What is it exactly that you want to know? To me, and the reason for my "attack" is that your post sounds like this:

I saw this interview with so and so, which reminded me of so and so2. I wonder if they have any similarities. So and so seems to be gay, while I have heard stories of So and so2's peculiarities...

Later you point out that his father has denied that his son is autistic, and then use this as justification to add to the speculation. Then you go on to mention that having a psychological condition is not a good or a bad thing, just an aspect of their character. I find it interesting that a professional sees no stigma attached psychological conditions and in the next breath speaks of people "dabbling in madness." As with being gay, just because there is nothing wrong with it doesn't mean that it is appropriate to share your opinions about someone who has not come out and shared the fact themselves.

What you seem to be doing is just gossiping, and doing so about a subject that is sensitive enough that his father feels it necessary to take a stance on. I don't doubt your professional judgement as to whether someone might have a psychological condition, but I do doubt your judgement as to whether it is appropriate to share your conjectures. Note that in all of the examples that Joaz mentioned regarding the ability of a professional to make a quick assessment, that he or she did so with a good reason. If your reason is something other than what it sounds like, it is not readily apparent.


What conversation? The one about Lee Chang Ho's personality? About the personality of great thinkers? This conversation doesn't seem to be getting off the ground. Can't you think of a way to talk about it without first speculating about psychological conditions? If on the other hand the relationship between psychological conditions to great thinkers is in fact exactly what you want to talk about, why not share some of your professional evidence supporting the theory?

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Lul Magnus is a celebrity. You can talk about them how ever much you want.

This sums up my feelings quite nicely to be honest.

Maybe Magnus Carlsen would be diagnosed somewhere on the autistic spectrum, maybe he wouldn't, it doesn't bother me either way particularly. I know being a celebrity invites people to make relatively baseless assessments and judgements and then publicly throw them around, and presenting pertinent actual diagnoses and facts can be interesting, but making speculative conjectures without evidence just feels tasteless somehow. It just feeds situations where "person X must be Y because someone said that someone said that someone said that ...."

This image is used to break up Internet fights these days.