Donald Triplett was autism’s “case 1”
economist.com
economist.com
In particular, I don't think anyone is claiming
> the first person to be treated for Autism.
(Which depending on how you approach the question must either have been thousands of years before this, or could not happen until after Kanner proposed its existence). Rather the article is quite explicit,
> The first man diagnosed as autistic
Sometimes it's not us who should 'adapt'.
(MFW when learning that "strong sense of justice" was pathologized as a symptom of a disorder by allistics)
Doesn't matter if those "treat the symptoms", they're still treatments.
Donald Grey Triplett: The first boy diagnosed as autistic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10944335 - Jan 2016 (16 comments)
"This book was so overwhelmingly good that I could only read a couple pages at a time. How on earth did Wroe manage to produce such a rich and fascinating, 432-page book about a guy for which the historical record is not more than a couple artifacts and inscriptions? I don’t know–but that’s what makes it a masterwork. What so captivated me about this book is that although it is of course about the most seminal moment of the Christian world, it is happening inside the Roman world–the world of Seneca, literally. Seneca’s brother is in this book (he adjudicates a case involving St. Paul). Luciliius, who Seneca is writing his famous letters to, has the same job in a different province as Pontius. And by the way, that’s the most radical thing about this book: That you get to look at Pontius Pilate, the man who sentenced Christ to death, as a guy with a job. Did he do it well? How did it go so sideways? He said several times that he did not think Christ was guilty…he tried several times to get out of sentencing him to be crucified…yet in the end, he relented and did what he knew was wrong. What can that teach us? This was one of the most interesting and creative books I’ve read in a very long time. Wow."
This seems wrong to me. Past tense of "spin" is "spun".
spin, v.
(spɪn)
Pa. tense spun, span.
But he loved making things—blocks, pans, ashtrays, anything at all—spin.
And when they span the boy would, as the psychiatrist’s report observed, jump up and down “in ecstasy”.
I was trying to think of examples when I'd use each one, and it felt to me that I'd use spun if someone spun another object, and span if it was themselves that had been doing the spinning, so e.g. "I span around" (I turned around quickly) vs "I spun the crank" (I caused the crank to spin).
That said, I can also provide counter-examples: "I span the gyroscope" and "I spun around" also both sound completely natural to me, just that I think that I personally would use the other word in both cases.
Wiktionary doesn't seem to mention it being singular, although I might be misunderstanding it:
> (dated, now uncommon) simple past of spin
Non-archaic? Quite possibly not. English has done a very good job of shedding inflections.
But “span” (as a past tense of “spin” isn’t non-archaic).
> Wiktionary doesn't seem to mention it being singular, although I might be misunderstanding it:
My sources were citing discussion in the OED, but I haven't verified them.
span (verb): Archaic or non-standard past of spin.
Common information (including quotes in this article) mention the Greek roots of the word - "from Greek autos ‘self’ + -ism".
One source [0] states : "The term autism (from the Greek autos, meaning “self”) was coined in 1911 by Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler, who used it to describe withdrawal into one’s inner world, a phenomenon he observed in individuals with schizophrenia. The use of the word autism to describe the condition as it is known today originated in 1943, when Austrian-born American psychiatrist Leo Kanner [of the HN article we're currently discussing] distinguished the disorder from schizophrenia."
One might infer (correctly or not) that the etymology is principally based around a particular focus upon 'the self'. One short step from 'selfish'. Not the most flattering classification. Not one that I particularly enjoy, personally.
An opinion piece [1] alternatively states : "When I looked at the prefix and suffix of the word combined, I found that the word “autism,” in its purest form, means “a state of being oneself.”
And indeed, to interpret the term in that latter manner is reasonable, hopeful, and not inaccurate, but it isn't a targeted first-principles classification as such. All of which underlies the fact that, despite being classified as somewhere on the autism spectrum - and fully agreeing that, yes, I have some degree of minority condition or traits - if I'm ever asked outright "so, what is it, then?", I still have no concise answer. The term itself certainly holds little useful information, either for me, or the majority of people I have to interact with. We need better and more nuanced classifications to become common parlance.
Preferably (in reference to Asperger) not naming them after founding physicians, then later deciding that negative cultural associations veto the terminology.
And while I'm here shouting at clouds, I wouldn't mind if web browsers didn't consider "neurodiverse" to be a spelling error, in 2023.
/annoying rant
[0] https://www.britannica.com/science/autism
[1] https://www.jewishboston.com/read/etymology-of-the-word-auti...
> As autistic myself and student of philosophy, I’d say: probably, yes. I’ve read books that contain testimonials from Kant’s students and collegues. He showed ASD traits such as: (emotional and almost pathological) attachment to very strict routines; inability to control irritability and stress; inability to focus properly in certain situations (a famous example was given by his students: one day at a lesson he got stressed and refused to continue his speech because he felt unable to concentrate due to a missing button on a student’s jacket); he admitted to feel the inability to tell lies, even if for good purposes; in his writings he excuses many times for not being able to be clear about what he meant because he had an hard time putting himself in the reader’s shoes; he was described as socially akward and indifferent to social norms and costumes (famous was is dated and old-fashioned way of dressing), and to social relationships. We can’t of course be sure about Kant being autistic, but there is a possibility.
His "regular schedule" was more than that... It was a very detailed and strict routine which he was extremely attached to. I think his way of thinking so abstractly and also being unable to summarize himself are also things that resonate for me.
One of the most astonishing Kant facts I've read (I've no idea how this could be verified) is that despite the sea being an hour away Königsberg, where he lived his whole life, he never felt the need to go and see the sea.
Now that I think about “Prussian virtues” and autism have some overlap.
The classical difference between them is money. When a powerful person acted "crazy" the term used was "eccentricity".
What money/class-status afforded was the ability to be more eccentric without being pushed into an institution.
It would not have been a very effective euphemism for a crazy rich person if it didn't also have the nicer meaning for everyone, rich or poor.
It was rare enough that psychiatrists, who were very much looking for new ailments, just weren’t seeing what he had in other people.
Or, sometimes, in 1985.
I don't know why these two things are lumped together as one thing.
BUT I do think there is an important point buried in that comment.
It used to be when we spoke of autism, it was describing a very disabling condition, but increasingly we see a greater number of (for want of a better term) high-functioning cases falling under the label of 'autism'. Medical professionals even decided to get rid of the the separate diagnosis 'Asperger's' – a label that at least was something the public could understand as "like autism, but not quite".
None of this is to say that there weren't good reasons for broadening definition of 'autism'. And nor is it to say that high-functioning autistic people don't have problems they must deal with in everyday life. But I think one dangerous side effect of the conflation is that when we talk of "treating" autism, it is more obvious why one might want to do this in low-functioning cases. It's also obvious why high-functioning individuals might see this as an attempt to "erase" what makes them unique. Society can't adapt to everyone, but I absolutely think it can change to better accommodate the "high functioning".
> Cavendish was taciturn and solitary and regarded by many as eccentric. He communicated with his female servants only by notes. By one account, Cavendish had a back staircase added to his house to avoid encountering his housekeeper, because he was especially shy of women.
There are other threads that go back further as well, and at least in certain cultures there's a fairly broad overlap between shamanism, autism, and related neurological conditions. I've seen some studies tracking certain genetic mutations back and some at least are thought to have come about when humans started becoming human. I haven't been able to find them again but there are quite a few studies that can be found via Google Scholar on the subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_autism
> Eugen Bleuler was a Swiss psychiatrist who was the director of the Burghölzli mental hospital, which was associated with the University of Zurich.
> In April 1908 he gave a lecture explaining that dementia praecox was very different to other forms of dementia.[34] He proposed that it be given the unique name schizophrenia - a split mind. The term would be increasingly adopted over the next fifty years.
> What is now known as "schizophrenia" is different from what Bleuler described. He included what is today considered as autism, schizoid personality disorder and various schizophrenia spectrum disorders in his definition.
> The Neo-Latin word autismus (English translation autism) was coined by Blueuler in July 1910.[35] He first used it in print to describe a symptom of schizophrenia in the scientific paper "Zur Theorie des schizophrenen Negativismus"[36] (On the theory of schizophrenic negativism). He derived autismus from the Greek word: αὐτός, romanized: autós, lit. 'self', and used it to mean morbid self-admiration, referring to "autistic withdrawal of the patient to his fantasies, against which any influence from outside becomes an intolerable disturbance".[35][36]
> Bleuler created the term in reference to Sigmund Freud's term autoerotismus, shortening the latter term because he did not believe sexuality to be critical in the etiology of autistic symptoms.[36] He characterized the autistic patient as one who "wants to shut himself off from reality".[36] Autistic people, then, are those "most severe schizophrenics, who no longer have any intercourse at all, live in a world of their own".[37]
> Bleuler believed that the idiosyncratic behaviours of people with schizophrenia displaying autistic behaviour were due to them engaging with personal fantasy rather than with the world as it is.[1] He believed they drew on an early childhood mental state that was unable to form theory of mind.[1]
Point being, trying to track the incidence of mental and neurological disorders through history is even more difficult than most would imagine.