I just read this: from Lisa Jo Rudy
What is Asperger syndrome? Is it true that children with AS are like "little professors," while adults are like Mozart or Einstein? There's a grain of truth in these myths - but just a grain.
You are so full of s**t!
To: [email protected]
Date: Wednesday, 1 October, 2008, 10:29 PM
um... ok. what are you objecting to, and why? or are you just angry in general?
Lisa Jo Rudy
About.com Guide to Autism Spectrum Disorders
http://autism.about.com
Sign Up For Free Newsletters and E-Courses
www.About.com
About.com is part of The New York Times Company
-----Original Message-----
From: gwynfryn thomas [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 5:36 AM
To: Lisa Jo Rudy, About Guide to Autism
Subject: Well you did ask! Will you now read the papers and try the test?
Flag this message
RE: Well you did ask! Will you now read the papers and try the test?
Thursday, 2 October, 2008 4:04 PM
From:
"Lisa Jo Rudy, About Guide to Autism" <[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: gwynfryn thomas [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 5:36 AM
To: Lisa Jo Rudy, About Guide to Autism
Subject: Well you did ask! Will you now read the papers and try the test?
Good of you to reply, but we've already been through all this! If you bothered to check the links I gave you you would, for example, have read by now, papers like this:
A THEORY OF PERSONALITY BASED MAINLY ON PSYCHIATRIC EXPERIENCE -- ROSANOFF 77 (3): 417 -- American Journal of Insanity
(OK it looks like my link's been buggered, but if you just copy it into a google, it should work, or else go to "google science" and try something like "Aaron Rosanoff 1921", or "Theory of Personality" or similar; You CANNOT consider yourself even "knowledgeable" about autism until you've read this stuff!)
[http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/index.dtl
I just went to the page, and used right click and "copy link location" and it still isn't working (see above). If this seems mysterious to you, I'm well used to this kind of stuff; someone is working very hard to stop this paper (or anything by Aaron Rosanoff, who was a prolific writer, yet hardly anyone today has heard of him! He's as important to autism as Eugene Bleuler is to schizophrenia) being widely known.]
Which describes what autism really means, and it was written in 1921!
Read what Aaron Rosanoff observed re the autistic personality type, and you'll see why Kanner and Asperger borrowed the label to describe certain development disorders; the connection between autism and what is now described as AS (at least by the UK standard; that crap in DSMIV can include just about anyone!) is obvious, as is the apparent tendency to "introvert" (though "autism experts" seem unable to distinguish between chronic withdrawal, and reflection, indicating they are not themselves given to thinking deeply).
I've also pointed out previously that, from observation of the posted results of the Chandler and McLeod" 5 minute on-line" test (just a Mickey Mouse version of their full test, but very effective just the same:
http://chandlermacleod.com/cmbestfit/content/btw.cfm )
that most diagnosed "aspies" report an AE combination (i.e. a combination of Autistic, and Epileptoid personality strengths{sic}, suggesting their evident behavioural issues are the result of hybrid incompatibility, rather than autism as such; those who are predominantly autistic, are just "strange", and rarely get a clinical diagnosis. I took the full version of this test in 1981 {yes, long before anyone heard of Lorna Wing's garbage} and was reported as "very strongly autistic" as well as having a top1% IQ {in three out of four aspects; just top 2% in the other}, very strong on objectivity, analysis, rationality, etc...and off the scale for imagination and creativity, which Rosanoff associated exclusively with the autistic segment of personality, hence the aptitude for scientific thinking).
There have been lots of books by aspies associating their condition with many of the greats of science and philosophy, and with good reason; Newton, for instance is readily identified as such, but if you study Rosanoff's paper you'll soon discover (if you are capable of analysing what you find, without preconceptions; a fundamental requirement for anyone doing "science") that the connection with the autistic aptitudes (according to the original meaning of the term) is even stronger! Every worthwhile invention or new development in science or technology came, unmistakably, from autistic minds.
Start with A for Archimedes; his "Eureka" moment is now often portrayed as apochryphal, but that's just the establishment propoganda machine at work; it's a perfect example of how us autistics "obssess" over a problem, but also of how we know how to let go, so that our subconscious minds can go to work, unhampered by conscious control (a trick you "normals" can sometimes mimic by "sleeping on it"...but you never seem to understand why it works!). This is an esential technique for solving the most taxing problems, that only autistics seem able to deal with. The manner of his death is certainly not apochryphal, and just screams "autistic" (why don't you look it up?).
You can go through the alphabet and note at every turn how all these guys (not women; that's also a clue: autism as Extreme Male Brain) were a bit strange, loners, invariably despised by "authorities", never got rich, honest to the point of being "blunt", different thinking (which should be an obvious clue in itself; "normal" people do not routinely make scientific breakthroughs. This can only be done by people who do not think conventionally) etc et bloody cetra! Why can't you see this? When you report that evidence is scant; "There's a grain of truth in these myths - but just a grain", then what you are full of is not any understanding of what autism is about!
Let's deal with Mozart: OK, I wasn't a child prodigy on the violin, possibly because, at the age of seven, I'd never been in the same room as a viloin (let alone with anyone able or willing to teach me how to play one) but, when going to another house in my street, having been listening to a song on the radio, when I reached the next house (not so many radio stations to chose from back then) my mental humming of the tune would be on tempo, and at the same pitch (and I mean perfectly). I heard a girl in school whistling Jesu joy of man's desire, and years later, the first time I heard it played "properly", realised she'd whistled it note perfect (it didn't, at that time, occur to me as strange that I should be able to recall a tune so perfectly; for me it was perfectly normal). How about his response to the "...too many notes..." critisism? His "blunt" response, with total disregard to the fact his interlocuter could have had him dragged of and flogged (or hanged) is typically autistic! I don't know too much about Mozart's biography, but the characterisation in the film Amadeus must have been based on something, and when you recall that portrayal, you could be looking at me (except I'm taller, and better looking).
Einstein? Unmistakably autistic (and HFA); just google for the overwhelming evidence in his widely reported biography. Another clue is the effort being put in to deny the obvious (articles in unScientific American, several conflicting reports relating to his brain autopsy; the original reported just one "abnormality": denser than usual glial cels! Ring any bells?).
Galileo? He just didn't get it when his friend had to change into an orthodox thinker, on becoming pope (and he nearly lost his life as a result).
Pasteur? Had a habit of systematically drawing correct conclusions, irrespective of seemingly insufficient evidence (reminds me of me) which is again evidence of a subconscious mind being given free rein, and not just by accident.
J C Maxwell? Was frequently subjected to beatings by his head master, but for no clear reasons (me too!) yet was never expelled (ditto; with hindsight my head master hated me for having a mind of my own, which doesn't look good in a written report justifying an expulsion?) and went on to deduce the "most beautiful equations" of all time (to date) which even I can't understand (though I may have done, had I been made aware of them when younger).
Read Rosanoff's description of autism (as Bleuler, Kanner and Asperger understood it) and the biography of any great scientist, and the connection is evident, and understood by many of the movers and shakers in autism research; this is why adult autistics are positively excluded from not just employment in research, but also from being researched. Why else would every web page for an "autism" research centre display a message that positively exclude the self-diagnosed? Given the increasing stigma attached to "autism", why would any able intelligent adult seek to be so labelled, if they didn't already have good reason to think it applies? How would it hurt to examine such candidates? Why, in years of campaigning, has no one other than yourself expressed any interest in my views. Why have my offers to submit to a brain scan all been ignored?
Why do you print lies about a scarceness of evidence, when the evidence is overwhelming?
View contact details
To:
[email protected]
but even if ALL the people you mention were diagnosable with Asperger syndrome, do you think it's reasonable to suggest that ALL people with Asperger syndrome are creative geniuses? The ability to think and innovate "outside the box" doesn't automatically result in terrific, applicable outcomes, and my concern is that parents (and society in general) may have unreasonable expections, assuming, for example, that if you give a person with AS a workshop they'll just naturally build a fabulous new invention.
one of the problems that people with AS do face, IMHO, is that their creative abilities are rarely associated with political savvy. As a result, they're very often taken advantage of or squelched. I'd bet that someone like Tessla (clearly a genius, and inventor of AC electricity among many other things) may have had AS; certainly he died a pauper as the result of folks like Edison and Westinghouse swindling him. Meanwhile, many of Tessla's inventions turned out to be intriguing but impractical.
The issue of a brain scan is interesting: so far as I am aware, there is no way to discern, based on brain anatomy, whether a person is diagnosable with AS or autism (or with a particular IQ, creative ability, etc.) Certainly it is possible to see that there are differences in brain structure in some people with autism (differences in the size of the amygdala, etc.) - but so far as I know, no one is using brain scans for diagnosis.
Again, IMHO, the more important issue for folks with AS is not so much political as it is practical. What I'd like to see is programs that allow teens and young adults with AS to study and intern as apprentices and then partners with researchers, artists, inventors, etc. - and get a chance to really dig their teeth into projects that allow them to use their creative abilities in the context of institutions that would value their ideas. Again, though, the key would be protecting people with AS from the reality that they sometimes get so into the work that they fail to value the credit, the cash, or the promotions that would get them recognized. I've seen that again and again in academic settings, museums, etc. - the work itself feels like the reward, but in the long run it just isn't enough.
Lisa
Lisa Jo Rudy
About.com Guide to Autism Spectrum Disorders
http://autism.about.com
Sign Up For Free Newsletters and E-Courses
www.About.com
About.com is part of The New York Times Company
07 Oct 2008, 4:43 pm
