Proven Link Between Autism and Genius?

[Tally]

Many leading figures in the fields of science, politics and the arts have achieved success because they had autism, according to a leading psychiatrist. Michael Fitzgerald, Professor of Psychiatry at Trinity College, Dublin, claims the characteristics linked to autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) are the same as those associated with creative genius.

 

One of the reasons for this could be the fact that the disorders create people who are able to persist with one idea for huge periods of time - while those without the disorder would have long since moved on to another area of thought.

 

Prof Fitzgerald said: "Psychiatric disorders can have positive dimensions. I'm arguing the genes for autism and creativity are essentially the same. These produce people who are focused, don't fit into the school system and who often have poor social relationships.

 

"They can persist with one topic for 20-30 years without being distracted and they can produce in one lifetime the work of three or four other people."

 

Isaac Newton, he said, was known to work non-stop for three days without recognising day or night, often forgetting to eat, and Einstein worked in a patent office because he was too disruptive to get a university job.

 

Prof Fitzgerald revealed his beliefs at a Royal College of Psychiatrists' Academic Psychiatry conference in London where he argued that the link between ASDs, creativity and genius were caused by common genetic causes. "The genes for autism/Asperger's, ad creativity are essentially the same," he said.

 

"We don't know which genes they are yet or how many there are, but we are talking about multiple genes of small effect. Every case is unique because people have varying numbers of the genes involved."

 

Prof Fitzgerald's research involved comparing the characteristics of around 1,600 people he has diagnosed with ASDs and the known biographical details of famous people.

 

Prof Fitzgerald's book Genius Genes: How Asperger Talents Changed the World was published in 2007.

[Frangipani]

.

Edited May 24, 2008 by Frangipani

[Mumble]

OK, where shall I start with this ...

• We do not know that these 'leading figures' had autism
• In their generation society was very different and many of what we call features of ASDs would then be considered socially appropriate
• There are/were many 'leading figures' who don't/haven't been suggested to have ASDs
• The characteristics (at a genetic level) of ASDs may be associated with creativity - they will also be associated with many many other things, which have been left out here - he says we don't have the research, which is true, but research coming through at the moment supports a generalist genes theory in that the same genes are responsible for a variety of characteristics/aptitudes - picking out two and saying 'eureka' is rather misleading
• ASDs are not psychiatric disorders
• Not all creative people (and please define a creative person...) don't fit into school, have problems with social relations, etc.
• Not all autistic people don't fit into school, have problems with social relations, etc.
• Some non-creative and/or non-autistic people don't fit into school, have problems with social relations, etc.
• Producing in a lifetime the work of 3 or 4 other people - well what are we defining as the right 'amount' of work for one person? And how do you judge what is more work or compare work - if one person spends their whole life searching for one gene whilst someone else builds 300 houses, who has done 'more work'?
• At the beginning of the article he talks about 'creative genius', later on he talks about a link between ASDs and creativity and genius. What is a genius? What is the link he is actually proposing? Is it to something undefined which he has labelled 'creative genius' or is it to (again undefined) genius?
• Why compare people dx'ed today with past biographies? Not only is that a very poor comparison as you're comparing people existing in different times and with different social expectations (you can't read what someone did in the past in light of what we do today), but you're basing the whole hypothesis on speculation about the characteristics of one group, there is no comparison with the non ASD population either.

To read, yet again, and coming from a professor researching in the area, that by having an ASD dx we're going to be geniuses is one of the most unhelpful things, in my opinion, we can have. It negates the real difficulties people face on a day-to-day basis (and even promotes them as attractive characteristics), promoting unhelpful public stereotypes. And of course it never actually addresses the issue of what they mean by genius...

 

Tally, I don't know if the title is yours or the articles, but I think it's worth noting that this is far from a proven link. It, at best, is a hypothesis, and is more in the realms of speculation.

[Flora]

Mumble, wow what a well constructed response.

 

It irritates me when historical figures are deemed as having AS. It's all guess work and assumption, and even though a lot of history is based on reaching conclusions from available evidence, to make such a statement that 'so and so had AS because blah blah' is taking it a step further than I'm comfortable with. There may be evidence that points in that direction but I don't think it's helpful when it is stated as a definite. Unless there is chronicled evidence that something was absolute then it is all heresay.

 

I am never comfortable with the link between genuius and autism; not least because it creates a false impression of the condition and instills expectations and assumptions that could be potentially harmful.

 

Flora

[baddad]

Hi all/Mumble -

 

Hi mumble I agree the article is very speculative and makes some sweeping generalisations, and that this emphasis on one aspect of autism ('genius'/savantism) causes huge problems by propogating the stereotypes that already exist, but...

 

Certain patterns of behaviour (intense focus, social disinterest or periods of disengagement etc) are prevelant in autism and do 'match' with the behaviours of people - past and present - who epitomise 'genius' in their field of expertise. Additionally, if you look at todays autistic savants and the areas that they excel in (higher maths/engineering/music/science/art etc) they are exactly the same areas of achievement that describe those historical figures being speculated about...

 

Of course, we can't 'prove' that historical figures did or didn't have autism, so outside of that we can only speculate on the evidence that's left behind, but to overlook that 'anecdotal' evidence purely on the basis that it is anecdotal is inherently flawed too. To me, if something looks like a fish, and smells like a fish and behaves like a fish I'm willing to go along with the idea that it is a fish. Of course, if the opportunity exists to investigate and 100% confirm its 'fishiness' that's even better, but if for whatever reason that opportunity is denied us it seems reasonable to best guess on the basis of what is left... If you think about it, the only evidence we have that Jesus was 'a nice bloke' is anecdotal -there might be others who thought very differently, but didn't get their contributions accepted for inclusion in the final draft of his biography!

The fact that other historical 'geniuses' might not have shown autistic traits is again anecdotal - it could be that, as you say, their social networks were such that their 'autism' didn't stand out, or it could be that their biographies are incomplete. Of course, it could just be that they weren't

 

I agree that autism isn't a psychiatric condition - almost all the evidence suggests it is a neurological/physical 'difference' - but I think there's also plenty of evidence that for many it does have implications on mental health. While some of those implications undoubtedly arise because of social/external factors that doesn't seem to be the whole picture. These 'psychiatric' considerations (bi-polar disorders, schizophrenia, paranoia,OCD etc) also seem to be more prevelant in 'genius' personalities than in the general population. If you look at the acknowledged geniuses in almost any field their behaviours were often 'odd' enough to to the point of being remarked upon and recorded in some way.

 

I totally agree that it's unhelpful and damaging to focus repeatedly on this small 'subset' of autistic/potentially autistic people, and to make sweeping generalisations based on their abilities, but I also think it is useful and empowering to use that evidence to offset the far more widespread negative assumptions that abound surrounding autism. In the right hands, use of this 'sensational' information and speculation about autism is a powerful tool for creating wider understanding of the far bigger spectrum that exists.

 

 

[Flora]

The aspect of it that I have contention with is that they really do only focus on that one aspect, ie the intense interest and concentration that goes hand in hand with genius.

 

I have an older cousin who was a maths obsessive when he was younger. He gained o'level and A'level maths before he was 16, he was one track and had his whole career path planned and suceeded in becoming an elite accountant and is now retired as a multi millionaire at the age of 50. He was a bit of a local hero when he was a youngster (always in the papers and on the telly) and nothing swayed him from what he wanted to do.

 

However, he also has excellent social skills, a successful marriage, and even though is a bit quirky and apparently hard work and a bit of a handful as a child, there is nothing to suggest that he has AS. He's very intense, and does cause raised eyebrows amongst some family members but his behaviour is otherwise very NT.

 

Anyone looking at his history, without knowing or meeting him in person, could easily deduce that he has AS but because of his high abilities in areas that AS people tend to fall short in, I would say that he certainly does not.

 

Maybe this is a flaw in my character, because my experience of AS (me and my son) has coloured my perception in that for me, for sucess to be achieved in one area of my life, other areas have suffered; possibly because of being monotrophic, I can only focus on one thing at a time.

 

Flora (I'm probably talking utter bollox so sorry

[Mumble]

if you look at todays autistic savants and the areas that they excel in (higher maths/engineering/music/science/art etc) they are exactly the same areas of achievement that describe those historical figures being speculated about...

OK, but add those who have literature (oh, and serial killing - yep there's one of them in the lists) as an area of achievement, and I'm actually struggling to think of an area of achievement which falls outside of these categories in the ways that genius is classified. The very way that society constructs genius results in these areas being put forward.

 

To me, if something looks like a fish, and smells like a fish and behaves like a fish I'm willing to go along with the idea that it is a fish.

You clearly didn't see/smell my sock I had to extract from my foot after climbing last week ... :lol:

[Suze]

I think all the points raised by Mumble are valid ,and I agree with them,............stuff like that can lead to the old" Rainman" analogy if your not careful, ................my fear would be that the population of society who are,nt as involved in autism as we are ,would make the presumption that everyone with autism was a genius ........its the whole savant thing again.

[bid]

Well, the Boogley One at work did one of his strange Russian personality quizzes on me, and it came back saying I had a brain the size of a small solar system!

 

So I guess it's right!

 

Bid

[Mumble]

Well, the Boogley One at work did one of his strange Russian personality quizzes on me, and it came back saying I had a brain the size of a small solar system!

 

So I guess it's right!

:lol: But don't they say "it's not what you've got, but what you do with it, that counts"?

[baddad]

But don't they say "it's not what you've got, but what you do with it, that counts"?

 

And on your definition of 'small'... there's a bit at the end of 'Men In Black' where our solar system is shown to be nothing more than the blob at the centre of a higher being's marble (and didn't Donovan sing 'God is playing marbles with his planets and his stars/creating havoc through my life with his influence on mars'? - Yes, he did!)

Fishy socks... Aromatic they might have been, but not, i suspect, 'fishy' (unless there is a Danish Blue gudgeon I haven't heard about), and while they might have made a dive for the laundry basket when you took them off I doubt they swam there...

Serial killers - it is, sadly, odds on that one or two serial killers will have been autistic. Not because there's necessarily any connection between the two things but just because of statistics (i.e. if 5% of the population or whatever have AS then 5% of serial killers or whatever are likely to be autistic)... the other factors, that many serial killers and many autistic people share similar 'traits' (i.e. social ineptitude/isolation) are a red herring (perhaps a camembert scented one?!), because they are also traits shared with a huge number of other conditions/mental health issues that are not intrinsically linked to autism. Autism shares many 'traits' with sociopathy, but they're not the same thing...

And yes, I agree with great literary figures too, and even feel that some of the most creative comedians (people like SM/Peter Cook) are 'different' in very autistic ways - which really goes against the stereotypes considering the 'lack of humour' assumptions... but look at the way they play with words and the relationship looks very similar to what maths geniuses do with numbers...

 

Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending the stereotyping or anything like that and I acknowledge completely that sweeping generalisations about autism are harmful... I just also acknowledge (and think it's a very useful thing for our kids to be aware of) that there is a significantly higher incidence of autistic 'behaviours' among the small percentage of people regarded as geniuses

 

Flozza - I do reckon you'm painted yourself into a bit of a corner with your maths obsessed cousin - take out the excellent social skills bit and what have you got? And if his social skills are excellent why is he regarded as 'quirky' and why does he raise eyebrows? While not AS per se - he's certainly a bit 'whiffy' in the fishy sense of the word

 

[Flora]

Flozza - I do reckon you'm painted yourself into a bit of a corner with your maths obsessed cousin - take out the excellent social skills bit and what have you got? And if his social skills are excellent why is he regarded as 'quirky' and why does he raise eyebrows? While not AS per se - he's certainly a bit 'whiffy' in the fishy sense of the word

 

 

I thought the very same thing immediately after I'd typed it! In fact I started to wonder about him, and then remembered my mum saying 'I'm sure our XXXXXX has AS' quite a few years ago!

 

hmmmmmm. Well, it was a Saturday and I had nothing better to do for an hour other than type waffle

 

Flozza

[bid]

:lol: But don't they say "it's not what you've got, but what you do with it, that counts"?

 

Cheers, Mumble/BD!

 

Yeah, guess that's why I managed to totter through a higher degree, etc, etc...

 

Bid plus whatever emoticon is for two fingers!

[Bard]

Cheers, Mumble/BD!

 

Yeah, guess that's why I managed to totter through a higher degree, etc, etc...

 

Bid plus whatever emoticon is for two fingers!

 

You know that question that gets asked so often..'Given a choice, would you rather be clever and ugly or gawjuss and thick?'

You chose clever and gawjuss.

[bid]

Thank you Bard <'>

 

The tenner is in the post!

 

Bid

[CEJesson]

Its inevitable someone is going to look into history and make a judgement on this. Einstein and Autism comes to mind so many times as an example.

 

Serial killers - it is, sadly, odds on that one or two serial killers will have been autistic. Not because there's necessarily any connection between the two things but just because of statistics (i.e. if 5% of the population or whatever have AS then 5% of serial killers or whatever are likely to be autistic)... the other factors, that many serial killers and many autistic people share similar 'traits' (i.e. social ineptitude/isolation) are a red herring (perhaps a camembert scented one?!), because they are also traits shared with a huge number of other conditions/mental health issues that are not intrinsically linked to autism. Autism shares many 'traits' with sociopathy, but they're not the same thing...

 

Very good points made there.

 

As long as there is no massively infuential medical report published on the matter I am not too concerned about this. Where scientists have to be careful is the distribution of the word genius. On the flip side, not all people with an ASD are necessarily gifted at the usual things autistic people are associated with.

Edited May 24, 2008 by CEJesson

[Tally]

I never said I agreed with the article, in fact I did not pass comment on the article at all. I thought people would find it interesting to read this theory about autism.

 

The article does not suggest that autism is a psychiatric condition. I would have to read the full book to find out whether Professor Fitzgerald suggests it is, but unless you have read it, there is no evidence to suggest he thinks that. He happens to be a psychiatrist, and he did present his findings to psychiatrists, but then autism does pop up in the field of psychiatry, and psychiatrists are probably in a good position to identify and diagnose the condition.

 

I was worried about the stereotyping that this type of publicity reinforces. I am not particularly clever and it is unhelpful when people assume I have some amazing skill when in reality I have spent the past year trying to work out how to get a carpet laid.

 

I do think he raises a very good point about the number and variety of genes involved in autism. Again, there is no proof yet that it is a genetic condition, but it does look likely, and having multiple genes involved, each of small effect, would explain a lot.

 

As for serial killers, research done at Broadmoor hospital suggests that a huge majority of patients are on the autistic spectrum (up to 90%). I suppose that psychiatric conditions like psychosis or sociopathy, combined with an inability to appreciate other's feelings, may make a person more likely to commit violent crime.

[Mumble]

The article does not suggest that autism is a psychiatric condition.

"Prof Fitzgerald said: "Psychiatric disorders can have positive dimensions. I'm arguing the genes for autism and creativity are essentially the same."

 

If he is not talking about autism as a psychiatric disorder, what psychiatric disorder exactly is he referring to here?

 

I suppose that psychiatric conditions like psychosis or sociopathy, combined with an inability to appreciate other's feelings, may make a person more likely to commit violent crime.

Absolutely, ask Mr Ross. Now please excuse me, I need to read my 'hit list' and decide who to whack with a brick and bury alive tonight ...

[Tally]

He's not referring to a particular one, hence the "s" on the end. Bear in mind this was addressed to a conference of psychiatrists. He has used an example from what they know to illustrate something about autism that they may not previously have considered. If it had been addressed to a conference of tree enthusiasts he might have said, "dutch elm disease can have positive dimensions," but he would not be comparing autistic people to beetles. I think Mumble, you would be amongst the first to argue that autism can have positive dimensions.

[pearl]

I'm wary about retrospective dx of individuals. However I used to find it v helpful when JP was feeling low to say, hey look at Gregor Mendel, he was a lot like you & look what he achieved ... etc. I'd rather be positive than negative about this kind of publicity. And Hans Asperger himself argued that a "dash of autism" in individuals was beneficial to society in terms of what its single-mindedness could achieve.

[Mumble]

In the (part?) article that you provide there is discussion of autism and creativity/genius which goes on to talk about the positives of psychiatric disorders, creativity in autism being one possible - within the context of what you have provided of this article, he is coming across as saying that autism is a psychiatric disorder - the pluralisation is purely to ensure the grammar in the sentence is correct.

 

If it had been addressed to a conference of tree enthusiasts he might have said, "dutch elm disease can have positive dimensions," but he would not be comparing autistic people to beetles.

Huh?

 

I think Mumble, you would be amongst the first to argue that autism can have positive dimensions.

Is genius positive? If that is your argument, what are you saying about those who are apparently non-geniuses. For what it's worth, I don't actually think that there is such a thing as a genius, and I don't think you'd ever find a gene for genius (and what would you do if you did? - Eugenics to create a super-race? Allow people without the gene to say, oh well I'll never be a genius there's no point going to school or trying at anything?). To me, this article is inherently flawed, not least because it's not even clear what is being talked about - I would be very interested, Tally, if in the rest of the article he defines what he means by genius or creative genius or why he switches between the two. I would say that there are some positive elements to my autism in particular circumstances, but they can just as much be negatives in other circumstances. I had an absolute rant earlier this week and said it wasn't fair, why me, what did I do to deserve being autistic, I don't want to be autistic. I'm not sure it's helpful to list positives/negatives for any disability as one persons positive will be another's negative and yet another's nothing about them at all.

[Mumble]

a "dash of autism"

Tonight Lloyd, in the red kitchen, I'm cooking super-human steak with genius coulis followed by ...

 

(Sorry Pearl - no offence meant, it just sounded like a cooking ingredient more than something about a human that can at times be very hard to live with - the thing is you can't really have a dash of autism, you're either autistic or you're not (like you can't have traits...) and you have to live with what you are 24 hours a day, 365 1/4 days a year, you can't just bring out particular 'bits' as you would ingredients from a store cupboard, when you so desire to use them )

[pearl]

It wasn't me who said it, it was Hans Asperger.

[Tally]

Well I think you have interpreted it completely differently to the way I have interpreted it. I absolutely do not think he was trying to say that autism is a psychiatric disorder, or that people who are not geniuses are somehow inferior or excused from making any effort. This is not my argument. This is an article I found in a magazine that I decided to share because I thought people here might be interested. I hadn't expected to get attacked for the opinions expressed in an article I did not write.

 

If you want to know more, you might find out more from his book. I do not know this man personally, I cannot ask him. I only have the same information as you at this point.

[Mumble]

I hadn't expected to get attacked for the opinions expressed in an article I did not write.

HEV!!!, where are you? You clearly didn't shout loud enough - look, I've gone and done it again!!!!!

[CEJesson]

I never said I agreed with the article, in fact I did not pass comment on the article at all. I thought people would find it interesting to read this theory about autism.

 

Tally I understand your intentions of posting this - Im sure all of us can recognise you posted it as an informative article.

 

Its always beneficial to understand different perspectives - good or bad.

Edited May 24, 2008 by CEJesson

[baddad]

the thing is you can't really have a dash of autism, you're either autistic or you're not (like you can't have traits...) you can't just bring out particular 'bits' as you would ingredients from a store cupboard, when you so desire to use them )

 

Hi all/mumble -

Actually, on this I think I disagree - you can have autistic 'traits' (a 'pinch' of autism) without it being autism as such... Autism is a 'collection' of traits, and when the sum of those traits adds up to an 'official' dx it can be classified clinically as autism. I think we are facing a real shift at the moment where diagniosis - particularly with regard to aspergers - is getting so vague about the boundaries that it actually undermines the needs of many while offering an 'excuse' to those with borderline problems (that's not going to be a popular view, I know, but there are parallels with other conditions like ADHD and dyslexia where 'casual' diagnosis has served to undermine the needs of those with genuine problems).

As for the taking out of particular 'bits' when you desire to use them - I'm sorry, I have met autistic people who do exactly that, and even more parents who do it on their childs behalf to excuse and justify behaviours that would otherwise not be deemed acceptable. Sometimes our children cannot help what they do. Sometimes our children cannot help what they do because of autism and sometimes it's for other reasons. Sometimes our children do things because they are being manipulative little sods - which is the nature of all children (and adults too, come to that). People use all sorts of excuses (he fell in with the wrong crowd/he's easily led/he's frustrated/he's desperate for approval/it's the parents fault/the school's fault/the other persons fault) to justify what is essentially HUMAN nature. All of those elements can be true, All of those elements can be cop-outs...

 

Is genius a positive? On an individual level, who knows? Many 'geniuses' suffered terribly for their 'art' or were outcast/ostracised for their "differences" in an era that didn't understand them... In terms of the collective, though, genius has got to be seen as positive, because the quantum leaps in thinking that led to great scientific or artistic discoveries have driven humanity forward. One might argue that what we perceive as positives (longer lifespans, better living conditions, etc) aren't - because they are all flawed, but the answer to that might lie in the fact that geniuses have the ideas while non-geniuses administer them!

 

[bid]

I hadn't expected to get attacked for the opinions expressed in an article I did not write.

 

She had a pop at me, too, Tally

 

Bid <'>

[Suze]

Are people being light hearted/joking .............or serious ............I can,t figure the dynamicsof this thread out at all at the moment.Threads have been confusing the heck out of me lately, cos what seems like banter ends up in a row , then the thread is closed etc.

 

..............just wanted to say that I really really don,t like it when people fall out so please don,t .But if your just all being light hearted then thats fine

 

.........I,m still confused though.

[Bard]

I'm not getting sidetracked, honest.

 

One of the small things that comforts me when I feel like a bad parent for not recognising B's AS much earlier in his life is when I study his father.

I am convinced that my OH has AS, but he's a very high-flying Oxbridge academic, so huge knowledge about very specific areas, working obsessively on something til it's done, regardless of time scale, people coming a poor second to the research/focus...it all counts as admirable and normal in certain spheres.

 

He had very few people skills when I met him, and two friends, but was respected academically by many.

There were many other traits that he has, but I didn't recognise them as such until I began learning about ASDs, some 20 years into the relationship. Then I had one of those....Oohh, I get it moments.

 

He has learnt more social skills, given the motivation ( I'll leave it up to you to work out what that was! ) but he's still very, very clever and given to forgetting those skills when some more pressing need ( in his opinion) overwhelms it.

 

This isn't about anyone else, it isn't a dig or an attack, it's just about my marriage. Sometimes my OH is the most unintentionally selfish and self-centred man on the planet.

It's not always on purpose, but I think not feeling guilty or worried about others helps him to make that choice, sometimes other people don't even register on his radar. As if he's entirely alone and loving the clarity and simplicity of choosing not to identify and thus deal with other people that make emotional demands on him. So he can focus on what he wants and needs to do. I've never had an apology for anything in the 25 years of our relationship, but he was 28 when we met. With B, he has learnt social strategies and is still learning them, with encouragement and rewards and explanations along the way, but maybe for OH it's too late?

 

Genius? I think it does exist, although not in my OH. What genius lacks is often the vision to see the practical applications of a line of thought or invention. Just to work on the idea is the motivation, often without having a choice about it.

Edited May 25, 2008 by Bard

[bid]

Are people being light hearted/joking .............or serious ............I can,t figure the dynamicsof this thread out at all at the moment.Threads have been confusing the heck out of me lately, cos what seems like banter ends up in a row , then the thread is closed etc.

 

..............just wanted to say that I really really don,t like it when people fall out so please don,t .But if your just all being light hearted then thats fine

 

.........I,m still confused though.

 

Suze, don't you think that there is a very fine line between 'funny' and 'hurtful', especially when the banter is at other people's expense?

 

Personally I felt Mumble and BD's comments about me in this thread crossed that line , and I don't see why I should just say nothing. So I attempted to use a little bit of humour back to point out how they had made me feel.

 

I wasn't trying to start a row, but as I say, if a joke at my expense upsets me, why should I just say nothing?

 

Bid

[Bard]

Suze, don't you think that there is a very fine line between 'funny' and 'hurtful', especially when the banter is at other people's expense?

 

Personally I felt Mumble and BD's comments about me in this thread crossed that line , and I don't see why I should just say nothing. So I attempted to use a little bit of humour back to point out how they had made me feel.

 

I wasn't trying to start a row, but as I say, if a joke at my expense upsets me, why should I just say nothing?

 

Bid

 

I think it's better to say things clearly, and give others the opportunity to recognise and understand that another person's view of the same post might be different.

The tricky thing is to do so without feeling cross and upset about it, and I thought you managed that rather well bid.

 

I do this sort of intervention rather a lot with B who often takes a joke too far, and with my OH who can't understand why others get upset when an academic debate becomes heated, and he is sometimes dismissive and cutting about others opinions that he thinks are incorrect.

Then he's puzzled why the individuals concerned won't sit next to him in the lunchbreak, because for him ripping an argument to shreds is distinct from how he feels about the person making the argument.

 

My NT daughter has the same problem with her English Language group. She doesn't pick up vibes!

 

It was an interesting paper Tally, and it generated some interesting and varied debate, so that's a good thing.

Bid felt a bit p*ssed off and said so, and that is much better than being obscure and hurt and sulky ( not you Bid, an option that some I know in RL take. I'm upset with you, you have 134 guesses as to why, because I'm not tellin')

Suze, put your feet up and have a chocolate bar, you need the calories after all that running.

Oh, got to ask. How tall are you really? I'm 5'1" and Pearl is a whisker taller, so if we all bring stiletto heels we can tattoo Baddad with the slogan of our choice for picking on persons of petite stature.

[Bard]

if we all bring stiletto heels we can tattoo Baddad with the slogan of our choice for picking on persons of petite stature.

 

And yet again, it's a pick on Baddad thread!

[MelowMeldrew]

There have always been attempts to 'rationalize' or 'Validate' issues connected with disability. It is the constant 'search' for why it happens. In the deaf world great store is put upon mooting Beethoven, despite none of us have ever heard him ! and the fact he wasn't deaf when he did most of his music, never became a member of any deaf community, and never used sign language.. You are looking for positives so anything will do... no matter how tentative the link is. Evelyn Glennie bangs away on percussive instruments and is a world renowned percussionist. This doesn't suggest to me as a deaf person we will all make brilliant musicians... It's the exception, not the rule. I'm rather nervy it is an attempt to justify... when we don't need to.

[baddad]

Suze, don't you think that there is a very fine line between 'funny' and 'hurtful', especially when the banter is at other people's expense?

 

Personally I felt Mumble and BD's comments about me in this thread crossed that line , and I don't see why I should just say nothing.

Bid

 

Hi bid -

I'm sorry you felt my comments were hurtful and 'crossed the line'. I'll try and make sure not to make lighthearted banter with you again, but please give me the benefit of the doubt - it's hard to break the habits of a lifetime. I can reassure you that no posts I make are intended to hurt or offend. The misunderstanding arose because for four years or so I have posted similar lighthearted comments - often far 'stronger', iykwim, which you have enjoyed and run with. Perhaps you could have found some other way to advise me that online banter wasn't something you 'laike' anymore, the PM system, perhaps?

I would suggest this method (PM's) for anyone who feels upset by a members post (I would have used the PM system myself had this not already been posted on forum), that they contact the member (or a moderator to approach them on your behalf) and give them the opportunity to explain rather than posting comments like 'he/she had a pop at me so i feel justified...' It may well be that what has been interpreted as a 'pop' was not intended as a 'pop' at all, and it seems pointless and unfair and 'uncomfortable' to air that sort of personal misunderstanding on the open forum...

 

I totally agree with Suze -

Are people being light hearted/joking .............or serious ............I can,t figure the dynamicsof this thread out at all at the moment.Threads have been confusing the heck out of me lately, cos what seems like banter ends up in a row , then the thread is closed etc.

 

Because there does seem to be a rather disturbing undercurrent emerging. I don't like undercurrents. People get hurt and swept away.

 

[pearl]

Well we can all bring stiletto heels Bard, but from what you've told me you won't be able to walk in them!

 

A clarification on my "dash of autism" quote from Hans Asperger. I think, if I remember rightly, that he was saying that a "dash of autism" in society as a whole is valuable, ie: a percentage of autistic people, which is very different from saying that an individual has a "dash of autism". That said, I do think people can have traits without the full blown dx. If its a spectrum then at some point it has to shade off into peeps without the full triad of impairments.

 

Another thing about Hans Asperger (the original OGB). He was championing his patients at a time in Austria when it was personally very dangerous to do so. Anyone with perceived "mental health" problems (which would be the only area you could put autistics in before Kanner/Asperger's research) were sent to the extermination camps, along with Jews, gypsies & gays. So he was really putting his safety & reputation on the line by being positive about the benefits autism can bring to society.

 

Blimey this is deep for a Sunday morning

*goes to eat jaffa cakes*

[bid]

Hi bid -

I'm sorry you felt my comments were hurtful and 'crossed the line'. I'll try and make sure not to make lighthearted banter with you again, but please give me the benefit of the doubt - it's hard to break the habits of a lifetime. I can reassure you that no posts I make are intended to hurt or offend. The misunderstanding arose because for four years or so I have posted similar lighthearted comments - often far 'stronger', iykwim, which you have enjoyed and run with. Perhaps you could have found some other way to advise me that online banter wasn't something you 'laike' anymore, the PM system, perhaps?

I would suggest this method (PM's) for anyone who feels upset by a members post (I would have used the PM system myself had this not already been posted on forum), that they contact the member (or a moderator to approach them on your behalf) and give them the opportunity to explain rather than posting comments like 'he/she had a pop at me so i feel justified...' It may well be that what has been interpreted as a 'pop' was not intended as a 'pop' at all, and it seems pointless and unfair and 'uncomfortable' to air that sort of personal misunderstanding on the open forum...

 

Sorry, I disagree, BD

 

I think it's more natural and 'adult' in a thread to say 'Oi, that's a bit much...' If someone likes to joke at other people's expense on the open forum, they should be able to take it on the open forum when it doesn't go down so well.

 

And just because something isn't intended to hurt or offend, doesn't mean that it doesn't! Interesting that you seem to think that the feelings of the 'joker' take precedence over the feelings of the butt of their joke...

 

I work very long hours with Kellyanne...we actually see more of each other than we do of our DHs. Because I have AS, sometimes I say things to her in a clumsy way that upset her or hurt her feelings.

 

She feels comfortable saying straight out to me 'Oi...'

 

What do I do? I feel bad that I've even unintentionally upset her, and then...I...apologise!! Then it's all forgotten and we carry on as before. I certainly don't take exception to the fact that she has been upset by something I have said...I accept that if it upset her, it upset her, whatever I meant.

 

So sorry, if someone makes a joke at my expense on the open forum and it upsets me, I shall continue to say 'Oi...'

 

Bid

[Neil Young]

Norm Ledgin caused a stir with his book, Diagnosing Jefferson. The author claimed that the genius of America's third president was due to Asperger Syndrome, which could explain his 54-year obsession with building and rebuilding Monticello, his inability to control his spending, and his affair with a child/slave. After this book became a best seller, the author wrote Asperger's and Self-Esteem: Insight and Hope through Famous Role Models, which claims that thirteen giants of history - Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, and Mozart among them-also had Asperger Syndrome. Some people also believe that Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Charles Darwin, Galileo, Pablo Picasso, Benjamin Franklin, Margaret Mead and Aristotle had Asperger Syndrome.

 

Lately authors are adding Bill Gates to the list of famous Aspies because of his lack of social skills, inability to make eye contact and tendency to rock back and forth coupled with his obsession with technology. Diane Kennedy, an author and advocate for Asperger Syndrome, writes, "They are our visionaries, scientists, diplomats, inventors, chefs, artists, writers and musicians. They are the original thinkers and a driving force in our culture."

 

Hans Asperger, the German doctor who discovered the syndrome, would agree with Kennedy's assessment. He believed that "for success in science or art, a dash of autism is essential. The essential ingredient may be an ability to turn away from the everyday world, from the simply practical and to rethink a subject with originality so as to create in new untrodden ways with all abilities canalized into the one specialty."

 

Likewise, Dr. Temple Grandin, an adult with autism who became a successful engineer, academic and speaker, believes that her disorder is an asset. She once famously called NASA a sheltered workshop for people with autism and Asperger Syndrome. She believes that people with autistic spectrum disorders are the great innovators, and "if the world was left to you socialites, nothing would get done and we would still be in caves talking to each other."

 

However, it is absolutely impossible to diagnose anyone posthumously or without having the person in the room. Clinicians can only diagnose Asperger Syndrome by observing behaviors. Another problem in throwing people like Mozart and Benjamin Franklin into the Asperger population is that even if a person is in front of them, doctors have a hard time distinguishing between intellectual giftedness, Attention Deficit Disorder and Asperger Syndrome. There has been little research into the personalities of intellectually gifted people, but the few that have been done show that they are often intense, restless, strong-willed, and sensitive to light and sound -- all qualities of Asperger Syndrome. People with very high IQs often question the status quo, resist direction, have long attention spans, undergo periods of intense work and effort, and like to organize things even as children. Other people often perceive them as "different." All this is the same with those who have Asperger Syndrome.

 

The idea that every Aspie is a potential genius can put undue pressure on a child with Asperger Syndrome. Luke Jackson, a thirteen-year-old author with Asperger Syndrome, complains that he is always watching television about high functioning autistic people who can do things like play the piano brilliantly without taking lessons, draw detailed renditions of buildings they had only seen once or add numbers in their heads like Rainman. "I find these television programs depressing," he says. "I got all the nerdiness and freakishness but none of the genius."

 

Many people who are experts in Asperger Syndrome such as Dr. Teresa Bolick, Dr. Tony Attwood, and Dierdre Lovecky write about the positive aspects of Asperger Syndrome without focusing on the idea of genius. Lovecky notes how Aspies often have advanced vocabularies, recognize patterns others do not, and pursue ideas despite evidence to the contrary because they are not easily swayed by others' opinions. Their ability to focus on details and their inability to see the big picture means they can often come up with solutions to problems others overlook. Aspies are often willing to spend long hours in laboratories and in front of computer screens because they do not mind being alone. All this enables them to make tremendous contributions at work and school. Author Patricia Bashe points out that people often admire those who can work independently. She writes, "Our society celebrates the individual who does what he thinks is right and goes his own way."

 

Because of their unusual reactions to stimuli such as light and sound, Aspies see the world differently than most people. They are able to comprehend multiple levels of meanings of words and can be fabulous punsters. When told they had to "eat and run," one Aspie said, "Oh, that's makes us carnivorous panty hose."

 

Many experts relate that Aspies can make amazingly loyal friends. They are usually free from sexism or racism. They do not manipulate people but speak out frankly and honestly. They are sincere truth-tellers, whose naivety and trusting nature makes them incapable of backstabbing. As employees, they are completely dependable and follow the rules of the job. Psychologist Teresa Bolick writes, "Their deficits are actually assets, as they are unfettered by convention or manners. .Aspies help us stay grounded by questioning why we do what we do, why we need to get married" and other basic societal assumptions.

 

Parents who have successfully raised happy and productive children with Asperger Syndrome often advise others to never give up or become discouraged. An Aspie who receives good help and professional services can lead a good life. The goal does not have to be about genius but rather everyday love and sharing among family members. Dr. Michael Powers, a psychologist who works with families with autism, says success for a person with Asperger Syndrome can be "going to work or school without many incidents." Success can be simply having "improved social relationships until the time when everyone's life becomes better. Life then becomes a more cooperative adventure for everyone and all."

 

http://www.yourlittleprofessor.com/benefits.html

[pearl]

Morning Neil. Have you been up all night writing that?

[baddad]

So sorry, if someone makes a joke at my expense on the open forum and it upsets me, I shall continue to say 'Oi...'

 

Bid

 

 

I think saying 'Oi' is fine too...

I just think 'she had a pop at me, too' (with or without emoticons) is open to misinterpretation, and :

 

just because something isn't intended to hurt or offend, doesn't mean that it doesn't!

 

What do I do? I feel bad that I've even unintentionally upset her, and then...I...apologise!! Then it's all forgotten and we carry on as before. I certainly don't take exception to the fact that she has been upset by something I have said...I accept that if it upset her, it upset her, whatever I meant

 

I'm not sure who you feel has taken exception? I took mumble's post (HEV!!!, where are you? You clearly didn't shout loud enough - look, I've gone and done it again!!!!! ) to be an indirect apology, and certainly my own post was a very direct one with an assurance that I will try not to make the same error of judgement again and an explanation for the misunderstanding. The comment:

Interesting that you seem to think that the feelings of the 'joker' take precedence over the feelings of the butt of their joke...

only adds to my confusion(?)

 

Hope that clears things up.

 

BD