<p>Many CC people are or will be successful. So, how true is the quote?</p>
<p>I don’t know much about being a successful artist, but that is nonsense for science. Scientists work in groups, for the most part. Interacting with others well is essential. Being able to give public presentations is essential. I’ve worked with scientists who don’t communicate well or collaborate well, and they are hindered, IMO, by those problems.</p>
<p>Neither of the above two posts gets it right. There is room for all types of personalities in science… and music.</p>
<p>The OP is quoting Hans Asperger, one of the individuals who first studied and identified autism; however, he was not referring to the social or communication deficits that are commonly seen in individuals with autism or Asperger’s Syndrome, but rather, to their unique strengths which are frequently seen when they are engaged in work they are passionate about - and can also often be seen in individuals we would consider to be “geniuses.” From an article on this very topic:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[A</a> different path to genius Science Features (ABC Science)](<a href=“http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/05/22/2252608.htm]A”>A different path to genius › Science Features (ABC Science))</p>
<p>Please define “success”. I’m more familiar with the industrial side of natural sciences than with academia, and I can say that people “with a dash of autism” have a hard time reaching the top managerial roles in my industry which heavily relies on teamwork. A friend manages a guy with visible autistic trends who, under the right guidance, produces fabulous results (as reflected in his contribution to patents and publications), but my friend says that this person will never be allowed to manage a group of researchers (read “promoted to managerial level” which is a measure of “success” in industrial settings) because of his total lack of people skills.</p>
<p>I would have assumed that a “dash” of autism would not imply a total lack of people skills.</p>
<p>Most of the extremely successful academics I know probably have a ‘dash’ of autism. Not that I think it helps them, but simply that its an occupation that tolerates it more than most. </p>
<p>Some fields much more than others it seems, especially on the truly quant side. And of course I am not painting the whole world of academics with one brush-- lots of variance among individual researchers. But you just visit some academic conferences and have lunch with some PhDs and you’ll see it! </p>
<p>A career in research, coauthored or otherwise, seems quite doable even with some serious rough edges in the social skills department (indeed, some of the most socially quirky researchers I know could never survive in any other industry…this is one that seems to tolerate it, so long as you can produce great work).</p>
<p>I suspect the key word in the quote provided is “essential”.
The quote doesn’t mean that anyone with any degree of autism can succeed. It doesn’t mean those with a slight case can still succeed.</p>
<p>By using the word “essential”, the quote says 1 thing:
It is necessary to have a slight case of autism to be successful in art or sciences.
That would imply that
It is very difficult to succeed if one has severe autism
and
it is difficult to succeed with no autism at all.</p>
<p>The quote tells us it is necessary to be slightly affected by autism to succeed in science or business. I don’t agree.</p>
<p>^^^Yes, it is the “essential” that bothered me.</p>
<p>Much of Asperger’s quote in post #4 describes what might be called “loners” with great powers of concentration. That would describe describe some good scientists I know, but those characteristics alone do not make them autistic. I am thinking of one in particular who is a senior VP for research in industry, quite successful both professionally and personally. If he is autistic without knowing it, what is the point of a diagnosis?</p>
<p>The most successful scientists I know are those who can work very effectively in groups, but who are also able to work alone for long stretches, from time to time. I don’t think that signifies a “dash of autism.”</p>
<p>On the other hand, I go around from day to day thinking that my colleagues and I are perfectly normal . . . and then on occasion, I’m at the San Francisco airport in the summer, at the times when “everyone” is flying to the Gordon conferences in the East. The scientists tend to stick out from the crowd to the point that it’s humorous.</p>
<p>OOps. My last sentence, post 8, I meant to say “…science or ART.” Sorry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is because they dress badly. And often have bad haircuts.</p>
<p>lol, midmo. For me: Yep. Yep.</p>
<p>As I novelist, I would say it’s completely untrue. My extreme interest in other people and people skills have elicited all the stories that are a background to my writing, as have all my adventures with people. </p>
<p>As a poet, if I didn’t attend poetry readings etc. I would not be “in the loop” and wouldn’t be published. I must say, I don’t enjoy that about writing poetry, but there it is.</p>
<p>I might agree more with the quote if it suggested we needed to be a little “obsessive-compulsive,” because extreme attention to detail is necessary, and sometimes I do drive the people I know a bit crazy with that.</p>
<p>But many professions require that. And I must be extremely focused when as, a college professor, I grade my students’ essays. To teach them to write I have to ferret out all the mistakes. Taxing work.</p>
<p>However, I know that quotations like that are very soothing for kids with Auspergers (we have a close family member who really likes them) so I am happy to have them continue to be bandied about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Aw, but that’s cute!! At least I think so.</p>
<p>Here’s how scientists stick out from the crowd at airports:<br>
They are sagging, not because of fashion, but because their pockets are full of gadgetry.
And because their pockets are full of gadgetry, they hold up the line at security screening as they wrestle out the laptops, chargers, iPhone, sound-deadening headphones, Kindle, special pillow/eyeshade/massage thingie, external HD + extra zip drives on keys, the personal fan/air filter, you know and etc.!</p>
<p>I heart my scientists!</p>
<p>The reason Charles Darwin got to go on the HMS Beagle was that the captain was looking for a travelling companion (besides the crew, who the captain couldn’t “casually” interact with). Darwin’s demeanor and personality impressed the captain enough that he overlooked Darwin’s nose, which he felt suggested laziness. (Oh phrenology, how wacky thou art.)</p>
<p>After Darwin returned from his voyage, an ornithologist friend helped him identify his famous finches (which Darwin, not being an ornithologist, had thought were various types of blackbirds, wrens, etc, because their beaks differed so greatly.) Then, as he began to develop his theory of natural selection, he contacted various scientist friends to bounce ideas off them and get suggestions and feedback.</p>
<p>What I’m trying to say here is that most science involves a lot of collaboration, cooperation, and social interaction. Part of the goal of science is not only to make your own discoveries, but to allow other people to BUILD off your discoveries. It is easier to encourage this if you interact with people and build a rapport. It would certainly be possible for someone with Asperger’s to be a scientist, but IMO it would definitely be a drawback, not a benefit.</p>
<p>perhaps this is what is meant by a “dash of autism”:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Charles</a> Darwin had autism, leading psychiatrist claims - Telegraph](<a href=“http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4680971/Charles-Darwin-had-autism-leading-psychiatrist-claims.html]Charles”>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4680971/Charles-Darwin-had-autism-leading-psychiatrist-claims.html)</p>
<p>AnudduhMom, you know my husband! What’s he going to do when he can’t get cargo pants anymore!</p>
<p>Yes, that would be a good example of the trend of: “Hey, that successful man had a couple of the traits linked with autism . . . He MUST have been autistic! There is just no other possible explanation!” Having read his books and letters, I don’t see any evidence of social discomfort in Darwin aside from regular old shyness. He had hosts of friends and acquaintances whom he regularly invited people to visit him at the Downs. He kicked off his first inkling of natural selection by conducting extensive interviews of animal breeders. Most people interested in observing nature are prone to long, solitary walks–the more people you have along, the fewer animals you see! I guess hunters and bird watchers are all autistic too? Yes, he collected beetles. I collected rocks and seashells as a kid, without cataloging or organizing them (just like Darwin didn’t catalogue his beetles.) It was because . . . I liked rocks and seashells. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. (Incidentally, having worked for several wildlife biologists, most of them collect something . . . shed antlers, weird fungi, wasp’s nests, things like that. They like nature, that’s why they became wildlife biologists. They also tend to be excellent at social interactions, far more buddy-buddy than, say, chemists.)</p>
<p>Agree totally with Naturally. Darwin, like many people of his class, grew up on an estate out in the countryside. It is easy to ‘avoid socializing’ when there aren’t a whole lot of other people around on a daily basis. It is also pretty natural to take long, solitary walks when you live out in the country.</p>
<p>It is fair to say “scientists tend to be thoughtful, introspective people who are careful observers of the world around them”. That is not the same thing as saying “thoughtful, introspective people who like to be careful observers” are autistic.</p>