POLL: Do you believe that Alan Turing was autistic?

Post Reply New Topic

You know, it's too bad I'm so old and close to death. I'd love to be around in the next, say, 15 or 20 years when they are not only able to pinpoint the specific genes for Autism but also go back in time and test bones of people who were suspected to be on the spectrum.

When I think about Brother Turing, I also think about Da Vinci. They have so much in common that it really makes you wonder. Both never married or had kids. Both had quite a few different skill sets which they were masters in. Both were incredible visionaries who spent an enormous of amount of time poring over books, theories and so on. Both got busted for sodomy. Both paid incredible attention to detail. They were both eccentric. Da Vinci, in particular, had an unusual sleeping habit where he slept only 2hrs/day by adhering to a strict schedule with series of 20-30 minutes of sleep every 4 hours of each day. Plus, who else can draw with one hand while writing backwards and upside down at the same time with the other?

Okay. I'm ready for the naysayers. Bring it on.

After googling the negative, ie Turing not AS - and scanning what came up, it was interesting to see that the nay sayers were a varied bunch of claimants, who were not on the spectrum themselves or if they were, were not disclosing it.

I suspect there may be a "paradigm" issue that complicates the title question this thread asks: Do You Believe That Alan Turing Was Autistic?

Now if you gained all your information about Asperger's Syndrome from the popular press, other media, public relations claptrap paid for by certain wealthy autism "charity" groups, films, tv etc - where portrayals are almost wholly founded on the doctrine of deficit, then it would be cognitively dissonant to view Alan Turing through the lens of Asperger's Syndrome. He represents outstanding accomplishment.

The ruling narrative of autism at the current time is the dishonest caricature of INABILITY, a step far beyond disability. Any evidence to the contrary is therefore abhorrent to the beneficiaries of the deficit paradigm, and the paradigm must either ignore or deny the evidence to maintain the power imbalance its foundations rest upon.

Given the vast amount criticism against those of us who dare self-diagnose I find it a little hypocritical that it's ok to retrospectively speculate on diagnosing others so long as they are celebrities or famous people?

In the same way attempts to claim Beethoven, Einstein and Newton as Aspies have been roundly criticised for lacking solid diagnostic evidence, Turing is no exception.

Evidence based research suggest Aspies are no more likely to be mathematical geniuses than the general population. I think much of this romantic notion stems from a need to find positive Aspie role models (which is fine). Hans Asperger's use of the term "little professors" may have also fed this distortion that Aspies are all geniuses. Asperger himself was using this language to pragmatically justify keeping these children alive during the Nazi genocide.

It's psychologically healthier to admire personal achievement in somebody diagnosed with Aspergers rather than trying to attribute qualities to famous people retrospectively. The latter is embarrassing...

Evidence for the "yes" side didn't originate from the ASD community (other than that of M Fitzgerald's). It stemmed from people who were related to or knew Alan Turing well, including members of his immediate family, his biographer, and (not related) Tony Attwood. When people on the spectrum agree with those perceptions, they face being slurred as embarrassing? What? Cyberdad, you are better than that !

The evidence is far wider than that (in the primary sources), it's really very compelling and very extensive as a whole. However that isn't readily available nor collected for easy access in one place online.

Anyway, it's nice to see you back, it seems ages since you posted on WP, hope you have been having some good times and that your daughter is doing well (if my memory serves me correctly that you have a young daughter).

Yes she's 11 now and at school. She's actually a math whizz (ironic because of this topic) but unfortunately not developed social skills. Prefers imaginary friends to real ones.

Well she sounds very like me at that age! (Sorry for this deviation off-topic AspieUtah) Cyberdad, just wondering, did your daughter participate in the recent maths competition for children at the University of South Wales? If so she may have met my 9 year old grandson there...

She had a panic attack prior to the sitting for the test and went and went and deliberately shared a snickers bar from a classmate and threw up (mild peanut allergy) and was taken to the school nurse (*shrugs shoulders*)

Anyway back to Alan Turing...

Yes, I think John must have undertaken a huge learning curve about AS, (didn't we all!) and as he gained more knowledge he re-evaluated past observations and experiences of his brother. His descriptions of AT's behaviours etc didn't change, his understanding of them over time did. He seems entirely credible to me. I think I read somewhere (?) that he has an AS child.. (and other children).

I recall how I had to re-evaluate behaviours et al across 5 generations of my own extended family (the two before me, the two after me, and my own) once the AS information was fully available to me. The history wasn't different, though my understanding of it, and the people who lived it, was immeasurably changed, in a deep and permanent way.

I wish I could trace my mother's genealogy as much as I trace my father's.

My mother's is obscure beyond my grandparents. And I didn't even know my grandfather on my mother's side.

On my father's side, it can traced, easily and substantively, to the 18th century in various European places.