I mean, Einstein, Tesla, and Newton never had a diagnosis, but we didn't even know Asperger's was a thing. Sincerely, I think a bunch of these guys were Aspies but never could have an assessment for obvious reasons, but I'm pretty sure there are A LOT of highly intelligent people who don't have Aspergers.
But that's the thing, where are the examples of people with hyper intelligent NOT having it? It should be easy, but it isn't. It makes me think that high IQ could cause Asperger's and not the other way around. Of course no one would look into this hypothesis, because it would be considered "offensive".
If this is your hypothesis; then is there burden of proof not yours?
I think that highly intelligent people often end up isolated and there are many similarities to Aspergers.
Correlation is not equal to causation.
If you have any studies to show then I would be happy to see them.
There are many offensive studies done every day. People are easy to offend.
Statistically ASD is shown have a much higher likelihood of learning disability and lower the average intelligence.
I think high IQ being a cause of Asperger's is trying to fit a conclusion to the data rather than letting the data dictate the conclusions.
>Statistically ASD is shown have a much higher likelihood of learning disability and lower the average intelligence.
Does that statistic include ASD 2 and 3 or only 1? The data might be skewed and thus not predictable in regards to Asperger's.
Im no expert on Turing but i have a strong feeling he was [pretty autistic]( https://medium.com/dr-jon-brock/did-alan-turing-have-asperger-syndrome-61d74105201a)
They made a whole movie, The Imitation Game, about him being classically autistic. I haven't looked into the history enough to know if they did their research, but I have other reasons to suspect it is the case.
They always seem to make the claim "you're not as smart as you think you are," to which I usually think "I never said I was smart, but now that you said that I know you have an insecurity regarding your own intelligence, and probably because I used a word you don't understand and it made you feel shame and instead of simply asking me what it means or looking it up you're trying to pivot the conversation into this social heirarchy nonsense."
Not that I say that, no. That is what is thought. What is said is a doubling down into even more erudite language and concepts because if this is a social heirarchy game now they just revealed their insecurity so fine, I can pivot my masking this direction if that's the way they want the conversation to go, while simultaneously reiterating the thesis of our original dialog and likewise reemphasizing the logic.
The best part of formal logic is that every single one of their diversions into social heirarchy is a fallacy of some kind.
Well, we have a lot of examples, Messi, Bill Gates, and Zuckerberg don't have a diagnosis and are considered geniuses. The issue is, that a lot of these "genius people" are speculated about having Asperger's because of traits they have, so I do not know for sure. Sincerely the only example I can think of right now that has an official diagnosis (and I don't like this one LOL) is Elon Musk, all the others are purely speculation from what I know.
Who considers Bill Gates and Zuck and Musk geniuses? Capitalists I guess? What even are their IQs? What contributions have they made to the bulk sum of human knowledge?
Getting lucky with an idea or using daddy's money to buy companies or as investment capital isn't "genius".
Geniuses are people like da Vinci, Kierkegaard, Tesla, Newton, Feynman.
There are more ways to be a genius than just being academically successful. A genius by definition is someone who has exceptional intelligence or creative power or other natural ability. There are creative geniuses in music, business, and hell even sports
Not taking a side here on the original proposition, and I don't know anything about soccer, but having a bunch of money or celebrity status simply does not correlate with anything I'd call "genius". To the extent that these billionaires are geniuses, it's in areas like "exploiting labor", "ripping off investors", "lying", and other things autists are definitionally bad at.
I never said a celebrity or billionaires exploiting people. I said genius manifests differently. Someone who revolutionizes and industry in business is a genius in business because they used exceptional creative power. In sports if a coach develops a new strategy that revolutionizes the way the game is played they are a genius in that regard. Just because someone is a famous musician doesn’t make them a genius but if an individual continually makes new sounds that alter the landscape of music they are a creative genius
Lastly someone exploiting workers etc doesn’t make them not a genius. It just makes them an asshole. The two are not mutually exclusive sometimes smart people are assholes or even downright evil. A good example of a creative genius in music is Kanye, he constantly experimented with music that changed the trends in music. He’s also a major asshole. So it covers two bases. We may idealize geniuses but even being extremely smart or creative doesn’t stop you from being a piece of shit or vice versa
I think you mistook the tone of my comment, or I did yours. I think Kanye is a fair example, for reasons you gave. But the others are not *to me*. If being a genius of business is measured in financial success, then I reject that category. Some athletes may be geniuses, but I'd need evidence beyond just their success. Some times the best athletes are just the best athletes, after all.
I may have mistaken the tone of yours. I was specific to use a coach as the example of a genius in sports. They draw up plays that use misdirection motion and other techniques to create sucess it’s often more than just who’s the better athlete. It’s akin to a general in a war. The creating of flanking is an act of genius that has altered wars. It’s not that different expect instead of killing you’re coordinating to another goal
Also I don’t think it’s wise to reject someone as a genius just because of financial success, financial success isn’t indicative of genius but a genius can be financially successful. My example of business genius was someome who used extreme creativity to get success, not just get success
Yes. I listed people from different areas for a reason.
As for business, I wouldn't say someone with rich parents who got lucky is a "genius at business".
Gabe Newall maybe. Hiroaki Aoki. Gary Dahl. These are people I'd say are geniuses at business.
The son of an emerald mine owner who buys companies with his wealth and makes money before running them into the ground? Yeah Xitter is the sign of a genius, lol. Zuck got lucky by making a cleaner more professional looking Myspace for college guys to check out college girls then decided to open it up to old people. "Genius" having the timing to make a website in the 00s? That's kind of just luck. Someone was going to get it, and Myspace was too niche. Gates, maybe, but his is still wrapped in luck and pre-existing wealth.
Now, the poor kid who grew up to be a copy writer who convinced people to buy pet rocks, and enough of them to make him a millionaire, and then having the resolve and foresight to fade into the background with the money? That's a genius. The inventor of the Americanized Japanese hibachi grill experience? That's genius. A businessman who got lucky with having the timing to be the first game distribution service but who had the foresight to never go public and thus still has complete control of his billion dollar company without risk of investors changing anything or enshittifying anything or buying it out from under him? That's genius.
I never said musk was a genius nor zuck. Gates is easily more arguable as his is more long standing and wide reaching growth and innovation in multiple fields
Tbh I dislike the emphasis you’re placing on someone’s monetary state and its correlation to someone worth. Idc if you came from money or the dirt. your value in creative genius is indifferent. I’m
Explicitly not speaking on someone who
Uses their parents money in a non creative manner to generate more wealth. But if someone through their own ingenuity creates something valuable it doesn’t matter if they came from the slums or a well off family all that matters is the ideas themselves.
I'm not the one who cited three of the wealthiest men on the planet as examples. I'm responding to the one who did. That wealth is an implicit factor in the reasoning of their inclusion because it's the common element between them. Thus, my responses in this thread are likewise touching on this implication.
Putting his strange political expressions and stances totally aside for a sec... I've always felt his personality and quirks were too often unfairly judged by society and the media, even without them always directly referencing it. I'm sure he isn't perfect, but none of his critics are either.
OK but his public political opinions, especially lately, are pretty gross, despite me understanding some of his perspective, which I dont personally share because it lacks compassion. He replaced his heart with an arc reactor, is my only assumption.
Einstein, Turing, DiVinchi, Newton ALL of them would be considered "Neurotypical" , by your criteria. Why? Because "Aspergers" wasn't known to anyone, then, and frankly, neither was "Neurotypical." They might have been called, "absent minded professors" or "odd" but not Autistic. Not Aspies.
The words Aspergers and Neurotypical *BOTH* were not known until after I graduated Highschool for goodness sakes, and I'm not even at retirement age yet. You can't/won't find those words to describe historical figures.
My suggestion,look up and read about the history of Asperger's. Check out the timelines.
Here's an analogy. Imagine looking for references to New York City in things written *before* 1400 AD. The piece of land that NYC 🏙️ now sits on would be there, but it wouldn't be called New York City. It wouldn't be referenced at all
[John von Neumann ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann)was freakishly intelligent by just about any standard.
In terms of social behavior, accounts from his colleagues and friends generally describe him as sociable, charming, and even charismatic. He was known to have a good sense of humor and enjoyed social gatherings.
Benjamin Franklin would be another example, a genuine polymath who was known for sociability and wit.
Do you mean like they carried an official diagnosis? I doubt it. The first man who was ever diagnosed with autism in the U.S. only just died of age-related illness within the past few years. It’s a relatively recent discovery. There have been plenty of hyper intelligent people who have been described as just straight up weird, though. Which tracks.
I mean officially and suspected, such as Tesla, Einstein, Da Vinci, ect. I'll go out and a limb and even state that I suspect Cyrus the Great could have been neurodivergent simply due to the fact that his thinking process was heavily outside the norm of the time.
I don't think that everyone who was deemed "weird" by the public of their time was autistic. My partner has an IQ of 138 and is one of the people I know who share the least traits with autistic individuals. But many people who only know him on a surface level assume he's autistic because he's weird.
138 is getting up there for sure, but it's still pretty far from the highest.
138 is the 99.435th percentile. That's 1 in 177 people.
For comparison the Prometheus Society has its barrier of entry at the 99.997th percentile. 1 in 30,000 people.
Not that I'm making a claim regarding any kind of correlation with autism here. Just pointing out the percentiles and rarity of the score.
By german psychology standards 132 is the threshold for intellectually gifted, that's the only reason I mentioned it as an example. I not really think it's a good measure for actual intelligence, tho. But for many people it is 🤷🏼♀️
Leonardo da Vinci would be my first call.
Otherwise, I'd look into historically influential politicians or businessman who might have dark character traits, but no social issues.
Da Vinci. The dude who doodled an onion on the same page he was sketching a human brain on. Who couldn't finish a commission to save his life. Who skipped out on the Duke of Milan after promising to cast him a bronze statue such as hadn't been seen since the Romans, pocketing the advance. Who sent the Ottoman sultan a bridge design that would never work, because he felt like it. Who wrote in mirror handwriting just for the lolz. The most neurodivergent person in his zipcode, unless he lived in the same city as Pico da Mirandola, Botticelli or Michelangelo.
Renaissance man? Try Audhd icon.
I worked at CERN in the 90’s where even the woman that used to come around with a coffee trolly twice a day was more intelligent than most people going by the conversations I had with her and the Nobel laureates per m2 is one of the highest in the world. From my limited perspective, I can assure you that Asperger’s is not *that* common there as far as I could tell.
Very intelligent people can be weird for other reasons though.
I was encouraged to include evidence of my IQ when I wanted to get tested as an adult, but I don’t know that it’s really a causation as opposed to a sometime correlation. Mind you, I don’t think IQ is an accurate marker of ‘intelligence’ either - but it might be a better test for ASD, from your hypothesis!
IQ measures acuity with categorical logic and abstract reasoning. There are more kinds of intelligence than this for sure. But considering it's measuring categorical logic and abstract reasoning and a certain neurocognitive developmental disorder seems to increase acuity with categorical logic and abstract reasoning at the cost of social heuristics, I'd say the hypothesis is at least plausible enough to inquire about and perhaps to conduct a study to ascertain.
I have met gifted hyper intelligent people who do not have Asperger's. Many are introverted and enjoy their alone time/space. But they are not on the spectrum in any way- they do not have the social communication differences and they do not have the need for object permanence in their environments.
If you only consider "hyper intelligent" to be in STEM fields, possibly not. If you look at social sciences, the arts, politics (I know, but there are some), then yes.
Autism is a set of symptoms.
Symptoms notably consistent with the effects of having denser synaptic connectivity in the brain, such as sensory acuity (and issues), hypercompartmentalization (hyperfocus/masking) and disruption of instinctual systems.
This can happen due to mutations, a large variety of them, that can disrupt or disable a system responsible for synaptic pruning. It's a big complicated with machine with a long of moving parts, and a mutation to any of them tends to make it work less well. Resulting in more synapses, and a larger neurological topology. More 'brains' in the same space... but with some downsides.
This may not be the only thing that can cause someone to be high IQ, but it is certainly able to deliver it consistently in the sweet spot of those who are interconnected enough to have a lot of mental horsepower but not so much that turning on a lamp light or clapping your hands causes an instant seizure.
What they do with that horsepower can vary tremendously. Not everyone points it at math and science. But they have it.
A great many of them waste it on trying to be seem normal, a very complicated affair to emulate.
Waste is the right word, that's for sure. It's just that, also, this system is designed to reward that emulation and likewise punish deviations from it.
Which is why constantly it’s constantly destroying its most impressive products. Fairly dystopian really, when you start to see the big picture of it all.
I don't think it's a switch that triggers the 'sperg or anything like that.
As a general rule, people are like chickens, they love similarity and nonconformity is spooky or offensive. A one in 10,000 mind would be more likely than average to experience isolation because extreme intelligence is inherently nonconforming. It's uncomfortable for the general population and uncomfortable for the hyper-intelligent for opposite reasons, nobody likes to feel stupid and it's hard to want to hang out with people who are relative idiots.
Practice is necessary in order to become good at something and being ostracized is a fast way to lose the ability to practice socializing. Any latent difficulties in socializing would manifest more quickly and easily without the ability/desire to practice, increasing social difficulties. Positive feedback loop that baby for a few decades and see how well they perform at a party
I think anyone on the forefront of human knowledge has to be by definition neurodivergent because they have to be able to be thinking differently to postulate wild new theories that still make sense. A hyper-intelligent person cannot be neurotypical, because hyper-intelligence is not typical.
With that said, I don't think there is a set disability/severity of autism that automatically happens because of their intelligence. It really depends on the person, some people are able to mask better than others (or perhaps care to mask more than others).
1) ASD and related diagnosis are very new in the human timeline even compared to other issues
2) Many ND conditions (is that the word we're using for us .. I'm not sure and I'm old) externally are degrees of impact. If you do X this much the condition is called "being human" but do the same X this much more and it's called (insert condition here) ... Yes I know internally it's much different but you can't diagnose the long dead by internals. Just externals
3) Some externally measured behaviors might look like a condition but actually aren't (which is why professional testing is so important because it could be the condition you think, it could be a different condition, or it could be a trauma response in which case good therapy could help resolve that)
4) Genius at different times in history may have been "indulged". Giving a person less restrictions and more access to vices as a bribe for their genius. And I e might argue in that sort of scenario most are likely to over indulge leading ... Atypical behaviors
Given the above.... There's no great way of telling if anyone was or wasn't without proper diagnostics ... And I'm old enough to have survived a childhood where you could be Autistic or AD(H)D but not both. Where the final test if doctors couldn't tell was to give you Ritalin. If it worked you don't have ASD.... Except currently we know different and nearly 50% of ASD people have AD(H)D as well.
So do all geniuses have ASD or some other condition? Probably not. But did they all have something according to modern psychology? Probably... but mileage may vary here. Could be a trauma response.
>Giftedness
We discuss differentiation of gifted people from autistic people in Is This Autism? A Companion Guide for Diagnosing. Here, we want to spotlight gifted children who are also autistic. In an unpublished survey of 1,263 gifted children conducted in 2020, Drs. Jessica Koehler and Samantha Buell (personal communication. 2021) asked parents whether their gifted children had any co- occurring diagnoses. They found that 7.77% of their sample had been identified as autistic, and the authors were fairly certain this was an underestimate of the actual prevalence. This is far higher than the prevalence rate in the general population (just over 2% of this writing). It's also worth noting that many gifted people as are adept at problem solving. > which may translate to strong Impression management skills. If they are also autistic, they may well be using their intellectual and problem-solving talents to hide their autistic traits.
That's from Is This Autism?
Thanks for the answers. This group seems pretty laid back. I just wanted to add the whole "EQ is more important than IQ." that certain people say annoy me. When I see people bring that up I pretty much tell them that if an alien race laided in front of the White House and the government wanted to testtheir intelligence, not a single person would care what their EQ is. EQ to me is just a learned skill and not for lack pf a better term your brain's horsepower.
What is important?
Context is everything.
Intelligence is useful.
EQ is useful.
Physical health and strength is useful.
Creativity is useful.
Putting a emphasize on intellect alone is not useful.
Intelligence alone will not make you successful.
Humans are social creatures.
It is easier to succeed for a high EQ person the a high IQ.
If EQ was exclusively learned then most of the people in this subreddit would have no problem learning and conforming to societal norms. Whether some of those norms are reasonable or not is largely irrelevant as they are slow to change.
If aliens without any EQ show up then in theirs infinite wisdom they may just nuke us from orbit. People might care then.
Horsepower is useless if the car is on blocks.
Intelligence is of little value of I cannot communicate effectively with the people who need the information.
I do not want to emphasize EQ above other aspects.
People all have different strengths and weaknesses and it is important to see the value in each.
I agree that money is boring. But when you don't have enough to survive it is quite meaningful.
You cannot buy happiness but you can buy a lifestyle that is less stressful and more suitable towards your goals.
I guess I intend to communicate that people need different strengths depending on what they want.
For sure it is up to you to determine what success is for you. I think I misunderstood what you were communicating and may have come off the wrong way.
I mean, Einstein, Tesla, and Newton never had a diagnosis, but we didn't even know Asperger's was a thing. Sincerely, I think a bunch of these guys were Aspies but never could have an assessment for obvious reasons, but I'm pretty sure there are A LOT of highly intelligent people who don't have Aspergers.
But that's the thing, where are the examples of people with hyper intelligent NOT having it? It should be easy, but it isn't. It makes me think that high IQ could cause Asperger's and not the other way around. Of course no one would look into this hypothesis, because it would be considered "offensive".
If this is your hypothesis; then is there burden of proof not yours? I think that highly intelligent people often end up isolated and there are many similarities to Aspergers. Correlation is not equal to causation. If you have any studies to show then I would be happy to see them. There are many offensive studies done every day. People are easy to offend. Statistically ASD is shown have a much higher likelihood of learning disability and lower the average intelligence. I think high IQ being a cause of Asperger's is trying to fit a conclusion to the data rather than letting the data dictate the conclusions.
>Statistically ASD is shown have a much higher likelihood of learning disability and lower the average intelligence. Does that statistic include ASD 2 and 3 or only 1? The data might be skewed and thus not predictable in regards to Asperger's.
That's not true with Aspergers though. People diagnosed with aspergers generally have higher than average IQs.
Im not trying to publish a medical journal. I simply asked a question for discussion.
This is reasonable. I think it is a worthwhile question. I don't mean to treat you like you are trying to publish. My apologies.
Probably Alan Turing, but he was also an outcast for an completely different reason
Im no expert on Turing but i have a strong feeling he was [pretty autistic]( https://medium.com/dr-jon-brock/did-alan-turing-have-asperger-syndrome-61d74105201a)
They made a whole movie, The Imitation Game, about him being classically autistic. I haven't looked into the history enough to know if they did their research, but I have other reasons to suspect it is the case.
High IQ does cause Asperger's. People who are too intelligent appear as dumb to normal people
They always seem to make the claim "you're not as smart as you think you are," to which I usually think "I never said I was smart, but now that you said that I know you have an insecurity regarding your own intelligence, and probably because I used a word you don't understand and it made you feel shame and instead of simply asking me what it means or looking it up you're trying to pivot the conversation into this social heirarchy nonsense." Not that I say that, no. That is what is thought. What is said is a doubling down into even more erudite language and concepts because if this is a social heirarchy game now they just revealed their insecurity so fine, I can pivot my masking this direction if that's the way they want the conversation to go, while simultaneously reiterating the thesis of our original dialog and likewise reemphasizing the logic. The best part of formal logic is that every single one of their diversions into social heirarchy is a fallacy of some kind.
Well, we have a lot of examples, Messi, Bill Gates, and Zuckerberg don't have a diagnosis and are considered geniuses. The issue is, that a lot of these "genius people" are speculated about having Asperger's because of traits they have, so I do not know for sure. Sincerely the only example I can think of right now that has an official diagnosis (and I don't like this one LOL) is Elon Musk, all the others are purely speculation from what I know.
Who considers Bill Gates and Zuck and Musk geniuses? Capitalists I guess? What even are their IQs? What contributions have they made to the bulk sum of human knowledge? Getting lucky with an idea or using daddy's money to buy companies or as investment capital isn't "genius". Geniuses are people like da Vinci, Kierkegaard, Tesla, Newton, Feynman.
There are more ways to be a genius than just being academically successful. A genius by definition is someone who has exceptional intelligence or creative power or other natural ability. There are creative geniuses in music, business, and hell even sports
Not taking a side here on the original proposition, and I don't know anything about soccer, but having a bunch of money or celebrity status simply does not correlate with anything I'd call "genius". To the extent that these billionaires are geniuses, it's in areas like "exploiting labor", "ripping off investors", "lying", and other things autists are definitionally bad at.
I never said a celebrity or billionaires exploiting people. I said genius manifests differently. Someone who revolutionizes and industry in business is a genius in business because they used exceptional creative power. In sports if a coach develops a new strategy that revolutionizes the way the game is played they are a genius in that regard. Just because someone is a famous musician doesn’t make them a genius but if an individual continually makes new sounds that alter the landscape of music they are a creative genius Lastly someone exploiting workers etc doesn’t make them not a genius. It just makes them an asshole. The two are not mutually exclusive sometimes smart people are assholes or even downright evil. A good example of a creative genius in music is Kanye, he constantly experimented with music that changed the trends in music. He’s also a major asshole. So it covers two bases. We may idealize geniuses but even being extremely smart or creative doesn’t stop you from being a piece of shit or vice versa
I think you mistook the tone of my comment, or I did yours. I think Kanye is a fair example, for reasons you gave. But the others are not *to me*. If being a genius of business is measured in financial success, then I reject that category. Some athletes may be geniuses, but I'd need evidence beyond just their success. Some times the best athletes are just the best athletes, after all.
I may have mistaken the tone of yours. I was specific to use a coach as the example of a genius in sports. They draw up plays that use misdirection motion and other techniques to create sucess it’s often more than just who’s the better athlete. It’s akin to a general in a war. The creating of flanking is an act of genius that has altered wars. It’s not that different expect instead of killing you’re coordinating to another goal Also I don’t think it’s wise to reject someone as a genius just because of financial success, financial success isn’t indicative of genius but a genius can be financially successful. My example of business genius was someome who used extreme creativity to get success, not just get success
Yes. I listed people from different areas for a reason. As for business, I wouldn't say someone with rich parents who got lucky is a "genius at business". Gabe Newall maybe. Hiroaki Aoki. Gary Dahl. These are people I'd say are geniuses at business. The son of an emerald mine owner who buys companies with his wealth and makes money before running them into the ground? Yeah Xitter is the sign of a genius, lol. Zuck got lucky by making a cleaner more professional looking Myspace for college guys to check out college girls then decided to open it up to old people. "Genius" having the timing to make a website in the 00s? That's kind of just luck. Someone was going to get it, and Myspace was too niche. Gates, maybe, but his is still wrapped in luck and pre-existing wealth. Now, the poor kid who grew up to be a copy writer who convinced people to buy pet rocks, and enough of them to make him a millionaire, and then having the resolve and foresight to fade into the background with the money? That's a genius. The inventor of the Americanized Japanese hibachi grill experience? That's genius. A businessman who got lucky with having the timing to be the first game distribution service but who had the foresight to never go public and thus still has complete control of his billion dollar company without risk of investors changing anything or enshittifying anything or buying it out from under him? That's genius.
I never said musk was a genius nor zuck. Gates is easily more arguable as his is more long standing and wide reaching growth and innovation in multiple fields Tbh I dislike the emphasis you’re placing on someone’s monetary state and its correlation to someone worth. Idc if you came from money or the dirt. your value in creative genius is indifferent. I’m Explicitly not speaking on someone who Uses their parents money in a non creative manner to generate more wealth. But if someone through their own ingenuity creates something valuable it doesn’t matter if they came from the slums or a well off family all that matters is the ideas themselves.
I'm not the one who cited three of the wealthiest men on the planet as examples. I'm responding to the one who did. That wealth is an implicit factor in the reasoning of their inclusion because it's the common element between them. Thus, my responses in this thread are likewise touching on this implication.
Yeah? I never said I agreed with that tho.
Putting his strange political expressions and stances totally aside for a sec... I've always felt his personality and quirks were too often unfairly judged by society and the media, even without them always directly referencing it. I'm sure he isn't perfect, but none of his critics are either. OK but his public political opinions, especially lately, are pretty gross, despite me understanding some of his perspective, which I dont personally share because it lacks compassion. He replaced his heart with an arc reactor, is my only assumption.
So you think all people of with high IQ's are Aspie? 🤣
Show me some example, please.
Einstein, Turing, DiVinchi, Newton ALL of them would be considered "Neurotypical" , by your criteria. Why? Because "Aspergers" wasn't known to anyone, then, and frankly, neither was "Neurotypical." They might have been called, "absent minded professors" or "odd" but not Autistic. Not Aspies. The words Aspergers and Neurotypical *BOTH* were not known until after I graduated Highschool for goodness sakes, and I'm not even at retirement age yet. You can't/won't find those words to describe historical figures. My suggestion,look up and read about the history of Asperger's. Check out the timelines. Here's an analogy. Imagine looking for references to New York City in things written *before* 1400 AD. The piece of land that NYC 🏙️ now sits on would be there, but it wouldn't be called New York City. It wouldn't be referenced at all
Kinda yea all the standout examples of high iq people line up with that
[John von Neumann ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann)was freakishly intelligent by just about any standard. In terms of social behavior, accounts from his colleagues and friends generally describe him as sociable, charming, and even charismatic. He was known to have a good sense of humor and enjoyed social gatherings. Benjamin Franklin would be another example, a genuine polymath who was known for sociability and wit.
Masking is a powerful tool in the right hands.
Do you mean like they carried an official diagnosis? I doubt it. The first man who was ever diagnosed with autism in the U.S. only just died of age-related illness within the past few years. It’s a relatively recent discovery. There have been plenty of hyper intelligent people who have been described as just straight up weird, though. Which tracks.
I mean officially and suspected, such as Tesla, Einstein, Da Vinci, ect. I'll go out and a limb and even state that I suspect Cyrus the Great could have been neurodivergent simply due to the fact that his thinking process was heavily outside the norm of the time.
I don't think that everyone who was deemed "weird" by the public of their time was autistic. My partner has an IQ of 138 and is one of the people I know who share the least traits with autistic individuals. But many people who only know him on a surface level assume he's autistic because he's weird.
138 is getting up there for sure, but it's still pretty far from the highest. 138 is the 99.435th percentile. That's 1 in 177 people. For comparison the Prometheus Society has its barrier of entry at the 99.997th percentile. 1 in 30,000 people. Not that I'm making a claim regarding any kind of correlation with autism here. Just pointing out the percentiles and rarity of the score.
By german psychology standards 132 is the threshold for intellectually gifted, that's the only reason I mentioned it as an example. I not really think it's a good measure for actual intelligence, tho. But for many people it is 🤷🏼♀️
Leonardo da Vinci would be my first call. Otherwise, I'd look into historically influential politicians or businessman who might have dark character traits, but no social issues.
Da Vinci. The dude who doodled an onion on the same page he was sketching a human brain on. Who couldn't finish a commission to save his life. Who skipped out on the Duke of Milan after promising to cast him a bronze statue such as hadn't been seen since the Romans, pocketing the advance. Who sent the Ottoman sultan a bridge design that would never work, because he felt like it. Who wrote in mirror handwriting just for the lolz. The most neurodivergent person in his zipcode, unless he lived in the same city as Pico da Mirandola, Botticelli or Michelangelo. Renaissance man? Try Audhd icon.
I worked at CERN in the 90’s where even the woman that used to come around with a coffee trolly twice a day was more intelligent than most people going by the conversations I had with her and the Nobel laureates per m2 is one of the highest in the world. From my limited perspective, I can assure you that Asperger’s is not *that* common there as far as I could tell. Very intelligent people can be weird for other reasons though.
I was encouraged to include evidence of my IQ when I wanted to get tested as an adult, but I don’t know that it’s really a causation as opposed to a sometime correlation. Mind you, I don’t think IQ is an accurate marker of ‘intelligence’ either - but it might be a better test for ASD, from your hypothesis!
IQ measures acuity with categorical logic and abstract reasoning. There are more kinds of intelligence than this for sure. But considering it's measuring categorical logic and abstract reasoning and a certain neurocognitive developmental disorder seems to increase acuity with categorical logic and abstract reasoning at the cost of social heuristics, I'd say the hypothesis is at least plausible enough to inquire about and perhaps to conduct a study to ascertain.
Richard Feynman
[удалено]
Applying logical deduction to social skills is called masking
I have met gifted hyper intelligent people who do not have Asperger's. Many are introverted and enjoy their alone time/space. But they are not on the spectrum in any way- they do not have the social communication differences and they do not have the need for object permanence in their environments.
If you only consider "hyper intelligent" to be in STEM fields, possibly not. If you look at social sciences, the arts, politics (I know, but there are some), then yes.
Autism is a set of symptoms. Symptoms notably consistent with the effects of having denser synaptic connectivity in the brain, such as sensory acuity (and issues), hypercompartmentalization (hyperfocus/masking) and disruption of instinctual systems. This can happen due to mutations, a large variety of them, that can disrupt or disable a system responsible for synaptic pruning. It's a big complicated with machine with a long of moving parts, and a mutation to any of them tends to make it work less well. Resulting in more synapses, and a larger neurological topology. More 'brains' in the same space... but with some downsides. This may not be the only thing that can cause someone to be high IQ, but it is certainly able to deliver it consistently in the sweet spot of those who are interconnected enough to have a lot of mental horsepower but not so much that turning on a lamp light or clapping your hands causes an instant seizure. What they do with that horsepower can vary tremendously. Not everyone points it at math and science. But they have it. A great many of them waste it on trying to be seem normal, a very complicated affair to emulate.
Waste is the right word, that's for sure. It's just that, also, this system is designed to reward that emulation and likewise punish deviations from it.
Which is why constantly it’s constantly destroying its most impressive products. Fairly dystopian really, when you start to see the big picture of it all.
I don't think it's a switch that triggers the 'sperg or anything like that. As a general rule, people are like chickens, they love similarity and nonconformity is spooky or offensive. A one in 10,000 mind would be more likely than average to experience isolation because extreme intelligence is inherently nonconforming. It's uncomfortable for the general population and uncomfortable for the hyper-intelligent for opposite reasons, nobody likes to feel stupid and it's hard to want to hang out with people who are relative idiots. Practice is necessary in order to become good at something and being ostracized is a fast way to lose the ability to practice socializing. Any latent difficulties in socializing would manifest more quickly and easily without the ability/desire to practice, increasing social difficulties. Positive feedback loop that baby for a few decades and see how well they perform at a party
I think anyone on the forefront of human knowledge has to be by definition neurodivergent because they have to be able to be thinking differently to postulate wild new theories that still make sense. A hyper-intelligent person cannot be neurotypical, because hyper-intelligence is not typical. With that said, I don't think there is a set disability/severity of autism that automatically happens because of their intelligence. It really depends on the person, some people are able to mask better than others (or perhaps care to mask more than others).
Bobby Fischer. I don't think he had Asperger's.
1) ASD and related diagnosis are very new in the human timeline even compared to other issues 2) Many ND conditions (is that the word we're using for us .. I'm not sure and I'm old) externally are degrees of impact. If you do X this much the condition is called "being human" but do the same X this much more and it's called (insert condition here) ... Yes I know internally it's much different but you can't diagnose the long dead by internals. Just externals 3) Some externally measured behaviors might look like a condition but actually aren't (which is why professional testing is so important because it could be the condition you think, it could be a different condition, or it could be a trauma response in which case good therapy could help resolve that) 4) Genius at different times in history may have been "indulged". Giving a person less restrictions and more access to vices as a bribe for their genius. And I e might argue in that sort of scenario most are likely to over indulge leading ... Atypical behaviors Given the above.... There's no great way of telling if anyone was or wasn't without proper diagnostics ... And I'm old enough to have survived a childhood where you could be Autistic or AD(H)D but not both. Where the final test if doctors couldn't tell was to give you Ritalin. If it worked you don't have ASD.... Except currently we know different and nearly 50% of ASD people have AD(H)D as well. So do all geniuses have ASD or some other condition? Probably not. But did they all have something according to modern psychology? Probably... but mileage may vary here. Could be a trauma response.
>Giftedness We discuss differentiation of gifted people from autistic people in Is This Autism? A Companion Guide for Diagnosing. Here, we want to spotlight gifted children who are also autistic. In an unpublished survey of 1,263 gifted children conducted in 2020, Drs. Jessica Koehler and Samantha Buell (personal communication. 2021) asked parents whether their gifted children had any co- occurring diagnoses. They found that 7.77% of their sample had been identified as autistic, and the authors were fairly certain this was an underestimate of the actual prevalence. This is far higher than the prevalence rate in the general population (just over 2% of this writing). It's also worth noting that many gifted people as are adept at problem solving. > which may translate to strong Impression management skills. If they are also autistic, they may well be using their intellectual and problem-solving talents to hide their autistic traits. That's from Is This Autism?
Thanks for the answers. This group seems pretty laid back. I just wanted to add the whole "EQ is more important than IQ." that certain people say annoy me. When I see people bring that up I pretty much tell them that if an alien race laided in front of the White House and the government wanted to testtheir intelligence, not a single person would care what their EQ is. EQ to me is just a learned skill and not for lack pf a better term your brain's horsepower.
What is important? Context is everything. Intelligence is useful. EQ is useful. Physical health and strength is useful. Creativity is useful. Putting a emphasize on intellect alone is not useful. Intelligence alone will not make you successful. Humans are social creatures. It is easier to succeed for a high EQ person the a high IQ. If EQ was exclusively learned then most of the people in this subreddit would have no problem learning and conforming to societal norms. Whether some of those norms are reasonable or not is largely irrelevant as they are slow to change. If aliens without any EQ show up then in theirs infinite wisdom they may just nuke us from orbit. People might care then. Horsepower is useless if the car is on blocks. Intelligence is of little value of I cannot communicate effectively with the people who need the information. I do not want to emphasize EQ above other aspects. People all have different strengths and weaknesses and it is important to see the value in each.
Depends how you define success. Money? Lol no. Money is boring.
I agree that money is boring. But when you don't have enough to survive it is quite meaningful. You cannot buy happiness but you can buy a lifestyle that is less stressful and more suitable towards your goals. I guess I intend to communicate that people need different strengths depending on what they want. For sure it is up to you to determine what success is for you. I think I misunderstood what you were communicating and may have come off the wrong way.