Aspies For Freedom

Ah. Suddenly it looks a lot more dubious. Since the study is not yet published, there's no way for us to know, I guess. For the same reason, I gather it hasn't been or is currently in the peer review process, so if there are any glaring errors, it should be picked up before the study is published (well, that's the idea anyway).

This quote:

Seems to suggest that they used more reliable means. It says that they studied the incidence of ASDs among 12 000 children. Now, am I the only one that read that as the number of diagnoses?

I wouldn't. Unless you think that you're as a person reducible to your medical record, I suggest you shouldn't either.

To know the social rules is not the same as to not break them. Socrates thought that if people knew what was good, they would do good. Modern science has shown him to be wrong in this respect. People don't always do what they think is good, they often don't give a damn about ethics. Even more people care about ethics but have a profoundly different view from the law or majority opinion. I'd venture a guess and say no one agrees with all laws and/or social rules.

It's not socially acceptable to steal outside of very limited environments and hollywood movies, yet some very socially competent people steal.

Even more dramatic examples are psychopaths. Most psychopaths aren't raving serial killers/rapers/thieves/comnen, but some are. And some of them fit the stereotype of the hyperintelligent, socially competent *** who seduces the millionaire heiress and runs away with the money.

Of course, those are the exceptional exceptions. But the point I'm trying to hammer in is that to know of the socially accepted code of conduct in no way equals following them. There are so many examples of people doing things they knew well was socially unacceptable that you must be incredibly naive to believe that it is a sign of social incompetence.

Most people have normal social skills. It follows from the definition of normal. Further, most people who go against social norms have normal social skills; this is because there are so many more people with around normal social skills.

There is a substantial difference between knowing that you're doing something your neighbour or major or girlfriend wouldn't find acceptable but still keeping on doing it, and doing it without having a clue that your neighbour or major or girlfriend don't find it acceptable.

Social rules are broken by those who are competent in them. In fact, manipulating people is something that as a social rule is at best rude and at worst illegal and morally outrageous. But you cannot manipulate people unless you know the rules to begin with.

Evidence. I find it hard to believe. I am by no means an expert on the man's life. I don't care much. But I do know something about him, as one cannot help but do in our society. The picture I get is of an eccentric, but not necessarily pathologically eccentric man, who happened to be brilliant and lucky/work hard to get some important results in his fields and as a result skyrocketed to both genius and speculation heaven.

I don't understand this obsessive need to label and identify people long dead in this way. Is it some sort of status to be associated with this person?

That's a sad view of humans if I ever saw one.

Yes, there is. It's called the norm.

It wasn't a different culture, though. It was an earlier version of the culture we have today.

Are you, or are you not denying that socially competent people can break social taboos?

(It's obvious that they do.)

Evidence.

So you care so deeply about this, but you have no evidence?

Much the same way this was a different culture ten years ago - only multiplied by seven.

That's what I said.

Evidence?

By definition, what is normal is what follows the norm. Merriam-Webster definition:

It doesn't get any more true if you shout it.

I don't call you a liar, I call you someone who has yet to document their claims. I will take a look at any sources you present if they're available.

Why? I meant what I said. You said "ANYONE can be reducible to a medical record", and I happen to think there is a lot more to a human that cannot be reduced to a medical record. I find it a sad view of humans that someone would think that everything that is significant about a person is contained in their medical records. I stand by what I said. It's a sad view.

In this respect, you are the one who's got no idea. I don't usually take random people on the internet's word, especially if it's something contrary to what I already believe, without evidence. It is nothing personal, and it is a far cry from calling someone a liar. If I believed you were a liar, I would have called you a liar. Instead, I call you two things:

(1) A person who has views that contradict mine
(2) A person who has yet to substantiate his claims

Never have I called you a liar. I say things as they are. And right now, you're acting like an idiot. But that's your choice. If you want to believe that I think you are a liar, and if you want to believe that I'm a clueless fool, fine. But don't expect me to accept it, because in my eyes, you are the fool.

Since you won't provide any evidence and I won't believe you without, it seems we're stuck, so perhaps your giving up is for the better.

No, it doesn't. Right now you're an idiot, but that's a whole other story.

I won't withdraw a truthful remark. And what do you know about my school's textbooks?

A lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive others by telling them something you believe is false. I have never accused you of such, so stop saying it. I can give you all manner of definitions of "lie", but I don't see what purpose it serves.

By now I'm starting to wonder whether you have any evidence at all, since you refuse to present it, instead focusing on unimportant side tracks. So I'm going to ask you straightforward: do you have any evidence or not?

Or else you're mistaken. Perhaps Einstein's hypotethical neurological variations aren't a topic that need to be included in school textbooks at all.

You have no right to tell me anything about what I "need" to do.

Are you seriously suggesting that everyone who disagrees with you are calling you a liar? That not believing is the same as believing you're deliberately telling falsehoods? If so, perhaps you're beyond rational discussion. If you cannot see that it is possible to believe someone has a false belief, it might not be any point in talking to you at all.

Quiet, I can hear (read: read) you clearly.

That's not a very useful resource. For all I know, you could misremember, or you could be making this all up.

That's not true.

Don't you see, I'm questioning whether this is important at all! If we'd have to understand every important person in our history the same way you demand we understand Einstein, we'd never get to the point where we discuss why they're important, because all the materials would be on personality!

So? Lack of belief doesn't equal accusations of lies.

Demanding evidence is something I do. I do it because the burden of proof is on you, and I want to know whether what you say is true or false.

If, by negative, you mean "skeptical", then I'm a negative influence. But I don't think skepticism equals negative influence.

Um, no, I think I'll have to disagree there too.

Simply claiming that "school textbooks" said so is pretty weak evidence. You haven't been able to say anything about which textbooks. You haven't even quoted anything from them, so I have no idea what they say.

How am I supposed to know that?

Does "could" as in "hypotethical scenario" mean anything to you?

And that's where the disagreement lies, isn't it? I disagree that you have provided evidence. You have made some fuzzy remarks about "school textbooks" but you've been unable to identify which books, or what they say, or anything else of interest. It is still very much my word against yours, and that's not a very good position to be in for either of us.

Funny. I would say she's been much better than you.

That's a fair reaction. Whatever you may think, asking you to prove something is not bad manners. I really don't know why you've taken this so personally, because it was never meant as an insult.

A good memory does not mean an infallible memory.

Perhaps because you dont have anything against her personally. I don't know why you have something against me.

Timelord, you can't just ignore anyone who dares to criticize you. And Erkolos, we're not talking about small details. Timelord's entire argument relies on the documentation he can provide, and he hasn't yet provided any at all.

Your credibility diminishes with every post without documentation, Timelord. Asking me to do you a favor and shut up won't work. I, and I like to believe others do too, care about truth. That's why I won't allow you to go around proclaiming things I believe to be false unless you can back it up with evidence.

As for "self defense", I don't know what you're talking about. I have been consistently attacked your case (except that I told you that you're an idiot when you said I was calling you a liar for the umpteenth time; that was not very relevant, but it was warranted) and not you. I won't let you blame me for the fact that you took this personally.

To set a good example, I will link to the source from which I took "Einstein had half a dozen lovers" (I thought I had done this, but apparently not so): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13804030/.

Now it's your turn to document your claims. You have only said that you have it from "school textbooks"; I could just as easily have said that I had read Einstein was not autistic "in a book". Would you accept that, without further evidence?

It was you who made this personal. You told me, in post #33, "I can see there's no point talking to you about this, Simen. You have got a lot to learn it seems. The above quote was highly offensive to me and I ask that it be withdrawn."

I told you I wouldn't be withdrawing truthful comments. You responded with,

And then this whole thing got dragged out.

Now, for reference, here are some definitions of lying:

I have called you (post #36):

Both still hold. Yet I haven't said that you deliberately deviate from the truth, or that you state something you believe or suspect to be false in the expectations that the hareres may believe it, or that you're making a false statement with the conscious intent to mislead others.

Now that we have cleared up that, I hope we can have a more constructive discussion.

What? Should people be allowed to tell things that aren't true just so they can feel good about themselves? I'm sorry, I don't agree. I disagree strongly, in fact.

And I don't. I express my opinions, just like everyone else. I don't consciously provoke people. If people decide to take offence when someone disagrees with their opinions, that's their business, not mine.

Have you read the thread? Lots of people have been offering their opinions on the subject.

I will repeat what I've said: no, I do not believe Albert Einstein was autistic, but I would consider believing it if someone had any good evidence. Which I've been asking of a certain person in this thread for a long time, without getting.

So good luck with that.

That's what I've been saying: he's dead, I find it highly unlikely you can get a successful and certain diagnosis just from reading anecdotes and medical records. Also, it doesn't matter much, I just think people should be able to back up their assertions.

In this case, Timelord's been particularly unhelpful, dogmatically asserting that Einstein did in fact have autism, yet never producing any evidence beyond "I read it in a school textbook."

I don't wanna get into that again: read the thread and make up your own opinion.

Based on what? How does he diagnose Wittgenstein? By anecdotes? Medical records? Spiritual contact with the dead (yes, joking)? And does he give any rationale for why he names those other names suspects of autism?

One thing about Wittgenstein, though. He's credited as one of the founders of analytical philosophy. One of the things that struck me when reading some things supposedly in an analytical tradition is the close attention to literal meanings. There's so much pedantry and obsessing over literal meanings when figurative meanings could shed a better light on the question. Does this sound familiar?

Of course, it doesn't mean Wittgenstein was autistic. I remain skeptical of post-mortem diagnosis.