
I wish I wasn't autistic but society needs us
I do not possess the sort of autism which has enabled me to design rockets, or monumentally push the boundaries of art, physics or music. I seem only to suffer intense sensitivity to overhead lighting, extreme aversion to certain food groups, inability to maintain friendships, a proclivity towards total social isolation, and obsessions about obscure topics (I can tell you a lot about the pathology of contagious yawning, for example) that do not advance the human race.
Still, some of the most intellectually gifted people alive today are autistic, and would not have achieved their success without it. Historically, too, many of humanity's greatest innovators were very likely autistic too.
While it's impossible to posthumously diagnose these people, of course, biographical records all point strongly to figures including Albert Einstein, Michelangelo, Beethoven and Charles Darwin as having typical autistic traits. All were socially awkward, solitary, obsessive about singular topics and had rigid, eccentric routines.
Dr Selina Warlow, a renowned clinical psychologist specialising in neurodiversity, tells me: 'From an evolutionary perspective, there's a compelling argument that neurodivergent minds bring unique strengths to society, whether it's in systems thinking, long-term vision, or an unwavering commitment to truth and innovation. These traits can be incredibly valuable, particularly when it comes to driving progress or tackling complex global challenges.'
However, the likes of Beethoven and Michelangelo were also known to be brooding, troubled souls; none of whom would be described as having a sunny disposition. Indeed, according to a recent meta-analysis in Springer Nature, autistic people were found to have an up to eightfold increased risk of suicide compared to the rest of the population. It is not a comfortable mind to occupy – I can tell you that.
Elon Musk is a shining example of the sort of autistic figurehead who isn't known to be happy-go-lucky, and is widely disliked by many (as was Einstein, who was regarded by his contemporaries as rebellious and a loose canon) but who has undeniably achieved great things for humanity. Tesla, SpaceX, and Neuralink, are all companies that will go down in history as being hugely significant in the advance of technology.
Musk famously stated, when hosting Saturday Night Live in 2021: 'I'm actually making history tonight as the first person with Asperger's to host SNL. So I won't make a lot of eye contact tonight. But don't worry, I'm pretty good at running human in emulation mode.' He went on to quip: 'I know I sometimes say or post strange things, but that's just how my brain works. To anyone I've offended, I just want to say, I reinvented electric cars and I'm sending people to Mars in a rocket ship. Did you think I was also going to be a chill, normal dude?'
The 'Asperger's' classification he mentioned, incidentally, was eliminated by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013 and folded into the broader diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, a move I personally find confounding. There is a gargantuan difference between being on the high-functioning end of the spectrum, as I am, and the other end, which renders people non-verbal and entirely incapable of independent lives.
It's one of the many reasons I feel embarrassed to tell people I have autism. I appear relatively 'normal', because I'm good at covering it up ('masking', as it's known in the field), so some just don't believe me. To be honest, I didn't really buy it myself until I was formally diagnosed earlier this year. And only because so many of my followers on TikTok have for years pointed out that I displayed classic traits in my videos.
Looking back, I have always been very blunt in my affect and unwavering in my opinions, hardly noticing (or caring, frankly) if others are offended by me. It was a persistent problem at school, where I was regarded as stubborn and uncooperative. I never did my homework on principle, and I still maintain that it's unreasonable and a bad habit to try and instil in children. I often fell out with friends, too, for reading situations wrong or being insensitive.
Lacking empathy is a commonly discussed attribute when it comes to autism, but it's more complicated than it sounds. Growing up, I always had intense empathy for animals, for example, but find it very hard to react normally when humans are in distress. To this day I skip past Mufasa's death in the Lion King when my son watches it because I can't bear the sadness, but since as early as I can recall, if a friend is upset, I freeze up; not wanting to hug them nor knowing what to say to comfort them.
'Animals are less complex socially: they're consistent and easier to read,' Dr Warlow points out. 'Many autistic individuals are described as having a strong sense of justice, fairness, and a clear moral compass, sometimes more so than their neurotypical peers. While their way of relating to other people might be different, it doesn't mean they lack empathy altogether; rather, empathy may be expressed in ways that are less conventional or more focused on principles than emotions.'
True to form, I probably fell out with my best friend seven years ago – a sad occurrence that haunts me to this day, especially given I so rarely find people I like – because her life was changing trajectory and she was no longer following the same rules, in my head. The last straw was when she promised she'd take me to my ex-boyfriend's funeral and then cancelled at the last minute. A minor transgression to most, but I just couldn't fathom the broken pledge and absolutely exploded. She ended our friendship after that.
Had I known at the time that I was autistic, I almost certainly would have saved it, simply by accepting that not everyone thinks with the same rigidity that I do. It sounds absurdly obvious, but before being diagnosed, I found the world baffling. People would say one thing, but mean another – how are we supposed to tell which is which? And why do the majority just blindly obey certain rules even when they are unjust or ridiculous? Take homework, for example. As a kid I couldn't accept that after being at school all day learning things, I then had to go home and do more work, instead of recharging or spend time relaxing. That's blatantly immoral, surely? Adults aren't obliged to do this, in most jobs.
I assumed, however, that I was simply bad at handling these confusing societal norms, and was thus a substandard human. In short, I hated myself. Now I understand the difference in the wiring of my brain, it all makes sense. I'm nicer to myself and less frustrated by others. Which is why, despite widespread mockery, I believe labels to be so important when it comes to mental matters.
It is a good thing that so many more people these days are being diagnosed with conditions like ADHD and autism. Classifying things is how we better compute them, and why we humans know so much about the world. There are more than 6,000 species of frog so far identified by scientists and no-one seems to get their knickers in a flap about that. I write about having autism and ADHD and will probably get annihilated by certain readers in the comments section.
But I hope – and it's partly why I keep writing about it – that someone might recognise themselves in my words and realise they are not broken or a dud, but that they could just have a neurological abnormality that has a name, an explanation, and yes, a useful purpose. It's happened already; I've had many emails and messages from people who have gone on to be diagnosed after seeing me talk or write about it, and found immense comfort in finally understanding themselves.
It's useful for others, too (just ask my husband) to comprehend our weirdisms. So while my life is more difficult because I have autism, I'm glad that I know I have it; and though I am but a lowly writer, I do get a kick out of being in the same club as Darwin and Einstein.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why cancer patients may have to avoid popular sugar substitute
New research from the University of Pittsburgh and UPMC Hillman Cancer Center suggests that sucralose, a popular sugar substitute, may interfere with the effectiveness of certain cancer treatments. Patients with melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer who consumed high levels of sucralose responded worse to immunotherapy and had poorer survival rates. The study, primarily conducted on mice, found that sucralose disrupts gut bacteria, leading to a depletion of the amino acid arginine, which is essential for T-cell function and effective immunotherapy. Researchers discovered that supplementing with arginine counteracted the negative effects of sucralose on immunotherapy treatments in mice. Future plans include pursuing clinical trials to determine if arginine supplementation can mitigate sucralose's effects in humans and investigating the impact of other artificial sweeteners on the immune system and cancer treatments.


The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Judge allows the National Science Foundation to withhold hundreds of millions of research dollars
The National Science Foundation can continue to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars from researchers in several states until litigation aimed at restoring it plays out, a federal court ruled Friday. U.S. District Judge John Cronan in New York declined to force the NSF to restart payments immediately, while the case is still being decided, as requested by the sixteen Democrat-led states who brought the suit, including New York, Hawaii, California, Colorado and Connecticut. In his ruling, Cronan said he would not grant the preliminary injunction in part because it may be that another court, the Court of Federal Claims, has jurisdiction over what is essentially a case about money. He also said the states failed to show that NSF's actions were counter to the agency's mandate. The lawsuit filed in May alleges that the National Science Foundation's new grant-funding priorities as well as a cap on what's known as indirect research expenses 'violate the law and jeopardize America's longstanding global leadership in STEM.' Another district court had already blocked the the cap on indirect costs — administrative expenses that allow research to get done like paying support staff and maintaining equipment. This injunction had been requested to restore funding to the grants that were cut. In April, the NSF announced a new set of priorities and began axing hundreds of grants for research focused on things like misinformation and diversity, equity and inclusion. Researchers who lost funding also were studying artificial intelligence, post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans, STEM education for K-12 students and more. Researchers were not given a specific explanation for why their grants were canceled, attorney Colleen Faherty, representing the state of New York, said during last month's hearing. Instead, they received boilerplate language stating that their work 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities." NSF has long been directed by Congress to encourage underrepresented groups like women and people with disabilities to participate in STEM. According to the lawsuit, the science foundation's funding cuts already halted efforts to train the next generation of scientists in fields like computer science, math and environmental science. A lawyer for the NSF said at the hearing that the agency has the authority to fund whatever research it deems necessary — and has since its inception in 1950. In the court filing, the government also argued that its current priorities were to 'create opportunities for all Americans everywhere' and 'not preference some groups at the expense of others, or directly/indirectly exclude individuals or groups.' The plaintiff states are trying to 'substitute their own judgement for the judgement of the agency," Adam Gitlin, an attorney for the NSF, said during the hearing. The science foundation is still funding some projects related to expanding representation in STEM, Cronan wrote in his ruling. Per the lawsuit filed in May, for example, the University of Northern Colorado lost funding for only one of its nine programs focused on increasing participation of underrepresented groups in STEM fields. The states are reviewing the decision, according to spokespeople from the New York and Hawaii attorney general offices. The National Science Foundation declined to comment. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.


Reuters
22 minutes ago
- Reuters
US judge rejects states' bid to block Trump diversity research funding cuts
Aug 1 (Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday rejected a bid by 16 Democratic-led states to force U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to restore hundreds of millions of dollars of grants it canceled that support increasing diversity in science, technology, engineering and math fields. Democratic state attorneys general had urged U.S. District Judge John Cronan in Manhattan to block the National Science Foundation from canceling funding awarded to universities designed to increase the participation of women, minorities, and people in those fields, known collectively as STEM. They had argued in a lawsuit filed in May that the Trump administration lacked the power to cap research funding and eliminate diversity programs provided by the NSF that were mandated by Congress and urged the judge to reverse grant terminations that began in April. But Cronan, a Trump appointee, agreed with the administration, opens new tab that a challenge to NSF's already-completed grant terminations could not be pursued in his court but instead could only be taken up by the Court of Federal Claims, a specialist court that hears monetary claims against the U.S. government. He said the states likewise failed to show a new NSF policy stating that research "must aim to create opportunities for all Americans everywhere" and that research projects that preference "subgroups of people" do not reflect the agency's priorities was inconsistent with the agency's governing statute. The same day that policy was posted in April, NSF began canceling grants that had been previously issued that touched on among other topics of diversity, equity and inclusion. Trump has sought to eliminate DEI from the government and society. The states said the policy was inconsistent with the National Science Foundation Act's mandate that the agency award grants "to increase the participation of underrepresented populations in STEM fields." But Cronan said NSF's policy did not require it to cease supporting such projects and that it has in fact continued to fund a number of such projects, including at institutions within the plaintiff states. "This evidence powerfully undermines Plaintiffs' argument that the Priority Directive renders this class of projects categorically ineligible for funding," Cronan wrote. NSF declined to comment. A spokesperson for New York Attorney General Letitia James' office, which took the lead for the plaintiffs, said it is reviewing the decision.