Would you elect a politican that has Aspergers to be head of state?
Yes.
34.3% (34)
34.3% (34)
No.
39.4% (39)
39.4% (39)
Other (explain).
24.2% (24)
24.2% (24)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Would you elect a politican that has Aspergers to be head of state?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

No, politics requires recognizing and taking advantage of a lot of subtle social cues.

That would depend entirely on what the opposing candidates are like and what the actual function of a president is. In Slovenia, for example, it's purely protocol and has no real executive power. Sure the president signs all laws, but he's required to do so by the constitution (which caused an uproar when one of our former president refused to sign a particularly dubious law, basically saying "When I have to choose between constitution and not screwing the people, I'll choose the latter).

As a fore-warning I myself was diagnosed with Aspergers age ten so I'm probably biased but yes, I could vote for a politician with that disorder if I agreed with their political viewpoints. AS people tend to be very logical and focused on their obsessions so I could see them being good such a demanding job and as for the social side? Honestly if they were able to get to the point where they are running for an election, then their social skills are good enough for the job.

Probably not, on average most people with AS will have problems with social interactions, and those are very major part of what a President does.
But if the person with AS is the best person for the job that i can vote for, and has a realistic change of winning, then yes, i would vote for someone with AS.

generals3:

Mortai Gravesend:

generals3:

Because a politician's convictions are often irrelevant to their policies. They will do what their party/voters want them to do.

Right and how exactly do you determine if their convictions interfere? Well if I were you I guess I just don't pay attention to what they do at all, right?

That is totally untrue. The opposite is actually true, like i said, their convictions are usually irrelevant to what they do. A politician is a professional liar and betrays whatever he supposedly stands for on a daily basis.

It totally is true, you apparently think you can judge without actually seeing people perform their jobs.

And going off politician stereotypes is a stupid argument. There are lies etc, yes, but you're blathering as if each and every one would do anything.

A conviction can be betrayed or set aside. A mental condition not.

Don't just throw around stupid phrases like that. It can still get in the way, it just may not. Anyone who wasn't just being bigoted would know to actually pay attention to see if it got in the way of the job. But not you.

I voted other just to be "clever" and hipster because my head of state is an unelected monarch, it's not like the (future) queen would be denied the throne because it turns out she has aspergers.

But assuming I was god, and got to decide. I would have to say no. I think the main point of the head of state is to serve as a charismatic but neutral figurehead. Someone anybody from any party can "dig". His/hers job should be to make fancy speeches, sign fancy documents and woo fancy foreign diplomats and unite people from every class. Just and all around non-controversial "straight man" to the comedy of parliamentary politics. I'm sure I could be surprised, but I wouldn't bet my nation's prosperity on that this would be the right place for a person with aspergers.

That's not to say I couldn't see a person with aspergers doing well as a statesman in some of the other fields that are just as important. People will be merciless if a king or prime minister even speaks half a sentence that could in some paralell universe be thought of a controversial. An economy minister for example, is not expected to make as many appearances or be as smooth.

NOTE: I use the term "straight man" as the comedy trope. Not as the sexuality and gender.

Chances are many nations have already had leaders with Aspergers syndrome. The many people with Aspergers go into adulthood as intelligent, charismatic individuals with little or no 'disorder' noticeable in their behavior. If anything their qualities may make them better leaders due the logical outlook most people with Aspergers have.

But what makes you think a leadership candidate would disclose such information? Leaders are voted in on the basis of the party they represent and the convictions they hold personally; it's pretty rare that any 'skeletons in the closet' present any such impact on a leader until after they are voted in.

P.S
Why would you come up with such a stupid topic? Seriously you might as well ask "would you elect a politician that is a woman/homosexual/black/conjoined twin/asexual/old/under 25 or has a lisp.

Fraser Greenfield:
Chances are many nations have already had leaders with Aspergers syndrome. The many people with Aspergers go into adulthood as intelligent, charismatic individuals with little or no 'disorder' noticeable in their behavior. If anything their qualities may make them better leaders due the logical outlook most people with Aspergers have.

Intelligent? Sure. Charismatic? Usually not. Aspergers rather leads to social awkwardness, inability to express oneself etc..

Mortai Gravesend:

A conviction can be betrayed or set aside. A mental condition not.

Don't just throw around stupid phrases like that. It can still get in the way, it just may not. Anyone who wasn't just being bigoted would know to actually pay attention to see if it got in the way of the job. But not you.

Stupid phrase? It's a fact. You were comparing apples and oranges. Someone's conviction is impossible to compare with someone's mental state when it comes to ability to rule. Does that mean no one with Asperger could rule a country? Well honestly i doubt so. Being a country's leader means you need, not just normal but, excellent social skills. If you have excellent social skills than you have just decided on your own that you have Asperger.

generals3:

Mortai Gravesend:

A conviction can be betrayed or set aside. A mental condition not.

Don't just throw around stupid phrases like that. It can still get in the way, it just may not. Anyone who wasn't just being bigoted would know to actually pay attention to see if it got in the way of the job. But not you.

Stupid phrase? It's a fact.

It's not a particularly relevant once since it can still get in the way.

You were comparing apples and oranges.

Not at all

Someone's conviction is impossible to compare with someone's mental state when it comes to ability to rule.

It is quite possible. Both may get in the way.

Does that mean no one with Asperger could rule a country? Well honestly i doubt so.

You doubt they could ever rule a country? Or what?

Being a country's leader means you need, not just normal but, excellent social skills.

Because someone who makes illogical judgements about people says so. Right.

If you have excellent social skills than you have just decided on your own that you have Asperger.

Can you please post a copy of your degree in pseudo-psychology? Or in other words: You saying that means nothing.

Mortai Gravesend:

generals3:

Mortai Gravesend:

Don't just throw around stupid phrases like that. It can still get in the way, it just may not. Anyone who wasn't just being bigoted would know to actually pay attention to see if it got in the way of the job. But not you.

Stupid phrase? It's a fact.

It's not a particularly relevant once since it can still get in the way.

You were comparing apples and oranges.

Not at all

Someone's conviction is impossible to compare with someone's mental state when it comes to ability to rule.

It is quite possible. Both may get in the way.

Does that mean no one with Asperger could rule a country? Well honestly i doubt so.

You doubt they could ever rule a country? Or what?

Being a country's leader means you need, not just normal but, excellent social skills.

Because someone who makes illogical judgements about people says so. Right.

If you have excellent social skills than you have just decided on your own that you have Asperger.

Can you please post a copy of your degree in pseudo-psychology? Or in other words: You saying that means nothing.

http://www.autreat.com/dsm4-aspergers.html Don't blame me for pseudo psychology. Blame American psychiatry.

And how do i make illogical judgements? I made one exaggeration to get my point across and that's as far as it goes.

generals3:

Mortai Gravesend:

generals3:

Stupid phrase? It's a fact.

It's not a particularly relevant once since it can still get in the way.

You were comparing apples and oranges.

Not at all

Someone's conviction is impossible to compare with someone's mental state when it comes to ability to rule.

It is quite possible. Both may get in the way.

Does that mean no one with Asperger could rule a country? Well honestly i doubt so.

You doubt they could ever rule a country? Or what?

Being a country's leader means you need, not just normal but, excellent social skills.

Because someone who makes illogical judgements about people says so. Right.

If you have excellent social skills than you have just decided on your own that you have Asperger.

Can you please post a copy of your degree in pseudo-psychology? Or in other words: You saying that means nothing.

http://www.autreat.com/dsm4-aspergers.html Don't blame me for pseudo psychology. Blame American psychiatry.

Congratulations, I don't see 'can't have good social skills' there. There are things there to inhibit it, but it doesn't say they can't be compensated for. And if we were to just take C and D(using the emotion bit) that would mean jack shit to politics.

And how do i make illogical judgements? I made one exaggeration to get my point across and that's as far as it goes.

Not at all as far as it goes. Instead of judging someone by their success and what they've shown themselves capable of you judge them on their disorder. Illogical.

So far I have noticed 2 very flawed claims that a lot of you have been making:

1. "People with Aspergers aren't good in social situations."

This doesn't always have to be a problem because the head of state doesn't always do the same thing in every country. In my country (Iceland) for example the prime minister is actually the post powerful person while the president can't really do much and is mostly responsible for advertising the nation by being a nice little mascot for the nation.

2. "People with Aspergers don't have charisma."

This one sounds logical at first but it really isn't. You need to understand that A LOT of charisma that politicans appear to have it largely just fabricated. Anybody can be made to appear powerful/impressive with enough money and big media advertising. I see no reason for why someone with Aspergers could not get around his supposed lack of charisma in the same manner and fabricate some shallow charm just like everybody else.

Mortai Gravesend:

Congratulations, I don't see 'can't have good social skills' there. There are things there to inhibit it, but it doesn't say they can't be compensated for. And if we were to just take C and D(using the emotion bit) that would mean jack shit to politics.

Actually it does when forming relations with other politicians, people, foreign executives, etc. Politics is all about appearance in a democracy. You want to appear at your best all the time. Social awkwardness will take you down eventually.

And how do i make illogical judgements? I made one exaggeration to get my point across and that's as far as it goes.

Not at all as far as it goes. Instead of judging someone by their success and what they've shown themselves capable of you judge them on their disorder. Illogical.

That's because the disorder in question directly affects a very relevant aspect of ones ability to rule. It's like saying it's illogical to think someone with a low IQ is unfit to be a nobel prize winning theoretical physicist. While exceptions may always exist it is highly unprobable. (And didn't i use the words "i highly doubt so" which is different to "it is impossible!!!11111")

generals3:

Mortai Gravesend:

Congratulations, I don't see 'can't have good social skills' there. There are things there to inhibit it, but it doesn't say they can't be compensated for. And if we were to just take C and D(using the emotion bit) that would mean jack shit to politics.

Actually it does when forming relations with other politicians, people, foreign executives, etc. Politics is all about appearance in a democracy. You want to appear at your best all the time. Social awkwardness will take you down eventually.

Congratulations on not reading your own link. It doesn't say social awkwardness in either of those. Maybe you can try to not to reinterpret it to suit your whims?

And how do i make illogical judgements? I made one exaggeration to get my point across and that's as far as it goes.

Not at all as far as it goes. Instead of judging someone by their success and what they've shown themselves capable of you judge them on their disorder. Illogical.

That's because the disorder in question directly affects a very relevant aspect of ones ability to rule. It's like saying it's illogical to think someone with a low IQ is unfit to be a nobel prize winning theoretical physicist. While exceptions may always exist it is highly unprobable.

Except of course you're making a stupid comparison. You're twisting it to automatically mean social awkwardness, which it does not. It does not necessarily relate to it in the way you claim it does.

Mortai Gravesend:

generals3:

Mortai Gravesend:

Congratulations, I don't see 'can't have good social skills' there. There are things there to inhibit it, but it doesn't say they can't be compensated for. And if we were to just take C and D(using the emotion bit) that would mean jack shit to politics.

Actually it does when forming relations with other politicians, people, foreign executives, etc. Politics is all about appearance in a democracy. You want to appear at your best all the time. Social awkwardness will take you down eventually.

Congratulations on not reading your own link. It doesn't say social awkwardness in either of those. Maybe you can try to not to reinterpret it to suit your whims?

Congratz on trying too hard. "Socially awkward" will never be used in psychiatry because it doesn't mean anything in particular. It is a broad statement used by people which refers to being in one way or an other socially handicapped if you will. And considering Asperger requires at least two social handicaps it is entirely correct.

Because even C&D will handicap you, sure it will be less than the other symptoms but don't underestimate how good you need to be to win support. Heck politicians even manage to get support while doing things against the people's interest. And that's because they compensate on the social field.

generals3:

Mortai Gravesend:

generals3:

Actually it does when forming relations with other politicians, people, foreign executives, etc. Politics is all about appearance in a democracy. You want to appear at your best all the time. Social awkwardness will take you down eventually.

Congratulations on not reading your own link. It doesn't say social awkwardness in either of those. Maybe you can try to not to reinterpret it to suit your whims?

Congratz on being purposely obnoxious. "Socially awkward" will never be used in psychiatry because it doesn't mean anything in particular. It is a broad statement used by people which refers to being in one way or an other socially handicapped if you will. And considering Asperger requires at least two social handicaps it is entirely correct.

Nope, it isn't correct. Socially awkward implies more than C and D. And you have yet to state how C and D will affect someone in politics. Do go on and prove they would.

Because even C&D will handicap you, sure it will be less than the other symptoms but don't underestimate how good you need to be to win support. Heck politicians even manage to get support while doing things against the people's interest. And that's because they compensate on the social field.

'how good you need to be'. Bullshit, there's no score that's looked at. Demonstrate how they would actually affect these things. Vague answers like yours are merely the refuge of someone defending their bigotry.

Mortai Gravesend:

'how good you need to be'. Bullshit, there's no score that's looked at. Demonstrate how they would actually affect these things. Vague answers like yours are merely the refuge of someone defending their bigotry.

Ok i'll take this one:
(D) lack of social or emotional reciprocity

Wouldn't you say it is important for a politician to be able to spontaneously respond positively to positive signals and vice versa? Think of diplomacy or just common courtesy. Let's not forget that the main job of head of states in most countries is pure marketing. It's senates, parliaments, etc which has to vote on laws. You have huge think tanks and advisors that come up with laws and policies. The head of state just has to agree and than convince the rest. And convincing is a purely social activity.

And already resorting to loaded statements such as bigotry aren't we?

PS: i would also like to add, as a comment on hardcore gamer's statement on the difference that can exist on the role of head of states, that it would depend what your head of state actually does. But in most democracies it's just marketing. They usually don't come up with ideas, they have to sell them.

PPS: And i never stated i would NEVER vote for a head of state with asperger, just that i highly doubt it. Everyone gets his/her chance to prove him/herself but i don't believe someone suffering from Asperger will be able to convince me he or she will be a fit head of state.

generals3:

Mortai Gravesend:

'how good you need to be'. Bullshit, there's no score that's looked at. Demonstrate how they would actually affect these things. Vague answers like yours are merely the refuge of someone defending their bigotry.

Ok i'll take this one:
(D) lack of social or emotional reciprocity

Wouldn't you say it is important for a politician to be able to spontaneously respond positively to positive signals and vice versa? Think of diplomacy or just common courtesy.

Tell me, where does a lack of emotional reciprocity demand an inability to respond positively to positive signals? It's not as if politicians need to feel much emotional reciprocity so much as just go through the motions of replying.

Let's not forget that the main job of head of states in most countries is pure marketing. It's senates, parliaments, etc which has to vote on laws. You have huge think tanks and advisors that come up with laws and policies. The head of state just has to agree and than convince the rest.

And what, do you think he convinces them by having any emotional reciprocity when talking to them?

And convincing is a purely social activity.

You're back to empty phrases. 'social activity' is not what it said would be lacking.

And already resorting to loaded statements such as bigotry aren't we?

What else should I call it?

PPS: And i never stated i would NEVER vote for a head of state with asperger, just that i highly doubt it. Everyone gets his/her chance to prove him/herself but i don't believe someone suffering from Asperger will be able to convince me he or she will be a fit head of state.

Why'd you bother to reply to me in the first place then? Did you just utterly fail to read what you replied to?

"I think it's pretty disgusting how many people will complain that we should see candidates on a case by case basis when it comes to religion but toss that out the window when it comes to this."

I mean, do I need to explain to you the fucking obvious point that I was complaining about not giving people a chance? Is there something hard to understand about that?

ITT:

- People with Aspergers saying it makes it better than the 'normies' at everything because they're so 'logical', 'intelligent', or something in that vein.

- All these trogolodites accusing them of a lack of social skills.

It's a wonder that they don't run the world yet.

You don't win people by winning arguments.

As for the question? Almost certainly not. All the Aspergers people I know are pricks- and I've worked in a school for people with Aspergers and Autism. He'd have to show that his condition didn't really affect him. But then in that case why would he mention it?

At best it's a disability. A liability that needs to be overcome to even be in the running. If s/he can do that, then maybe.

Eh, I see president as mainly a social function. The president isnt all powerful, and if he doesnt get along with others (congress) it will impact what he/she can do.

Also, how well would the person do in other social interactions? I can only imagine what would have happened if say Nixon had that and sat down with the Chinese. You really need a smooth operator as president. I don't want world war 3 to break out because the president stepped on some nut jobs feelings. (Any number of countries that have nukes, and unstable leaders)

Mortai Gravesend:

I mean, do I need to explain to you the fucking obvious point that I was complaining about not giving people a chance? Is there something hard to understand about that?

Actually my initial point was about the comparison you made with one's conviction. Than somewhere along the line it derailed. I guess i should apologize and should have detailed my stance better since the beginning.

Fraser Greenfield:
Chances are many nations have already had leaders with Aspergers syndrome. The many people with Aspergers go into adulthood as intelligent, charismatic individuals with little or no 'disorder' noticeable in their behavior. If anything their qualities may make them better leaders due the logical outlook most people with Aspergers have.

They, by definition, they don't have Asperger's. From the DSM:

(I) Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
(A) marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
(B) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(C) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interest or achievements with other people, (e.g.. by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
(D) lack of social or emotional reciprocity
(II) Restricted repetitive & stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:
(A) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(B) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(C) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g. hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
(D) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

(III) The disturbance causes clinically significant impairments in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

If they meet the clinical definition of AS then they, by definition, their behavior is noticeable and significant in their interactions with others. High charisma doesn't fit in that definition.

Why would you come up with such a stupid topic? Seriously you might as well ask "would you elect a politician that is a woman/homosexual/black/conjoined twin/asexual/old/under 25 or has a lisp.

Does this topic hit too close to home for you?

Gender, colour, sexual orientation do not have an impact on someone's ability to lead a country.

Age and mental disabilities can most certainly have impacts and thus they are valid things to consider.

Kendarik:

Fraser Greenfield:
Chances are many nations have already had leaders with Aspergers syndrome. The many people with Aspergers go into adulthood as intelligent, charismatic individuals with little or no 'disorder' noticeable in their behavior. If anything their qualities may make them better leaders due the logical outlook most people with Aspergers have.

They, by definition, they don't have Asperger's. From the DSM:

(I) Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
(A) marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
(B) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(C) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interest or achievements with other people, (e.g.. by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
(D) lack of social or emotional reciprocity
(II) Restricted repetitive & stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:
(A) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(B) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(C) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g. hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
(D) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

(III) The disturbance causes clinically significant impairments in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

If they meet the clinical definition of AS then they, by definition, their behavior is noticeable and significant in their interactions with others. High charisma doesn't fit in that definition.

Why would you come up with such a stupid topic? Seriously you might as well ask "would you elect a politician that is a woman/homosexual/black/conjoined twin/asexual/old/under 25 or has a lisp.

Does this topic hit too close to home for you?

Gender, colour, sexual orientation do not have an impact on someone's ability to lead a country.

Age and mental disabilities can most certainly have impacts and thus they are valid things to consider.

Hmm...what if you change aspergers to 'clinical depression', one that mind you the person in question needs to take medication for. What about physical injuries? Don't those also have impacts on mental health? Would you apply the same to a person who has suffered from alcoholism or substance abuse? (Which mind you a fair few presidents have, and did before during and after their runs.) It just seems a little premature to condemn such a person based on only one aspect of their lives, one which until they as an individual demonstrates you can say: That person is going to be a bad president, regardless of what you experienced or think you know about their disability.

Danny Ocean:
ITT:

- People with Aspergers saying it makes it better than the 'normies' at everything because they're so 'logical', 'intelligent', or something in that vein.

- All these trogolodites accusing them of a lack of social skills.

It's a wonder that they don't run the world yet.

You don't win people by winning arguments.

As for the question? Almost certainly not. All the Aspergers people I know are pricks- and I've worked in a school for people with Aspergers and Autism. He'd have to show that his condition didn't really affect him. But then in that case why would he mention it?

At best it's a disability. A liability that needs to be overcome to even be in the running. If s/he can do that, then maybe.

I'm sorry that you've had such bad experiences with people with Aspergers Danny, but you can see the difficulty with saying that based on only having bad experiences with a group of people and then applying it to the group as a whole?

I've never felt the need to put myself on display in such a manner regarding these things. But, I am on anti-anxiety/depression medication, which has helped enormously with my own difficulties. If you had seen me only a year or two ago you'd have been talking to a completely different person. I've moved out, gotten a job, am far more social, and generally a happier and helpful person. But I'd hate to think that if it ever came to a point were someone found out about my past, or indeed I opened up to someone about it that I'd be judged so harshly, or worse have my career affected because of it.

For a president, regardless of their background (at least discounting criminal activities), I would hope that the people voting for them would consider their current actions and standing, to reach such a point where they'd be even considered a candidate for president, doesn't that suggest to you that a person with Aspergers would have enough control of their problems, social, anxiety related or otherwise that the idea of it affecting their competency to be president wouldn't be much of an issue?

Why is it we can have perfectly 'sane' heads of state, evil men and women, or at best corrupt and yet someone with a mental disability or difficulty is a no no?

generals3:

Mortai Gravesend:

I mean, do I need to explain to you the fucking obvious point that I was complaining about not giving people a chance? Is there something hard to understand about that?

Actually my initial point was about the comparison you made with one's conviction. Than somewhere along the line it derailed. I guess i should apologize and should have detailed my stance better since the beginning.

My point about the comparison was that it may or may not make them a bad choice for a leader, you judge it case by case. Which is just what I'd expect people to do here.

Mortai Gravesend:

My point about the comparison was that it may or may not make them a bad choice for a leader, you judge it case by case. Which is just what I'd expect people to do here.

Well that goes without saying to be honest(well apparently not so much). There are always exceptions and people who shine against all odds and as such everyone deserves a chance. For me it's more of a "will probably never happen" thing.

generals3:

Mortai Gravesend:

My point about the comparison was that it may or may not make them a bad choice for a leader, you judge it case by case. Which is just what I'd expect people to do here.

Well that goes without saying to be honest(well apparently not so much). There are always exceptions and people who shine against all odds and as such everyone deserves a chance. For me it's more of a "will probably never happen" thing.

Well I'm fine with people saying they're doubtful it will happen but being open to it, but I see lots of people who outright say no in here and they're the ones I take issue with, not with you.

GothmogII:

I'm sorry that you've had such bad experiences with people with Aspergers Danny, but you can see the difficulty with saying that based on only having bad experiences with a group of people and then applying it to the group as a whole?

I've never felt the need to put myself on display in such a manner regarding these things. But, I am on anti-anxiety/depression medication, which has helped enormously with my own difficulties. If you had seen me only a year or two ago you'd have been talking to a completely different person. I've moved out, gotten a job, am far more social, and generally a happier and helpful person. But I'd hate to think that if it ever came to a point were someone found out about my past, or indeed I opened up to someone about it that I'd be judged so harshly, or worse have my career affected because of it.

For a president, regardless of their background (at least discounting criminal activities), I would hope that the people voting for them would consider their current actions and standing, to reach such a point where they'd be even considered a candidate for president, doesn't that suggest to you that a person with Aspergers would have enough control of their problems, social, anxiety related or otherwise that the idea of it affecting their competency to be president wouldn't be much of an issue?

Why is it we can have perfectly 'sane' heads of state, evil men and women, or at best corrupt and yet someone with a mental disability or difficulty is a no no?

This whole question operates on a generalisation, so I don't really see the problem by replying in kind.

As for the rest:

At best it's a disability. A liability that needs to be overcome to even be in the running. If s/he can do that, then maybe.

The key point being that it is not a good thing. You can see from the context of that particular line in my post. I'm trying to shoot down the big-headed idiots, not the humble types like you. You're overcoming it. That's A-OK. So if you were running for PM you'd be considered. You'd be a maybe, just like a normal person.

If you feel like it you can ignore me. My opinion on this whole thing is biased because I have two autistic brothers. Illogical, I know.

I can't say I wouldn't vote for a national leader with Aspergers, but I'd certainly consider it a negative.

It certainly wouldn't help unless he makes popping sounds like Jerry Espenson. In that case, sure.

Asperger's seems terrible for any leadership role, especially one as general as head of state. But of course it's possible for a candidate to have even worse qualities, and all you really need to be is the best option among those running. So no, Asperger's is not a disqualification-- not in my nation of plurality voting, anyway.

generals3:

Mortai Gravesend:

My point about the comparison was that it may or may not make them a bad choice for a leader, you judge it case by case. Which is just what I'd expect people to do here.

Well that goes without saying to be honest(well apparently not so much). There are always exceptions and people who shine against all odds and as such everyone deserves a chance. For me it's more of a "will probably never happen" thing.

Sad that people would elect George Bush but someone with asperger's is looked down on just because of something they can't control. Don't think Bush was ever diagnosed with anything.

Candidate with Aspergers? Nope. I'd be amazed that they're even being considered, but I wouldn't vote for them unless the other guy was a total prick. As others have said, being head of state usually requires being either really good in social situations or the other guy being a total prick. Since most people on the spectrum suffer from some sort of social inability, I would not feel comfortable electing that person.
Plus all the people I know with mild Aspergers are grade A dicks, always talking about how they're "smarter" than "normies" and refusing to acknowledge more severe cases.

GothmogII:

Kendarik:

Fraser Greenfield:
Chances are many nations have already had leaders with Aspergers syndrome. The many people with Aspergers go into adulthood as intelligent, charismatic individuals with little or no 'disorder' noticeable in their behavior. If anything their qualities may make them better leaders due the logical outlook most people with Aspergers have.

They, by definition, they don't have Asperger's. From the DSM:

(I) Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
(A) marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
(B) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(C) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interest or achievements with other people, (e.g.. by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
(D) lack of social or emotional reciprocity
(II) Restricted repetitive & stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:
(A) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(B) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(C) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g. hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
(D) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

(III) The disturbance causes clinically significant impairments in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

If they meet the clinical definition of AS then they, by definition, their behavior is noticeable and significant in their interactions with others. High charisma doesn't fit in that definition.

Why would you come up with such a stupid topic? Seriously you might as well ask "would you elect a politician that is a woman/homosexual/black/conjoined twin/asexual/old/under 25 or has a lisp.

Does this topic hit too close to home for you?

Gender, colour, sexual orientation do not have an impact on someone's ability to lead a country.

Age and mental disabilities can most certainly have impacts and thus they are valid things to consider.

Hmm...what if you change aspergers to 'clinical depression', one that mind you the person in question needs to take medication for.

As long as they are medicated and in treatment, someone with clinical depression is fine. That option doesn't exist to bring someone with AS to normal behavior.

What about physical injuries?

What physical injury would be permanent in nature and directly impact job performance?

Don't those also have impacts on mental health? Would you apply the same to a person who has suffered from alcoholism or substance abuse? (Which mind you a fair few presidents have, and did before during and after their runs.)

These would present problems very close to AS and would also be two solid strikes against the person. If their diseases were active, three strikes.

It just seems a little premature to condemn such a person based on only one aspect of their lives, one which until they as an individual demonstrates you can say: That person is going to be a bad president, regardless of what you experienced or think you know about their disability.

What you are suggesting is that we have someone that is colour blind doing QA at the end of a paint line where part of the job was ensuring colour matches target colour.

Where a disability creates a direct barrier to a key portion of the job it is not only reasonable, but necessary, to exclude that person from the job.

Why is it we can have perfectly 'sane' heads of state, evil men and women, or at best corrupt and yet someone with a mental disability or difficulty is a no no?

Not all mental disabilities are a problem for that job. But I can't see how AS wouldn't be.

Xan Krieger:

generals3:

Mortai Gravesend:

My point about the comparison was that it may or may not make them a bad choice for a leader, you judge it case by case. Which is just what I'd expect people to do here.

Well that goes without saying to be honest(well apparently not so much). There are always exceptions and people who shine against all odds and as such everyone deserves a chance. For me it's more of a "will probably never happen" thing.

Sad that people would elect George Bush but someone with asperger's is looked down on just because of something they can't control. Don't think Bush was ever diagnosed with anything.

Yes, it's sad that people elected George W. Bush... twice... but not because of a comparison with Asperger's syndrome.

As far as electing a president is concerned, I don't give a flying fuck whether a candidate can control his personal qualities. The Americans With Disabilities Act does not and should not apply to the office of President. This isn't a matter of assigning guilt or satisfying some strange concept of electoral justice, it's a matter of suitability to a range of tasks. Whether or not it is a candidate's fault that he has certain deficits misses the point by a few dozen miles.

Hardcore_gamer:
So far I have noticed 2 very flawed claims that a lot of you have been making:

1. "People with Aspergers aren't good in social situations."

This doesn't always have to be a problem because the head of state doesn't always do the same thing in every country. In my country (Iceland) for example the prime minister is actually the post powerful person while the president can't really do much and is mostly responsible for advertising the nation by being a nice little mascot for the nation.

2. "People with Aspergers don't have charisma."

This one sounds logical at first but it really isn't. You need to understand that A LOT of charisma that politicans appear to have it largely just fabricated. Anybody can be made to appear powerful/impressive with enough money and big media advertising. I see no reason for why someone with Aspergers could not get around his supposed lack of charisma in the same manner and fabricate some shallow charm just like everybody else.

1. all the more reason to have someone with great social skills as a president.

2. that's a bug, not a feature, if you have two candidates that are just as good, but one has better social skills, then get the one with better social skills.

Seanchaidh:

Yes, it's sad that people elected George W. Bush... twice... but not because of a comparison with Asperger's syndrome.

Actually, the sad thing is, it's possible they didn't.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked