Retrospective diagnoses of autism

7:06 PM | BY ZeroDivide EDIT
Musical savant Blind Tom Wiggins died decades before autism was identified. Modern neurologists speculate Wiggins' symptoms might meet the criteria for an Autism spectrum disorder.
retrospective diagnosis is the practice of identifying a condition in a historical figure using modern knowledge, methods and medical classifications.[1][2]
Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) were first identified by Hans Asperger and Leo Kanner in 1943, and it was not until many years later that they were formally recognised by the medical community. Journalists, academics and autism professionals have speculated that certain famous or notable historical people had autism or other autism spectrum disorders such asAsperger syndrome. Such speculations are often disputed. For example, several autism researchers speculate that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was autistic or otherwise neurodivergent, while other researchers say there is not sufficient evidence to draw such conclusions.[3][4] Temple Grandin, a professor who is herself autistic, speculates that very early inventions like the stone spear were probably the work of autistic cavemen.[5][6]

Validity of retrospective diagnoses[edit]

Further information: Michael Fitzgerald (psychiatrist)
Michael Fitzgerald of the Department of Child Psychiatry at Trinity College, Dublin has written numerous books and articles on the subject, identifying over 30 individuals as possibly having AS.[7][8][9][10] Ioan James is a British mathematician who, in 2005, published Asperger's Syndrome And High Achievement: Some Very Remarkable People, identifying a number of historic figures as autism candidates.[11]
Speculation of this sort is, by necessity, based on reported behavior and anecdotal evidence rather than any clinical observation of the individual. Psychologist and author Oliver Sacks wrote that many of these claims seem "very thin at best",[12] and Fred Volkmar, of the Yale Child Study Center, has remarked that "there is unfortunately a sort of cottage industry of finding that everyone has Asperger's".[13] Michael Fitzgerald's research, in particular, has been heavily criticised, and described by some as "fudged pseudoscience"[14] and "frankly absurd".[15]

List of individuals[edit]

PersonSpeculator
Hugh Blair of Borgue – 18th century Scottish landowner thought mentally incompetent, now studied as case history of autism.Rab Houston and Uta Frith[16] Wolff calls the evidence "convincing".[17]
Prince John of the United Kingdom – 20th century British prince famous for his epilepsy and isolation. He exhibited repetitive behavior and is often believed to be autistic and intellectually disabled.K. D. Reynolds[18] and Paul Tizley[19]
Stanley Kubrick – filmmakerMichael Fitzgerald and Viktoria Lyons see it as "convincing" stating that he was well known to have obsessive traits and found it socially difficult with his collaborators on set.[7][20]
Henry Cavendish – 18th century British scientist. He was unusually reclusive, literal minded, had trouble relating to people, had trouble adapting to people, difficulties looking straight at people, drawn to patterns, etc.Oliver Sacks,[12] and Ioan James;[4][11] Fred Volkmar of Yale Study Child Center is skeptical.[13]
Charles XII of Sweden – speculated to have had Asperger syndromeSwedish researchers, Gillberg[21] and Lagerkvist[22]
Jeffrey Dahmer – serial killerSilva, et al.[23]
Anne Claudine d'Arpajon, comtesse de Noailles – French governess, lady of honor, tutorSociety for French Historical Studies, New York Times[9]
Emily Dickinson – poetVernon Smith[9]
Paul Dirac – quantum physicistGraham Farmelo, biographer[24]
Glenn Gould – Canadian pianist and noted Bach interpreter. He liked routine to the point he used the same seat until it was worn through. He also disliked social functions to the point that in later life he relied on the telephone or letters for virtually all communication. He had an aversion to being touched, had a different sense of hot or cold than most, and would rock back and forth while playing music. He is speculated to have had Asperger syndrome.Michael Fitzgerald,[7] Ioan James,[11] Tony Attwood,[25] Peter Ostwald[26]
Adolf Hitler – Austrian born, Nazi German politician, chancellor and dictatorMichael Fitzgerald[9] and Andreas Fries;[27]although others disagree and say that there is not sufficient evidence to indicate any diagnoses for Hitler.[14]
Thomas Jefferson – President of the United States and author of the Declaration of IndependenceNorm Ledgin,[28] Tony Attwood,[25] and Ioan James[11]
James Joyce – author of UlyssesMichael Fitzgerald and Antionette Walker;[8]this theory has been called "a somewhat odd hypothesis".[29]
Bohuslav Martinů – Czech-American composer (1890 -1959)F. James Rybka[30]
William McGonagall - poet, notoriously bad yet he never understood that others mocked himNorman Watson[31]
Michelangelo – Italian Renaissance artist, based on his inability to form long-term attachments and certain other characteristicsArshad and Fitzgerald;[7][32] Ioan James also discussed Michelangelo's autistic traits.[11]
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart – composerTony Attwood[25] and Michael Fitzgerald;[7]others disagree that there is sufficient evidence to indicate any diagnoses for Mozart.[3]
Charles Richter – seismologist, creator of the eponymous scale of earthquake magnitudeSusan Hough in her biography of Richter[33]
William James SidisMichael Fitzgerald [34]
Alan Turing – pioneer of computer sciences. He seemed to be a math savant and his lifestyle has many autism traits about it.Tony Attwood[25] and Ioan James[11]
Michael Ventris – English architect who deciphered Linear BSimon Baron-Cohen[35]
Blind Tom Wiggins – autistic savantOliver Sacks[36]
Ludwig Wittgenstein – Austrian philosopherMichael Fitzgerald[37] Tony Attwood,[25] and Ioan James;[11] Oliver Sacks seems to disagree.[12]

Specific individuals[edit]

Isaac Newton (1643–1727), Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) and Albert Einstein (1879–1955) all died before Asperger syndrome became known, but Ioan James,[4] Michael Fitzgerald,[7] and Simon Baron-Cohen[38] believe their personalities are consistent with those of people with Asperger syndrome. Tony Attwood has also named Einstein as a likely case of mild autism.[25]
Not everyone agrees with these analyses. According to Oliver Sacks, the evidence that any one of these figures had autism "seems very thin at best".[12] Glen Elliott, a psychiatrist at the University of California at San Francisco, is unconvinced that either Newton or Einstein had Asperger syndrome, particularly due to the unreliability of diagnoses based on biographical information. Elliot stated that there are a variety of causes that could explain the behaviour in question, and points out that Einstein is known to have had a good sense of humour, a trait that, according to Elliot, is "virtually unknown in people with severe Asperger syndrome".[38]

Isaac Newton[edit]

Isaac Newton hardly spoke and had few friends. He was often so absorbed in his work that he forgot to eat, demonstrating an obsessive single-mindedness that is commonly associated with Asperger's. If nobody attended his lessons, he reportedly gave lectures to an empty room. When he was 50, he suffered a nervous breakdown brought on by depression and paranoia.[38] After Newton's death, however, his body was found to contain massive amounts of mercury, probably from his alchemical pursuits, which could have accounted for his eccentricity in later life.[39]

Nikola Tesla[edit]

In Nikola Tesla's autobiography, My Inventions, he claims to have the ability to "visualize with the greatest facility", allowing him to fully design and test his inventions in his mind:
It is absolutely immaterial to me whether I run my turbine in thought or test it in my shop. I even note if it is out of balance. There is no difference whatever, the results are the same. In this way I am able to rapidly develop and perfect a conception without touching anything.[40]
Tesla also displayed other suggestive behaviours.[41]

Albert Einstein[edit]

Albert Einstein is sometimes thought to have had Asperger syndrome, despite forming close relationships with a number of people, marrying twice, and being outspoken on pro-social political issues. According to Baron-Cohen, "passion, falling in love and standing up for justice are all perfectly compatible with Asperger syndrome",[38] although he notes that Einstein's delayed language development and educational slowness may be more indicative of high-functioning autism.[11]
Fitzgerald describes Einstein's interest in physics as "an addiction", and says that it was important for him to be in control of his life. He also points to Einstein's occasionally perceived lack of tact, social empathy, and naivety, as further apparent traits he had in common with people with autism spectrum disorders.[10] Ioan James adds that Einstein was much better at processing visual information than verbal; Einstein himself once said "I rarely think in words at all".[11]
In her 1995 book In a World of His Own: A Storybook About Albert Einstein, author Illana Katz notes that Einstein "was a loner, solitary, suffered from major tantrums, had no friends and didn't like being in crowds", and conjectures that he may have had some form of autism.[4

The dual process theory

7:21 AM | BY ZeroDivide EDIT
In psychology, a dual process theory provides an account of how a phenomenon can occur in two different ways, or as a result of two different processes. Often, the two processes consist of an implicit (automatic), unconscious process and an explicit (controlled), conscious process. Verbalized explicit processes or attitudes and actions may change with persuasion or education; though implicit process or attitudes usually take a long amount of time to change with the forming of new habits. Dual process theories can be found in social, personality, cognitive, and clinical psychology. It has also been linked with economics viaprospect theory and behavioral economics.

History[edit]

The foundations of dual process theory likely comes from William James. He believed that there were two different kinds of thinking: associative and true reasoning. James theorized that empirical thought was used for things like art and design work. For James, images and thoughts would come to mind of past experiences, providing ideas of comparison or abstractions. He claimed that associative knowledge was only from past experiences describing it as “only reproductive”. James believed that true reasoning was useful for “unprecedented situations” in which using reasoning to overcome obstacles such as navigation could be overcome with reasoning power of being able to use a map.
There are various dual process theories that were produced after William James's work. Dual process models are very common in the study of social psychological variables, such as attitude change. Examples include Petty and Cacioppo's Elaboration Likelihood Model explained briefly below and Chaiken'sHeuristic Systematic Model. According to these models, persuasion may occur after either intense scrutiny or extremely superficial thinking. In cognitive psychology, attention and working memory have also been conceptualized as relying on two distinct processes.[1] Whether the focus be on social psychology or cognitive psychology, there are many examples of dual process theories produced throughout the past. The following just show a glimpse into the variety that can be found.
Jonathan Evans suggested dual process theory in 1984. In his theory, there are two distinct types of processes: heuristic processes and analytic processes. He suggested that during heuristic processes, an individual chooses which information is relevant to the current situation. Relevant information is then processed further whereas irrelevant information is not. Following the heuristic processes come analytic processes. During analytic processes, the relevant information that is chosen during the heuristic processes is then used to make judgments about the situation.[2]
Richard E. Petty and John Cacioppo proposed a dual process theory focused in the field of social psychology in 1986. Their theory is called the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In their theory, there are two different routes to persuasion in making decisions. The first route is known as the central route and this takes place when a person is thinking carefully about a situation, elaborating on the information they are given, and creating an argument. This route occurs when an individual’s motivation and ability are high. The second route is known as the peripheral route and this takes place when a person is not thinking carefully about a situation and uses shortcuts to make judgments. This route occurs when an individual’s motivation and ability are low.[3]
Steven Sloman produced another interpretation on dual processing in 1996. He believed that associative reasoning takes stimuli and divides it into logical clusters of information based on statistical regularity. He proposed that how you associate is directly proportional to the similarity of past experiences, relying on temporal and similarity relations to determine reasoning rather than an underlying mechanical structure. The other reasoning process in Sloman's opinion was of the Rule based system. The system functioned on logical structure and variables based upon rule systems to come to conclusions different from that of the associative system. He also believed that the Rule based system had control over the associative system, though it could only suppress it.[4] This interpretation corresponds well to earlier work on computational models of dual processes of reasoning.[5]
Daniel Kahneman provided further interpretation by differentiating the two styles of processing more, calling them intuition and reasoning in 2003. Intuition (or system 1), similar to associative reasoning, was determined to be fast and automatic, usually with strong emotional bonds included in the reasoning process. Kahneman said that this kind of reasoning was based on formed habits and very difficult to change or manipulate. Reasoning (or system 2) was slower and much more volatile, being subject to conscious judgments and attitudes.[6]
Fritz Strack and Roland Deutsch proposed another dual process theory focused in the field of social psychology in 2004. According to their model, there are two separate systems: the reflective system and the impulsive system. In the reflective system, decisions are made using knowledge and the information that is coming in from the situation is processed. On the other hand in the impulsive system, decisions are made using schemes and there is little or no thought required.[7]

Theories[edit]

Dual process learning model[edit]

Ron Sun proposed a dual process model of learning (both implicit learning and explicit learning). The model (named CLARION) re-interpreted voluminous behavioral data in psychological studies of implicit learning and skill acquisition in general. The resulting theory is two-level and interactive, based on the idea of the interaction of one-shot explicit rule learning (i.e., explicit learning) and gradual implicit tuning through reinforcement (i.e. implicit learning), and it accounts for many previously unexplained cognitive data and phenomena based on the interaction of implicit and explicit learning.[8]

Dual coding[edit]

Using a somewhat different approach, Allan Paivio has developed a dual-coding theory of information processing. According to this model, cognition involves the coordinated activity of two independent, but connected systems, a nonverbal system and a verbal system that is specialized to deal with language. The nonverbal system is hypothesized to have developed earlier in evolution. Both systems rely on different areas of the brain. Paivio has reported evidence that nonverbal, visual images are processed more efficiently and are approximately twice as memorable. Additionally, the verbal and nonverbal systems are additive, so one can improve memory by using both types of information during learning.[9]

Dual-process accounts of reasoning[edit]

Background[edit]

The dual-process accounts of reasoning posits that there are two systems or minds in one brain. The theory of two distinct kinds of reasoning has been around for as long as documentations about theories of reasoning go. The current theory is that there are two distinctively separate cognitive systems underlying thinking and reasoning and that these different systems were developed through evolution.[10] These systems are often referred to as being either implicit or explicit, however some theorists prefer to emphasize the functional differences between the two systems and not the consciousness factor and thus refer to the systems simply as System 1 and System 2. The broad terms System 1 and System 2 were coined by Stanovich and West[11] and will be used throughout this article.

Systems[edit]

The systems have multiple names by which they can be called, as well as many different properties.
Differences between System 1 and System 2[12]
System 1System 2
Unconscious reasoningConscious reasoning
ImplicitExplicit
AutomaticControlled
Low EffortHigh Effort
Large capacitySmall capacity
RapidSlow
Default ProcessInhibitory
AssociativeRule based
ContextualizedAbstract
Domain SpecificDomain General
Evolutionarily OldEvolutionarily recent
NonverbalLinked to language
Includes recognition, perception, orientationIncludes rule following, comparisons, weighing of options
Modular CognitionFluid Intelligence
Independent of working memoryLimited by working memory capacity
Non-LogicalLogical
ParallelSerial

System 1[edit]

Bargh (1994) reconceptualized the notion of an automatic process by breaking down the term “automatic” into four components: awareness, intentionality, efficiency, and controllability. One way for a process to be labeled as automatic is for the person to be unaware of it. There are three ways in which a person may be unaware of a mental process: they can be unaware of the presence of the stimulus (subliminal), how the stimulus is categorized or interpreted (unaware of the activation of stereotype or trait constructs), or the effect the stimulus has on the person’s judgments or actions (misattribution). Another way for a mental process to be labeled as automatic is for it to be unintentional. Intentionality refers to the conscious “start up” of a process. An automatic process may begin without the personal consciously willing it to start. The third component of automaticity is efficiency. Efficiency refers to the amount of cognitive resources required for a process. An automatic process is efficient because it requires few resources. The fourth component is controllability, referring to the person’s conscious ability to stop a process. An automatic process is uncontrollable, meaning that the process will run until completion and the person will not be able to stop it. Bargh (1994) conceptualizes automaticity as a component view (any combination awareness, intention, efficiency, and control) as opposed to the historical concept of automaticity as an all-or-none dichotomy.[13]
System 2 In Humans[edit]
System 2 is evolutionarily recent and specific to humans. It is also known as the explicit system, the rule-based system, the rational system,[10] or the analyticsystem.[14] It performs the more slow and sequential thinking. It is domain-general, performed in the central working memory system. Because of this, it has a limited capacity and is slower than System 1 which correlates it with general intelligence. It is known as the rational system because it reasons according to logical standards.[14] Some overall properties associated with System 2 are that it is rule-based, analytic, controlled, demanding of cognitive capacity, and slow.[10]

Anxiety and Depression: A Philosophical Investigation

10:42 AM | BY ZeroDivide EDIT
_*_Radical Psychology_*_
Summer 1999, Vol. 1, Issue 1.



Petra von Morstein


... It is death
That is ten thousand deaths and evil death..
Be tranquil in your wounds. It is good death
That puts an end to evil death and dies.
Be tranquil in your wounds. The placating star
Shall be gentler for the death you die
And the helpless philosophers say still helpful things.
--Wallace Stevens

These are only hints and guesses,
Hints followed by guesses; and the rest
Is prayer, observance, discipline, thought and action
--T.S. Eliot
I. The ground of psyche's suffering.
I believe that philosophy is an essential way of being human and that lived philosophy is prior to any of its methods and theories. Questions like "Who am I? What am I to do? What is real? What is being? What is truth? What is the origin and scope of knowledge?" arise originally from lived experience, often with intense urgency. Our own lives as well as writings of great philosophers -- e.g., Plato, Augustine, Descartes, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, -- make this patently evident. Human beings are creatures whose existence includes the question of being. We need to know. This need precedes any concern with the origin, methods, and scope of knowledge. After the mythical Fall from paradise, metaphor for the liberation of human consciousness, we can no longer rest in the primal order of existence, in unreflected unity with the world. We only can long for it, and we do. Regressively so; for in paradise human consciousness does not know itself; it exists seamlessly in the world incomplete unity if thus it can be said to exist at all. There is no I-it and no I-Thou. Adam and Eve just are, without direction toward anything. The world of paradise is their extension, as the mother is but extension to the baby prior to its ability to relate.
In innocence (= ignorance), we do not recognize the implications of human existence and have no sense of either self or other. As we exit paradise we are given freedom and condemned to it. The freedom of consciousness manifests itself in thought and action. We are, as we know, fallible in both, and the 'horrible truth' (which Hamlet a la Nietzsche recognizes so devastatingly that he is left with his overwhelming either-or question) is that thought can never fully reach action. The fall to sin is the fall to knowledge which must embrace uncertainty and in this embrace keep moving from question to question after every apparent answer, moving on its belly. Uncertainty leaves alternatives to any conclusion open and thus engenders freedom of choice -- responsibility in not knowing. It is here where confusion, awareness of guilt, anxiety and depression are ontologically grounded. Consciousness begins in confusion, guilt, and anxiety.
Consciousness is born through expulsion from paradise. Human freedom entails fallibility and choice. God's gift of freedom to consciousness comes with its shadow of cognitive and moral uncertainty, with, always, the possibility of falsehood and sin. Choices cannot be secured with guarantees of truth or goodness. This makes for primordial disorientation -- a dis-ease which cannot possibly be eradicated from human consciousness. -- The scope of human knowledge is confined by inherent human boundaries, basic human forms of experiencing. Kant thought of space and time as such forms, Jung of archetypes.
I see the history of philosophy -- not exclusively, but importantly -- as a diverse multitude of endeavors to find therapies for such primordial suffering. As this is constitutive of human existence and cognition, thus ontologically necessary, it cannot be cured. It can be integrated, considered as a cognitive source, to be lived with rather than under. Thus we are, as Nietzsche says, always convalescents.