Famous Alexithymics [Imaginalistory] 3/9/2008 4:22 PM
809 views
Skip to first unread message
archive
Nov 16, 2008, 9:07:44âŻPM11/16/08
to Alexithymia Exchange
From: MSN NicknameImaginalistory (Original Message) Sent: 1/23/2008
8:15 PM
Do you know any?
I think we can divide these 'possible alexithymics' into fictional,
and real personalities.
Some of the fictional characters I've heard mentioned are:
Dr. Spock & the Vulcans
Sherlock Holmes
Gregory House
The Greek God Apollo
The Tin Man (Wizard of Oz)
Of the real personalities I can only make vague guesses:
Wittgenstein
Albert Einstein
Bill Gates
Thats all that comes to mind just now.
Comments? Any other candidates?
Triton
First Previous 2-14 of 14 Next Last
Reply
Recommend Message 2 of 14 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameLenny4331 Sent: 1/25/2008 5:40 AM
Triton,
Einstein wasn't an alexithymic. It is more likely he had some
personality issues because he used to have very violent emotional
outbursts around his family. He was extremely eloquent, professional,
and socially appropriate in public and around colleagues, but not his
wives.
I also don't think House is an alexithymic. I think he is highly
intelligent and has a very logical view of reality, but not
alexithymic. I am going to say probably more along the lines of a
Greek stoic or someone who represses emotions. Yes, at times, he does
seem to express that he doesn't "know what to feel..." or "how to
feel." However I'd be apprehensive about labeling him as an
alexithymic.
New suggestions:
1) Keanu Reeves
Reply
The number of members that recommended this message. 0 recommendations
Message 3 of 14 in Discussion
Sent: 1/25/2008 6:34 AM
This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.
Reply
Recommend Message 4 of 14 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameImaginalistory Sent: 1/25/2008 6:41 AM
Lenny,
Einstein is widely believed to have Asperger's, even by some autism
experts, and it is now known that a high proportion of those with AS
also have alexithymia. Thats not to say that he definately did
have..... its just speculation. Based on my reading of some of his
letters he seems to have an appalling absence of emotional
intelligence when faced with feelings issues. Maybe I'll pull those
letters out sometime and we can go through the detail here on the
forum, just for fun. Having emotional outbursts certainly does not
exclude him from being alexithymic, and in fact several experts -such
as Joyce McDougall, Greame Taylor, Henry Krystal, Sifneos and others-
point to the tendency for some alexithymics to display sudden
outbursts of anger or rage. So I still think its possible that he
might have been alexithymic.
Your suggestion of Keanu Reeves strikes a chord. I remember watching
one of his movies in which he played a "romantic" role, but he was
absolutely terrible at playing this role. When he expressed an emotion
it was always expressionless or mechanical, and was unconvincing in
literally every scene. I have no hesitation in saying he is the worst
portrayer of feelings I have ever witnessed, and the movie (can't
remember its name) was a box-office flop!
Triton
Reply
Recommend Message 5 of 14 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameAffects4ME Sent: 1/25/2008 3:50 PM
Have heard or read that certain types of autistic spectrum persons can
have extraordinary developmental abilities in specialized areas, such
as the autistic child in the movie "Mercury Rising" who could read
this super-encrypted government code.
I am not saying that Einstein was autistic, not at all. However, on
past occassions when I had the chance to actually ask some physics
professors exactly how advanced were Einstein's theories, they would
say, "beyond what many of our most brillian minds can fathom." In
other words, apparently, Einstein came up with theoretical concepts
which were are so complex that it takes perhaps a most elite group of
physicists to fully interpret what it all means! Even more amazing
were other articles that I read years later, that most of Einstein's
theories could not originally be tested, because of inadequate or
limited measurement instrumentation available at the time, including
such as the Hubble telescope, for example. But that as it became
possible, more and more they have found that Einstein's theories
actually do comprise an otherwise unseen "what is the actuality." In
fact, one of his ideas that he had originally discarded also ended up
turning out to be true as well. I can not recall exactly which these
were, perhaps Lenny can help out with these particulars. (BTW, Lenny,
thanks for your most excellent explanations you provide on these most
interesting subjects! Your clarity of thought is great, and really
zooms in on the resolution of the particulars of these concepts, which
are in fact, physical actuality.)
My point is that I think it is amazing how Einstein was able to
intellectually conceptualize and then find adequate means to record
and express these ideas, as complex as these were, so that the most
brilliant experts eventually interpreted and in turn are able to
understand these concepts, as well as apply the implications. If I
can do even the smallest bit of that with Alex, I will feel a great
sense of satisfaction. I am talking maybe a percent or so, something
like that. When we even try and understand Einstein's complex
theories, you begin to realize how incredibly amazing he really was.
It is way beyond the horizon of most folks comprehension, yet Einstein
was able to see and comprehend to that extent, and apparently got
most, if not all of it, correctly understood, by using creative
imagination such as we can not easily comprehend.
Reply
Recommend Message 6 of 14 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameDiscDeath Sent: 1/25/2008 5:09 PM
One of the few real people that I would bet had Alexithymia was Alfred
Kinsey. I know Liam Neeson played him pretty emotional in the movie,
but all the real clips I've seen and a lot of the stuff I've read
suggests that he really didn't understand Feelers. He addressed every
issue with the same purely cognitive passion regardless of whether it
was phylogenetics of gall wasps or it was infantile masturbation. He
had fastidious and rock-solid ethics, but he really didn't seem to
have that moralizing instinct.
Which reminds me that Steven Pinker (an excellent linguistic and
cognitive psychologist) wrote an article for the New York Times
(<v:shape id=_x0000_s1026 style="MARGIN-TOP: 9pt; Z-INDEX: 1; MARGIN-
LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 149.25pt; POSITION: absolute; HEIGHT: 35.25pt; mso-
wrap-distance-left: 0; mso-wrap-distance-right: 0; mso-position-
vertical-relative: line" type="#_x0000_t75" o:button="t"
o:allowoverlap="f" href="http://www.nytimes.com/" alt="The New York
Times"><v:imagedata o:title="logoprinter" src="file:///C:
\DOCUME~1\Harttodd\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.gif"></
v:imagedata><w:wrap type="square"></w:wrap></v:shape>The Moral
Instinct, January 13, 2008) where he discusses how people have "moral
switches" in their minds. When you mention certain topics that people
consider moral their brain switches over to another area (fMRI data)
where they start dealing with the topic emotionally, and then people
really can't consider those topics in a logical, objective fashion.
Although Pinker doesn't use the word ethics, other philosophers have
seperated ethics from morals based on whether they can be evaluated
and reconsidered logically. If you can think about it objectively (It
is wrong to lick your plate, but only in company.) then it is an
ethical issue. If you believe it is absolutely wrong with no
negotiation then it is a moral (rape, murder, etc) issue.
Interestingly for this community, the "moral mind-set" that Pinker
talks about is solidly based on emotional conditioning (usually
through enculturation). I wondered if that means that us Alexs have a
tendency to view all issues as ethical rather than moral? I know that
I am able to consider most concepts of right and wrong in an objective
fashion, and I know that Alexs have a tendency to have very
functional, rational "moral" codes. (which is why we tend to be so
loyal) Any thoughts out there? (if we get some responses maybe we
could start a new thread.)
Another person I've always thought was Alexithymic was Isaac Asimov.
I've literally read hundreds of his works and it really comes out.
Discworld Death
Reply
Recommend Message 7 of 14 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameImaginalistory Sent: 1/25/2008 5:12 PM
A4M,
He's a fascinating character, there's no doubt. Regarding your comment
about Einstein's "creative imagination" as encapsulated in his words
"imagination is more important that knowledge", I'm curious about the
exact qualities of his imagining. From what I can gather the
imagination he referred to was not so much of the spontaneous or
creative kind, but more of the constructive and controlled kind. In
the following passage spoken by Einstein, for instance, he points to
the will-directed nature of his imagining, rather than to an
uncontrolled spontaneous imagining:
"The psychological entities that serve as building blocks for my
thought are certain signs or images, more or less clear, that I can
reproduce or recombine at will."
I think the distinction between contructive and creative imagining is
an important one when assessing for alexithymia.
Other things which stand out about Einstein is his inability to put
himself into the feelings of another (said by his doctor), his naivety
in ordinary emotional relationships, and his degree of intellectual
task perseverance. As I mentioned to Lenny, his angry outbursts also
fit descriptions made in the Alex literature which result from not
being able to identify and therewith modulate one's anger, though of
course this does not apply to all Alexs.
I think the high acheivement of some Aspies and Alexs cones from
perseverance, or in the case of AS the proverbial "special interest".
The sheer time and work devoted to a topic alone can account for the
high acheivement...... so I'm not sure if the genuis factor is
relevant.
Musing
Triton
Reply
Recommend Message 8 of 14 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameLenny4331 Sent: 1/25/2008 5:28 PM
A4ME,
I'm not entirely sure how "true" it is that no one could understand
Einstein's theories.
Einstein was kind of an interesting guy. One of the profs at my
university is the world's foremost expert on Einstein (he's a history
of science prof). He has almost all of Einstein's notebooks and
journals/letters.
The interesting thing about Einstein was that I do not recall anyone
ever describing him as stoic or other characteristics I often see/hear
about alexithymics. I have heard numerous arguments about his
apparent autistic side, but I would be apprehensive about that. If he
was autistic, he would have Asperger's and that isn't exactly a
trivial thing to diagnose. So I'm not sure.
Einstein actually boasted about his special theory of relativity
(SR). He claimed that only 12 people in the world could understand it
and interestingly enough, the rumor has managed to survive till
today. The complicated aspects of SR weren't actually introduced
until a number of years later. The really complicated parts of SR are
actually in particle physics, not his original paper (which I believe
the almighty google has). In particle physics, you have to look at
the conservation of momentum and energy in different reference frames,
which can get confusing. SR is really only used for high velocity
situations (i.e. near the speed of light, but usually only considering
constant velocities). General relativity (GR) is concerned with
acceleration and mostly revolves around gravity. It should have
actually been called the general theory of gravity, not relativity
because it doesn't really relate to SR that way.
Regardless, I can openly say that there are a number of
"characteristics" which almost all the physics profs in my building
share (AD/HD is probably the most prevelant with the dominant
signature seen as hyperfocus). I know people in physics who are very
successful who do not exhibit any characteristics of AD/HD, or any
other personality disorder stereotyped with the field.
The idea Einstein "discarded" was his cosmological constant. At the
time that he came up with GR the universe was thought to be static.
When E. Hubble came around, he showed that the universe was actually
expanding (he noticed a Doppler shift in the light coming from stars
due to the fact that almost all were moving away from us). So
Einstein's constant was thrown out and he was horribly embarrassed by
this. Later, after Einstein's death, scientists discovered that the
universe is not only expanding, it's accelerating. Thus the constant
was brought back to try and explain this.
Reply
The number of members that recommended this message. 0 recommendations
Message 9 of 14 in Discussion
Sent: 1/25/2008 5:47 PM
This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.
Reply
Recommend Message 10 of 14 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameImaginalistory Sent: 1/25/2008 5:59 PM
Lenny,
I believe Einstein's brain has been scientifically studied via and
there have been found unusual enlargments in certain parts of his
brain which match the same anomalies found in the brains of people
with autism/AS. There were also found reduced volume in other brain
area. So I don't think the AS diagnosis has been applied in a
thoughtless trivial way.
I'm only going off memory with these details, but I'm sure a quick
search of the www. will show the details on this investigation.
Triton
Reply
The number of members that recommended this message. 0 recommendations
Message 11 of 14 in Discussion
Sent: 1/25/2008 7:06 PM
This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.
Reply
Recommend Message 12 of 14 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameImaginalistory Sent: 1/25/2008 7:09 PM
The following link might be of interest to anyone wanting to explore
the similarities between Einstein's brain and the brains of
individuals with Asperger syndrome. I have not read it, but it looks
like a worthwhile place to begin...
Einstein: Brain and Behaviour (Jounal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=11261475&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google
Triton
Reply
The number of members that recommended this message. 0 recommendations
Message 13 of 14 in Discussion
Sent: 1/25/2008 7:15 PM
This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.
Reply
Recommend Message 14 of 14 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameImaginalistory Sent: 3/9/2008 4:22 PM
I think Nietzche should definately be added to this list of people
with possible/probable alexithymia. Here's a small excerpt from the
www:
Friedrich Nietzsche
in Relationships
Open and generous, Friedrich Nietzsche enjoys a wide circle of friends
and acquaintances and he thrives on sociability and fellowship.
Nietzsche rarely allows obstacles or difficulties to keep him down,
for no matter how bleak the past or present, Friedrich always expects
a better, brighter future. In fact, he is uncomfortable with his own
or other people's problems and emotional pain. Friedrich Nietzsche
often tries to "cheer up" or offer philosophical advice to those who
are hurting, but he unwittingly avoids or ignores the emotions
involved.
His own feelings and emotions are something of an enigma to Friedrich,
and it is often difficult for him to share with others what he is
feeling.
Friedrich Nietzsche frequently withdraws from contact with the world,
and needs a healing, peaceful environment in order to blossom and come
out of his.
Nietzsche identifies with the oppressed, disenfranchised or underdog
in any situation and he wants to help them or care for them in some
way.
Friedrich has conflicting emotional desires and needs which complicate
his personal life and relationships. He may feel that he cannot depend
on his love partner to take care of him or perhaps Nietzsche cannot
decide what he really wants in love relationships: a parent or a
lover. If his needs for emotional sustenance and love are not
satisfied, overeating (especially sweets) can become a problem.
He is highly sensitive to everyone around him and is subject to
strange moods or feelings. Friedrich Nietzsche has a tendency to
exaggerate and could have unrealistic ambitions that may be hard to
realize. It would be wise for Nietzsche to keep his expectations a bit
lower.
He is quietly devoted and faithful to his loved ones, and often
becomes a kind of servant to his love partner. Friedrich Nietzsche is
more comfortable showing love for someone by doing something for them,
making something for them, or simply being there for them - rather
than telling them so in a romantic, soul-stirring sort of way. He is
timid about expressing too much sentiment or emotion. Friedrich
Nietzsche also underestimates his attractiveness and lovability and
doubts his own worthiness to receive love and appreciation.
Friedrich is attracted to foreigners, exotic places, traveling, and to
people who can expand his horizons, teach him something, or show
Nietzsche places and worlds he has never experienced before. Sharing a
philosophy or ideal with his love partner is important to him.
While he may seek loving relationships and an "everlasting" love, this
is not easy for Friedrich Nietzsche to find - or more precisely, to
sustain. When Friedrich becomes romantically involved with someone,
either he or the other person will create rifts once a certain level
of comfort and predictability has been achieved. Even if there is no
outward break in the relationship, a certain emotional aloofness or
dissatisfaction is apt to develop. This is because Friedrich Nietzsche
really wants both closeness and absolute freedom - a combination that
is difficult to attain. However, if he does not at least attempt to
honestly fulfill both of these urges, events seemingly out of the blue
will wreak havoc in Friedrich's closest relationships.
Triton
8:15 PM
Do you know any?
I think we can divide these 'possible alexithymics' into fictional,
and real personalities.
Some of the fictional characters I've heard mentioned are:
Dr. Spock & the Vulcans
Sherlock Holmes
Gregory House
The Greek God Apollo
The Tin Man (Wizard of Oz)
Of the real personalities I can only make vague guesses:
Wittgenstein
Albert Einstein
Bill Gates
Thats all that comes to mind just now.
Comments? Any other candidates?
Triton
First Previous 2-14 of 14 Next Last
Reply
Recommend Message 2 of 14 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameLenny4331 Sent: 1/25/2008 5:40 AM
Triton,
Einstein wasn't an alexithymic. It is more likely he had some
personality issues because he used to have very violent emotional
outbursts around his family. He was extremely eloquent, professional,
and socially appropriate in public and around colleagues, but not his
wives.
I also don't think House is an alexithymic. I think he is highly
intelligent and has a very logical view of reality, but not
alexithymic. I am going to say probably more along the lines of a
Greek stoic or someone who represses emotions. Yes, at times, he does
seem to express that he doesn't "know what to feel..." or "how to
feel." However I'd be apprehensive about labeling him as an
alexithymic.
New suggestions:
1) Keanu Reeves
Reply
The number of members that recommended this message. 0 recommendations
Message 3 of 14 in Discussion
Sent: 1/25/2008 6:34 AM
This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.
Reply
Recommend Message 4 of 14 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameImaginalistory Sent: 1/25/2008 6:41 AM
Lenny,
Einstein is widely believed to have Asperger's, even by some autism
experts, and it is now known that a high proportion of those with AS
also have alexithymia. Thats not to say that he definately did
have..... its just speculation. Based on my reading of some of his
letters he seems to have an appalling absence of emotional
intelligence when faced with feelings issues. Maybe I'll pull those
letters out sometime and we can go through the detail here on the
forum, just for fun. Having emotional outbursts certainly does not
exclude him from being alexithymic, and in fact several experts -such
as Joyce McDougall, Greame Taylor, Henry Krystal, Sifneos and others-
point to the tendency for some alexithymics to display sudden
outbursts of anger or rage. So I still think its possible that he
might have been alexithymic.
Your suggestion of Keanu Reeves strikes a chord. I remember watching
one of his movies in which he played a "romantic" role, but he was
absolutely terrible at playing this role. When he expressed an emotion
it was always expressionless or mechanical, and was unconvincing in
literally every scene. I have no hesitation in saying he is the worst
portrayer of feelings I have ever witnessed, and the movie (can't
remember its name) was a box-office flop!
Triton
Reply
Recommend Message 5 of 14 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameAffects4ME Sent: 1/25/2008 3:50 PM
Have heard or read that certain types of autistic spectrum persons can
have extraordinary developmental abilities in specialized areas, such
as the autistic child in the movie "Mercury Rising" who could read
this super-encrypted government code.
I am not saying that Einstein was autistic, not at all. However, on
past occassions when I had the chance to actually ask some physics
professors exactly how advanced were Einstein's theories, they would
say, "beyond what many of our most brillian minds can fathom." In
other words, apparently, Einstein came up with theoretical concepts
which were are so complex that it takes perhaps a most elite group of
physicists to fully interpret what it all means! Even more amazing
were other articles that I read years later, that most of Einstein's
theories could not originally be tested, because of inadequate or
limited measurement instrumentation available at the time, including
such as the Hubble telescope, for example. But that as it became
possible, more and more they have found that Einstein's theories
actually do comprise an otherwise unseen "what is the actuality." In
fact, one of his ideas that he had originally discarded also ended up
turning out to be true as well. I can not recall exactly which these
were, perhaps Lenny can help out with these particulars. (BTW, Lenny,
thanks for your most excellent explanations you provide on these most
interesting subjects! Your clarity of thought is great, and really
zooms in on the resolution of the particulars of these concepts, which
are in fact, physical actuality.)
My point is that I think it is amazing how Einstein was able to
intellectually conceptualize and then find adequate means to record
and express these ideas, as complex as these were, so that the most
brilliant experts eventually interpreted and in turn are able to
understand these concepts, as well as apply the implications. If I
can do even the smallest bit of that with Alex, I will feel a great
sense of satisfaction. I am talking maybe a percent or so, something
like that. When we even try and understand Einstein's complex
theories, you begin to realize how incredibly amazing he really was.
It is way beyond the horizon of most folks comprehension, yet Einstein
was able to see and comprehend to that extent, and apparently got
most, if not all of it, correctly understood, by using creative
imagination such as we can not easily comprehend.
Reply
Recommend Message 6 of 14 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameDiscDeath Sent: 1/25/2008 5:09 PM
One of the few real people that I would bet had Alexithymia was Alfred
Kinsey. I know Liam Neeson played him pretty emotional in the movie,
but all the real clips I've seen and a lot of the stuff I've read
suggests that he really didn't understand Feelers. He addressed every
issue with the same purely cognitive passion regardless of whether it
was phylogenetics of gall wasps or it was infantile masturbation. He
had fastidious and rock-solid ethics, but he really didn't seem to
have that moralizing instinct.
Which reminds me that Steven Pinker (an excellent linguistic and
cognitive psychologist) wrote an article for the New York Times
(<v:shape id=_x0000_s1026 style="MARGIN-TOP: 9pt; Z-INDEX: 1; MARGIN-
LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 149.25pt; POSITION: absolute; HEIGHT: 35.25pt; mso-
wrap-distance-left: 0; mso-wrap-distance-right: 0; mso-position-
vertical-relative: line" type="#_x0000_t75" o:button="t"
o:allowoverlap="f" href="http://www.nytimes.com/" alt="The New York
Times"><v:imagedata o:title="logoprinter" src="file:///C:
\DOCUME~1\Harttodd\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.gif"></
v:imagedata><w:wrap type="square"></w:wrap></v:shape>The Moral
Instinct, January 13, 2008) where he discusses how people have "moral
switches" in their minds. When you mention certain topics that people
consider moral their brain switches over to another area (fMRI data)
where they start dealing with the topic emotionally, and then people
really can't consider those topics in a logical, objective fashion.
Although Pinker doesn't use the word ethics, other philosophers have
seperated ethics from morals based on whether they can be evaluated
and reconsidered logically. If you can think about it objectively (It
is wrong to lick your plate, but only in company.) then it is an
ethical issue. If you believe it is absolutely wrong with no
negotiation then it is a moral (rape, murder, etc) issue.
Interestingly for this community, the "moral mind-set" that Pinker
talks about is solidly based on emotional conditioning (usually
through enculturation). I wondered if that means that us Alexs have a
tendency to view all issues as ethical rather than moral? I know that
I am able to consider most concepts of right and wrong in an objective
fashion, and I know that Alexs have a tendency to have very
functional, rational "moral" codes. (which is why we tend to be so
loyal) Any thoughts out there? (if we get some responses maybe we
could start a new thread.)
Another person I've always thought was Alexithymic was Isaac Asimov.
I've literally read hundreds of his works and it really comes out.
Discworld Death
Reply
Recommend Message 7 of 14 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameImaginalistory Sent: 1/25/2008 5:12 PM
A4M,
He's a fascinating character, there's no doubt. Regarding your comment
about Einstein's "creative imagination" as encapsulated in his words
"imagination is more important that knowledge", I'm curious about the
exact qualities of his imagining. From what I can gather the
imagination he referred to was not so much of the spontaneous or
creative kind, but more of the constructive and controlled kind. In
the following passage spoken by Einstein, for instance, he points to
the will-directed nature of his imagining, rather than to an
uncontrolled spontaneous imagining:
"The psychological entities that serve as building blocks for my
thought are certain signs or images, more or less clear, that I can
reproduce or recombine at will."
I think the distinction between contructive and creative imagining is
an important one when assessing for alexithymia.
Other things which stand out about Einstein is his inability to put
himself into the feelings of another (said by his doctor), his naivety
in ordinary emotional relationships, and his degree of intellectual
task perseverance. As I mentioned to Lenny, his angry outbursts also
fit descriptions made in the Alex literature which result from not
being able to identify and therewith modulate one's anger, though of
course this does not apply to all Alexs.
I think the high acheivement of some Aspies and Alexs cones from
perseverance, or in the case of AS the proverbial "special interest".
The sheer time and work devoted to a topic alone can account for the
high acheivement...... so I'm not sure if the genuis factor is
relevant.
Musing
Triton
Reply
Recommend Message 8 of 14 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameLenny4331 Sent: 1/25/2008 5:28 PM
A4ME,
I'm not entirely sure how "true" it is that no one could understand
Einstein's theories.
Einstein was kind of an interesting guy. One of the profs at my
university is the world's foremost expert on Einstein (he's a history
of science prof). He has almost all of Einstein's notebooks and
journals/letters.
The interesting thing about Einstein was that I do not recall anyone
ever describing him as stoic or other characteristics I often see/hear
about alexithymics. I have heard numerous arguments about his
apparent autistic side, but I would be apprehensive about that. If he
was autistic, he would have Asperger's and that isn't exactly a
trivial thing to diagnose. So I'm not sure.
Einstein actually boasted about his special theory of relativity
(SR). He claimed that only 12 people in the world could understand it
and interestingly enough, the rumor has managed to survive till
today. The complicated aspects of SR weren't actually introduced
until a number of years later. The really complicated parts of SR are
actually in particle physics, not his original paper (which I believe
the almighty google has). In particle physics, you have to look at
the conservation of momentum and energy in different reference frames,
which can get confusing. SR is really only used for high velocity
situations (i.e. near the speed of light, but usually only considering
constant velocities). General relativity (GR) is concerned with
acceleration and mostly revolves around gravity. It should have
actually been called the general theory of gravity, not relativity
because it doesn't really relate to SR that way.
Regardless, I can openly say that there are a number of
"characteristics" which almost all the physics profs in my building
share (AD/HD is probably the most prevelant with the dominant
signature seen as hyperfocus). I know people in physics who are very
successful who do not exhibit any characteristics of AD/HD, or any
other personality disorder stereotyped with the field.
The idea Einstein "discarded" was his cosmological constant. At the
time that he came up with GR the universe was thought to be static.
When E. Hubble came around, he showed that the universe was actually
expanding (he noticed a Doppler shift in the light coming from stars
due to the fact that almost all were moving away from us). So
Einstein's constant was thrown out and he was horribly embarrassed by
this. Later, after Einstein's death, scientists discovered that the
universe is not only expanding, it's accelerating. Thus the constant
was brought back to try and explain this.
Reply
The number of members that recommended this message. 0 recommendations
Message 9 of 14 in Discussion
Sent: 1/25/2008 5:47 PM
This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.
Reply
Recommend Message 10 of 14 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameImaginalistory Sent: 1/25/2008 5:59 PM
Lenny,
I believe Einstein's brain has been scientifically studied via and
there have been found unusual enlargments in certain parts of his
brain which match the same anomalies found in the brains of people
with autism/AS. There were also found reduced volume in other brain
area. So I don't think the AS diagnosis has been applied in a
thoughtless trivial way.
I'm only going off memory with these details, but I'm sure a quick
search of the www. will show the details on this investigation.
Triton
Reply
The number of members that recommended this message. 0 recommendations
Message 11 of 14 in Discussion
Sent: 1/25/2008 7:06 PM
This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.
Reply
Recommend Message 12 of 14 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameImaginalistory Sent: 1/25/2008 7:09 PM
The following link might be of interest to anyone wanting to explore
the similarities between Einstein's brain and the brains of
individuals with Asperger syndrome. I have not read it, but it looks
like a worthwhile place to begin...
Einstein: Brain and Behaviour (Jounal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=11261475&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google
Triton
Reply
The number of members that recommended this message. 0 recommendations
Message 13 of 14 in Discussion
Sent: 1/25/2008 7:15 PM
This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.
Reply
Recommend Message 14 of 14 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameImaginalistory Sent: 3/9/2008 4:22 PM
I think Nietzche should definately be added to this list of people
with possible/probable alexithymia. Here's a small excerpt from the
www:
Friedrich Nietzsche
in Relationships
Open and generous, Friedrich Nietzsche enjoys a wide circle of friends
and acquaintances and he thrives on sociability and fellowship.
Nietzsche rarely allows obstacles or difficulties to keep him down,
for no matter how bleak the past or present, Friedrich always expects
a better, brighter future. In fact, he is uncomfortable with his own
or other people's problems and emotional pain. Friedrich Nietzsche
often tries to "cheer up" or offer philosophical advice to those who
are hurting, but he unwittingly avoids or ignores the emotions
involved.
His own feelings and emotions are something of an enigma to Friedrich,
and it is often difficult for him to share with others what he is
feeling.
Friedrich Nietzsche frequently withdraws from contact with the world,
and needs a healing, peaceful environment in order to blossom and come
out of his.
Nietzsche identifies with the oppressed, disenfranchised or underdog
in any situation and he wants to help them or care for them in some
way.
Friedrich has conflicting emotional desires and needs which complicate
his personal life and relationships. He may feel that he cannot depend
on his love partner to take care of him or perhaps Nietzsche cannot
decide what he really wants in love relationships: a parent or a
lover. If his needs for emotional sustenance and love are not
satisfied, overeating (especially sweets) can become a problem.
He is highly sensitive to everyone around him and is subject to
strange moods or feelings. Friedrich Nietzsche has a tendency to
exaggerate and could have unrealistic ambitions that may be hard to
realize. It would be wise for Nietzsche to keep his expectations a bit
lower.
He is quietly devoted and faithful to his loved ones, and often
becomes a kind of servant to his love partner. Friedrich Nietzsche is
more comfortable showing love for someone by doing something for them,
making something for them, or simply being there for them - rather
than telling them so in a romantic, soul-stirring sort of way. He is
timid about expressing too much sentiment or emotion. Friedrich
Nietzsche also underestimates his attractiveness and lovability and
doubts his own worthiness to receive love and appreciation.
Friedrich is attracted to foreigners, exotic places, traveling, and to
people who can expand his horizons, teach him something, or show
Nietzsche places and worlds he has never experienced before. Sharing a
philosophy or ideal with his love partner is important to him.
While he may seek loving relationships and an "everlasting" love, this
is not easy for Friedrich Nietzsche to find - or more precisely, to
sustain. When Friedrich becomes romantically involved with someone,
either he or the other person will create rifts once a certain level
of comfort and predictability has been achieved. Even if there is no
outward break in the relationship, a certain emotional aloofness or
dissatisfaction is apt to develop. This is because Friedrich Nietzsche
really wants both closeness and absolute freedom - a combination that
is difficult to attain. However, if he does not at least attempt to
honestly fulfill both of these urges, events seemingly out of the blue
will wreak havoc in Friedrich's closest relationships.
Triton
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages