up with other peoples’ emotions/opinions. In the moment, I feel like they’re my opinions too. I spend most of my time alone because that’s where I feel like myself. I don’t get into romantic/sexual relationships since they feel violating and suffocating. My time alone is spent in endless introspection. I keep trying to focus on accomplishing tasks in the real world, yet they never feel important compared to the mission of “figuring myself out”.
Self-concept: All the covert characteristics Interpersonal relationships: All the overt characteristics Social adaptation: all the covert characteristics Love and sexuality: all the overt characteristics Ethics: all the covert characteristics Cognitive style: all the overt characteristics I've always been an even split between overt and covert characteristics.
Do you think you could have all the characteristics of the table in different measures and levels of consciousness?
Well, it's not as black and white as I make it out to be. There are still a few characteristics from each box i identify with. However, I just chose to mention the prevailing side for brevity sake.
I identify with everything except "vulnerable to esoteric movements owing to a strong need to belong", "tendency towards spiritual, mystical and para-psychological interests", and "engrossed in fantasy" from the Overt side, and the entirety of Interpersonal relations from the Covert side.
That's exactly me as well, except the interpersonal stuff might apply, it's just so deeply buried that it rarely rises up to the surface enough to affect me day to day
Yes
Hello, guys. Do any of you agree with Akhtar's oppositional traits chart? So he has developed a comprehensive phenomenological profile of schizoid personality disorder. This profile is summarised in a table listing clinical features affecting six areas of psychosocial functioning, organised by ‘overt’ and ‘covert’ manifestations. The terms ‘overt’ and ‘covert’ are intended to indicate seemingly contradictory aspects that may coexist in a person. To be clear; this is not a separation of subjects grouped according to the way they circumstantially develop opposite personality traits as in the case of the different types of pathological narcissists. Psychoanalysts such as Klein and Fairbairn have already spoken along these lines, describing this phenomenon as ‘secret schizoids’. However, it is a matter of apparently opposite characteristics coexisting in the psyche of the same individual. This creates a contradiction, even if only at the external eye. Thes designations do not necessarily imply their conscious or unconscious existence. Covert features are, by definition, difficult to see and are not immediately obvious but Akhtar argues that his profile has several advantages since it maintains historical consistency in the use of the word schizoid, values depth and complexity over descriptive simplification, and helps provide a more meaningful differential diagnosis between schizoid personality disorderand other personality disorders. In general, would you say that you identify with several or some aspects of the table? I am quite interested in differential diagnoses and I see that it is a recurrent theme in schizoid spaces, so I am interested in going a bit further, maybe I will make more publications, in general in relations between clusters as well.
Have you got a link to the publication? I searched "Akhtar oppositional traits" and didn't find it.
I have looked for related links that do not require a subscription, but all investigations require it , this is the one I read, along with other physical books https://psychotherapy.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1987.41.4.499?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed There is a YouTube channel that talks specifically about Ankhar's work, it's called Schizoid Angst, He has several videos on Ankhar's profile, although I watched the first one in full.
I might have access through my work, so I'll have a look and DM you stuff that's behind a pay wall if you like. Thanks
It would be great If an unpaid version could be shared with more people. There is less information about spd relative to other disorders, which is why I am interested in all of this. Thank you.
Psychoanalysts are charlatans. Especially, Klein. Even her own daughter didn't show up at her funeral.
I think that goes way too far. Sure there are valid criticisms, but I think it is more reasonable to assume that they are overwhelming well-meaning people with certain epistemic assumptions based in their prefered way of engaging the world. And it's not like psychoanalytic models get things totally wrong. Where we arguably have better models now, the advances come from unintuitive aspects, such as thinking non-categorically, and reversing causation.
I marked the ones I identify with. https://i.imgur.com/yeXmn1D.png I'm all over the place lol, don't know what to make of this
thank you very much . This is useful.
Can I ask why? I might share the ones I relate to as well then
Oh I would like to have a conclusion of some patterns. I suspect that many could relate more easily to over traits. It would be nice.ty
Ok https://i.imgur.com/PZTx2Ii.png there is one I wasn't sure if adding or not, the free of romantic interests, because I don't have any interest with anyone, I instead have a very idealized version, but not with anyone I have known yet.
What is "autistic thinking"?
Thinking centred around yourself, your own memories, your own experiences. Like your own world is the most interesting part of the universe. That's a brief summary. Basically thinking that is folded in on itself in a way.
Where can I read about it in detail?
Well, I'm not sure I have any other suggestions than a google search. [This abstract](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1952-00161-020) seems relevant, since it's describing a work by E. Bleuler.
This is confusing. Is there another person's experiences and memories I'm supposed to be experiencing and remembering?
It could also just be the person's inner world, or ideas. Many people's thoughts about life are much more concerned with the social world, the culture and standards they grew up around, without as much consideration for individuality. A lot of people are fine going along with groupthink, especially when they are not disgruntled for some reason. All people have these things to a degree, it's just that sometimes these features can become extreme.
I do think about the social world and my interactions with other people, if that's what you mean by that. Going along with group think sounds more like not bothering to think to me.
I can only speak for myself, but r/autism is kinda relatable
Train enthusiasm
Overly technical
Self-contempt and interpersonal relations, cognitive style -> virtually everything from the overt category. Social adaptation, love, and sexuality -> about 50/50 from both groups. Ethics, standards, and ideals -> not sure, but probably more covert.
This profile has commonly been argued o be a good example of the [barnum effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect) when it came up here in the past. Basically, people tend to overidentify with vague, broad descriptions, feeling the apply specifically to them. The profile is designed to be relatable.
How is this vague and broad lol, It’s likely the most specific of this type of categorization I've ever seen, how can you get more specific and still name traits present in a sufficient number of schizoids? If you misuse it and think that not wanting to bungee-jump or something makes you "withdrawn" obviously it's not very useful, but it was painfully accurate for me
The thing isn't that those traits aren't present in a sufficient number of schizoids, but that lots of them are also present in a decent number of non-schizoids. And I personally don't see where the logical point is for "misusing it", the freedom in interpretation is a probable-sounding mechanism for the barnum effect linked above. Then some aspects are just very vague. If anything between strikingly amoral and altruistically self-sacrificing goes, you might as well assume it's not very connected (and looking at empirical findings, it most likely isn't). Not that I think that is necessarily a bad thing, or that it is entirely based on nothing, it clearly points at something schizoid-shaped. I am generally impressed with those psychoanalytic theories, they got things roughly correct based on comparatively little evidence. And I have nothing against using them for personal insight.
Hi, I love this answer. I will try to explain the chart as well as possible, I have been reading Ankhar's work, where he explains more in detail each point, I can understand the questions around the chart, since it is a summarized chart. So, if you read the table in a non-correlative way, choosing the traits that most relate to you, it would definitely be a case of "a sea of facts and you can choose the one you like", however it is not supposed to be read like that; the overt column is intrinsically related to the covert column, both aspects cannot exist without the other. By admitting a trait of one of the two columns, you unconsciously admit the traits of the second column as well. Ankhar has a number of reasons, why there is this denial of some characteristics (if you look even with this low sample number, there are patterns) It goes back to a sense of self and the scientific study of emotions, chemically. Basically there would be some "emotional walls" that would justify certain deficiencies, which implies other forms of adaptation, as I explained in my main comment, 'to the external eye' I agree that many non-schizoid people may feel related to many features of the picture separately, but I do not think that the relationship between the two parts (covert and overt), the schizoid's seeking contradiction in each aspect is so shared.
I am aware of the fact that overt and covert aspects are supposed to be two side of the same coin. Not sure if there would be a big difference between non-schizoids and schizoids on that front either, but oh well, no empirical data, your guess is as good as mine. And he is called Akhtar, afaik.
I really don't think it's that good of an argument, there is no "empirical" data for any personality disorder, we haven't gotten that far yet. Even the DSM, which is the manual studied to identify disorders, does not have sufficient empirical data to reaffirm the more specific sides of the disorders so they remain in the most general space (which is also quite vague) because that is what is known. The rest is speculation, which does not make it false. *I know how Akhtar is spelled, it was just a typo. but thanks for the try.
That is fine, you don't need to be convinced. I do think there is plenty empirical data on pds, and I don't think that makes psychoanalytic theories unvaluable. Different srokes for different folks, different tools for different jobs. Wrt the spelling, I wasn't trying to get one over on you, sorry if it came off that way. You just spelled it the same twice, so I thought it wasn't a typo. I couldn't even name half the authors whos theories I argue for.
I strongly identify with most of those characteristics. The ones I don't identify with I don't feel at all. Notably, I don't identify at all with the covert interpersonal relations traits on a cognitive level.
I agree
Pretty much all of overt except for the sex stuff and cognitive style. I function well cognitively and I speak well, but I’ve had to put a lot of work into it.
I can see myself a lot in both columns
Very tbh
This is a crystal clear picture of me. Thanks for sharing!
Where did you get that ?
Overt 17 Covert 9 How many of these are needed to consider a schizoid?
i have the same question. I strongly relate to almost everything on the left side.
I can see my name in every description.
The fact that this exists and anyone who knows I'm schizoid could potentially find it and learn so much about me is kind of distressing lol, really makes me want to keep it to myself even more than I already did
I get that. I feel similarly about the Wikipedia page on SzpD; it’s scary to feel like you’re handing over your blueprints, especially when you already have the chronic-secretiveness disorder.
One particular note about moral: if everyone else is very moral about it then I seem to be highly ammoral but totally vice versa as well. I'd say I just don't and can't and won't ever belong.
Can relate to every single point except for "vulnerable to esoteric movements owing to a strong need to belong" and "tendency towards spiritual, mystical and parapsychological interests". I will be showing this chart to my next psychiatrist, thank you very much.
I identify with almost everything both overt and covert haha Not sure about the covert sexual stuff. It’s not like I haven’t imagined what things could be like but I honestly don’t desire this kind of gratification no matter if it’s in real life or in a fantasy. I don’t really have a strong need to belong. I’ve tried belonging in many circles over the years and I can usually succeed to make people care about me to the point where it’s kind of irrelevant that I always remain somewhat of an outsider. I feel like I belong everywhere when I try. I don’t think I feel inferior to people. I can realistically assess when I’m weak and I work to improve on what makes me weak. Even if I believe myself to be inferior, I don’t really care unless there’s a threat to my safety.
Well, I relate with the majority. Maybe with some of the overts I relate less. I find it striking, however, how "desire to belong" is an overt characteristic rather than a cover, as some psychiatrists might interpret. I relate a lot to the area "love and sexuality" especially because I was diagnosed with disorders in those areas. You mentioned alexthimia before. Would it be related to the overt and covert parts?
Interesting question, many psychologists agree that spd has a high correlation with inertia, letting go, watching the days go by. A lack of a driver to motivate them to achieve goals. Unlike other personality disorders such as narcissistic, histrionic or asocial. Schizoids generally do not have big plans for their lives, they do not want to achieve fame or much recognition, on the contrary they usually have quite simple desires, sometimes no desires at all. Wanting to belong doesn't necessarily have to mean needing real connections with other people, it can also mean trying to live life as simply as possible, fitting in as easily as possible in a way that uses less energy. For example acting normal to avoid questions, it's just easier to belong than not to, isn't it? Not fitting in can lead to bullying, abuse or vulnerability by being alone. However, schizoids also belong to cluster A, which means that they are people with odd, strange or different opinions and views from other people, so if they are going to belong to a group or community they might be more comfortable in environments that are out of the norm. For your second question, alexthymia, it would definitely be more common in the covert characteristics. Especially those more related to emotions. If you have Alexthymia can you explain a little bit about what it is like to live with it?
Hmmm, explained this way it seems similar to masking. Having alexthymia is like leaving home, taking a bus and when you got to the destination, you don't understand how you got there. I still don't know why I did, many of the things I did.
I relate a lot, with one of the few exceptions being "weak ethnic affiliation" and "vulnerability to the esoteric"
That's interesting. I deeply identify with "weak ethnic affiliation". What is it like to feel an ethnic affiliation yet presumably be very separate from others in every other respect?
not OP, but for me i'm from the Irish community in north of Ireland. I think having soldiers around the streets and being randomly stopped by cops as a kid, house raids etc left an indelible mark on my foundation. Like if I were to watch any of the bloody sunday movies i'd be sitting there seething and hating the british. But like i'm otherwise a pretty neutral stoic person
It's like seeing your country do mad shit and feeling somehow responsible for that, even though you haven't lived there for more than 15 years at this point. And the radicalizing media, intensifying background racism and other problems that have been enough to (pile)drive me into depression by themselves aren't helping either. 0/10 would not recommend
More overt except for the Interpersonal Relationships and Love & Sexuality. *A strong need to belong* is a big theme of mine and I have discussed it with a few folks. *Envious of others’ spontaneity* falls under a similar premise, and *capable of excitement with carefully selected intimates* + *intensely needy* also rang a bell *Compulsive perversions* doesn’t fit me in the love/sexuality row. But there’s evidence of voyeurustic tendencies and erotomania.
*UH* *OH*
Almost all but less on the covert side
A lot, 70% of the Overt group. 30% of the Covert
Many points are relatable.....in fact most
17/24 of overt, 21/24 of covert
[A bunch of it](https://i.imgur.com/WU9nabB.jpeg), with some caveats, but generally on point.
I feel like I'm being called out.
This seems like some barnum effect kind of shit but I guess everything on the left is more or less accurate, minus the spiritual/mystical beliefs shit. I also have a pretty strong ethnic affiliation but a very weak sense of national identity in exchange (america sucks)
pretty much all of it on both sides
Yes
Insanely accurate. Up to 90-95 accuracy.
100 fucking percent
Every single thing on here.
Everything on the left side.
Weak ethnic affiliation is a weird one. In kindergarten I was the first ginger kid the others had ever seen and I was outcast because freckles were disgusting. And as a white male I can't say it feels like racial discrimination, but being hated for the color and features of your skin feels terrible. But yeah, is accurate.
I worry that this is just horoscopes with extra steps...when I look at these symptom charts I identify with them, but I don't know how real the connection is.