So Albert, Wolfgang, and Immanuel Had Autism: Does It Matter?
Michael Fitzgerald, a professor of psychiatry at Trinity College in Dublin, recently argued that the genes for creativity and for autism and autism spectrum disorders are “‘essentially the same,’” the February 21st Telegraph notes. Historical figures ranging from scientists Isaac Newton to Albert Einstein, from composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to writer George Orwell, from US President Thomas Jefferson and philosopher Immanuel Kant, from science fiction writer H.G. Wells to politician Charles de Gaulle, are said to have been on the autism spectrum.
Interesting. But does post, or rather post mortem, diagnosis of historical personnages help autistic children and autistic individuals today, and especially those who are for sure special, but who have many needs and will need many supports throughout their lives?
Tags: asd, asperger, autism, charles de gaulle, einstein, george orwell, History, immanuel kant, ludwig wittgenstein, mozart, newton, Parenting, pdd-nos, thomas jeffersonRelated Stories
POSTED IN: Animals, Asperger's Syndrome, History, Philosophy, Psychiatry
23 opinions for So Albert, Wolfgang, and Immanuel Had Autism: Does It Matter?
Leila
Feb 25, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I think it matters because it shows that autism sometimes also comes with gifts. However the most important thing for a parent is how their own child is doing. Statistics, success stories and anedoctes are great while you’re still hoping that your child will be a fully verbal, independent individual. However, when it becomes clear that he/she will be severely impaired for the rest of his/her life, the association with geniuses and high-accomplished individuals will not bring much comfort.
Leila
Feb 25, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Let me rephrase my last sentence: “will not bring much comfort” in case the parent in question is still grieving about his child’s condition. But if the parent is in a state of acceptance, the revelation or discussion about geniuses being in the autism spectrum is not much more than a curiosity or distraction.
Sara
Feb 25, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Yes, it does matter as Leila says, but it matters more to show that most autistic are “normal people”. Not everyone are savants… Showing that you can just be “normal” is more important, IMO.
Eleanor
Feb 25, 2008 at 4:59 pm
This brings to mind an excellent book by Paul Collins, “Not Even Wrong,” in which he integrates research into historical “autists” with his own coming to terms with his son’s autism. This book is on my “literature” shelf rather than on my “parent’s stories” shelf…
As to your question about the value of post-mortem “diagnosis,” it is highly suspect and I doubt I would take it very seriously. Do most eccentric geniuses have some ASD traits? Sure. But so do alot of other people who aren’t geniuses.
KimJ
Feb 25, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I think it could matter. Not in terms of a defense of neurodiversity but as a tool to re-examine study methods and educational styles. With the introduction of grades (segregation and judgement according to age) and compulsory education, I think there were some valuable things that were lost.
While there were cases of abuse (child labor) I think the expectation that school was a privilege provided an environment that may have been better geared towards learning rather than “going along”. I think knowing that there were special needs kids that either thrived in the one-room schoolhouse or with tutors, homeschooling, I think we can have a better idea of how to deal with our own kids.
Doing the standard, “behave in class, comply, get good grades, hope for college” isn’t right for a lot of people. Some of our more successful people dropped out of school. Knowing that helps a lot.
I think there is a panic if our kids aren’t at grade level by a certain age or can’t sit with their age-level peers. There’s something shameful in autistics relating to much younger or much older peers. I think that Assembly-line school is failing itself and our society as a whole.
I don’t think Hans Christian Andersen was autistic (some do) but he attended grammar school in his late teens. He was a very slow learner and yet he succeeded at writing. He redefined a whole genre of literature. That’s what gifted and special people can do if provided special help.
jonathan
Feb 25, 2008 at 5:01 pm
no, no evidence at all that these people are autistic and these postmortem diagnoses are bad because they trivialize people who have real disabilities. For more on the subject you can read my article:
http://www.jonathans-stories.com/non-fiction/undiagnosing.html
Donna
Feb 25, 2008 at 5:05 pm
If true, wouldn’t we look at the genetics differently. Aren’t scientists looking for genes which are different from people without autism? It sounds like the same genes may be responsible for being very smart and for autism which would mean that searching for the bad mutated genes may not help us.
Leila
Feb 25, 2008 at 5:11 pm
KimJ, you brought a very important point. Yes, knowing that accomplished intellectuals/scientists were/are in the autism spectrum contributes to the idea of presuming intellect and not underestimating the abilities of our children, even if they don’t seem to fit or cope with the rules or instruction methods of regular school.
daedalus2u
Feb 25, 2008 at 5:13 pm
I think it does matter because of the fear that some have regarding in utero testing of genes for autism.
Another question to ask is not how many brilliant and creative people had ASDs, but how many brilliant and creative people did not. If the number of brilliant individuals without ASDs is smaller than the non-ASD proportion in the population (that would be ~149 out of 150), then we can expect that by eliminating ASD genes from the gene pool, we will also be eliminating a disproportionate number of the brilliant and creative individuals.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Feb 25, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Post-mortem diagnosis can turn into something of a parlor game—first time I had heard mention of De Gaulle, and also George Orwell, as on the spectrum. On a slightly different note, it does seem to be mostly men who receive a post-diagnosis, though I would add Gertrude Stein to the list.
KimJ
Feb 25, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Well, we know about Dr. Temple Grandin and I have heard people claim Mme Curie was an Aspie. I do agree that there is a parlor game aspect to it.
There can also be a role model effect which I don’t agree with. “Oh, look! Bill Gates is an Aspie!” I don’t think he’s someone to look up to. It also dismisses the real trouble some of these people went through. They didn’t just hatch as child prodigies and become accepted. Mozart may have worked himself to death, Dr. Grandin had serious anxiety issues for many years, Einstein was reported to have quite a bit trouble fitting in his work environment. Jefferson had a whole host of social issues to contend with; slavery, naivete with his wife’s physical condition in relation to childbirth, problems with public speaking, etc.
Sarah
Feb 25, 2008 at 6:48 pm
There’s a picture book called “Different Like Me” which features illustrations and short biographies of accomplished people “on the spectrum.” Both males and females are included, though the book could have done a better job of incorporating more people of different ethnic backgrounds. Of the people in the book, only Temple Grandin is “official.” From what I can tell, the book is intended for children on the spectrum, presumably as a kind of tool for self-esteem, or simply a positive example. I can see some problems to this approach, since of course kids shouldn’t be expected to think they should be Einstein. But at the same time, I think it’s good for autistic kids to be exposed to positive portrayals of autism and autistic people. There isn’t really a lot of that in our current culture.
laurentius-rex
Feb 25, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Lets get this clear, Fitzgerald is a crank, an eccentric with a fixed idea, that those who deems Autistic were autistic, sometimes on flimsy authority. In fact he is probably an aspie himself :)
Given the shifts and turns of the diagnosis, given the fact that it is a 20th century diagnosis arising out of 20th century social conditions and medical practice it is like trying to diagnose leprosy in the Bible, what we call leprosy today and what was called leprosy in Hebrew times are not the same thing. (the misunderstanding grew from the Greek translation in the septaguint for the Hebrew term for a skin disease) Similarly even with complete and reliable (but never unbiased) biographies of historical figures we are imposing our own ideas on historical times when we attempt to give historical people modern lables. It does not work beyond being a parlour game.
Take Newton, he spent a vast amount of time in Alchemy in pursuit of a thery of an organic universe. Now his hagiographers have suppressed the woo woo Newton in order to fix the historical image of someone who deserves to stand alongside Leonardo as a pioneer, well his genius does not measure up.
We don’t know what was in these people’s genes, we probably never will.
b. sharp
Feb 25, 2008 at 7:31 pm
The problem here is that that psychiatrist isn’t a historian, and if I’m not mistaken, Mozart lived in a time when mercury was considered a health drink. Not that great for one’s sanity. Perhaps if he wrote a peer reviewed paper on the subject I’d be more convinced, but it looks like an attempt at cherry picking and looking for anyone outside the norm. This is also a rather long list he’s made, so I think it should be treated with some skepticism.
(As for Einstein, I think one of my friends might be right, it’s most likely had an severe form of ADD/ADHD, which can sometimes be mistaken for autism).
This isn’t to say that there aren’t important people in history with this disorder, but I do think truth claims like this need to be held to more intense scrutiny. And while I do agree with him on genetic causes, I have known pretty intelligent people who do most certainly do not have the disorder, and not everyone I’ve met with this disorder is a genius.
According to Amazon - ‘Publisher: Autism Asperger Publishing Company’
The publishing company’s website does not look like an academic press, I’m afraid. This isn’t to say he might not be right in certain cases, but I have a feeling he might of published it under a publisher like this in order to avoid possible scrutiny by people who are more familiar with the historical subjects he is speaking than he is. (Not that I consider anything published by academic presses to be a hundred percent accurate, but still…).
laurentius-rex
Feb 25, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Well Prof. Fitzgerald has been peer reviewed on this, I have just reviewed him in my previous post and found him wanting :)
Sarah
Feb 25, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Einstein had a speech delay, which is very consistent with autism. I also don’t think that AD/HD can explain the ability to focus on a certain topic for a long amount of time. Isn’t ADD supposed to mean a lack of attentive abilities?
Kristina Chew, PhD
Feb 25, 2008 at 10:15 pm
That’s what I thought about ADD / ADHD, the latter of which my husband very definitely has. He focuses in a kind of intense way on several things at once sometimes.
What I ask myself about these sorts of studies is, do they change our understanding and appraisal of the historical figures mentioned—-and what do they reflect about how we, today, understand “difference,” or “disorder,” or “genius,” or…..
Sarah
Feb 25, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Those are some really good questions, and I hope that I’ll be able to do a research project about a related topic this summer. I’ve thought about these questions ever since my parents told me I had been diagnosed with AS, and they invoked Einstein, Gates, and my successful computer-geek uncle as positive examples. I find that an interesting puzzle. Does the fact that some of history’s “great men” could be considered to have a neurological disorder by today’s standards change the way we look at the concept of “disorder”? I’m not saying to toss everything out, but I think it does. I think a lot of autism “treatment” focuses on improving weaknesses…while to me these historical examples (and my uncle) point to the value of concentrating on areas of strengths. (Not that this has to be either/or.)
Becca
Feb 25, 2008 at 10:52 pm
It may be interesting, sure, but it also seems like there’s a bit of subtext here along the lines of “See? We really have to help and accept these kids/people because there are probably brilliant geniuses trapped inside there!” — when there are plenty of kids/people with autism who are NOT savants or geniuses. It seems to leave those who are “lower functioning” (not a term I like, but for lack of a better) out in the cold. They’re not “sexy” like Einstein. There can and should be positive portrayals of autistic people that don’t focus exclusively on the statistical “outliers” (there was only one Mozart). Charlie, for example, learning to play piano and cello — now that’s inspiring and far more real and important, to me, than the game of which famous genius exhibited traits X, Y, Z.
Laura
Feb 26, 2008 at 11:36 am
I think at issue is an existential question: what is autism? A disability? Another way of looking at the world? Both?
I’m intrigued by the possibility that autism is another way of looking at the world, and indeed a superior way, in several material respects, including enhanced concentration and a unique way of filtering out social and empircal data and focusing on abstract ideas.
This and Last’s Weeks Top Posts
Mar 2, 2008 at 2:05 pm
[…] So Albert, Wolfgang, and Immanuel Had Autism: Does It Matter? Michael Fitzgerald, a professor of psychiatry at Trinity College in Dublin, recently argued that the genes for creativity and for autism and autism spectrum disorders are “‘essentially the same.’” […]
Eric
Mar 12, 2008 at 9:16 am
This link (between Asperger’s and creativity) is especially interesting to me, as I’ve just finished reading John Elder Robison’s new book, “Look Me in the Eye” (about his struggle with Asperger’s) and was surprised at how well-written it was. If you’re interested, you can find the book on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Look-Me-Eye-Life-Aspergers/dp/0307395987
Melody
Apr 17, 2008 at 6:47 pm
While I think Einstein probably was autistic, I always think it important to emphasize: How many “typical” people achieve that kind of thing? Very very very few. So that’s a good way to emphasize to autistics that it’s not a let-down if you’re not a savant or famous or anything. I agree that there should be more emphasis on everyday autistic people, to show the diversity in ability, interests, etc. I also think it’d be neat if there were a mentoring program of sorts, where older autistics could help mentor younger autistics.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: