pasted -
"For example, just how accurate are these retrospective diagnoses? I'm not the world's greatest scholar, but some of these identifications are pretty dubious. Albert Einstein, for example, had a miserable childhood, started talking late, and was a bit of a nerd. Apparently, these are all potential clues to his neurodiversity, as is the fact that he never learned to drive a car. Yet he also married twice, had many friends, and possessed a good sense of humour, something rarely seen in people with severe Asperger's. Or take Thomas Jefferson. Here, the evidence seems to consist of the facts that he preferred old clothes, disliked public speaking, felt conflicted about slavery, and kept exceptionally detailed financial records. Well, none of this was particularly unusual at the time, and it hardly adds up to a definitive diagnosis, does it?
Alert readers may have noticed that the same names often crop up on different lists. It's common knowledge that Winston Churchill suffered from depression, which he called his "black dog", but he also gets claimed by the Aspies. Poor old Beethoven and Einstein also seem to have had multiple impairments. And as for Mozart, he's been variously diagnosed with Tourette's Syndrome, Attention Deficit Disorder and Asperger's. Perhaps there should be some sort of 'disabled celebrity list summit meeting", which could work to achieve a consensus on exactly which problems afflicted what famous historical figure. Can you imagine the negotiations? "I'll trade you Isaac Newton for Alexander Graham Bell, and I'll throw in a few composers, but you're not having Mark Twain."
Of course, it's only ever the good disabled people who get on these lists. Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin could be reliably diagnosed with manic depression, on the basis of their raging tempers, manic highs, grandiose delusions, paranoia, reckless behaviour, gloomy depression and contemptuous disregard for others. But they don't tend to feature amongst the celebrity numbers.
The whole business of outing celebrities is an attempt to see the positive aspects of conditions that are conventionally regarded as pretty awful. But there is a risk of going to the other extreme, and glossing over the distressing difficulties of having a mental illness or cognitive impairment. There's also the danger of raising expectations unfairly. High achievers are rare in any field of life. Listing dozens of exceptional people with manic depression or Asperger's may make ordinary people - who have the same conditions but not the same talent - feel worse rather than better. For example, only about 10% of autistic people have savant skills.
The celebrity disability list seems to be a product of an era in which there are hundreds of different diagnoses, many of them only recently discovered (or maybe 'invented' is a better word). While humans come in all sorts of different varieties and personality types, society is rather intolerant of those who don't fit a narrow norm.
In a world where people feel uncertain about their identity, many folks jump onto diagnostic bandwagons, wanting to have a label - or a badge - to explain to themselves and to others why they feel different. It makes people feel secure to be officially distinctive and to have a wider community to belong to, and the internet makes it easy. But labelling, listing and separating is a dangerous strategy. Rather than concentrating on what divides us, let's celebrate what we have in common. Remember Thomas Jefferson not for his eccentricities, but for his immortal words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal".
