Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism

"Sometimes"?

Should this not be "Historical figures considered autistic" - this field is a new one. Fitzgerald's book on Irish historical figures is well argued but he claims they had Asperger's Syndrome. I appreciate there is a range of grey areas between autism and asperger's; most of us consider that autistic people cannot function without help, but that aspergic people can do so, and sometimes do very well in their field. Some experts include aspergers within autism but that is not the general understanding.86.43.179.156 (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Fitzgerald is a cottage industry, and that he considers them autistic doesn't mean they have broad acceptance in the medical community-- hence, sometimes, and there is no proof. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course there will never be absolute proof. I can't see that you would need broad acceptance in the medical community (that would be difficult to achieve anyway). The best authorities on whether people like Einstein had asperger's, would be people who have the condition themselves (and are intelligent)- they would be better able to interpret the evidence (and put it into context). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.187.245 (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No. "People who have the conditions themselves" are not reliable sources; Wikipedia articles must conform to Wikipedia's sourcing policies and this article must conform to sourcing standards for medical articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess saying someone is a "reliable source" is different from saying that they "know what they are talking about". You might have as a source, some who has academic qualifications, is published, and has Asperger's (for example, Temple Grandin). It's a topic on which it is difficult to find reliable sources. There are quite a few documented characteristics of Einstein which match up with documented characteristics of Asperger's. And you have published sources (with academic qualifications) like Fitzgerald, etc, confirming this. So what are you saying- that the opinion of the medical community is more important than that of a published source? It is not that there is no proof, it's just that some would consider that the standard of it is not high enough.

The problem with having everything based on the majority view, is that sometimes one person can have a more accurate view of the topic than the majority. And this is certainly one issue where this is the case.

Even the medical community has no absolute scientific test (for example a genetic, or blood test) to diagnose Asperger's. It is only the opinions of the medical professionals carrying out the test. So we have to discuss the issue (on this page, or the Asperger's page) without having absolute proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.163.119 (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Certain levels of standards in medicals need to be adhered to. Now if someone like Temple Grandin (for instance) did her research and cited medical people who considered experts in the field, that (I think - if I'm reading WP:MDRS correctly) would fulfil requirements. So finding sources that pass WP:RS would not be as hard as you are making it out to be. A medical opinion that is published or cited would be fine - and you seem to be saying that it's not simply because it's an opinion. That's a very narrow way to look at it. Aspie Lover (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oliver Sacks and Glen Elliot

Oliver Sacks provides no discussion why he thinks evidence is thin.

Glen Elliot rules out Einstein as having AS due to a sense of humor. He offers no evidence. Original research and no non=expert opinion violate wiki rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ensabah6 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There should be a statement that Glen Elliot ruling out autism based on humor is not acceptable clinical practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ensabah6 (talk •

"Elliott adds that Einstein had a good sense of humour, a trait that is virtually unknown in people with severe Asperger syndrome."

Heather Kuzmich has a good sense of humor, smiles and laughs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_I22HqkQeo&feature=related

Another smiling laughing Asperger. http://www.youtube.com/user/javajunkie80#p/a/u/1/YDRFLro7s9g

yet another

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3hjyK5o7yc

Glen Elliot doesn't know what he is talking about so why is he being quoted? What evidence is there that humor is vitually unknown? A guy who promotes myths about asperger violates wiki's NPOV.

contribs) 19:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. Oliver Sacks is a reliable source for his opinions, and you are adding or proposing text that is not based on reliable sources and is (your own) original research. NPOV is certainly not violated here-- there are specific arguments for and against, presented equally. Also, please sign your edits with four tildes ( ~~~~ ) and place new threads at the bottom of the page-- see WP:TALK-- and be aware that WP:3RR applies to all edits made by the same user, whether logged in or out. Also, could you please explain why you consider Fitzgerald reliable, and Sacks or Elliott not, for expressing their own opinions? Fitzgerald's opinions are no more or less reliable than Sacks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Oliver sacks might be a reliable source for his own opinions but Who is Oliver Sacks? What's the relevance in including someone who is not an ASD expert? When I click on the paper I get this

http://www.neurological.org.nz/html/article.php?documentCode=26

404 File Not Found! The requested file was not found on the server.

Please check that you have entered the URL correctly and try again. If you believe that there has been an error please send an email containing the requested URL to root@gravitate.co.nz.

The paper offers no reason why the evidence is thin and was written in 2001. The criteria he and Elliot describes in Cavendish would rule out HEather Kuzmich and other real life AS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.243.35 (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Glen Elliot claims ""Einstein had a good sense of humour, a trait that is virtually unknown in people with severe Asperger syndrome."[41]"

DSM-5 has proposed severity

• [1]

Recommendations for severity criteria for this disorder are forthcoming. We encourage you to check our Web site regularly for updates.

1. [2]
2. Because autism is defined by a common set of behaviors, it is best represented as a single diagnostic category that is adapted to the individual’s clinical presentation by inclusion of clinical specifiers (e.g., severity, verbal abilities and others) and associated features (e.g., known genetic disorders, epilepsy, intellectual disability and others.) A single spectrum disorder is a better reflection of the state of knowledge about pathology and clinical presentation; previously, the criteria were equivalent to trying to “cleave meatloaf at the joints”.

This is not original research.

Autism spectrum disorder is a neurodevelopmental disorder and must be present from infancy or early childhood, but may not be detected until later because of minimal social demands and support from parents or caregivers in early years.

Readers should know that Glen ELliot and Sacks may not be using most up to date research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.243.35 (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE sign your entries by adding four tildes after your posts ( ~~~~ ). DSMV is not enacted yet, and yes, it is WP:SYN and WP:OR to draw your own conclusions about what reliable sources say, when the sources you provide do not support the text proposed or added. Sacks is a neurologist; his opinions are a reliable source for the purposes of this particular article. Once again, please explain why you consider Fitzgerald's opinions reliable, and others not. Also, please read WP:NPOV and provide a policy-based rationale for the tags you added, with no explanation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you read sacks article? It was written 2001, and a neurologist can be completely unqualified to discuss ASD. It is currently unavailable. What specific evidence does Sacks offer to show evidence is thin at best? As for Elliot, what specific evidence is there that humor is a trait "virtually unknown" in "Asperger"? I've provided plenty of counter-evidence.

[3]

"False, absolutely.

I have a wicked sense of humour, if I do say so myself. Obscure and off-beat at times, yes, and very dry, but that's just the way we like it. Wink _________________"

Asperger's: My life as an Earthbound alien - CNN.com Recently, at 48 years of age, I was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome. For most of my life ... A misconception is that Aspies do not have a sense of humor. [www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/.../index.html -]

Humor: Aspergers syndrome - by Jimmy Hinkley - Helium The Humorous Side of Aspergers Syndrome Brent is a very thoughtful little boy with bright eyes and a big smile that lights up any room.

Natural Variation - Autism Blog: Severe Asperger's? Quick Note ... Sep 15, 2007 ... While there is not a lot of research on the matter, the claim that humor is not seen in people with "Severe Asperger's" is clearly wrong. [4]

Humor in Autism and Asperger Syndrome by V Lyons - 2004 - Cited by 21 - Related articles

KEY WORDS: Autism; Asperger syndrome; humor; psychological theory; ..... els for autism and Asperger syndrome. Humor and Linguistic, Pragmatic and Theory of Research has shown that individuals with autism and Asperger syndrome are impaired in humor appreciation, although anecdotal and parental reports provide some evidence to the contrary. This paper reviews the cognitive and affective processes involved in humor and recent neurological findings. It examines humor expression and understanding in autism and Asperger syndrome in the context of the main psychological theories (Theory of Mind, Executive Functions, Weak Central Coherence and Laterization models) and associated neural substrates. In the concluding sections, examples of humor displayed by individuals with autism/Asperger syndrome which appear to challenge the above theories are analyzed and areas for further research are suggested. Ensabah6 (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

First, you still haven't answered my question about Fitzgerald. Second, it's not up to us, in an article of this nature (which is entirely speculative), to question a reliable source. Third, wrongplanet.com is FAR from a reliable source, yet you're offering up blogs, Youtube, primary sources and anecdote as opposed to a neurologist's opinion. Fourth, BOTH sides of the issue are presented equally, and you still haven't justified the POV tag, based on policy. Please do so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Fitzgerald offers specific biographic information to back up his claims. [5] "Michael Fitzgerald is Henry Marsh Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Trinity College, Dublin. He was the first Profesor Of Child Psychiartry in Ireland. A Clinical and Research Consultant to the Irish Society for Autism and an Honorary member of the Northern Ireland Institute of Human Relations, he has a doctorate in the area of autism and has been a researcher in this area since 1973. He trained at St. Patrick’s Hospital Dublin, Chicago Medical School, and The Maudsley Hospital and the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases in London. he has clinically diagnosed over 1900 individuals with autism and Asperger’s syndrome and has served on the Government Task Force on Autism and the Family. He has contributed to National and International Journals on autism and is the author of over 120 publications. He has written or co written 16 books.

"He is on the Editorial Advisory Board of the European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Journal, Journal of the Irish Psychiatric Association, and the Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine. He is a past chairman of the Child Psychiatry Section and Psychotherapy Section of the Irish Division Royal College of Psychiatrists and of the Association of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry Irish Branch. He has been a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in London Psychotherapy Section, Psychotherapy Training (PTSAC) Committee, Learning Disability Executive and Child Psychiatry Executive of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. He was also a founding member of the European Association of Psychotherapy (EAP) in Holland. He was involved in the early stages with the development of the European Federation of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy.He has worked in the field of autism since 1973."

What are Sacks and Elliot's qualifications in the field of autism?

What makes Sacks and Elliot a reliable source when the claims they allege contradict estblished fact. In Sacks paper what specific biographical evidence does Sacks and Elliot offer that would show they do NOT have AS?

Elliot and Sacks make claims about AS. I've provided evidence these claims are materially false. Can you provide me respected papers or respected ASD researchers that show that having a sense of humor is a disqualify for an AS diagnosis as Sacks and Elliot have done? Ensabah6 (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It is the publisher that is important, more than the author - but Oliver Sacks is certainly a reliable source. The tags are inappropriate, and this looks very much like someone not liking the information rather than the source being unreliable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

General comments - youtube is not a reliable source since it is self-published. If it is a youtube video of a notable expert, it can be attributed, like Sacks and Elliot. Nothing has been proven, and even if it has, it is original research to make this point ourselves. We need reliable, secondary sources to make points, not our own opinion. Fitzgerald seems to be the big speculator here, he is published in what appears to be reliable sources, the skepticism by Elliot & Sacks is appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the article quite complies with POV-- we are obliged to report Fitzgerald's claims, because they are from a reliable source, in spite of this statement from a world-class autism expert:

Speculation about their diagnoses is based on reported behaviors rather than any clinical observation of the individual. Fred Volkmar, a psychiatrist and autism expert and director of the Yale Child Study Center says, "There is unfortunately a sort of cottage industry of finding that everyone has Asperger's."

To whom might he be referring? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Just adding my tuppence worth to this little discussion, apologies if I repeat what someone else has already pointed out...Glen Elliot's quote states that "Einstein had a good sense of humour, a trait that is virtually unknown in people with severe Asperger syndrome." yet I find no mention elsewhere that anyone has suggested that Einstein's Asperger is "severe". If severe enough, there are many things (like a social life, any level of useful output of the kind that Einstein has given to the world) that are virtually unknown to exist in those with Asperger of that severity...so I agree 100%, Einstein does NOT seem like the kind of person you could have described as suffering from severe Asperger's Syndrome...now, how about common basic Asperger Syndrome or perhaps mild Asperger Syndrome? Additionally, although other aspies have mentioned their own humour, *I* would also like to mention that I have mild Asperger Syndrome and a sense of humour, when does Glen Elliot come to visit me to prove I can't exist? (See? Humour! Hey, I didn't say it was a FUNNY sense of humour!) 87.194.86.204 (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Expansion

I think the article should go more in depth the evidence for and against each figure being autistic. Just say they are "speculated" and who did the speculation without saying why the speculation arose doesn't really say much.

Some more overview of the major voices in the debate would probably be a good idea too. (e.g. How credible is Oliver Sacks or Glen Elliot?)--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources (after you've read the sources there); see WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I understand your comment. I'm not saying that they aren't reliable sources; All I'm saying is that their accreditation as credible sources (and those of other experts heavily cited in the article) should probably be addressed somewhere in the article. Right now it's just a bunch of names.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

See the explanation below under Talk:Historical figures sometimes considered autistic#Revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

POV check

This article seems vary cautious of giving credence to any beliefs that any historical figure is autistic. It has a lot of the Manual of Style's Words to Watch. I've corrected some of it. Look at a version since before I edited any it is even more apparent. And since this article is naturally predisposed to weasel words and both founded and unfounded speculation, neutrality should be watched especially carefully.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop removing reliably sourced text from the article, and if you want to argue POV, please provide reliable sources for what info is missing or not given due weight. You have systematically removed reliably sourced text and replaced it with anecdote and speculation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

MCD, to allege POV, you need to provide reliable sources that are not given due weight in the article; you can't just say an article is POV because you don't like it without providing and discussing sources that you want to use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus Kotniski (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Historical figures sometimes considered autistic → Historical figures who may have been autistic — "Sometimes considered" frames it as a fringe belief; this is more neutral wording. May Cause Dizziness (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• No. Discussed in archives, that article name is blatantly POV, and the editor who requested it hasn't read sources and is filling the article with original research at this moment. There is no reliable consensus that most of those people were autistic, but the editor who requested the name change has removed most of the reliably sourced text from the article, added unsourced speculation, damaged the article formatting, is creating OR and POV, and I'm uninclined to repair the article just yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion of edits, reliable sources, speculations, POV, etc

What exactly am I supposed to have removed? The Sacks/Elliott criticism of Newton and Einstein is still there. I just removed the heading because the section was too short to deserve one under the Manual of Style. So please, tell me what specifically I have done that you find objectionable.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC) And I have already requested a POV check so don't start an edit war.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC) You've removed reliably sourced text; introduced unsourced anecdote, speculation and POV; provided no sources whatsoever for your additions or complaints about the article; and pretty much wiped out the article in terms of compliance with MOS, formatting, etc. Try to have a look at WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS-- text in Wiki articles must be neutral and reflect reliable sources-- you've provided none for the text you've written, which is purely opinion, while removing sourced text. Your proposed article name reflects the POV you've introduced into the article, and is not based on medical consensus nor is it neutral; one researcher (Fitzgerald) has promoted the "cottage industry" of considering these figures autistic, with no other sources backing these posthumous diagnoses. Here's the fully sourced version of the article before these changes, and here's just one of many reliable sources you don't seem to have read. You've also introduced a number of incorrect terms and links, and other MOS inconsistencies. What was the reason for removing the formatted table? The page is basically a list, and lists are usually formatted. I presume you know that Volkmar is the head of the Yale Child Study Center, and one of the world's leading authorities on autism? I don't believe the same can be said about Fitzgerald. Yet you've removed Volkmar and left us with an article based on Fitzgerald's posthumous speculations, unsupported by his peers. Since your additions and changes are not based on reliable sources, you will need to gain consensus for these changes. The new article is also pretty much unintelligible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I don't feel this article advocates Mr. Fitzgerald's views, just acknowledges and addresses them, but I suppose we'll just have to wait for other editors to weigh in. This is an encyclopedia article, so I should not have to dig through the sources for relevant information. I you wish to provide an overview of another researcher's (perhaps Mr. Volkmar) arguments and the empirical facts that may support them, I encourage you to do so. But poisoning the well by suggesting that anyone who says a historical figure could have been (not was, but could have been) autistic is only doing it to make money in a "cottage industry" is not neutral, encyclopedic or helpful. It's abusive ad hominen --May Cause Dizziness (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC) It seems you're misunderstanding WP:NPOV; we create balance by reporting what reliable sources say, and giving them due weight, according to the reliability of the sources. One of the world's leading autism experts made that statement, and removing it creates POV in favor of the "cottage industry" of posthumous diagnoses. Volkmar was reliably sourced in the article; you removed it. The difficulties in posthumous diagnoses are well established by reliable sources; a cottage industry making money off of them is what you've deleted from the article, introducing POV in favor of that very cottage industry. Along with the rest of the anecdote, original research, and formatting issues in this version of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC) What qualifies Fred Volkmar as "one of the world's leading autism experts"? I've honestly never heard of him and he doesn't have a Wikipedia article, so I am asking sincerely.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I'll write his article sometime when I have a free moment; in the meantime you might do some research on your own. If you've never heard of him, that would explain some of the issues you've introduced into this article. Have you actually read any of the sources you removed or minimized? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I'm not on trial here. If Fred Volkmar really is "one of the world's leading autism experts" shouldn't he already have an article. Seriously, what has he done that makes him so special? Don't insult me, don't change the subject, in 100 words or less: What has Fred Volkmar done to make him "one of the world's leading autism experts" besides agreeing with you? --May Cause Dizziness (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Not having an article on Wiki just means nothing more than Eubulides or me didn't get around to writing it. If you don't know who he is, the research is at your fingertips. Let's put the alternate question to you for now, since you have now created an article based almost exclusively around Fitzgerald's speculation with original research, anecdote, and no balance. What makes Fitzgerald so important that his speculative posthumous opinions (off of which he has made a great deal of money via book sales) outweigh the consensus of other top researchers, like, say Jankovic and Volkmar? Does Jankovic have an article at Wiki? No. And Michael Fitzgerald (physician) looks red to me, so that logic doesn't work. No, you're not on trial, but you are the one who is removing sourced text from Volkmar, and elevating text sourced to Fitzgerald, creating POV. Since you're the one doing that, you do need to justify it. I would suggest that before you delete text attributed to Volkmar, you should know who he is. Wiki presents all credible mainstream reliably sourced views, and in this case, Volkmar's is reflects mainstream. You also placed POV tags on this article, while supplying as of yet not a single source or explanation based on a source, and then set about creating a POV article, so you will need to supply sources for your text and whatever text is missing, and restore deleted text unless you can justify the deletions based on policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC) You can't just say Volkmar reflects the mainstream view without providing any evidence to that effect. Just answer the question: What has Fred Volkmar done to earn being called "one of the world's leading autism experts" and what makes him such a better authority on the subject than anyone else? Stop changing the subject. Stop attacking me. Stop attacking Michael Fitzgerald. Just. Answer. The. Question.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Um, MayCause, you just created Michael Fitzgerald (psychiatrist) by directly copying text from here, without attribution, so we now have two articles that say the same thing, and one of them incorrectly created, which violates Wiki's licensing. We don't need two articles that say the same thing, and we now have two big messes to clean up. I can't see any way to correct all the mistakes in this article without a full revert, and you'll need to ask an admin how to handle the incorrect copy-paste you just did to Fitzgerald. I request that you slow down a bit, because you are not editing correctly, and both of these will need to be cleaned up. An administrator is needed to fix this now; see Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC) And this is incorrect tagging; the text is cited, no weasle. Could you please slow down? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Now we have an incorrect redirect for an inaccurate name at Historical figures who may have been autistic; May Cause, again, please slow down until other editors can help guide your editing here and determine consensus for how to move forward; your editing is becoming disruptive. You also just deleted an entire chunk of the article, part of which belongs here.[6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Because these are historical figures, we'll never know whether they were autistic. It is not up to editors to determine who in history may have been autistic, so the proper subject here is those who have been considered autistic in notable and reliable sources. The bar (in terms of what sources of such speculation will be included) should be set fairly high to avoid inclusion of idle speculation. -- Scray (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• I don't feel strongly about this, but I do feel strongly about a closely related issue: The article title is not the subject itself. This is a map-territory fallacy. The subject should be carefully defined and delineated in the lead (see WP:LSC). The title should be something that gives readers a general idea of what they'll find on this page, even if the title is not exactly, precisely a complete description of the metes and bounds of the subject. Consequently, "sometimes considered", "may have been", even "who had"—I don't have strong opinions. But the list selection criteria need to be carefully explained, so that as soon as the reader reaches this page, he'll know what it is about.

  Having said that, I propose Retrospective diagnoses of autism as a compromise. It's accurate, it's concise, and it's suitably formal in tone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree that Retrospective diagnoses of autism would be an acceptable article name (every time someone messes with this article, it gets a new AFD, and a new title), although if we did that, we'd have to eliminate most of the speculative diagnoses from the page that are not based on high quality sources. Alternately, it could be List of retrospective diagnoses in autism, since that's all we really have, except for a few cases (see below, the "Revert" section)-- a list of speculative sources, not high quality, peer reviewed medical sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. I think that is a far better title and much more accurately describes what the crux of the article should be, but I suggest a slight change to Retrospective diagnosis of autism.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Retrospective diagnoses of autism; List of would also work. Reviewing the history, this article works better as a list that makes it clear that every single entry is necessarily speculative. I am loathe to move an article during even an AfD that looks likely to fail, but it looks like we have consensus for this title in a few days. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose both Retrospective diagnoses of autism and Historical figures who may have been autistic. In particular, I wonder if everyone is on the same page regarding the connotations of "diagnosis". In medicine, a hypothesis is generally not considered a diagnosis until there is clear evidence to rule out all likely alternatives. That's why terms such as "provisional diagnosis" or "possible XXX" are so commonly used, especially in fields such as psychiatry. To say that a person has been "diagnosed as autistic" is for all intents and purposes to say that the person IS autistic, at least from the perspective of the diagnoser. So I'm a bit confused by 2/0's statement that Retrospective diagnoses of autism clarifies "that every...entry is necessarily speculative". To my ear, it suggests the opposite: that everyone on the list has been authoritatively identified as autistic.

Historical figures who may have been autistic has the opposite problem. It sounds loose and haphazard. To a first approximation, everyone in history "may have been autistic" until specific evidence incompatible with autism is brought forward.

May I suggest instead Historical figures noted for autistic traits or some variation of that wording? It avoids the medicalization and certainty of "diagnoses", conforms to the modern notion of an autistic spectrum that is wider than frank "autism", and places the page's emphasis on the specific behaviors of these figures that suggest they may have had an ASD. Whether a historical figure "was autistic" will generally be undecidable, but the presence of traits associated with autism is relatively easy to source and document. NillaGoon (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, NillaGoon - I was using "diagnosis" in the vernacular rather than as a technical term, and focusing on the iffyness of connecting the dots using incomplete information. Articles, and especially titles, should be aware of and use precise definitions, so I would like to withdraw my support for Retrospective diagnoses of autism. Noted for avoids the looseness of sometimes considered while not implying that we can come to any firm conclusion regarding historical figures. It also implies a somewhat higher standard of inclusion, which to my thinking is not a bad thing. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be going in circles, and it's not clear where this will end up, but no, I strongly disagree with "noted for autistic traits". "Sometimes considered" was much better, since there are very few members of the "AS cottage industry" promoting these diagnoses, and "noted for" would be incorrect. These individuals are not "noted for" autistic traits because one or two notable authors "sometimes considered" them autistic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We could define noted for more stringently than "someone has speculated in an unremarkable popsci book". I am loathe to bring down the wrath of the WP:V vs. WP:DUE wars, though. What about Speculative historical cases of autism or something along those lines? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revert

This is the last good version, before the article deteriorated, to revert to. I can't see how to repair what's here now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: this is the last good version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could start by coherently listing what specifically you find objectionable in the changes I made, instead of making sweeping generalizations and assuming bad faith.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

For example, you claim that stating autism was official recognized is the 1940s is "original research." I really don't see how is disputable.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support reverting to that version. Context for the article is clearer from the start, and the list is easier to parse as a table with paired references in the right-hand column. I have nothing vested in either version having never visited this page before, but I find the earlier version easier to read and better-referenced. Certainly, both need some work, but starting from a sound foundation is preferred. -- Scray (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the main problem with the table is it provides no place for actually listing the evidence that any of these people were or were not autistic, just proof by assertion. Second of all, SandyGeorgia's version is very skewed to the opinion that any doctor who thinks someone from history may of had autism is a liar and a petty huckster. It contained an unreasonable ammount of Wikipedia's words to watch not the least of which is "speculate" (as if there was no research involved). The current version is by no means good but it removed much of the bad.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence; please see WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS-- these are retrospective diagnoses, and implying otherwise in the article is POV. Since you had no consensus for these changes, and they significantly damaged the article's text, sourcing, and formatting, I have restored it and removed the duplicate content that you placed at Fitzgerald. Your cut-and-paste of Michael Fitzgerald (psychiatrist) still needs to be repaired, but I don't have time to find an admin to do that; could you please do so? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem not to have noticed, May Cause Dizziness, that there is no consensus for your changes, and in fact, consensus to restore the version. It is unfortunate that you have decided to edit war to reinstate a version that is so confusing that it led to an AFD. You have also now inserted many formatting errors and the incorrect article name at the top of the article; if the article is moved after AFD, then the lead is changed. Please see WP:LEAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, keeping as a list seems restrictive. The version not formatted in a list has the same information. The details of each individual should be expanded, and that would be better served as prose rather than a coded up box. Grsz¹¹ 01:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's a table or prose isn't the problem; it's the rest of the article. Converting the table to prose is easy; that's not the part of the article that has problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Then what is the problem, specifically? You haven't really said.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Converting the table to prose, to allow "details on each individual to be expanded" would be wrong, wrong, wrong on a number of levels.

First, most of those are primary sources, unbacked by medical consensus or coming from the speculation of one or two individuals-- expanding that text would be an improper use of primary sources in any article, and even more so when dealing with posthumous diagnoses. Using them, as primary sources, to indicate that some individual engaged in this speculation at some point is fine-- expanding text based on primary sources and no secondary medical review is not. There is no secondary review source upon which to expand this text, except for some in the case of Mozart and Einstein (and the Einstein section is particularly poorly written right now, using some sources improperly). There is nothing to expand: some individual, in a primary source engaged in some speculation, and that is why it's a list. See also this response above. Expanding this article to focus on one person's speculation would give undue weight to primary sources.

Second, Asperger syndrome is going to be written out of the DSM anyway, since it has now been decided that its symptoms aren't worthy of a separate diagnosis (which kinds of puts all that speculation in context).

Third, Fitzgerald is not an "independent source" wrt posthumous diagnoses of AS: it is his speculation, he has made money off of it, few of his peers agree, he has a pony in the race.

Please review WP:V and WP:MEDRS about the kinds of sourcing we would need to expand text on any of these individuals other than Mozart and Einstein, for whom there are numerous secondary reviews. Engaging in posthumous diagnoses is speculative at best, so all we can do is present a list of those who have done it.

If you want to see a valid example of posthumous diagnosis and how we write about them-- supported by numerous reviews, medical consensus, and disputed by no source that I am aware of-- see the featured article Samuel Johnson, specifically Samuel Johnson#Health. The reason a posthumous diagnosis is possible for Johnson is because James Boswell wrote the Life of Samuel Johnson in such detail that we have an accurate record of his movements, mannerisms, obsessions, etc. That article uses only the strongest sources, but there are scores of others-- I have never encountered a single piece of literature, medical or otherwise, that disputes Johnson's TS. Likewise, most sources dispute Mozart's autism. For none of the cases listed on this page do we have anything except retrospective speculation, and to write about those individual's opinions would be an improper use of medical sources-- listing them as samples of speculative diagnoses in a table is fine.

I am not opposed to segmenting the list by category as you had done; if you will stop arguing, and allow time for discussion, as soon as I have a moment, I will separate the table by type as you had done. If we want to write the article Retrospective diagnoses in autism, we would have to remove most of the speculative diagnoses from this page, and write from the few high quality medical reliable sources on Mozart, Einstein and a few others (and most of them find little evidence for these diagnoses). If we want to include every speculation ever put out by every Tom, Dick or Harry, as we have now, the article should be named List of restrospective diagnoses in autism (still requiring reliable sources, but only a list of speculation, not an expansion of text based on primary sources and people with a financial interest).

There were many other problems with MCD's edits, which I will expand on as s/he shows a willingness to read the sources and engage in talk page discussion to reach consensus before editing (for example, a good read of WP:LEAD would be helpful, as well as WP:MEDRS). It's not pleasant to try to keep up with talk page accusations and the article at the same time: the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" does not mean that anyone can write anything they want any way they want. We have policies and guidelines that apply to sourcing, medical articles and neutrality; please take the time to understand them and discuss your edits on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That actually seems an argument for converting this to prose. If a large set of those figures are only declared autistic by one controversial author, it would be more appropriate to write a section titled "Historical figures considered autistic by F". It may then be sufficient to list those figures in that section, and perhaps add a general dispute of F's findings from other authors, even if these other authors don't bother to dispute every name. Per WP:FRINGE, one seldom finds detailed rebuttals of non-mainstream stuff, so curt rebuttals should suffice if they exist. On the other hand, the prose format will allow figures about which multiple authors have written about to be covered more appropriately. There is actually something like that towards the end of this article. Converting to prose doesn't imply WP:UNDUE is going to be ignored. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, there are reviews of F's book, e.g. [7]. Probably more exist, this was a 30-second search. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

We actually did have something like that in this article-- a section that made it clear that most of these diagnoses came from Fitzgerald. That is now covered in Fitzgerald's article, which was an incorrect cut and paste by Dizziness. Nothing else can be said about the "cottage industry" speculation-- no need to give it undue weight by converting the list to prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. His book was reviewed in academic journals, and those reviews provide valuable insight in what you have dubbed a "cottage industry". Mind you, the review I linked above is fairly skeptical. Your strongly worded personal opinion appears to color your judgment of this issue WP:UNDUE-wise. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Or, perhaps you've linked above to an article review that has no readable content? Full text not available, what is there unreadable. Would you care to fill us in? And then explain why that content belongs here and not on Fitzgerald's personal article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Fred Volkmar

• NPR "In the early 1990s, Volkmar led the team that helped develop the definition of autism used by the American Psychiatric Assoc."
• Yale Child Study Center
• Yale Bio
• Illinois bio

There's much more, including his numerous medical textbooks (not speculative paperbacks) that can be found on amazon.com, and journal papers and reviews that can be found at PubMed, but that should be enough to establish the basics of who he is, and why the NYTimes might quote him ("Dr. Volkmar agreed that the diagnosis of Asperger's was often applied too widely. There is unfortunately a sort of cottage industry of finding that everyone has Asperger's, he said." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Great sources. How about you write that article for him now?--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, you really don't seem to understand the concept of poisoning the well. It doesn't matter who said it; a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV and WP:V-- Volkmar is a highly reliable source for this text (not just any physician publishing paperbacks), his opinion is supported by many others, and to exclude it would violate NPOV. I am a very busy editor-- I would love to write Volkmar's editor whenever I find the time, but I'm unlikely to find time if someone is filing silly WP:SPIs and WP:WQAs on me-- there are only so many hours in a day, and I have many other things to do. Propose text on talk, and wait for others to come to consensus before again leaving the article in such a state that another editor nominated it to be deleted. Also, you have not yet acknowledged that you cannot just copy and paste text from one article to another as you did in creating Michael Fitzgerald (psychiatrist); I've posted elsewhere on this page to explain that. If you don't understand that, please ask. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted an admin about fixing the incorrect cut-and-paste to Michael Fitzgerald (psychiatrist). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

New intro

I changed the intro based on User:WhatamIdoing's suggestion that I believe is more concise, readable and neutral than any previous version. I would appreciate CIVIL feedback.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You can find everything you need at WP:LEAD; your change is incorrect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As whatamidoing said "The article title is not the subject itself." And if I remember correctly you were the one saying how the intro needs to be changed. So really is it just the bold you have a problem with?--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If the article is moved to a new name, then you alter the text in the lead to that name. Please review WP:LEAD; you also have a misunderstanding of WP:CIVIL- we are discussing the article and the sources here, wrt Wiki policies. Please also have a look at WP:TEND and WP:DISRUPT; it might help you understand why your arguments are not encountering success. Also, a review of WP:NPOV might help you understand why we can't write this article around your opinion of what it should or shouldn't say-- we write it to conform to our sourcing and neutrality and no original research policies. If you would like to alter something in this article, please discuss your proposals on talk-- your changes have already been rejected by several editors, so if you want to make changes, you will need to explain what you want on talk and gain consensus first. There were many other problems with your edits, that I can continue to explain once you are willing to discuss on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Words to watch

SandyGeorgia's reverted article now contains MANY examples of Wikipedia's Words to Watch (Wikipedia:WORDS) including:

• WP:LABEL: Controversial speculation
• WP:CLAIM: Speculate, speculation and speculated (as an adjective) (many, many instances) "To write that someone noted, observed, insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable."

Should they not be changed or removed?--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

To quote WP:NPOV (bold added by me):

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."

--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read the sources: when they mention controversial speculation, we mention controversial speculation. These are speculative, retrospective diagnoses-- all of the them are controversial-- to *not* say so would be POV, and we must provide "an unbiased, accurate and proportionate representation of all positions". You are oddly advocating for a POV article by implying that controversial, retrospective diagnoses are something different.

Could you please place some specific sources and discussion for the tags you've placed on the article? So far, none of them are justified in policy or guideline, and they should be removed if not justified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I was about to ask a similar question. For example, how on earth are we going to find an expert on this subject? Let's see some specifics like Sandy said. Oh and I'm the 124 IP using my account this time. Aspie Lover (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

List/table format vs. prose

I'm inclined to agree with the current tag suggesting that the article may be better suited for prose. When it comes to retrospective diagnosis, the ground isn't very firm, so more detail may be needed for every figure than reasonably fits in the table format. YMMV as they say. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I see this is also discussed in the #Revert section above. I commented there as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Irrational citation

"Newton spoke little and was frequently lukewarm or bad-tempered with the few friends he had. If no one attended his lecture he still lectured to an empty room."

The citation for this statement is valid, but not rational. The most any authority could claim is that "If no one attended one of Sir Isaac Newton's lectures, he would lecture to an empty room when there was any witness, or would claim to have done so in the absence of witnesses."

It's obviously logically impossible to know what Sir Isaac Newton did when there was no one looking.

173.11.0.145 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your original research. Aspie Lover (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability of facts

I suggest the deletion of the paragraph "Both scientists had trouble reacting appropriately in social situations and had difficulty communicating. Both scientists sometimes became so involved with their work that they did not eat. Newton spoke little and was frequently lukewarm or bad-tempered with the few friends he had. If no one attended his lecture he still lectured to an empty room.[41]"

My reasons are: 1. Careful reading of the BBC news article does not actually show that the researchers mentioned in the news article have actually succeeded in obtaining publication of their work after peer review, thus this BBC news article does not count as a verifiable source. 2. If it were the case that this research work has been published by peer review, that should be the source cited anyway, not the BBC news article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aekula (talk • contribs) 14:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Savants, etc

I have removed some recent changes with this edit. First, Asperger syndrome and autism are featured articles, well vetted, and we shouldn't be duplicating information here that can be found in those articles. Second, wisconsinsociety's speculation about savants doesn't rise to the level of WP:MEDRS even for a speculative article of this nature, and doesn't really have a place in this article. Other than those two things, the article is improving! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Michael Fitzgerald and pre-modern figures

I want to caution editors about entries relying exclusively on the Fitzgerald source. His methodology includes examining historical records of individuals who died before the recognition of ASD, and he seems a bit "loose" with his retrospective diagnoses based on limited evidence. In future, dedicate extra scrutiny in cases where Fitzgerald is the only source. ---HectorMoffet (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted your removal of Hitler. This article isn't itself claiming that any of these people were autistic – I agree that would require rock-solid sources. It's simply listing figures who are "sometimes considered autistic"; the sources are therefore not required to verify that the person in question was actually autistic, just that some prominent psychiatrist or author thinks they were. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Short version, no Wikipedia:MEDRS RS asserts Hitler had autism. A pseudoscience author makes the claim, a magazine article asks the question, but no RS actually makes this Assertion (unless you can Fitzgerald, which I don't, as he diagnoses everyone in history with it).

Long version: Hundreds of books have been written about the mind of Hitler, I've read lots. I've heard it asserted that his actions could be explained by banality of human nature, by severe childhood abuse, by young adult hysterical blindness, by lifelong schizophrenia, by late-in-life methamphetamine abuse, and everything in between. There's is a theory he hated the Jews because he thought he was one, or because the doctor who treated his mother for cancer was Jewish or that the art school he applied may have have Jewish members that rejected him.

Whole books have been written about Hitler's mind. See for example The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Explaining Hitler, or for that matter, List of books by or about Adolf Hitler. The conclusion that Hitler is autistic is not prominent within the literature of genuine historians.

The article asserts as fact that Hitler is a historical figure sometimes considered autistic. Hitler is rarely or never considered autistic. At this point, you have lowered the threshold for inclusion to the point that extremely WP:FRINGE ideas are receiving WP:UNDUE weight. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and tagged as dubious those claims reliant on Fitzgerald alone. His work has been so criticized I'd suggest moving his 'theories' out of this article and into his bio article. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that a lot of the listed entries are stretching the definition of "sometimes" quite considerably. To be honest, I find most of this article pretty absurd. My only real concern is consistency. It didn't make sense to remove only Hitler, when the reasons you gave apply to many other people on the list. If you want to talk about removing all of Fitzgerald's claims, that's fine with me (but I'm no expert, so I'll stay out of the discussion). DoctorKubla (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved, per WP:NDESC. Miniapolis 14:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Historical figures sometimes considered autistic → Restrospective diagnoses of autism – Per SandyGeorgia's suggestion at the last AFD. Drop "sometimes" from title-- it's a weasel word that opens the door to fringe sources. Replace 'autistic' with 'autism' in the title-- "autistic" is an adjective, while the much narrower term "autism" is a medical diagnosis. --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC) HectorMoffet (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. It's a better title, but I don't think this will close the door to fringe sources. Retrospective diagnosis, according to its article, can be engaged in by basically anyone, regardless of academic qualification. It's all speculation, and this rename won't make it any easier to argue that one person's speculation should be given more credence than another's. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• The lead section mentions "autism or other autism spectrum disorders". Autistic redirects to Autism spectrum; changing to "autism" would also result in a narrower scope for the list. Peter James (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• I think 'diagnoses' suggests a degree of certainty that's not justified by the contents of the article. If changed, the title ought to include a word like 'speculated', 'purported' or 'proposed' to make it clear that these diagnoses aren't necessarily definitive. Robofish (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"Diagnoses" alone would suggest a degree of certainty, but "retrospective diagnoses" implies a certain level of speculation. This can be more clearly explained in the lead. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Current title is atrocious, support move. Eww. It's hard to see how at the current title you could possibly have a good article. Well proposed, HectorMoffet. Red Slash 23:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Robofish and Peter James raise valid points, but I think the proposed title is still an improvement. "Autism" is a frequent abbreviation for the more wordy "autism spectrum disorders," and as long as the lede is clear about the article's scope, I think we can use that terminology for a more WP:PRECISE title. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. There is a lot of conjecture in the article so I think the most appropriate name is Historical figures speculated as autistic. The word sometimes should definitely not be present. Zarcadia (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

References

Verifiability of Einstein Reference?

The section on Einstein references the book "In a World of His Own: A Storybook About Albert Einstein." I searched for the book on Google, but the only results are ISBN database entries. There is no where to buy the book used or new. There are no blogs or book reviews referencing the book. As there is no apparent way of verifying the material, should the reference be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:6980:E1:FC0F:1403:C08C:BC25 (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:V#Access to sources – it is not essential that a source be easily accessible. If the source exists, then the information is verifiable. In this case, however, the source cited is actually a journal article written by the book's author, not the book itself. The article is available online, and confirms that Katz wrote a book suggesting that Einstein may have been autistic – thus verifying the information in the article. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

despite...being outspoken on political issues

Whoever said this doesn't seem to have knows enough people with autism. Aspies seem especially prone to being outspoken, if not necessarily 'articulate', about whatever particular subject interests them and this often includes political issues.

Though Einstein expressed dissatisfaction with German politics he was never really able to communicate to anyone exactly why. We know now what happened as a result of the rise of the Nazi party. Einstein knew there would be a rise of a dangerous ideology. He was vocal, but unable to successfully express exactly what he knew to be the case. After leaving Germany, his lifestyle was more prone to have supportive elements (political environment, people, profession network), and mofe life experience, conducive to his developing and exercising skills of expression. This is the politic outspokenness most people are familiar with and if differs from his early efforts.

People with autism often manage to adapt later in life in ways that everyone considered impossible when they were younger. Mary Temple Grandin, for example, no longer shuns physical contact with others even though this was still a major issue for her well into her college years. As a mild aspie myself. I think neurotypical people impose neurotypical pressure on us expecting a neurotypical result when this will have quite the opposite effect, or at best, no effect whatsoever. When we are allowed to proceed in our own way, and when we want to, we can stumble into whatever system of personal change works best for us. Its an ugly, inefficient process that is generally incompatible and at a virtually useless pace to neurotypical society. There is very little tolerance for someone not learning social skills at the pace expected and we are not readily offered a second chance even when we figure it out later. The alternative I suppose would be neurotypical people learning to think like the person they are trying to help. But, obviously, this is just as unreasonable and would be just as ugly and inefficient.