0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You can safely assume that many scientists are borderline Autistic
How safe is that assumption?
I can see no reason to adopt a pseudonym
Consider the abbreviationsPeople often tend to shorten names online, which I leant by experience.
However, your name is what you start with and why make people start with an impression that is miles away from where you are?
a long name just means a lot of typing.
I've never met a scientist who I would call remotely autistic.
You spend your whole life trying to find something you enjoy, and then everyone tells you to shut up about it.
I had assumed it was HAL from the space odyssey books, but version c - so not trying to kill everyone.
NOAX would have been hard to work out. No-one would have known it was Non-Oxide Adhesive eXperimental, or a pop singer. Best guess - "No Axe to grind".
Since virtually all scientists are adults, they could not be autistic, by definition.
Cavendish, who was brilliant, but could never talk directly to people, but used correspondence.
Darwin, with his intense childhood focus on collecting bugs
In Darwin's second year at the university, he joined the Plinian Society, a student natural-history group featuring lively debates in which radical democratic students with materialistic views challenged orthodox religious concepts of science.
- more severe cases often being seen as children of parents with mildly autistic tendencies (ie a strong genetic contribution) - with Silicon Valley being a particularly intense hotspot
People with mild autism often have sharp intellects but are socially awkward. Severe autism is debilitating condition and usually requires institutional care. Personally I am against the medicalization of human traits where every variation becomes a "syndrome". On the original topic, I couldn't think of a suitable pseudonym and I used my real name. At my age I couldn't give a f#@* who sees it.