Vladimir Putin and Aspergers
It’s in the news today that a Pentagon think tank report in 2008 and 2011 identified Vladimir Putin as having Aspergers. People are writing me inquiring about my thoughts.
I am not an expert on Aspergers but from what I know about it, I will say Putin shows definite traits that are supportive of the theory presented.
In the video above, you can see he is emotional flat on all levels. He is matter-of-fact about his opinion, which clearly causes a contempt reaction from the reporter that you can’t miss. The reporter’s expression is so raw and real. It tells us how the reporter feels and its not in alignment with Putin.
People with Asperger have very black and white thinking, with few areas of gray, and this interview is a great example of it. Does Putin see the contradictory elements of the law passed on gay and lesbian rights? Do you think he sees the gray area that one affects the other?
“People with Asperger have very black and white thinking, with few areas of gray”
That isn’t true at all. What you’re probably thinking of is their systems of morality, which can be very complex and nuanced, but tend to produce actual results of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ rather than depending on some fuzzy social hierarchy for answers. For someone of Putin’s age it’s virtually impossible to say, he would have adapted in so many ways. My favourite quick test (not reliable) is Joe’s Smoothie – https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/experiments-in-philosophy/200811/do-you-have-aspergers-syndrome
Please read reliable websites on Aspergers. Black and white thinking is considered a trait.
Well I’m not sure what that means then.
What if black and white thinking is not a trait but a consequence?
All studies on AS (Asperger’s Syndrome) come with a lot of observations, but little or no explanations. We don’t even have a standardized diagnostic test. The same child could receive different diagnoses, depending on the screening tool the doctor uses.
Children with AS show normal cognitive and language development in the beginning. Yet, as they grow, they develop a certain pattern in speaking and use their cognitive function only on one topic at a time (which we see as an obsessive behavior). What if this is just the way their brain manage to cope with the AS?
In my opinion AS has very much to do with the extra sensitivity the children present in the early stages of the syndrome. Though the approach is that AS show different manifestation in children (some are very sensitive while others are very insensitive), my guess is that those are different stages of the syndrome and not different manifestations.
I think AS comes from an anomaly that causes those children to feel everything (likes, dislikes, happiness, sadness etc) more intense than normal people do. So intense that it causes them great distress. And this is why their brain in seek for a way to stop this, blocks them from having any emotion at all. It’s the same as for people who have traumatic experiences and their brain chose to block those memories or as for people being in denial.
This is why AS kids avoid having social interaction: they can’t handle the burst of emotions that comes from it. I know that for normal people this has no sens, but I really think I’m on to something here. This would explain why, as grown ups, some of this individuals develop additional psychiatric symptoms and disorders (as they couldn’t find a way to deal with the distress that AS is causing), while others managed to reduce distress (in a way that normal people find it odd) and somehow fit in society.
Those individuals show obsessive behavior generated by rejecting any element of newness (as they are afraid of the effect it may have on them) and ignore the surrounding environment (from the very same reason).
What triggers me is that it is said that while they’re unable to empathize or read emotions, they are also unable to look people in the eyes. How do those fit together? If you are emotionless and unable to “read” people, why wouldn’t you look people in the eyes? It doesn’t make sense to me. Not being able to look people in the eyes would be more consistent with them being able to empathize to such extent that causes them significant distress and with their mirror neurons affecting them somehow more than they do with normal people.
As for reasoning, it is said that while they have a low EQ they do have a very logical thinking. So they replace emotions with logic. Logic works with true or false, no maybe and this is why people with AS have this black and white thinking. I believe however, that they do not have low EQ and they more likely force themselves to have a low EQ (consciously or not, as a way to fight back the most damaging effects of AS). And I do believe they have a very logical thinking even if sometimes their behavior has no logic for us. Perhaps when we’ll know more about AS we’ll be able to connect the dots and who knows, maybe even see the logic of their behavior.
That’s all pretty accurate.
For me, one of the reasons that I avoid looking someone in the eye is because if they’re talking to me and I look them in the eye, I won’t be able to hear what they’re saying. It’s not as though I can’t physically hear them– the noises they’re making with their mouths and voices are still there there– but some of the words they’re saying will just get lost somewhere along the path and they don’t register and then if I lose too many of them, or lose the wrong words, I have no idea what they’ve said to me.
I usually start to become aware that I’m not hearing them and I need to do something to change that, so looking at something else is a way of focusing my attention more fully on what they’re saying and losing fewer of their words. Looking at someone’s eyes is information overload if I’m not just observing them and having to actually register my interactions with them. I have the same problem with computers if I’m trying to do something specific with someone and I have other things open and visible at the same time– so usually I run whatever I’m doing in full screen or maximized window mode, and if I’m chatting or instant messaging someone, I’ll have to minimize all my other windows and close programs that make their windows flash at me on the taskbar or else it’s eventually hopeless.
I’ll add one thing that might be useful to you with regard to this: “…while they’re unable to empathize or read emotions, they are also unable to look people in the eyes. How do those fit together? If you are emotionless and unable to “read” people, why wouldn’t you look people in the eyes?” If I’m unable to read someone’s emotions naturally, then I have to do so consciously and mechanically. Looking someone in the eyes provides a great deal more information, and that extra information then requires extra processing to take in and interpret. This can cause overload to the point where other processes are interrupted (in my case, not being able to hear what the person is saying), so it’s more a matter of information management and prioritization than something to do with emotions themselves. I’m not trying to reach a conclusion with that– just providing some food for thought.
Thank you very much! What you said help me understand better. But… do you have Asperger?
I’ve never been formally diagnosed (and likely wouldn’t be now with the DSM-V removing Asperger’s as a condition and replacing it with the more generic ASD), but everything I’ve ever read or seen about it, every informal online test, and every video I’ve watched of other people with Asperger’s all very strongly suggest that I do.
I’m learning a lot about my own behavior from this blog, often from comments of others on an observed behavior, then realizing that I do something similar.
Have you seen this diagnosis by a neuroscientist of their condition (not related to Aspergers)
http://bigthink.com/videos/discovering-ones-hidden-psychopathy
I have seen him before. I think the first time I knew of him was maybe a year or two ago when I read an article about the results of his first brain scans. In the first article I read, his own diagnosis was more of a footnote– the article was about the results themselves. Only in the intervening months did I read and see more about him and his results.
I find it useful how he keeps revealing more with time.
I agree Keith, eye avoidance has more to do with cognitive overload, indirectly related to emotions. If someone with Aspergers has difficulty with empathy then there will be even more overloading compared to a ‘normal’ person when trying to read someones face and eyes.
I think it would be distressing to look into someone’s eyes and face and not understand the meaning of their expressions and at the same time be encouraging that mode of expression by your looking. With that cognitive overload how could you understand the words that are being said especially if you tend to take things literally?
Would you say that I have black and white thinking? I’m honestly curious about that.
If that test is true – and I don’t think it is – then I have Aspergers. The link context is actually a criticism of that test!
That cup thing is interesting.
I would say to the commemorative cup that it depends– he might’ve gotten the commemorative cup intentionally if that cup were the largest one available, but not because it was commemorative. That part of the question is ambiguous, and although I think most people would treat the word “commemorative” as a requirement of Joe’s intent in the question, I don’t because the wording of the question doesn’t require it. Joe didn’t care about the commemorative nature of the cup, only that it was the largest, so if the commemorative cup was the largest size cup available, then he got it intentionally, but not because it was commemorative. The question didn’t specify WHY Joe might have intentionally gotten the commemorative cup, so the answer can vary. It’s a poorly worded question if you’re going to pose it to someone with autism, unless that’s the point.
I think this background link to David’s is more informative and worth a read
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/aspergers-diary/200811/joe-and-the-mega-sized-smoothie-language-and-aspergers.
“so if the commemorative cup was the largest size cup available, then he got it intentionally, ” That’s a very fascinating way to think about it; however, I think about it this way: to say he intended to buy a cup of a certain characteristic, that characteristic had to be a necessary characteristic for him to buy that cup. He was motivated to buy that cup because of the large size not because it was commemorative. If the small size was commemorative, he wouldn’t have gotten it.
It seems to me you see it as whatever unique characteristics that the largest cup has becomes synonymous with its characteristic of being the largest; so if the largest size is the only orange cup (in addition to being commemorative), you might say he intentionally bought the orange cup. However, if all the sizes were orange, you wouldn’t say that. (Correct?)
Although there are times when commemorative might become synonymous with largest (like if the store gave commemorative cups over a long enough period of time where people started equating commemorative with largest), I would not have seen largest and commemorative as synonymous in this story because there was nothing in the story to give me the impression that the author, clerk or Joe saw it that way. By pointing out that the largest was commemorative, the clerk didn’t think Joe thought it was synonymous. Joe didn’t say anything to indicate he thought so; therefore, I didn’t see the two words as synonymous when the question was posed on whether Joe intentionally bought the commemorative cup.
I am absolutely not saying that you’re wrong. Just pointing out how I’ve been defining the word ‘intent’ (right or wrong).
He couldn’t be more black & white: “That’s beyond my professional interest”; The death penalty vs not; “There’s a world of difference”; The church vs state.
Strangely though Pedaphilia & homosexuality are lumped together.
Elton John? Is that the best Russian example of homosexual success he could think of?
If he has Aspergers that might explain why I always found his behaviour strange.
A law that mentions both homosexuality and pedophilia. So strange.
Or he could just be a psychopath.
I have “Aspergers” which may also be described as High Functioning Autism which, as per the latest DSM, is a form of Autism which is a Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD). The general “rule” of an autism spectrum diagnosis is impaired or atypical functioning in three areas: social, sensory and cognitive/intellectual. This basically means/is due to the fact our brains are neurologically wired differently. Being of higher than average intelligence, I was able to “pass” as neurotypical (normal) until my late 20’s when it became apparent I was no longer able to cope with the stress of maintaining a façade. My eventual diagnosis was completely unexpected and were it not for extensive test results revealing distinctive autistic patterns, I would not have believed it. In my opinion and based on my personal experience, Vladimir would have to be of superior intelligence and on the extreme borderline fringe of the autism spectrum to be able to lead his life to-date- in the public eye, dealing with people constantly, managing Executive Function tasks successfully, weighing advisor inputs and difficult decisions, traveling everywhere and to new places, crowds, media, etc. There is a level of cunning and manipulation required to be a politician, if only for the debates and public engagements; I am not sure how he justifies a lot of the things he says and does from a moral perspective, however that’s not to say it doesn’t make perfect logical sense to him. Bottom line, I think only a qualified professional would be able to diagnose him as it’s too difficult to know exactly what kind of person he is and how he copes with a multitude of factors. One can and does develop skills in life. So… who knows if it’s true?