Saturday, June 29, 2024
Thursday, June 27, 2024
Tuesday, June 25, 2024
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Albert Einstein is recognized as the greatest physicist of the 20th century and ranks with Isaac Newton as one of the preeminent scientific figures in history. His biographer, Albrecht Folsing (1997), wrote that no one else has ever enriched a science as Einstein enriched physics during the two decades between 1905 and 1925. Folsing (1997) described him as “a seeker after truth, whose like we shall not see again” (p. xiii). He is best known for his theories of special and general relativity (1905 and 1916, respectively) and for elucidating the particle theory of light, but he also wrote widely on nonscientific subjects and supported various social and political causes. In 1922 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for physics; he subsequently became a major international celebrity, attracting huge media attention wherever he went.
As a young man, Einstein worked in the Swiss patent office in Berne. He married Mileva Maric in 1903. The previous year she had given birth to their daughter, who seems to have been given up for adoption. They later had two sons, born in 1904 and 1910. They separated in 1914 and divorced in 1919. Later that year Einstein married his cousin, Elsa Lowenthal (née Einstein), also
divorced, who had two daughters.
Einstein served as a professor of physics at Zurich and Prague universities, and for almost 20 years was director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Physical Institute in Berlin. He left Germany for the United States after the Nazis came to power, working at Princeton University and becoming a U.S. citizen in 1940. A vehement opponent of Nazism, he warned Franklin D. Roosevelt that Germany would try to create an atomic bomb and later campaigned for control of nuclear weapons. He was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952, but declined. He died in Princeton on April 18, 1955.
Family and Childhood
Einstein was born on March 14, 1879, into a Jewish family in Ulm, a town in southern Germany whose motto was Ulmenses sunt mathematici (the people of Ulm are mathematicians). His parents were Pauline (née Koch) and Hermann Einstein. Pauline, 11 years younger than Hermann, was 21 years old at the time of Albert’s birth. She was immediately “alarmed at the sight of his exceptionally large angular occiput and at first thought he was a monster” (Félsing, 1997, p. 3). A large head circumference is seen in some persons with autism (Bailey, 1993).
Einstein’s parents were well educated; Pauline played the piano. She was extremely stubborn and obstinate. Hermann Einstein was hardworking, “a kind and friendly man, esteemed and loved by all of his family and friends, especially those of the female sex” (Félsing, 1997, p. 10). Neither parent attended the synagogue or practiced Jewish rites and customs. It has been suggested that Albert got his mathematical gifts from his father and his love of music from his mother, but he himself disagreed, stating that curiosity, obsession, and sheer perseverance brought him to his ideas. He seems to have been a quiet baby, and at the age of 2 was described as sweet and good. The family moved to Munich when he was 1 year old.
Although interested in all kinds of puzzles and in “making elaborate structures with building blocks and constructing houses of cards of breathtaking height” (Félsing, 1997, p. 11), Albert was averse to play and social behavior appropriate to his age; other children regarded him as a bore. When he occasionally did take part in play, he “deliberately sought the job of umpire, which, because of his instinctive sense of justice, was gladly assigned to him” (Félsing, 1997, p. 12). However, he had a violent temper as a young child. On one occasion, according to his sister Maja, he struck a female tutor with a chair; she “ran away in fear and was never seen again’ (Félsing, 1997, p. 12).
At school he suffered from anti-Semitism and was bullied. He had a sense of being an outsider and never stepped out of his characteristic isolation, rarely playing with other children. He had a reserved manner and an ingrained dislike of physical training and games. He never got tired when “engrossed with his beloved metal construction set, or with involved fretsaw work, or with manipulating a small hissing steam engine,” but behind his “facade of adjustment,” he exhibited a “dreamerlike, skeptical distancing from other people and things” (Félsing, 1997, p. 17). He never wanted to become a soldier or to play with toy soldiers; in fact, he showed a strong antipathy to all aspects of militarism.
As an older child he associated the atmosphere of school with that of the barrack-square — in his eyes, this was the negation of everything human. His memory for words was poor, and he resented the dull, mechanized method of teaching to which he was subjected, preferring to endure punishments rather than to learn by rote. A teacher of Greek told him that he would never amount to anything.
Reflecting later on how and why he had discovered relativity theory, Einstein pointed to his slow development as a child, whereby he began to reflect on space and time only when he was grown up, whereas for an average person “anything that needs reflection on this matter he believes he did in his early childhood” (Félsing, 1997, p. 13).
Social Behavior
As just noted, the young Einstein had major problems in playing with and relating to other children. He also showed evidence of temper tantrums as a child, but they receded from the age of 7 onward. The anti-Semitism he experienced as a child enhanced his sense of being an outsider. On leaving Berlin for the United States in 1931, he described himself as a migrating bird.
At Zurich Polytechnic, Einstein formed a relationship with Mileva Maric, a fellow student three years older than him. He wrote to her, “We understand one another's dark souls.” After marrying Mileva, Einstein recognized that his talent for married life was somewhat limited, however. He found the duties of marriage too much. His son, Hans Albert, later attributed his parents’ estrangement to the fact that his father believed that the family would take up too much of his time; he felt he had a duty to concentrate solely on his work (Folsing, 1997). It is clear that physics gave him far more happiness than family relationships. In the mid-1920s, he fell violently in love with his secretary, Betty Neumann, but ended the relationship by writing to her that he must seek in the stars that which was denied him on earth. It is not surprising that his sons turned against him. He noted in 1915 that 11-year-old Hans Albert “wrote me a very brusque card, resolutely rejecting a tour with me” (Folsing, 1997, p. 364).
Einstein had many relationships with women, but he “clearly intended these women, like his daughter, Lieserl, to vanish in the shadows of history,” wrote Félsing (1997, p. 617). He was not interested in connecting with individuals or human communities, describing himself as a real “loner, who never belonged wholeheartedly to the state, the homeland, my circle of friends, or even my own family, but experienced with regard to all these ties a never abating feeling of outsiderness and a need for solitude ... One experiences clearly, but without regret, the limit of communication and consonance with other people” (Fdlsing, 1997, p. 620). He described his life in Berlin as that of “a Gypsy ... an unattached person, who was fond of looking at the comical side of everything” (Félsing, 1997, p. 620).
He saw himself as a stranger everywhere. When he moved to Princeton his sense of isolation and alienation, if anything, increased; he noted, “I am not really becoming part of the human world here, for that I was too old when I arrived, and in point of fact it was no different in Berlin or in Switzerland. One is born a loner” (Félsing, 1997, p. 688). He felt fortunate living in Princeton, largely because the Princetonians respected his need for solitude.
Although he was a pacifist, some of Einstein’s writings are somewhat disturbing, showing an unsympathetic attitude to human beings; for example, “I would have no objection to the killing of worthless or even harmful individuals, I am against it only because I do not trust people, i.e., the courts. I appreciate more the quality than the quantity of human life” (Félsing, 1997, p. 621). After World War II he “rejected humanitarian programs to help Germans suffering hardships in their destroyed country” (Félsing, 1997, p. 727). According to Félsing (1997), he felt happier as a lone fighter than in the atmosphere of a committee where compromise was inevitable.
Einstein remarked in 1936 that he was “living in the kind of solitude that is painful in one’s youth but in one’s more mature years is delicious” (Félsing, 1997, p. 704). He had a gift for dividing his life into separate compartments — we often see this in persons with Asperger Syndrome, the artist L. S. Lowry being an extreme example (Fitzgerald, 2005).
Narrow Interests/Obsessiveness
Physics was his great interest in life — an addiction. He “soon learned to ferret out that which might lead to the bottom of things, to disregard everything else, to disregard the multitude of things that fill the mind but detract from the essential” (Félsing, 1997, p. 59). He wanted “to know how God created this world ... I want to know his thoughts, the rest are details” (Clarke, 1971, p. 19). A direct quest for the ultimate, as opposed to incremental building on existing knowledge, is common in scientists with Asperger Syndrome. Thus, the special theory of relativity did not refer to previous work.
In school Einstein did best at algebra, geometry, and physics, and poorly at French. Verbal descriptive subjects were not his forte. He studied algebra in elementary school and worked out Pythagoras’ theorem for himself. Clearly, he was a little professor, even at school. When he first encountered classical geometry, he thought it “sufficiently wonderful that man is able at all to attain such a degree of certainty and purity in thought, as the Greeks first demonstrated in geometry” (Félsing, 1997, p. 24).
He enrolled in the Polytechnic University in Zurich six months short of the official minimum age of 18. He “studied the masters of theoretical physics with a holy zeal at home” and avoided lectures that did not interest him, writing to his sister, “I never permitted myself any pleasure, any diversion, except that which my studies offer, keeps me upright and must protect me from despair” (Folsing, 1997, p. 51). As a physicist, his theoretical work would provide intense experience and indescribable joy.
Einstein has been described as having an uncanny sense of the whole in scientific problems on which he was working, similar to the mode of thinking of some children with learning difficulties, who are often described as global thinkers. He was a visual thinker — a daydreamer. Persons with autism tend to be strong in the visuo-spatial realm.
Routines/Control
Einstein controlled his relationships with his family and with women mainly by neglecting them and by not allowing them to interfere with his life work. He maintained an extraordinarily intense schedule of work throughout his life.
What mattered most to him was to keep his independence. It was extremely important for him to control his own life. When learning to play the violin as a boy, his “love of music awakened only when he himself became interested in certain pieces and replaced his lessons with self-teaching” (Félsing, 1997, p. 26). He was not interested in the advancement of his career and regarded participation in “this race of the intellects” as “a bad kind of slavery” (Félsing, 1997, p. 626).
The man responsible for bringing Einstein to Princeton, the educationist Abraham Flexner, tried to force him to maintain a low profile, telling him that his security in America depended on his silence and rejection of all public appearances. Flexner attempted to sabotage Einstein’s appearance as a violinist at a charity concert for the benefit of refugees; he also opened Einstein’s mail and declined invitations on his behalf, including an invitation to the White House. Einstein rebelled against these restrictions when he found out about them; he threatened to leave Princeton, and Flexner was forced to desist.
Language/Humor
In classic autistic fashion, the young Albert’s speech development proceeded slowly. His parents worried at his lack of progress and consulted a doctor. Félsing (1997) noted that the delay seems to have been due to an early ambition to speak only in complete sentences. Every sentence he uttered, no matter how routine, he would repeat to himself softly, moving his lips. This habit persisted until his seventh year. His acquisition of language, therefore, was “laborious and self-critical ... in contrast to most children’s natural, unproblematical learning” (Félsing, 1997, p. 11). He does not appear to have lacked a sense of humor.
Lack of Empathy
Einstein’s younger son, Eduard, developed schizophrenia in 1932, and was admitted to Burghélzli psychiatric hospital. Einstein was a “difficult father, who would stay out of touch for months on end and then would try to forcibly to impose his will on his sons” (Félsing, 1997, p. 671). Einstein made his final farewell to Eduard in 1933, many years before he died. He had a rather disturbing attitude to his younger son, having previously stated that “valuable individuals must not be sacrificed to hopeless things, not even in this instance” (Félsing, 1997, p. 671). Elsa, his second wife, observed that “nothing tragic really gets to him, he is in the happy position of being able to shuffle it off. That is also why he can work so well” (Félsing, 1997, p. 688; this related to his stepdaughter, Ilse, falling ill and dying at the age of 37).
His lack of social empathy was shown by his premature application for promotion at the patent office in Berne. He was also unsuccessful in many job applications despite his brilliant talents. Later, he showed a lack of tact in expecting others — even those with considerable professional status — to do his literature searches for him. Félsing (1997) noted that his remarks on personal matters were often “suided less by tact or sensitivity than by ruthless frankness” (p. 69).
Naivety/Childishness
As a young man, Einstein was largely unaware of life’s difficulties, and was naive when he intimated to Mileva, in Félsing’s words (1997), that the two of them, arm in arm “would bestride the scientific stage and amaze the world” (p. 71).
He sometimes showed a certain social innocence or naivety — a lack of conventional flexibility — in his dealings with people. Later, his attachment to certain causes, such as his espousal of world government, would be regarded as naive.
Nonverbal Communication
In the 1920s, the diplomat Count Harry Kessler noted, “The ironical trait in Einstein’s facial expression, the ‘Pierrot lunaire’ quality, the smiling and doleful skepticism that plays around his eyes, emerges ever more strongly” (Félsing, 1997, p. 548). He was not good at personal hygiene. In 1913, Elsa gave him a hairbrush and a toothbrush and attempted to educate him about hygiene; he eventually wrote to her “But if I begin to groom my body then I’m no longer myself ... your honestly filthy Albert” (Félsing, 1997, p. 233).
Conclusion
Although Einstein’s case is by no means clear-cut, he might meet the criteria for Asperger Syndrome (Gillberg, 1991), with the exception of a lack of information on motor problems (which is a controversial point anyway; Gillberg [1991] stated that motor clumsiness may be less a feature of persons with high-IQ Asperger Syndrome). According to the American Psychiatric Association’s (1994) DSMIV, he would possibly meet the criteria for autism rather than Asperger Syndrome, which contentiously requires typical language development. The evidence presented here points to (high-functioning) autism or Asperger Syndrome.
- Michael Fitzgerald, Former Professor of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
Sunday, June 23, 2024
Friday, June 21, 2024
Review: The Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas - The Literary Edit
 |
| https://thelitedit.com/the-count-of-monte-cristo-alexandre-dumas/ |
Almost every person I’ve encountered in the past three weeks is probably aware that I’ve been reading The Count of Monte Cristo. At number 44 on the BBC Big Reads, it’s one of the longest I’ve read to date – though having last night discovered that Dumas was paid by the word, one can certainly see why he’d pen such a lengthy novel – and on top of talking about it a lot, it’s had quite a big impact on my life. Not only have I been getting up before 6 most mornings to read; I’ve also been substituting trains for buses in order to make my commute to work longer so that I can increase my daily reading time.
Written in 1844 The Count is one of Dumas best loved novels and is a tale of adventure, revenge and deceit with a love story at its core. On the eve of his wedding to Mercedes, Edmond Dantes becomes the victim of a miscarriage of justice as he is arrested for being a Bonapartist traitor. Despite maintaining his innocence he is jailed where he spends six years plotting his revenge on those that have wronged him.
Having escaped from jail Dantes goes about exacting his revenge on a monumental scale; while also ensuring that he rewards those who were loyal to him, both prior and during his time in jail.
Set between 1815 and 1838 – a time when Napoleon was abdicated and exiled before ultimately returning to power – the backdrop is the basis for much of the political tension that lies within the novel. The tale is an epic one; populated with villains, aristocrats and innocents, the lives of the characters are in the hands of Dantes and as the plot unfolds so too do the fate of their fortunes.
For me, the final hundred pages – and indeed the climax of the tale – were the best, and I found myself racing through them despite not wanting the novel to end. A huge, beautiful, triumphant saga, The Count of Monte Cristo is the ultimate tale of revenge.
About The Count of Monte Cristo
In 1815 Edmond Dantès, a young and successful merchant sailor who has just recently been granted the succession of his erstwhile captain Leclère, returns to Marseille to marry his Catalan fiancée Mercédès. Thrown in prison for a crime he has not committed, Edmond Dantès is confined to the grim fortress of If. There he learns of a great hoard of treasure hidden on the Isle of Monte Cristo and he becomes determined not only to escape, but also to unearth the treasure and use it to plot the destruction of the three men responsible for his incarceration.
About Alexandre Dumas
Alexandre Dumas was born on July 24, 1802, in Villers-Cotterêts, France. He adopted the last name “Dumas” from his grandmother, a former Haitian slave. Dumas established himself as one of the most popular and prolific authors in France, known for plays and historical adventure novels such as The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo. He died on December 5, 1870, in Puys, France. His works have been translated into more than 100 languages and adapted for numerous films.
Why Do So Many People Have Autism Now?
Current data from the CDC states that autism prevalence is estimated to be about 1 in 36. Many people are wondering why there are so many people who have autism now. In this video, I'll address that question. Happy World Autism Awareness/Acceptance Day!
Wednesday, June 19, 2024
Monday, June 17, 2024
Thor (2011) Film Review - Mcu Reviews
 |
| https://mcureviews.com/2021/10/26/thor-2011/ |
Thor was a majestic motion picture that combined Shakespearean themes with science-fiction to create one of the most unique superhero films ever made up to that point in time. It was also (at the time) the most aesthetically beautiful motion picture Marvel Studios had ever produced as well as the most emotionally complex. Thor was Marvel Studios’ first origin story since 2008’s Iron Man, and it was the film that first took the MCU beyond the stars, opening the door to the Cosmic side of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which would be greatly expanded upon in forthcoming years.
Thor tells the story of two Prince’s of Asgard who are raised side-by-side until the Throne divides them and sets them upon two very different paths. In the beginning, Thor is the brash, rebellious, and egotistical son that is always anxious for a fight while Loki is the soft-spoken, eager-to-please, and quietly jealous son. Odin himself has raised both of his sons to believe that they were born to be kings, but the story takes a turn when Loki learns that he is adopted and is the son of the Frost Giant King Laufey. Loki learns this around the same time that Thor is cast out of Asgard by Odin and Loki’s ascent to the Throne coincides with Thor’s fall, but personally speaking, Loki’s rise is a turn to villainy while Thor’s fall teaches him what it means to be a hero.
In my opinion, Thor would have only worked with the right vision and the right cast, and Marvel Studios nailed it when it came to choosing who would direct this film, and who would portray these iconic characters who were not only Marvel comic book properties, but to some, actual deities. Just as Robert Downey Jr perfectly brought Tony Stark to life on film previously, Chris Hemsworth perfectly brought the God of Thunder to life, but doing this successfully went beyond just Hemsworth. Oftentimes in superhero films, the hero is defined by their villain, and that was certainly the case with this motion picture as Tom Hiddleston was incredible as Loki!
This was not a mere case of two characters being at odds and fighting either; Thor and Loki had a relationship and a bond that was clearly illustrated during their scenes together. As a viewer, I believed that underneath their bravado, Thor loved Loki and that Loki (in his own way) loved Thor, and this gave the film a tremendous depth that made many scenes more meaningful beneath their surface. As Thor, Chris Hemsworth had confidence that bordered on arrogance, and a chiseled physique. He was big, and strong, and charismatic, but within his eyes was a passion and a sincerity that brought his entire character together. Tom Hiddleston meanwhile was cunning and calculating, and he had a sinister smile, but his character depth was also found within his eyes, which were hauntingly desperate, and through which hints of a very damaged soul shined. Loki was as tragic as he was evil and whether they were standing side-by-side as brothers or fighting each other on the Rainbow Bridge, Hemsworth and Hiddleston had incredible chemistry.
I thought Loki was written perfectly as a villainous character, obtaining an origin story that was grounded in lies and despair. Anyone that has ever felt overlooked, underappreciated, or lost in the shadow of a sibling can relate to Loki, as can anyone that has ever had to wrestle with the frustrations of not measuring up to a loved one’s expectations, particularly those of a parental figure. These are complex, life-changing, and soul-shattering trials that only the strongest emerge from without scars, and Loki as a Marvel character is sort of the patron saint of the damaged, the outcast, and the fallen; a character that detests the proverbial cards that he has been dealt and that will do whatever it takes to come out of the game ahead in the end. Loki is certainly not a character without its flaws, but it is those flaws that make him so endearing and to many so relatable, and to more still so beloved. Loki – my personal favorite character in all of comics – was easily my favorite part of Thor, and I don’t have enough compliments to bestow upon Tom Hiddleston to justifiably praise his work with this character.
Next, I have to discuss Anthony Hopkins as King Odin, the All-Father. Again, what an amazing casting choice by Marvel Studios! Hopkins portrayed the character with passion, nobility, and aggression, and there was perhaps no scene more powerful in Thor than the one in which Odin casts Thor out of Asgard. The performances of Hemsworth, Hopkins, and Hiddleston during this scene specifically were mesmerizing!
Speaking of Asgard, just seeing the Realm Eternal brought to life was amazing! The architecture of the buildings and the beauty of the waters that surrounded the planetary body were really well done and I especially loved the sky, particularly at night. Asgard looked like a Heaven that I would want to go to!
There were so many other things that Marvel Studios got right in Thor! I loved seeing Lady Sif and The Warriors Three, whose spirits were captured flawlessly, and I enjoyed seeing The Destroyer brought to life, and I thought the nature of Mjolnir was perfectly achieved with Thor throwing the Hammer and it returning back to him and whatnot. I also loved seeing the God of Thunder conjure lightning on Jotunheim and wielding it against the Frost Giants; just an incredible and visually stunning scene that did a great job of capturing Thor’s immense power in a matter of seconds!
Back on Midgard, I enjoyed seeing Thor trying to fit-in on Earth after getting cast out of Asgard. The way the God of Thunder interacted with the humans that he encountered allowed room for some humor in what was otherwise a very heavy film, emotionally speaking. Thor going into a pet shop and asking for a horse was one of my favorite moments and I also loved the scene where everyone tries to lift Mjolnir in the desert to no avail, which came right out of the comics. Thor trying to break into the S.H.I.E.L.D. barricade was also a fantastic scene, and the Hawkeye cameo was an awesome bonus!
I also have to mention the big showdown pitting Thor against Loki at the end of the film! This was an incredible fight scene that saw each actor stay precisely true to their characters throughout. It was so sad to see Loki sort of try and become all of the things he resented Thor for being in an effort to earn Odin’s approval and emerge as Thor’s equal in his father’s eyes. Loki’s entire plan was based on this logic, and he so desperately wanted it, he was willing to not only slay his biological father in the name of his adopted one, but to destroy the entire Frost Giant race in Odin’s name. Loki fought Thor with rage, anger, aggression, and yes, a hint of malevolence, but he also fought Thor with conviction and with literal tears in his eyes. This was an emotionally complex war between one brother that had risen above his pride and another who had been crushed by it. Make no mistake, Thor’s rise would have never occurred without Loki’s fall.
This will probably sound blasphemous to most Marvel fans, but Thor was for me at the time, my favorite of the four Marvel Studios films that had been released up to that point. When you take into consideration the costumes and the set pieces and the music and the effects, and the stellar performances that bled through all of the mythology; it was a huge achievement in comic book moviemaking. I love this film!
Saturday, June 15, 2024
Thursday, June 13, 2024
David Hilbert (1862-1943)
The German mathematician David Hilbert was born in Konigsberg on January 23, 1862. He studied and taught at Konigsberg University until he transferred to the University of Gottingen in 1895, where he made an immense contribution to various fields of mathematics. For example, in 1900, he proposed 23 mathematical problems for investigation, most of which have since been solved.
Hilbert was described as a gay young man with a reputation as a snappy dancer and a charmer who flirted outrageously with a great number of women — traits that would not suggest Asperger Syndrome. However, this chapter will present evidence that he may in fact have displayed characteristics of this syndrome.
Life History
Richard Courant found Hilbert to be “a unique personality, profoundly immersed in his work and totally dedicated to his science, a teacher and leader of the very highest order, inspiring and most generous, tireless and persistent in all of his efforts” (Reid, 1970, p. 2). His mother Maria Therese was an unusual woman — she was interested in philosophy and astronomy, and fascinated by prime numbers. His father was a county judge, “rather narrow in his point of view with strict ideas about proper behavior, a man so set in his ways that he walked the same path every day and so rooted in Konigsberg that he left it only for his annual vacation on the Baltic” (Reid, 1970, p. 3).
As a boy, Hilbert had an intense desire for truth, but he described himself as a dull and silly youth. He found memorization exceedingly difficult, and language classes caused him more sorrow than joy. He was not particularly quick at comprehending new ideas. A member of the Hilbert family recalled, “all I know of uncle David is that his whole family considered him a bit off his head. His mother wrote his school essays for him. On the other hand, he could explain mathematics problems to his teachers. Nobody really understood him at home” (Reid, 1970, p. 6). Mathematics appealed to him, and he was delighted with it because it was easy and effortless. It required no memorization.
Hilbert found the perfect mate, married, and fathered a child in 1893. The boy, Franz Hilbert, was “disturbed.” Hilbert said “I must consider myself as not having a son” (Reid, 1970, p. 139; Einstein also ignored a son with mental illness). It is not clear whether or not Franz had schizophrenia, but he did announce that he wanted to save the family from evil spirits that were after them. It was said that he lacked tact and would speak of his views inappropriately.
Work
Hilbert did not grasp complicated ideas in a flash and took his time to get to the bottom of matters. He set high standards of simplicity and clarity for his talks to the mathematics club. After his death, Nature described Hilbert as a “mathematical Alexander.” This is typical of persons with Asperger Syndrome and genius; there is a parallel with Wittgenstein.
Hilbert’s conception of mathematical existence was freedom from contradiction. He divided his working life into periods during which he occupied himself almost exclusively with one particular problem. If he was engrossed in integral equations, integral equations seemed everything. When he dropped a subject, he dropped it for good and turned to something else. There were five periods in his working life:
1. theory of invariance (1885-1893)
2. theory of algebraic number fields (1893-1898)
3. foundations — (a) of geometry (1898-1902); (b) of mathematics
in general (1922-1930)
4. integral equations (1902-1912)
5. physics (1910-1922).
Max Von Lau, a Nobel Prize winner, noted, “Pure mathematics ... did not fail to impress me, especially in the brilliant courses of David Hilbert.” He went on to say that Hilbert was “the greatest genius I ever laid eyes on” (Reid, 1970, p. 68).
Hilbert’s lectures were in some ways like Wittgenstein’s, in that he prepared them only in the general sense and then tried to work out the details in the lecture. At times they were mathematics in the making. His lectures were a faithful reflection of his spirit (direct, intense).
Social Behavior
For Hilbert, comradeship and human solidarity were essential to scientific production (contrary to an Asperger trait). He complained about a lack of mathematical conversation. Students had to be careful about offering a lie or an empty phrase to him, and his directness could be something to be afraid of (Reid, 1970, p. 53). He was not good with children.
Hilbert was described as “a bit of an arrested juvenile” (Reid, 1970, p. 131). He would come to a lecture hall in short-sleeved opennecked shirt — inconceivably inappropriate attire for a professor in that day. He pedaled through the streets with bouquets from his garden for his “flames,” but was just as likely to bear as his gift a basket of compost balanced on the handlebars. At a concert or restaurant, no matter how elegant, if he felt a draught, he borrowed a fur or a feather boa from one of the ladies present. He liked pretty young ladies and delighted in explaining mathematical ideas to them. He fancied himself a dashing man of the world.
Hilbert thought the war was stupid, and said so (not unlike Bertrand Russell’s views). He refused to sign a declaration in favor of the war and was treated as a traitor.
Narrow Interests/Obsessiveness
Hilbert had an extraordinarily focused attention on mathematics — he once described himself as a mathematical Eskimo. Richard Courant said that Hilbert had “a fantastic balance between intense concentration and complete relaxation” (Reid, 1970, p. 109).
Routines/Control
As we have seen, Hilbert imposed strict self-control in terms of work. He was also controlling of others; when he went to a restaurant after a lecture, the subject of conversation was “only algebraic number fields” (Reid, 1970, p. 51). His active influence on the mathematicians of his time was embodied in a statement that one of them made directly to him: “You have made us all think only that which you would have us think” (Reid, 1970, p. 214).
He absolutely denied the reality of his physical illness — pernicious anemia — which was more or less fatal at the time he got it. It seems that his wife was entirely devoted to him and looked after him. However, there is no sense of reciprocal social interaction with her. She simply provided for all his needs, while he was totally controlling, dominant, and he appears to have entirely imposed his will on her in the home situation. He would have been lost without her and could not have lived the life he lived.
An example of the importance of routines in Hilbert’s life appears in an anecdote told about him: One day, at a party in their house, his wife asked him to go upstairs and put on a clean shirt. After some time, when he had failed to reappear, she went upstairs and found him asleep in bed. For Hilbert, the natural sequence of things was to take off his coat, then his tie, then his shirt, and so on, and then go to sleep (Reid, 1970).
Language/Humor
Hilbert delivered his lectures with many repetitions to make sure that everyone understood him and repeated briefly what had been covered in a previous lecture. His sentences followed each other simply, naturally, and logically. We have no definite evidence of abnormalities in this area. What was very unusual about his language was its content, with an almost exclusive focus on mathematics.
Naivety/Childishness
Hilbert was said to have had “all the naivety and the freedom from bias and tradition which is characteristic only of true great investigators” (Reid, 1970, p. 53). His mathematical approach was to go back to questions in their original conceptual simplicity. George Polya said that Hilbert always “looked so innocent” (Reid, 1970, p. 132).
Hilbert demonstrated a “naive and imperative egoism” that was always “egoism in the interest of his mission, never of his own person.” He once made an interesting comment about Einstein: “Do you know why Einstein said the most original and profound things about space and time in our generation? Because he had learned nothing at all about the philosophy and mathematics of time and space” (clearly, he thought spending too much time reading others’ work was counterproductive) (Reid, 1970, pp. 141-142).
Lack of Empathy
Alfred North Whitehead wrote, “The leading characteristic of mathematics is that it deals with properties and ideas which are applicable to things just because they are things, and apart from any particular feelings, or emotions, or sensations, in any way connected with them. This is what is meant by calling mathematics an abstract science” (Whitehead, 1948, p. 2). It is perhaps one of the reasons why the study of mathematics has attracted many people with Asperger Syndrome.
Hilbert seemed to lack tact in his relationship with “the flames” he pursued. He basically denied the existence of his son when he got ill. He couldn't really relate to children, as we have seen, and would spend just a minute or so with them. This is not unlike Bertrand Russell.
While he had very intense relationships with mathematicians, these were exclusively focused on discussing mathematics, which is typical of Asperger Syndrome. He could also relate in a social way to students, but again, even at dinner, mathematics was the focus. The brutality with which he could dispose of someone who did not meet his standards was well known. Hilbert once told Norbert Wiener, later a famous mathematician himself, that his lecture was “the worst there ever has been!” (Reid, 1970, p. 170).
Despite being married himself, Hilbert was against scientists marrying. When Wilhelm Ackerman married, Hilbert was very angry and refused to do anything more to further Ackerman’s career. Ackerman, a gifted young logician, had to teach in a high school.
Nonverbal Communication Problems
From photographs, Hilbert appears to have had a peculiar, stiff gaze.
Motor Clumsiness
He was probably not clumsy because he was a good dancer. In very high-IQ Asperger Syndrome, clumsiness does not come into the picture. It is possible that in cases where clumsiness does come in, a somewhat lower IQ exists and maybe more severe brain pathology. (True Asperger Syndrome probably does not include clumsiness, which should therefore be excluded as a criterion for it — this may be the one item that Asperger himself got wrong.)
Anxiety/Depression
In 1908, Hilbert became depressed and spent time at a sanatorium. The breakdown did not seem to be triggered by any specific experience. Courant, in the Foreword to Reid’s (1970) book, wrote that “almost every great scientist I have known has been subject to such deep depressions.” He felt that this might be due to periods in the life of a productive person when he appears to himself to be losing his powers, which can come as a great shock.
Conclusion
David Hilbert meets the criteria for Asperger Syndrome, according to Gillberg (1996), with the exception of an absence of speech and language problems and motor clumsiness. However, neither of these features is essential for such a diagnosis, while their absence would suggest a diagnosis of Asperger’s disorder under the American Psychiatric Association (1994) classification. It is likely that Asperger Syndrome/disorder helped Hilbert to become as creative as he was in mathematics because it gave him the kind of exclusive focus that is necessary for major creativity.
- Michael Fitzgerald, Former Professor of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
Tuesday, June 11, 2024
Review: A Woman of the Iron People by Eleanor Arnason
 |
| https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/reviews/books/0-380-75637-4.html |
A Woman of the Iron People was published in two different formats: together as one book in most editions, and as a mass market duology with subtitles In the Light of Sigma Draconis and Changing Woman. The cover in the sidebar is for the former (the uglier cover of the two, and one that has no recognizable connection with the story); the other information is for both books combined. It's really a single novel, however, and I recommend reading it in that form. If you've happened across the mass market edition, plan on reading it back-to-back.
The co-winner of the first Tiptree award and also the (rather surprising) winner of a Mythopoeic award, A Woman of the Iron People is an anthropological first-contact novel. It's told primarily in the first person by the human researcher Lixia, who is one of eight specialists sent down onto an inhabited planet by a human exploration mission. The natives are humanoid but furred and are at (roughly) a bronze-age level of technology, divided into groups of villages that specialize in a particular technology. We meet a native named Nia, a blacksmith from the iron people, in the first chapter of the book, and Lixia then meets her in the second chapter and eventually forms a close friendship with her. She and Lixia are the focuses around which the story forms.
This is first contact as slow and deliberate anthropological exploration by humans who are deeply concerned about negatively influencing the native inhabitants. We slowly realize that the world from which Lixia comes is nearly as foreign to us as the world that she's exploring: there's been some type of ecological collapse and apparently a partial governmental collapse as well, capitalism is thoroughly discredited, and one of the factions on the ship seems to be partly Maoist (although a version of Maoism that leans towards the better characteristics of the philosophy). Lixia herself was apparently previously embedded in a group that sounds like back-to-nature primitives. And when we meet a second anthropologist, he's from a culture in California that appears to combine a close relationship with nature with some aspects of California surfer, hippie, and drug cultures. While the anthropologists are understanding the native culture, the reader is piecing together a picture of what happened to Earth.
The most likely comparison here is to Le Guin, and Arnason has a similar slow pace and detailed examination of local culture as The Dispossessed or The Left Hand of Darkness. Anthropology and careful observation is strongly foregrounded. Lixia collects stories, music, and cultural observations and is always happy for people to explain customs or tell mythical or legendary stories. Her gatherings of story are mostly presented in the book as she finds them, which leads to a slow pace, a lot of conversation, and quite a few mythological digressions. The mythology is somewhat interesting; the songs and poetry much less so, at least for me, and I found most of them painful.
The native species is somewhat human-like in its social structures, but with a radically different experience of gender and a considerably sharper sexual dimorphism than humans. When they go through puberty, living in the company of others becomes actively uncomfortable for nearly all males and they, with only a few exceptions, leave their home villages to find and then hold territory against other males, living alone. The civilization is therefore strongly female-centric, since only females and children live in the villages. Both males and females have small crafts, and there's an elaborate gift-giving culture, but larger industry is an exclusively female occupation due to male isolationism. Tied into and supporting that cultural organization is a defined yearly period of sexual heat, during which women from the village walk out into the wild lands claimed by men and mate with the first man they find, exchanging gifts and then returning after the week or two of sexual activity.
Most of this is laid out in the first chapter, told from Nia's perspective, but additional complexity and depth are added over the course of the book. Different native cultures handle the biological limitations differently and form different roles for men and women. And Nia herself makes an unusual break with tradition between the first chapter and the point at which Lixia first meets her. One of the slow progressions throughout the book is a possible weakening of the strict gender boundaries of Nia's people.
All this is occasionally interesting, but it does not constitute a plot, and for me that's the primary weakness of A Woman of the Iron People. There is an overarching problem (learning the natives and then deciding what sort of contact humans should have with them) that is slowly explored over the course of the book, and there are some intermediate goals to give the book structure, but it's mostly a meander across an alien civilization as seen through the eyes of an anthropologist. It usually lacks urgency or much momentum, and parts are filled with wilderness survival. (I once again find it remarkable how much of science fiction is filled with wilderness survival stories, often with quite primitive technology.) For a while, it looked like the tension would increase towards the conclusion, but despite some relatively dramatic events the book stubbornly maintained a leisurely and introspective pace. It's an interesting statement about both anthropology and about first-contact scenarios, and it feels realistic, but it doesn't make for compelling reading.
The grounding for the Tiptree award is obvious from the detailed examination of a culture and society with different sexual biology and drastically different resulting gender roles. And that examination is neither static nor concerned only with the typical case; Arnason populates her alien race with dissenters, outcasts, and people who flaunt social norms, and tests those norms in part by looking at their boundaries. Despite the fact that none of it is particularly exciting, it's a thoughtful and deep look at the way gender interacts with society and the consequences and impact of partial rejection of social rules.
The Mythopoeic award, given to the work most in the spirit of the Inklings (C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, and friends), is much less obvious and puzzled me a bit. I suspect the connection is to C.S. Lewis's Space Trilogy, particularly Out of the Silent Planet, which featured a similar human first-contact situation and exploration of an alien culture (although not by an anthropologist). There are some ways in which Arnason's culture is also innocent: large-scale warfare, for example, is unknown, due presumably to a combination of biology rejecting male raiding parties and a culture of small bands in a resource-rich environment. Arnason's concern with innocence is cultural rather than spiritual, but it's a significant theme in the book.
A Woman of the Iron People is not without merits, and I can see why it won the Tiptree. Parts of it I quite enjoyed; Nia and Lixia are both interesting, deep, and enjoyable characters, and I liked the radical changes in human culture that meant I had to figure out the humans at the same time as the aliens. But it's just too slow and too aimless for me to recommend as entertainment. Still, consider giving it a try if you want to see what a full anthropological treatment of first contact might look like.
Grover Furr on the mystery of the Katyn massacre
American professor Grover Furr talks about his book The Mystery of the Katyn Massacre: The Evidence, The Solution.
Grover Carr Furr III (born April 3, 1944) is an American professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University, best known for writing on Joseph Stalin. Born in Washington, D.C., Grover Furr graduated from McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada in 1965 with a BA in English. He received a Ph.D in Comparative literature from Princeton University in 1978. Since February 1970, he has been on the faculty at Montclair State University in New Jersey, where he specializes in medieval English literature.
Sunday, June 9, 2024
Environmental Work Can Be Undesirable in Russia
 |
| https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/01/14/environmental-work-can-be-undesirable-russia |
A healthy environment has become a major topic for public debate globally, particularly in the context of climate change, and Russia is no exception. The authorities clearly understand that. In November the state-owned public opinion polling center published results of a survey conducted specifically to assess the “protest potential” of environmental issues ahead of next year’s parliamentary elections.
It revealed that as public concerns about the environment grow, so do expectations that the authorities will address them. The catastrophic fuel spill in Norilsk, ravaging forest fires in Siberia, severe “black skies” pollution warnings in several Siberian towns, and a mysterious marine life disaster on the Kamchatka coast in Russia’s Far East are just a few of the destructive environmental emergencies in Russia that made international and local headlines this year alone.
One might think this would lead the government to increase its engagement with environmental activists and experts. Yet we seem to be witnessing the opposite. In November, the authorities raided one of Russia’s most prominent environmental groups. In December a member of the Russian parliament ratcheted up his campaign against Greenpeace.
On December 14, the chairperson of the parliamentary committee on natural resources, Nikolay Nikolayev, announced his proposal to list Greenpeace as an “undesirable organization” in Russia, because it “interferes in the legislative processes.” He listed as an example the organization’s successful advocacy to allow landowners to grow forest on lands listed as agricultural. Previously, this was deemed illegal and could result in hefty fines and land confiscation. Even though President Putin ordered the government last January to develop measures to make this legal, Nikolayev apparently sees this change, and the campaign that promoted it, as hostile and contrary to Russia’s interests.
If Nikolayev succeeds, Greenpeace would be forced to cease all operations on Russian territory, and any Russian resident deemed to be affiliated with it could be targeted for criminal prosecution. This is already happening in other ongoing “undesirable” cases.
This is not the first time that Nikolayev has lashed out at Greenpeace.
During a summer 2020 podcast, he called the group a “pseudo-environmental organization calling on the Russian authorities to inspect them.
In the past few years, Nikolayev has repeatedly asked the authorities to run an inquiry to determine whether Greenpeace could be listed as “foreign agents.” Under Russian law, any Russian group that engages in “political activity” and receives even a dollar of foreign financing must register as a “foreign agent.” The authorities target groups with the highly toxic “foreign agents” label to stigmatize them—in Russia the term is akin to “spy” or “enemy of the state”— as well as to impose burdensome auditing, reporting and labelling requirements.
By 2017, Russia’s “Year of Ecology”, at least 29 environmental groups had been tagged as “foreign agents” and 14 were either shut down or had suspended their work as a result. Greenpeace’s partners have also been targeted. In October 2019, authorities added the “Civic Initiative Against Environmental Crimes” nongovernmental group to the list of foreign agents specifically because they were receiving grants and assistance from Greenpeace. In December that year, a local court slapped them with a hefty fine in connection with their ‘foreign agent’ status.
The authorities had to explain to the lawmaker that this label cannot be applied to Greenpeace, as it’s reserved for Russian organizations, whereas Greenpeace is an international group. But if the new, oppressive amendments to the ‘foreign agents’ bill, is adopted, their staff members, volunteers, and potentially even supporters could be listed as such.
During the parliamentary debate over this new bill, a parliament member behind many of the latest oppressive bills, Vassiliy Piskariov, stated that if Greenpeace wants Russian laws changed, those who use [their] money should be marked as foreign agents. Following that debate, Nikolayev accused Greenpeace of involvement in “subversive activities” aimed at “harming [Russia]”
Greenpeace’s representative told me that he cannot comment on these lawmakers’ actions or logic, but firmly stated that theirs is a non-political organization, and this is one of their key principles.
Meanwhile, at least one reporter has suggested that the attack on Greenpeace could be the result of the organization’s objections to various expensive infrastructure investment projects in Siberia that could have devastating environmental impacts.
Russian officials have had a grudge against Greenpeace for years. In 2015 Greenpeace filed a defamation suit against NTV—a government-affiliated broadcaster that has regularly conducted smear campaigns against human rights activists and the political opposition— in relation to a 2013 piece, that among other things alleged that Greenpeace was funded by the US government in the interest of American energy companies. Unsurprisingly, Greenpeace lost in the Russian courts.
A few years later, the special envoy for environmental protection, Sergey Ivanov, called them an “extremist organization.” Greenpeace was also among environmental groups named in a 2018 report by pro-government political analysts. The report features a list of 47 actions by environmental activists that it considers “environmental extremism”; some of them were Greenpeace campaigns.
The report also referred to environmental groups and activists involved as “pseudo-environmentalists” and insinuated that they are serving Western interests to sabotage Russia’s economic development and destabilize the political situation with a view to overthrowing the government. The report was widely covered by state-controlled media. In a media interview in 2017 one expert with Greenpeace Russia said that the had noticed increased attempts to demonize the organization, and environmentalists more widely, in the public eye.
Greenpeace and their supporters continue to resort to hard work, creativity, and perseverance to try to reduce if not prevent further environmental degradation and to ensure the right to a healthy environment for people across Russia. With the Russian public ever more concerned about environmental issues, groups like Greenpeace should not be in the government’s crosshairs because they choose to fight for a clean and healthy environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)