Now Seinfeld says he is not autitistic

Post Reply New Topic

I didn't put any stock in it, and I'm glad he's clearing it up now. It would've been a nice representation though.

Quell surprise on this one...

This guy hasn't had face time since he dumped his first wife, and his sitcom was in reruns. All publicity is good, whether they say way to go OR you are a douche bag. That's marketing 101.

My one friend, who was a huge defender of him "coming out"- which he didn't , said she felt used. And she getting a whole heap of sh*t from people.


The only thing Jerry identifies with is how much green is in his bank account. Well played, Jerry, well played. He didn't become worth 820 million by being Mother Theresa.

High five and good job for playing us all like the fool. TOURIST!

I truly hope he was having a serious dialogue, and not yanking everyone's chain.

I need a bleach bath after this one. So close to believing it too..

I got some nasty PMs because I didn't BELIEVE! (TM). I have friends in the business, and none of them were buying it either.

Anyway, I adore Mr. Wilde. Jerry yanked that whole page out of his book.

I think the whole thing got blown way out of proportion. People come on here all the time saying they think they might have it and no one gets excited over that. I mean my cousin come on here saying he might have autism according to a psychologist. Who here really cared all that much? Anyone even know where that thread is? But if Jerry Seinfeld makes a tiny offhand comment that he thinks he might have it, everyone goes bananas.

i agree. also, not that i think people should be jumping with joy or anything but the majority of responses have been really cynical and stuff...

me too

Seinfeld was probably advised that his original autism comments have no basis so he just came back with a retraction. Nothing to see here folks...

Public opinion is not driven by logic but by fears and symbolism. There are a lot of people, and that includes a lot of the professionals who very much want Autism to be defined as it used to be when only the most severely affected were diagnosed. They tend to view people who people who claim that Autistics can be successful , is not a burden are spoiled privileged egotistical brats. Jerry has now become a poster boy http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... =Posterboy for these people. As Ginger Baker writing for the anti vaccine publication "Age of Autism" put it "More than a week ago I wrote a little piece on my blog announcing to the world that I was tired of people redefining autism to suit their own agenda, and then applying their definition to themselves and the rest of the world. Then Jerry Seinfeld had to go and give me the most egregious example possible of said phenomenon" http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/11/scre ... istic.html. If it was just Jerry becoming symbolic it would not be important. It became important because Jerry's comments became a tipping point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_po ... ciology%29 in that published opinions that HFA people are not really autistic that were previous were limited to mostly Autism community and internet trolls. Since Jerry's first spoke about it the idea HFA is not real autism has become widely published in the mainstream media. What is very concerning to me (and me alone apparently) is that I have seen this phenomenon before. When the removal of aspergers was being debated in 2012 two articles appeared in the New York Times, one saying his mother misdiagnosed him the other entitled "Asperger?s History of Overdiagnosis". Shortly there thereafter after New Yorker published and article saying that Aspergers was trendy and lo and behold Aspergers was gone as an official diagnosis. A lot of people here agreed that Aspergers had become associated with people faking it, using it to be cool and agreed with the DSM. At the time I said Aspergers was not the real target. the whole idea of a spectrum was. and now here we are.

Me wonders about a more nefarious explanation for Seinfeld's comments then self publicity or an off- hand remark. As noted above after Jerry's original comments the HFA is not really Autism opinion began regularly appearing in the mainstream media. We know Autism Speaks use fear and dehumanizing autistics to fund raise. The neurodiversity movement with it's Autism is a different, difficulties we face are the result of misunderstanding and prejudice threatens the cash flow to Autism Speaks. Already 2 companies pulled their support of Autism Speaks due to a boycott organized by Autistics. Jerry has publicly supported Autism Speaks. I wonder if Autism Speaks paid Seinfeld to become that "egregious example" to anger the "warrior moms". Angry people make donations.

I see a lot of people confusing the endearing quirky character he plays with Jerry himself. That is understandable as we are a group who do tend to take people too literally. Seinfeld has been very successful in the cutthroat http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cutthroat entertainment industry for a long time. He knows how to viciously manipulate audiences.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 20 Nov 2014, 6:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

He said that he watched a play about autism, and identified.

I would be much more surprised if he was autistic than if he wasn't. Nothing about him strikes me as being the kind of person who would be on the spectrum.

Care factor: [][][][][][][][][][][][][] 0%
In my opinion autistic people are generally funnier and have a better sense of humour than Seinfeld.
And they're more interesting.

So ... it was just another invalid self-diagnosis by an untrained amateur ...

Let's call it the "Seinfeld Syndrome", eh?

ROTFLMAO

Informed opinions which question the accuracy of self diagnoses are one thing, but ridiculing those who rely on such diagnoses because the alternatives are prohibitively costly, geographically distant, administratively confusing and lengthy, often require the use of tests or the involvement of family members that have minimal influence on the diagnoses, or would risk certain other rights and liberties, is beneath the dignity of anyone, especially others with Asperger's Syndrome (AS) or other autism-spectrum disorders (ASDs), in my opinion.

Stories abound on Wrong Planet (and the greater Internet) about the experiences of individuals (usually adults) who jumped willingly through every diagnostic hoop only to be told by a miseducated or spiteful diagnostician that they showed no evidence of AS or ASDs. Knowing themselves better than any diagnostician (or WP commentator) would, many have ignored their provably botched professional diagnoses and moved on with their lives based on their own self research and self diagnoses based on screening-test scores, lifelong characteristics (including those observed by others), and factor diagnoses. Ironically, they don't crave the imprimatur of some professional, just their own self awareness and knowledge.

In other words, self diagnosis works for them just fine. Who, then, should doubt that on their behalf?

Within another WP topic, "why I self-diagnose," B19 shared a non-professional survey http://abnormaldiversity.blogspot.co.nz ... nosis.html (Abnormaldiversity, 2011) recently which showed ably that the use of screening tests in self-diagnoses was remarkably accurate among those individuals who were later diagnosed professionally. While neither scholarly nor wide-ranging, the survey showed consistency in its results nonetheless. Certainly, we need more such surveys.

Meanwhile, can we accept the Abnormaldiversity survey for what it is and see that screening tests within the context of self diagnosis appear to be generally accurate? If so, do those who choose to self diagnose with such tests, and gain no material benefit from doing so except personal awareness, harm anyone? Of course, not. Are they dabbling inaccurately in things complex? Not really, according to the Abnormaldiversity survey results. Then, where is the desire to intrude and build the strawman of "professionally diagnosed v. self diagnosed" coming from? Clearly, there is hostility about this matter.

But, frankly, I don't see its validity. It all smacks of the Dr. Seuss story about The Sneetches that stated that "...until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew whether this one was that one... or that one was this one... or which one was what one... or what one was who."

Last edited by AspieUtah on 20 Nov 2014, 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I absolutely agree with the principle behind what you are saying here. What I think is different, however, is that your cousin came here anonymously, to a site that was created for people who have Autism or who are wondering if they do rather than making a poorly worded statement on a public TV interview. This is the perfect place for someone to come and wonder and ask and seek knowledge about Autism because that is what this site is for. If Jerry had come here like the rest of us and sought help and knowledge if he thought he was on the Spectrum, we would have treated him just like we treated your cousin and everyone else who comes here for that.

And your cousin is not as influential as Jerry. That is just part of being famous. If you choose to say things publicly you have to be prepared for a public response no matter how out of proportion it might be. You also have to be very careful how you word things because even though it's not fair, people do take what you say and run with it. There are not a lot of celebrities who are safe from that. We even do that to each other sometimes.

I think that if Jerry were really concerned about being on the Spectrum and really serious about it, he would have taken the time to find out and get properly assessed before making a public statement. That would have been the safer and more appropriate choice. If all he wanted to say was that he saw a play about an Autistic person and was able to relate to some of the traits than that is what he should have said. But we also all have poor use of wordage sometimes and he is just as human as the rest of us so there is no reason why that could not happen to him. But I think when you are in a position of celebrity like he is, you have to be extra careful how you say things like that in a public interview.

This was my first impression of WP early on: a place of inclusion, that does not stigmatise part of the membership, is not dominated by any specific group, where members were basically committed to respect and acceptance of all members on the spectrum rather than prejudice
by some against some for their own reasons.

Well, I was wrong. There is significant prejudice here and prejudicial attempts to discount and invalidate a large section of the membership.