Asperger's, again.

["Nemesio Valle, III" <nevst3@imap.pitt.edu>]

Title: Asperger's, again.

At 9:37 AM -0400 5/4/01, Elmer Elevator wrote:

> My only defense is that I sincerely believe this whole
> thing is junk science nonsense; GG's posthumous diagnosis is patently
> unsupported and ridiculous; and I don't think the issue ought to be
> allowed to rest based on the volume of ink one champion has the
> capacity to devote to it.

Conspicuously absent from your discussion is specifically WHY you think that the diagnosis is unsupported, as well as why you think that Asperger's doesn't exist.  I await a coherent argument which states what precisely is problematic about either the condition or the diagnosis.

What I DO hear is the argument that because twenty years ago the American Psychiatric Association (APA) though tattoos were a sign of mental illness (which is a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of what the issue was) that now, twenty years later we are suffering from the same backwards thinking.  Indeed, lobotomy was a "cure" and homosexuality was an "illness" in the APA's texts, but a lot of that had to do with the strength of the social biases which existed (and exist) towards the mentally ill and homosexuals.

In fact, Mr Elevator, you use the same sort of language in your discussion of Ritalin and Prozac.  Indeed, you and I agree that the use of these drugs is wholly and wildly out of control.  Where we disagree is on degree; I think that (e.g.) ADHD is a valid condition, but is over diagnosed, and as a result Ritalin is over prescribed.  People want a cure-all.  This does not, however, negate the positive effects that Ritalin has had on very clear-cut cases, and not only can this be supported by 15+ years of study, but I have seen the benefits in colleagues, friends and relatives before and after treatment, the same people who were skeptical before treatment.  Placebo effect?  Not this dramatic and not for this long.  And, to boot, your comment that Ritalin is "wholly unsupported by clinical study" is categorically false.  But perhaps you don't believe those studies either.

For years, people thought the sun went around the earth.  Does this negate all that astronomy has accomplished?  Of course not.  Lamarck thought that evolution took place in a manner completely inconsistent with observation, but this theory was embraced by the scientific community for years.  Does this indeed embarrassing moment in biology discount the whole of biological discovery?  Of course not.  Why must any rational person say, "Because psychiatry had problems in its past (and indeed, many were ghastly) that today we must question the existence of any disorder."

Let's use shock therapy as a good example:  Today, as it has for decades, it remains a hotly debated topic.  Some studies say, "We have found miraculous benefits," while others say, "Shock therapy causes irreparable harm."  In a circumstance like this, I can understand a layperson being on the fence.  Professionals who spend their days and nights studying and examining these issues are on the fence.

However, there is no such fence for Asperger's.  I don't doubt that there are people as passionate as Mr Elevator saying "I don't think it exists" in the field of psychology.  Why aren't they publishing?  Why aren't there websites?  Why are they silent?  Because their argument is at best circular and at worst incoherent:  I don't think it exists because I don't think it exists.  No one should be persuaded by this, no matter how passionate and repetitive it becomes.

At 9:37 AM -0400 5/4/01, Elmer Elevator wrote:

> In a healthier age, Gould's lifelong relentless quest for
> artistic and intellectual perfection would be celebrated for its
> rarity, not referred to mental health professional for
> treatment.

You have it stuck in your mind that I would recommend that GG get "treatment" for his "ailment."  As I posted previously,

At 1:57 AM -0400 5/4/01, Nemesio Valle, III wrote:

> Mr Elevator seems to have at least one
> completely misconceived perspective on Asperger's which I would like
> to dispel:  You cannot have "a bit of intervention and
> detox" and be 'normative;' that is, if Gould existed in today's
> psychological world, he could not take a pill, be normal, and be less
> creative.  And, from the research I have done, it seems that
> most people with Asperger's wouldn't do this anyway, since the
> condition is not debilitating.

Perhaps this recapitulation will aid in clearing up his confusion.  I am not, nor have I ever, suggested that GG's goofiness should be "fixed."  I am simply saying, as Mr Maloney essentially has said, that this diagnosis simply helps to explain why he was goofy.  Is it helpful?  Maybe, maybe not.  But I am not saying that, "because we know why he was the way he was, we could have fixed it."  I hope that my position will not be misrepresented again.

I encourage people to become familiar with a condition (imaginary or not) before coming to conclude it doesn't exist.  As I mentioned before, there are webpages and a list not unlike this one with families of people who have the condition.  Talk to them, ask them if it doesn't exist.  Mr Elevator's blithe dismissal of a condition is not only insulting to rationality, but to a number of people currently possessing the condition, and their families.  I invite Mr Elevator to tell the nameless masses who may be struggling, existing, or thriving with Asperger's that he thinks that it is a myth.

At 9:37 AM -0400 5/4/01, Elmer Elevator wrote:

> ...you're disturbingly confident about the propriety of
> saddling goofy people who reside well within the range of
> intellectual, social and emotional activity with pathological
> diagnoses.

Actually, this is part of the point.  People with Asperger's are often "not beyond the pale" of intellectual, social, and emotional activity.  This is EXACTLY the point.  Very crudely put, mild Asperger's might be viewed as substantial eccentricity, and moderate Asperger's might be viewed as severe eccentricity.  But such succinct conclusions are problematic...which is why I again invite anyone interested to read about Asperger's themselves (BEFORE making judgments) and then read Mr Maloney's paper.  Judge for yourself before deciding (many years ago) what the answer is.

At 7:51 PM -0400 5/4/01, Elmer Elevator wrote:

> Nemesio Valle, III wrote:
>  
> But, I would say that not many of us
> know people quite that goofy, so goofy that they wear winter clothes
> in the summer, sleep in the day/work in the night,
>  
> Hey! I work in the night and sleep in the day! Who
> has a problem with this?

This is a GROSS misrepresentation of what I said.  One single aspect of a person's personality doesn't make them a wild eccentric like Glenn Gould.  In and of themselves, each individual item I listed (and I listed but a few of Gould's eccentricities, to be sure) doesn't make a person eccentric.  We all have quirks.  My point was GG has lots and lots and lots of eccentricities.  He was by all accounts very eccentric.  I don't know anyone who would argue that he wasn't eccentric.

My point was that a great number of the eccentricities concord with the independently derived condition Asperger's Syndrome.  Don't take my word for it, read the paper or study Asperger's independently and draw your own conclusions.

I will have to admit that I am absolutely incredulous that you would choose to quote perhaps the least substantive part of my post.  I beg you to engage in rational discussion about the existence of Asperger's based on some scientific study, not your (obviously biased) personal experience.  Or, if that task is too problematic, pretend (just for the sake of argument) it does exist and demonstrate why the diagnosis is inaccurate for GG.

I hope that, from this point on, the discussion about Asperger's and its _possible_ diagnosis for GG can be discussed in a rational way.  I am getting tired of reading the same impassioned malarkey devoid of argument, and I don't doubt people are tired of me demonstrating its infelicity instead of discussing the relationship (if any) between GG and Asperger.  Sheesh.  I await rationality to return and am,

Respectfully if not exasperatingly yours,

Nemesio Valle, III

--
Nemesio Valle, III
University of Pittsburgh
Duquesne University

Address:        5802 Callowhill Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15206
Phone:              412-365-0340

Email:              nevst3@pitt.edu

"The purpose of art is not the release of a momentary ejection of adrenaline but is, rather, the gradual, lifelong construction of a state of wonder and serenity."
              Glenn Gould

"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from
him."
               Galileo Galilei

"Specialization is for insects."
        Lazarus Long

"Competitions are for horses, not artists."
                Bela Bartok

"Understanding is both the first principle and the source of good sound writing." 
          Horace