Comments on: So Albert, Wolfgang, and Immanuel Had Autism: Does It Matter?

By: Melody

Melody — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:47:30 +0000

While I think Einstein probably was autistic, I always think it important to emphasize: How many “typical” people achieve that kind of thing? Very very very few. So that’s a good way to emphasize to autistics that it’s not a let-down if you’re not a savant or famous or anything. I agree that there should be more emphasis on everyday autistic people, to show the diversity in ability, interests, etc. I also think it’d be neat if there were a mentoring program of sorts, where older autistics could help mentor younger autistics.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:16:01 +0000

This link (between Asperger’s and creativity) is especially interesting to me, as I’ve just finished reading John Elder Robison’s new book, “Look Me in the Eye” (about his struggle with Asperger’s) and was surprised at how well-written it was. If you’re interested, you can find the book on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Look-Me-Eye-Life-Aspergers/dp/0307395987

By: This and Last’s Weeks Top Posts

This and Last’s Weeks Top Posts — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:05:22 +0000

[...] So Albert, Wolfgang, and Immanuel Had Autism: Does It Matter? Michael Fitzgerald, a professor of psychiatry at Trinity College in Dublin, recently argued that the genes for creativity and for autism and autism spectrum disorders are “‘essentially the same.’” [...]

By: Laura

Laura — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:36:04 +0000

I think at issue is an existential question: what is autism? A disability? Another way of looking at the world? Both?

I’m intrigued by the possibility that autism is another way of looking at the world, and indeed a superior way, in several material respects, including enhanced concentration and a unique way of filtering out social and empircal data and focusing on abstract ideas.

By: Becca

Becca — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:52:27 +0000

It may be interesting, sure, but it also seems like there’s a bit of subtext here along the lines of “See? We really have to help and accept these kids/people because there are probably brilliant geniuses trapped inside there!” — when there are plenty of kids/people with autism who are NOT savants or geniuses. It seems to leave those who are “lower functioning” (not a term I like, but for lack of a better) out in the cold. They’re not “sexy” like Einstein. There can and should be positive portrayals of autistic people that don’t focus exclusively on the statistical “outliers” (there was only one Mozart). Charlie, for example, learning to play piano and cello — now that’s inspiring and far more real and important, to me, than the game of which famous genius exhibited traits X, Y, Z.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:44:13 +0000

Those are some really good questions, and I hope that I’ll be able to do a research project about a related topic this summer. I’ve thought about these questions ever since my parents told me I had been diagnosed with AS, and they invoked Einstein, Gates, and my successful computer-geek uncle as positive examples. I find that an interesting puzzle. Does the fact that some of history’s “great men” could be considered to have a neurological disorder by today’s standards change the way we look at the concept of “disorder”? I’m not saying to toss everything out, but I think it does. I think a lot of autism “treatment” focuses on improving weaknesses…while to me these historical examples (and my uncle) point to the value of concentrating on areas of strengths. (Not that this has to be either/or.)

By: Kristina Chew, PhD

Kristina Chew, PhD — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:15:34 +0000

That’s what I thought about ADD / ADHD, the latter of which my husband very definitely has. He focuses in a kind of intense way on several things at once sometimes.

What I ask myself about these sorts of studies is, do they change our understanding and appraisal of the historical figures mentioned—-and what do they reflect about how we, today, understand “difference,” or “disorder,” or “genius,” or…..

By: Sarah

Sarah — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:05:26 +0000

Einstein had a speech delay, which is very consistent with autism. I also don’t think that AD/HD can explain the ability to focus on a certain topic for a long amount of time. Isn’t ADD supposed to mean a lack of attentive abilities?

By: laurentius-rex

laurentius-rex — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:41:41 +0000

Well Prof. Fitzgerald has been peer reviewed on this, I have just reviewed him in my previous post and found him wanting

By: b. sharp

b. sharp — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:31:42 +0000

The problem here is that that psychiatrist isn’t a historian, and if I’m not mistaken, Mozart lived in a time when mercury was considered a health drink. Not that great for one’s sanity. Perhaps if he wrote a peer reviewed paper on the subject I’d be more convinced, but it looks like an attempt at cherry picking and looking for anyone outside the norm. This is also a rather long list he’s made, so I think it should be treated with some skepticism.

(As for Einstein, I think one of my friends might be right, it’s most likely had an severe form of ADD/ADHD, which can sometimes be mistaken for autism).

This isn’t to say that there aren’t important people in history with this disorder, but I do think truth claims like this need to be held to more intense scrutiny. And while I do agree with him on genetic causes, I have known pretty intelligent people who do most certainly do not have the disorder, and not everyone I’ve met with this disorder is a genius.

According to Amazon – ‘Publisher: Autism Asperger Publishing Company’

The publishing company’s website does not look like an academic press, I’m afraid. This isn’t to say he might not be right in certain cases, but I have a feeling he might of published it under a publisher like this in order to avoid possible scrutiny by people who are more familiar with the historical subjects he is speaking than he is. (Not that I consider anything published by academic presses to be a hundred percent accurate, but still…).