J. E. Robison on Aspergian light

[unixronin]

Reproduced in full at least partly because I want a permanent record of it.  Original article on J. E. Robison's BlogSpot site behind the link (and cut).

What is genius if not intelligence focused to a sharp point, a point that reaches beyond the rest of society?  Isn’t that also a definition of some Aspergians?

Not all Aspergians have the overall mind power to meet that definition, but some certainly do.  And that realization set me wondering . . . is there a genius who’s not Aspergian?  Or do the two go hand in hand?  Some of the greatest inventions the world has ever known have come from people who are otherwise so eccentric they could barely function in society.  And yet they gave that society – a society that often mocked and ridiculed them - great things.

Yesterday, at the Asperger’s Association of New England conference in Boston, Tony Attwood said,

Asperger’s is like fire.

The world needs fire . . . for light, for heat, for cooking. Fire shines for millions and makes their lives better. But it also burns those who are too close.

Asperger’s is the same.  The world needs Aspergians, for our creative talents.  Without us, the world would be flat, dull, and slower moving.  Our light shines over the whole world, with our music, our writing, our art, and our technical achievements.

It’s the fruit of Aspergian thought that makes the modern world possible.  Without Aspergians . . . there would be no Einstein; no Newton . . . we’d still be riding horse drawn wagons to market.  If that.  Maybe we’d still be in caves.

But those Aspergians who do the creating; who do the thinking . . . we are often tormented.  As are those around us.  Burned by our light, as it were.  Friends can protect us, but some will always be too smart and too driven to achieve contentment, whatever else they may attain.

Try as we might, we don’t always fit in.  We can’t.  Yet the world needs us more than they know.  A world without Aspergian genius would be a world tranquilized on Valium, plodding from task to task.  It would be the world portrayed in George Orwell’s 1984, come to life, but without the technology, because there would be no Aspergians to create it.

What drives us to be this way?  In many ways, it would be easier to be tranquilized.  The other night, at my Brookline reading, a young man with a tormented expression asked me, “If you could take a pill to make the Asperger’s go away . . .would you do it?”

No, I would not, I answered.  With a pill, I’d be dull and lifeless.  With a pill, there would be no spark.  There would be no book, no creativity, and I would not even be here.  How could I want that?

Later he came over and thanked me.  He didn’t want a pill, either, but he wondered if he’d made the right choice.

Upon reflection, I wondered too.  Because it’s easier to give up.  As we make our light brighter, it shines over many more people, and brings the world greater and greater gifts.  But do we ourselves benefit, or do we just burn brighter until we burn up?

Are we genetically programmed to do this?  What drives Aspergians to create, if not a deep-seated need to shine this light for others on a dark road.  Creativity is a surprisingly selfless act.  Think about it.  Did Einstein personally benefit from the theory of relativity, beyond the mental satisfaction of thinking up something new?  And yet his thoughts changed the world, and touched million if not billions of people.

I wouldn't take the pill either.  But I fervently, desperately wish there was ... maybe not a pill, but something I could take that would make me much better at understanding neurotypical non-verbal communication.

But if it was a choice between that and the opportunity to physically create some of the things I see in my mind?

Keep the pill.  Just ... for mercy's sake, show me how to run the fabber, before my brain explodes.

Comments

[brownkitty.livejournal.com]

I don't want my son cured, as such. I want him to have options.

And unless you're viewing minds as logic puzzles, I'd say that Hans Asperger might be an example of a non-Aspergerian genius.

[dr-nebula.livejournal.com]

I also tend to be highly focused and will often stay on task until I get something done (or 'right').

However, I don't think I have Asperger's - though my verbal skills aren't exactly stellar.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I have always known that some things were harder for me than they were for other people. I finally decided that everyone has things that are hard for them and things that come easy. All a label gives me is an explanation for why things seem so hard.

I don't want a pill. I just wish I could be less obsessive at times. It is the obsessive that drives the weariness that drives the depression. I just need to find out how to break the cycle. This is the only way my head has ever worked.

I do sometimes wish other people could see things the way I see them. There really is beauty in many unexpected places and sciences.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

I don't buy the premise. Asperger's (and the autism spectrum in general) is defined by repetitive action and hypersensitivity to novel stimuli, which seem antithetical to creativity.. Hyperfocus is not the same thing, though there are theories linking it to the autism spectrum.

FWIW, the most productive physicists I know are, if not neurotypical, definitely engaged with the world. Einstein, Feynman and Oppenheimer were all players with the ladies, Witten worked on Democratic election campaigns, and Newton ruthlessly guarded his reputation. Nearly every well-known physicist advises on gov't policy.

I think it's easy for intelligent people to score high on Asperger's inventories because they can be hyperfocused, esp. if they have an introverted streak. But they also usually have a deep emotional dimension that is uncharacteristic of the autism spectrum.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

Repetitive action is usually called OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder). While a simple minority of those with autism have OCD, it is not defining of Asperger's. Your definition of Asperger's works only if you exclude the high functioning category.

The High Functioning group come up with novel ways to cope with people that they don't understand and situations that do not always make sense. The coping mechanisms often lead to unusual cognitive connections being made as new situations arise.

The social competence of people with Asperger's is dependent on their coping mechanisms. (Face it, if you have some prestige, getting laid is not hard.) The presentation of Asperger's is on a broad spectrum where there is an unusual combination of strengths and weaknesses. It is possible to function in subsets of society with Asperger's.

Asperger's does not mean that you don't have emotions. Expression is sometimes an initial barrier, but that can be overcome.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

The presentation of Asperger's is on a broad spectrum where there is an unusual combination of strengths and weaknesses.

If you permit this, does the "Asperger's" concept have any predictive power? In particular, people of high intelligence are by definition not neurotypical ...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

The fact that it's a broad spectrum doesn't mean that the spectrum doesn't nevertheless have clear defining characteristics.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

Ok, if we tease apart what is characteristic of autism spectrum, and what is separately characteristic of high intelligence, why does the former set of traits lead to creativity and invention?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

It should also be noted that not all Aspies are necessarily creative geniuses. I think Robison rather overstates that aspect. I think it would be more fair to say "there is a strong correlation between Asperger's and exceptionally high intelligence, and between exceptional intelligence and creativity." I don't buy that there is necessarily a direct causal link between Asperger's and creativity.

Nevertheless, I know where he's coming from, and I know the feeling.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

That makes more sense. I fall into hyperfocus quite easily, something which accords with Baron-Cohen's "maleness" theory of autism. Accepting it, working with it, has been quite a project in my life ...

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

There is no predictive power at all with the diagnosis. The definition is no cognitive lacks. If you look at the variety of diagnostic criteria (link (http://web.syr.edu/~rjkopp/data/as_diag_list.html)) you will see that it is quite possible to have a great variety of social functioning, and still be diagnosed correctly with Asperger's. Further, most of the criteria need to be judged when in childhood, before coping mechanisms are developed.

The lack of predictive behaviors is creating a huge problem with the schools. Asperger's, PDD, and other Autism Spectrum Disorders are becoming the catch-all diagnosis for schools to provide services to those that need them. That is causing many to wonder if ASD is over-diagnosed. A valid fear of abuse of the system vs providing services to children in need is causing administrative intervention and a questioning of the diagnosis criteria, because they are so broad.

Your questions (and concerns) are not unfounded. There is no good answer to them at this time.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I was fumbling my way towards a reply similar to that, but not doing a competent or eloquent job of putting it together.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Intr'sting. I also pointed wispfox, who is angling to get a degree studying spectrum disorders, at this entry.

[freetrav.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't take the pill, either.

I also commend to you on this subject a novel (novella, by today's standards) by Elizabeth Moon, The Speed of Dark (http://www.amazon.com/Speed-Dark-Elizabeth-Moon/dp/0345481399/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-3083616-4548046?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191355393&sr=1-1) which presents that dilemma (pill or not) with the Aspie as the viewpoint character.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That sounds like it has potential for interest. Thanks for the recommendation.

[yndy.livejournal.com]

Well, lessee... my IQ as measured twice formally, using the Stanford-Binet model was 179 & 174... so I guess I qualify as a "non-aspie genius"

But honestly? I think we need the diversity.
:)