Aspergers

[Yownas]

I've been reading about aspergers and started thinking (and googling); Did Syd have apergers?

It feels like it would explain alot about his behaviour and "shutdown" when PF got famous.

The metronome intro to Scarecrow is probably a good example of something that would be concieved by an aspi.
And Jugband blues could just as well be a song about aspergers as it is supposed to be about schizofrenia.

And for the conspiracy-theorists in us; why is David Gilmour so involved in saving Gary McKinnon?

[Damn!t]

why is David Gilmour so involved in saving Gary McKinnon?

...Polly knows someone who knows Gary.
One day, she thrown a slipper to Dave saying, Oi, come here...there's this bloke...

[mosespa]

It has been speculated that Syd may have had Aspbergers.

I'm curious, though; if the metronome intro do "The Scarecrow" could be considered as a symptom, then does the fact that a metronome runs all the way through "Blackbird" by The Beatles indicate that Paul had full blown Autism?

I don't think it's a sign of anything other than that they used a metronome to keep everyone in time and it was decided not to mix it out, for whatever reason.

[Yownas]

I read somewhere (couldn't find the url, sorry) that people with aspergers tend to like music on other premisses than "normal" people. And the metronome (or whatever it is) in Scarecrow is one of the coolest things I've heard.

But maybe that says more about me than it does about Syd?

[CatherineMa14]

Does it really matter what Syd had? He's gone now. Maybe we should let the music speak for itself.

[Yownas]

Does it really matter what Syd had? He's gone now. Maybe we should let the music speak for itself.

Well... It is true that he is gone and nothing anyone would come up with now will change how the music sounds... but...

Somehow I still feel that I want to know more about him. Putting an apsie-diagnose on him might sound like something bad but it be nice to be able to explain why he left the rock-circus that way instead of marking him as a loony or drug-casualty.

And as a Syd-fan who at least used to identify myself with him and his music it would be nice to feel that I could think of him as a guy whos brain was just wired slightly different instead of someone who might have been insane or had his brain fried.

So, yes, to me it matters.

[ddebil]

One of my favourite vegetables, despite the strange-smelling wee.

Edit: I'd better point out that I'm not referring to Syd!

[Yownas]

(Time for lunch..no aspergers in the lunch-box though...)

[wiped]

One of my favourite vegetables, despite the strange-smelling wee.

Edit: I'd better point out that I'm not referring to Syd!

[vera]

Does it really matter what Syd had? He's gone now. Maybe we should let the music speak for itself.

Yeah.Leave the guy already.

[lordcliff]

I was searching about this after hearing pink floyd's "keep talking" sounds like asperger like social skills. I can relate to that song

[The Genius]

dont know if syd had asbergers but that Rush nut that runs around PF forum says he does ha ha ha ha

[princessDungan74D]

I hate labels on who is bipolar or just depressed? Trust me I have been labeled many mental problems. I am not going to tell you what because its not that big of a deal. Don't put a label on someone who is dead.

[David Smith]

I hate labels on who is bipolar or just depressed?

I think using the correct label can be very important, and here's why...

Taken from my facebook:

As a psychology student, i have found myself becoming increasingly skeptical about mental illness. It seems that there is a trend of attaching the title of an illness to a negative characteristic; e.g 'that person isn't arrogant- instead they have narcassistic personality disorder. Oh it's not that person's fault that they can't speak to people- they have social anxiety disorder. Oh the reason that person can't speak in public is because of an illness they have; the imaginatively named public speaking anxiety disorder'. etc etc Depression is also true to this trend, thanks to the DSM (diagnostic statistical manual) volume 3 classing depression the physiological condition and aquired depression as being interchangable. The manual makes no distinction between a neuronal condition that one is born with, and the depression that someone can suffer from losing a loved one. In other words, professionals now use a definition of depression that equates genuine depressive disorder with intense, but normal, states of sadness experienced by people. Of course these are not the same thing. It is the distinction between a disease and a disorder.

Without in any way trying to trivialise the loss of a loved one, the difference is that any condition that one contracts from their loss and circumstancial. As such, it is generally a temporary period of depression, rather than a heritable condition that one cannot lose. This means since the 80s there has been a population of people that confuse feeling down with having a disease. People talk of the placebo effect, where people believe they are being cured because they are told that the pills will work. I would say this is almost like that, wherein people believe they have an illness because they are told that it is the same as a universal feeling of feeling down. For those who do not know much about the DSM, the diangosis is criterion based wherein patients do a checklist out of 9 different symptoms, should they suffer from 5 then they are classed as being depressed. Sounds fool proof, right? The problem is that many of these symptoms are very vague (or at least ambiguous), and of course, one does not have a suitable point of comparisson when rating themselves so... In other words, it is not hard to be classed with a mood disorder. Particularly when you don't have to meet full criteria. And the problem is that anti-depressents aren't designed around curing an illness; instead they are designed to help one live with it. We are talking here about drugs that are designed around creating a dependent society wherein the logical progression is going to be the upping of ones prescription.

But say someone doesn't even get to that point, there has definitely become something quite sexy about mental illness. Maybe it's because it gives the illusion of emotional depth and maturity, maybe it's because nirvana managed to make having a mental illness in to a form of rebellion... I don't know. But the point is that with the definition of depression being so wide then it becomes so much easier for people to be diagnosed with it and it becomes so much easier for the word to be trivialised to the extent that in every day life you felt 'pretty depressed' about something. Earlier today i heard someone a few chairs along saying 'oh man, that film was well depressing...' Sure it was. 'Blah blah blah, then i went through a period of depression' it's like huh? well you got over your disease quite quickly then. Being depressed for two weeks because a girl dumps you does not qualify as mental illness BUT it can possibly allow you to get some meds. But then if someone has diagnosed themself as being mentally ill then it can lead to the same problem as an easy diagnosis... With the conditions i mentioned at the start (NPD, SAD and PSAD) and acquired depression, once somebody has been labeled as having an illness it can become a reason to keep on acting in the same way.

Anyone hear of those conformity expriments by Pendry and Carrick where they gave people punk or accoutant labels? The point is that the groups were primed with one label or the other, and they found significant changes in behvaiour and performances that varied with the labels, showing the importance of a label on an individual. Once someone is disagnosed with illness, then a particular stigma is attached and it is very possible that they can start to feel helpless to their illness, and as a result nothing changes. Regardless of if it really is a conspiracy to make big bucks for pharmacuitical companies, it is too easy to be classed as having a mental illness and then use it as a reason to excuse/ not change behaviours ('i can't do it, my illness is too deabilitating'). I am not suggesting that this is a conscious decision where they go 'oh i'll let my disease prevent me from doing this...' but i am saying that once you've been told you can't function normally then there's a good chance that you will take it for granted. It can then happen that one feel helpess and it creates a vicious cycle wherein an inability to do something about the condition makes them feel worse about it, make them feel helpless, makes them feel worse, feel more helpless etc etc. This is why the mental health professionals need to better make the distinction between the disease and the disorder with regards to depression; people that are already presumably not feeling in high spirits should not be suggested to be interchangeable with people who were born with the condition. An intense feeling of prolonged sadness is something that a lot of people will feel at some point, and it is obviously not an easy time for them, but by not allowing themself to be labeled as a series of symptoms then there is a greater chance that they can overcome the period. Give them a medical label or offer them mood enhancing drugs then this further anchors the feeling that they are ill rather than the truth; that they are suffering but can (and most probably will) overcome their condition given time.

This was originally going to be a writeup about how it's become trendy and hip to have a mental illness, but i will have to come to that at some point later is this has gone on long enough. Instead this has become a little blog about the dangers of an overly liberal diagnostic system. The bottom line is that if someone went through a period of depression, but are over it now, then by definition did not have the deabilitating disease, but instead an intense feeling of sadness that they thankfully recovered from.

Trust me I have been labeled many mental problems.

My big writeup above shows why i don't in any way feel that makes you an authority on this matter because of said labelling. End of the day i would trust the millions of people whom mental health categorisation has helped before i take the opinion of someone who doesn;t like classicifcation systems. Out of curiousity where do you feel the bad part of distinguishing between bipolar and depression are considering it distinguishes between a disease (something abnormal) and a disorder (something that's circumstancial and unpleaseant).

I am not going to tell you what because its not that big of a deal.

Can't help but notice that most of the forum members who have been here for over a year prbably already know.

Don't put a label on someone who is dead.

While i don't feel there is sufficient evidence that Syd has aspergers, i think if any evidence did come out then it would be worth knowing as it would give a new slant on the man and his work... In my opinion at least.

[sonsofthedesert]

What a load of bullshit! this thread is,whether "Syd " Roger Barrett had Aspergers Syndrome or schizophrenia as Roger Waters surmises or was simply playing games is irrelevant and speculative.
Got to have a label!did Aspergers exist in 1967????????

All creative genius have personality flaws or defects,just ask Mozart or John Lennon,all your left with is the music and thats all you should CARE about!