Radiohead - AS?

Post Reply New Topic

Nobody is perfect. There are dozens of possible reasons that any psychologist might misdiagnose AS. The issue here is not relative fallibility.



Nobody stated alcohol abuse caused AS symptoms, however excessive dependence on pot and/or alcohol can lead to a large number of mental health and behavioural problems. Considering the speculation about his AS materialised shortly after he was brought up on charges, I have always been dubious of both the defense and the diagnosis. I think you'll agree that I'm entitled to my opinion.



Even if the only substances he was abusing are the two he acknowledged - alcohol and pot - the chances of his acting irrationally or violently are magnified greatly. Heavy pot use alone has been shown to have serious long-term mental health repercussions. Do you seriously expect me to believe that he claimed to have a problem with pot and alcohol, yet was just getting mellow once in a while?



The pot is not responsible for the violence, Nicholls is.



Had anyone suggested this was the case it might be relevant. My point is that I doubt his diagnosis, and that Attwood is not perfect. These are both statements of simple, indisputable fact.



I wasn't aware that speculation required your permission. Nobody in this entire thread has made a diagnosis of anything. We have stated our personal, subjective speculation. If you want to put forward your own opinions on matters then I for one will gladly read them, but all you've done so far is set up a series of strawmen and set them alight. If you're going to quote me I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth (or at my fingertips).



The thread was started in order to discuss a theory, not to establish a fact. I think we're all quite aware that we're not going to see their medical records.



What is wrong with debating opinions? Should we steer away from challenging conversations on the forums? I've spent enough of my life trying to avoid doing that in the real world to start doing it online. If you're uncomfortable with debate descending into argument, then you have the option of not posting in the thread.

you cited heavy drug use as a reason his condition might have been misconstrued.

i was making a distinction between arguing for the sake of arguing, to prove someone wrong, and arguing with the intent of arriving at a reasonably accurate conclusion.

you seem to be doing the former, i was attempting to interject the latter.

you're reading far too much emotion / aggression in my words.



and i have no idea what this means.

Which has nothing to do with the section you quoted. Heavy pot and alcohol use can cause a wide variety of psychological problems that could be mistaken for Aspergers. But as I already said, this is merely my opinion in light of the circumstances surrounding his diagnosis.



So you believe that your opinions somehow have more value because of your subjective view that my own opinions were stated merely 'for the sake of arguing'? You will forgive me, of course, if I treat this attitude with more than a little disdain.



According to whom? I have made no reference to your emotional state because it is irrelevant to the conversation. This is your second presumption in the space of two sentences.



This is apparent.

Sorry, but my post was not directed in a personal matter towards you, but it appears you took it that way. I don't care if you like Radiohead for their "evolution of sound" or whatever, that is fine, but that is not going to change my opinion of them.



I don't like Muse's newer stuff at all either, but that is beside the point. Not all people with AS are the same, some can teach themselves social skills



Actually my favorite singer is Tom Meighan of Kasabian, who also doesn't like Radiohead or all those other depressing bands.



I'll tell you what to take with a pinch of salt, an armchair diagnosis. No one except an expert who knows all about an individual's life story, personality, behavior habits, etc can diagnose that individual with AS, and if it was Tony Attwood who diagnosed Craig Nicholls, then I can trust. And no, I don't think all people with AS act like Nicholls, but I relate a lot more to him than Thom Yorke, but I don't have a temper problem.

And for what it is worth, I've been taking drugs recreationally since before the time I was diagnosed with classical autism, and that doesn't make my diagnosis any less credible.



The Stereophonics singer called him a "miserable twat". Overall, even if he does have AS, he is reportedly not a nice person, and having high functioning AS is not much an excuse for being a "miserable twat". I myself come across as maybe a bit different from other people, but no one has ever said I'm not nice.

The Gallagher's are rock royalty and I can trust them. They have been promoting Kasabian (my #1 favorite band, Oasis is #2) for a long time now so I must have something in common with them. And I'm sorry but insulting people's opinions on the assumption that they are "blind" or conformist or whatever is how a lot of people (with or without AS) alienate themselves.

What's worse, being a "miserable twat" who writes "depressing" music or being a straight up as*hole who writes "happy" music?


reference link

For me, being the "miserable twat" is far, far worse. You can feel free to disagree, I honestly do not care.

The Gallagher brothers are not as*holes. I know so many people are turned off to Oasis because they speak their mind and stand up for the music they make, but I for one admire that cause, and you don't hear them wining and crying like you do with Radiohead. 99% of what the Gallagher brothers say, they're just calling it like it is, or at least the way they see it, something not enough people do. This makes the Gallagher brothers way more genuine people. At the opposite end you have Thom Yorke who doesn't even talk to other Britrock singers, for famous people it's better if they are labeled as*holes who speak their mind, than it is to be the "miserable twat" who is silently arrogant.

Oasis also happens to be my favorite music. You should listen to music because it sounds good, not because you think the singer of the band is misunderstood and has the same anxiety issues you do. But if you think Radiohead sounds good for your ears, then everyone has their own taste and it is completely fine.

I think a "miserable twat" has more soul than a falsely optimistic as*hole. Truly secure and happy people have no need to bash others or bring them down by calling them "too depressing", "miserable", whatever... Why are some people so threatened when an artist expresses negative emotions through their art? That's what really pisses me off. If you don't like it, can't relate, etc... just listen to something you do like.

I could say the same thing about Thom Yorke. A lot of older radiohead fans were annoyed with the more recent albums produced by radiohead and thom yorke because of their political nature. Thom wrote what was on his mind and how he saw the world, without giving a sh*t about the people who he knew would call it "too depressing" or whatever. Also, you have no basis for the claim that he is "silently arrogent". He speaks his mind through his music, blogs, political involvements, etc..., not through his interaction with other musicians/celebrities. Those other artists don't like him because he doesn't want to act chummy and be part of their britrock clique. Sounds familiar.


Nothing to disagree with here. I happen to think Radiohead sounds good. I don't judge their music based on anything else. I know Radiohead have a lot of pretentious fans but I don't think the fans reflect the views of the band itself.

i don't care for anyone treating anyone with disdain, really, and opinions are opinions - they are all subjective.

i'm unable to understand the point of debate containing so many veiled insults, and so i guess that is the attitude you're referring to.




welp.

i do understand sarcasm, and as i'm in fact not looking for a fight, i'll go back to watching this one from the sidelines.

Yeah, I can't disagree with this. You make good points.

About Radiohead and their "pretentious fans", I know what you mean. Muse is kind of similar in my opinion. When I first heard them, I thought they were something very cool and a hidden gem, and their songs really struck me. But then they got featured in the Twilight movies and their IMO worst song (SMBH) became the song everyone knew them for, and now Muse is popular among all the teeny bop music, which I just get annoyed with. I'm not mad at society for it, but they were so special in the late '90s and lost their roots.

I like radiohead in the 90's as well as U2. Alot of people either love Bono or hate him.
But back on the subject of radiohead. They were the origional alternative band in my opinion...alot of bands try to capture that soulful nerdy but still cool thing and really miss the mark. And most music on the radio aches my soul to the point that I usually dont even turn on the radio. Something happened in music in the turn of the 21 century...I dont understand what it is, but it lacks something vital, but I cant put my finger on it. It is just dead sounds...zombies of musical spirit.

I'll make my peace then.

I see this happen alot on message boards whenever Radiohead gets mentioned. There are these people who act like Thom Yorke is a deity and Radiohead is the only band worth listening to and then in response all the people who don't listen to Radiohead come out of the woodwork and bash the band, going on and on about how overrated, dull, and depressing their music is. I don't want to associate myself with either side, and probably neither does the band itself want to associate with the attitude of some of their fans. I don't think they're as arrogant and pretentious as their own fans make them out to be.

I just get defensive when people bash them for being "dull and depressing". Also, it's not like Radiohead is the only music I listen to. I can get tired of their music after a while too and need to listen to something else for a while in order to come back and enjoy it again, so I can understand that people have different tastes. Though I probably could listen to "OK Computer" on repeat for hours.

Someone close to me once suggested that this was my theme song.

On what basis do you believe that I took this point personally? I have countered opinion with opinion. I am not interested in changing your opinion, but nor am I going to accept opinion stated as fact, such as "Band X are boring" or "Band Y are depressing". Considering you seem to only be interested in a very narrow field of music, I do not think that you are the best person to comment on the merits of bands that do not fall into that field.



We've been highlighting the fact that people with AS are different to each other throughout this thread. Repeating it here is hardly necessary, nor is it a rebuttal of my point.



This article suggests otherwise: <Meighan on Radiohead>

"Radiohead are amazing." - Tom Meighan.



One final time, just for clarification:

Any viewpoint expressed in this thread should be viewed as opinion or conjecture, and not as a diagnosis. My apologies if this was not already made clear.



There is a world of difference between taking drugs recreationally and substance abuse.



"I don't know why I said that. He was a bit down in the early days but he's alright now. I think his records are great too. I've been listening to THE BENDS a lot." - Kelly Jones

This is an example of why you should not base your opinions on anything a celebrity says to the press.



Liking an artists music does not mean that you have anything in common with them. I would happily debate the merits of Oasis' music over the years - In my view they've formulaic and unchallenging, if listenable, since Morning Glory - but I have absolutely no interest in the expressed views of the Gallaghers.

I don't remember anyone insulting your opinions for being conformist. Did I miss something? Usually I would give anyone expressing favouritsm for a band or writer the benefit of the doubt. I personally take each track as it comes - there have been a number of artists I generally dislike who have released something which appealed to me musically. When somebody, such as yourself, argues so vehemently that "Celebrity A must be an a***hole because Celebrity B says so" I am disinclined to have any respect for your opinions, because they are not your opinions at all.

Yeah I would say so... I feel "Ok computer" for the lyrics and "Kid A" for the Music. When Im feeling my most AS playing their albums helps.

I think Radiohead tend to make music that requires a few listens to get into. Maybe the AS connection is there because an Aspie might repeat play something like Radiohead more than a typical NT and hence get hooked.

hope that remotely makes sense :s

Yes they sing of themes that we can identify with, but aren't necessarily exclusive to us. Isolation, Desolation, Hopelessness, Depression, Mania, Revenge and the list goes on and on.