3 ms·

> Larry Ellison has an ASD diagnosis? TIL. Not to my knowledge, just was offering a counterpoint to the GP who seemed to think there are only negatives to adve

by rkk3 5y ago

> Larry Ellison has an ASD diagnosis? TIL. Not to my knowledge, just was offering a counterpoint to the GP who seemed to think there are only negatives to adversity, like ASD. In that example "No benefits of [adversity]" Where the adversity of not being raised by your biological father might make you significantly more likely to be a billionaire or POTUS.

Fnoord 5y ago
Thanks, I guess I missed some context. A billionaire, he is. A happy human being? A useful addition to society? I mean, all your examples have controversies but this one seems to stand out. Speaking of outliers: it lacks statistical analysis. I don't think anyone would argue a man not raised by their biological father cannot be successful (if we describe billionaire or POTUS as successful). Rather, what is the % of highly successful compared to men being raised by their biological father highly successful. We can at least apply statistical analysis on that, combined with a definition of successful (cause mine is guaranteed different because mine includes ethics and values it much higher than power or networth); we can't on autism because of undiagnosed people, while diagnosis also denotes some kind of impact or severity (incentive to become true positive). Ie. there are likely loads of people on the spectrum yet functioning (false negative). Then there's those who can't afford a diagnosis (false negative), and then there's the misdiagnosed (false positive/negative).
- rkk3 5y ago
  > A billionaire, he is. A happy human being? A useful addition to society? haha. personally never really met any of them so can't really touch that : ) > I don't think anyone would argue a man not raised by their biological father cannot be successful Not only successful, but significantly more likely to be meteoriticy successful from the adversity. For other claims, sure the waters get muddy but the lack of ground truth is less relevant for the extreme success case. Aspies are wayyyy over represented in the top 10 richest people.

by rkk3 5y ago

Fnoord 5y ago

Thanks, I guess I missed some context. A billionaire, he is. A happy human being? A useful addition to society? I mean, all your examples have controversies but this one seems to stand out. Speaking of outliers: it lacks statistical analysis. I don't think anyone would argue a man not raised by their biological father cannot be successful (if we describe billionaire or POTUS as successful). Rather, what is the % of highly successful compared to men being raised by their biological father highly successful. We can at least apply statistical analysis on that, combined with a definition of successful (cause mine is guaranteed different because mine includes ethics and values it much higher than power or networth); we can't on autism because of undiagnosed people, while diagnosis also denotes some kind of impact or severity (incentive to become true positive). Ie. there are likely loads of people on the spectrum yet functioning (false negative). Then there's those who can't afford a diagnosis (false negative), and then there's the misdiagnosed (false positive/negative).

rkk3 5y ago
> A billionaire, he is. A happy human being? A useful addition to society? haha. personally never really met any of them so can't really touch that : ) > I don't think anyone would argue a man not raised by their biological father cannot be successful Not only successful, but significantly more likely to be meteoriticy successful from the adversity. For other claims, sure the waters get muddy but the lack of ground truth is less relevant for the extreme success case. Aspies are wayyyy over represented in the top 10 richest people.