Share an Essay with a Friend!

anyone who learns any latin american history; knows all of that as a basis. Anything that ever mentions Che, will tell you the basics that I included. There is no specific information.

It is actually a 3rd year history class. I believe "The New York Times" is considered by most accounts, a valid news origination. Also; if you read my statement about the internet conversation; you know that it is an internet conversation because I include that it is an internet conversation. You can take from it what you will; and any presumptions that may come with that. It is properly introduced though.

Our project is not to give a generic textbook reiteration of someone from history that anyone can google in seconds. We have to take a unique outlook on a person or event from history; and present it as something... worth reading... We learned about Che in class; why on earth should i copy/paste that back to her?

The article this paper discusses is "Counterparts or Double Lives?" by David Lewis which was originally published in On the Plurality of Worlds by David Lewis if you are interested.


Accidents Happen


In arguing in favor of counterpart theory to explain modality across possible worlds, David Lewis rejects the simplest account of a genuine overlap of worlds. While an overlap theory has some advantages, it fails in one important aspect which he calls accidental intrinsics. Lewis claims that an overlap theorist cannot account for these properties differing across possible worlds, while other theories, like his own counterpart theory, face no such problem. Lewis is exceptionally thorough in his objections and possible escapes for an overlap proponent. It seems difficult to disagree with Lewis in his rejection of overlap theory and it is no surprise that few have taken up the position to defend it. However, I do not think overlap theory can be put to the wayside and that it can avoid the problem of accidental intrinsics in the de re way that Lewis believes it must.


Overlap theory is the most direct explanation for the existence of identical individuals across possible worlds. At first glance, it seems attractive as it coincides with most of our intuitions and goals when talking about possible worlds. When using possible worlds we try to explain what might have happened in our world if it was a little bit different. Using Lewis’ example of Hubert Humphrey, we might try to consider if it could be possible that he won the presidential election instead of Nixon. When doing this though, we are trying to explain if the Hubert Humphrey of our world could have won the election, not some other representative Humphrey in some other world (though this is the information by which we try to conclude that it is possible for our Humphrey to have won). The reason overlap theory is sympathetic to our intuition is because it states that Humphrey himself does win in that other world. In the overlap theory, the Humphreys of other worlds do not merely represent our Humphrey and vice versa but he is in fact the same as part of each world; he is the overlap of the worlds. Other theories have the problem of showing how the Humphrey of another world can relate his modal properties to the Humphrey of our world. Overlap theory avoids this problem because the Humphrey of the other world is the same as the Humphrey of our world. Lewis does agree that some forms of genuine overlap are possible but claims that the case of overlap for the individual is not because it cannot account for the difference among intrinsic properties of that individual across worlds.


Lewis finds fault in overlap theory because of its inability to account for what he calls accidental intrinsics. First, we should distinguish which properties fall under accidental intrinsics. Lewis separates properties into two categories intrinsics and extrinsics. One way to define extrinsics are as properties an individual has that can be defined as relations to other things in the world. Examples of these types of properties would include wearing a coat, owning a cat, being popular, living on a planet with nine moons and other properties of that nature. Extrinsic properties of an individual differing between worlds presents no problem for the overlap theorist because they are not properties the individual has of himself but has only in relation to his specific world. Lewis also separates intrinsics into two groups: accidental and essential. Essential intrinsics would include Humphrey being a man, a property which is essential to Humphrey being Humphrey. For these types of proprieties, Lewis also sees no problem because they cannot differ across other worlds. If in some other world Humphrey were not a man then he is also no longer Humphrey, those worlds could not exist according to Humphrey’s essential property of being a man in our world. Where Lewis sees a problem is in accidental intrinsics, properties that Humphrey has not in any relation to anything else, but are not essential to being Humphrey. Lewis says that properties like size, shape, and composition fall into this category. Humphrey could have been taller or could have had six fingers. Lewis claims that it cannot be possible if it is Humphrey himself in both worlds to have five fingers at one and six fingers at another. How could the same individual have both five fingers and six fingers? It does seem like a glaring contradiction and a problem for the overlap theorist. Lewis attempts to solve this contradiction for the overlap theorist but each solution either conflicts with overlap to start or fails to treat intrinsic properties they way Lewis thinks they should be treated. Lewis says there is no intelligible way to account for these differences and for that reason rejects an overlap theory of this kind.


There are at least two ways in which an overlap theorist could respond to Lewis’ arguments, one of which I prefer. The first response could deal with an objection Lewis already dismissed, albeit, rather quickly. The overlap theorist could still argue that what Lewis calls accidental intrinsics are just relations no different from other extrinsic properties, i.e., there are no accidental intrinsics. While I do think there is an argument to be made for this case, I will not make it for two reasons. I think it is the weaker of the two arguments and believe that it could not convince Lewis to change his position on accidental intrinsics. He seems to be against calling these properties relations even though he knows how to if he wanted to do so. Instead, the overlap theorist could give Lewis his accidental intrinsics, which do seem reasonable enough (simply, the idea that there are properties an individual can have that are not essential but are not relations to other things as well), but claim that they are unimportant. Lewis sees these differences of accidental intrinsics among the same individual as unintelligible but they are intelligible if we look at them from the correct perspective. Using Lewis’ ideas about endurance and perdurance we will be able to see how an individual can possess differing accidental intrinsic properties.


Lewis says that something perdures if and only if it persists through time by having different temporal parts at different times, without one part of it being wholly present at more than one time. On the other hand, something endures if and only if it persists by being wholly present at more than one time. Lewis sees this relationship of perdurance and endurance as being analogous with counterpart theory and overlap theory, respectively. However, this is not the case overlap theory is not simply a theory of endurance as Lewis makes it out to be. Instead, overlap theory is the special mixed case of endurance and perdurance that Lewis mentions, but chooses to ignore in his discussion of the two. I do not think he does this for devious reasons, only for the fact that it does not seem to be part of what he wants to discuss. Nonetheless, it is this special case that allows overlap theory to survive the problem of accidental intrinsics.


Let us start with Lewis’ example of a road that perdures through space. Part of the road is in one place and another part of it is at another place, however, there is no part that is wholly present at two different places. In the same way, an individual perdures through time. At each temporal stage, an individual is different from what he was before and what he might be in the future; there are never two points in which he is exactly the same. This can be for various reasons, we might grow taller, or gain some weight, or the molecules that make up our bodies can come and go. There are many ways in which we are constantly changing and it would seem foolish to say that we endure throughout time. However, there is a real sense in which we do endure. The properties that are essential to our being endure throughout time and space, if they did not they would not be essential properties. We would no longer be the same individual from one moment to the next. That is how we can say that our Humphrey before he lost the election is the same as our Humphrey after he lost the election. Time has past and some extrinsic and well as accidental intrinsic properties have changed for Humphrey but we still want to be able to call him Humphrey. The good news is that we can call him Humphrey because he is essentially the same individual from one moment to the next; it is through these properties that we are able to identify Humphrey because it is through these properties that he maintains his identity.


For example, say Humphrey at some time has five fingers on his right hand. However, at some later time, he is involved in a lawnmower accident and now only has four fingers on his right hand. I do not think that anyone would want to say that the Humphrey with four fingers is not Humphrey at all or that the Humphrey with five fingers is not the same individual as Humphrey with four fingers. The question becomes how we are able to say that the Humphreys are the same. Is it because Humphrey perdures through time and the five finger part is present at one time while the four finger part is present at another though there is no other time where those parts are wholly present. Alternatively, is it that Humphrey has somehow endured from the time that he was five-fingered to the time that he was four-fingered through his essential properties. I claim that it is the later case because if it were the first we would not have Humphrey at either time, rather, we would have a part of Humphrey. In the same way, the road perdures through space where different parts make up the whole of the road, Humphrey would perdure through time never being wholly present at anytime, only being the summation of his different parts through time. In the same way that our Humphrey can endure through time in our world, in the face of his different accidental intrinsics, the other possible world Humphreys can endure in face of their different accidental intrinsics. I think Lewis should agree with the fact that the essential properties of Humphrey endure, he says himself that there is no way Humphrey can be anything but a man in another possible world as it is essential to him being Humphrey. However, it is through his essential properties the same Humphrey can exist in other possible worlds, and therefore, have the same modal properties no matter how accidental his other properties.


It seems even simpler that to say that our Humphrey exists on a possible world with different accidental intrinsics, since we also say that our Humphrey exists on this world with varying accidental intrinsics. If the Humphrey of this world is not a contradiction to himself then why is the same Humphrey of a different world a contradiction to the Humphrey of our world? It seems that it is not a contradiction at all because some parts of Humphrey perdure while the other essential parts endure. While some parts of Humphrey constantly change, it is never the case that Humphrey essentially changes. In this way, the overlap theorist can claim that accidental intrinsics is a non-issue. These ideas are appealing in two ways. First, is that it keeps the model of representation of possible worlds genuine. This means that when we find the Humphrey of another world we can easily relate the modal properties of that Humphrey to the ones of the Humphrey of our own world. Secondly, by recognizing the essential endurance of Humphrey across possible worlds, it keeps the goal in talking of possible worlds in focus. By this, I mean that if the essential parts of Humphrey did not maintain across worlds then there would be no point in discussing possible worlds, as there would be worlds in which anything was possible (unless Humphrey himself was an essential part of some whole, just as if the property of being a man is essential to Humphrey then that property cannot change from world to world). There would be worlds were Humphrey was a dolphin or he was a dog. However, these are not the possibilities we want to discuss when using possible worlds. These reasons give a legitimate appeal to accepting an overlap theory. When we define Humphrey across worlds, we do not look at his accidental parts because these properties change not only across worlds but also in our own. Humphrey’s identity lies within his essential properties no matter how accidental he might be.

The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and How it Affects Our Understanding of the Universe if True.
Daniel R. Rahim
University of Houston
daniel.themaster@gmail.com
December 7, 2010
ABSTRACT
This is an in-depth exploration of the many facets of the Many Worlds Interpretation. This includes a comparative analysis against other competing interpretations of Quantum Mechanics and among the many different interpretations of the Many Worlds Interpretations itself including the Relative States Approach. This will underline the various strengths and weaknesses offered by the Many Worlds Interpretation. The philosophical argument behind the meanings of the probability measurements in the Many Worlds Interpretation will be examined in great detail. Possible experiments are discussed which could determine the truth of the Many Worlds Interpretation.

One of the main problems with the Schrodinger Equation, which is the basis of all Quantum Mechanics, is the discrepancy between what is shown by the Wave Equation and what is observed. The Wave Equation shows a linear combination of several different states. The traditional approach is to say the wave function collapses in a sense upon observation. This theory is unsatisfactory for several reasons to many scientists. The inclusion of the observer is a complication that is not fully understood nor explained. The observable result of a quantum mechanical measurement is a single one of the elements of the linear combination. This is explained by the Many Worlds Interpretation as a splitting of the event into two simultaneous events.
For simplicities sake take the following example. Observer A is going to measure the spin of an Electron. The spin of the Electron can be either one of two separate results. The Electron is either Spin Up or Spin Down. The calculated wave function says the electron is in neither Spin Up or in Spin Down but is in a linear combination of Spin Up and Spin Down. Instead of proposing a collapse of the wave function when Observer A measures the spin of the Electron, the Many Worlds Interpretation assumes that both states are observed by Observer A.
This seems contrary to reality, as anyone who recalls experiences of measuring quantum mechanical events will not recall two discrete measurements, but will have one measurement. This is where the Many Worlds Interpretation comes. Every quantum mechanical measurement causes will cause a creation of different relative states. For Observer A State One will involve noticing the spin of the Electron as Spin Up. State Two for Observer A will be where he notices the spin of the Electron is Spin Down.
This interpretation seems to imply that every single quantum mechanical measurement will cause the world to split and with all this splitting there will be “Many” Worlds making up the Universe or existence. Here is a basic split in the interpreting the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. The discrete splitting of worlds upon measurement is one approach. Another approach does not treat the splitting as discrete but the entire interaction between the measurement and the observer as a continuous event. That is the difference between an integral and discrete sum of events. A better way to describe it would be instead of having several different “worlds” there is only one world. The Observer A is still singular as is the Electron being observed. The difference is how the Observer is treated. The Observer is treated as a superposition of states, much as a quantum mechanical system is treated.
The idea behind this is that the observer does not change the entire world just by being an observer. The states present in the Electron are still present whether or not Observer A measures the spin of the electron or not. This may seem problematic at first. Normally Observers are not thought of as being able to hold several different states at once. But since particles are able to hold several different states, it stands to reason that there is no logical reason that the Observer is in a superposition of several different states at the same time. That is to say that Observer A upon measuring the Electron is in a Superposition of states of having received a reading of a Spin Up Electron and a Spin Down Electron.
This second idea of Many Worlds Interpretation known as the Relative State Solution contains many advantages. The first is that it does not imply innumerably many worlds. This is very important form a physical sense. There is a relative conservation of both matter and energy. When compared to the first Many Worlds Interpretation which implies a multiplication of the entire “world” which would entail the creation of an entire set of objects including the observer the apparatus and the system being observed. This could include the creation of an entire new universe. This is logically as well as energetically unfavorable.
Instead, the Relative State model contains only one world. Furthermore, it does not imply the multiplicity of objects and systems. There is only one system and only one set of objects. In this case Observer A and the Electron are singular. The greatest flaw that is the continuous method does not require the actual splitting to occur. The splitting of worlds to occur at a discrete event is confusing, because determining the moment of split is logically difficult. There are two possible times when the “world” would possibly split. The first would be when the device measures the result as Spin Up or Spin Down when the Observer A reads the result of Spin Up or Spin Down.
This interpretation does not take into account probability and how things are empirically measured. This is of great importance, as when a measurement of a quantum mechanical events are measured, both the Spin Up and Spin Down are not measured as in the case of the Electron and Observer A. Only one measurement will yield one result. Thus does not make sense in the classical sense as both results occur in different “worlds.” Another approach is needed to address the problem of probability. A separate definition of probability is needed that is separate from the classical Born Interpretation.
The classical view of probability is that the probability of an event is the chance an event will occur. In the context of the Many Worlds Interpretation all events with a non-zero quantum probability not only will occur, MUST occur. This is inherently confusing, because then all events that can possibly occur will have a one hundred percent probability of occurring whether it be in the “world” or in some other world. This is useless for testing or for interpreting any quantum mechanical experimental results. Thus the definition of probability must be altered to only include events that only occur in the “true reality.”


This is explained by an extension of the theory of the Many Worlds Interpretation. But first some jargon associated with the Many Worlds Interpretation must be defined. A “branch” will be defined as any possible set of quantum mechanical events that occur linearly with respect to time in a “world.” There are two varieties of branches. The first is the “a-typical” branch and the second is the “typical” branch. The typical branches are those that carry events that are more classically probable. That implies that events that are more probable create more branches. A-typical branches show the quantum mechanical events that are less probable as a whole. This diminishing probability is a result of creating fewer worlds.
Here it is prudent to point out that the branching of worlds is not limited to the number of quantum mechanical outcomes to an event. That is to say that in our trivial example of Observer A measuring the spin of the Electron, there may be several, whether innumerable finite or infinite branches. This means there could be multiple “worlds” that are essentially identical with “Spin Up” or “Spin Down.” All of these conclusions are drawn from the assumption that the existence that the observer is currently experiencing is in a “typical” branch.
It is important to remember in this reference that the view of Many Worlds Interpretation here is the Relative State model. That is to say that there is only a single set of objects in a superposition of states. This may seem counter intuitive since the concepts of “branches” were introduced, but the “branches” merely imply the superposition of several similar states.
Another theory about the probability and its applications to Many Worlds Interpretation comes from the concept of decoherence. Upon introducing a sample to be measured to the measuring apparatus a phenomena known as decoherence occurs. Decoherence is cited as above as the collapse of the wave function. This collapse is seen normally as the loss of a wave function which implies a mixed state of all possible outcomes of the wave equation become only a single outcome when measured. This theory states after decoherence takes place the observer with his measuring tools is only able to observer the decoherent states of the universe for an infinitesimal amount of time before the other branches collapse into one branch. This implies that probability does exist as to determine which branch the world as seen by the observer will collapse. This is distinctly different from the previously discussed view as that view does not suggest a collapse of the other branches, but a continued existence of all branches simultaneous.
To successfully test Many Worlds Interpretation and differentiate its truth from other interpretations of quantum mechanics like the Copenhagen Interpretation is extremely tricky and has yet to be successful done. There are, however, several formulations on how such an experiment could be in fact done. One such experiment relies on a traditional view of the Many World Interpretation that states that the different dimensions and worlds of the Many Worlds Interpretation are never complete. There continues to be resonance between the worlds no matter how long ago the separation is. This resonance no matter how small should be in principle is measureable.
The idea behind such an experiment would be to find a small quantum mechanical system that could be easily isolated. Once such a system is isolated introduce a measurement or another quantum mechanical event that would cause decoherence to occur due to the Many Worlds Interpretation. One way to do this is by creation of gateway states. A gateway state would involve the capture of a quantum mechanical particle that can be measured. The particle must then be treated differently with the results for the experiment.
For example, if a particle is trapped and measured from our initial example an electron is Spin Up release it, if found to be Spin Down the particle would have to remain trapped. In theory, there would be a resonating between the two states. The problem with this is technical. The decoherence time for these events is so short that it becomes a mechanical problem of developing fast enough acting traps and measures to be able to measure the release and the spins of the particles quickly enough.
If this were true this method would be able to transmit information between different worlds. True it could now only be visualized as resonating small photons and other quantum mechanical molecules, but in theory depending on the thus unto unproven and untested decoherence times much larger packets could be passed along.
The implications could be enormous as areas of quantum computing would become highly viable. Space would become much less of a limiting factor. The area under which the information could pass through would be nearly infinitesimal. But potential the computing could be carried out in separate worlds increasing the power many fold depending on how many worlds a system can clearly resonate with without creating too much noise.
Several experiments already run along this principle have failed to show evidence of the Many Worlds Interpretation. One particular experiment done by Dr. Paul Bruney used time translation to show the effect of the Many Worlds Interpretation3. The idea is to cause “superposed time dilations” in protein molecules. After this is carried out in identical strips of protein, the time shifts produced can be measured. These shifts are caused by quantum tunneling of the electrons in the bonding situations. The molecules used for this experiment were long strands of RNA with distinct base pairs, this way the different bonding environments could be measured. These experiments showed no conclusive evidence of the Many Worlds Interpretation like all other experiments.
Though there is little evidence (apart from the measurement of decoherence which is discussed above) to establish Many Worlds Interpretation as the leading interpretation of quantum mechanics, there is also no evidence as to rule it out completely as a theory yet. The main weakness of the theory is that it “does not appear to be experimentally falsifiable” (sign). Logically unless “other worlds” can be somehow disproved, it will remain among the most important assumptions as it continues to explain the apparent “collapse” of the wave function under observation.
├ ψ〉→├ ψ_n 〉
This is where ψ represents the universal wave function and ψ_n represents one value that the function can assume, where the transformation is caused by observation or measurement of any kind.
Conclusion
The Many Worlds Interpretation is one of the competing theories of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The theory stipulates that the collapse of the wave function is an illusion. The “world” that we experience is one of all the possible worlds that exist. With each quantum mechanical measurement or event the world is in fact splitting along every single possible outcome of the aforementioned quantum mechanical event. This provides a large number of universes or worlds. Furthermore, it creates question as to why the experienced world collapses so well onto one single world. However, the logic of the argument is airtight as to testing the Many Worlds Interpretation is more than elusive. There has been no solid evidence in support of the theory besides the existence of decoherence.
References
1. Albert, David; Loewer, Barry. Interpreting the Many Worlds Interpretation. Synthese. [Online] 1988, 77, 195-213.

2. Ben-dov, Yov. Everette’s Theory and the Many-Worlds Interpretation. American Journal of Physics. [Online] 1990, 58, 829-833.

3. Bruney, Paul. A Test For The Many Worlds Interpretation? . Modern Physics Letters B. [Online] 2010, 24, 627-640.

4. Everett, Alan. Time travel paradoxes, path integrals, and the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Physical Review D. [Online] 2004, 69, 747-766

5. Hemmo, Meir; Pitowsky, Itamar. Quantum Probability and Many Worlds. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. [Online] 2007, 38,333-350.

6. Plaga, R. On a Possibility to find Experimental Evidence for the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Foundations of Physics. [Online] 1997, 27, 559-577.

7. Schafir, R. L. Nonlocality in the Many-Worlds and Consistent-Histories Interpretations. Foundations of Physics. [Online] 1998, 28, 157-166.

8. Singh, T. P. Quantum Measurement and Quantum Gravity: Many Worlds or Collapse of the Wave Funciton. Journal of Physcis: Conference Series. 2009. 174. 1-19.

9. Vaidman, Lev. On Schizophrenic Experiences of the Neutron or Why We Should Believe in the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science. [Online] 1998, 12, 245-261.

10. Werbos, Pual J. Bell’s Theorem, Many Worlds and Backwards-Time Physics: Not Just a Matter of Interpretation. International Journal of Theoretical Physics. [Online] 2008, 47, 2862-2874.

keep in mind this hasn't been edited yet, but since everyone else is posting i might as well not be greedy

but if someone is willing to proof read it for grammar i will suckk your penis no charge... no pun intended... jk there was a pun intended.

I'll proof read it later when I get home tonight for all that Charge, actually I'm quite intrigued to read it after my hellish Latin study session. Quantum Mechanics is something I've always wanted to read about anyways

lol im gonna submit it for peer review again at midnight, so unless you can proof the grammar in the next 3.5 hours its useless... though this article may interest you a bit.

i don't need perfect grammar but it means i can proof it less when i submit it as part of a grant application in the spring

Damn, I got back to my girlfriends like a half hour to late bro sorry. I'll give it a read later if you don't need anything tonight, and I'll let you know what I think .

nahhh im just sending it as the first part of a proposal to a research group in Austin, i chopped off the begining because i felt like it is the only think someone could potentially use in the future

a short meta-analysis on the schizoid personality disorder.
i had to write this for my psychopathology class.
it may have some mistakes, i still need to review it one or two more times before handing it in.
its not the greatest. it was kind of a rush job

Eugen Bleuler first used the term schizoid to refer to people who were “shut in, suspicious, and comfortably dull, while simultaneously sensitive and in pursuit of vague purposes”. (Thylstrup & Hesse, 2009, 148) Patients with schizoid personality disorder have a nature is contradictory to human traits fostered for thousands of years; (Lenzenweger, 2010) A nature with one purpose, survival. (Mill, 2004) a discussion of the various aspects of Schizoid personality disorder that have fascinated so many researchers is given. The three main areas discussed are where, how schizoid personality disorders occur, aspects of schizoid personality disorder that are included in the DSM, and the aspects of schizoid personality disorder that are unique to the articles researched.
Occurrence
The occurrence of a schizoid personality disorder is relatively rare. The APA reports that schizoid personality disorder prevalence is less than one percent. (Thylstrup & Hesse, 2009) Similar studies found, the prevalence of schizoid personality disorder in America to be over three percent. (Thylstrup & Hesse, 2009) Between three and four percent of children referred to one psychiatry department were diagnosed as having schizoid personality disorder. (Wolfe & Barlow, 1979) Other recent studies found that 1.4 percent of people have schizoid personality disorder. (Lenzenweger & Willet, 2009) Although the occurrence of schizoid personality disorder is debateable, all researchers indicate that few people are diagnosed with it.
Gender differences were found within the people diagnosed with schizoid personality disorder. Two studies reported that males were diagnosed with schizoid personality disorder more often than females. (Lenzenweger & Willet, 2009) One study had nine times more boys than girls in their sample diagnosed with schizoid personality disorder. (Wolfe & Barlow, 1979)
There is no one cause for the presence of schizoid personality disorder. The presence of schizoid personality disorder is most likely a result of a number of factors. Factors that contribute to schizoid personality disorder are of deep interest to researchers studying the matter. One thing researchers have found is that schizoid personality disorder is more common among people who have relatives who have schizophrenia. (Thylstrup & Hesse, 2009) The behaviours that typically bring the disorder to the attention of parents include voluntary silence, suicide threats, stealing and refusing to go to school. (Wolfe & Barlow, 1979) One researcher found that, the severity of schizoid personality disorder is related to the severity of the verbal abuse parents subjected their children to. (Lenzenweger, 2010) The same researcher found that the presence of schizoid personality disorder is related to emotional neglect in childhood. (Lenzenweger, 2010) Indeed, there is evidence that some schizoid patients experience trauma in their infancy. (Reynaga, 2004) Furthermore, another researcher reinforced these theories; finding that, schizoid personality disorder is related to a childhood history comprised of negative parenting alcohol and drug dependence and depression and anxiety disorders. (Thylstrup & Hesse, 2009)
There are a few hypotheses for how abuse or neglect in childhood effects the development of a schizoid personality disorder. One researcher found that, when a parent abandons a child, an extreme form of grief sets in. This form of grief is termed abandonment depression. This may contribute to the development of schizoid personality disorder. (Kavaler-Adler, 2004) Mill proposes that, “ they are often so horrifically traumatized by their past that they kill themselves off—their inner experience—and don’t grant it a full life so they do not have to live with the pain and anxiety that threaten to torment their souls.” (2004, P. 320) The consequence of failed parenting is poor proximal process’, which effects the maturing affiliation system. (Lenzenweger, 2010) Lenzenweger hypothesized that a poor affiliation process may be associated with schizoid personality disorder. (2010) A more simple account for schizoid tendencies is that, depression has become so severe emotional numbing is necessary for schizoid patients. (Mill, 2004) Regardless of the lack of in depth knowledge on how schizoid personality disorder is onset, we can still make efforts to offset the possibility of our children acquiring schizoid personality disorder with one piece of information, poor nurturing performed by the mother and little affection is positively correlated to the number of schizoid features present in later development. (Lenzenweger, 2010, P. 869)
There are many examples of how a failure to provide good parenting can lead to the presence of the schizoid personality disorder. One patient with schizoid personality disorder reported feelings of unworthiness and dejection. (Kavaler-Adler, 2004) These feelings were found to stem from her childhood when her mother would abuse her. (Kavaler-Adler, 2004) She spoke of a mother who projected onto her. (Kavaler-Adler, 2004) The patient, as a result, developed a self that was sealed off from others; a self that avoided contact with others. (Kavaler-Adler, 2004) In the future, she would report expecting punishment, almost as if she were wishing it upon herself. She even admitted a compulsion to create the punishment. (Kavaler-Adler, 2004)
There are many conflicting opinions relating to the natural course of the schizoid personality disorder. Lenzenweger & willet report that symptoms of schizoid personality disorder, on average, decrease over time. (2009) Studies in the UK have reported an increase in schizoid features over time. (Lenzenweger & Willet, 2009) An optimistic research finding found, in the period between adolescence and the beginning of adulthood, schizoid features on average decrease forty seven percent. (Lenzenweger & Willet, 2009) This optimism is dampened by another research study which found that seventy five percent of children studied went on to develop schizotypal disorders in adulthood. (Wolfe & Barlow, 1979, P. 39) Another interesting finding relating to the course of schizoid personality disorder was that the presence of axis I disorders and treatment did not affect the rate of change in schizoid personality disorders (Lenzenweger & Willet, 2009). Research findings are clearly mixed. Some researchers find an increase in symptoms and others report significant decreases in symptoms. Clearly, more research is needed in this area.
Common Schizoid Symptoms
Patients with schizoid personality disorder have been reported as being without emotions, as if they are unable to feel. (Mill, 2004) Indeed, the impression of this coldness often has many negative repercussions on the social environment they live in. One patient with schizoid personality disorder was described as a loner with very poor interpersonal skills. (Loza & Hanna, 2006) He never showed anger or joy. (Loza & Hanna, 2006) Parents with children diagnosed with schizoid personality disorder describe them as distant, missing emotion and bizarre. (Wolfe & Barlow, 1979, P. 30) This definition must have created some distance between them. People often view them as being cold because of their apparent lack of emotions. (Lenzenweger & Willet, 2009) One patient’s husband would even accuse her of being unable to empathize with his concerns. (Kavaler-Adler, 2004)
Self-reports of their emotionless attitude include descriptions of feeling disconnected with the various parts of ones being. (Kavaler-Adler, 2004) A patient with schizoid personality disorder reported feelings of coldness inside. (Kavaler-Adler, 2004)She reported seeing the world as “stereotypic”. (Kavaler-Adler, 2004, P. 42) Schizoid behaviour allowed one patient to stay in command and preserve reserve in the face of any affect. (Kavaler-Adler, 2004)
One study compared the descriptions of schizoid children, autistic children and normal children. (Wolfe & Barlow, 1979)When describing their mothers, schizoid children described their clothing. (Wolfe & Barlow, 1979)When normal children describe their mothers, they describe her physical appearance and what she is doing. (Wolfe & Barlow, 1979)Schizoid children mentioned the mother’s emotion less than autistic and normal children. (Wolfe & Barlow, 1979) When describing others, children with schizoid personality disorder often comment on the objects in the background, the clothing of the subject and their appearance. (Wolfe & Barlow, 1979) Normal children often commented on how the subjects presented in the photographs were feeling. (Wolfe & Barlow, 1979) These findings are consistent with current knowledge about the emotionality of patients with schizoid personality disorder.
One strong feature of schizoid personality disorder is the stunning lack of interpersonal relationships experienced by people diagnosed with it. (Lenzenweger, 2010) Affiliation and interpersonal relationships are a basic component of humanity. Schizoid patients lack competence in this very basic area. (Lenzenweger, 2010) Indeed, many researchers have expressed this finding in their works. With this in mind, we can assume that Children with schizoid personality disorder often behave inappropriately in social situations because they lack empathy and sensitivity for others. (Wolfe & Barlow, 1979) Another interesting point, one patient with schizoid personality disorder was unaware that he had very poor communicative skills. (Thylstrup & Hesse, 2009)
People with Schizoid personality disorder are, on average, more isolated than a normal person. This is reflected in how patients with schizoid personality disorder often prefer solitary activities to group activities. (Geiser & Lieberz, 2000) This isolation is the source of conflict for some people with schizoid personality disorder. One person with schizoid personality disorder reported remarkable alienation from her husband. (Kavaler-Adler, 2004) In addition, a result of this isolation, patients with schizoid personality disorder tend to go unnoticed by many people. (Thylstrup & Hesse, 2
People with schizoid personality disorder are known to have very little inclination to partake in sexual activities. (Lenzenweger, 2010) It is odd but it seems patients with schizoid personality disorder lack any biological desire for any sexual contact. (Lenzenweger & Willet, 2009) This must have many negative repercussions for patients dealing with this disorder. One patient with schizoid personality disorder would meet women and have platonic dates. (Loza & Hanna, 2006) When they would offer sexual advances he would decline. (Loza & Hanna, 2006) These women must have found his reaction very odd. The same man, who ended up murdering his wife, had a girlfriend in prison. They never had any conjugal visits, even though they were available. (Loza & Hanna, 2006)
Odd Symptoms of Schizoid Personality Disorder
In contrast to the cold exterior that schizoid patients present to the world, the psychodynamic diagnostic manual points out those schizoid patients are highly sensitive, shy and easily over-stimulated. (Thylstrup & Hesse, 2009)They fear being close to others while wishing they had others. The emotional suppression is a defence caused by emotional pain resulting from overstimulation. (Thylstrup & Hesse, 2009) Indeed, it seems reasonable that people with schizoid personality disorder show, on the outside, a cool calmness while internally feeling sensitive and needy. (Thylstrup & Hesse, 2009) This is reflection in how, Days before murdering his wife, a man gave his wife wine and strawberries and took her to dinner. (Loza & Hanna, 2006) This example also shows that schizoid patients do feel empathy.
Schizoids have long been described as being detached and preoccupied with their inner world. (Loza & Hanna, 2006, P. 342-343) Indeed, it is evident that, for patients with schizoid personality disorder, there is “Difference between what occurs in the inner world and that which one displays in the outward appearance.” (Loza & Hanna, 2006, P. 342-343) One patient diagnosed with schizoid personality disorder reported living in a dissociated state, disconnected from her traumatic past. (Kavaler-Adler, 2004, P. 52) One researcher describes patients with schizoid personality disorder as “shut off and enveloped in a vacuum of solipsistic withdrawal and isolation, disengagement from the intersubjective world, and unfathomably loneliness.” (Mill, 2004, P. 320) As negative as this false detachment may seem, Winnicott saw the false self presented by SPD patients as serving the function of warding off external objects and beings that may threaten to invade the self. (Kavaler-Adler, 2004) Schizoid features are present in the myth of narcissus. The need for loneliness, or to maintain this inner world, conflicted with his need for adoration. ( 2006) He continually found women but could never find the perfect woman. ( 2006) This is until he found an image; a beautiful image that he projected his image of a perfect being onto. ( 2006) This image was so desirable to him because he is able to love the “being”, maintain his inner world and maintain his illusory perfect being. ( 2006) This is the view of Narcissus presented by Javanbakht. ( 2006)
Splitting is the tendency to view the world or objects as being either good or bad. There is no grey area when partaking in splitting. A study by Thylstrup and Hesse revealed that patients with schizoid personality disorder often partake in splitting when reasoning. (2009) These results are backed by mills research, which had identical findings. (2004) This habit can transfer to offspring and help create schizoid tendencies. Indeed, a mother of a schizoid personality disorder patient frequently engaged in splitting. (Kavaler-Adler, 2004)The patient absorbed this habit and found it to colour their perception of others and the environment. (Kavaler-Adler, 2004) A more extreme case of splitting in schizoid patients comes from a story of one man’s troubles rationalizing his world. After being criticized at work over a report he completed he sank into a depression and feared he would lose his job. (Loza & Hanna, 2006) To evade embarrassment he contemplated a murder suicide with him and his wife. (Loza & Hanna, 2006) Years later, after a similar incident and while fearing he had a physical illness, he murdered his wife. (Loza & Hanna, 2006)
People with schizoid personality disorder are more easily distracted than people who do not have this disorder. (Wolfe & Barlow, 1979, P. 43) One psychologist said that people with schizoid personality disorder seem to be preoccupied from within. (Wolfe & Barlow, 1979, P. 43) One study found, children diagnosed with schizoid personality disorder are more easily distracted than normal children. (Wolfe & Barlow, 1979) This may be the cause of another finding; the children with schizoid personality disorder were not doing well academically, although they were, compared to normal children, of average to superior intelligence. (Wolfe & Barlow, 1979) Schizoid patients are less successful in life than average people are. (Geiser & Lieberz, 2000) Research may be able to shed light on why this is. This is one reason further research into this area of schizoid personality disorder is needed.
Besides lacking in sociability and self-esteem, patients with schizoid personality disorder also appear to have dysfunctional memories. A patient with schizoid personality disorder reported that she had a very poor memory. (Kavaler-Adler, 2004) In addition, on a test of sentence recall ability, children with schizoid personality disorder scored significantly poorer than normal children. (Wolfe & Barlow, 1979) A poor memory could be the result of preoccupation with the inner world, characteristic of schizoid patients.
For people with schizoid personality disorder, therapy is a slow process. Schizoid personality disorder features change little over time and take a long time to treat. One patient had very little changes in schizoid personality disorder features over five years of treatment. (Kavaler-Adler, 2004) The slow process of therapy may be because schizoid personality disorder patients are not able to communicate their feelings to therapists. (Thylstrup & Hesse, 2009) It may also be due to the false body language and facial expressions schizoid patients present to the therapist and others. (Thylstrup & Hesse, 2009)
Three areas of the schizoid personality disorder were discussed. The first area, occurrence, was comprised of gender differences, the percentage of the population diagnosed with it, etiological factors and the natural course of studied cases of schizoid personality disorder. The second area, DSM factors, is comprised of factors of schizoid personality disorder that are emphasized in the DSM like lack of sexual desire, lack of emotion, lack of social skills and a tendency towards isolation. The third area, uncommon schizoid features, is comprised of features found common in the schizoid patients examined in studies. These features include distractibility, tendency towards splitting, the existence of an inner world, a slow change in symptoms and a capacity to feel. Because of the low rate of schizoid personality disorder in the general population, immediate research is not necessary. Although, because of the ambiguous results on the course of schizoid personality disorder, further research would be helpful in shedding light on the true course for an average schizoid personality disorder.









References
Barlow, A & Wolfe, S. (1979). SCHIZOID PERSONALITY IN CHILDHOOD: A COMPARATIVE
STUDY OF SCHIZOID, AUTISTIC AND NORMAL CHILDREN. Child Psychol. Psychiat., Vol. 20, 29-46.
Geiser, F & Lieberz, K. (2000). Schizoid and Narcissistic Features in Personality Structure Diagnosis.
Psychopathology, 33, 1, 19-24.
Hanna, S & Loza, W. (2006). Is Schizoid Personality a Forerunner of Homicidal or Suicidal Behaviour?
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Vol. 50, No. 3, 338-343.
Hesse, M & Thylstrup, B. (2009). “I am not Complaining”—Ambivalence Construct in Schizoid
Personality Disorder. The American Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol. 63, No. 2, 147-175.
Javanbakht, A. (2006). WAS THE MYTH OF NARCISSUS MISINTERPRETED BY FREUD?
NARCISSUS, A MODEL FOR SCHIZOID-HISTRIONIC, NOT NARCISSISTIC, PERSONALITY DISORDER. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 66, No. 1, 63-71.
Kavaler-Adler, S. (2004). ANATOMY OF REGRET: A DEVELOPMENTAL VIEW OF THE
DEPRESSIVE POSITION AND A CRITICAL TURN TOWARD LOVE AND CREATIVITY IN THE TRANSFORMING SCHIZOID PERSONALITY. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 64, No 1, 39-76.
Lenzenweger, M & Willet, J. (2009). Does change in temperament predict change in schizoid personality
disorder? A methodological framework and illustration from the Longitudinal Study of Personality Disorders. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 1211-1231.
Lezenweger, M. (2010). A source, a cascade, a schizoid: A heuristic proposal from The Longitudinal
Study of Personality Disorders. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 867-881.
Mills, J. (2004). STRUCTURALIZATION, BORDERLINEOPATHY, AND SCHIZOID PHENOMENA.
Psychoanalytic Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 2, 319-326.
Reynaga, G. (2004). Paranoid-Schizoid Loss. PsycCRITIQUES, 49(5), 631-632. doi:10.1037/004828.

dont mind if i do (control v's entire paragraphs onto paper for english)
Thank you(: lol

you do realize you have the grammar of territo; and are attempting to submit a college level paper... right?

im just joking glorn. and my grammers a hell of a lot better when im actually trying.

don't worry no one will suspect it of bieber

btw stomp your new name is bieber cause you look like him

CHARGEY CHARGEY NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THATS WORSE THAN TERRITO.... D:

i didn't tell you to look like beiber wearing V-necks and long hair whats done is done

noibaba;nagpnenlakjb. yeah well i have more points than you! :DD

don't care

stomp2anewbeat wrote:

noibaba;nagpnenlakjb. yeah well i have more points than you! :DD

haha epic fail on that argument. I believe its called fallacy. talking down to the person whos arguing against you doesnt make them any less wrong.

i never said he was wrong. i just didnt want to admit it.

beiber
beiber
beiber
beiber
beiber
beiber

=)

Beiber is a fucking disgrace to Canadians, please never refer to that prepubescent little bitch again. Thank You.

LOL even a cha forum ends up talking about beiber love em or hate em that little bitch gets his name across. Hmm this topic do bought term papers count? Because if it does I would love to submit my book report on green eggs and spam.

warning across the board.

DO NOT, talk bad about beiber in here!

Honestly, I though everyone way saying "beaver" for the longest time, and thought to myself, "Isn't that kid in his 40's by now?"