Autism, Genius, and Greatness

[Guest guest]

The website reference for this article is

http://home.att.net/~ascaris1/genius.html

I thought this was an interesting article and thought you might enjoy it

also. It was written by an adult with HFA. HIs name is Klein.

~Carolyn

Autism, Genius, and Greatness

When early treatment of autism is discussed, the word " intervention " is

almost always used. Obviously, the use of the word as such gives the impression

that autism is a path toward something awful, and by intervening, the autistic

child can be helped. That is offensive to autistic people that do not hold

that they are the result of something awful. Indeed, there is good that comes

from autism, even though the distraught parents of newly-diagnosed autistic

children may not be able to see it. For example, Albert Einstein may have been

just another patent clerk if it hadn't been for autism. His autistic traits,

and his near-certain place on the autistic spectrum, are well-known in the

autistic community. What if autism had been known at the time of his birth?

What

would have become of him if his parents had recognized the signs and sought

intervention? How much of his greatness may have been jeopardized?

Albert Einstein was typical as far as higher-functioning autistics (for the

purpose of this article, AS and HFA will be considered to be the same thing).

He was extremely logical and analytical, though socially awkward. He could

deal with people, but he was a loner, and he felt a need for considerable

solitude on a daily basis. He was extremely perseverative, spending more time

on a

given problem (of interest to him) than any normal person would have been

capable of giving. These attributes are what gave Einstein the ability to think

as he did. These abilities are rather common in higher-functioning autistics,

although few achieve the greatness or prominence that Einstein has. One may

wonder, though, if Einstein's autism had been treated successfully, would he

have lost the abilities (which are often called " impairments " by those that see

normality as the only acceptable way) that made him the thinker he was?

Autism has been described by some as a condition wherein people have an

affinity for objects (tangible or otherwise) rather than people. This was

clearly

the case with Einstein. In his case, the object was physics. As far as

people went, Einstein was somewhat aloof and indifferent, but when it came to

science, he was very much engaged. Would he have been as dedicated to his

science

if his indifference for people had been eliminated, or would he have been just

another person toiling at a boring job, thinking of the weekend's social

gathering? Normal people generally do not recognize the extent to which their

thoughts and desires are dictated by this innate need to be the social beings

that they are, but it is quite evident to autistic people, who see such " odd "

behaviors very clearly. The aloofness reported in autistic people frees their

minds from the social protocol that occupies the majority of the time of the

normal person, thus allowing time for other activities. Autistic people often

get the same satisfaction from working with a favorite idea or object that

normal people get from chatting with a close friend.

High-functioning autistic people perseverate, or think repetitively (or even

obsessively) on an object or a concept. This perseverative interest is often

described as an impairment or an abnormality by normal people, who think

themselves free of such obsessions. The reality is, though, that normal people

have a perseverative interest too, and that interest is in being social. They

perseverate on being with others, even if no information is to be exchanged.

They become bored and lonely very quickly, by autistic standards, if they are

alone with their thoughts. They are just as perseverative about socializing as

any autistic is about a physical or theoretical object, but they are so

accustomed to this being the case that they do not see it so. In other words,

the

desire to be social is so well-accepted and ingrained that it is not seen as a

fixation; it is seen as normal and desirable. Even normal people that claim

that they often prefer solitude have no idea how great their innate social

needs are. They hold that the autistic is defective because he perseverates on

physics instead of chatting about the weather or about the latest ball game.

The difference is that being social, as most people are, does not bring

greatness. It does not result in the formation of new ideas or concepts that

advance

humanity, or that make our lives easier. Perseverative social behavior does

little, if anything, to advance society. That sort of thing is the domain of

abnormal minds, to a large degree.

The brain is a highly complex piece of equipment. Having billions of

neurons, it is far too complex to be described in detail by DNA. Genetics

controls

the general layout of the brain, but most of the actual connections are a

matter of the environment. Prenatally, this means that drug use, disease, and

nutrition play the largest nongenetic roles. Postnatally, though, is when the

underpinnings of intelligence are laid. The infant's brain is far from fully

developed at birth. The connections that are made depend on the patterns of

usage those neurons see. In this manner, it is assured that the child's brain

will be attuned to its environment. This is also where genius begins.

Einstein's intelligence may have been a function of his autistic brain.

Absent the intuitive means to make sense of the world, he, as is usual with

autistics, may have relied heavily upon his analytical, logical abilities.

Thus,

the neural pathways related to analysis and logic were reinforced, and his

adaptable human brain grew in its ability to do those things as a result.

Einstein's relative lack of interest in people, and his great thirst for

knowledge,

would have again reinforced the analytical parts of his brain, while allowing

the relatively unused social areas to become deficient. As such, his genius is

part and parcel of his autism, and indeed is directly related to his lack of

interest in convention and social activities. As Temple Grandin put it in her

book Thinking in Pictures, genius itself is an abnormality.

Einstein was perseveratively interested in physics. He could not stand the

idea of the unknowable, and he spent much time thinking about things that most

people would have declared hopeless, or never bothered to think about in the

first place. This feverish devotion to knowledge and fact is not uncommon in

the higher-functioning autistic community, but among normal people, it is

strange and unusual. The normal mind's primary function is to be social, not to

think about physics. That is, after all, what the normal mind is supposed to

do; humans, like wolves, are pack animals, and in the pre-civilization days,

survival depended upon group cohesion. Society may have changed since then, but

basic human neurology has not. As such, social interaction is the only thing

the normal mind can handle for extended periods of time (perseveratively, in

other words), which limits its utility with regard to science and academic

knowledge. The autistic mind is capable of focus on areas of interest for

extremely long periods of time, day after day, without boredom. Normal people

may not

truly understand the depth of focus or the length of attention span that the

autistic person has when dealing with his special interest. It would not be

surprising to see an autistic person spend virtually every waking moment, day

after day, for months at a time, thinking about, researching, and otherwise

involving himself, with one very specific subject, without ever becoming bored

or

weary of that subject. In the sciences, this feature is an asset of

indescribable worth, and it was doubtless of great value to Einstein.

In short, Einstein was one of the century's top thinkers because of his

autistic condition, not despite it. His success in physics is directly related

to

his autistic profile of strengths and weaknesses, as was his intelligence, in

all likelihood. If we could go back in time and inform Einstein's parents of

his condition, and that it could be treated, how much treatment should he have

received? Would we want to risk " curing " one of the brightest men in the

last hundred years, if it meant that his genius would be cured as well? Would

it

be a good idea to change anything at all, lest we inadvertently eliminate one

of the greatest minds ever known? In short, would it be advisable, in

hindsight, to treat him at all?

If the answer to that question is NO, that would lead directly into the next

question: Is it advisable to try to normalize autistic children today, even a

little? Do we really wish to eliminate people like Einstein? Do we really

think that autistic behaviors are so unsightly and bothersome that we would be

willing to rid the world of genius to eliminate those behaviors? The next

question would be for the parents of an autistic child. Do you really wish

normality on your child, so much so that you would eliminate potential

greatness?

Genius is, after all, abnormal.

Autistic-type behaviors have been noted in many historical figures that, like

Einstein, have achieved greatness. All of these people have done so with no

treatment at all. Now that people are discovering more about how the human

mind develops, there has been an increase in the reports of children whose

autism has been " cured " or reduced in severity by one means or another. If

these

children would have ended up as apparently low-functioning, possibly

self-destructive, non-communicative people, this would seem like a very good

thing, but

it is often very hard to tell those people from high-functioning autistics

early on, when such treatments are most likely to have an effect. Even if early

treatments, like sensory integration or ABA, are eventually proven to be

effective in reducing autistic behaviors, do we really wish to do that? Even

the

seemingly unquestionable practice of reducing sensory difficulties may have the

effect of reducing the qualities that cause genius. Whether that is the case

would make a great topic for academic research, but for now, it seems that

the thrust of the research is to prevent or cure autism, rather than preserving

the autism and attempting to help or prevent the often associated features

like mental retardation, mood disorders, and severe sensory difficulties.

It would be inhumane and cruel to allow an autistic child to suffer with

extreme sensory problems (like severe auditory processing problems, which are

possibly a major cause of difficulties with spoken language), or to be forced to

live in constant fear and anxiety. However, helping to overcome those burdens

is not the same as trying to make the child normal, or to make him

" indistinguishable from his peers. " Similarly, an autistic child can be given

the

social tools to live in what is really an alien world to him, without being

trained

to act like something he is not-- normal. There is nothing wrong with

teaching such a child about the peculiar way that normal people react to

statements

that are insufficiently vague, or that are not wrapped in enough verbal candy

to sufficiently obfuscate the main point. There is nothing wrong with

teaching the child that normal people often mistake such things for rudeness.

That

is not the same as teaching the child that simple, direct statements are rude.

The difference is subtle but important. The former method is akin to

teaching an American how to relate successfully with Japanese people, while the

latter is more like teaching him that being an American is undesirable and

wrong,

and that he should become Japanese (which he cannot do).

For the autistic person without retardation (high-functioning autistic),

often it is the unyielding social norms that cause the greatest difficulty.

Perhaps it is more logical to strive for greater acceptance of individuality

than

for the curing (or reduction of) of autism. As uncomfortable as autistics

often make closed-minded normal people, their positive traits are vital for

innovation and societal growth. Rather than attempt to cure autistics, we

should

try to figure out whether those that are destined to become lower-functioning

autistics can be helped to become high-functioning (in the early years), to

overcome the difficulties presented by severe anxiety and sensory dysfunction,

and

to celebrate autistic people as being part of the genotype that includes

Einstein and many other people of genius... people of greatness.

Note from Website Author: The URL for my web site was misquoted in the

July-August 2002 issue of Autism-Asperger's Digest. The link given was to this

particular article, not to the index page. If you would like to go to the index

(home) page, please follow this link: Go to the main page

[Guest guest]

I found this very interesting. My son perseverates on the alphabet. He

loves spelling words with his magnetic and foam letters. Today, he spelled

" professional " and I asked him what the word was and he told me. He is 4

1/2. I've often thought how, if not for the autism, nothing could stop my

child in doing anything he wanted to do. Then, I realized that perhaps he

is so bright BECAUSE of the autism.

Pam

Fwd: Autism, Genius, and Greatness

The website reference for this article is

http://home.att.net/~ascaris1/genius.html

I thought this was an interesting article and thought you might enjoy it

also. It was written by an adult with HFA. HIs name is Klein.

~Carolyn

Autism, Genius, and Greatness

When early treatment of autism is discussed, the word " intervention " is

almost always used. Obviously, the use of the word as such gives the

impression

that autism is a path toward something awful, and by intervening, the

autistic

child can be helped. That is offensive to autistic people that do not

hold

that they are the result of something awful. Indeed, there is good that

comes

from autism, even though the distraught parents of newly-diagnosed

autistic

children may not be able to see it. For example, Albert Einstein may have

been

just another patent clerk if it hadn't been for autism. His autistic

traits,

and his near-certain place on the autistic spectrum, are well-known in the

autistic community. What if autism had been known at the time of his

birth? What

would have become of him if his parents had recognized the signs and

sought

intervention? How much of his greatness may have been jeopardized?

Albert Einstein was typical as far as higher-functioning autistics (for

the

purpose of this article, AS and HFA will be considered to be the same

thing).

He was extremely logical and analytical, though socially awkward. He

could

deal with people, but he was a loner, and he felt a need for considerable

solitude on a daily basis. He was extremely perseverative, spending more

time on a

given problem (of interest to him) than any normal person would have been

capable of giving. These attributes are what gave Einstein the ability to

think

as he did. These abilities are rather common in higher-functioning

autistics,

although few achieve the greatness or prominence that Einstein has. One

may

wonder, though, if Einstein's autism had been treated successfully, would

he

have lost the abilities (which are often called " impairments " by those

that see

normality as the only acceptable way) that made him the thinker he was?

Autism has been described by some as a condition wherein people have an

affinity for objects (tangible or otherwise) rather than people. This was

clearly

the case with Einstein. In his case, the object was physics. As far as

people went, Einstein was somewhat aloof and indifferent, but when it came

to

science, he was very much engaged. Would he have been as dedicated to his

science

if his indifference for people had been eliminated, or would he have been

just

another person toiling at a boring job, thinking of the weekend's social

gathering? Normal people generally do not recognize the extent to which

their

thoughts and desires are dictated by this innate need to be the social

beings

that they are, but it is quite evident to autistic people, who see such

" odd "

behaviors very clearly. The aloofness reported in autistic people frees

their

minds from the social protocol that occupies the majority of the time of

the

normal person, thus allowing time for other activities. Autistic people

often

get the same satisfaction from working with a favorite idea or object that

normal people get from chatting with a close friend.

High-functioning autistic people perseverate, or think repetitively (or

even

obsessively) on an object or a concept. This perseverative interest is

often

described as an impairment or an abnormality by normal people, who think

themselves free of such obsessions. The reality is, though, that normal

people

have a perseverative interest too, and that interest is in being social.

They

perseverate on being with others, even if no information is to be

exchanged.

They become bored and lonely very quickly, by autistic standards, if they

are

alone with their thoughts. They are just as perseverative about

socializing as

any autistic is about a physical or theoretical object, but they are so

accustomed to this being the case that they do not see it so. In other

words, the

desire to be social is so well-accepted and ingrained that it is not seen

as a

fixation; it is seen as normal and desirable. Even normal people that

claim

that they often prefer solitude have no idea how great their innate social

needs are. They hold that the autistic is defective because he

perseverates on

physics instead of chatting about the weather or about the latest ball

game.

The difference is that being social, as most people are, does not bring

greatness. It does not result in the formation of new ideas or concepts

that advance

humanity, or that make our lives easier. Perseverative social behavior

does

little, if anything, to advance society. That sort of thing is the domain

of

abnormal minds, to a large degree.

The brain is a highly complex piece of equipment. Having billions of

neurons, it is far too complex to be described in detail by DNA. Genetics

controls

the general layout of the brain, but most of the actual connections are a

matter of the environment. Prenatally, this means that drug use, disease,

and

nutrition play the largest nongenetic roles. Postnatally, though, is when

the

underpinnings of intelligence are laid. The infant's brain is far from

fully

developed at birth. The connections that are made depend on the patterns

of

usage those neurons see. In this manner, it is assured that the child's

brain

will be attuned to its environment. This is also where genius begins.

Einstein's intelligence may have been a function of his autistic brain.

Absent the intuitive means to make sense of the world, he, as is usual

with

autistics, may have relied heavily upon his analytical, logical abilities.

Thus,

the neural pathways related to analysis and logic were reinforced, and his

adaptable human brain grew in its ability to do those things as a result.

Einstein's relative lack of interest in people, and his great thirst for

knowledge,

would have again reinforced the analytical parts of his brain, while

allowing

the relatively unused social areas to become deficient. As such, his

genius is

part and parcel of his autism, and indeed is directly related to his lack

of

interest in convention and social activities. As Temple Grandin put it

in her

book Thinking in Pictures, genius itself is an abnormality.

Einstein was perseveratively interested in physics. He could not stand

the

idea of the unknowable, and he spent much time thinking about things that

most

people would have declared hopeless, or never bothered to think about in

the

first place. This feverish devotion to knowledge and fact is not uncommon

in

the higher-functioning autistic community, but among normal people, it is

strange and unusual. The normal mind's primary function is to be social,

not to

think about physics. That is, after all, what the normal mind is supposed

to

do; humans, like wolves, are pack animals, and in the pre-civilization

days,

survival depended upon group cohesion. Society may have changed since

then, but

basic human neurology has not. As such, social interaction is the only

thing

the normal mind can handle for extended periods of time (perseveratively,

in

other words), which limits its utility with regard to science and academic

knowledge. The autistic mind is capable of focus on areas of interest for

extremely long periods of time, day after day, without boredom. Normal

people may not

truly understand the depth of focus or the length of attention span that

the

autistic person has when dealing with his special interest. It would not

be

surprising to see an autistic person spend virtually every waking moment,

day

after day, for months at a time, thinking about, researching, and

otherwise

involving himself, with one very specific subject, without ever becoming

bored or

weary of that subject. In the sciences, this feature is an asset of

indescribable worth, and it was doubtless of great value to Einstein.

In short, Einstein was one of the century's top thinkers because of his

autistic condition, not despite it. His success in physics is directly

related to

his autistic profile of strengths and weaknesses, as was his intelligence,

in

all likelihood. If we could go back in time and inform Einstein's parents

of

his condition, and that it could be treated, how much treatment should he

have

received? Would we want to risk " curing " one of the brightest men in the

last hundred years, if it meant that his genius would be cured as well?

Would it

be a good idea to change anything at all, lest we inadvertently eliminate

one

of the greatest minds ever known? In short, would it be advisable, in

hindsight, to treat him at all?

If the answer to that question is NO, that would lead directly into the

next

question: Is it advisable to try to normalize autistic children today,

even a

little? Do we really wish to eliminate people like Einstein? Do we

really

think that autistic behaviors are so unsightly and bothersome that we

would be

willing to rid the world of genius to eliminate those behaviors? The next

question would be for the parents of an autistic child. Do you really

wish

normality on your child, so much so that you would eliminate potential

greatness?

Genius is, after all, abnormal.

Autistic-type behaviors have been noted in many historical figures that,

like

Einstein, have achieved greatness. All of these people have done so with

no

treatment at all. Now that people are discovering more about how the

human

mind develops, there has been an increase in the reports of children whose

autism has been " cured " or reduced in severity by one means or another.

If these

children would have ended up as apparently low-functioning, possibly

self-destructive, non-communicative people, this would seem like a very

good thing, but

it is often very hard to tell those people from high-functioning autistics

early on, when such treatments are most likely to have an effect. Even if

early

treatments, like sensory integration or ABA, are eventually proven to be

effective in reducing autistic behaviors, do we really wish to do that?

Even the

seemingly unquestionable practice of reducing sensory difficulties may

have the

effect of reducing the qualities that cause genius. Whether that is the

case

would make a great topic for academic research, but for now, it seems that

the thrust of the research is to prevent or cure autism, rather than

preserving

the autism and attempting to help or prevent the often associated features

like mental retardation, mood disorders, and severe sensory difficulties.

It would be inhumane and cruel to allow an autistic child to suffer with

extreme sensory problems (like severe auditory processing problems, which

are

possibly a major cause of difficulties with spoken language), or to be

forced to

live in constant fear and anxiety. However, helping to overcome those

burdens

is not the same as trying to make the child normal, or to make him

" indistinguishable from his peers. " Similarly, an autistic child can be

given the

social tools to live in what is really an alien world to him, without

being trained

to act like something he is not-- normal. There is nothing wrong with

teaching such a child about the peculiar way that normal people react to

statements

that are insufficiently vague, or that are not wrapped in enough verbal

candy

to sufficiently obfuscate the main point. There is nothing wrong with

teaching the child that normal people often mistake such things for

rudeness. That

is not the same as teaching the child that simple, direct statements are

rude.

The difference is subtle but important. The former method is akin to

teaching an American how to relate successfully with Japanese people,

while the

latter is more like teaching him that being an American is undesirable and

wrong,

and that he should become Japanese (which he cannot do).

For the autistic person without retardation (high-functioning autistic),

often it is the unyielding social norms that cause the greatest

difficulty.

Perhaps it is more logical to strive for greater acceptance of

individuality than

for the curing (or reduction of) of autism. As uncomfortable as autistics

often make closed-minded normal people, their positive traits are vital

for

innovation and societal growth. Rather than attempt to cure autistics, we

should

try to figure out whether those that are destined to become

lower-functioning

autistics can be helped to become high-functioning (in the early years),

to

overcome the difficulties presented by severe anxiety and sensory

dysfunction, and

to celebrate autistic people as being part of the genotype that includes

Einstein and many other people of genius... people of greatness.

Note from Website Author: The URL for my web site was misquoted in the

July-August 2002 issue of Autism-Asperger's Digest. The link given was to

this

particular article, not to the index page. If you would like to go to the

index

(home) page, please follow this link: Go to the main page

[Guest guest]

I found this very interesting. My son perseverates on the alphabet. He

loves spelling words with his magnetic and foam letters. Today, he spelled

" professional " and I asked him what the word was and he told me. He is 4

1/2. I've often thought how, if not for the autism, nothing could stop my

child in doing anything he wanted to do. Then, I realized that perhaps he

is so bright BECAUSE of the autism.

Pam

Fwd: Autism, Genius, and Greatness

The website reference for this article is

http://home.att.net/~ascaris1/genius.html

I thought this was an interesting article and thought you might enjoy it

also. It was written by an adult with HFA. HIs name is Klein.

~Carolyn

Autism, Genius, and Greatness

When early treatment of autism is discussed, the word " intervention " is

almost always used. Obviously, the use of the word as such gives the

impression

that autism is a path toward something awful, and by intervening, the

autistic

child can be helped. That is offensive to autistic people that do not

hold

that they are the result of something awful. Indeed, there is good that

comes

from autism, even though the distraught parents of newly-diagnosed

autistic

children may not be able to see it. For example, Albert Einstein may have

been

just another patent clerk if it hadn't been for autism. His autistic

traits,

and his near-certain place on the autistic spectrum, are well-known in the

autistic community. What if autism had been known at the time of his

birth? What

would have become of him if his parents had recognized the signs and

sought

intervention? How much of his greatness may have been jeopardized?

Albert Einstein was typical as far as higher-functioning autistics (for

the

purpose of this article, AS and HFA will be considered to be the same

thing).

He was extremely logical and analytical, though socially awkward. He

could

deal with people, but he was a loner, and he felt a need for considerable

solitude on a daily basis. He was extremely perseverative, spending more

time on a

given problem (of interest to him) than any normal person would have been

capable of giving. These attributes are what gave Einstein the ability to

think

as he did. These abilities are rather common in higher-functioning

autistics,

although few achieve the greatness or prominence that Einstein has. One

may

wonder, though, if Einstein's autism had been treated successfully, would

he

have lost the abilities (which are often called " impairments " by those

that see

normality as the only acceptable way) that made him the thinker he was?

Autism has been described by some as a condition wherein people have an

affinity for objects (tangible or otherwise) rather than people. This was

clearly

the case with Einstein. In his case, the object was physics. As far as

people went, Einstein was somewhat aloof and indifferent, but when it came

to

science, he was very much engaged. Would he have been as dedicated to his

science

if his indifference for people had been eliminated, or would he have been

just

another person toiling at a boring job, thinking of the weekend's social

gathering? Normal people generally do not recognize the extent to which

their

thoughts and desires are dictated by this innate need to be the social

beings

that they are, but it is quite evident to autistic people, who see such

" odd "

behaviors very clearly. The aloofness reported in autistic people frees

their

minds from the social protocol that occupies the majority of the time of

the

normal person, thus allowing time for other activities. Autistic people

often

get the same satisfaction from working with a favorite idea or object that

normal people get from chatting with a close friend.

High-functioning autistic people perseverate, or think repetitively (or

even

obsessively) on an object or a concept. This perseverative interest is

often

described as an impairment or an abnormality by normal people, who think

themselves free of such obsessions. The reality is, though, that normal

people

have a perseverative interest too, and that interest is in being social.

They

perseverate on being with others, even if no information is to be

exchanged.

They become bored and lonely very quickly, by autistic standards, if they

are

alone with their thoughts. They are just as perseverative about

socializing as

any autistic is about a physical or theoretical object, but they are so

accustomed to this being the case that they do not see it so. In other

words, the

desire to be social is so well-accepted and ingrained that it is not seen

as a

fixation; it is seen as normal and desirable. Even normal people that

claim

that they often prefer solitude have no idea how great their innate social

needs are. They hold that the autistic is defective because he

perseverates on

physics instead of chatting about the weather or about the latest ball

game.

The difference is that being social, as most people are, does not bring

greatness. It does not result in the formation of new ideas or concepts

that advance

humanity, or that make our lives easier. Perseverative social behavior

does

little, if anything, to advance society. That sort of thing is the domain

of

abnormal minds, to a large degree.

The brain is a highly complex piece of equipment. Having billions of

neurons, it is far too complex to be described in detail by DNA. Genetics

controls

the general layout of the brain, but most of the actual connections are a

matter of the environment. Prenatally, this means that drug use, disease,

and

nutrition play the largest nongenetic roles. Postnatally, though, is when

the

underpinnings of intelligence are laid. The infant's brain is far from

fully

developed at birth. The connections that are made depend on the patterns

of

usage those neurons see. In this manner, it is assured that the child's

brain

will be attuned to its environment. This is also where genius begins.

Einstein's intelligence may have been a function of his autistic brain.

Absent the intuitive means to make sense of the world, he, as is usual

with

autistics, may have relied heavily upon his analytical, logical abilities.

Thus,

the neural pathways related to analysis and logic were reinforced, and his

adaptable human brain grew in its ability to do those things as a result.

Einstein's relative lack of interest in people, and his great thirst for

knowledge,

would have again reinforced the analytical parts of his brain, while

allowing

the relatively unused social areas to become deficient. As such, his

genius is

part and parcel of his autism, and indeed is directly related to his lack

of

interest in convention and social activities. As Temple Grandin put it

in her

book Thinking in Pictures, genius itself is an abnormality.

Einstein was perseveratively interested in physics. He could not stand

the

idea of the unknowable, and he spent much time thinking about things that

most

people would have declared hopeless, or never bothered to think about in

the

first place. This feverish devotion to knowledge and fact is not uncommon

in

the higher-functioning autistic community, but among normal people, it is

strange and unusual. The normal mind's primary function is to be social,

not to

think about physics. That is, after all, what the normal mind is supposed

to

do; humans, like wolves, are pack animals, and in the pre-civilization

days,

survival depended upon group cohesion. Society may have changed since

then, but

basic human neurology has not. As such, social interaction is the only

thing

the normal mind can handle for extended periods of time (perseveratively,

in

other words), which limits its utility with regard to science and academic

knowledge. The autistic mind is capable of focus on areas of interest for

extremely long periods of time, day after day, without boredom. Normal

people may not

truly understand the depth of focus or the length of attention span that

the

autistic person has when dealing with his special interest. It would not

be

surprising to see an autistic person spend virtually every waking moment,

day

after day, for months at a time, thinking about, researching, and

otherwise

involving himself, with one very specific subject, without ever becoming

bored or

weary of that subject. In the sciences, this feature is an asset of

indescribable worth, and it was doubtless of great value to Einstein.

In short, Einstein was one of the century's top thinkers because of his

autistic condition, not despite it. His success in physics is directly

related to

his autistic profile of strengths and weaknesses, as was his intelligence,

in

all likelihood. If we could go back in time and inform Einstein's parents

of

his condition, and that it could be treated, how much treatment should he

have

received? Would we want to risk " curing " one of the brightest men in the

last hundred years, if it meant that his genius would be cured as well?

Would it

be a good idea to change anything at all, lest we inadvertently eliminate

one

of the greatest minds ever known? In short, would it be advisable, in

hindsight, to treat him at all?

If the answer to that question is NO, that would lead directly into the

next

question: Is it advisable to try to normalize autistic children today,

even a

little? Do we really wish to eliminate people like Einstein? Do we

really

think that autistic behaviors are so unsightly and bothersome that we

would be

willing to rid the world of genius to eliminate those behaviors? The next

question would be for the parents of an autistic child. Do you really

wish

normality on your child, so much so that you would eliminate potential

greatness?

Genius is, after all, abnormal.

Autistic-type behaviors have been noted in many historical figures that,

like

Einstein, have achieved greatness. All of these people have done so with

no

treatment at all. Now that people are discovering more about how the

human

mind develops, there has been an increase in the reports of children whose

autism has been " cured " or reduced in severity by one means or another.

If these

children would have ended up as apparently low-functioning, possibly

self-destructive, non-communicative people, this would seem like a very

good thing, but

it is often very hard to tell those people from high-functioning autistics

early on, when such treatments are most likely to have an effect. Even if

early

treatments, like sensory integration or ABA, are eventually proven to be

effective in reducing autistic behaviors, do we really wish to do that?

Even the

seemingly unquestionable practice of reducing sensory difficulties may

have the

effect of reducing the qualities that cause genius. Whether that is the

case

would make a great topic for academic research, but for now, it seems that

the thrust of the research is to prevent or cure autism, rather than

preserving

the autism and attempting to help or prevent the often associated features

like mental retardation, mood disorders, and severe sensory difficulties.

It would be inhumane and cruel to allow an autistic child to suffer with

extreme sensory problems (like severe auditory processing problems, which

are

possibly a major cause of difficulties with spoken language), or to be

forced to

live in constant fear and anxiety. However, helping to overcome those

burdens

is not the same as trying to make the child normal, or to make him

" indistinguishable from his peers. " Similarly, an autistic child can be

given the

social tools to live in what is really an alien world to him, without

being trained

to act like something he is not-- normal. There is nothing wrong with

teaching such a child about the peculiar way that normal people react to

statements

that are insufficiently vague, or that are not wrapped in enough verbal

candy

to sufficiently obfuscate the main point. There is nothing wrong with

teaching the child that normal people often mistake such things for

rudeness. That

is not the same as teaching the child that simple, direct statements are

rude.

The difference is subtle but important. The former method is akin to

teaching an American how to relate successfully with Japanese people,

while the

latter is more like teaching him that being an American is undesirable and

wrong,

and that he should become Japanese (which he cannot do).

For the autistic person without retardation (high-functioning autistic),

often it is the unyielding social norms that cause the greatest

difficulty.

Perhaps it is more logical to strive for greater acceptance of

individuality than

for the curing (or reduction of) of autism. As uncomfortable as autistics

often make closed-minded normal people, their positive traits are vital

for

innovation and societal growth. Rather than attempt to cure autistics, we

should

try to figure out whether those that are destined to become

lower-functioning

autistics can be helped to become high-functioning (in the early years),

to

overcome the difficulties presented by severe anxiety and sensory

dysfunction, and

to celebrate autistic people as being part of the genotype that includes

Einstein and many other people of genius... people of greatness.

Note from Website Author: The URL for my web site was misquoted in the

July-August 2002 issue of Autism-Asperger's Digest. The link given was to

this

particular article, not to the index page. If you would like to go to the

index

(home) page, please follow this link: Go to the main page

[Guest guest]

http://home.att.net/~ascaris1/genius.html

By Klein

When early treatment of autism is discussed, the word " intervention "

is almost always used. Obviously, the use of the word as such gives

the impression that autism is a path toward something awful, and by

intervening, the autistic child can be helped. That is offensive to

autistic people that do not hold that they are the result of

something awful. Indeed, there is good that comes from autism, even

though the distraught parents of newly-diagnosed autistic children

may not be able to see it. For example, Albert Einstein may have

been just another patent clerk if it hadn't been for autism. His

autistic traits, and his near-certain place on the autistic

spectrum, are well-known in the autistic community. What if autism

had been known at the time of his birth? What would have become of

him if his parents had recognized the signs and sought

intervention? How much of his greatness may have been jeopardized?

Albert Einstein was typical as far as higher-functioning autistics

(for the purpose of this article, AS and HFA will be considered to

be the same thing). He was extremely logical and analytical, though

socially awkward. He could deal with people, but he was a loner,

and he felt a need for considerable solitude on a daily basis. He

was extremely perseverative, spending more time on a given problem

(of interest to him) than any normal person would have been capable

of giving. These attributes are what gave Einstein the ability to

think as he did. These abilities are rather common in higher-

functioning autistics, although few achieve the greatness or

prominence that Einstein has. One may wonder, though, if Einstein's

autism had been treated successfully, would he have lost the

abilities (which are often called " impairments " by those that see

normality as the only acceptable way) that made him the thinker he

was?

Autism has been described by some as a condition wherein people have

an affinity for objects (tangible or otherwise) rather than people.

This was clearly the case with Einstein. In his case, the object

was physics. As far as people went, Einstein was somewhat aloof and

indifferent, but when it came to science, he was very much engaged.

Would he have been as dedicated to his science if his indifference

for people had been eliminated, or would he have been just another

person toiling at a boring job, thinking of the weekend's social

gathering? Normal people generally do not recognize the extent to

which their thoughts and desires are dictated by this innate need to

be the social beings that they are, but it is quite evident to

autistic people, who see such " odd " behaviors very clearly. The

aloofness reported in autistic people frees their minds from the

social protocol that occupies the majority of the time of the normal

person, thus allowing time for other activities. Autistic people

often get the same satisfaction from working with a favorite idea or

object that normal people get from chatting with a close friend.

High-functioning autistic people perseverate, or think repetitively

(or even obsessively) on an object or a concept. This perseverative

interest is often described as an impairment or an abnormality by

normal people, who think themselves free of such obsessions. The

reality is, though, that normal people have a perseverative interest

too, and that interest is in being social. They perseverate on

being with others, even if no information is to be exchanged. They

become bored and lonely very quickly, by autistic standards, if they

are alone with their thoughts. They are just as perseverative about

socializing as any autistic is about a physical or theoretical

object, but they are so accustomed to this being the case that they

do not see it so. In other words, the desire to be social is so

well-accepted and ingrained that it is not seen as a fixation; it is

seen as normal and desirable. Even normal people that claim that

they often prefer solitude have no idea how great their innate

social needs are. They hold that the autistic is defective because

he perseverates on physics instead of chatting about the weather or

about the latest ball game. The difference is that being social, as

most people are, does not bring greatness. It does not result in

the formation of new ideas or concepts that advance humanity, or

that make our lives easier. Perseverative social behavior does

little, if anything, to advance society. That sort of thing is the

domain of abnormal minds, to a large degree.

The brain is a highly complex piece of equipment. Having billions

of neurons, it is far too complex to be described in detail by DNA.

Genetics controls the general layout of the brain, but most of the

actual connections are a matter of the environment. Prenatally,

this means that drug use, disease, and nutrition play the largest

nongenetic roles. Postnatally, though, is when the underpinnings of

intelligence are laid. The infant's brain is far from fully

developed at birth. The connections that are made depend on the

patterns of usage those neurons see. In this manner, it is assured

that the child's brain will be attuned to its environment. This is

also where genius begins.

Einstein's intelligence may have been a function of his autistic

brain. Absent the intuitive means to make sense of the world, he,

as is usual with autistics, may have relied heavily upon his

analytical, logical abilities. Thus, the neural pathways related to

analysis and logic were reinforced, and his adaptable human brain

grew in its ability to do those things as a result. Einstein's

relative lack of interest in people, and his great thirst for

knowledge, would have again reinforced the analytical parts of his

brain, while allowing the relatively unused social areas to become

deficient. As such, his genius is part and parcel of his autism,

and indeed is directly related to his lack of interest in convention

and social activities. As Temple Grandin put it in her book

Thinking in Pictures, genius itself is an abnormality.

Einstein was perseveratively interested in physics. He could not

stand the idea of the unknowable, and he spent much time thinking

about things that most people would have declared hopeless, or never

bothered to think about in the first place. This feverish devotion

to knowledge and fact is not uncommon in the higher-functioning

autistic community, but among normal people, it is strange and

unusual. The normal mind's primary function is to be social, not to

think about physics. That is, after all, what the normal mind is

supposed to do; humans, like wolves, are pack animals, and in the

pre-civilization days, survival depended upon group cohesion.

Society may have changed since then, but basic human neurology has

not. As such, social interaction is the only thing the normal mind

can handle for extended periods of time (perseveratively, in other

words), which limits its utility with regard to science and academic

knowledge. The autistic mind is capable of focus on areas of

interest for extremely long periods of time, day after day, without

boredom. Normal people may not truly understand the depth of focus

or the length of attention span that the autistic person has when

dealing with his special interest. It would not be surprising to

see an autistic person spend virtually every waking moment, day

after day, for months at a time, thinking about, researching, and

otherwise involving himself, with one very specific subject, without

ever becoming bored or weary of that subject. In the sciences, this

feature is an asset of indescribable worth, and it was doubtless of

great value to Einstein.

In short, Einstein was one of the century's top thinkers because of

his autistic condition, not despite it. His success in physics is

directly related to his autistic profile of strengths and

weaknesses, as was his intelligence, in all likelihood. If we could

go back in time and inform Einstein's parents of his condition, and

that it could be treated, how much treatment should he have

received? Would we want to risk " curing " one of the brightest men

in the last hundred years, if it meant that his genius would be

cured as well? Would it be a good idea to change anything at all,

lest we inadvertently eliminate one of the greatest minds ever

known? In short, would it be advisable, in hindsight, to treat him

at all?

If the answer to that question is NO, that would lead directly into

the next question: Is it advisable to try to normalize autistic

children today, even a little? Do we really wish to eliminate

people like Einstein? Do we really think that autistic behaviors

are so unsightly and bothersome that we would be willing to rid the

world of genius to eliminate those behaviors? The next question

would be for the parents of an autistic child. Do you really wish

normality on your child, so much so that you would eliminate

potential greatness? Genius is, after all, abnormal.

Autistic-type behaviors have been noted in many historical figures

that, like Einstein, have achieved greatness. All of these people

have done so with no treatment at all. Now that people are

discovering more about how the human mind develops, there has been

an increase in the reports of children whose autism has been " cured "

or reduced in severity by one means or another. If these children

would have ended up as apparently low-functioning, possibly self-

destructive, non-communicative people, this would seem like a very

good thing, but it is often very hard to tell those people from high-

functioning autistics early on, when such treatments are most likely

to have an effect. Even if early treatments, like sensory

integration or ABA, are eventually proven to be effective in

reducing autistic behaviors, do we really wish to do that? Even the

seemingly unquestionable practice of reducing sensory difficulties

may have the effect of reducing the qualities that cause genius.

Whether that is the case would make a great topic for academic

research, but for now, it seems that the thrust of the research is

to prevent or cure autism, rather than preserving the autism and

attempting to help or prevent the often associated features like

mental retardation, mood disorders, and severe sensory difficulties.

It would be inhumane and cruel to allow an autistic child to suffer

with extreme sensory problems (like severe auditory processing

problems, which are possibly a major cause of difficulties with

spoken language), or to be forced to live in constant fear and

anxiety. However, helping to overcome those burdens is not the same

as trying to make the child normal, or to make

him " indistinguishable from his peers. " Similarly, an autistic

child can be given the social tools to live in what is really an

alien world to him, without being trained to act like something he

is not-- normal. There is nothing wrong with teaching such a child

about the peculiar way that normal people react to statements that

are insufficiently vague, or that are not wrapped in enough verbal

candy to sufficiently obfuscate the main point. There is nothing

wrong with teaching the child that normal people often mistake such

things for rudeness. That is not the same as teaching the child

that simple, direct statements are rude. The difference is subtle

but important. The former method is akin to teaching an American

how to relate successfully with Japanese people, while the latter is

more like teaching him that being an American is undesirable and

wrong, and that he should become Japanese (which he cannot do).

For the autistic person without retardation (high-functioning

autistic), often it is the unyielding social norms that cause the

greatest difficulty. Perhaps it is more logical to strive for

greater acceptance of individuality than for the curing (or

reduction of) of autism. As uncomfortable as autistics often make

closed-minded normal people, their positive traits are vital for

innovation and societal growth. Rather than attempt to cure

autistics, we should try to figure out whether those that are

destined to become lower-functioning autistics can be helped to

become high-functioning (in the early years), to overcome the

difficulties presented by severe anxiety and sensory dysfunction,

and to celebrate autistic people as being part of the genotype that

includes Einstein and many other people of genius... people of

greatness.