Slashdot Mirror
L.A. Times Columnist Says Geek-Autism is a Good Thing
rillian writes "Gary Chapman has an interesting take on the geekness-autism connection in his Digital Nation column in the Los Angeles Times: So what? Some of us are offended by this connection because it makes us even less normal, but he points at the opposing point of view: that the concerns of 'normal' people can be shallow and don't advance civilization. We need more Edisons, not more pop stars."
It must be very comforting to have complete understanding of all those questions you have had all your life about why you were different. Scientologists and Moonies get the same thing through their absolutist doctrines- an end to uncertainty, all is now understood by a simple label. No more uncomfortable doubt or messy grey areas, everything is black and white. I wonder what price is to be paid by so broadly labeling entire sets of personality types.
Perhaps communication problems do contribute to our being oriented toward computers. Although I don't see myself in your description, I do have some motor brain damage that kept me from speaking clearly for a long time. But it never stopped me from speaking a lot - people just asked what country I came from because they couldn't figure out my "accent". Therapy made it better. But I'm sensitive enough to nonverbal cues. And so, of course, are lots of us. Thus, I fear that the "autism" argument is being over-applied.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Sounds eerily familiar... the sheer agony of 6 of detention in grammar school (it's 6 years in my country). I could read and write before I went there, and simple arithmetic was clear after one explanation. Six years they spend teaching the kids how to read and write and do simple arithmetic. Six years I spent there every single day 'learning' stuff I already knew, bored to death and extatically happy when I could finally go home and learn something.
I left that school having learnt nothing at all, least of all social skills as the only social interaction I knew was psychological warfare. Them humiliating me over my nerdiness, me humiliating them with their 'stupidity', or trying to anyway. Actually humiliating people requires some social skills. I couldn't do it.
Highschool was a similar story. Bored to death, because I didn't do a thing at school, but also stressed almost to insanity, as I discovered I could no longer pass exams without studying for them. I passed my time studying 'how to become cool'. I concluded that it must involve vandalising stuff, defying orders and insulting people, because that was what the cool kids appeared to be doing most of the time. I spent my time doing that, which was entertaining, but did not gain me any cool at all.
Oh well, I could still comfort myself with the thought that I would have excelled if only I had worked harder.
Then University was a disaster. I had become physically incapable of paying attention to what other people say, especially professors. Having to work for something makes me feel stupid and talentless now. I see many of the people, who used to taunt me in grammar school because I was on a different intellectual plane than they were, excell where I fail. The worst thing is they turn out to be real likeable, interesting people now, who know a lot of interesting stuff and can make an interesting conversation.
All I have to show for my so called brilliance is the fact that I could write complex self modifying code in assembly when I was 13, but besides aquiring some arcane knowledge I haven't done a single interesting thing in the past decade and a half.
I wish I had realised I had a problem when I was a kid, and that I, having a form of autism could not learn social skills without special help. I would not have had to learn them now that I'm almost 30, and I might have been a nicer person for the people around me, and especially for myself.
Just like the Myers-Brigg Type Indicator, it is a tool. And when understood, it allows you to make better decisions which will affect the rest of your life.
On that note I suggest that everyone here take the MBTI and understand your type. I would guess that the majority of geeks are INTP's or INTJ's. When you understand the complexities of introversion, you will be able to look more clearly at shadow syndromes of autism, and you will realize that it may be one of the causes that make many of us such strong introverts.
Actually, Beethoven or Bruckner are maybe better examples than Mozart... Wasn't Mozart a bit of a party animal? :)
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
That's not Chapman's take, it's the take of, to use his phrase, "self-professed computer geeks":
(emphasis mine).
The emphasised parts indicate that the ones he's saying are claiming that "it's not a bug, it's a feature" are the "self-professed computer geeks"; about the only thing I see there that indicates that he might agree with them is "Maybe the geeks shall inherit the Earth", but he may just be saying that's what the "self-professed computer geeks" think.
Point number 2 - At my fiance's school they routinely take kids (elementary) out of the "high" group and put them in the "low" group when they misbehave. Given that the misbehaviour is almost always a function of their boredom at the school moving too slowly, you have the smartest kids in the slowest moving academic circles. If you start lableing those kids as "Austistic" you give schools even further ability to move the smartest kids all the way into something like special ed. Potentially dangerous in my opinion.
Werd.
I am quite frankly horrified by the implications of this 'The Price of Genius' comment. Speaking from the position of a 'very smart person' I do not find myself lacking in any 'day-to-day' talents. I am quite capable of socialising, loving, caring and befriending when I so choose. If anything my feelings often run deeper that those of many of the 'less smart' people I am surrounded by.
The fact the many smart people seem aloof is easily explained by considering a few consequences of their high IQs :
1. Having to explain every step of your thoughts to 'less intelligent' people is tedious.
2. Being further from the center of the 'IQ bell-curve' means that there are fewer people who fall into the same bracket as you - thus possibly fewer friends.
3. A quick, flexible mind makes accepting and adapting new concepts (such as 'advanced technology') easier - this automatically makes you a target for those less adaptable who fear these advances. (Watch the genetists become Green Peace's new target)
4. 'Smart people' are often very curious and hence spend less time partaking in activities 'on the beaten track'. For instance sport, while a worthwhile physical activity, is often boring for intelligent people because once the basic rules have been learned it's just practice from there on. Soccer, the world's leading sport, hasn't change much since the middle ages. Such mundane social activities are when many friendships are formed.
Note that none of these points in anyway suggest that smart people have an impaired ability to interact socially. Rather, it is simply the enviroment in which 'smart people' find themselves which causes many of them to be less interested in social interaction than their 'less intelligent' peers.
In my personal experience, the opposite trend is in fact noticeable - those intelligent people who are inclined to make the effort, fare far better socially than their 'less intelligent' counterparts.
Finallly, it has occurred to me that this post might come across as somewhat elitist - it was not intended as such. Everyone is part of the giant bell-curve in the end, whether we like it or nay.
Simon.
/-\-/
Heck, it happened to me yesterday. And the day before. And I'm a high school senior, for cryin' out loud! (For those non-US people, that's the last year of school before college/university).
I've actually failed a few classes due to exactly that.--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
Many thanks for all the fascinating and very informative replies about my column in The Los Angeles Times this morning, about Asperger's syndrome and "geeks."
I want to point out that while I did discuss a *possible* link between this syndrome and the stereotype of computer geeks, this is controversial (which I tried to point out), speculative, and subject to a zillion different interpretations. I did mention that it's not necessary to have any kind of mental syndrome or specific personality trait to be successful with computers; indeed, I know many first-rate programmers and hardware engineers who have none of the qualities associated with Asperger's syndrome or any other identifiable syndrome. I said that some people who have this syndrome, or who may have it in a mild form, may simply be attracted to computers as a field of work. Of course, the idea of a "mild" form of a mental syndrome is controversial in itself. We're talking about the human brain, the biggest mystery in the world.
I didn't mention this in the article, but it's controversial about how common Asperger's syndrome is too, although the ballpark figure seems to be somewhere between 1 in 500 to 1 in a thousand, which seems to me pretty high. So even if this syndrome has no connection at all to computer professionals, there may be a lot of syndrome examples among us.
I didn't know about the opinions of / participants regarding Thomas Edison. :-) I probably could not have mentioned Tesla, anyway, since too few people in the general public have ever heard of him. Anyway, Edison is sometimes mentioned as a figure of the past who seems to fit the Asperger's syndrome picture -- Emily Dickinson, too, by the way. (Most Asperger's syndrome patients are male, however.)
I tried to mention (and close with) the "geek's perspective," which is probably shared by many non-geeks as well: this syndrome stuff doesn't really matter. We all have a complex mix of genetic, environmental and historical inputs into our consciousness and personalities, and we all fall somewhere on a very wide spectrum of human behaviors. In terms of human ecology, each person certainly must have a role in the total story of the species.
-- Gary
gary.chapman@mail.utexas.edu
Autism is a very misunderstood condition, and one which has been repeatedly mischaracterized, misdiagnosed, and mistreated.
....
I strongly suggest that before anyone jump to conclusions on what it means for some "geeks" to be characterized as "autistic", "borderline autistic", "Asperger's syndrome", or "shadow autistic", that you familiarize yourself with some of the material available at www.autistics.org. Something which might be especially appropriate is "Autistic Adults and Adolescents", an essay by a woman with "atypical autism" who might also very well fall into the "geek" category some ways.
You will find that "autism" does not mean "mental retardation", nor does it mean "insanity", nor does it mean "inability to function in society". As for what it does mean, well, that's still rather up in the air
just look at how many people can't set the clock on their VCR!
Though I have never had trouble setting a VCR, the one I have currently sets it's own clock from a time signal PBS broadcasts (which it found for itself when I plugged it in).
Not that I actually disagree with your point. For every thing like the new VCR's clock, there's something like DSS which you have to know at least a little bit about in order to set it up. Then there's the fact that all the marketers in the world couldn't have made DSS work without engineers.
"We"? That's a fairly broad statement. I've certainly no doubt that the number of similarities between my personality and the classic Asperger's traits are probably more than coincidence. My girlfriend is certainly not someone that could be called anything other than a geek, and her entire family has been diagnosed. I've no doubt whatsoever that some people I've met fall into the same catagory - certainly not everyone who I'd call a geek, but easily more geeks than the population at large.
Does this bother me? Not really. I see myself as different to other people. Not better, not worse. Just different. And since I began to accept that, my life has improved. I am a geek, regardless of whether I admit it or deny it - it's part of my nature that I'm unable to change. I find it hard to relate to people. I don't enjoy social situations involving large numbers of people that I've never met before. I'm hugely over-literal in conversation. No matter how hard I try, I will never be able to fit into society seamlessly. And frankly, I don't care.
I'm happy to accept that I'm not going to be a part of mainstream society, and mainstream society seems happy enough with that. I don't expect them to understand me in the same way that I don't expect to be able to understand the way an alien behaves. My thought processes don't fit into the social norms, and attempting to pretend that that isn't the case would be going against my own personality.
I'm a geek. And I'm not worried about who knows it.
In a world where even on slashdot, at the mere mention of autism/asperger's, you get people jumping around going "That's not me! I'm greatly insulted! People like me! I'm not a retard! I'm not a loser like them! You take that back!"... :P jesus! Exactly why is it proper to publically humiliate people with a different (and sometimes troublesome) mode of being? Why is it so important to run about desperately trying to prove that 'geekdom' is no haven for us?
Well, I have to say that I prefer the article to certain bits of the Slashdot threads
I (not surprisingly, as I have asperger's) am not overconcerned with other people's social opinions, particularly in that grand ungraspable region called 'public image'. However, it really grates sometimes, the way people are so terrified of being 'painted' as fellow travellers. Do you really mean to 'educate' both geekdom and the outside world that, even with geeks, if you are a certain way then you're a loser and should be shunned? Is it so important to establish that asperger's is a sickness and that people shouldn't hire/work with/associate with the autistic when there are good geeks available who bridle at the suggestion that they have handicaps?
Please. That's disgusting. It's a groupthink mentality that, ironically, many autistic people have a hard time grasping or relating to- a mentality of "I am of Group X. These people are also of Group X, but I must make everyone understand that they don't represent Group X, because they reflect badly on me!" Final thought for all those on all sides of this- if it did turn out that autistic/asperger's people did legitimately represent computer geeks... what would you do?
Before you think that ADD or ADHD are made up, do some research.
I don't think the problem is these diseases (I personally think they are in the same class of disease as alchoholism) but in the belief that they are common, and their common misdiagnosis. To take your example, every kid who tries real hard, but can't get above a B, needs drugs to pay attention. And perhaps "being diagnosed with ADD was one of the most important things to happen to me educationally. " is great for your grades, but what about the rest? Are grades *that* important to you(r family)?
Maybe it was just the strange behaviour of _everyone_ I've known who was on Ritalin (usually when they skipped a day and came *down*), maybe it's the people I know who take the drug to party on, but I don't think it's worth it. As a matter of fact, it scares me. To take the alarmist's stance "Little Johnnie isn't conforming Mrs. Jones. We think you should drug him."
+&x
But we shouldn't stop there. There's no reason not to apply this kind of reasoning to all the different kinds of people in this society -- like, what makes the shameless power mongers so shameless and power-hungry? Just as geeks have their preoccupations, so other people have theirs, like devoting their lives to status and dominance games, or to gaining advantages for themselves at other people's expense. That doesn't mean they're dysfunctional megalomaniacs, any more than all geeks are catatonic idiot-savants.
I say it's better to understand than not to understand. The trick is not to let the knowledge be used against you.
"The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet
If we continue to have public schools, we will have a huge portion of the people who suppose that the "theory" of evolution is a proven fact (it's not, and Darwinian evolution is hardly thought of outside the United States anymore)
/lot/ -- on the order of 50 families) do an excellent job of teaching their children basic skills.
/prefer/ home-schoolers now? For example, Harvard, Yale, Wheaton. Of course, according to you those are all just charm schools, right?
/do/ get socialization. Very often in church, if not there then with neighbour children or relatives. What reason do you have to believe that 35 hours a week of socialization is called for?
All statistics that I've seen indicate that home schooling, at least in the early grades, results in better educated, better rounded children on average. While I must admit that some home-schoolers are right-wing subliterates, most of the ones I know (and I know a
The biggest danger sign is when they stop doing the Iowa tests. If the child can't pass the Iowa tests, then there's a problem. My Pastor's 9 year old took the one of the standardized tests a couple of weeks ago and scored 12th grade 9th month. Oh yeah -- despite being a radical Christian, he taught his kids evolution -- in fact, he had them read Origin of the Species and another book: "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe. Highly recommended -- maybe it will cure you of the fact that you apparently know less about Biology than a home-schooled nine year old.
Incidentally, did you know that most Ivy League colleges
Also, let's talk a little bit about socialization. First, there have never been any studies whatsoever done to show that home-schooled children are less socially adept as adults than public schooled Children. In fact, there have been several which have traced some of the rampant neuroses of our culture to the school system. Second, home school children
Finally, for me socialization was little better than torture. I was beaten, harrassed, and isolated. I ended up dropping out of high school because I would literally go in every morning ready to take on the day and leave literally suicidal. I would love to see any of you anti-homeschoolers show how THAT'S healthy. You talk about what you don't know about. Stop, learn, and take notes.
-- Slashdot sucks.
...serves me right to get overpassionate about such things, I don't _do_ 'passionate' well. Anytime I find myself underlining, italicising or boldfacing too many words, I ought to not post the comment ;)
I think it is very strange to be compared to a Moonie for what I've said. I'm only trying to provoke consideration and understanding- I have only a limited ability to reach out the other way to make contact, and a lot of people more autistic than me have even less ability to do this.
I am not lost and lonely (or school age, for that matter): I'm only trying against troublesome odds to get some people to have a bit of clue about what's going on here. There _is_ evidence to suggest that computer geekery is a singularly appropriate 'haven' for autistics and those with Asperger's. Many aspects of it help to cover for our weak points, and there are things about coding that are easier for an autistic person to keep track of. Denying this is foolish- it just is- this is hardly a great mystery. Nothing about it says that 'NT' (neurologically typical) people are less capable at computer geekery- it's simply that autistic/Asperger's people _thrive_ within computer geekery.
People are still learning what autism is. (It has nothing to do with schizophrenia, BTW, though there are some similarities with being schizoid.) Just because it is not 'black and white' rigorously defined doesn't mean it's not real- there's a lot of reality behind that simple term. It matters, it requires a certain amount of effort to coexist with (on both sides!), and it is part of the computer geek scene and will continue to be. No amount of mockery, shame, pity or dismissal will change this. If you don't like it, learn to tolerate it because it's not going to be possible to cleanse computer geekery of autism and Asperger's- or desirable, no matter 'what people think' of it.
So much for that. If this keeps up, Linux people are gonna need another HOWTO... interestingly, the Hacker FAQ is a very good start, and could almost be used as a handbook on how to keep an autistic person comfortable and productive in the workplace. It's not exact, but much of what it covers also applies to autism.
I don't know. It sounds like you're describing me =)
My dad doesn't think I'm autistic, though he does acknowledge that I'm different.
I grew up very comfortable being intelligent, always getting straight A's and always doing the best, though not without effort. Talent would only get one so far, and effort will bridge the rest.
I'll tell you what I'm like now.
I love to read. Everything. Anything. Anytime. It's compulsive--a book or text or box of cereal in hand, and I read it.
I'm endlessly fascinated with the world. A leaf, a bug, a rock, a tree. If it's there, I'm fascinated.
I'm fearless. I'm confident. I'm decisive. I'm reckless. I'm bold. I'm impulsive. I'm arrogant. I'm self-assured. Those are all faults and strengths.
I'm always driven to challenge myself. If I take the easy way now, it will just become harder later. Always better to take the harder challenge, now, when you can see it, when you can chose, then when you have no choice and are forced to take the harder path.
Life is meant to be lived. Savor food, sleep, and dreams. The feel of fabrics and woods, the colors, the sounds.
It's hard for me to understand people. For someone so intelligent, to be so blank or dumb is hard to fathom. People think I'm mocking them, or teasing them, or playing with them. Why aren't you angry? Why aren't you pissed? Why do you keep asking this? This is common sense?
If it's common sense, why don't I understand it?
I was very lucky to have understanding and totally supportive parents. I've made many comments to the point that I don't need God because I have my dad. He was my role model and my mentor and my idol. Even if he is imperfect and human. My mom gives everything for me.
On my part I've already said how bold/confident/reckless/brash I am. I'm totally unself conscious. I don't care much about other people, or what they think. Perhaps that is why I don't understand them? Nonetheless, it's a perfect combination for success. You just don't fear. Failure. Shame. Frustration. Doubt. Guilt. I feel none of them.
I don't think I'm autistic. Or at least if I am, I'm very social, friendly, and out-going.
=)
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
I'm sick of the labelling. I'm sick of saying that geeks are autistic, that we're super-intelligent but socially inept. I'm sick of having the legions of psychologists say that we all have ADD or ADHD. All of it is a coverup - the truth is we think. It's that simple! Because we think, we are different, and because we are different we are ejected from society.
Wake up! Our schools are engaged in an intensive effort to weed out geeks and outcasts. Our politicians are shouting for additional controls and monitoring of us. All eyes are on us. We are under attack! Fear, fire, foes, awake!
--
This looks like a chicken-and-egg discussion. Are computer geeks autistic, which leads to their particular skills and lacks, or do their natural choices and desires lead them to their skills and lacks which make them appear autistic.
For instance I do not think that I am autistic or that I fall under the true parameters of "Asperger's Syndrome", but of course there are some similarities.
Normal or above-average IQ: nearly all people who are good with computers are intelligent. I only scores 1480 on the silly SAT, so probably I'm not a 'genius' but maybe I fall to 'above-average'.
Savantism: Studying computers with disregard for all else will lead to something like this, but for instance people like Bruce Perens can carry on intelligent discussions on a range of topics from computers (of course) to economics and even genetics.
Lacking human empathy: The current generation of computer people grew up in dark rooms and late night university computer labs, so of course they could be lacking in certain skills. But the people currently studying computers seem to have a much better handle on the empathy thing, and so I think this 'autism-geek' thing will pass.
Excellent Rote Memory: of course a computer geek will have this trait, after all, how many times do you have to look up the T568A and B cat-5 wiring schemes before you have it remembered? Much of computer knowledge is rote knowledge, this is why 'computer technology' is at the same time a good field and a lousy one, you can simply learn a lot of facts and find a job, even without actually understanding the principles and theory like a computer scientist would.
Fascination with fantasy worlds and arcane facts: I'll admit it, sure. But then again that is a description of my generation of computer people, not so much as current 'geeks' as a whole. I run into undergraduates every day who haven't read Tolkien or Heinlein, etc.
Facility with Math and/or Science: I won't touch this. Math is a fundamental requirement to really understanding computer science, and thus to be a geek you have to learn lots of math.
Physical awkwardness/funny gait: I play about every sport imaginable. I'm not really good at any but I don't feel awkward. I've been told my 'walk is unique' and have been recognised by it, but I think that has more to do with growing up in a rural area where I walked a lot that being autistic.
Before I make this post any longer, I'll add that I think all this geek-autism thing just seems like your standard stereotype. It fits pretty well for a lot of people, and fits horribly for a lot of people. And, as the next generation of world-savvy geeks rises up and shows what can happen when computers are mainstream and not something relegated to the post-midnight hours on college campuses, we'll see this geek-autism connection fall.
of course my seriously mis/under-informed opinion.
i am sam i am.
burn the computers. go back to the abacus.
The interesting thing about Haldol and similar drugs is that they all seem to improve the patient or make things much worse. They can even reverse their effect over the course of treatment. Dose changes can also bring out these paradoxical effects.
This strikes me as being very similar to hitting the TV to fix the picture. If all else fails, that is sometimes justifiable, but probably nowhere near as often as the drugs are prescribed.
Bruce, do some research, OK? Careful with the judgement calls. ;)
The net is a boon for the 'way of being' known as autism/Asperger's. We (I speak for myself and some others) do not cope well with disruptions of our mental 'flow'. We can lock into really hardcore degrees of concentration that lift eyebrows, but it's like jet-lag to be distracted or derailed from this pressured focus.
I'm gonna ask, how many geeks work and geek out at night? How many do it so intensely that they have trouble managing normal sleep schedules and tend to consistently stay up until dawn or later?
I do, and I know some of the reasons why I 'jack in' to my net data sources so intensely at night. It's because there's no other stimulus going on, and no likelihood of being distracted and derailed, and this has everything to do with my having Asperger's.
That said, net data is a very _narrow_ bandwidth. It's language- Asperger's people are very _very_ good at language, so that's no trouble- it's accessible at one's own pace, and you control its flow.
Now, contrast this with the social thing. I've studied enough that I can get a sense of what I'm missing here- for years it was just like I was on Mars, or _from_ Mars, and I had no idea. I'll illustrate with a next-door neighbor thing...
I'm hanging out with Foo. I've always been able to do that- one on one is OK, not too much of a strain. Suddenly, Bar and Baz come over. I like Bar but not Baz, Foo likes Baz but not Bar, and I owe Baz money while Bar is trying to get me to program something for him and is being extra nice. As a side note, Foo hates people being wheedling and whiny. That's the terrain (and shockingly simplified, really.)
In the next fifth of a second, Bar's eyebrows will go up as he looks at me, and Foo's mouth will tighten, while Baz's mouth will also tighten in sympathy, but not as much. Given that Bar is probably going to wheedle me while in Foo's territory, what is the likelihood of me getting yelled at, and what degree of attention and priority should I give to Foo, Bar and Baz?Discuss.
Normal people do this all the time. It's a form of intelligence or perhaps instinct that the majority of people have very well developed. They spend huge amounts of time in social situations this complex or more so, effortlessly decoding and computing their reactions as easily as I decide to use a series of overlaying tiled heightmaps based on series of primes in a program... and to me and to other sufficiently autistic people, this is just as incomprehensible as my coding would be to them.
This is what 'social' means in practice. Talking to people with language online through text is different. There is nothing that says that autistic people hate communicating- it's just that if the average social thing is _that_ hard to do, how surprising is it that autistic people can't deal with it? Also we tolerate solitude a lot better than most people- another hidden advantage.
Bruce, you're great, you rule- your help with the Corel thing was terrific. Please don't take the wrong step here. You don't know the whole story, and very likely you don't have to- if you aren't autistic, trust me, you don't want it- it's too different and your life would be unrecognizably different, incomprehensibly so. However, 'we' are as much autistic as we are not- there is no requirement, but the nature of computerdom _draws_ the autistic, and those with Asperger's, because it is a mode of being in which our strengths can shine and our limitations are not so relevant.
Please do not say 'we (computer geeks) are not autistic'. Without meaning the slightest harm you are walling off a whole class of people who are mostly not well equipped to speak up for their own rights. My own sporadic outbursts draw more from adeptness with written language and a lasting fascination with the subject. I suggest that if you haven't studied it as seriously, then you might be well qualified to speak on computers and geeks and open source, but you may have no particular qualifications on specifically geek autism.
Being autistic is both alienating and alienated, but you have to understand that it's not a conscious pose or act of rebellion- it is the product of great difficulty in handling the horrendously overwhelming flow of nonverbal signals and balances of personality in interpersonal communications.
I'll talk to my next door neighbors- on _my_ turf, where I can act from a position of ease and ability. If my neighbors had computers and AOL and wanted to come over and talk about the latest Microsoft active web technologies, I'd be just as inadequate as if they were talking hockey or Spice Girls. Their being acquainted with computers would _not_ make them a person like me, or make me able to interact on their level...
Most autistics never speak without expensive and time consuming treatment(see www.cdso.org and www.autism.com for more info). Access to this treatment varies widely from location to location.
The number of autistics is rising, and according to some sources there is a correlation of autism with a father who is and engineer or accountant.
The researcher Ivar Lovaas in his 1996 speech at the FEAT conference on autism noted that a high proportion of "giants of civilization" came from children who manifested symptoms of autism early on but recovered to some degree.
There is no generally accepted operational definition of "autism" used as a basis for establishing testable hypotheses and reproducible results. In general, medical science has not yet seriously addressed "autism". While not as bad as "mental health" the study and treatment of "autism" is bad in terms of the per-capita expenditures relative to what is actually known.
Seastead this.
We are both alienating and alienated, but not autistic.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
There is some fascinating speculation going on these days that the well-known stereotype of the computer geek or nerd may actually be a description of mild autism, especially a form of autism known as Asperger's syndrome. Unlike classic autism, which often involves mental retardation and a lack of verbal skills, Asperger's syndrome is at the "high functional" end of the spectrum of autistic behavior, experts say. People with Asperger's syndrome have normal or above-average IQs and may even display savantism, or exceptional abilities in a specific skill. What they lack is human empathy, a deficiency sometimes called "mind-blindness, "which shows up as a distinct inability to read routine human nonverbal cues of attitude such as kindness, anger or love.
Good grief! I guess this explains Columbine, doesn't it - a bunch of those unfeeling geeks gone berserk. This sort of propaganda is usually reserved for when you want to dehumanise the enemy during a war.
I would say the crap that the other scientists put him through would definetly earn him the title of what they are calling a "geek". It is just sad that now that society realises we need geniuses like him, he's not here.
There were a whole group of us at my high school a couple years ago - we were talking to each other constantly. And not the boring stuff teens are stereotyped for talking about, full of 'like's and repetetive smalltalk and meaningless banter. We constantly jumped from one interesting idea to the next, frequently immersing ourselves in imprompteau projects such as designing a triangle version of chess or a labor-saving gadget.
There was alot of spontaneous talk revolving around cosmology, origins of species, and even number theory. We would just get into this mode where we would intensely focus on something just like the article says we can - but not by ourselves. We can focus intently on something as a group.
As far as communication skills, I'd like to see so-called 'normal' people write ANYTHING at the level of discussions we often have online (by this I mean our geeky discussion forums in general. Slashdot, being big, has both extremes.)
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
This study caused a stir in the homosexual community because there is a double-edged quality to such a biological marker (assuming it's accurate.) On one hand, many anti-discrimination laws are based on biologically defined qualities such as race, sex, and age. Having a biological definition of homosexuality would give more weight to people trying to get homosexuality included in anti-discrimination laws since it would defeat the argument that homosexuality is a "deviant choice."
On the other hand, many people are afraid of having a biological marker. For example, parents might abort a fetus known to carry that marker. Or it could be part of one's medical record and potentially visible to one's employer, insurer, etc.
Since the Nazis, there has been a stigma against research associating biological qualities with social ones. These two studies (among others) suggest that this stigma is decreasing. That, to me, is the most interesting thing about this article.
I am not hung-up on 'normal', I think it is more of a curse than a blessing in this world and the one of the future -- I'm definitely looking forward to what our Thomas is going to do as he grows.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
http://www.jaymuggs.demon.co.uk/bishop.htm
In talking of an autistic continuum, we imply a single dimension, in which a condition such as Asperger's syndrome constitutes a milder form of the same underlying disorder that is seen in autism. However, clinical accounts suggest that conditions resembling autism do not differ just in terms of severity, but also in pattern of symptoms.
Thus the label Asperger's syndrome is typically applied to clumsy children with circumscribed interests, whose early language development is not delayed, and who may have a verbal IQ well above performance IQ (Wing, 1981). In contrast, language-impaired children fitting the picture of semantic-pragmatic disorder typically first present with delayed language development and evident comprehension problems, and have a marked IQ discrepancy in favour of performance IQ.
I wonder if the behavior that this article describes might not be an evolutionary step in the making... homosuperior or something?
Think about it - all indications of evolutionary momentum shows that our brains are going to continue to grow, and it's the frontal lobes, not the lizard-brain core that is growing.
Maybe we're all going to end up a little more savant-style (as well as a lot more asian) in the future. Hmmm... Sounds a lot like the little grey men archtype, doesn't it? Before long we'll be coming back to earth to pick up Richard Dreyfuss at Devil's Tower!
In my experience (and I've been around some very smart people), extreme intelligence very seldom comes without any strings attached. It seemed that most hightly intelligent people I met/meet are either socially or otherwise different than what's generally considered normal.
... sometimes I'm glad I'm average/normal.
Maybe that is the price of genious. You achieve great heights in one (or a few) things, but pay for by missing some very day-to-day 'talents' everybody else pretty much has.
Maybe this is a good thing. Great skill at something seems to require specialization (or at least extended learning) at the expense of other areas. Would you rather be average at a lot of things or brilliant at one or two and pay for that brilliance with other defects? Before you answer the question hastily, consider examples such as Mozart (died very young and impoverished), Stephen Hawking (suffers from MS) or Giordano Bruno (who simply held views not agreeable to the catholic church and thus was burned as a heretic)
So you have a disorder that has an amazing number of common personality quirks associated with it, and really, nothing that is all that unusal. That in itself promotes a little uncertainty in me about how good the research on the syndrome is....but then actually putting it on print that maybe a good number of geeks have this syndrome...now that's a bold statement.
I find a serious lack of connection in the article. From the people with Asperger's syndrome don't pick up on non-verbal emotional cues in person to person communication to And boy, are these people apt to play with technology. I can see there might be a connection with "these people are more likely to preffer more concrete forms of communication, like e-mail, or letter writing", but author failed to convince me of his point that Asperger's makes for a good geek, and that they are all around. Please correct me if I read it wrong.
- Dan
"Follow your weird, ladies and gentlemen. Forget trying to pass for normal. Follow your geekdom. Embrace your nerditude."
"You may be a geek, you may have geek written all over you; you should aim to be one geek they'll never forget. Don't aim to be civilized. Don't hope that straight people will keep you on as some kind of pet. To hell with them; they put you here. You should fully realize what society has made of you and take a terrible revenge. Get weird. Get way weird. Get dangerously weird. Get sophisticatedly, thoroughly weird and don't do it halfway, put every ounce of horsepower you have behind it. Have the artistic *courage* to recognize your own significance in culture!"
(from "The Wonderful Power of Storytelling" From the Computer Game Developers Conference, March 1991, San Jose CA)
When I was in elementary and middle school, I was unfortunate enough to be placed in the 'gifted' program. It was condsidered a 'promotion' to better learning/teaching/whatever. In retrospect, I wonder if it was actually an initiative to remove people who thought somewhat differently from the regular population of the school. Although I did get something out of it, learning a little BASIC, I now question the overall effect of such programs. I read a lower post about being an outcast of such a program, and I must confess that I was an outcast within such a program. I never liked it, except for the fact that it got me out of regular school one day a week. The way I saw it, everybody in the 'gifted' program had problems. None of us got along with the normal kids very well. Public school serves one pupose == socialization. If you start to categorize kids, even that gets screwed up == screwed up kids.
This sort of thing is the kind of pop-science which drives wedges between members of society. This kind of "thinking" is what reinforces the stereotypes that leads "geeks" to believe that they are some kind of uebermenchen, and everyone else to believe "we" are arrogant technocrats who have little concern for other humans.
Like any priesthood, the technocrats wish to justify their reified position and protect them/us from the "unwashed masses". This kind of
psychobabble is being supported by a resurgent popularity in the pseudosciences of eugenics and biometric racism/classism, all in an effort (spoken or unspoken, conscious or unconscious) to justify the disparity in wealth and privledge which has emerged in the supposedly egalitarian, meritocratic, and democratic Western European style socioeconomic systems.
This sort of nonsense is a prelude to the sort of society, envisioned by such astute thinkers as Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Philip K. Dick, and others in their various speculative fiction works, in which biological justifications are given for various forms of social manipulation, and social justifications are given for various forms of biological manipulation.
Go back and read some historical accounts of early 20th century biological racism (the book _The Legacy of Malthus_ is a good start), in the United States, Europe, and Japan, and see the parallels between these early works and current treatises such as _The Bell Curve_ and articles such as the one mentioned which put forth scientifically unsound theories on why one group or another is biologically predisposed to some superior status.
Shrouding high intelligence in a cloak of psychological mystery by portraying it as a disorder is an old trick (ask any artist), and it helps reinforce the distinction between the "normal" and the "abnormal" which helps keep intelligence in-check when necessary, and also helps keep "normals" resigned to stupid labors because they believe themselves to be biologically inferior.
At the highest levels of power, the tables are turned again on the intelligentsia, and claims are made that one must have "innate leadership ability" and "emotional intelligence" in order to be a true leader, and this is something which the highly intelligent are declared to have a biological predisposition *against*. Thus, the intelligentsia are wedged in-between the "normals" and the "true leaders" as a biological glass ceiling and handy store of scapegoats.
The scientific age has replaced the divine right of kings with a pseudoscientific justification of class heirarchy based on translating biostatistics directly into a blueprint for predicting individual behavior. We can then say that meritocracy exists, and works just fine, but that most of you are too stupid to take advantage of it...
How convenient...
o/~ we are pissed, we are pissed, we have to resist... o/~ - ec8or
Much of this is old news, but I noticed the article discussed one area that could offer some fun things in the future. There seems to be some bitter disagreement between those who see each syndrome as a unique, discreet and well-defined description of what is happening and those who think that each person's personality has a number of characteristics that can vary widely. For the second group, there is only a problem when those characteristics become sufficiently pronounced in a particular area to cause problems. Clearly gifted folks with some of the characteristic behaviors of Asperger's syndrome hardly are the same as a severely withdrawn child with a case of autism. The argument comes about whether it makes sense to consider the wide range of variation together in one place or consider each cluster separately without regard to similarities that other personalities may exhibit.
I understand each side and I generally agree with the spectrum of traits folks. I find that it is very difficult to get a person who thinks that all personality types and disorders are well-defined to comprehend, let alone agree with the spectrum of traits folks. Once they have heard a diagnosis, they map their understanding of the syndrome onto the child and treat them that way.
For kids, this can be a huge problem. If they have a smart teacher who is told that their learning style is this because they have some of these personality traits, the kids will be taught better than they might have been otherwise. If their teacher needs to pigeonhole them, they will probably suffer a far worse education than if the teacher just thought that the kid was lazy, distracted or disruptive. It can be even more difficult to get a school administration to avoid pigeonholes. They seldom understand that a talented and gifted program will be an integral part of the special programs that will have to be offered to meet the needs of this student.
I won't belittle autism - one of my closest friends has an autistic daughter, and I've learned a little bit about what makes her special at the same time as it hurts her. My friend and his wife are raising her wonderfully, and she has a good prognosis to be able to eventually function in society.
That said, it bothers the hell out of me that virtually everything outside of a tiny band of human behavior is now being described as a "syndrome", or a "phobia", or something abnormal. Ausberger's, "Social Phobia", compulsive behavior (not the extreme stuff), hyperactivity - these are, for the most part, all examples of behavior that isn't that far removed from the mainstream, but now they've all been reduced to just another disease, treatable (usually) by Ritalin, Prozac, etc. Differences in behavior are what make humans human, and not some collective Hive-Mind! Again, there are people out there with legitimate, and severe conditions, and I don't want to belittle that, but we've taken it to absurd lengths.
Social phobia my ass! Some people are shy, some are gregarious. Ausberger's - so a lot of hyper-smart people can't relate to the idiots around them - that's a problem? Hyperactivity? That used to be known as "sit down and shut up, or else".
I'm not sure what's right here, but I know the way we're headed is wrong. To continue my rant theme from some of the recent threads I've seen, whatever happened to responsibility? To call all non-standard behaviors "disorders" keeps people from taking responsibility for their behavior and their lives.
Grumble!
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
I was labeled as Gifted when I went to High school (they actually gave me this WISC-R test to try and prove I was slow, but it backfired because the result came back that I was actually a Genius, and just too bored to bother doing homework)
Anyways,
I was in this special "Gifted" group all through high-school, and I noticed a thing or two. Many of the "socially Inept" people were typically really lopsided in there abilities (Math brainiacs, but couldn't string a sentance together, in the literary sense) but there was a large number of us in the class that actually had very high aptitudes across the board (Math, logic, pattern-recognition, verbal, written, hand-eye co-ordination, etc.) and while there were milder "spikes" in their various skilsets, many of these people were very well adjusted, and quite popular in school (even with the "gifted" albatros around the neck).
I'm not sure linking computer saavy with "geek-autism" is neccesarily the answer. It might have been early on, with the "Mega-spike" geniuses, but as the world gets more and more computerized, and the "overall" geniuses start moving into IT jobs, (which they are) then this seems to be disapearing...
This isn't news really, but it is a well written article. The real interest I have in this is the insistance, even among researchers who should know better, that some people are 'normal' and others deviate from that normalcy in some way. In this case by having a 'mild form of Asperger's syndrome'. One scientist mentioned in the article even goes so far as to discount the idea on the basis of the fact we Geeks are not horribly impaired. Meaning we are normal I guess...
So, just what is normal? I used to wonder that a lot when I was a kid, because I knew for a fact I wasn't 'normal'. I even wondered if I smelled different from everyone else in some way, although the truth was simply that I could not socialize in the same manner other kids did -- and had an intuitive understanding of math, could read at a college level and had a better volcabulary than my teachers. These simple facts were enough to isolate me; an isolation so common among geeks that we have already discussed it at length here on /.
The thing is, I have come to understand that none of the other kids were 'normal' either! They were just better at pretending. At picking up the little cues that control flocking behavior in the schoolyard. Inside most of them were wondering the same thing I did, and hoping like hell they didn't have to go through the hazing I lived with on a daily basis. Those few who felt no doubts at all probably lacked the intelligence and imagination it takes to see yourself as the victim, or else they were true sociopaths. Doubt what I am saying? Talk at length with your spouse or your 'normal' siblings...
So, what is normal? Aren't we all really part of a continuum? On the one hand you have highly disfunctional people who cannot even feed themselves and on the other you have highly socialized individuals who -- as they are often lawyers, salesmen, politicians and actors -- don't really contribute that much to society themselves. The rest make up the middle of the bell curve, and those of us blessed with an ability to concentrate to extremes, remember seemingly inconsequential details and avoid wasting time with dumb stuff like style and appearance are the prime movers of the new era.
Geeks of the world unite! You have nothing to loose but your propeller beanies!
More seriously, perhaps the real need here is to avoid discussions of 'normal' versus geek and focus more on ways each person can maximize their effectiveness in the world. For some of us this means computers and programming, our natural skills and inclinations make us good at it. Others are particuarily good hairdressers. We are each born with a mix of talents and abilities that, together, make up our IQ. The really good thing about being a geek, and this I know from personal experience, is that we can actually apply many of the traits that make us what we are to becoming good at the other stuff if we decide it is important enough. I once took the time to seriously study body language, basic psychology and public speaking. Now I have those skills when I need them, even if I choose not to exercize them most of the time...
Jack
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
I just hate wondering how many amazing artists, musicians, programmers, and thinkers, who have had their potential skewed by being given mind-altering drugs as children. The growing dependence of phychiatrist to fix "problems" (anything outside the norm) with drugs is bad. Not to mention extemely hypocritical in our current (US) society.
Remember, alchoholism is a *disease* (that you get from drinking lots and lots of alchohol over a long period of time)
+&x
I assume I'm not the only one here who read through the list of "symptoms" thinking "Yep. That's me. Sounds familiar. Uh-huh." But what's wrong with any of that? Treating an interest in so-called arcane subjects as a psychological disorder could be downright dangerous, especially considering how poorly history is often taught in American high schools. And viewing an excellent rote memory, facility with math and science and an ability to focus on interesting problems for hours at a time as a problem is just plain silly. The short attention span of the typical American teenager is something often critiziced in the media, and now they tell us that it's just as bad, if not worse, to be able to maintain the opposite? As for the more truly negative things mentioned in the article, such as clumsiness, hyperactivity, poor social understanding, hyper-verbal activity but without the ability to make contextual connections in conversations, and an appearance of insensitivity and eccentricity, many of these things don't seem to me to add up to something that would truly cause a person to be considered "sick". Being a little eccentric makes life fun. The only part of Asperger's syndrome that seems truly concerning is the part obout how they (we?) are commonly victims of teasing in school. One needs only to glance at the Hellmouth articles to realize how bad that can get, and that it's not just the students that fail to have any understanding for such people, but teachers and others in positions of authority as well. However, classifying geeks as "mentally ill" just because of interests and abilities beyond the societal norm would only cause more damage than it would set out to prevent.
One of the authors of the "Shadow Syndromes" book -- the start of this whole brouhaha -- is also the author of "Driven to Distraction", a book about ADD. Ratey has ADD himself and is interesting because he sympathetic without being condescending. Having ADD myself, I found him to be the only author to take a sensible view of the matter. Face it, we know we're different; what's being "normal" got to recommend it? Isn't that the same as being "average"? And who wants to be just "average"? And if some of the stuff that makes it hard for other people to get along is the same stuff that gives us our unusual abilities, then big deal. Psychologists are still trying to figure out how the brain is wired. It wouldn't be at all surprising that wiring that causes problems in one situation actually helps in another. Even something as simple as being tall or short can be a help or a hinderance, depending on whether you're playing basketball or doing the limbo. When I researched ADD, I found a lot of things about it that explained features of who I am. Weirdly enough, two of the indicators for this "disability" are high intelligence and high creativity. It's also accompanied by the attention shifts and hyperfocus that are usually what people think about when they speak of ADD. Do I "suffer" from my ADD? Nope, but my wife sometimes does. The bottom line is simple: I'm manging my life and doing just fine, "disability" or not. If it makes feel better that I have a "disability" and you don't, then feel free. But I'm not dropping my billing rate because of it.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
LOL! This is great! People can't explain how we computer geeks can do our jobs, so we must be defective some how. Yes! That's it. A "normal" person would never want to spend 8 to 16 hours a day in front of a computer. They must be "abnormal" somehow. "Hey, look! Here's a syndrome that looks similar. Why, hell! Those geeks are autistic!" I love this! Not only can I get paid big bucks programming, I can draw disability too! Get some of those tax dollars back! WOW!
Proverbs 21:19
This was all so Edison could continue his mini-empire of local DC-based electric monopolies, as he feared Tesla's abilities to transmit AC over very long distances through extremely arcane devices known as 'transformers' which Edison's small mind could not grok.
We continue to use, to this day, AC running at 60 Hz, due to Edison's twisted marketing. While all electricity is dangerous in foolish hands, 60 Hz is one of the most dangerous base frequencies for electricity due to it being near the operating frequency for nerve cells. It takes nearly 100 times the electricity at 14 Hz to kill a man than it does at the peak dangerousity of 60Hz.
It's sick that Edison is taught to the children to be some kind of genius hero, when in actually he was a scheming, theiving, murderer. And Telsa is nearly forgotten. Primarily for his invention that would have allowed for nearly free electrical generation by installing very very tall towers around the planet which would use the Earth's magnetic field to generate pollutionless electricity! That was severely beaten down by the energy moguls of the late 1800's - Edison and the Rockefellers (Standard Oil) who would have lost millions/billions. Standard Microsoftian practices - look how much work they are putting into knocking down Linux - a free OS that can do nothing but make the world better at the expense of some of Mr Bills fortune. Same shit, different day!
Assume that this so-called 'autism' exists, and it is at least partially genetic. In today's society, those that posess it are at an advantage. Now remember back to elementary evolutionary science; those members of a species with even a slight advantage will tend to outnumber those without over time. If society as we know it continues indefinitly, geekdom will expand until those without the trait of mild autism are the minority. At that point, we (the geeks) will have a great laugh when the tables reverse and we discover 'Neandertalism', and ostracize the 'over-emotional', 'low-IQ' throwbacks to the 19th century over it.
.sig: Now legally binding!
When a child acts out it should be a clue to the teacher that something is wrong, but not that something is wrong with the student. Learning shouldn't be a one way street, but with the current ratio of teachers to students there is a lot more take than give.
I'm sure I'm not the only poster on this forum who spent more time in school dealing with boredom than on any other subject.
Using Microsoft software is like having unprotected sex.
Bite the hand.
I think its like the idea of scientific circles, where scientists converse with each other in their area of expertise (BTW-- spelling is definitely not mine). Only computing is a scientific circle that has most every area of contemporary humanity. We can communicate with each other at the speed of type. We can live in a world where there are no geographic or political boundaries, only the boundaries of human thought. Is it not in our best interests to do what we do best?
/."
Note: file under-"Why I spend so much time at
Of course, having a "contact" in the real world is always nice too, they can pull you back from the brink, or at least give you a nice phone to jack back into reality.
+&x
Have you ever noticed how normal people are mildly retarded.
Then there are at least 2 articles that mention dehumanizing nazi propaganda and separatist bullshit.
Are you guys paranoid or what? Of course you don't fit in. You won't so long as you believe that crap. Don't autistics have a false sense of an incorrect sense of themselves? They're egocentric, they don't relate to others, they don't have fully developed social models. I'm not sure where or when the war started you're in started but you're fitting the bill perfectly if you really believe that. Simply because someone pulled the "autism" label out of the dictionary they are trying to limit your freedom or dehumanize you? They are simply trying to understand us, "austistic" may be the best label for us right now. Big deal, they're right! They are trying to understand us, I repeat, they are trying to understand us, say that to yourself a few times. We don't fit in, never have, we're socially inept, socially impaired, what ever. Some of us have rationalized it to and believe that "we don't need society or social interaction" (psychologists have a word for that too, "denial" and in some cases "delusional") They are trying to understand us, we're a little pop culture fasicnation right now and what do some of us do? They freak out. The society we never fit in with is trying to understand us, they're trying to figure our why we don't fit in, they're extending the open hand of "we know what it's like," they're try to fit us in.
Is that so bad? Do you really want to fit in? We never will as it is but I'd rather not fit in and have everyone know why than just not fit in at all. Hell, pop culture is fascinated by us right now, enjoy it.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
What's my point? Well, I think the media is missing the fact that some of us are damn good at what we do, but don't let it consume us. That's not healthy, no matter WHAT your occupation/hobby/etc. I get the feeling that the only people who get noticed are those who are slightly abnormal in terms of POPULAR ACTIVITIES, and are noticed BECAUSE of their "abnormality". Hardly grounds for suggesting ALL or even MOST or even A HIGH PERCENTAGE of "smart" people are disabled. Sure, there's autistic computer people out there. Just like autistic artists or musicians. But the percentages are damn near enough to equal. Fact is, a lot of computer nerds just don't get out much - that doesn't make them autistic, just antisocial; and it's their loss to be living in a shell rather than experiencing life. My point of view on it, simply put, is "who the hell cares?" If they don't wanna ever leave their bedroom, more power to 'em. They're big boys and girls; they can live however they chose as long as they stay confined by the laws of their country. If talking about DSL and C++ and kernel development floats their boat, I couldn't care less.
Come on, folks. Anyone know the names Saul Hudson, or James Hetfield? Y'all should... Guitarists and vocalists for Guns 'N' Roses and Metallica. Spent 10 hours a day as kids playing guitar, and nobody called THEM autistic. Just because someone has a hobby doesn't make them "strange", so long as they do other things, too. Everybody marches to a different drummer, but it doesn't make them disabled, or even "strange". Nobody critizes the kid who spends 5 hours a day shooting hoops (Michael Jordan ring a bell, anyone?). Or for playing guitar. Or for lifting weights for hours on end. Why go and suggest that people who -do whatever- are diseased just because YOU don't like their hobby? As long as they get out a bit, who cares, and who has a right to say anything?
I've also gotta wonder if we're not responsible for some of this ourselves... some of you older slashdot readers prob'ly remember me... I've pretty much drifted out of the discussions here, because they've taken on a dangerous "me GEEK! me BETTER than you" tone. Come on, put down your caveman clubs and open your eyes to the fact that other people are allowed to have other interests... in my not-so-humble opinion, it's no damn wonder that people tend to label you, persecute you, and suggest that you're mentally ill... you've got to drop the eleetist attitude, and join the real world... there's more than enough room for everybody. Except for snobs, and you all are just not welcome. Respect the rights of others to have other interests, and realize that they probably don't care about yours, AND THAT THIS IS OK, and the world will be a much better place. Those of you who scream "dumb jock, dumb business major, dumb dumb dumb" are as bad as those who scream "hey, hit the dork, hit the dork!" Get over yourselves already.
/rant
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
The real limitations are due to physics and engineering. Europe uses 220 volts for house current, which saves money on wiring. We don't use frequencies much higher than 60 Hz for most things because the eddy-current losses in the transformer laminations get too high, and the reactance of long-distance power lines gets out of hand.
Oh, you mean that the name of the unit of magnetic flux intensity has been forgotten? (1 Tesla = 1 Weber/m^2.) Every double-E learns about Tesla's work in detail. And even if most do not know Tesla's name, their lives are influenced far more by Tesla's fractional-horsepower induction motor than by Edison's DC empire. Look at the legacy. Sorry, that's not correct. Tesla's work was primarily involved with transmitting power (rumor has it he melted down one plant's generators trying to power one of his wireless experiments). As proof of the bankruptcy of the "suppressed-free-energy" conspiracy, look at the facts: despite almost a century of improvements in science, you still can't point to the physics that would make such a device work. Nature's laws are there for everyone; you can't stop people from discovering them.There are whole nations with lots of scientists, plenty of know-how, and nothing to lose by taking a free-energy machine (or a 200 MPG carburetor) to the world. Imagine how competitive Japan would be if they didn't have to import fossil fuels. If it could be done, they'd be doing it. The truth of the matter is that even genuises sometimes wind up barking up the wrong tree. Einstein goofed, Tesla goofed. Just proves they were only human.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.