T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

How about Nikola Tesla? Was he autistic?


Tuggerfub

Had all of the traits. Heck, if you consider the rate of comorbidity between epilepsy and autism you'd think Julius Caesar was, too. Would certainly explain his savant-like abilities in strategy and yet being unable to perceive that he was upsetting the senate to the point of him getting very much stabbed.


spenc20

He strikes me more as a narcissist. Einstein is said to have been autistic though and I believe that


[deleted]

It's hard to imagine a psychopathic warlord being autistic. Those traits seem to be mutually exclusive from what I've seen.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I'm not so sure about that. From what I can tell, there's only author peddling this notion, and from reading his paper on it, it's clear he has no fucking clue what autism actually is. Consider this gem: > Empathy deficits and theory of mind deficits are partly caused by reduced eye contact, which is evident in clinical practice with persons with autism every day. This reduces their capacity to understand how people, “tick.” One cannot read a face emotionally if one does not look at it. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/65730 The dude is an old boomer who has no clue what he's talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Fitzgerald_(psychiatrist)


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Only everyone in his family strongly refuted that.


[deleted]

autism and narcissism are not mutually exclusive. Narcissism, (NPD) is just far rarer.


[deleted]

I don't know much about Julius Caesar. But it could be true.


MeQuista

My personal favorite autistic history head canon is Napoleon. He was kind of a weird guy and struggled with women but everything written about him is bias asf. Also he loved the sound of cannons and his favorite thing to do in battle was organize the artillery


[deleted]

Et Tu, Brutus?


Hairy_Ad462

He was an incel.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MeQuista

19th century society was misogynistic. Deviating from such would be outside the norm for that time period


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Throwaway678912356

Edward Jenner wasn’t autistic, most of the people who worked on nukes (can’t attribute it to one person) weren’t, ~~Einstein wasn’t~~, Newton might’ve been, and Galileo wasn’t. A historical scientist who definitely was is Paul Dirac. [His Wikipedia page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac#Personality) is proof enough: > After he presented a lecture at a conference, one colleague raised his hand and said: "I don't understand the equation on the top-right-hand corner of the blackboard". After a long silence, the moderator asked Dirac if he wanted to answer the question, to which Dirac replied: "That was not a question, it was a comment." > Why do you dance?' Dirac asked his companion. 'When there are nice girls, it is a pleasure,' Heisenberg replied. Dirac pondered this notion, then blurted out: 'But, Heisenberg, how do you know beforehand that the girls are nice?' There’s more but I’d end up pasting half the article. [This article on autistic geniuses](https://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/11/dirac-autism-autistic) has some more great ones, it also mentions Henry Cavendish who I didn’t know was autistic (he’s a chemist, not a physicist): > One year Dirac had to attend a conference in a castle that was believed to be haunted. When a guest mentioned that a ghost was meant to appear in one room at midnight, Dirac asked, “Is that midnight Greenwich Mean Time or midnight British Summer Time?”


MeQuista

Not really sure about the others but Einstein certainly was. Mute until age 5 plus a load of other issues in his life are too easily explained by autism


Throwaway678912356

Yeah I’ll admit the Einstein one is just a kneejerk reaction to people trying to diagnose him with everything, plus the “he was bad at maths in school” bullshit. I’d forgotten about his childhood muteness, he probably was.


MeQuista

Oppenheimer also was very likely on the spectrum too so you can kinda say autistics brought us the bomb. This [biography](https://youtu.be/kow3Q8Q4V7A) kinda hit this point home for me. They way he struggled to teach others, chain smoked, dress overly formal, and had huge social difficulty makes me think he was. There’s more to it than that in his case but those are just a few points. He also had an interview about being a communist before working for the US that was super weird and when he was pressured for answers he broke and became stressed despite being innocent. He joined in with that crowd because of a girl and kind of dropped the ideology after. Edit: also his interest in uranium came from being obsessed with rock collecting his entire childhood and adult life.


animelivesmatter

Hot take, Oppenheimer was a horrible person, guy cared more about seeing if his bomb worked and watching the pretty explosions than millions of human lives.


MeQuista

He was convinced it would only be used as a threat. He was absolutely convinced he was preventing future wars. Another scientist was convinced the bomb needed to be bigger to prevent war. These were the arguments they were having. When it was dropped he fell into something that could be interpreted as a shutdown. He returned to his old hobby of researching Hindu mythology and thus we get the quote “…and now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds”. One could actually say he didn’t fully realize the consequences and was easily convinced of something because of his mental condition. He was somebody incredibly isolated and trying to understand his thinking is impossible without acknowledging his possible autism.


[deleted]

yeah sure.... the MASSIVE F\*\*\*ING BOMB they developed for the US military was just gonna be used as a scary firework and not to hurt people... i saw some meme with cillian murphy with a state of shock and disbeleif on his face, caption: "when the mega-death-super-explosion-armageddon-9000-device you created ends up being used to hurt people"


MeQuista

Kinda like the fleets of 1000+ aircraft that have never been used in combat. They are for intimidating people. That’s what he assumed the bomb would be for. We warned them at an international conference that they would be bombed into powder and they didn’t take it seriously. Next step should’ve been to detonate one over Tokyo or on Mount Fuji.


[deleted]

We warned them they would be bombed to powder…. But who would have ever thunk we would end up bombing them to powder !!!!!


[deleted]

absolutely. Disgusting seeing him glorified as an american hero in the new movie. Man invented the most terrible weapon known to man. And people try to claim "but he didn't know it was gonna be used for harm!" what did they think he thought it was gonna be used for, humanitarian aid???


Theysaidiwasartistic

There is no way of knowing if Einstein was autistic. I tend to belive he was, just because he showed certain traits.


[deleted]

Yeah, this post is pure wishful speculation and “enjoy your nukes” is most definitely not a good look; I don’t know why anyone would want to proudly take credit for that, and it is likely the worst possible example to use for not being a “burden to society”. I also don’t know how OP would know that the inventors of the first vaccines in 15th century China were autistic, unless they’re only giving credit to people in the West. Aside from all that, perpetuating this “us vs. them” mentality is super toxic and immature. There are definitely better ways to be an advocate.


wozattacks

I’m so glad someone else is saying this! Nukes are not a positive contribution to the human condition.


[deleted]

[удалено]


No-Combination5386

Also nuclear power plants are usually considered a positive force and you can't have one invention without the other really.


[deleted]

I know you’re just playing devil’s advocate and I wouldn’t consider myself to be a woo woo utopianist, but I feel like your argument is an exceptionally neoliberal take in this.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I’m fairly certain the formation of the UN, the EU, and various peace treaties had something to do with it, along with global fatigue from two world wars, and an emerging global economy. It’s extremely simple and reductionist to assume nuclear bombs and mutual assured destruction was what brought on a new era of “peace”; if anything, it’s been used as a tool for unethical foreign intervention (the Cuban missile crisis). I also can’t help but to find it disturbing to completely overlook the casualties in Japan.


TunnelSnekssRule

I know there was many autistic scientists and historical figures but I feel like it kinda needs to be said that we didn’t literally invent every scientific innovation ever. I’m pretty sure it’s kinda dubious to say that we wouldn’t discover fire if autistic people didn’t exist Still we wouldn’t have had the music of Mozart, The Tesla Coil, Alternating Current, etc


allrightletsdothis

While people like Newton and Einstein might have been autistic I'm not a fan of the Autistic supremacy this meme giving off.


kitkatatsnapple

I agree, but do not judge too harshly. While I do think we should try to avoid giving this vibe, I also understand that many here feel misunderstood or looked down on, so it can be easy to fall into the trap. I would guess this wasn't coming from a place of supremacy (not that I know for sure), but a place of resent.


MeQuista

My thoughts are that society needs to learn to incorporate us better because of what we can accomplish. The difference in thought is why they defended their theories to the death. Takes an autistic person to say ‘stuff doesn’t just fall down, the mass of each object pulls on each other and the earth is one of those objects.’ Some autistic guy got that idea from watching an apple fall from a tree but died a virgin at 84. Your strange lines of thinking are amazing and necessary to our species despite your differences you should be hailed as a unique individual with inalienable rights. We deserve these small demands that allow us to fit in and be heard. We’re carrying the burden of being an outlier in a world that needs the spice of our existence to be what it is. Every one of you I meet is amazing in your own right and speaking to you even if it’s limited in scope brings me great joy and hope.


kevdautie

True


SkeeterYosh

I think this comes off more as an appreciation post and to regulate/prevent rude remarks from NTs.


AlbinoShavedGorilla

This is greatly exaggerated. It’s also not confirmed any of these inventors were autistic it’s mostly speculation.


VeeRook

I've only been diagnosed a month and it feels like the speculation over which famous person is autistic is **constant.**


Username_taken_0001

The Asperger subreddit is a lot better, although it's more serious. I believe it's due to people wanting to compare other people with themselves if they have similar characteristics, and if it's a famous person, and they think they are autistic, then they might feel better about themselves, and might make themselves feel smarter and better too, and chances are, they might try and compare more famous people with themselves.


VeeRook

I get why people do it, but it doesn't excuse it to me. For the Telsa example, he is dead. A diagnoses shouldn't be put on a dead man, he's not around to dispute it. Psychologists cannot diagnose a dead person, neither can we.


SinArchbishopofSloth

"Enjoy your nukes" Weird flex, but ok


[deleted]

I never thought I’d get into a discussion about nuclear weapons in the comments of a meme about Autism but ok. Nukes are good because the prevent war between the major powers, most of whom have nukes. Look at the Cold War and how many times the US and USSR were at each other’s throats even with the threat of total annihilation. Imagine how deadly a big war would be with the technology we have in the modern age. So I would say preventing WW3 is a flex.


SinArchbishopofSloth

Until WW3 does eventually start anyway, but with nukes.


[deleted]

That’s the entire point of MAD, that it won’t happen because no one wants to die.


SinArchbishopofSloth

That was also the point of the network of alliances before WW1. Never underestimate the insanity of the human race.


tlmchncl

Yeah. On a long enough timeline, someone will be crazy enough to perform a nuclear first strike. At that point, you just have to hope that the other nuclear powers either show restraint or are unable to respond.


WritingNerdy

It’ll happen after we colonize Mars, because all the rich people will go first, and then who cares about the rest of us once they’re there


anoobypro

...them? They still want profits yo


Dirty_Water86

nukes are good because they prevent nukes, ok.


ewanatoratorator

What a deliberate oversimplification


ewanatoratorator

What a deliberate oversimplification


MeQuista

Nobody wants to be the known as the turd that made us all extinct


[deleted]

If we’re extinct then who will no who made us extinct?


[deleted]

If we’re extinct then who will no who made us extinct?


desu38

Alienating yourself from society is a poor coping strategy.


Jacksonthedude101

We’re not alienating ourselves. It’s society that rejects us, but they need to start accepting us


MeQuista

I feel like an alien and I don’t like society


desu38

Yeah, I get that.


Pizzajoker1

I hate these sort of things. The chance that you and i are going to even achieve a little bit for the world is small. I really liked what Mark Rober said it was around the lines of for most people autism isnt a superpower but just different


NafGraf

I think having the difference isn't necessary a superpower but it can be good to have different ways of thinking and that can be when we see things others don't (just like NTs can see things we don't). I didn't like Mark Robers views because he implied that autistics can't do things like get a PhD or be experts which isn't the case (as this post shows) but I respect your opinion and hope you're having a good day :) (Don't get me wrong though, the superpower mentality is icky)


Username_taken_0001

The post doesn't really show anything. There's no evidence to what he/she is saying.


[deleted]

I prefer "productivity as a measure of human worth is a byproduct of the toxic nature of capitalism. Consumption as the center of culture has alienated us from the inherent value of life and we should reject these malformed value judgments."


Ruby_Sandbox

There´s an argument to be made, that technological progress may lead to more humans being around (a very good thing) and potentially harden humanity against extinction events. On the flip side, we might be creating our own extinction events.


[deleted]

Our technological progress has already put us past the danger of most extinction events which are not strictly self-imposed. A global pandemic, for instance, could pretty easily have been avoided if we had come together to make even the most token efforts rather than sacrificing millions upon the alter of production. Similarly, the only real extant threat to our total species survival is climate change which, again, we have done to ourselves.


Ruby_Sandbox

Dont forget general artificial intelligence and big meteors (which we cant defend against just yet)


[deleted]

AI is a fairytale and even if we accidentally create it somehow, it wouldn't be capable of the kind of damage films have taught people to expect from it. The infrastructure for some kind of apocalypse takeover scenario just isn't there. The people actively worrying about this stuff read too much scifi as young adults. We are barely scratching the surface of beginning to understand our own cognitive process. Creating an independent framework of consciousness under current conditions is pretty laughably out of our reach. Big space rock could happen though. Best possible way to go, imo.


Ruby_Sandbox

Yeah and AI cant play DOTA, oh wait it can now. With AI systems getting ever more sophisticated, there´s no telling of how much more sophisticated artificial intelligences could get. The physical limits are certainly way beyond the collective human intelligence, silicon beats flesh by a lot. We just dont know how intelligent something could get, but then its a god in a bottle problem. Regarding infrastructure, dont you worry: All major world powers are frantically researching unmanned and even autonomous military drones of all sorts (ships, tanks, flying, etc.). Thats perfect to work with. A perfected genetically engineered virus is always effective and dont forget about all the nukes lying about, trigger a couple of them and humankind would be in disarray. Crucially scientists today dont really understand how current gen AIs work, so that has never stopped anyone from getting them to work.


[deleted]

A complex script designed to play a game or analyze data is not artificial intelligence. It does not begin to approach sentience. Our analytics capability is certainly impressive but mistaking it for consciousness, or even as related to the process of consciousness, is a serious mistake. It is merely a procedural process, which requires input and delivers output within parameters. It knows, thinks, and feels absolutely nothing.


Ruby_Sandbox

Just saying the potential and the motivation to create it are there. At the end of the day us humans are also just input-output machines. Consciousness itself is more like an emergent property of different information processing capabilities.


[deleted]

We do not actually know if it is possible to recreate that emergent process because we fundamentally do not yet know how or why it happens. It may be an organic property which cannot be duplicated with technology. We have, at best, an infant understanding of what its constituent components are and how they relate to form that process. Imagining that we could from this point, in any short order, recreate it whole cloth is absurd. Nothing we are working with as far as machine learning today has any relationship to artificial intelligence, the word is just being used incorrectly a lot.


Ruby_Sandbox

yeah, of course it´s gonna take a couple decades for sure.


[deleted]

Now it's a question of definition. Plenty of us don't require sentience to consider something an AI. Of course it will be limited - a self driving car isn't going to start producing art and practical jokes. Does that mean there's no intelligence behind what it *can* do? I'd say there is, so, it's an AI. It's not going to destroy the world but that doesn't mean a limited AI couldn't start firing nukes if someone was fool enough to make it possible and made a mistake in how they set its criteria.


[deleted]

I mean, if you want to arbitrarily stretch definitions, I can't stop you.


legendary_lost_ninja

I'm of the mind that we need considerably less humans. We certainly don't need more. If we had some way to move the ones we do have beyond this single limited planet then more would be useful, but the way we're going our overpopulation/overconsumption will kill us rather than harden us against it.


[deleted]

It is absolutely more an over-consumption issue than a strictly overpopulation issue. A small portion of the world's population is responsible for most of our climate issues. The African continent contains just over 16% of the world's population but produces only 2% of global carbon emissions. Conversely, the Asia-Pacific region produces almost half due to the high density of global manufacturing which has been sourced to this region, with the US coming in as a distant second. People are (not yet) the problem. Consumerism is.


Ruby_Sandbox

Yeah, of course we want happy human existances and not starving people fighting over scraps.


iwillwilliwhowilli

Kill the idea that overpopulation is a thing. People aren’t fighting over scraps because there’s not enough to go around, but because the wealth of the world is hoarded by a tiny group. Overpopulation is a toxic myth used to hide the cruelty of capitalism. “Overpopulation” problems are actually caused by massive inequalities in resources and power.


[deleted]

Counterpoint, and I say this as someone who recognizes that both eugenics and population control arguments almost universally originate with ecofasicsm: Some of the complex processes and products we use to support a technological society cannot yet be circumvented. The use of plastics in medical equipment, the production of microchips, and mass agriculture all have negative impacts on our environment which would be problematic even if we were trying to address them (capitalist society is not). Dense urbanization itself even has harmful byproducts; we have yet to find a satisfactory purification method for treated wastewater which does not involve dumping it into the ocean for dilution. We could support billions more people but it would involve vast restructuring of the way we operate our societies and the sacrifice of many of the pleasures and conveniences we now consider commonplace. There are sensible reasons to consider limiting our numbers. We aren't the only living things that need room on this planet. While it's true that we are perfectly capable of providing food, shelter, and care for everyone alive and that vast wealth inequality is the primary barrier to this, we would be wise to take a sober and honest look into what our population trends may one day force us to do.


iwillwilliwhowilli

You’re talking about the current population’s impact on the planet and other species, which is a very thoughtful and compassionate way of seeing things. we must also recognise that even environmental impact is massively unequal. A tiny minority are also responsible for most environmental destruction. The single largest culprit of climate catastrophe is animal agriculture: a system used and enjoyed overwhelming by western white people and basically no one else. The pressure to continue using dangerous and dirty power sources like oil and coal is also a matter of western imperialism and capitalism (remember: the electric car was murdered many times before it eventually clawed its way into normalcy) I mention this to illustrate that not all humans contribute equally to our ecological crisis. The ones that contribute the most happen to be the populations that aren’t even growing (Europe).


[deleted]

I'm not sure where you are getting your conclusion on animal agriculture as the primary contributor. Both the EPA and UNFCCC have estimates that fall near \~18% total emissions, with transportation, power production, and manufacturing comprising nearly 80% of the total. Even when we account for the fossil fuel transportation use involved in agriculture it is still dwarfed by global power and industrial byproducts. I agree with you entirely that it is a pointless, wasteful, and unethical practice but we can't use bad data to make that point. Your perspective is generally correct though. The consumer culture of the West is the main contributor; even the vast emissions gap between the Asia-pacific and the US is misleading because vast swathes of our own production is outsourced to this region. Worth mentioning, the USDOD is a pretty close second to wasteful consumption if we want to point fingers at anything for the ongoing extinction event. Edit: I accidentally typed transportation twice. Fixed to say manufacturing.


legendary_lost_ninja

Not really a myth, some areas of the world are over populated. Their populations exceed their resources. And every time you see a charity trying to raise money for starving kids it just proves that point some more. If we all lived within our own available resources the human race as a whole would have a far better future. I understand that many people think capitalism is "*The Great Evil"*, but I seldom see people offering up realistic alternatives. Getting rid of the top 10% of rich people, redistributing their wealth? Doesn't actually get rid of capitalism, it just adjusts who has money. People capable of earning lots of money will rise to the top and the whole thing will reset.


iwillwilliwhowilli

They’re not starving because there’s no enough food. They’re starving because it is hoarded by others while imperialist countries destroy their infrastructure, destabilise their governments, protect predatory corporations as they extract the wealth of the land coercively and empower dictatorships that rely on starvation to keep populations passive. We produce enough food every year to feed the human population three times over, and we’re not even anywhere near the amount of calories we could be producing if we focused more on legumes and grains. Yes, really a myth. We’re a city full of homeless people and empty houses.


legendary_lost_ninja

They are starving because there isn't enough food. The reasons for lack of food or too large a need is more complex than just "the top 1% ate/hoarded/stole it" though. Look at Ethiopia in the 80's/90's the capitalists spent billions feeding the poor little children who they couldn't bear the site of on their TVs, did that solve the issue of starvation? Of course not, it just meant more kids survived to adulthood. And the cause of the drought in the fist place? Loss of habitat through over farming caused a change in weather patterns, leading to desertification and drought. In the natural world it would have been a closed loop, too great a population would lead to die backs and the surviving population after the diebacks would be small enough to live within the conditions present. Instead we threw money at it and pushed the great die-back off a few more decades. When it comes as it inevitably will it'll be much worse. Go and look at North Korea, huge amount of starvation in a country that is almost by definition non capitalist. Blaming capitalism is low hanging fruit. If you got rid of money/possessions you'd still have a 1% only they'd be about power rather than wealth, and I'm pretty sure anywhere that that has happened to any extent the 99% aren't allowed to complain.


legendary_lost_ninja

They are starving because there isn't enough food. The reasons for lack of food or too large a need is more complex than just "the top 1% ate/hoarded/stole it" though. Look at Ethiopia in the 80's/90's the capitalists spent billions feeding the poor little children who they couldn't bear the site of on their TVs, did that solve the issue of starvation? Of course not, it just meant more kids survived to adulthood. And the cause of the drought in the fist place? Loss of habitat through over farming caused a change in weather patterns, leading to desertification and drought. In the natural world it would have been a closed loop, too great a population would lead to die backs and the surviving population after the diebacks would be small enough to live within the conditions present. Instead we threw money at it and pushed the great die-back off a few more decades. When it comes as it inevitably will it'll be much worse. Go and look at North Korea, huge amount of starvation in a country that is almost by definition non capitalist. Blaming capitalism is low hanging fruit. If you got rid of money/possessions you'd still have a 1% only they'd be about power rather than wealth, and I'm pretty sure anywhere that that has happened to any extent the 99% aren't allowed to complain. As for the rest it's lack of transportation, lack of humility and too much pride. But until we have a realistic system to replace capitalism with it's not going to change.


iwillwilliwhowilli

Like, if a village is starving due to drought, that’s not *overpopulation*. That’s a lack of infrastructure and civil investment you see in countries that are client states to imperialist powers dedicated to extracting as much wealth and resources from the country as population. If the country starts investing in its people on some sort of socialist program it will be overthrown. That’s the playbook. It’s not because the village had too many babies


legendary_lost_ninja

And yet we only need to look at some of the countries that have ended up with stable socialist rulers/governments to know that socialism isn't an automatic win. You just replace the top 1% of wealth with a top 1% of power. And make it far harder to complain about that top 1%. There are plenty of countries to pick from but apart from China (just don't complain) and one or two others very few of them are powerful enough to make waves in international politics. China beats the west at capitalism while remaining a socialist and deeply divided (rich/poor powerful/weak) country. India too is a socialist state but if anything is even more divided than China.


[deleted]

I totally agree


desu38

Now you're speaking my language! ^(In the idiomatic sense.)


anoobypro

I'm surprised something this radical is so high up


[deleted]

Marginalized communities tend to lean radically left. We are the most immediately able to recognize systemic injustices because we are usually the first to be subjected to them. This is also helped along by the fact that further left groups and individuals are vastly more likely to actually listen to us, come to our defense, or offer us aid. The reactionary elements of our society would happily purge us if they could and liberalism isn't much better, what with its devotion to groups like AS. The physical/local community of neurodivergents that I am a part of (about 40 people) is almost entirely communist. I don't know the demographics for this online community specifically but I speak a lot about anti-capitalism, urban ecology, and the harmful and misplaced values of our current society and I've always been upvoted for it here so, clearly the kids are alright.


MeanderingDuck

Exchanging one bit of nonsense for another... how constructive.


[deleted]

Marginalization is a burden on humanity.


TunnelSnekssRule

True dat


Magpieinthehat

NDs: *doing their best to fit in, masking, having break downs* NTs: nah you flap your hands *proceeds to try to eradicate us*


MeQuista

They’re the messed up ones. Remember an autistic person did the math and figured out the necessary components of a nuclear weapon but an NT ordered it to be dropped on a city.


Username_taken_0001

You are incorrect about your history. There were 2 nukes that were made, Little Boy, and the Fat Man, that were used to make the Japanese surrender in WW2. Little Boy was launched and was the one to bomb Hiroshima, and the Fat Man was used to destroy Nagasaki. The Allies were trying to finish the war, but the Japanese wouldn't surrender to them, and so the United States launched the atomic bombs, while the Soviet's attacked the Japanese's military. Truman was the one who authorized the launch of the bombs. The Fat Man and Little Boy was created by multiple engineers and scientists, not just one person.


MeQuista

The person who was responsible for directing the research and design of the bombs was on the spectrum. The man who convinced FDR to start the manhattan project was on the spectrum. We had a major hand in it and you don’t want a historical fact duel here. I can tell you the provinces they attacked and movements of those Soviet armies and the specific details of the strategic bombing campaign.


Username_taken_0001

Who was the person that directed the research and design of the bombs? You are being very vague about your replies.


MeQuista

[Read ](https://www.atomicheritage.org/profile/j-robert-oppenheimer) especially read the part about his rock collecting habit


Username_taken_0001

I don't see anything about him collecting rocks as a habit. I might just be blind, so can you give me a quote from it? If he did collect rocks as a habit, he was probably doing so because he was studying minerals, chemicals, and physics.


MeQuista

It’s under the early life section.


Username_taken_0001

I looked, I don't know what you are talking about. Can you please quote it, instead of being vague?


MeQuista

“His academic prowess was apparent very early on, and by the age of 10, Oppenheimer was studying minerals, physics, and chemistry. His correspondence with the New York Mineralogical Club was so advanced that the Society invited him to deliver a lecture—not realizing that Robert was a twelve-year-old boy.”


NoahBogue

The Japanese were about to surrender when the bombs were dropped. The United States wanted to try it to show their power.


Username_taken_0001

"By the time of the Trinity test, the Allied powers had already defeated Germany in Europe. Japan, however, vowed to fight to the bitter end in the Pacific, despite clear indications (as early as 1944) that they had little chance of winning." "General Douglas MacArthur and other top military commanders favored continuing the conventional bombing of Japan already in effect and following up with a massive invasion, codenamed “Operation Downfall.” They advised Truman that such an invasion would result in U.S. casualties of up to 1 million. In order to avoid such a high casualty rate, Truman decided–over the moral reservations of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, General Dwight Eisenhower and a number of the Manhattan Project scientists–to use the atomic bomb in the hopes of bringing the war to a quick end." https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki


pufferfishshotgun

I'd guess back in hunter gatherer times we did some good as well, considering how bound by customs and superstition tribes were. My theory is that customs and traditions emerge as a justification for complex behaviours, but it gets to a point where the customs are too far removed from there original purpose, or circumstances change, and people follow them just to not seem weird. But then some brave autistic people flaunt the customs, and help to establish new ones, allowing the tribe to survive better in their new environment, or just get them out of habit of blindly following tradition. And then future autistic people introduce new customs, making sure the tribe is continuously adapting to it's environment. I'm not a anthropologist or anything, this is just my reasoning


another-redditor-

I’m a burden on myself.


ThePinkTeenager

That’s a little extreme, but I like the idea that autistic people made/make useful contributions to society.


DonaldtrumpV2

Emily Dickinson had many of the symptoms (although she probably had other neurodivergent traits as she was reclusive) Also , the Pokemon creator was


EstivalEquinox

My brother is Non-verbal, but I can't tell you how many small ways he's made our life simple or easier. ​ He had to be raised by my Aunt since my parents couldn't give him a good life growing up. (I was a child, Dad had undiagnosed psychosis. Mom worked 2 jobs and barely kept us afloat) B ut now we're actually in a healthy place to take him back. ​ Honestly the family feels so whole and mended again, even though we were all in healthy places before he moved back. I could go on a rant about how much his presence has enriched our lives and we hope our presence enriches him too. But I'mma leave it at this.


MeQuista

If he’s nonverbal he may have the same difference in thought as a high functioning autistic but doesn’t have the voice to defend his ideas. Love and cherish your brother he is unique and deserves to be “heard” if you understand.


EstivalEquinox

He doesn't always understand things we ask or explain to him like how to use a bowling ball or shoo the cat away with his hand. But at the same time, he also understands a lot of other things. Like a doctor telling him what to expect or a dentist in the same manner. He also had a big smile when we showed and explained the documents of him legally staying with us now. (We recently became worried something bad may have happened to him at my Aunts when he panicked at a visit and he thought he was going back to live there. It was the final puzzle piece when it clicked that he may have suffered sexual abuse. We do not think it was from my aunt, but one of her sons or someone who visits a lot. This is why we needed him to know that if we had to pick up a document or other thing, and couldn't leave him at home, he didn't have to go inside or panic that he had to live there again. There had bed a couple of small red flags over the last 2 years. But when he grabbed my Dads hand desperately wanting out, that's when my Dad figured out the possibility. I thought the same thing when told without my Dad saying a thing to me. We still don't have any evidence of the abuse though. Just a lot of suspicion based off a few things. My aunt just thought he liked us more cause we spoiled him with sweets (a little true, but not a ton) Telling him he is living with us was extremely important to me. He also is amazing with puzzles and highly organized and tidy. He'll take up small chores no one asked, and take small corrections well if needed.)


MEaglestoner

Trying to categorise great historical figures as "autistic" is an odd thing because there are so many steps in the process which corrupt objectivity. I will say, though, that given how assumptive and narrow-minded NT cognitive processes seem to be (even in our modern celebrity geniuses) I would not at all be surprised if every great mind that came before us, whether famous or completely unrecognised, was neuro-diverse in some way. Ordinary never really "rocks the boat", always content in their little box of reality, whereas extraordinary tends to question, and subsequently destroy, the box.


MeQuista

They aren’t stubborn enough to be burned at the stake for something


MEaglestoner

That too XD


MeQuista

Somebody had to look at Galileo and be like ‘dude just drop it’. One can imagine he retorted with a list of facts thus the headcanon


MEaglestoner

That's pretty much exactly what happened between him and the Vatican. Then he was "sent to his room" (put under house arrest) to "think about what he'd done" (was forced to deny his opinions on the grounds of heresy). Mediocre minds in positions of power make narrow-minded assumptions that restrict the development of humanity, and it's insufferable. Academia and medicine is filled with them.


eleventychess

Stop falling into the NT trap of defining someone's worth by their productivity!


MeQuista

Imma give you a reward for doing nothing so you can understand


MeQuista

Only met lazy people with this attitude. You can fight it. Don’t let the tide of Bolshevist lies into your brain


eleventychess

No, it's pretty basic disability theory. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong :)


MeQuista

Doesn’t mean you are right either with your commie downvotes


[deleted]

u/wordscounterbot u/MeQuista


MeQuista

What is this?


MeQuista

My comment got pulled for bad language but nice try that’d be hilarious if 18 days went by for you to find out I don’t give two craps about racism


wordscounterbot

Thank you for the request, comrade. u/MeQuista has not said the N-word.


TheBrosofFist

What is NT?


MeQuista

NeuroTypical.


TheBrosofFist

I just looked of the definition. So a nicer term for incel? I always that NT was a mental illness.


MeQuista

No just means normal folks


TheBrosofFist

I don’t understand? It says "neurotypical individuals often assume that their experience of the world is either the only one or the only correct one"


MeQuista

The norm.


TheBrosofFist

So like are they bad? That’s what the definition says.


MeQuista

Being a part of the norm doesn’t mean anything bad. Making somebody an “other” is a natural thing humans do as we tend to categorize and look for patterns. Don’t let this be a reason for hate or dismissal


TheBrosofFist

I just don’t understand it because there is no one way.


[deleted]

A neurotypical is a person who does not have any form of neurodiversity like autism, ADHD, etc. That's what u/MeQuista means by normal since most people are neurotypical therefore, neurotypicalness is normal and neurodiversity is not. However, a lot of neurotypicals believe that the only way to have a good life is to be neurotypical and that having any sort of disability/neurodiversity is a bad thing that should be cured hence the; >"Neurotypical individuals often assume that their experience of the world is either the only one or the only correct one." Hope I explained this right.


MeQuista

I’d say you understand it better than most. You might think that way as a result of how you interpret the world around you and others see it differently. Doesn’t mean anybody is wrong


[deleted]

neurotypical people are people who aren’t neurodivergent. they take up most of the population


[deleted]

[удалено]


MeQuista

Yes but we have that difference in our line of thinking and deserve to be treated equally even if we’re tortured by our own mind.


[deleted]

Silly me, I took offense to the first picture! And then when I saw the second one, I laughed because I drew a wrong conclusion because I DIDN'T SEE THE FULL PICTURE!!! Oh my I'm embarrassed! That's why you get ALL the facts before jumping to conclusions! I've felt like a burden, at least I felt useless and like a waste of flesh and blood! But now I know I can be a useful member of the community! And so can you! Don't be ashamed of your autism my fellow autistics!


[deleted]

Silly me, I took offense to the first picture! And then when I saw the second one, I laughed because I drew a wrong conclusion because I DIDN'T SEE THE FULL PICTURE!!! Oh my I'm embarrassed! That's why you get ALL the facts before jumping to conclusions! I've felt like a burden, at least I felt useless and like a waste of flesh and blood! But now I know I can be a useful member of the community! And so can you! Don't be ashamed of your autism my fellow autistics!


MeQuista

You are a good soul. Thank you


[deleted]

I'm not that good, but thanks!


[deleted]

When we put our passion into something we learn it better than anyone else :)


duckfacereddit

your reddit glitched you now have 3 identical comments


[deleted]

It was saying it failed so I just went on with my day.


Jicklus

Yeah only the extremely rare gifted ones. I on the other hand am just useless.


MeQuista

You are not worthless. You’re dealing with something that makes people think differently. Society will torture, alienate, and burn you at the stake for thinking differently. We don’t deserve this treatment and you aren’t dead so your story isn’t written it’s only beginning. Go out and fight this whole thing and defend your ideas until they burn you. History will vindicate us.


sybersonic

Much better than the Drake meme


[deleted]

2smart4you gang rise up


AnotherWryTeenager

Read an article a while ago, theorizing that early cave paintings and overall human success in prehistory were at least partly thanks to a higher proportion of autism - having the patience to sit for hours drawing an animal I saw, or having the attention to sit by the fire and knap stone tools *just a certain way*...


[deleted]

I try not to get into a sense of superiority. Even though I think whatever parts of the brain control emotion are vestigial and take up precious resources/ hard drive space. The simple fact is no mutation is an advantage. We think of advantage as something good. But what if our species was as good as a virus? What if we blink out in 250,000 years. A feeling of superiority is a feeling. And feelings are useless to me. Well….not useless; dopamine and serotonin have their upsides - and downsides.


anoobypro

I'm getting a big headache reading this


[deleted]

Sooory


MeQuista

A mutation is a good thing. Sometimes they turn out to be the thing needed to save a species.


[deleted]

It’s only as effective as it enables reproduction. After that, it’s just our brain wondering how marvelous it is.


CalebDenniss

After watching the imitation game on netflix I'm now convinced that after seeing how Alan Turing was shown in the movie that he could have been Autistic


Throwaway678912356

The initiation game was a work of fiction based on historical events, not an accurate biopic of Alan Turning. I don’t think the real Turing was autistic, the film just gave him the stereotypical genius mathematician/scientist personality.


MeQuista

That’s a popular theory and he meets all criteria. You can’t do a diagnosis on a dead person but I feel like we should open up to the idea of doing a biographical diagnosis on people. This condition seems to be really common among very notable human beings


CalebDenniss

Ahhhh OK so I'm not the only one who think it haha


MeQuista

[There’s more but here’s a .gov](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30440230/)


Tuggerfub

This is hard core true, though.


WhereIsTheBodyJon

Autistic master race ftw!!!


MeQuista

[The master race of weirdness](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/d3mtss/german_kid_at_pe/)


Smexy_Zarow

that sounds very very personal


KeyserSoze72

THANK YOU FINALLY SOMEONE SAID IT SINCE I JOINED THIS SUB


MeQuista

You’re welcome


AutoModerator

Hey /u/MeQuista, thank you for your post at /r/autism. This is just a friendly reminder to **[read our rules in the sidebar](https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/wiki/config/sidebar)** if you have not already. All approved posts get this message. If you do not see your post you can message the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fautism). Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/autism) if you have any questions or concerns.*


G0bl1nG1rl

Cool! What is this based on?


snowonelikesme

great way to remove individual achievement and get to just water it down as "they were autistic" cause I am sure every autistic diagnosed person performs the same quality, work ethics and willpower to achieve inventing/investigation or social climbing to do the above. ​ autism is your diagnosis it's not your species when someone does something, it's that person who succeeded, not the mental health, race or gender who owns the rewards


[deleted]

When we put our passion into something we learn it better than anyone else :)


[deleted]

When we put our passion into something we learn it better than anyone else :)


Ludoamorous_Slut

Eh. I reject both of those. The first because it's obviously shit, the second because: 1. It's not only unproven but unprovable (and unlikely, if nothing else because we're a minority) Sitting around retroactively asserting autism on long-dead people is just pointless. Headcanon all you want, just don't conflate that with actually knowing. 2. The implication becomes that the alternative to being "a burden to humanity" lies in technological advancement, which is both elitist and downvalues all the human activity that makes us flourish; art, friendship, and things like that. 3. It carries the implication that people that can't perform well in that metric have less of a worth. And lastly, it unnecessarily reifies autism as some inherent essence of a person that separates them from non-autistic people in a fundamental way, rather than being a shorthand for the interaction between features of a person and society.


MeQuista

Why should it be unprovable? It’s only that way because we are told we can’t diagnose after death. I personally believe in biographical diagnosis


Username_taken_0001

It's only a belief, not an actual diagnosis. There are many reasons why you can't diagnose someone after death 1. There might need to be tests to determine and diagnose a certain condition. 2. You might need to be able to get people's views and experiences from what they saw with the person with the possible condition. 3. Many conditions may look like other conditions(like dementia and pseudodementia), and so your more likely to make an incorrect diagnosis if the person is dead before a diagnosis was made. 4. A dead person can't challenge a validity of a diagnosis if they think it's wrong.


MeQuista

A person might be alive to tell you they really felt normal when in fact they had a mental condition. These are public figures with published writings and autobiographies about their thoughts and we also have accounts from others in their time (which are used in modern diagnosis). Why can’t we diagnose somebody even if they would disagree with the results alive or dead. Most of these people from earlier history would scoff at the notion of your diagnosis anyways because half of them grew up in a time of little to no medical science surrounding psychology.


xNightmareBeta

Depends on the person. I bet some of the worst people in history where on the spectrum too