Possibly ironic? Simon Baron-Cohen...

Post Reply New Topic

All the causes for cancer The Daily Mail listed are also very likely "not lies".
But it's important to step back and look at the source, the editorial quality, the environment in which the story is published.
If they were published in some sort of professional medical journal, citing peer-reviewed research and papers published in other professional journals then it might be time to sit up and take notice.
But no - instead, these claims are published in what amounts to a comic for adults. They're the dumbed-down and distilled remnants of some tiny grain of truth, blown up into "shock, horror" headlines in order to help sell the newspaper.

Thus it is with the additional showbiz tittle-tattle you're digging out from other newspapers - they add not one jot of significance to the speculation, because it is all still "well I heard that ..." and "someone said that ..." and "it looks like ..." and "that seems to be ..." and "a friend claims that ..." armchair diagnosis from various showbiz and entertainment sections.
There's a clue there: "entertainment". It's all light-hearted fizzle and while not necessarily being outrageous lies and slander, it's hardly a well-considered and evidenced opinion from a qualified professional and deserves no further consideration. And what more consideration could actually be given to such articles? How could what is vaguely claimed be advanced, improved, made more interesting or significant in any way whatever - other than by going "Oooh" or by adding yet more personal opinions about someone who has most likely only been experienced via the characters he portrays on screen and from other tittle-tattle stories?
Are you also aware that newspapers often get their "exclusives" and other stories from a common syndicated source? Mindless, space-filling duplication is not validation.
This whole episode is rather like using Goldilocks as evidence for Little Red Riding Hood.

Indeed not.

...and yet still you reply.

I just wish you hadn't taken my thread so seriously in the first place, to feel it necessary to spend time trashing it.

To all members who don't mind replying to threads in the vein in which they are intended, don't feel it necessary to demand peer-reviewed research as proof or content of a thread, and have the ability to approach things in a more light-hearted way, as well as understanding that the General forum is for any post with at least some vague connection to Asperger's, I welcome your replies.

(Now that the tabloid trashing has been done to death, please let's take the focus off that element though).

If all the things written in the article are true, does that mean Sacha Baron Cohen is actually an Aspie?

No.

I have a lot of those traits too but my profile says NT for a reason. It is because I don't have an autism diagnosis nor would I qualify for one if I went looking. Lots of people have these traits and would not qualify. If you cast the net this wide, you wind up catching every quirky introvert. Being a quirky introvert is not = autism.

Indeed. And I didn't say it did. I'm not that stupid! I just wondered whether he might be. I did state further up the thread:

Again, people are taking this too seriously. If I came across as seriously stating that SBC had AS then I'll be damned because when I re-read my OP it says nothing like that to me. Perhaps my perceptions are more off than I thought.

I'm not surprised. He is a genius in the comedy world.

I don't think extraverts could come up with the things he comes up with. In hindsight, it's pretty obvious that he's a shy introverted genius.

Yes, I think he must pay great attention to detail to be so spot on with his characterisations.

Huh? Darwin didn't invent the concept of Social Darwinism. So no, wouldn't be that funny.

This thread looks really strange from an outside perspective. I mean, sure, I get that people don't trust this newspaper, and I get that all this is pretty far-fetched speculation, but it almost looks like some people have a personal axe to grind or something. If you don't buy it, you say so and move on, but the above really does look like some kind of wolf pack cornering an animal or something, or as though whirlingmind said something horribly offensive. I have said horribly offensive things on here and didn't get that treatment!

I don't understand aspies any more than I do NTs. People are weird.

Anyway, in response to the OP, again, pretty far-fetched but yeah, it would be amusing.

Oh, and

Yup, my thoughts exactly.

Thanks Nonperson. You really get how the thread was intended, and you recognise the nature of many of the replies. I mean I am sensitive to criticism, but that doesn't mean I invent criticism where there is none, I'm not delusional or paranoid. When I posted it, I was in a lighthearted mood, and the thread was dragged down instantly that I felt I had to start defending why I even put the thread up in the first place and try to drag it back on track. Perhaps some people sometimes find it hard not to let their depression or negativity spill over into every single area of their functioning and don't realise how they are being. Still no excuse for it. You're so right - people are weird. You're not guaranteed to get any more acceptance and understanding from your fellow Aspies than you are fellow humans generally it seems.