|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Sociology||(Rated Start-class)|
Having say that, I would certainly not want to make assocility looks as something 'positive'.
I want to raise the point that a formal definition of asociality is not given in the article page. A-social literary means not-social, and is the third option of being social, a-social or anti-social. Since social is a fuzzy concept which can have many senses, so is asocial.
Invoking a parallel to game theory, one may say a social individual places a positive value on being social, an asocial individual places no value (or a neutral value) on being social, and an anti-social individual places a negative value on being social.
Freethinkers can be considered asocial and/or amoral, because they place themselves above or outside social consensus and norms. This does however not mean they don't enjoy the company of other people.
I was trying to find a reliable definition of "asociality", and it seems like the term is used interchangeably with "social anhedonia". Would it be correct to equate the two? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
"A degree of asociality is routinely observed in introverts, while extreme asociality is observed in schizophrenia patients. In schizophrenia it is characterised by an inability to empathise, to feel intimacy with, or to form close relationships with others (Davidson & Neale 1994). Asociality has also been observed in individuals who have been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome and Autism, usually due to bullying and social discouragement in adolescence."
Why is there no mention of schizoid personality disorder in this article? Is this not an extreme form of asociality? I would think it is more relevant to mention than schizophrenia, as SPD is a disorder based around the lack of need to socialize, while in schizophrenia it seems to be more of a secondary symptom in an otherwise unrelated disorder. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)