Aspies For Freedom

Why is it so necessary constantly say that famous people may have had AS? Do we have to prove ourselves to be supergeniuses to find acceptance? Isn't neurodiversity for it's own sake enough?

Well, has it proven itself recently?

I think people can feel sorry for us because they think we are suffering. If we can use a famous person as an example, we can show people that AS does not have to be a barrier to success. Yes, it would be better if people would accept us for who we are, but it is a quick and simple way to show people that we can achieve things.

Well said Logical Paradox.

Knowing that "So and So" has AS does not make it any easier or harder to be me. Nor do I find it makes it easier to explain autism to anyone else. Their points of reference always seem to be mythical beliefs that all autistics (inc aspies) are savants with wonderful gifts. In reality I am sure that most of us are not so blessed. I know that I am not.

So what if I have an IQ of 155 (which incidentally I do) I will only be judged on my passage through this life not that someone else had a comparable condition.

Accept me, accept all of us, for who and what we are wonderfully unique individuals.

The publicity though is negative. Remember the trouble with Encyclopedia Dramatica? While they were of course exaggerating, the parody represents the NT view on autistic culture; a bunch of whinny brats out to prove how smart they are. NTs will think of us this way if we keep relaying on the "so and so had AS argument".

Don't really know what's going on (walls of text are quite bothersome), but if this thread get too out of hand I would prefer for it to be locked.

my thoughts

Zachrates - put his idea forward as "another thought"

There is a third option - the option put forward by Zachrates - you can decide you don't really care what another person thinks about you. This is choice I often take - people can think what they like - some people don't have the power to influence my life. I can be happy in my own right - regardless of other peoples opinion.

somehow - I think both of you would agree with these the appropriateness of these options.

Maybe you both like to debate - in which case fair enough.

scuse incorrect wording.

Yes - in many situations going through harrassment isn't bearable - but in some situations deciding to accept there is nothing you can do to make someone like you - an option is to decide that the other persons opinion doesn't matter. Maybe not an easy option - but sometimes a beneficial one in that it can allow a feeling of peace.

In some situations there is nothing you can do to change someones mind - and caring too much what other people think of you - can allow their thoughts to have too much power over your state of mind.

Gays fought for justice and equality in society- as did women - their demand for equal civil rights drove their fight. I still come up against male chauvanists - I just think they are idiots. People with small minds. There are all sorts heirarchies in society - there will always be idiots.

Sometimes backing away from a fight and allowing other people to think whatever they want  is the only way to gain peace of mind and live with a bit of peace and self respect.

Sometimes it is right to fight - other times it is best to ignore people with prejudice. Sometimes it is okay to do your best to conform to fit with the norm.

This makes a lot of sense to me. It looks as if Zachrates' goal is personal expression and that is a perfectly acceptable aim to have in life.

I certainly don't believe in blind conformity ie. for the sake of it. I don't think that is what Simen is suggesting, but I doubt I could conform as much in life as he seems to be doing. It is not just a matter of not choosing to but being fundamentally unable to completely fit into the "norm".

Depends on what they're conforming with. If it's the laws of the country and they don't conform with them, they're in big trouble. But then again, what if the laws are unjust? It is a difficult area at times.

It it's something that they aren't even aware of, like unwritten social rules, what then?

For one, yes, people tried to forcibly "cure" homosexuality. There were therapists for it, and drugs too, and if you were a kid your parents could put you in therapy, and adults faced similar pressures. There are still some people who've been convinced that being gay is sinful and a mental illness that needs curing/saving them from.

Other people's thoughts can and do have significant consequences on us. It was because of other peers' thoughts that I was attacked on a regular basis in junior high and to a lesser degree in elementary school. It is because of what other people think about autistics that I have faced consistent harassment from school staff the last few years despite the overwhelmingly accepting nature of my fellow high school students.

As for genocide, there are a few points.

First, you don't have to eradicate EVERY single member of a group for it to be genocide - just the intent and the actual eradication of a portion, usually large, of that group.

It also does not have to originate from overt hatred, or for the perpetrating individuals and organizations to be malicious in intent. The threat of genocide to autistics is the melding of generocity and evil.

Also, anyone who thinks that a pre-natal test would be used only to help prepare parents and inform them early on, either has not seen the figures that 80-90% of babies pre-natally diagnosed with Down Syndrom are aborted, or they are hopelessly optimistic. Like I said, you don't need to get rid of every single member of a group, or line them up and shoot them, for it to be a genocide.

And there is no doubting the loads of negative imagery and descriptions afforded to autistics by the media. The more enlightened ones may have seen Rain Man or read an article in Newsweek that still leaves them with the dichotomous impression of autism as being either one or both of two things: a hopeless, tragic condition worse than death, or an eccentricity possessed largely by computer programmers and physicists.

My primary concern about relating the diagnoses of confirmed or likely autistic people such as Einstein, Dan Aykrod, or Bill Gates, is that people will then glom onto the latter stereotype. My best defense against this is to preface such a remark with "Of course, we're not all Einstein - who is?" (ignore the obvious literal answer that only Einstein is Einstein).

Another good way to counter and to balance this is through the increasing fame of autistic individuals who do need services, people who are disabled and proud, such as Amanda Baggs and Daniel Tammet. I think she's the most famous autistic person today living - probably a lot more famous than Vernon Smith, and an activist to boot (especially since the activism was what made people take notice). That way people understand that we're not a group of eccentric, Nobel Prize winners going on online forums and blogging about our self-evident right to existence (which really should be self-evident regardless of intelligence or material success, but some people have a hard time grasping this).

There seems to be some value in it, but the one circumstance I find it abhorrent is when someone says something along the lines of, "Autistic people shouldn't be eliminated because X was/is autistic, and they're a genius/celebrity." That argument is so worthless, not only because it's bull****, but also because it's so easily shot down ("Well, my kid is no Einstein, Gates...we're not talking about getting rid of your kind of people, just those kind.")

Basically, as long as it doesn't degenerate into that kind of scenario I put above, and as long as it doesn't divert useful time/energy from actual important causes, then it's not especially harmful. I don't see any use for further speculation, though, since we already know Dan Akroyd and Vernon Smith are official, and Gates and Einstein are highly likely (I relate to almost every single thing about his development and what he wrote of his perspectives on stuff, except that I started talking at an earlier age than he did). Incidentally, I always have found it odd when people equate the age you learn to talk with intelligence or something.

Considering Einstein's concern for social justice, I Somethings wonder what it'd be like if he were alive today, and an activist. Maybe more people would be aptention.

*[b]pay attnetion,]b[

The interesting question to ask is not "Was Einstein eccentric because of AS OR high IQ?"

The interesting question to ask is "Was Einstein extremely intelligent and, more importantly, an original thinker, because he had AS or the broader autistic phenotype?"

I think the answer is probably "Yes". It's no coincidence that sensory hypersensitivity and other autistic traits are often listed as traits of intellectually gifted people in the popular and professional literature about intellectual giftedness. I think if you asked most AS experts whether they think there is a link between AS and high IQ, they would agree. One small study of the cognitive profiles of a group of people diagnosed with AS supports this. I heard one Australian autism clinician say on TV that his patients diagnosed with autism often have brilliant siblings. I believe Norman Geschwind's testosterone theory that has been cited as an explanation for autism and lefthandedness and other traits also included exceptional talents as "testosterone traits".

One does not need to prove that ALL autistic people are brilliant or capable to show that humanity cannot afford to eradicate autism genes. One only needs to demonstrate that most or many of the most important geniuses and leaders in the intellectual, literary, scientific and technological worlds are autistic to show that the NT world cannot get by without autism genes remaining in healthy numbers in the human gene pool.

So far in my list of "famous aspergians" (or whatever you may wish to call it), I have been able to include the cream of the greatest minds in physics, mathematics, classical music, many of the central players in formulating modern evolutionary theory and genetic biology (Darwin, Mendel, Rosalind Franklin), major pioneers of computer technology (Babbage, Shockley, Turing, Gates, Bram Cohen), some very substantial contributors to the world of literature, most of the most influential philosophers, many important politicians and some kick-arse kings and military leaders. No one could imagine how different the world would be today if these people had not been born.

The way I see it, the practice of identifying autistic traits in important and famous people is not as much about promoting the image of individual people, the real importance of this project is to make a point about the value and function of genes and syndromes and talents and behaviours. If anyone needs to look toward a list of famous people to justify their own existence to themselves or to others, they should seek the services of a counsellor. It goes without saying that all human beings should be valued as individuals. It is also an obvious fact that most people live and die without individually altering the course of history in a positive way, but a rare few people do, and we need to grow and value this kind of exceptional person.

The bottom line is; if the curebie evil empire succeeds in decimating the autistic gene pool, humanity will be a stagnant pool of mediocrity and cheap amusement. It will be like the way Cambodia now is after the Pol Pot regime has killed off most of the members of the thinking classes (a fragile dystopia).