Question: Did Nikola Tesla have a mental disability?

It's a well known fact that geniuses are often been born with mental disabilities, well-known examples including Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein being born with Autism. I have never come across; However, a mention of Nikola Tesla when discussing the subject. Arguably one of the greastest geniuses of all time, I know myself as well as many other members would appreciate any information that could be given on this subject.

If Tesla's mental state is "normal" then please feel free to include any theory as to why so many geniuses have mental hanicaps and yet it is not completely dichotomous to genius.

I don't know if I would term it a disability. It would just look like a disability to those with a lower consciousness. The catch all term "autism" could be used to describe somebody who could neither think in any profound way nor relate to others, but it could also be applied to someone so superior in insight to those beneath them, that they would be perceived as unable to relate, when in fact, their thinking transcends by leaps and bounds those who "perceive" their disability. They would have just lost their ability to "relate," because they realize that the lower thinking is a tiny "reality" tunnel indeed. They wouldn't want to try to relate to certain people either, as they might be infected by the lower mindless virus.

I think I recall him having some social problems, but nothing compared to Oppenheimer.

Also, gotta disagree with the above poster. Humans are a very social species. If you can't relate on a social level- that's a problem. If we were sentient tigers or something, it'd be fine, but we're not. Likewise, a supersmart bee that can't function well with other bees is going to be just as worthless/dead as a dumb bee that can't function well with others. Sociability is one of the more important traits a human can have. In fact, it's better to be a little dumber and a lot better with people than it is to be little smarter and a lot worse with people.

reply to post by SuperViking


I agree with you, sociability is very important. It is just more of a chore, and less of a natural thing, to those who see things differently. Sociability, in a sense, is just letting the zeitgeist possess you, at least related to everyday, outside social interactions. With close friends it is different, you relate on a very personal level. I should have clarified. I just think, based on all I have experienced and observed, that a ton of sociability is parroting, mimicry, and the like. People who have self-actualized, truly have their own ideas and foundations, these people often find it harder to relate than people who automatically lost themselves in the vast sea of society. These people create their own waves, and are not as subject to being tossed about as others. I am not putting myself or any other specific person in a specific category, but as a whole, this is how I see it.

I don't know much about the man, but I seem to recall reading that he had trouble distinguishing between the "mental images in his head," and reality.

In other words, he may have had a problem with visual hallucinations.

That sounds a bit like schizophrenia to me, but I'm certainly not a psychologist/psychiatrist.

Originally posted by thegagefather
I know myself as well as many other members would appreciate any information that could be given on this subject.

Tesla wrote a short autobiography where he precisely describes how his mind worked during his childhood and youth. Imagination and visualisation seem to have played a great role in his career and life.

If Tesla's mental state is "normal" then please feel free to include any theory as to why so many geniuses have mental hanicaps and yet it is not completely dichotomous to genius.

I'd say superpowers, rather than handicap, while both could be understood as the two sides of the same phenomenon. Even if having some might surely get anyone into social trouble, for some obvious reasons...

[edit on 2-8-2009 by 0123210]

This may come across as arrogant, but it is not; at least i don't think it is, but it could be a blow to the ego. Imagine trying to relate to a group of chimpanzees. Would it not be quite difficult? Also, in relation to a super smart bee not being able to function with other bees, could it not be that in quite a few cases, the super smart bee is congenial and nonjudgmental, but the less aware bees notice a certain je ne sais quoi, a certain something that is different or off; it is something to the effect of the less aware bees cannot relate to the smarter bee, but the smarter bee can relate to the less aware bees. Would the less aware bees not generally fear what they do not understand, ostracize it, and label it with terms such as "autism" in order to marginalize the smarter bee? Would they not have a tendency to project their own insecurities onto the super smart bee, in order that they not be forced to look in the mirror at their own true self. People who make their own waves, even the loving and nonassuming types, sometimes evoke the fear and hate of others. It is an automatic way for the confused ego to rationalize that which might alter it due to its larger awareness, and hence "kill it." People, none of us, like to have our bubbles burst.

If you're not smart enough to fake it, you're not really smart 'enough' to cover for your shortcomings. If you think you don't NEED social interaction, you're just not being genuine towards your nature.

reply to post by SuperViking


Like I said, I agree with you. We all need interaction. We need to love other people so we can be loved in return. It is very important. We all need to fake it to the extent we can meet someone in the middle. That is the essence of social interaction, constructing a bridge where you can both meet in the middle. It does take both parties walking across that bridge, however......

I guess my responses in this thread were in defense of those who can relate quite well, but are feared and misunderstood by others. In the absence of the other party being able to meet halfway, the interaction is empty, nothing but a ruse. Being social by faking it is a useful skill, but merely a cold, empty skill. Being social in the sense of dancing with another verbally, so that you might actually "meet" the other person beyond the facades, this is joyful. The other person has to know who they are, beyond things like what music they like, however. I am trying to separate the two, the empty social ritual and the meaningful skill of meeting in the middle. I am also trying to explain that some people have no disability whatsoever; they are just misunderstood to the core, because others are either unwilling or unable to see the core. Clearly, folks like Einstein and Newton were quite capable of integrated thinking, as this was the only way they could formulate their theories. Relationships, true relationships, transcend empty ritual, although a little ritual is done in the beginning to get a feel for the other person.

Besides, Einstein had quite a few very close friends. The relationships in his life were close and meaningful. Relationships are where its at; Being the adored social butterfly is the narcissists game, although some genuine people manage to be adored by many. Many, however, are empty vessels desperately needing false approval. They are play actors seeking affection for their contrived characteristics, characteristics that are not who they really are. They are our politicians, LOL.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by orwellianunenlightenment]

I want to apologize, orwellianunenlightenment, because I'm kinda of in a rush and can't give you the response you deserve. To put it bluntly, I agree with you about Einstein, and how intelligent people can still relate to other people (intelligent or not) in a social setting. I'm just saying that even if someone is ridiculously smart (smarter than Einstein, as many say Tesla was) it's kind of independent from social skills. And, if it's not, if they're really smart, they should know it would benefit them in many ways to fake it. I don't know for sure if Tesla was 'disabled' in that way (as I said originally) but most historians agree Oppenheimer was.

reply to post by SuperViking


Man, there's no reason to apologize. That is the damned thing about communication, we all read (and invent) between the lines. I am positive that I have done so in this thread. So for anything that might have seemed as an affront to you, I apologize. It is a fine line to walk, sometimes. There are definitely those who get off on their intelligence (or rather lack thereof) and separate themselves deliberately from others, thinking they are higher or better. You may or may not have been referring to this type of person. I've definitely encountered that insecure, prideful type. I have even fallen into that mindset myself on occasion. The truly wise person realizes there is far more unknown than known, and is humbled by that realization. I, as well as all of us, can learn from anybody. We just have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Edit: I also wanted to admit that there is at least a little bit of defensive hostility in the above posts. In this divided world, it is easier to gravitate to the poles. I don't much like that, even though I get trapped sometimes. I try to admit it, and move on. And I also wanted to admit that many creative people (also people who are not very creative) have disabilities of some sort. In some geniuses, I bet it is even used as a sort of advantage in their specific task. It is like they have less distractions. It is a double-edged sword, however, and it stinks for those disabled. But, I think for the wise genius, it is necessary to be able to both formulate complex models and interact socially. If they cannot do both, they get lost in their tunnel realities. Sort of uniting the inner person with the outer world. Being of the world, but not in it sort of thing. Otherwise, they need to keep their noses out of any theory that would alter the dynamic of social interactions.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by orwellianunenlightenment]

[edit on 2-8-2009 by orwellianunenlightenment]

My girlfriends daughter has Asperger's, and when i was reading "Man out of Time", it was just like reading about her at times.

I'm not saying he had asperger's, but he certainly had traits.

OCD is a possibility too, in fact if you read his biography, it's pretty much a definate.

CX.

I don't know about Tesla, but i can't imagine anyone that spends half their time doing all the silly things that consist of socializing would accomplish what he did, as well as other great minds.

I'm extremely antisocial, and can understand why a lot of these types would shun the social activities most view as so important. When i was young i saw right through most social interactions, and i couldn't fathom what drove people to act the way they do. As a result i had no idea how to interact with people who seemed to be just irrational lumps of chaos. Socializing felt like i was being pressured into abandoning logic.

And it is this abandonment of logic that causes problems for logical thinkers. Logical thinkers are truthseekers, in the sense that they'll use some sort of logical approach to deducing the true workings of systems. In participation of the illogical socialization routines, the logical mind resists and would see it as divergent from a truth that is self-evident. The logical mind must then discard facts in order to lie to oneself, and all the while supposed to obtain some sort of pleasure form playing the social game?

For me, if i did what "normal" people did as far as interaction, i'd be in constant anguish and inner torment.

I still don't understand it to this day why everyone participates in the game, i can't understand where people are at in their "level" of thinking, and their whole basis of reality is foreign and alien. I've always pondered how suck great thinkers managed to function well enough to be taken seriously when they must be so marginalized and burdened with the oppression of logic. I wonder how many people with "disabilities" spend their lives locked in this same cage, who would drop earth shattering concepts if they felt there was some intelligence that would understand. Howe many Einsteins, Teslas, Turings, Newtons are drugged up and tossed in a padded cell because they can't communicate a concept they feel nobody has proven themselves capable of understanding?

He may have been an autistic savant. He was known to have ocd. Obsessed with the number 3, hated perfume and women's jewelry. May have been celebate. He had extrordinary powers of visualization and memory. There is info. that says he was from Venus and born on a UFO. I have no idea if there's any truth to it.

Yes he had a mental disorder.

He saw flashing lights and couldnt tell if what he was seeing was really there or not. He was one of the most brilliant that we had, yet died broke in a hotel. Sad story. His inventions were way beyond their time.



[edit on 2-8-2009 by wonderworld]

There's a lot of contradictory info. about Tesla. Most sources say he was blackballed by JP Morgan and died alone and poor. I've seen other articles that say he wasn't broke. Some say he was celibate his whole life, others say there is a guy who may be his son.

I think most of the controversial stuff is in the book "The Wall Of Light" by Arthur H. Mathews If the photos are correct than I would say that Mathews is Tesla's son.

farshores.org...

books.google.com... QN59SBmyVWE&hl=en&ei=6IiISqTsH4vSsQPyiPHaAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false





[edit on 16-8-2009 by Sargoth]

None other then being way ahead of his time, the boy was out there, but he brought back what was from -out there- to here.

Also Einstein went with the government, TESLA did not he wanted THE PEOPLE to have and share his inventions in there home.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by menguard]