Charles Darwin had autism, leading psychiatrist claims

Post Reply New Topic

It can take a long time for society to develop the search patterns to tell the difference between quirks and disability, especially when they want it in sound bites. Closest I can summarize it: you need significant impairments to qualify for an ASD, and if you have significant impairments, then they look at your quirks to see which diagnosis to give you. But quirks without impairments mean nothing, (except to all those who haven't really paid much attention to personality differences yet and freak out when everyone else is not exactly like them).

I do need to read up on Newton and Dirac, now, don't I? And Tesla. I know about Einstein not being autistic already. AnnieK, those are some good posts. I like your comments on Darwin.

Though I'd ignore everything people say about theory of mind and empathy, since they're defined differently for us than for non-autistics (otherwise we'd have them too, and researchers can't allow that! )

But isn't impairment in large part influenced by context/social situation? I don't know if we can make any absolute judgments about who "counts" as impaired when the same person might be very impaired in one situation, and not impaired at all in another. This is the social model of disability.

AnnieK, it looks to me as if you're not a hard-wired Aspie then. Aspies can often do many of the things you've listed, but it usually takes a supreme effort and can't be maintained for very long, like pearl diving.

You might find out a few things of interest if you were to do the Aspie Quiz, which I suspect would tell you that you have both Aspie and NT traits. You also get a chart which breaks down all the different aspects - personally I don't think it's done in a very clear way, but you may be able to make more sense of it. Essentially you get something akin to a personality assessment, which I think is a good thing for anybody who wants to find out more about who they are.

I've often wished AS were as simple as, say, a broken leg, where it's usually perfectly clear whether you've got it or not, and what problems it gives you. When I feel AS is too complicated and contrived to bear thinking about, I tend to think instead about the individual traits and impairments, because those are a lot more tangible, in the same way as aptitude tests are much clearer to me than "general intelligence" which might not even be real.

I'm not just bad at flirting, I avoid it like the plague, though it depends on the definition. If it's defined as playing, then I don't understand why such a childishly simple thing comes to have sexual connotations when practised by adults. If it's defined as those "adult moves" some people get into (leering at each other, dirty dancing, etc.), I'm completely the opposite and equate it all with sleaze and indecency. People used to tell me that I'd never get anywhere with the girls without "playing the game," but I guess I proved them wrong.

In part? Yes, certainly. When society changes, who benefits and who gets left behind changes, too. But I don't know how large a part context plays. It can decide whether you get included or not, but in a different world, I'd still be impaired, just not as critically.

I think you can tell the difference between someone in the past who'd struggle more today and someone who'd adapt. The ones who didn't have any problems at all finding their way back then would probably not have any serious problems today either. Whereas others who thrived with certain supports in place (but not when they were absent) would probably have similar problems today.

The world hasn't always been this insane, but it's always been this social.