Retrospectively Diagnosing Einstein with Asperger's Syndrome and the Dismal Failure of Debunking Myths
AI-generated Key Points
- Historians object to diagnosing deceased scientists based on scant evidence, calling these diagnoses myths
- Despite this, Einstein has been constantly diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome
- Private letters found in the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein reveal he was brilliant, inspirational, abrasive and rebellious
- Biographies and books have been written on Einstein's private life based on this evidence, leading to retrospective diagnoses of all sorts of things
- Historians fiercely object to this abuse of his privacy and engage in futile efforts to protect it
- However, historians are susceptible to biases like any other scholar
- Simon Baron-Cohen's diagnosis of Einstein with Asperger's syndrome started this trend.
Authors: Galina Weinstein
Abstract: In 2003, Simon Baron-Cohen, a world expert on autism, diagnosed Einstein posthumously with Asperger's syndrome. I think we cannot diagnose a dead person. Historians of science have fiercely objected to this trend of diagnosing deceased scientists by reconstructing from scant evidence, calling these diagnoses myths. Despite the historians' efforts at demolishing myths, Einstein has been constantly diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome. I will stick my neck out and suggest in this paper that although historians' critique of Baron-Cohen and others includes debunking myths, it piggybacks on another myth that uses the following metaphors: a dull and socially adept Einstein who worked at Zurich, Prague, Berlin, and Princeton, an industrious scientist who earned his living through his work as a professor at the university; he had a special gift of friendship and collegiality, and he was deeply embedded in the academic community. These explanations do not make sense from the perspective of Einstein sitting in his office at Princeton, let alone Einstein sitting in the patent office. This perhaps explains the tendency of people to find counterclaims and myths more persuasive than historians' explanations which seem deeply problematic.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.