Charles Darwin had autism, leading psychiatrist claims

Post Reply New Topic

Surely Uncle Claudius would be a more likely candidate?

I agree that all this posthumous "diagnosing" is a bit....well odd.

It's not like I never speculated about Darwin myself, but I can do no more than speculate as a lay-person. What value is Fitzgerald adding to this as a non-lay person? Surely any of us here could make equally speculative, non-provable assessments that have zero clinical validity, so ought not this person put their professional standing and qualifications to some more productive purpose than endless speculation about who among the no-longer living, did or did not have autism?

Why not Louis XVI (of France) while he's at it? Or do only the "successful" get thrown into the autism lolly scramble.

I'd rather be a genius if I had a choice in the matter. This kind of supposition thrown out in such a careless manner could get many possible responses, two of which are :
1) Wow, I didn't know that. This from the folks who tend to believe anything.
2) Oh yeah, prove it. This from people who want some reasonable level of proof.

So hypothetically, let's say an aspie enthusiastically declares that Isaac Newton was an aspie to a skeptical sort of person. And what if that person ( the skeptic ) knows enough to look up the diagnostic criteria from DSM IV TR and then demands evidence to support the claim? What is the enthusiastic aspie to do to make the case? Are there surviving diaries from Newton's parents describing their son as socially inept and aloof, selective mutism, stimming, an obsessive interest in watching apples fall to the ground? So what stims did Newton have? What sort of sensitivity issues? Did he ever refuse to talk to adults outside of immediate family and avoid eye contact for all, or most of, his life?

KenG does not appear to have taken my initial post as a personal attack, and it was not intended as such. And this is not an attack on you Xanderbeanz. I am simply trying to illustrate why I believe that declaring someone to be aspie because some of us would like it to be so could backfire. There are people in the world who will not accept the "He/She was creative, ergo He/She was an aspie" argument.

Or for that matter living ones.

Both Bill Gates and myself are odd and have computers, so I am a failure.

Autism, 1 in 150, inventors, 1 in 5,000 to 10,000, so all autistics without patents are just not trying, and it is their fault.

I am taller than most, and have a larger hat size, therefore, add whatever you like here_________

Anybody, compared to everybody, is different.

In his younger years, Darwin could have played shortstop for the New York Yankees.

No, he was just faking it to avoid being killed for political reasons. Haven't you read the Robert Graves novels?

I don't think Claudius was faking, after the Senate killed Caligula's wife and child before help could come, which they did, and killed the corrupted members of the household guard, and eveyone else for good measure, they found Claudius hiding behind a curtain, but there is another story they kept him at their camp.

It did end the plan to stop the Numidian war, Rome was broke, but the Senate had to pay the army first, and if anything happened to Claudius, the Senate would die, and their families.

The money lenders had bribed the Senate, public funds were spent for work that was never done, repairing roads and bridges, keeping public buildings in repair, providing for the army. When the arrest of the criminals and the recovery of stolen money was facing them, The Senate saw that only a few deaths would make the Speaker of the House President, and they could rule the world.

A Few Good Men stopped them, for they held the good of the Nation to be above politics.

Well you see, this is where folk like me and Fitzgerald are just very clever. Unlike silly sob Rob, we are able to see beyond the limited and inappropriate (to the task) data mere mortals misconstrue, allowing us to detect the true autistic brilliance of the long dead.

What others fail to put together is that many have accused Claudius of faking, just as many have accused us of faking. See the connection! Obviously this is significant and proves much. It's exactly the same symptom. Therefore I should now receive a hefty advance on a book publishing deal!

As additional evidence, Claudius had to bribe the praetorian guards to fully secure his position (in the short term aftermath following the assassination of Caligua). This would require an interest in numbers, or possibly an ability to count, or at least instruct someone to count on one's behalf. So here we have a fascination with numbers, that is resulting in one imposing their interest on others. See! Is it not now obvious?

Others might think Claudius was hiding behind the curtains, but in fact he was merely examining their pattern, and was so preoccupied with this non-functional part of the curtains, that he never even noticed the ruckus until someone thought to pull the curtain aside.

Also, not everyone was kind to Claudius when he was younger. Is this not absolute undeniable proof? Or at least kind of indicative? Or at the very least a bunch of words arranged into a grammatically correct, meaning-bearing sentence? Come on a book deal might be at stake here!

Where is the dollar sign emoticon, never mind I'll buy one when my book deal proceeds come in.

I have the printing, binding, and am working on marketing, I have six books and selling paper works.

Uncle Claudius was very shy, mumbled, did get lost in patterns, but unlike all the family members that were killed before Caligula, they kept him around because he saw things that others did not. He did live in the household, and was a trusted advisor.

It is said every generation rewrites history, seeing it from their time.

I have one book about the early days of autism, origens, and uses.

So get that keyboard clicking!

Claudius was seen all the time of his live, even when Augustus was still around as "odd". Claudius was keen to get some offices, but was denied any influence.

I agree that researchers are often corrupt, forcing their data to fit some glittery, pre-conceived notion - they publish and take the kudos. By the time they're discredited, they've already milked the cash cow. They often know perfectly well that their ideas have feet of clay, but just like anybody else, they have to make a living in this dirty world of ours. I've even heard a history lecturer telling students that there's nothing wrong with the gambit and that it's up to the opposition to do the same thing in reverse......the joys of the adverserial system The real sorrow is that Darwin himself would never have pushed an idea any further than his honest data justified.

On the other hand, he could be right. For me it has to remain an attractive suspicion. I did notice that Darwin couldn't cope with school at all, did very badly, but would instead get heavily involved with the things he was curious about. In spite of a lot of pressure from his parents etc., it seems he just couldn't do things any other way. It does kind of fit, doesn't it?

That is not all they suffered from.

ruveyn

This is completely ridiculous. One of the key reasons why Darwin was chosen to go on the Beagle was because he was a personable, social young man. The captain was a young guy who was looking not only for a naturalist but someone of his own class who he could sit down and chat with in the evening and talk about all the usual things that young well brought up young men of that class talk about. And the captain and Darwin got along very well. Sure Darwin liked nature, didn't like the hustle and bustle of the city, had unusual hobbies etc. but that doesn't make him autistic. He also had lots of friends in college so he was hardly a loner.

Incidentally I seriously doubt Einstein was autistic/had Asperger's. Once again he was a very personable social young man who got along great with his peers. He had problems with authority and had unusual hobbies he was obsessed with but that hardly makes him an Aspie.

Now, if you want to talk about a scientist who was most likely an Aspie, you need to look at Dirac. He had a habit of taking things very very literally (and he wasn't joking), had few social skills and was very set in his routines and manners. For example if someone didn't get something he was saying, he'd just repeat what he was saying because he figured that he had figured out the best way of saying it and if he repeated it enough times it would sink in. His words were also always very precise and logical and known for seeming quite emotionless.

One thing I notice about all of these "diagnoses" is that they rarely mention things like taking things literally, stims, lack of eye contact, etc. that you would expect from an Aspie. It is perfectly possible to be sociable, cheerful young man with good social skills who just happens to have a good mind for maths and logic and is obsessed with something. I also find it suspicious that it is always the most famous people who get diagnosed. I've never seen anyone diagnose Dirac as on the spectrum despite the fact that he literally screams autistic. Strangely enough (being sarcastic here) Dirac is not as famous to the general public as Einstein is though in the physics world he is very famous. OK, I'm wrong, apparently he was post-posthumously diagnosed in a biography but the point is his name never appears in those lists which go around the public.


Sorry for the long post but just something I have been thinking of recently. I am increasingly doubting I am an Aspie. At first I thought so, because well,

- Have graduate degree in theoretical physics (i.e. good at logic, maths, geeky interests)
- Loner; have few friends. To tell the truth I enjoy being alone
- Never had a boyfriend despite being in 20s
- Don't understand body language/facial expressions very well
- Lots of geeky interests
- Tend to get obessesed with things to the point of OCD
- Have a few minor sensory issues (mainly sound though nothing major)
- Have absolutely no eye-hand co-ordination
- I tend to be very direct
- I've been suicidally depressed over my lack of human connections
- Tend to be quite stuck to my routines

I was trying to find an answer to my problems and I thought Asperger's was it. OTOH as I have been finding out by reading threads on this forum:

- I have no problems with eye contact
- Though I can't read body language, apparently the body language I give out makes people feel comfortable.
- Enjoy team work and I enjoy being social
- Very skilled at marketing, sales and job interviews and generally am very good with words
- Always been popular with teachers, relatives and bosses
- I get along very well with team members. In fact one of the things that I get praised about is my ability to get along with most people, including difficult people that other people can't take.
- Don't have any stims that I know of
- Apparently as a baby I was very sociable and everyone thought I was so, so cute
- I read about Aspie's having problems with "Theory of the Mind" and I read the descriptions and think "What's so hard about that?" so obviously I don't have that problem
- I've never had a meltdown that I know of. In fact as the situation gets more chaotic I get calmer.
- Apparently I am very good with empathy.
- My facial expressions are very emotional.

Now I am increasingly certain I am not an Aspie, I don't know what the hell I have. I think it was easier when I thought I had Asperger's. May be I should just see a therapist...Or may be I'm just plain weird. Right now, I've given up on the whole love and friends thing and have resigned to being a loner - though strangely enough a loner that people really like and admire. I still don't get that.

The point is the way most of these diagnoses seem to be done is on things like my first list. However as I show and from what I read most of the famous scientists and people who get "diagnosed" you can be highly logical, direct, never have a boyfriend/girlfriend and obsessive *without* being an Aspie.

The way I see it there are two seperate things: a list of personality traits which are often linked to Asperger's but could also occur regardless of Asperger's. Then Asperger's itself is a neurological condition with specific differences in wiring which result in things like meltdowns, stims, difficulty with eye contact, lack of theory of mind, taking things literally, difficulty showing emotion. Asperger's is not the personality traits.

Another possibility though is that the listed personality traits and Asperger's are in fact linked by some common neurological wiring and Asperger's is only the form it takes when something happens that means that certain things randomly go a different way and hence becomes more "noticeable". I mean I am definitely not "normal" and I like Einstein I often have difficulty connecting with my fellow men in the same way "normal" people do though people around me see me as very emphatic and very social. I feel I am on a different planet. However like Einstein I don't seem to have any of the major Aspie problems. In fact like Einstein I am quite sociable and well liked. In which case it would mean that Asperger's and autism in generally is a lot deeper than just a neurological disorder or condition in that it is merely the most public face of a certain type of neurological wiring and only comes to attention because of issues surrounding especially children. In which case there may be some sort of common neurological wiring between people like me, Einstein, Feynman and Heisenberg who share many of the personality features but avoid a lot of the stereotypical problems (and hence to disappear unless they do something famous) and those who are clearly "Asperger's" because of they have the steroetypical problems. Of course genius is not necessarily something that belongs to one of those two groups. For example Einstein and Heisenberg would fall into the first group with me and Dirac, Newton and Tesla would fall into the second.

This is really the concept of the autistic spectrum to encompass parts of the NT grouping. If that is the case it might explain the survival of the Asperger's "gene" in human history. That the same genes that produce autism are capable of producing much of the same wiring to a large extent without the stereotypical problems. And probably even if it does produce the stereotypical problems they are probably minor enough that they can largely be compensated for. Then the only reason it is seen as a "problem"is because of the large modern visibility of the small minority for whom the problems are significant enough that compensation is difficult. That really, those who are diagnosed as on the spectrum are merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of carriers of the genes. If that is the case I can't see how they can wipe out the autism gene without causing a lot of unintended side effects in removing certain talents and abilities from the human gene pool.

I think the problem may be that the question "do I have Aspergers syndrome?" isn't one that can be answered with a simple yes or no, except in extreme cases. AS is a menagerie of seemingly unrelated traits, so any line drawn between NT and AS is bound to be rather arbitrary. If health resources are limited, there is an inherent temptation to draw the line in a way that keeps the number of positive diagnoses within spending limits.

I seem to have some of your NT-like traits, the obvious exception being eye-contact, which I have to admit I'm not good at. I should also say that I haven't been diagnosed - all I can say is that I strongly suspect that a diligently-conducted DX would turn out positive. Otherwise why would my online tests come out so strongly positive?

Theory of mind: well the Sally Anne test was a doddle, and I can sometimes guess other people's feelings, though there's something very cloudy about the whole idea of feelings, my own and other people's.

I've sometimes felt that I'd be quite good at marketing, having studied the tricks of the trade in order to test the morals of the capitalist and to render myself immune from manipulation), though my ethical reservations would make it hard for me to test my skills there.

Your popularity could be largely linked to your material performance - it's amazing how nice people can be to a useful person, and if the boss likes you, it could be that the workforce is sucking up to you just to stay in with the boss. Before I knew what AS was, I would see every new girlfriend and every bit of social success as good evidence that I wasn't a nerd, and was amazed when I took the online AS tests and they turned out positive every time. But a friend in need is a friend indeed, and it's quite feasible that a lot of what I took to be love for me was either desperation or merely love for what I could do for them. Not that I'm saying that neither of us has ever really been liked. Among a population that largely shuns anybody who seems a bit different, there are also many excellent individuals who refuse to toe that line, and there are also multi-cultural communities who simply can't identify atypical individuals because the group itself is already so heterogenous that "weirdos" don't stand out. I've also noticed that once I start to believe (rightly or wrongly) that I'm among friends, my social performance improves instantly.

Very good with words - Aspies are notorious for having high verbal intelligence. I prefer to stick to the written word at which I seem to do very well, but I can also do surprisingly well in realtime as long as there aren't too many rapid and unexpected changes in the remit....once I go out of my depth like that, I can't take in a thing, and have to sit there hoping nobody will ever find out.

Facial expressions - I think that over the years I've half-consciously cultivated this. I got the impression that I wasn't being "animated" enough in that respect, and began to compensate.

Leadership potential: I've heard that Aspies actually make good leaders, if they're given the chance. I guess I'm about to find out. It looks like the music club needs a new chairperson, and they're looking to me as the one who can fill that role. I'm astonished, as I've always been shy at meetings, which always seem too fast, exclusionist, and over my head, but after a year or so with them I've begun to find my voice. It's very important to me that whatever I do there can't affect my income (we don't get paid). If it were happening in my job then I'd feel my style was compromised because of having to cover my back. On the other hand, I intend to be a facilitator rather than a leader, as I don't believe in guru types who profess to know what's best for their group, and I won't be embarrassed if the rank and file don't accept many of my ideas. Mostly it's about helping them to work out for themselves what they want to do. I don't trust charismatic leaders, though I have to admit that deepdown I like to think I have a certain charm that can sometimes get people to want to view my ideas a little more favourably. But "good speeches" just make me want to reach for the sick bucket. For me, no mature person is duped by rhetoric - if a point doesn't stand up on its own logical merits, it should be allowed to fall and not be propped up by glittery, smooth talking hype.

Meltdowns: I never had one of those either, and I pride myself in being able to keep outwardly calm when everybody else is panicking - in fact one person said I'd be a good chair because of that trait. Strangely it's a trait that has got me into trouble before, because sometimes people can't understand why I don't get all heated up at the drop of a hat, so they think I'm not interested.

How many of these traits of yours are diagnostic criteria? I don't have a list of the DX criteria so I'm not sure.

Asperger's, impairments in three groups out of a dozen or so where said impairments leave the subject unable to function in the normal world.

One can be highly functional in all the other groups, that does not count.

Total impairment in two groups, you flunk, no Asperger's for you.

There is also a lot of Asperger's plus co morbids, non functional in non Asperger's directions.

I do not think I fit Asperger's view, but I do.

They see the glass as full of disability, I see ability.

It is a grouping of traits which some can use, and others can not.

Each trait is like a coin, two sides, plus who you are, personality, situation, but a human trait that can be good or bad.

That is why I seek the range of each trait, for one may be disabled by it, yet another prosper because of it.

In the broader range, Autism, a differance in perception and thought.

Current use is to seek the worst, then sell drugs.

All traits have range, I did the lack of eye contact, and then did the excess, the Aspie stare, both have uses. I have both the broad non point vision, and the tunnel vision and focus. Both are ends of a range of eye contact-vision, where most are in the middle, using it in relation to other people, in a common form.

I do think Autism covers it, with Autism being a good thing.

I have no doubt part of it is. I know I have a lot of respect. So much that I have been described as intimidating. However it was true even when I was low on the totem pole - people higher up were very nice to me. Also I tend to receive a lot of help from people - money, advice, etc. Yes, people like to give me things. So it's more a case of me benefiting more than others benefiting from me. When I was a child I had adults tell me they wish I was their child (and then give me presents).

The key realization that made me realize there was no way I could have Asperger's though was when I realized that I am a natural flirt. I never realized it because it just came so naturally I never had to think about it. I only realized it when I started trying to learn to flirt and then thought "Oh, I've been doing this all along." Thinking back on it I have been since I was a baby judging by my parent's description of me and people's reactions. I loved being held and played with and adults loved to "borrow" me. My natural reaction when in trouble is to play cute and innocent (and I have to admit I usually get off even if say it is someone catching me red handed in some mischief). It is as natural as breathing. I seem to know when to tilt my head, say the right things. My parents joke about it (though they still fall for it all the same). I may not *consciously* be able to read people (seriously it's like WTF is that face for? What are you trying to say?) but somehow *subconsciously* I know how to behave to act "charming" and I don't know how you can get more NT than that.

I'm bad at actual relationships (I have a suspicion that might be a psychological issue now - there was a lot of uncertainty and change in my childhood. I also tend to "live in my mind" a lot) but apparently I am very good at charming people. For a long time I thought people hated me, but I've realized recently that it is the opposite. Most people like me they just don't want to get too close. I'm weird, but apparently a "good" weird if you know what I mean. Look I don't understand it either.

At the same time as having good social skills (though bad relationship skills) I have a lot of stereotypical Aspie personality traits such as being high analytical, tending to get obsessed with things, etc. I also generally like being alone with my own thoughts. I like socializing but I'm happy to go off and do my own thing. Liking to wander off and think about things alone is not necessarily a sign of bad social skills. It's a sign that you like to wander off and think - and oh you are not afraid to be on your own and do your own thing.

The point is I am not trying to compensate for anything. It is subconscious and I was like this as a baby. Likewise my ability to remain calm under pressure and stimulus is not something I had to cultivate. It has always come naturally. And yet at the same time I have a lot of the personality traits and skills and talents that are typically associated with Aspies. Likewise from what read of people like Einstein and Darwin they are pretty similar to me. They are intelligent, have good analytical ability, get obsessed with things, like to wander off alone and think about things but at the same time as far as I can tell they both tend to have decent social skills and Einstein, Feynman, and Heisenberg at least were apparently very charming individuals. And none of us have issues with eye contact, showing emotions, taking things literally, stims, etc. at least none that I read of. The point is Asperger's is not the personality traits. It is entirely possible to have the traits and the stereotypical talents without having the syndrome known as Asperger's. It is possible though that the connection is that the same genes that cause Asperger's may very well often be expressed in ways which avoid most of the problems like eye contact, theory of mind, etc.

Personally I don't understand why it is so difficult for people to believe that it is possible to have personality traits and talents similar to Asperger's but not actually have any of the symptoms of the syndrome and may be even have good social skills. In fact I have a sneaking suspicion it may be a really significant proportion of people with the genes fall into this category. I mean people only get public attention if they are either have a lot of trouble or do something very famous. Most "normal" people like me would slip through the cracks.

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! )