Page 1 of 2 [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

mrwhite23
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 21 Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 113

31 Mar 2013, 8:49 am

did isaac asimov have aspergers syndrome or some kind of autism?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,726
Location: Stendec

31 Mar 2013, 9:01 am

Nobody knows.

Here is a brief bio, extracted from various places around the web...

Isaac Asimov was born in Petrovichi, Russia, in 1920. Petrovichi is very proud of their native son, and have honored the place of his birth with a memorial stone.

By March 18, 1941, Isaac Asimov had written thirty-one stories, sold seventeen, and fourteen had been published. At that time, he considered himself nothing more than a third-rate writer. That evening, he sat down to write his thirty-second story, based on an idea suggested by Astounding editor John W. Campbell the day before. By April 8, he finished the story, titled "Nightfall", and on April 9 he took it to Campbell. Two days later, he received this letter from Campbell, and the history of science fiction was changed forever.

He was creative, sociable, had a long-term relationship with his wife Janet, and enjoyed being a lecturer and a celebrity. Asimov completed his MA in chemistry in 1941 and earned a PhD in biochemistry in 1948. As the quintessential author, he wrote over 500 books that enlightened, entertained, and spanned the realm of human knowledge. This does not seem the kind of person who ever had to deal with Autism.

Janet Jeppson Asimov revealed that Isaac's 1992 death from heart and kidney failure was a consequence of AIDS contracted from a transfusion of tainted blood during his December 1983 triple-bypass operation.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


mrwhite23
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 21 Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 113

31 Mar 2013, 10:29 am

thanks i just wasn't sure i read something about it online how he might have had it
and if you have read any of his books who wouldn't be surprised that someone with aspergers syndrome could have such talent



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,780
Location: London

31 Mar 2013, 12:46 pm

99% of extremely talented people are neurotypical (or at least, not autistic). That's simple statistics.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,726
Location: Stendec

31 Mar 2013, 5:27 pm

Just because a man is smart, talented, educated, famous, and wealthy does not mean that he's an Aspie. It's more likely that he is an Entie with an incredible ability to understand human behavior and motivations - a strong Theory of Mind, in other words, which is not usually an Autistic trait.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,775
Location: USA

01 Apr 2013, 12:02 am

The_Walrus wrote:
99% of extremely talented people are neurotypical (or at least, not autistic). That's simple statistics.


Actually, no it is not, that's pseudo-statistics. Assuming you are basing this on the statistic that 1% of the population is autistic than the would only be true if the distribution of extremely talented people is the same for the general population and those with autism. That is often not the case, which is where the idea of correlation comes in. There is some problems with this question as extremely talented is an ambiguous term, but if you interpret extremely talented as having savant-level skills then depending on where exactly you set the bar there would be significantly more autistic people as savant skills are strongly correlated with autism.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,780
Location: London

01 Apr 2013, 5:31 pm

Yes, I did think as I wrote it that you could argue for a skew in favour of Aspies. However, you have to remember that a lot of savants simply wouldn't have been able to function in society until very recently and so wouldn't be recognised as "extremely talented". Even today, most people don't know the name of "that kids who draws cities from memory" and asked to name an artist are more likely to go with someone who can influence society, like Tracey Emin. Additionally, many talents require fine motor skills or great social skills- team sports, for example, or painting, or politics- which would make it harder for Aspies to succeed in those fields. But yes, I shouldn't have been so categoric in my initial statement- I should have said "we can assume...". A lack of correlation or only a very weak correlation between autism and talent seems a fair assumption.

My point, in any case, was that assuming someone is autistic "because they're talented" is flawed- most talented people won't have autism.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,726
Location: Stendec

01 Apr 2013, 7:31 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
... My point, in any case, was that assuming someone is autistic "because they're talented" is flawed- most talented people won't have autism.

Aspies claim Asimov was Autistic ... gays claim he was gay ... dyslexics claim he was dyslexic ... it seems that whenever a member of a marginalized or persecuted group needs an ego boost, he or she will claim kinship with a famous dead guy.

:roll:


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

01 Apr 2013, 7:42 pm

Fnord wrote:
Aspies claim Asimov was Autistic ... gays claim he was gay ... dyslexics claim he was dyslexic ... it seems that whenever a member of a marginalized or persecuted group needs an ego boost, he or she will claim kinship with a famous dead guy.

I like science fiction. I claim Asimov liked science fiction too. :lol:


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,726
Location: Stendec

01 Apr 2013, 9:57 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Aspies claim Asimov was Autistic ... gays claim he was gay ... dyslexics claim he was dyslexic ... it seems that whenever a member of a marginalized or persecuted group needs an ego boost, he or she will claim kinship with a famous dead guy.
I like science fiction. I claim Asimov liked science fiction too. :lol:

Well ... science-fiction fans may be the only marginalized or persecuted group that is entitled to claim Dr. Isaac Asimov as "one of their own" - also Clarke, Bradbury, Heinlein, Burroughs, Wells, Cherryh, L'Engle, MacCaffrey, Kurtz, and hundreds more.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,775
Location: USA

02 Apr 2013, 2:34 am

Fnord wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Aspies claim Asimov was Autistic ... gays claim he was gay ... dyslexics claim he was dyslexic ... it seems that whenever a member of a marginalized or persecuted group needs an ego boost, he or she will claim kinship with a famous dead guy.
I like science fiction. I claim Asimov liked science fiction too. :lol:

Well ... science-fiction fans may be the only marginalized or persecuted group that is entitled to claim Dr. Isaac Asimov as "one of their own" - also Clarke, Bradbury, Heinlein, Burroughs, Wells, Cherryh, L'Engle, MacCaffrey, Kurtz, and hundreds more.


Naw, those Sci-Fi fans are just jealous of these guys talents.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


persian85033
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,869
Location: Phoenix

02 Apr 2013, 8:53 am

I don't think he had AS, although perhaps he might have had some AS type traits. From reading his autobiography, I think his son, David Asimov may have had AS, though. Perhaps it's genetic? I know my dad had some autistic traits, although he's definitely not autistic, but I have AS. I love his writing, though.

Apart from the robots, he also created interesting worlds, most especially the Spacer worlds. And, of course, the Spacers lived much more...luxiorously than on Earth. With such small populations, there were more resources for each individual. Although, I think maybe all the Spacers had at least to some point a fascination with Earth. There was something about Earth's crowds that attracted Gladia. Even Amadiro. Perhaps his hatred of Earth came in part because of how he might have at least been curious. He read a lot about Earth, after all. Perhaps that was why he despised Earth. Mandamus said Amadiro had an un-Spacer liking for violence.

Apart from Fall of the Roman Empire, I wonder what else inspired him. I love the ideas he came up with for his writing. I know for Trantor and the Caves of Steel it was because he himself liked enclosed spaces. He inspires me for my own writing very much. Also, the Second Foundationers, and the Gaians. I always thought on Foundation and Earth, what if when merged with Daneel, he retains Fallom's memories, and instead creates Galaxia in a different way, due to Fallom's memories, like taking over? Like making all worlds Solarias? He decided to write the prequels instead, as he said he had run out of ideas after Foundation and Earth.


_________________
"Of all God's creatures, there is only one that cannot be made slave of the leash. That one is the cat. If man could be crossed with the cat it would improve the man, but it would deteriorate the cat." - Mark Twain


WorldsEdge
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 458
Location: Massachusetts

02 Apr 2013, 9:51 am

Based on his novels and short stories? I'd say definitely maybe. :wink:

Why? Well, first, I'm afraid I'm a bit on the fence as to how good a writer Asimov actually was. I liked the original Foundation trilogy, stuff like the Three Laws of Robotics, etc. BUT...the books where he tied, or tried to tie, the Foundation series to the "Positronic"-ally powered robots struck me as being forced to the point of being downright painful to read. And a great many of the short stories I've read by him just really are not all that good. Okay, as in awful. And that goofiness he pulled out of his rear at the end of one of those novels (Foundation and Earth, maybe?) regarding the Three Laws of Humanics to this day strikes me as creepy. Especially since I came away from that particular book with a sense that Asimov thought these particular "Laws" might actually be a good thing.

And, second, while he could create some memorable characters (Hari Seldon, Susan Calvin) most of the time said characters were a bit -- or I'd submit more than a bit -- like automatons meandering through the architecture of the worlds or situations he created. Like he really wasn't all that interested in any of their internal lives, and that last bit would also apply even to the memorable characters. They were interesting for what they were doing or were proposing to do, not for any particular inner conflict. His contemporaries or near contemporaries like Robert Heinlein, Henry L. Kuttner, Ben Bova, H. Beam Piper, and even a hack like E. E. "Doc" Smith all did better in that area.

So I suppose a credible case could be made for Asimov as being on the AS, but that it would be far from an air-tight one. At his best he could create memorable situations, macro-levels conflicts, etc., but that his protagonists, villains, etc., would more often than not not really rise above the two-dimensional. Seems like a trap a writer on the AS could fall into, at least from where I'm sitting. Of course, that criticism is often also leveled at all "hard" SF authors, even into today. Or satirized via Kurt Vonnegut's SF "author," Kilgore Trout, who could only find an outlet for his short stories as filler in pornographic magazines. (Supposedly Kilgore Trout is based upon Vonnegut's friend and SF author Theodore Sturgeon, and that Sturgeon got quite a kick out of the "tribute.")

So while it might be a bit of reach, I don't think it is a huge one. Contra that, it might simply be that Asimov was like his contemporary SF authors, only, well, a bit more so.

My $.02 and doubtless worth every penny.


_________________
"The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." ? Bertrand Russell


persian85033
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,869
Location: Phoenix

02 Apr 2013, 1:29 pm

But he never intended to tie all the books together. That was much later. Really? I loved Foundation and Earth. I loved to see what happened to the Spacer worlds, especially. And Earth, well, it just breaks my heart that in his stories, Earth becomes radioactive. As for the Laws of Humanics, well, if only. Perhaps if there were, I'd be able to understand people better. But in real life, people have very little to no logic.

It's true that the characters were kind of flat, like I'd have loved to learn more about Gladia, like what was a typical day in her life like, or about her childhood, for example, but maybe he enjoyed writing about the worlds or different societies better. I kind of have the same trouble sometimes. My characters have a hard time, er, describing their feelings and memories and stuff. My stories also have quite a bit of dialogue, like his. It's just easier to write that way, I think.


_________________
"Of all God's creatures, there is only one that cannot be made slave of the leash. That one is the cat. If man could be crossed with the cat it would improve the man, but it would deteriorate the cat." - Mark Twain


WorldsEdge
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 458
Location: Massachusetts

02 Apr 2013, 2:29 pm

persian85033 wrote:
But he never intended to tie all the books together. That was much later.


Wouldn't it have made more sense just to, well, let it be, then? Note that I'm not saying I'm the final authority on such things -- far from it ! -- simply that it just didn't work well for me as a reader.

Quote:
Really? I loved Foundation and Earth. I loved to see what happened to the Spacer worlds, especially.


Two caveats I should have stuck in my last post, and did not:

First, I'm afraid I made the mistake of reading a few of the what I'll politely call the novels "approved" by his estate after his death, none of which I liked. So I guess I've gotten a bit garbled mentally about whether Asimov had himself written something or if what I'm vaguely remembering shouldn't be ascribed to him at all. I should have mentioned that in my last post on this thread and I did not. My error. (As in something about a planet where dogs had "evolved" into herbivores and I believe even aquatic mammals, preyed upon by those who were still carnivores. Was that Asimov or one of his, ahem, estate-approved successors? I don't think it was him, and I certainly hope not.)

Second, it has also been a looong time since I've last cracked open anything by Asimov or any of the other writers I mentioned in my first post. Meaning that what happened when to whom and when exactly it was in what story in the whole Spacer/Settler business comes to a head, as well who was behind the introduction of the super-dooper god-like robots in the Foundation books is a bit blurry around the edges. Okay, maybe more than a bit. Another omission and error on my part.

I guess I wasn't expecting to stumble across someone at WP who knew a lot of Asimov's stuff and likes it. Still, thanks for not calling me out more harshly.

Quote:
And Earth, well, it just breaks my heart that in his stories, Earth becomes radioactive.


I'm pretty sure that was in one of his books from no later than the mid-1960s. Something about a man sent through time to an earth of the far future? I'm afraid I do not remember the title, but they seemed to make a lot of curious references to his appendix, as in this was so far in the future that humans were no longer born with one, or much of one. Earth itself is a colonial backwater, and much of the story is centered around the planetary governor who wants nothing more than to leave and return to what he considers civilization.

Quote:
As for the Laws of Humanics, well, if only. Perhaps if there were, I'd be able to understand people better. But in real life, people have very little to no logic.


I'm afraid we part company there. For me, it was creepiness all the way down. Eugenics from a literal robot.


_________________
"The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." ? Bertrand Russell


persian85033
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,869
Location: Phoenix

03 Apr 2013, 9:01 am

I'm not quite sure why he tied them together. I know that he had to put Daneel in Prelude to Foundation and Foundation in Earth, because readers and publishers wanted to see him again. Same for writing the prequels and sequels to the Foundation series. Readers and publishers asked all the time, so he thought it might be a good idea.

I dislike all those other novels from his estate. None of them really make sense, nor do they really have anything to do with Asimov's stories. Like since when did the Spacers live in cities similar to those here on Earth? In Foundation and Earth, Trevize, Pel and Bliss do come across some dogs. They're trying to find Earth, and find three Spacer worlds. On Aurora, they come across this pack of dogs. When people fled from Aurora, they probably left at least some of their pets. These dogs must have been the descendents of the ones they left, so they must have learned to fend for themselves, but they weren't herbivores. The aquatic mammals, they also visited New Earth, where one of the characters tells them that they have plans for themselves. They basically live on an island, which is the only land on the planet, and they hope to adapt themselves to, I'm guessing through genetic manipulation, grow gills so they can take to the ocean. The only story that really takes place during the Spacer/Settler conflict is Robots and Empire, but that took place before the Spacer/Settler wars. The Settlers got rid of robots, but I think you're thinking about Daneel. Daneel was designed and put together by Spacers, and he worked with Baley who was an Earthman. Of course the other characters who Daneel knew were already dead, but Daneel, being a robot was still 'alive' throughout the entire series.

That's all right. I love to talk about interesting topics. People who've read Asimov are a bit rare. I haven't met very many.

Yes, Joseph Schwartz went accidentally into the future. There he found that Earth was radioactive, and that people had colonized the galaxy. It's titled Pebble in the Sky, and it was the first book Asimov wrote. He wrote short stories before. The procurator was like an ambassador, and Earth was not the best place to be an ambassador, too. The Earthpeople did not Outsiders. Lietenant Marc Claudy was also like that a bit. He was stationed on Earth, and not only were the natives hostile, but it wasn't safe to leave the military camp or whatever it was because of the radiation. It's explained in later books how Earth became radioative. Not because a war exactly, but it was made to happen deliberately by Amadiro and Mandamus. Meanwhile, the Zealots have come up with a way to kill all people not on Earth, which Schwartz stops.

There was plenty of eugenics in some of his books. A fetal engineer told Baley when he visited the baby farm, that it was her job to see that healthy babies were born. Unless the babies were completely healthy, they do not risk birth, so they weeded their societies eugenically. They also practiced very strict population control. The Laws of Humanics were first mentioned by the robot Giskard. He read human history intensively, trying to understand humans, especially when people worked toward the Greater Good. But really, what is the Greater Good? Many crimes in history have been committed for the Greater Good. I'm sure if you spoke to someone like Stalin, he would tell you that what he did was for the Greater Good. Giskard wanted to understand people better, because he wanted to understand humans and like save them from their own foolishness. He 'died' precisely because he was trying to save humanity. He was not sure if what he did was for the Greater Good. What if it wasn't? What if he destroyed humanity instead of saving it? It was one of the saddest parts, when Giskard 'dies'. Sometimes I still cry when I read it. Not only Giskard's death, but also Earth becoming radioactive.


_________________
"Of all God's creatures, there is only one that cannot be made slave of the leash. That one is the cat. If man could be crossed with the cat it would improve the man, but it would deteriorate the cat." - Mark Twain