I believe autism has a rather wide spectrum and overlaps with compulsive obsession, which also has a wide spectrum in some of its manifestations. These conditions are very complex in the way they affect a person's ability to function in the world. They can be very advantageous or terribly debilitating.
"In the divorce announcement in a local paper, the ex-wife of legendary physicist Richard Feynman complained that “her husband worked calculus problems all day, as soon as he arose, while he drove his car, while sitting in the living room, and while lying in bed at night.”
From what I understand, Feynman didn't always spend his time lying in bed doing calculus.
"High-achieving scientists also tend to have very high IQs, but my point is not simply about IQ. Although high-achievers in many academic fields are disproportionately likely to be men, this is not necessarily because men are smarter. The evidence suggests that average IQ for males is about the same or perhaps slightly higher than average IQ for females. There is also evidence of a higher variance among men, which means there are more males in the far right and far left tails of the distributions (“more geniuses and more idiots,” as E. O. Wilson once memorably put it)."
I believe this is the case, and I believe, as you go on to point out, obsession is a great advantage for success.
" It is unclear what benefits society gets from Scrabble tournaments, for example—although winning one likely does benefit the winner himself. The same applies to Oppenheimer’s delivering a physics lecture in Dutch after only six weeks of learning the language. It massively boosted his social status in the physics community (we are still talking about it) but had no wider benefits."
I agree; I see no benefit to humanity in being able to win at Scrabble. But I do see a possible benefit in the Oppenheimer situation, i.e., perhaps he was able to inspire budding scientists.
"One important individual benefit for obsessive male high achievers may be that they are disproportionately selected as mates.
For example, my research has shown that in the U.S. today men with high incomes are more likely to be married—but there is no such effect for women."
This is a common occurrence: using the term 'high achievers' in conflation with 'high incomes'.
One must define what is meant by 'high achievers' and 'high incomes'. Neither Feynman nor Oppenheimer had what is considered a high income. An obsession with science rarely comes with an obsession with wealth.
Oppenheimer was independently wealthy (his Dad was wealthy).
My research shows a positive effect of income on marriage for men, mostly because low income men are less likely to be married. Neither Oppenheimer or Feynman could be considered low income.
"Neither Oppenheimer or Feynman could be considered low income."
But neither could be considered wealthy, at least in terms of income. That is why I said, 'One must define what is meant by 'high achievers' and 'high incomes ".'
“ I believe autism has a rather wide spectrum and overlaps with compulsive obsession, which also has a wide spectrum in some of its manifestations. ”
My immediate reaction as well. The distinction lies in one’s position on the hypothetical construct. I note the description of the movie character, “Rain man” followed by Feynman and Oppenheimer. One of these exemplars seems misplaced. As great a character as Rain man was in the movie, he definitely appeared to me to be pitiable rather than admirable.
Reminds me of this passage from Robert M. Price's short story "Acute Spiritual Fear":
"Philip thought a moment. 'Sometimes I think that it's striking a balance that's the problem. Jesus wasn't balanced. People called him crazy. Mother Theresa's not balanced. Neither was Gandhi. Maybe 'balance' is another word for compromise'."
An interesting, and perhaps contradictory, comment on the charisma of obsessive people:
"[Ayn] Rand is not a sympathetic character. Highly ambitious, single-minded, goal-oriented people rarely are. Her persuasiveness and energy drew followers to her."
A similar idea seems to emerge from this article: obsessiveness is a risky game, in that it risks alienating others, but the achievements it brings about can actually end up boosting one's status.
Excellent observations on this subject.
I believe autism has a rather wide spectrum and overlaps with compulsive obsession, which also has a wide spectrum in some of its manifestations. These conditions are very complex in the way they affect a person's ability to function in the world. They can be very advantageous or terribly debilitating.
"In the divorce announcement in a local paper, the ex-wife of legendary physicist Richard Feynman complained that “her husband worked calculus problems all day, as soon as he arose, while he drove his car, while sitting in the living room, and while lying in bed at night.”
From what I understand, Feynman didn't always spend his time lying in bed doing calculus.
"High-achieving scientists also tend to have very high IQs, but my point is not simply about IQ. Although high-achievers in many academic fields are disproportionately likely to be men, this is not necessarily because men are smarter. The evidence suggests that average IQ for males is about the same or perhaps slightly higher than average IQ for females. There is also evidence of a higher variance among men, which means there are more males in the far right and far left tails of the distributions (“more geniuses and more idiots,” as E. O. Wilson once memorably put it)."
I believe this is the case, and I believe, as you go on to point out, obsession is a great advantage for success.
" It is unclear what benefits society gets from Scrabble tournaments, for example—although winning one likely does benefit the winner himself. The same applies to Oppenheimer’s delivering a physics lecture in Dutch after only six weeks of learning the language. It massively boosted his social status in the physics community (we are still talking about it) but had no wider benefits."
I agree; I see no benefit to humanity in being able to win at Scrabble. But I do see a possible benefit in the Oppenheimer situation, i.e., perhaps he was able to inspire budding scientists.
"One important individual benefit for obsessive male high achievers may be that they are disproportionately selected as mates.
For example, my research has shown that in the U.S. today men with high incomes are more likely to be married—but there is no such effect for women."
This is a common occurrence: using the term 'high achievers' in conflation with 'high incomes'.
One must define what is meant by 'high achievers' and 'high incomes'. Neither Feynman nor Oppenheimer had what is considered a high income. An obsession with science rarely comes with an obsession with wealth.
Oppenheimer was independently wealthy (his Dad was wealthy).
My research shows a positive effect of income on marriage for men, mostly because low income men are less likely to be married. Neither Oppenheimer or Feynman could be considered low income.
"Neither Oppenheimer or Feynman could be considered low income."
But neither could be considered wealthy, at least in terms of income. That is why I said, 'One must define what is meant by 'high achievers' and 'high incomes ".'
“ I believe autism has a rather wide spectrum and overlaps with compulsive obsession, which also has a wide spectrum in some of its manifestations. ”
My immediate reaction as well. The distinction lies in one’s position on the hypothetical construct. I note the description of the movie character, “Rain man” followed by Feynman and Oppenheimer. One of these exemplars seems misplaced. As great a character as Rain man was in the movie, he definitely appeared to me to be pitiable rather than admirable.
"As great a character as Rain man was in the movie, he definitely appeared to me to be pitiable rather than admirable."
Indeed, it was a bitter/sweet movie
Just to note my last name is Hopcroft not Hopcraft. Thanks for correcting!
Fixed!
—NC
Reminds me of this passage from Robert M. Price's short story "Acute Spiritual Fear":
"Philip thought a moment. 'Sometimes I think that it's striking a balance that's the problem. Jesus wasn't balanced. People called him crazy. Mother Theresa's not balanced. Neither was Gandhi. Maybe 'balance' is another word for compromise'."
https://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/fic_acute.htm
Of course, I would have picked other examples.
An interesting, and perhaps contradictory, comment on the charisma of obsessive people:
"[Ayn] Rand is not a sympathetic character. Highly ambitious, single-minded, goal-oriented people rarely are. Her persuasiveness and energy drew followers to her."
https://russianliteratureandbiography.com/ayn-rand-writing-a-gospel-of-success/
A similar idea seems to emerge from this article: obsessiveness is a risky game, in that it risks alienating others, but the achievements it brings about can actually end up boosting one's status.