Was Forrest Gump an autisitic characters?

Page 1 of 2 [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

2ukenkerl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,231

16 Apr 2009, 9:32 pm

Spokane_Girl wrote:
I bet back before 1959, anyone below 100 was considered to be ret*d. Because that year, they lowered it to 80 to be MR.


WOW! Is that a special interest of yours or what? That was before you were even born! It's before *I* was even born! Oh well, maybe it is just the internet. :oops:



16 Apr 2009, 9:35 pm

It used to be.



melissa17b
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 420
Location: A long way from home, wherever home is

17 Apr 2009, 4:27 am

2ukenkerl wrote:
... There may have been a number of reasons for the running. Don't forget that he first ran to get away from bullies, and had that brace early on. Faced with all those problems, he would probably grasp for anything he could get.


There could be any number of reasons, but at the end of the day it is difficult to argue that the interest was not “unusual in focus or intensity”, as the DSM criteria require.


2ukenkerl wrote:
If I forgot about any kind of honor, I could have ripped off people, and certainly had an easier time with bullies in school. I have been VERY loyal to many. I used to be too trusting, which is one reason why I am so cynical now.
...
And I used to be too honest. I have learned that even the simplest question may be loaded, so I try to be careful. Granted, you don't see that so much here. As for forgiveness, I always had a problem with that. Frankly, it seems like MOST do. Perhaps everyone does. I am just more honest about that.


So much of our character is shaped by our experiences and how we decide to respond to them and approach life in the wake of them. There is much to learn from people whose see life differently from us, as we can gain from their experiences as well as our own.


2ukenkerl wrote:
The other stuff is somewhat typical for someone that is not so bright, etc... Heck, my step brother, who is MR, acts the SAME way. That is certainly not meant as an insult to any here.


My first instinct was to say that a person with familiarity and experience with autism (hand goes up) might be inclined to look at the situation with an eye to recognise the similarities to autism, while a person with exposure to MR might look for similarities there. But that presumes that the respondents are incapable of or at least impaired in objective thinking because they can’t completely get past the inherent tendency toward bias based on experience. And I know better than that.

After further thought, I see it this way. Autism is any one collection (out of a virtually infinite number of possibilities) of alternate development and connectivity patterns between different brain areas, which present with and are today defined as producing a constellation of limitations in social and communication abilities as well as repetitive behaviours (the “triad of impairments”). MR is also (presumably) also one of a virtually limitless collection of brain patterns which result in the inability to express the achievement of cognitive functioning beyond the 2nd percentile (or whatever the standard du jour is – we’re talking about five little points here!) Any given brain structure can qualify as autism, MR, both or neither. Furthermore, person A, whose unique collection qualifies as autism only, and person B, whose collection manifests as MR only, can both have one identical (or at least very similar) part of their brain development that results in the same behaviour. We could not then classify that single behaviour as “autistic” or “ret*d” (meant as a clinical/linguistic term; no offense intended here). We can only meaningfully assess a person or speculate about a character in total, and it is already established that Gump is MR or at least borderline. To me, he still also comes off as autistic, looking at it objectively from a strict DSM standpoint.


2ukenkerl wrote:
Heck, if I didn't get some tolerance, I probably couldn't live in this world.


Some people are forced to face this question on a daily basis. All too many others of us have fought exactly this battle more occasions than we care to recall, and still live knowing that it is never buried all that deep and can re-surface when we are least prepared.


2ukenkerl wrote:
... Can loyalty stem from dependance? Is honesty the lack of an ability to lie?


If the dependence preceded the “loyalty”, odds are it’s not the real deal. However, in the presence of loyalty, we can and often do enter relationships involving (usually) mutual dependence, trusting and being trusted at the same time. I am not close to many people, but remain fiercely loyal to those to whom I am close, even if I am not (or am no longer) dependent on them in any way.

And while honesty certainly does sometimes result from an inability to lie, the full extent of its virtuous quality is usually reserved for those who reliably choose to speak the truth even when there are adverse consequences for doing so that can be escaped by lying.



TPE2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,461

17 Apr 2009, 4:48 am

2ukenkerl wrote:
Spokane_Girl wrote:
He was considered to be MR. Back then IQ of 75 was in the MR range until 1992 they lowered it to 70. Now he be considered borderline, no longer MR.


WOW, and someone here said people are gettiing smarter! :roll:

One wonders why they went to so much effort to lower it 5 points.


In reality, if people are getting smarter, makes sense to lower the IQ level for mental retardation: if the average person has, by definition, an IQ of 100, and the inteligence is rising, these mean that, today, an IQ of 70 can mean more inteligence than an IQ of 75 some decades ago.



TPE2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,461

17 Apr 2009, 4:49 am

Spokane_Girl wrote:
I bet back before 1959, anyone below 100 was considered to be ret*d.


I doubt, because this will mean that 50% of the population was "ret*d".



timeisdead
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 895
Location: Nowhere

17 Apr 2009, 7:13 am

TPE2 wrote:
Spokane_Girl wrote:
I bet back before 1959, anyone below 100 was considered to be ret*d.


I doubt, because this will mean that 50% of the population was "ret*d".

And actually more than 50% if you consider IQ scores around the world.



2ukenkerl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,231

17 Apr 2009, 5:43 pm

melissa17b wrote:
2ukenkerl wrote:
The other stuff is somewhat typical for someone that is not so bright, etc... Heck, my step brother, who is MR, acts the SAME way. That is certainly not meant as an insult to any here.


My first instinct was to say that a person with familiarity and experience with autism (hand goes up) might be inclined to look at the situation with an eye to recognise the similarities to autism, while a person with exposure to MR might look for similarities there. But that presumes that the respondents are incapable of or at least impaired in objective thinking because they can’t completely get past the inherent tendency toward bias based on experience. And I know better than that.


Well, I didn't even have a step brother before I saw that film. I have always been as I am to SOME degree, so I might be somewhat predisposed to see some of myself in some autistics. Granted though, I did not think of myself as AS or autistic at the time.

melissa17b wrote:
2ukenkerl wrote:
Heck, if I didn't get some tolerance, I probably couldn't live in this world.


Some people are forced to face this question on a daily basis. All too many others of us have fought exactly this battle more occasions than we care to recall, and still live knowing that it is never buried all that deep and can re-surface when we are least prepared.


I'm surprised. I thought I said "HAVE". I meant have. But, you're right. you could have some innocent idiosyncrasy, and find one day that people ALWAYS hated it. Like a coworker here where I often asked why, or offered other possibilities when she observed something. She one time blew up that I "always question [her]", and "always think [she's] wrong". NEITHER was REALLY the case. Likewise, SHE would indicate things to me,like I made a BAD mistake, like the time I wanted to park on the left just one isle from the right. SHE wanted me to park on the right! Or the times she wanted me to run a yellow light. I didn't DARE even QUESTION her opinions, since she would have yelled at me for the next year. SOMETIMES, I am HAPPY I never got married. :?

melissa17b wrote:
2ukenkerl wrote:
... Can loyalty stem from dependance? Is honesty the lack of an ability to lie?


If the dependence preceded the “loyalty”, odds are it’s not the real deal. However, in the presence of loyalty, we can and often do enter relationships involving (usually) mutual dependence, trusting and being trusted at the same time. I am not close to many people, but remain fiercely loyal to those to whom I am close, even if I am not (or am no longer) dependent on them in any way.


GOOD POINT! I should have mentioned that I didn't mean THAT. A TRULY loyal person will try to help you even when you are down.

melissa17b wrote:
And while honesty certainly does sometimes result from an inability to lie, the full extent of its virtuous quality is usually reserved for those who reliably choose to speak the truth even when there are adverse consequences for doing so that can be escaped by lying.


Yeah, I USED to be like that...Honest to a fault. Telling the truth EVEN when it could be bad for me. At heart, believe it or not, I wish everyone was honest and altruistic. THEN this world would be heaven. Alas, sometimes I have said the TRUTH, proving my innocence, and it was used to try to prove I was guilty. Sometimes a COMMA out of place, a change in intonation, an alternate word meaning can even be INTENTIONALLY used to hang you. :cry:



Fidget
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 919
Location: Illinois, US

17 Apr 2009, 5:52 pm

2ukenkerl wrote:
Yeah, I USED to be like that...Honest to a fault. Telling the truth EVEN when it could be bad for me.


I was like that as a kid, I would be so honest it would get me into more trouble. And my parents actually sat me down and explained to me, it's okay to tell little white lies every once in awhile.

2ukenkerl wrote:
Sometimes a COMMA out of place, a change in intonation, an alternate word meaning can even be INTENTIONALLY used to hang you. :cry:


Of course. Lawyers do it every day.



2ukenkerl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,231

17 Apr 2009, 6:03 pm

Fidget wrote:
2ukenkerl wrote:
Sometimes a COMMA out of place, a change in intonation, an alternate word meaning can even be INTENTIONALLY used to hang you. :cry:


Of course. Lawyers do it every day.


I wasn't even talking about lawyers! But that brings up a little memory from "liar liar"....

Max Reede: [ponders] My dad? He's... a liar.
Teacher: [agast] A liar? I'm sure you don't mean a liar.
Max Reede: Well, he wears a suit and goes to court and talks to the judge.
Teacher: Oh, you mean he's a lawyer.
Max Reede :[shrugs as if to say "Well, if YOU say so...."]



17 Apr 2009, 6:23 pm

TPE2 wrote:
Spokane_Girl wrote:
I bet back before 1959, anyone below 100 was considered to be ret*d.


I doubt, because this will mean that 50% of the population was "ret*d".



Why do you think they would lower the IQ for mental retardation?


I bet half of the world had it so they lowered it to make it less. :lol:



Deccajay
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 711

19 Dec 2009, 2:20 am

YES!! ! I agree that he is. There are some tendencies in the movie but I didn’t make the connection until I read the book. Maybe the Forrest of the movie is not autistic, but the Forrest of the book is classic “idiot savant” give the book a try.


_________________
yes, I know, I cant spell to save my life!

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Deccajay


Ravenclawgurl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,274
Location: somewhere over the rainbow

20 Dec 2009, 2:14 pm

Spokane_Girl wrote:
I bet back before 1959, anyone below 100 was considered to be ret*d. Because that year, they lowered it to 80 to be MR.


source please



southwestforests
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,138
Location: A little ways south of the river

20 Dec 2009, 2:21 pm

I think the years of running and other things like that were metaphors for and comments on societal fads.

To me the movie was metaphor and commentary as much as a story about a person.

Besides, can't be all bad, we share that first name :thumright:


_________________
"Every time you don't follow your inner guidance,
you feel a loss of energy, loss of power, a sense of spiritual deadness."
- Shakti Gawain


bdhkhsfgk
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 May 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,450

20 Dec 2009, 2:31 pm

He was ret*d.



20 Dec 2009, 3:37 pm

Ravenclawgurl wrote:
Spokane_Girl wrote:
I bet back before 1959, anyone below 100 was considered to be ret*d. Because that year, they lowered it to 80 to be MR.


source please




You don't have to believe me but I read about it online. You can look it up and I am sure you will find the same information.



Callista
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,775
Location: Ohio, USA

20 Dec 2009, 3:46 pm

TPE2 wrote:
2ukenkerl wrote:
Spokane_Girl wrote:
He was considered to be MR. Back then IQ of 75 was in the MR range until 1992 they lowered it to 70. Now he be considered borderline, no longer MR.


WOW, and someone here said people are gettiing smarter! :roll:

One wonders why they went to so much effort to lower it 5 points.


In reality, if people are getting smarter, makes sense to lower the IQ level for mental retardation: if the average person has, by definition, an IQ of 100, and the inteligence is rising, these mean that, today, an IQ of 70 can mean more inteligence than an IQ of 75 some decades ago.
I'm just guessing, but it may have something to do with the transition from mental ages to standard deviations to measure IQs. 75 is 1/4th of 100, whereas 70 is exactly two standard deviations below the mean.

For the record, though, mental retardation cannot be diagnosed, no matter how bad you are at taking IQ tests, unless there is impairment and/or delay in learning adaptive skills. So there are people who score low, but who live quite normally without ever needing assistance--for the most part, they tend to be in groups for whom the IQ test was not designed, such as immigrants, people outside of Western culture, and people who have not been exposed to formal education. However, specific learning disabilities can also cause a low score that is not accompanied by adaptive skill delay.

I would say Forrest Gump, even if he had scored below 70, falls into the region of "cannot be diagnosed as MR because adaptive skills are fine"--low-normal, maybe, but still fine. He's especially good at understanding other people; an interesting juxtaposition of good social skills, low academic ability, and eccentric personality. Maybe that's what makes him such a fun character to watch.


_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com

Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com