He was also, it's argued, a person with Asperger syndrome.
There's something of a cottage industry in "outing" historical figures with autism or Asperger syndrome. Candidates include Mozart, Einstein, Isaac Newton, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Thomas Jefferson, Andy Warhol. The list goes on. In many cases, it seems, being brilliant at something and having a reputation for social awkwardness is all that it takes for a "diagnosis".
In Turing's case, there is at least some more concrete evidence to go on. In a 2003 paper, Henry O’Connell and Michael Fitzgerald trawled through Turing's biography, looking for anecdotes and descriptions of Turing that would support a diagnosis of Asperger syndrome.
The authors used the Gillberg criteria for Asperger syndrome - a set of six "symptoms" that must all be present for a diagnosis to be conferred. Turing, they concluded, met all six criteria:
Severe impairment in reciprocal social interaction
- School report described him as "antisocial"
- Only one friend at school
- Unable to control younger boys at school or manage co-workers
- No attempt to socialise with academic superiors
- Interests in science, mathematics, chemistry, codes and ciphers, nature
- Always ate an apple before bed
- House was cluttered with whatever he was interested in at the time
- Always put the cork back in the wine bottle at the end of a meal
- Often worked through the night
- Wrote about his work to people with no scientific background
- Stiff gaze in photographs
- Lack of eye contact
- Awkward appearance
- Characteristic response to presentation of new ideas (stabbed fingers and said "I see, I see")
- High pitched voice
- Misunderstood enrolment form for Home Guard
- Over-analysed colleagues' approaches
- Poor handwriting
- Always got ink on his collar at school
Certainly, a case can be made for Turing meeting each of the six criteria. But some of the observations, such as a high pitched voice, or working late at night don't really constitute evidence. And can we really say that he had narrow interests when he influenced so many distinct fields? Was having only one friend at school a reflection of social impairment or of having few peers who shared his interests?
The difficulty with making historical diagnoses is that there's no opportunity to ask further, more targeted questions. What happened if Turing didn't get his nightly apple? Did it bother him, or did he eat some other fruit?
A proper diagnostic interview might uncover further evidence that would provide a more compelling and watertight case for diagnosis. Even so, Turing's case highlights the subjective nature of diagnosis. This is particularly true around the edges of the autism spectrum where, as Lorna Wing put it, Asperger syndrome "shades into eccentric normality".
Attempts to diagnose Turing arguably reveal more about our current fuzzy concepts of autism than they do about Turing the man. And they make plain why we're still a long way from understanding the enigma that is autism.
ReferenceO'Connell, H., & Fitzgerald, M. (2003). Did Alan Turing have Asperger's syndrome? Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, 20 (1), 28-31
Further reading:
23rd June was the centenary of Turing's birth. Below, a selection of the many articles commemorating his life.
- The rich legacy of Alan Turing
- The spirit of Alan Turing
- The highly productive habits of Alan Turing
- Alan Turing: Society failed the genius, we must learn from his loss
- Alan Turing's cryptographic legacy
- Alan Turing and the bullying of Britain's geeks
- Gary Kasparov versus Alan Turing's 1950 chess program
Please also take the time to read this brilliant first post from autism dad, DrBenco: Alan Turing, Autism, and Ice Cream
How do psychiatrists define 'normal'?
ReplyDeleteThat's a rhetorical question right?
DeleteMy understanding is that in the world of psychology (as in statistical analysis) normal refers to traits which fall within the average range after removing the statistical outliers within a sufficient sample size. People are rarely referred to as normal or abnormal, except in reference to their behaviours abd responses. Its more often the layperson who labels people normal or abnormal, wrong or right.
Delete"The difficulty with making historical diagnoses is" .... that it is all just speculation that is inevitably trumpeted as fact and distorts public view of autism as "einstein" syndrome.
ReplyDeletePromotes ideological view of autism as "different way of thinking" not as a neurological disorder that impairs the lives of those with "classic" low functioning autism, the "vast majority" (CDC Autism expert Dr. Marshalynn Yeargin-Allsopp) of whom also suffer from intellectual disabilty.
I think this is going to be inevitable simply because we have historical records of the geniuses and not the low-functioning cases.
DeleteI was waiting for the first paper that retrospectivley diagnosed Alan Turing with Asperger Syndrome. A year ago on the anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin the child psycholigists came out of the woodworks and retrospectively diagnosed Darwin with Asperger Syndrome.
ReplyDeleteMichael Fitzgerald has created a cottage industry reotrospectivley diagnosing dead historical figures who can't speak for themselves with Asperger Syndrome.
There is a good reason why the DSM5 working group working group on autism is going to remove Asperger Syndrome as a valid autism spectrum disorder.
As Allen Frances the editor of DSM-IV (1994) has correctly stated, the field trials for DSM-IV (1994) failed to predict the false epidemics of autism, attentional disorders and bi-polar disorders.
Child Psychology cannot distinguish a developmental handicap from normal human trait variations.
It is understandable why parents of accurately diagnosed children find comfort in this rampant pathologizing of normal human trait variations as seen in admirable historical figures. It can be pointed out that Fitzgerald has also retrospectivly diagnosed such unsavory historical figures as Adolph Hitler and Jeffry Dahmer with Asperger Syndrome.
In one of the largest studies (5,877) of its kind 26% of females and 19% of males self described themselves as being very shy in childhood. Where is the prevelance rates for Asperger Syndrome heading if it is retained as a vald autism spectrum disorder. 19% to 26% certainly seemsd to be a reasonable estimate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15967173
I think this article was well written and very well researched. It could be that Alan Turing did in fact have aspergers syndrome but I wouldn't link aspergers syndrome and being brilliant together so easily. I think they both have their roles but are truly independent of each other. Having attention to detail and meticulous routines could not hurt on the road to being brilliant.
ReplyDeleteFrom all I've read I'm confident that both Alan Turing and Paul Dirac had a kind of autism. What isn't mentioned in the symptoms is the most compelling evidence: the autistic thinking style, from specific to abstract, like a relentless learning machine. It isn't just fixation on details as many believe. If you're very smart AND have autism then you may reach a high-level understanding of a field. When I look at the models Turing and Dirac developed to describe their respective interests they strike me as particularly autistic.
ReplyDeleteThis is why the work of Laurent Mottron and others is very important. Understanding autistic intelligence doesn't just mean you can identify historical geniuses, as some kind of self-indulgent intellectual pastime. If nonverbal autistic children share a learning style we can communicate with them on their own terms, recognise who they actually are as people, help them be the best they can be. There's nothing wrong with being disabled until someone pities you.
Thanks Nerkul. The problem we face is that autism is currently defined in terms of behaviour - not the underlying reasons for the behaviour. I'm not sure if there's a universal autistic thinking/learning style. But I think we should definitely be working towards cognitive subtypes of autism - acknowledging that these may cut across "levels of functioning".
DeleteI agree with Nerkul. My personal belief is that many of those who are posthumously diagnosed with autism were intellectually gifted but not autistic. Profound giftedness is also known to isolate one socially. Mozart was a child prodigy, denoting early intellectual giftedness.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are several cases of posthumously-diagnosed autism/Asperger's that I consider accurate. These include Turing, Dirac, and Nikola Tesla. In Tesla's case, I found that his descriptions of his thought processes reminded me very much of what Dr. Temple Grandin has said about her own autistic thinking style.
I absolutely love your last paragraph (and all the links for further reading, thank you!)
ReplyDeleteMaybe future scholars will retrospectively diagnose Dr Michael Fitzgerald with Asperger's?
ReplyDeleteI have a vision of a paper from the 2050 J Aut Dev Disorders...
All-absorbing narrow interest
Diagnosing historical figures with Asperger's...
A self-diagnosed Aspie perhaps.
DeleteI've never understood the fascination some people have with trying to diagnosis historical figures with a developmental disorder.
ReplyDeleteIt is almost impossible to make a diagnosis and have any sort of confidence in it. You have no way of knowing that historical accounts of a person are actually true or whether they are just made up stories about a person.
Media is as much about portraying a specific image through words as it is about an accurate relation of facts. Did Turing "always" eat an apple before bed or was someone trying to get the point across that he watched his health?
But, lets assume that you can rely of the historical records and could make an accurate diagnosis. What's the point, the guy is dead. He won't be able to access any services for his hypothetical condition.
He can't teach us anything about autism because we can't have any confidence in the diagnosis nor can he actually be examined in any way.
The only reason I can think of to diagnose a historical figure like this is to build up a pantheon of autism heroes. And I don't think that goal is compatible with what we normally consider science.
On the flip side, there is an actual subtle harm to existing children with autism in making these claims - it sets up unrealistic expectations about what autism is going to be like for most people who have it.
Even if Turing did have aspergers, he would be the exception rather than the rule. For that matter, even when you consider us "typical" people, he is the exception rather than the rule.
Pretty much nails it. Thanks MJ
DeleteI should add, there are plenty of autistic heroes out there, even without Turing.
http://www.blogher.com/praise-my-autistic-sons-adult-role-models
Though you ask 'why?' like it's rhetorical, to get the answer of why autistics want historical heroes you would have to ask them. I can provide one response.
DeleteI have some glaring blind spots but I also know I'm really smart; in most rooms I'll be the person with the most social awareness. Yet throughout my life around half the people I've met have looked at me like I'm not human. Nothing can get through to them. I can banter with extreme self-awareness, make very charming eye contact, adroitly avoid stepping on their neuroses, but it's all for nothing because they've already decided I'm not one of them.
EVERYONE knows Turing and Dirac were smart. You can't argue, the results are in. They were humans and they were very good. We have already accepted them.
You aren't allowed to say "it's about me", even though that's ultimately the only reason anyone argues about anything (see how much I understand?), because that weakens your position. Science says your results have to apply generally. So we all add our politics but we do it sneakily. To me that feels fake so I sometimes like to explain why people are doing things.
Let's go further and say the historical character Jesus was on the spectrum. Now, if we somehow discovered compelling evidence for that, can you imagine the outcry? People would be FURIOUS. Not just religious nutters but many of the people you see as your enlightened colleagues. Why would they be so angry? I think an answer to that would reveal the real issues here.
MJ, one day your daughter will be trying to show something to you, something she's discovered that she finds amazing, and you'll be looking at her like she's retarded. Can you imagine how she might feel and why she might want to point to someone like her, someone that YOU look up to?
Role models are great, people who can show us our everyday potential, what's in our grasp. But Jon, if you're saying autistics don't need historical heroes, you're either saying nobody needs historical heroes or you're segregating us. I'd love for nobody to need heroes. That day isn't here.
"MJ, one day your daughter will be trying to show something to you, something she's discovered that she finds amazing, and you'll be looking at her like she's retarded. Can you imagine how she might feel and why she might want to point to someone like her, someone that YOU look up to? "
DeleteRight there - that is a prime example of why people would not accept you even though you think you have social awareness. You DO NOT say things like that to a parent of a child with a disability.
You have absolutely no clue about my relationship with any of my daughters and yet you presume you do. I make a comment about science and you extrapolate that into I would look at any of them like they are "retarded".
I really am quite sick of being judged by people like you. It is ironic, at least to me, that the very people who don't want to be judged and want to be accepted are some of the most judgmental people out there.
If you don't want to be judged for your "differences" then don't judge others when they are different than you.
Nerkul: First of all, what you said about MJ and his daughter is out of order. It may be a true reflection of how autistic people tend to be perceived and treated by the rest of us in general. But you can't make any assumptions about a specific person's relationship with their own child - autistic or not.
DeleteThat said, the question of autistic heroes is a really important one that I'd really like to get back to. For that reason I'm going to delete the comments that follow from both of you and hopefully get back onto a more constructive discussion!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteHere's a video about Alan Turing by leading scientists and his contribution to science:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/09/alan-turing-part-one_n_1655056.html?1341855191
Half the scientists interviewed here would be diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome by Fitzgerald
I like this blog and it surely guides me regarding aspergers syndrome and six symptoms are well explained by Gillberg criteria.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post and discussion. I will bookmark it to come back for further comments. A few quick observations: Yes, one of the problems with diagnosing autism (living or dead) is that it is entirely a behavioral (subjective) analysis. I'm working on an alternative scheme. There is no connection between autism and IQ, and "functioning" labels are almost always about IQ, which says nothing about functioning. If the AS label goes away (which I doubt) it will still be true that half of all autistics have an IQ above the median. For me, the purpose of identifying historical or living figures as autistic is that it gives me more insight into what it means for me to be autistic. Yes, we need heroes, but Turing was a hero of mine long before I knew I am autistic. There is no spectrum. One is either autistic or one is not. The "shading" is behavioral only, as we learn how to fake being neurotypical. Autism is a disability in a world that does not accommodate it, but it is not a disorder. It is a different way of being.
ReplyDelete"I'm working on an alternative scheme. There is no connection between autism and IQ, and "functioning" labels are almost always about IQ, which says nothing about functioning"
ReplyDeletePardon me for being a little blunt, but that scheme doesn't make any sense. Autism, almost by definition, includes an impaired ability to understand the wider world that has little to do with intelligence and everything to do with the ability to receive/process information and to communicate it back.
Think of it this way, if we were talking about proficiency in Japanese and I said suggested that a person who couldn't understand Japanese didn't have problems with functional communication but rather must have an intellectual disability you would likely disagree with me. Taking that one step further, if I put you into a spot where you had music blasting at you almost at the pain point and shined a brilliant spot light straight into your eyes and then suggested that your decreased ability to understand Japanese means your IQ must be even lower, I think you might get a little upset.
But the exact same idea applies to autism - the method of communication and processing of the communication is the problem, not the ability to understand once the communication has been received and successfully processed.