Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rahere" data-source="post: 6512" data-attributes="member: 2904">Starting from the lemma everyone on here is high-functioning, I'd just like to repeat my own experience, that the diagnosis for our kind is more full of holes than an instant whip. I was diagnosed by some very senior Harley Street psychiatrists indeed, and they got it wrong! No, I'm not Aspie, I'm Everyday Giver-Gifted Genius. Mary-Elaine Jacobsen described the traits in 1999, and they should have had that on their minds, but instead they used their own overload to justify utter balderdash, given I'd reported a decent share of a Nobel Peace Prize. The major heads of diagnosis are communications issues, obsessions, and meltdown. Now, the thesis they couldn't follow was comprehensible to the academic institution specialising in the subject, the Warburg Institute, which is the major part of London University's Advanced Studies School, and to the world experts in the major blocks of it, Till Holger Borchert, recently retired Head of the Bruges Museums, and a world expert on van Eyck, and Craig Wright, recently retired Professor of the History of Music at Yale and now Head of their new Genius School, who concurs I probably qualify. Of course researching something as big as the origins of the Renaissance (it exploded out of trying to understand a Senior Roman Catholic Religious Order which had collapsed around our ears in 2004, which was a straight descendant of the creation of Windsheim and the reform of semi-pagan mediaeval Christianity called the Devotio Moderna in the 15th Century) needs great attention to detail amounting to obsession, and risks meltdown from Pavlov's Transmarginal Inhibition, as well as standard PTSD IAS. So everything's explicable from another angle, which sent me looking at how they could make such a screw-up. You'll find it's the Cult of Dabrowsky, who was working in a different culture (communist Poland) and came up with "over-excitability", defined by teachers who were as thick as two bricks and needed to explain why bright kids were tying them up in knots. I certainly qualified as the latter, insofar as I was tested by The Tavistock Clinic when I was 8y6m and found to have the General Knowledge of a 14 year old. By the time I actually was 14, I was supplying Richard Attenborough with costumes for his first film, and making my first permanent mark on the world.If bright kids are over-excitable, who defines normal excitability? Why are so many excluded from education as a result?Why was the high-functioning group of Aspergers lumped in with the low-functioning on the basis of "nobody knows anything about them" - in fact, why didn't they set about discovering what they were talking about? Instead, DSM-5 continued the argument, Aspies are on the spectrum, so they're just ASD. Net result: I tested with a huge IQ which may have set the top bar 163 in kids (that's why the Tavistock was interested) yet am intellectually challenged? I'm Disordered, but hold about 40% of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize? Get stuffed.The extension to the above, which I've repeated ad nauseam, is that Dom Cummings explained to the Covid Enquiry 31.10.2023 why he went in search of weirdos and misfits, it's because nobody in the Civil Service or Parliament was up to the work. His actual call is on his blog 2.1.2020, and it says exactly what I'm asking for here: please can somebody start a study to explain what we, his weirdos and misfits, are. The shrinks don't have the faintest - official, from the Cabinet Office. They only ever worked with one individual, Temple Gradin, and for the rest of the time forced the evidence to fit their model, totally academically disreputable. So if there's one thing I'd like, it's a complete rethink. Maybe you are Aspie/ADHD (the other Dabrowsky group), but maybe it only fits where it touches.</blockquote>

Verification