Some thoughts on watching "DaVinci & the Code He Lived By" last night.

[Wordie]

First, for anyone who hasn't seen the program on the History Channel yet, it is very good. Here's a link to info on the program: http://www.historychannel.com/global/listings/episode_detail_date.jsp?asof=12%2F10%2F2005+09%3A00PM&page=search
...and another to the schedule for the program: http://www.thehistorychannel.com/thcsearch/thc_search.do?keywords=attention+deficit+Da+Vinci&networkCode=THC&x=0&y=0
(It plays a few times over the next week.)

Da Vinci & the Code He Lived By
Tune In: Saturday, December 10 @ 9pm ET/PT

Known as "the Mind of the Renaissance", this amazing artist, scientist, and inventor envisioned flying machines, submarines, parachutes, armored cars, and multi-barreled guns centuries before their time. His mysterious painting the Mona Lisa still moves us and his fresco The Last Supper remains an icon of faith. His secretly recorded dissection of human bodies that brought accusations of consorting with Satan led to the early understandings of human anatomy. Against a backdrop of 15th-century Italian opulence, intrigue, and corruption, he navigated through the glittering palaces of merchant princes. The bastard son of a notary in the town of Vinci, Leonardo couldn't even take his father's name, but sensed that he must develop a way to overcome the limitations of illegitimacy. And so a code emerged, a pattern of decision-making that evolved throughout his life, enabling him to become the greatest of men in a time of great men--a mind above all others.

...but what does that have to do with disability, you must be asking. Well, here's the thing. The program mentioned that it is believed that Da Vinci suffered from Attention Deficit Disorder. And that led me to thinking...

What if Da Vinci had been born in today's world? What would have happened to him? Would he have had the opportunity to develop his prodigous talents today? Would anyone have recognized his genious? Would a young man with the label of "ADD" ever have had the chance to develop his genious? OR, would he have been handed a prescription for Ritalin, had a label slapped on him, and that would be all anyone would ever have known?

Just some thoughts, brought on by an excellent program (with a little insomnia thrown in). What do others think?

[Benhurst]

1. I fear he would have been medicated. NT

[aquart]

2. My fists are clenched and I am pushing down the rage.

One genius makes it sink or swim and you want to throw everyone else into the ocean, completely ignoring that out of that ENTIRE period of centuries and centuries without medication, we got ONE da Vinci.

Yeah, your observations are just ...... the first thought that jumps into my mind is you were led down a garden path to exactly the conclusion they wanted you to come to.

[Wordie]

6. I am very sorry to see your reaction, but I think you misread my point.

I NEVER said we should not use medication at all. I NEVER said I wanted to prevent anyone from being able to access medication, should that be what they wanted. I am sorry if my musings troubled you, but I think that if you look a little closer at what I said, you won't find a "one size fits all" approach being promoted, in fact, just the opposite.

On the other hand, your assumption that I was "led down a garden path" is not too respectful of the decisions of others who may have walked a different path than yours, is it?

[aquart]

10. Artful save.

But I didn't misread what you wrote.

[Wordie]

11. Aahh, another DU mindreader. A person who knows better than the person

posting what it was they really meant. :(

There seems to be a rash of that going around.

[aquart]

18. Find that happens to you a lot, huh?

What could that mean?

[Wordie]

19. That people who presume to know what others are thinking are way too

common??? I mean, do you really think you can know what is in my mind better than I do? And your ability to perform this feat is absolutely infallible. So infallible, in fact, that you have no problem with making statements about my "true" intentions with absolutely no substantiation beyond your own presumed ability to read my mind?

[amerikat]

3. As much as I love history...

I wonder who are the modern Leonardo Da Vinci's? I suspect that they are right here on the net. History in the making so to speak. We know Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, Columbus etc. But I wonder if these were the people that had the most impact on our lives today. I wonder who will be the movers and shakers of our age.

[VPStoltz]

4. Better yet, what would the Repugs have done to Christ for being such

a bleading heart wuss?

[Orrex]

5. Diagnosis in absentia half a millennium after the fact is bullshit

Hell, we might as well say that he suffered from hysterical pregnancy while we're at it.

There is no, and I mean no credible way that any modern researcher can diagnose a disorder in a person who lived five centuries ago.

The claim is sensationalist bullshit guesswork, and you or I am just as qualified to make such a diagnosis as is any modern psychologist. Just like claims that Einstein had Asberger's and Joan of Arc had schizophrenia.

It is a reprehensible effort to make a serious and real neurological condition somehow "cooler" by reinventing a long-dead historical figure as some champion of the cause.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

[Wordie]

7. Well, I guess the reason they speculated thusly was that he exhibited

habits and traits that would lead a modern diagnostician to diagnose ADD, should that modern-day person have the same habits and traits. Being inclined not to finish projects was the one that leapt out at me, but I believe they mentioned others as well.

I think the point I was trying to make was more about labeling. About how the damaging labels that we put on people can so seriously limit their opportunities, that a person such as Leonardo, if he were to be born today, might clearly get lost as a result of the "what's wrong with you" approach that diagnoses, by there very nature, impose upon our humanity. So we may not really be in such disagreement as you apparently thought upon first reading my post. I don't think the issues are black and white.

That said, my understanding is that ADD is frequently accompanied by high intelligence and other characteristics that are typically considered positive. Again, my problem with some of this has to do with how we may be focusing on negatives to such a degree that we miss the positives. I am, however, not at all trying to say that the constellation of traits that we call "ADD" does not exist, or is not real.

[Orrex]

8. I think the point is flawed

he exhibited habits and traits that would lead a modern diagnostician to diagnose ADD, should that modern-day person have the same habits and traits. Being inclined not to finish projects was the one that leapt out at me, but I believe they mentioned others as well.

But that kind of post hoc diagnosis is no better than astrology. We can assemble lists of traits about any person in history, and if our goal is to shoehorn that person into a recently-understood disorder, then we can surely pick the "right" traits to make him seem like a textbook case.

I think the point I was trying to make was more about labeling. About how the damaging labels that we put on people can so seriously limit their opportunities, that a person such as Leonardo, if he were to be born today, might clearly get lost as a result of the "what's wrong with you" approach that diagnoses, by there very nature, impose upon our humanity. So we may not really be in such disagreement as you apparently thought upon first reading my post. I don't think the issues are black and white.

The premise itself is nonsense. You're assuming outright that Leonardo suffered from ADD, and then you're transporting him to the present just to ask "what if we 'cured' him?" Since I don't share your assumption that he had ADD, and I don't share your assumption about the significance of the anectdotal correlation between ADD and high intelligence, I see no value in the thought experiment.

If a person suffers from the disorder and will, in that person's estimation, benefit from treatment, then the person should be treated, ornithopters or no ornithopters.

My feeling is that ADD is badly overdiagnosed in an effort to find a quick-fix for a kid who doesn't give a shit about the Louisiana Purchase and who instead decides to doodle in his notebook. ADD is a serious neurological disorder, some of the symptoms of which overlap purely behavioral anomalies, the latter of which may not have any "defect" at their root. Therefore the issuing of medication to such a child is a horrible maltreatment.

That is the danger of willy-nilly diagnosis, and attention-grabbing "historical diagnoses" (to coin a phrase) are a serious disservice to people who really suffer the condition.

[Wordie]

9. Curious, because as I read what you wrote, I see a lot in there that I do

agree with, yet you seem to very strongly disagree with me. We must just be missing each other somehow, because I really do think, from what you have written, that we aren't that far apart in basic beliefs about a lot of this.

Maybe I should have stressed how I think diagnoses are not infallible? Or how I was more using this story as a jumping off point, rather than stressing the importance of the historical reference itself. If I had written, "What if Leonardo Da Vinci had ADD?" and put it entirely in the realm of speculation would that have worked better?

AAAaahhh, I just re-read what you wrote. I wasn't at all asking, "what if we cured him?" Again, I was more concerned about the self-fullfilling prophecy effect of a diagnosis at all.

But, upon further consideration, I don't think I do agree with you about the harm of "historical diagnosis" in all cases. If I had a child who had ADD, I would want to tell him/her about Leonardo. But again, that's because of my point, the potential harm that diagnoses (labeling) can cause, as an unintended side effect of what is meant to be helpful.

[Orrex]

12. Okay, I see your points, but must still disagree at least in part

If a diagnosis is incorrect, then that's certainly a problem, but that applies across the board and shouldn't, IMO, be held against ADD diagnoses in particular. A misdiagnosed nosebleed is a problem, as is a misdiagnosed sprained ankle.

I have to confess that, if I suffered from ADD, I wouldn't like to hear someone offer Leonardo as an example of what a hypothetical ADD sufferer can achieve. First, I'd have the same objection that I've voiced here—we just can't know whether he had it, so retro-diagnosis is inherently self-serving. Second, I'd be more than a little intimidated by the back-handed implication: Leonardo has ADD, and look what he accomplished (ie., and you can't get through a math class!)

I suppose that such an example could be inspirational, but honestly I'd find it rather off-putting.

Ultimately it seems that your objection pertains to the limits that a diagnosis might impose upon a sufferer. However, if the diagnosis precedes proper treatment, then I can't imagine how it can be seen as negative. But if the diagnosis is "you have ADD, and now you're on your own," then clearly that's the wrong way to go about it.

[Wordie]

13. What I really am most concerned about is the self-fullfilling prophecy

aspect of some diagnoses. The negative attitudes of both the labeler (diagnostician) and the general public toward those with such disabilities are, imo, magnified because of the power of the negative label. Which then goes on to affect the person so labeled, by limiting opportunities; as a result of those limited opportunities achievement is limited; then the negative label is confirmed in the minds of the labeler as a result of the reduced achievement, and we've got a horrible and destructive vicious circle of negativity.

There was a study done a long time ago on a different group, but that applies here. In the study, they took a group of schoolchildren and screened them for IQ. (Yeah, I know there are all sorts of problems with the measurement of intelligence, but for the purposes of this example, that's not really relevant - this really isn't about IQ.). They divided the kids into three groups, equally balanced on IQ, according to the tests they just took, and assigned each group to a classroom. Then they told the three teachers of the classrooms three different stories: the first one was told, "On the basis of the tests we gave them, the kids in your classroom were found to be very intelligent. They might not seem so now, but our tests have shown that over the school year, the kids in your classroom are really going to bloom and they're going to achieve much more than they have up to this point. They told the teacher in second classroom that those kids were going to remain about the same, and the third classroom's teacher was told that those kids were going to fall behind, that their achievement levels would drop significantly.

And what do you think happened? Keep in mind that the real purpose of screening these kids was to make sure that they were evenly divided across the three classrooms as far as their IQ scores were concerned. Well, at the end of the semester, what happened was that in the first classroom, achievement, and even the IQ scores of all the kids improved (this may have been one of the first clues that IQ wasn't really the innate quality it had been thought to be), in the second classroom achievement and IQ simply stayed the same, and in the third, achievement and IQ of all the kids actually dropped significantly. Do you see the implications? These changes happened solely because of the power of a label; the label made the difference. The expectations of the teachers was the only real difference between the three classrooms, and the label that the teacher applied to the kids, of "high-achiever" or "middle-achiever" or "poor-achiever," resulted in these dramatic differences in the achievement of the kids, who really were all about the same at the beginning of the study. (This study also raised ethical issues, because what did it do to the kids in the second and third classrooms? Were those changes permanent, etc.? But again, that doesn't dilute the significance of the example.)

So, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. And I guess we're talking more about those conditions that are neurological or "invisible" in nature, but I really don't know for sure. It may be that this sort of effect also applies to other disabilities as well.

But I also see what you are talking about; that expectations that are way too high could also have the opposite effect, and lead to frustration and discomfort too. And that frustration itself would also be self-limiting. And there is also the danger that by presenting stories of people who have succeeded despite disabilities, others may decide that there really is no problem, or that the disability isn't real, when it clearly really is. (This is more of a problem with "invisible" disabilities, and I completely agree that this problem of the general public denying the validity of such disabilities is an all-too-real one.) So I guess this is one of those paradoxical sorts of things, that one runs across so frequently when discussing human nature. Looks like, even though we initially disagreed, we were probably both correct.

[Orrex]

14. Good points--but I'd like to reiterate one of my concerns

Although the segregation-by-IQ is informative, it misses the aspect of "treatability" inherent in many cases of ADD. That is, they weren't giving a pill to the "low IQ" kids, and--as you mention--IQ isn't solely an innate quality. Organic ADD (as contrasted with functional ADD) is a neurological (rather than behavioral) disorder. If the unwillingness-to-diagnose leads to the failure-to-recognize-it and thereafter to a failure-to-help children with ADD, then no benefit is gained.

Maybe what we're both suggesting is the need for careful and accurate diagnosis. A child might be more harmed than helped by a faulty ADD diagnosis: if the child has non-disorder-related behavioral problems, then he or she might be stigmatized by the faulty diagnosis; if the child has true ADD, then a failure to diagnose might leave him or her at a developmental disadvantage.

In the end, I just can't get behind the retro-diagnosis trend because it seems fundamentally unhelpful IMO. But as far as proper treatment in the here-and-now goes, I'd say that precision, care, and sensitivity are all pretty darned important.

Maybe that’s where we're agreeing?

[Wordie]

15. Yep...add a recognition by the diagnoser

of thepotentially harmful effects to the diagnosee of the diagnosis itself, whether neurological or functional - so that proper sensitivity by the diagnoser could be applied (one would hope) and then we agree completely. I accept all of those points you made toward the end there; they were excellent points. And, the historical diagnosis was only something I was using for purposes of illustration, anyway - I'm not particularly married to the concept.

So, I think we both can pat ourselves on the back for a healthy discussion and respectful resolution of what had been an apparently unresolvable dispute. Aaaahhhh, that felt good. Thanks, orrex. (It's too rare for this to happen, both here at DU and in the real world.)

[Orrex]

16. Congrats to us!

So, I think we both can pat ourselves on the back for a healthy discussion and respectful resolution of what had been an apparently unresolvable dispute. Aaaahhhh, that felt good. Thanks, orrex. (It's too rare for this to happen, both here at DU and in the real world.)

That's pretty impressive, considering that the subject-line of my first post (and the post itself) included the word "bullshit" to describe my original view of the theory!

A nice exchange, to be sure!

:toast:

[Wordie]

17. ::toast right back at ya::

The "bullshit" can easily be ignored when the outcome is so positive. (We only got here because we were both willing to talk out the differences...good for us!)

[DemBones DemBones]

20. Years and years ago, I read speculation that Leonardo

was dyslexic, that his mirror writing was not a code but a sign of his dyslexia. And you are absolutely right that he was noted for unfinished projects.

It's often been claimed that Leonardo was homosexual, too, with less evidence for that than for his having some sort of learning disability. I wonder if the posters who attacked you and the very concept that we can diagnose a person who lived hundreds of years ago would say about that? Is it wrong for homosexuals to want to claim Leonardo? If not, why is it wrong for the learning disabled to want to claim Leonardo? Many great artists and writers are believed to have been bipolar. To this day, learning disabilities and bipolar disorder are diagnosed based upon observed behaviors, and we do have records of observed behaviors of many historically important persons.

When I taught public school, I worked with many learning disabled students and I often told them that many historians believe Leonardo da Vinci was LD, just like I told them about my brother who is LD and ADD but has had a good job and many friends ever since he dropped out of school at 16. (There were no LD programs in the school when he was growing up.) LD and ADD kids have many problems with self-esteem since they are forced into an educational system that is not tailored to their needs. They need to know that people with LD can succeed and even excell outside of school.

Is ADD overdiagnosed? Maybe Or perhaps it has become more common due to the overload of stimuli in the modern environment. My brother couldn't deal with the level of stimuli he experienced as a child in the Fifties and Sixties. The stimuli of a world with e-mail, text messaging, huge stores and huge malls with thousands of products and piped-in music could be causing severe stress to kids who would otherwise have been able to function normally despite a tendency toward ADD.

Finally, Ritalin didn't help my brother, yet it helps others. Parents have to do what seems best for their children and others shouldn;t assume that they know better.

ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL.

[Hypatia82]

21. His unfinished projects...

aren't necessarily unfinished, and those that are unfinished he many a time had no reason to finish. No sense in finishing up a new multi-barrel cannon when the person you hoped to sell on the idea is no longer your patron. As for his writing, Leonardo only used mirror image writing in his notebooks. In regular correspondence he wrote normally and did so very well. And did so with both hands. What is often overlooked is the sense of humor he had. His notebook margins, even spaces in between sketches, have scores of jokes. Both ones he heard and ones he created himself. He also created caricature drawing. Was he gay? Far more likely than not. He also may have pulled off two of the greatest practical jokes of all time, the shroud of Turin and the Mona Lisa. Facial analysis of Jesus on the shroud and of Mona Lisa find both matching Leonardo's face from his self-portraits. In other words, that's not Jesus and she's no lady. Really there's precious little to indicate any sort of learning disability or mental issues. There is however lots to indicate a great contempt for authority.