Thank you so much for your response. I'll look into this. I'm copying your comment for reference. > I'll point out the related concept https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.

Thank you so much for your response. I'll look into this. I'm copying your comment for reference. > I'll point out the related concept https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=schizotypy https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=schizotypy which has quite a few papers in the research literature but the concept has not escaped into clinical practice. (e.g. there is a “schizotypal personality disorder” but it’s not used that often, I’m not quite sure if I want to say I have a PD, it seems it was used way too much in the former USSR) The classification is controversial, particularly it's not really clear that schizotaxia is something you have or don't have (taxonic) or whether it is something dimensional that you might have more or less of. Schizotaxia is believed to be a neurodivergence that is genetically determined, schizotypy is the personality organization that you get when you fail the Turing test in Kindergarten and get treated accordingly. See also https://www.amazon.com/Loners-Life-Path-Unusual-Children/dp/ https://www.amazon.com/Loners-Life-Path-Unusual-Children/dp/... This book comes the closest to telling a coherent story but it is completely bought into the taxonic approach https://www.amazon.com/Schizotypy-Schizophrenia-View-Experim https://www.amazon.com/Schizotypy-Schizophrenia-View-Experim... and he completely denies the possibility that you could find something positive in schizotaxia/schizotypy and also doesn't answer my emails. Other than that there are a few conference proceedings that have a few that is more balanced but muddier.