Asperger's ~ Causes Fame?!

Post Reply New Topic

I was just pondering the plethora of lists of famous people who are claimed to possibly be Aspies. I occurred to me that, if it hasn't been done already, somebody is bound to compile all these lists into a single huge master list. It wouldn't surprise me, based on the lists I've seen so far, that if such a thing were done, a master list compiled from every speculation in existence would more than likely include every famous and semi-famous person in existence since the beginning of history!

And that some people, based on such a master list, will begin to speculate that Aperger's is a catalyst for fame and success!

I honestly do not understand the incessant need for "heroes" to the point of speculating about stars for whom there is no solid evidence of Asperger's.

I totally understand looking to confirmed cases like Dan Akroyd, as someone to look to as a model of what an Aspie can achieve, but what is the point of looking up to stars who may just as likely NOT have AS? What is the point of looking for role models among those who, if they do NOT actually have AS, are NOT good role models for us, because they posses tools we do not have?

To me, it's just a huge waste of time, which can potentially cause many Aspies to waste their own time attempting to emulate people they may believe have AS, but are actually NT's! Seems like the potential for Aspies to embark on an impossible quest is just too great. I choose not to participate in speculations like that for that very reason.

In my experience my AS son isn't likely to try to emulate anyone. Heroes, for him, are about seeing what is possible, not about seeing how he, himself, might act.

For a population that faces so many hurdles, the idea that gifts can be turned into real life success is a positive one. Everyone needs to have dreams, so that they don't give up on life. My son isn't counting on becoming the next Bill Gates or Thomas Edison, and he isn't trying to. But it does put a smile on his face and make things go down a little easier to believe there is a chance that he'll be the millionaire when he gets to a 10 year school reunion, and the bully will be the janitor.

Mostly the reason for such speculation is the idea that if you can just list enough famous names, everyone will have to agree that this is a valid way to be. Einstein did it; therefore, I'm not necessarily going to spend my life in an institution. Thomas Jefferson did it, and that makes two; therefore, you can't keep thinking in terms of "cure" because you wouldn't think of curing Einstein or Jefferson. And here's Temple Grandin, and if we have so many, maybe that means we're just better.

It does fall into a logical fallacy. In fact, two that I can count. (My training in logic is scanty, so I don't really know the proper names.) The first would be Correlation =/= Causation, which is to say that all these Aspies/Auties could be famous because there's something that causes both autism and fame. The second is some kind of selection bias: the only ones you know about are the famous ones, which automatically selects against anyone who never amounted to anything. 100% of Aspies in history books were important. The actual percentage of important Aspies throughout history has been a whole lot lower, rather like the percentage of NTs who amount to anything.

Anyway, I don't like that you seem to be implying (though of course my ability to pick up and understand nuance is somewhat lacking) that these people are held up to be emulated, and that you shouldn't try to emulate a non-spectrum role-model. Why not? Personally, I'm a huge fan of Elyn Saks, whose only tangential connection to the spectrum was being asked once whether she had Asperger's. But I take her story as inspiration, because she shared certain challenges that I also face, and became successful. But she didn't share every challenge, and she found solutions that would never work for me, and she became highly successful in a field that I don't plan to go into. So I take the inspiration-- success is possible, because it's been proven to have happened-- and ignore the means except where it directly applies. That's pretty much what I do with all "inspirational" stories, when I bother with them. It doesn't matter if they're on the spectrum or not-- Temple Grandin thinks in pictures, whereas I don't. Her special interest is animals, which mine isn't. She has problems with anxiety, whereas I don't. (Panic attacks notwithstanding.) So I take it for what it is. It's her story. Not mine.

I'm just being myself.

.... ummmmm .....
never mind.

Sparrowrose, I can see that you don't quite understand what I mean.

A panic attack is a surge of utter terror, combined with derealization, difficulty concentrating and odd physical sensations. I have them when I forget to keep up with the treatment for a physical illness I have, which is every several months at a minimum. In between, I'm a very suspicious person, but generally enjoy myself and feel little fear.

I've spoken to a friend with GAD about the matter, and she agrees that that's a different beast entirely from the pervasive anxiety and daily feelings of choking with no visible cause. That's there all the time and interferes with daily life. I just forget about it in between, and when actually experiencing one, I just mask it as best I can. In hindsight, it's really funny that the whole world dissolving into terror and guilt and the detached realization that the wrought-iron floral pattern was evil looked on the outside rather like being preoccupied or somewhat down, even to people who know me quite well.

So basically, I have brief periods of abject terror and assorted weirdness, but feel absolutely fine most of the time. I do not have pervasive, free-floating anxiety most of the time.

This is an important distinction to make in terms of treatment and coping.

Okay.

I just know that when I was having panic attacks, they were experienced as overwhelming occasions of anxiety, which is why it sounds strange to me to hear someone say they don't have a problem with anxiety, except for those huge, debilitating anxiety attacks they have every so often . . .

Because my panic attacks seemed exactly to me like a problem with anxiety. Just not 24/7 anxiety, but still, anxiety. And a problem.

It sounds like your panic attacks must be a different sort of thing from what I experienced. Because mine were definitely a problem with anxiety.

What I've noticed is that having lists of famous or "semi-famous" people who may have had autism leads to some divisions in perspective. Aspies and HFA's in their teens and adult years feel inspired and a sense that we may have a place in society for the better, afterall. Parents of low functioning autie children have expressed great dislike for them, saying that it is only "asperger's people" who have the potential to be like that, meaning (to them) that those of us higher on the spectrum have little in common with their children.

It's the "us vs. them" mentality that has led to the narrowing of the DSM-V diagnostic criteria. Some professionals believe that if we believe we can be a Bill Gates or an Einstein, we certainly don't need a diagnosis that we're disabled! If they did it, without special help, why can't we? Parents of LFA's often believe we're out of touch with them.

Temple Grandin didn't speak until she was four. Her parents were told she had "severe" autism. No one could have known that until many years later, however. Her advice to parents of every level of autists has been to find those passionate interests and look for careers that could fit them.

Do autists need role models? Not if we're doing what we love. We've never quite been about emulating and copying others. We're forced to dance to our own drummer because we can't hear the music others are listening to.

It's not just professionals and parents. I often experience the lists of "famous aspies" like a slap on the face. Those lists say, "see? they had asperger's and did great things. You must be *really* screwed up. Why have you been homeless so many times? It must not be asperger's or else you'd be another Thomas Edison. You must have something really terrible and tragic and unspeakable, because 'aspies' can do *anything* and you're just some lowly loser."

And when I think about asking for an accomodation at school, those lists tell me, "why are you going to ask for an accomodation? Do you think Albert Einstein ever asked for an accomodation? Do you think Thomas Jefferson ever asked for an accomodation? What's *really* wrong with you?"

And when I want to advocate for societal acceptance, the lists tell me, "if people with asperger's are so great and innovative, and brilliant, and some kind of genetic leap forward in evolution, why do they need to ask for societal acceptance? Why should people accomodate or accept someone who is so great as Einstein or Bill Gates? You think you need societal acceptance? What's *really* wrong with you? Is it something so bad that you can't even name it and have to hide behind asperger's? If you had asperger's, you be great and powerful and famous and wealthy. You must have something so messed up that you should just hide."

That's what those lists of famous people make me think and feel. Angry, frustrated, ashamed, insufficient, damaged, broken. I have never found them empowering. At best, I find them ridiculous. At worst, I find them invalidating.

Where I find validation and a great role model is in the autobiographies of people like me who made it past the adversity in their lives to achieve a sense of wholeness and a niche in the world where they could excel. Dr. Dan Prince-Hughes' autobiography, "Songs of the Gorilla Nation," is one of the most empowering books I've ever read because it describes a person like me, finding her way in the world, not some untouchable Einstein or Jefferson but a real woman with Asperger's who went through many life experiences similar to mine, who was almost relegated to the trash heap of society but managed to find her passion and follow it to a place of success and self-acceptance.

I could be quoting from a lot of the above posts, but the replies I would have all boil down to the same basic answer. I think some of you are missing my point totally.

I totally understand the concept of role models, and how useful it can be in boosting the self-confidence in many who might otherwise never consider achieving what they can achieve.

When these lists are created though, they are created based on pure speculation, with little to no evidence that any of the people listed ought to be considered Autistic.

More likely than not, most of the people put on these speculative lists are NOT Autistic at all, but are more likely NT's.

That said, does it make sense to compare oneself to someone totally different from yourself, and assume you can do what they did based on a false assumption they are like you when they almost certainly ARE NOT like you at all?

It's not that I'm a "party-pooper" and don't think Aspies can achieve great things, or shouldn't try. WE SHOULD TRY! But let's not fool ourselves into believing that we are something we are not.

It's one thing to think positively, and compare oneself to someone that IS like yourself. It's fallacy though, to compare yourself to someone that is nothing like you.

The one is realistic, while the other is fantasy.

To put it another way:

One can lead to being your best, while the other can lead to massive frustration.

"Not only have persons interested in autism claimed Einstein one of their own but so have persons with an interest in schizophrenia and dyslexia. If Einstein had traits of all three disorders then it would quite interesting that he would be one of the greatest scientists and thinkers of the 20th century in addition to being one of the most afflicted persons in the world."

- from Undiagnosing Gates, Jefferson and Einstein by Jonathan Mitchell

That was a fantastic article. I do have a little disagreement with the author in the bit about Einstein and talking. He says that Einstein's late talking couldn't have been evidence of autism because people with autism develop normally (including speech) and then suddenly regress. Uh...no. That's only one subset of autism. Lots of people with autism (though not Aspergers or regressive autism) don't start speaking until much older- such as Temple Grandin and my daughter. Then he makes that innacuracy a moot point by saying there are also anecdotes from Einstein's grandparents about him talking normally at 2.


I suppose my homing in on one microscopic innacuracy and then making a whole post about it means I am AS rather than NT. But I am neither famous nor talented so I don't think you all would want me.

(Yes I do get the larger point that a long list of superstars can be more demoralizing than inspiring if it makes superstardom look like an achievable norm.)

IIRC, he complained about not getting it for the rest of his life. So, yes, he probably did ask, if he wasn't in terror from his teachers, that is. Germany was a very authoritarian at the time and schools were set up to produce conformance to authority, and it was something that idiot with a mustache exploited to the fullest.

Einstein's brain structure corresponds with some autistic characteristics, AFAIK.


One thing you should note, they are accommodated because they are successful, and not successful because they are accommodated. And please note the all-or-nothing tendency of aspies, some go for all, and some of them actually succeed.

Einstein mainly gets that treatment because of his hair.

Why do people you look up to have to have AS? I look up to Steve Jobs, as you can tell by my current avatar and user title, but he's NT as far as anyone knows.

I do think those lists claiming that pretty much every well known person has AS are stupid, though. If there's a fairly solid basis to believe someone may have AS (such as with Nikola Tesla), that's one thing, but saying some famous historical figure had AS because of one personality trait, as many of these lists do, is just pointless.

Just reading the parts about Einstein. It's interesting to note that he uses a second hand claim from Einstein that he intentionally skipped baby talk phase as a piece of evidence against the claim that he had autism, while forgetting that NTs simply can't remember events of that early age. While, admittedly, I don't think Einstein had classical autism, he was most probably on the spectrum. It's simply an elegant explanation for a lot of what he did. And about Einstein's relationships, I wouldn't call them normal in the least, by their WTF content.


They don't, but why not? I never liked Steve Jobs, though.

I have no particular bias against looking up to Aspies, I just think it's stupid to look up to someone based on their neurology. You should look up to someone because of what they achieved, and who they are, not because they happen to have the same condition as you. IMO, anyway.

And what's wrong with Steve Jobs? The guy's a genius. He revolutionises every market he touches.