Einstein had Asperger's

>>8868654
People who tend to alienate others generally have a lot more time to think about shit.

Our definition of disorder is wrong

>>8868654
>Isaac Newton had Bipolar Disorder
You missed the other 6 disorder

>>8868654
Humans aren't intended to be so intelligent
It become counterproductive to their ability to reproduce.

If a person is super, super intelligent there's probably some big compromises or defects that have to happen in their genetics.

>>8868690
I can't be smart and socially apt at the same time? Wow. This sucks.

>>8868703
Obviously not true. People like Feynman are a clear counterexample. I'm sure there's dozens others.
I'm simply saying there's a correlation between extreme intelligence and other mental deviations due to the extreme genetics needed to produce high intelligence.

File: 1493432861178.png (1MB, 1223x880px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1223x880px

>>8868654
How do you know Isaac Newton had bipolar if he was never diagnosed? Are you a doctor with time machine?

File: e4350fe485cacb52f35dce216bd208e9f442123c38a9a74abe2ead9257c0e6e4.jpg (20KB, 200x249px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 200x249px

>>8868707

>>8868710
>extreme paranoia
>full blown hallucinations in the middle of the day
>delusional letters
>obsessive interests
>highly antisocial
>5'6''
You're right. OP gave him too much credit. He was probably paranoid schizophrenic, anti social personality disorder, OCD, bipolar, an insomniac, and last but not least a manlet.

Why do i need to explain it? Because you think mental disorders are "bad"?

>>8868707
>i have one, single, solitary counterexmaple
>that disporoves the entire trend
that's not how trends work

>>8868738
Your reply was so retarded,. I'm not even going to bother arguing. You missed the target by about 2 radians

>>8868766
No you're retarded. One example doesn't show a correlation. OP gave 5 examples. There's even more of it in historical revolutionaries in other areas like art and literature.

>>8868654
he was definitely on the spectrum

>>8868797
Do I have to spell this out for you?

"I can't be smart and socially apt at the same time? Wow. This sucks."

This statement is not true. This statement is disproved by a single counterexample which I gave. If they had said, "It's unlikely to be smart and socially apt at the same time? Wow. This sucks." I would of had no problem with their statement.

>>8868834
>nitpicking to prove your point so desperately
How's liberal arts? I'm sure showed those mysogynists by spotting their use of all instead of most. Sure changed their ideals for the better and made the world a better place. Either give me an actual well thought out counter point and multiple examples pointing to your point and stop taking the easy way out and pointing out my forgetfulness in using hedging to cover my ass. Clearly one example isn't enough to prove that you're right, I'm sure you're a scientific person, we plot 5 data points on a graph to accertain a relationship, we don't plot 1 point and draw a line across it and say, Eureka! I've found a relationship, and therefore you are wrong.

>>8868724
5'6" was pretty average back in the day.

>>8868724
>>5'6''

I was skeptical before, but now I'm convinced.

>>8868654
One of your listed disorders is a modern invention (Asperger's), and one of the other cases (Newton) can't be diagnosed with any accuracy since he's a centuries-old subject from a culture with different norms than the modern one. To make things even worse, he was a celebrity and a politician of his time, so accounts of his behavior from his contemporaries are tainted as hell.

It's very unlikely that Edison (an engineer and inventor, not normally regarded a scientist) was dyslexic. Dyslexia advocacy sites (and sites selling "treatments", which the advocacy sites were often fronts for) went on a spree for several years where they tried to claim various historical figures suffered from the disorder.

Darwin had health problems and has been "diagnosed" (both during his life and posthumously) with a metric fuckton of disorders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_health#Possible_causes


Darwin's probably the least shitty example in the list, since the existence of the problem was at least established. The worst are probably the Edison and Einstein examples, since they're part of marketing campaigns for "treatments".