SQTDDTOT

[JohnTrent]

Why do Westerners who were abused at a young age so commonly grow up into malformed adults? Lots of women pretend to have been raped, but the ones (and men too) that were actually raped seem to suffer a lot, for reasons that I don't understand. Through what mechanism is rape harmful in these cases? Rape is more common in third world countries, but as far as I know they don't have this issue. I can't make sense of it, but maybe there's a simple explanation I haven't considered.

There's the simple answer to the question (BillyONare's rhetorical question “Why does being damaged damage things?”) and another that might still leave some things unresolved. The latter is what I thought of first, and I'll try to give the best explanation possible for the alternate answer. 

This is what Adam Lanza had to say on the matter, which is comparable to other claims mentioned by Susan A. Clancy in her book "The Trauma Myth" (and maybe other authors too, but I have not delved too far into the subject):

Adult panic or disgust about young people's seeking pleasure for themselves is responsible for much of the trauma that minors experience when they are caught behaving “inappropriately” for their ages, even in a consensual context.
[...]
The response of the criminal justice system both to the ‘victim’ and ‘offender’ in adult-child cases is counter-productive. We have already seen that the older male is treated with contempt by both the police and the courts and little sympathy is shown towards the way he will be treated in prison. Similarly, the young male’s treatment bears a remarkable similarity to that received by incest victims. In both paedophilia and incest considerable distress to the boy or girl occurs when parents, relatives or the police themselves discover the relationship. Constant and often insensitive questioning adds to this distress and it is not unusual to find that many researchers have noted that far more damage is caused by the confrontations the child has with his parents or the legal authorities than by the act itself.

In the conclusion of Susan A. Clancy's book:

What hurts most victims is not the experience itself but the meaning of the experience—how victims make sense of what happened and how these understandings make them feel about themselves and others and subsequently impact their emotions and behaviors. In short, an event does not have to be traumatic when it happens to cause harm later on. It is the retrospective interpretation of the event that mediates subsequent impact.

I would suggest the meaning aspect in Clancy's book (italics mine) has a significant role in how these people are perceived after the incident (and, if current times are any proof, the incident is detached from the foundation of pedophilia and more onto bad behavior arbitrarily decided by the supposed victim). The people we could consider legitimate victims in the West feel a millstone around their neck throughout most of their adolescent and adult life, usually having a poor upbringing. I wonder at times if half the struggle of determining these people's character is a result of a category-mistake: sex abuse studies viewing their subjects as mainly a product of the incident, and not of the general environment; the details of their life are obscured, and so an accurate account of their stresses, misfortunes, etc. are erased from the record. In the eyes of someone concerned only about the act of rape or precocious sex, the emotional implosion of a subject is only associated with the original event, but one must wonder hundreds of incidents that transpired over the course of their life that resulted in their psychic breaks/hard drug addictions. The trauma model would have it only one way.

It is a truism at this point that the Western population has a greater capacity for introspection than those in the Turd World, and when one encounters the insistence of sexual trauma, the implied meanings transfer over to how they perceive their life trajectory. Traumatic events act as a demarcation of time in the inner lives of these people and, as such, it has the potential to change all self-perception once they perceive the larger implications of trauma. "Retreating into oneself" is a common characteristic if you find such people in real life, especially so if they claimed to realize what happened a decade or so after: the idea of the self has been unraveled, and because the events are supposed to incur incredible turmoil on the victims, the unintentional result is to view themselves as a bearer of pain. [Note: Susan Clancy does not believe in repressed memories in the conventional sense, whereas I mostly do and am just using this as an example]. "I thought I was a normal person but found out later I am only just barely functional", "It was only later that I realized how awful it really was", or "Sometimes I am in a normal setting, remember what happened, and stop to think 'I wish I was more like them'" are all things these people might say. Personal observation not backed by any available evidence right now: those who discuss their event frequently tend to experience more nightmares about it than those who seldom discuss it at all. The CBT practice of making patients relive trauma seems very retarded to me compared to something like EMDR.

Onto the subject of arbitrarily decided bad behavior: I believe that there is a gradual shift in how trauma is perceived to the point where people could authentically feel the same thing from incidental occurrences. So long as trauma is considered applicable to more innocent events like catcalling, a three to five year age difference ("grooming"), etc., the reasonable reaction is to consider this as a cynical ploy — they might feel scorned by the end of the relationship and begin a crusade against the boyfriend for their perceived wrongs. That is true in a lot of cases. What I'd also argue is that, on some level, certain people genuinely believe the ordinary events are traumatic, and a network that facilitates these thoughts assists in re-conceptualization, just the same with cases we would consider more extreme. We have yet to see the full implications of this, but given that gender relations have taken up a hostile character, we can suppose that women en masse are beginning to perceive themselves as essentially traumatized.

[JohnTrent]

...

Addendum:
Part of the trouble in producing a detailed answer involves the controversy of False Memory Syndrome, and as I noted in my edit, I find little reason to doubt a memory recovered in later years. We can question the mechanism of repression and point to what Clancy said in an interview ("normal forgetting and remembering"), but it's also worth noting that previous research of hers suggested that certain individuals are prone to the creation of false memories. Simply put, I find False Memory Syndrome to be too NAMBLA-tier to be accounted for here, and skepticism for the trauma model seems more like the right approach (along with practices that assist in distancing rather than re-living in the case of later psychic troubles, ranging from EMDR to something more hypnotic). I'm inclined to agree with David McGowan about how FMS is more of a cudgel used by suspicious characters than a legitimate diagnosis.

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

Thanks, that's a very informative response. I was also confused by the things I had heard about women "enjoying" rape which made me question whether it was even harmful at all, but this theory accounts for that. You've convincingly argued that reflecting on childhood abuse could be more directly harmful than the abuse itself.

As I hope to have made clear in the book, sexual abuse is never OK. No matter what the circumstances are, or how it impacts the victims, sexual abuse is an atrocious, despicable crime. Just because it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child does not mean it is OK. Harmfulness is not the same thing as wrongfulness. And why is it wrong? Because children are incapable of consent.

However, Clancy is careful to reinforce that rape is uniquely doubleplusungood because of "consent" to prevent her argument from being misused by pedophiles, which seems arbitrary and dogmatic. If we disregard this dogma, it's not immediately clear why we shouldn't just treat rape as a minor crime or everyday occurrence.

I think we can reconcile Clancy's theory with rape's harmfulness using the clear pill, and there may be another component to the trauma experienced by victims (in addition to the retrospective realization that they were betrayed). True rape is degenerate (eroding norms such as marriage) and dysgenic (if it leads to pregnancy), thus being harmful to wider society. Homosexual abuse is also harmful because it is likely to change a person's sexual orientation making them unmarriageable, as well as to perpetuate itself through more abuse. This is the origin of our natural and strong revulsion towards the idea of rape, even if on its own it can only partially explain how victims are affected by rape. This is probably reflected in the libtard conception of rape as ontological evil (justified by the dogma of "consent"). Because true victims of childhood abuse do not often feel like they were directly harmed at the time by the act of abuse (maybe they even enjoyed it), they may also feel culpable and suffer psychological harm for the sin of rape whose primary victim is society. Of course, the children were totally unwitting in this sin and they shouldn't blame themselves.

It's unclear how we can strongly disincentivize rape without in effect punishing innocent parties psychologically and harming their development, but I suppose it's a necessary evil to a degree. Still, Clancy is probably right that clinical approaches could improve if we changed our perspective on what this childhood trauma really is. Psychologists harm patients by considering the effects of how we harshly deal with rape (worse than murder?) to be inherent to the act of rape itself. Perhaps our approach could improve further if we also acknowledged that rape is a crime against society as much as if not more than it is a crime against the individual.

Onto the subject of arbitrarily decided bad behavior: I believe that there is a gradual shift in how trauma is perceived to the point where people could authentically feel the same thing from incidental occurrences. So long as trauma is considered applicable to more innocent events like catcalling, a three to five year age difference ("grooming"), etc., the reasonable reaction is to consider this as a cynical ploy — they might feel scorned by the end of the relationship and begin a crusade against the boyfriend for their perceived wrongs. That is true in a lot of cases. What I'd also argue is that, on some level, certain people genuinely believe the ordinary events are traumatic, and a network that facilitates these thoughts assists in re-conceptualization, just the same with cases we would consider more extreme. We have yet to see the full implications of this, but given that gender relations have taken up a hostile character, we can suppose that women en masse are beginning to perceive themselves as essentially traumatized.

I think you're right. There is a point at which believing something to be harmful causes it to become actually harmful to a degree. The solution here is to just invalidate all lesser "trauma", but as you've pointed out, some of the "trauma" is actually real and experienced by people. It's not easy to convince anyone that their direct experiences were essentially social hallucinations.

Part of the trouble in producing a detailed answer involves the controversy of False Memory Syndrome, and as I noted in my edit, I find little reason to doubt a memory recovered in later years. We can question the mechanism of repression and point to what Clancy said in an interview ("normal forgetting and remembering"), but it's also worth noting that previous research of hers suggested that certain individuals are prone to the creation of false memories. Simply put, I find False Memory Syndrome to be too NAMBLA-tier to be accounted for here, and skepticism for the trauma model seems more like the right approach (along with practices that assist in distancing rather than re-living in the case of later psychic troubles, ranging from EMDR to something more hypnotic). I'm inclined to agree with David McGowan about how FMS is more of a cudgel used by suspicious characters than a legitimate diagnosis.

I agree, I saw that Clancy wrote another book about alien abduction testimonies where she focuses more on how false memories might be created during the process of clinical treatment, but this phenomenon is probably uncommon and isn't linked very strongly to CSA (which does occur frequently in the real world). I think it's more common for memories to be embellished and twisted subtly by rumination, so a unenjoyable sexual experience under the right social incentives can grow into a rape accusation within the enigmatic female mind. But it seems inappropriate to pathologize this as a disorder. Psychology can be really hard to model and I may have complicated this further by introducing more ideas, but your response definitely helped to demystify this.

[Oldblood]

I've been thinking about this clip and the discourse surrounding it.

https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/stat...1646317988

Where a young woman is robbed at gunpoint by a black (presumably) while a young man watches and runs away.
The overwhelming consensus now is that he had every reason to, why should he endanger himself (or risk imprisonment) for her.
I am sympathetic to this but I can't help but feel it comes from a bad or cowardly place.

Personally I think I would have attacked the robber. As long as you don't kill the nigger there's a fairly decent chance you'll get away with it and that's good enough for me, I don't really have a lot to live for anyway and would just feel like such a faggot for watching and running away.

Here's what I'm interested in knowing from those who wouldn't: if you saw a white man fighting/being robbed by a black or even a group, would you then help?
I think a lot then would say yes, what sort of racially conscious man wouldn't? Watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5V6gdu5ih8

The factor of her being a woman seems to make a big difference, a lot of comments say it's what she would have voted for.
Personally I think on the right we forget how contemptible the vast majority of men are. Just because 100% of women are dumb slaves doesn't redeem men being 99%. And we're pretending that voting makes a difference now? Because she may have voted for the liberal party that wants to import niggers instead of the conservative party that wants to import niggers?
Most men you meet think you should be in prison, although I suppose one fighting with blacks is a sign of good character.

For me it's not even about the woman, it's about the audacity of the NIGGER.
Most right-wingers seem content with smugly crossing their arms and saying
'Minorities can attack our people and guess what - we won't do a thing about it! That'll show you.'
The smartest thing likely would be to stay out of that situation but I certainly wouldn't be proud of it.

[Illustrious]

No, I wouldn't do a thing. When I think of protecting my own race, I think of white males, not white thots. A bro is getting attacked by a nigger? count me in, we're gonna smack that nigger down. A white woman, your mortal enemy? fuck her. I will think this way until 3DPD become 2D.

[isotope]

I've been thinking about this clip and the discourse surrounding it.
https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/stat...1646317988

[...]

You are talking about it as if the decision to defend the woman (or a man in your hypothetical scenario) was influenced only by one's willingness or unwillingness to take action. This is not how things are. If you live in the western world, then real self-defense is most likely punished by the state that you live in.

To directly answer your question

if you saw a white man fighting/being robbed by a black or even a group, would you then help?

I would have, if I were living in a country where 1) self-defense is very broadly understood and 2) possession of guns (and other effective weaponry) is not severely restricted by the state, like in most countries. Proper understanding of self-defense, I think, is when you can kill the attacker even if he tries to run away, and the idiotic standard of "reasonable force" is not present. I am calling the "reasonable force" (I don't know if that is the proper legal term in English) thing idiotic because an attack with a fist justifies response with a fucking grenade launcher.

I do not want to become the next Daniel Penny. Do you?

[anthony]

I've been thinking about this clip and the discourse surrounding it.

I wouldn't say a word... I would just listen...

[Piggy]

On normalfaggotry:

Often there's this shared belief among the Right which ascertains that autism/aspergers are a new development caused by goyslop, xenoestrogens, not enough bullying, whatever. And then there are the Varg types who think autism = European gene. 

I'm not sure if I would go as far as Varg, but when I read about past lifes of peoples (whites, but you can add Asians as well) something feels off; those peoples don't seem like they belong to the same species as the current normalfaggot who invades and ruins everything today. From their prose, to their interests, ambitions, demeanors, refinement, sensibility, etcetera... I just can't believe that if you just transported the kid selves of excellent past peoples to today and let them grow in this fake and gay reality, they would simply become unabashed degenerate normalfags. 
Something's not right. I'm thinking that perhaps the aspie/autistic type is not the result of modern industrial developments, but the opposite - that the aspie has more in common with the average civilized folk of centuries ago than the debauched normie types of today... so what if normalfaggotry is actually the odd adaptation born as consequence of industrialization, goyslop, whatever it might be, let's say modernity as a whole? do you think there might be a point to this? what causes the normalization of normalfaggotry, the constant race towards nigger world? Am I overthinking this and the current scenario is simply the result of unwashed proles procreating like rabbits thanks to medical advancements? But even then, it’s depressing to compare current “aristocracy” to the old one. I’m just here trying to find solace in the thought that niggerdom isn’t the human default. Do simple downward civilizational cycles cause this?

I remember a tweet showcasing a scientific study of Ancient Roman peoples which concluded that autism was actually more prevalent then than in the present; I don't know how they can determine that beyond DNA sampling and such but either way I regret I didn't even save a screenshot of it, perhaps somebody else knows the xeet I'm talking about.

[FlyWithYou]

On normalfaggotry:

Often there's this shared belief among the Right which ascertains that autism/aspergers are a new development caused by goyslop, xenoestrogens, not enough bullying, whatever. And then there are the Varg types who think autism = European gene. 

I'm not sure if I would go as far as Varg, but when I read about past lifes of peoples (whites, but you can add Asians as well) something feels off; those peoples don't seem like they belong to the same species as the current normalfaggot who invades and ruins everything today. From their prose, to their interests, ambitions, demeanors, refinement, sensibility, etcetera... I just can't believe that if you just transported the kid selves of excellent past peoples to today and let them grow in this fake and gay reality, they would simply become unabashed degenerate normalfags. 
Something's not right. I'm thinking that perhaps the aspie/autistic type is not the result of modern industrial developments, but the opposite - that the aspie has more in common with the average civilized folk of centuries ago than the debauched normie types of today... so what if normalfaggotry is actually the odd adaptation born as consequence of industrialization, goyslop, whatever it might be, let's say modernity as a whole? do you think there might be a point to this? what causes the normalization of normalfaggotry, the constant race towards nigger world? Am I overthinking this and the current scenario is simply the result of unwashed proles procreating like rabbits thanks to medical advancements? But even then, it’s depressing to compare current “aristocracy” to the old one. I’m just here trying to find solace in the thought that niggerdom isn’t the human default. Do simple downward civilizational cycles cause this?

I remember a tweet showcasing a scientific study of Ancient Roman peoples which concluded that autism was actually more prevalent then than in the present; I don't know how they can determine that beyond DNA sampling and such but either way I regret I didn't even save a screenshot of it, perhaps somebody else knows the xeet I'm talking about.

Much has changed in the past few hundred years besides genetic distributions.



https://i.ibb.co/P5kQnB7/historicalandcr...g-0091.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/CnXxfb7/historicalandcr...g-0092.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/kXB67H4/historicalandcr...g-0093.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/ry82Sq5/historicalandcr...g-0094.jpg
(Thomas De Quincey)

[JohnTrent]

I'm not sure if I would go as far as Varg, but when I read about past lifes of peoples (whites, but you can add Asians as well) something feels off; those peoples don't seem like they belong to the same species as the current normalfaggot who invades and ruins everything today. From their prose, to their interests, ambitions, demeanors, refinement, sensibility, etcetera... I just can't believe that if you just transported the kid selves of excellent past peoples to today and let them grow in this fake and gay reality, they would simply become unabashed degenerate normalfags. 
Something's not right. I'm thinking that perhaps the aspie/autistic type is not the result of modern industrial developments, but the opposite - that the aspie has more in common with the average civilized folk of centuries ago than the debauched normie types of today... so what if normalfaggotry is actually the odd adaptation born as consequence of industrialization, goyslop, whatever it might be, let's say modernity as a whole? do you think there might be a point to this? what causes the normalization of normalfaggotry, the constant race towards nigger world? Am I overthinking this and the current scenario is simply the result of unwashed proles procreating like rabbits thanks to medical advancements? But even then, it’s depressing to compare current “aristocracy” to the old one. I’m just here trying to find solace in the thought that niggerdom isn’t the human default. Do simple downward civilizational cycles cause this?

I remember a tweet showcasing a scientific study of Ancient Roman peoples which concluded that autism was actually more prevalent then than in the present; I don't know how they can determine that beyond DNA sampling and such but either way I regret I didn't even save a screenshot of it, perhaps somebody else knows the xeet I'm talking about.

I was reading Hubbard's Dianetics recently and found a statement there to be quite true:

If one set out to resolve the problem of aberration by a system of cataloguing everything he observed and were unaware of the basic source, he would end up with as many separate insanities, neuroses, psychoses, compulsions, repressions, obsessions and disabilities as there are combinations of words in the English language. Discovery of fundamentals by classification is never good research. And the unlimited complexities possible from the engrams (and the severest, most thoroughly controlled experiments discovered these engrams to be capable of just such behavior as is listed here) is the whole catalogue of aberrated human conduct.

Previous discussions have been made here on the subject of autism, but outside of our thing it always seems as if idiopathic causes are always subtly present in other discussions: there is an established set of behaviors colloquially known to be "autistic", but one cannot help but think people are viewing it as an ex nihilo development — there is some incipient presence of it at birth and it should be considered an everlasting factor of a person's life. This, I think, has a deep relation to the genetic interpretation, though this explanation of course satisfies almost nobody. Like with the Hubbard excerpt above, the fundamentals revolve around a set of classifications, but that alone only perplexes people further (the classifications are provisional and oftentimes undergo heavy re-defining), and the nature of the disorder continues to mystify us. It would be more valuable if deep observations were conducted around the lives of the mentally defective, or better yet (since this is really the driving force of discussion), the "Aspergic" character. In the latter case, I would make the prediction that many are all but destroyed by family/In loco parentis settings, some are afflicted by another issue, and a remaining few are troubled with a classic case of mental retardation. I am casting a wide net here only because you and I both have a received idea of what autism means, and this idea appears to diagnose many people as psychologically aberrant. Dumb women are making this conversation more complicated than it needs to be since they now believe if you think you are autistic, then you are.





Already in this post I've been ambulating around your main point (are earlier men of civilization autistic), so I'll get to the point: the issue with considering earlier lives on these terms is the assumption that there's a characteristic of deviance involved. I think it's more that they were greater, more capable of social success, and were developed enough to pursue their interests with determination. There were less impediments of character, less things obtruding on the freedom of their thoughts. Just because this book was the one closest to me while writing this post, I thought it was appropriate to quote this part from Eckermann's Conversations with Goethe. Eckermann had conversed with an elderly opulent man, and found out that he was once Goethe's valet for twenty years. Here is what the elderly man had said:

"When I first lived with him," said he, "he might have been about twenty-seven years old; he was thin, nimble, and elegant in his person. I could easily have carried him in my arms."
[...]
"Always working and seeking; his mind always bent on art and science; that was generally the way with my master. The duke often visited him in the evening, and then they often talked on learned topics till late at night, so that I got extremely tired, and wondered when the duke would go. Even then he was interested in natural science."

The reason why I'm quoting this is because it was once a meme of sorts to consider Goethe autistic (I know, low-hanging fruit example). But it's easier to say, from this passage alone, that there are no social difficulties here: everyone around him has correctly assessed his worth and an appropriate servitude follows. It would be a foreign idea to historically exceptional men that they should be "allowed" this privilege, it simply follows with the kind of life they lead — by nature, they are more important. So, it is very much true that these past men are unerringly different from the laughably inferior types we come across today, but psychological deviance isn't a satisfactory explanation. Here's something we could say in favor of lost geniuses and such: there's a greater risk for malformation when greater types are exposed to present-day conditions, and those that would have thrived are condemned in more ways than one. But an inward disorder isn't the first cause, only a disorder of the world. On that note, we may not even need to consider normalfaggotry an adaptation, just an expected result: rewarding those who refuse their humanity leads to a proliferation of baseline existence ("If happiness consisted in the pleasures of the body, we should call oxen happy...")

[august]

I remember a tweet showcasing a scientific study of Ancient Roman peoples which concluded that autism was actually more prevalent then than in the present; I don't know how they can determine that beyond DNA sampling and such but either way I regret I didn't even save a screenshot of it, perhaps somebody else knows the xeet I'm talking about.

https://amarna-forum.net/t-Turning-the-M...1#pid13661

But this is an example of sensationalist HBDtardism. If we can be so bold as to say that the ancients were more "genetically autistic", why is the genetic explanation for autism still so spurious if such an explanation is the consensus? I doubt there is any way to actually prove that they were, and even if someone could it still doesn't make sense of why autism was X thousand % less prevalent not even 100 years ago. "It's more diagnosed now." Yeah, just like how 20% of Boomers and their parents were acktually homos like Gen Z is but were forced to suffer in the closet because of uhhh society, or something. A lot of people on The Net think that calling themselves autistic is a badge of honour that shows how Based™ they are (because they're stuck at the 2015 New Year's Party). Maybe the Medical Experts can first explain to me how Elon Musk and any given nonverbal, functionally mentally retarded person (who probably also experiences schizophrenic delusions) are in any way similar enough to categorised together by any metric. Oh, because it's a "spectrum". Yeahhh, that makes sense.

To the broader question, I was going to say partly the same thing that John did but he did a much better job of it so I'll just briefly reaffirm him. He gives the example of Goethe, I'll add the example of Napoleon. Neither were socially inept. On the contrary, they were rather charismatic. Very likely not "autistic", just genius, superior. But it's important that I stress that such superiority clearly still exists today. I'm not saying that I'm one of these people, in fact I know and admit that I'm not. But I have seen and even know people who seem as though they could have been if they weren't STYMIED beyond all belief by this retarded world that we currently, though not for much longer, live in. 

The general masses have always been normalfags, whether it was one, five, or twenty centuries ago. The difference may be that breaking out of the levelling process seems to have been rather straightforward and perfectly possible throughout much of the past if one had the tenacity and capability to do so. Kierkegaard and a few others talk about that quite nicely. But I'll leave that to you to look into if you care, because unlike Not Green Groyper in Not Green Groyper's post above, I know how a forum works and I'm not going to force you to do reading homework with absolutely no context while thinking that I provided you with something that even resembles an answer to your question.

[Polytropos]

But this is an example of sensationalist HBDtardism. If we can be so bold as to say that the ancients were more "genetically autistic", why is the genetic explanation for autism still so spurious if such an explanation is the consensus? I doubt there is any way to actually prove that they were, and even if someone could it still doesn't make sense of why autism was X thousand % less prevalent not even 100 years ago. "It's more diagnosed now." Yeah, just like how 20% of Boomers and their parents were acktually homos like Gen Z is but were forced to suffer in the closet because of uhhh society, or something. A lot of people on The Net think that calling themselves autistic is a badge of honour that shows how Based™ they are (because they're stuck at the 2015 New Year's Party). Maybe the Medical Experts can first explain to me how Elon Musk and any given nonverbal, functionally mentally retarded person (who probably also experiences schizophrenic delusions) are in any way similar enough to categorised together by any metric. Oh, because it's a "spectrum". Yeahhh, that makes sense.

Completely agree, it defies all common sense that there was X% of people rocking back and forth or stimming out and it managed to go unrecorded for all of antiquity. I'm also skeptical of the xenoestrogen or other "zog chemicals" being the primary cause. I'm inclined to think it has something to do with the way children are socialized today. I'll also raise the Trump hypothesis of it being the vaccines since no one else has. 

To the broader question, I was going to say partly the same thing that John did but he did a much better job of it so I'll just briefly reaffirm him. He gives the example of Goethe, I'll add the example of Napoleon. Neither were socially inept. On the contrary, they were rather charismatic. Very likely not "autistic", just genius, superior. But it's important that I stress that such superiority clearly still exists today. I'm not saying that I'm one of these people, in fact I know and admit that I'm not. But I have seen and even know people who seem as though they could have been if they weren't STYMIED beyond all belief by this retarded world that we currently, though not for much longer, live in. 

This is tangential to the original question, but while it's certainly true that geniuses are rarely "autistic" or even socially inept, they very frequently conceive of themselves as in conflict with prevailing social conditions and profoundly misunderstood. Goethe was a generous and kind man, I think he concealed his alienation but sometimes you see it come out, this is a good example: https://twitter.com/AsabiyyahPepe/status...6900158866
If normal people could understand the minds of men like Goethe or Napoleon they would be utterly horrified, and I think on some level there always exists this presentiment that their natures are fundamentally opposed and always will be. To your point about the modern world stymying potential I think about this aphorism from BGE quite often: 

The problem of those who wait. Strokes of luck and many unpredictable factors are needed for a higher person, who contains the dormant solution to a problem, to go into action at the right time, “into explosion” you might say. This does not usually happen, and in every corner of the earth people sit waiting, hardly knowing how much they are waiting, much less that they are waiting in vain. And every once in a while, the alarm call will come too late, the chance event that gives them “permission” to act, – just when the prime of youth and strength for action has already been depleted by sitting still. And how many people have realized in horror, just as they “jump up,” that their limbs have gone to sleep and their spirit is already too heavy! “It’s too late” – they say, having lost faith in themselves and being useless from this point on. – What if in the realm of genius, the “Raphael without hands” (taking that phrase in the broadest sense) is not the exception but, perhaps, the rule? Perhaps genius is not rare at all: what is rare is the five hundred hands that it needs to tyrannize the καιoς, “the right time,” in order to seize hold of chance!