Diagnosing Mr. Jefferson: retrospectives on developmental disabilities at Monticello.
Retrospective diagnosis is fun gossip but bad science—skip it and focus on the client in front of you.
01Research in Context
What this study did
David read old letters and farm logs from Thomas Jefferson. He asked, 'Can we spot autism or ID in a man who died 200 years ago?'
The paper is a story-style review, not an experiment. It walks through each clue historians have used to label Jefferson.
What they found
Every supposed 'symptom' has a simpler explanation. Shyness becomes 'social deficit.' Love of math becomes 'restricted interest.'
David shows the game is rigged. If you look hard enough, any historical person can fit a modern diagnosis.
How this fits with other research
Sidman (2007) agrees rules change over time. He warns the 'developmental period' cutoff for ID is itself a historical accident, not a law of nature.
Danforth et al. (2010) show words can wound. Kirk’s speeches once stigmatized 'mental retardation' while praising 'learning disability.' David adds a second harm: guessing dead people’s labels also hurts the living by spreading sloppy thinking.
English et al. (1995) give a live example. A woman walked in claiming LD; testing proved otherwise. Together the papers make one chain: guesswork (David) → loose labels (Scot) → real misdiagnosis (A et al.).
Why it matters
When a teacher says, 'I think Einstein had autism,' the story sounds fun, but it teaches families that diagnosis is a parlor trick. David tells us to stop the game. Stick to evidence you can assess: what you see, measure, and reinforce today. Leave the dead out of it.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Next time someone claims Lincoln had ADHD, ask, 'What functional assessment can we run on that?' to shift talk back to the present client.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
For a number of years, I have been intrigued by what might be termed the retrospective diagnosis of developmental disabilities. In my book Minds Made Feeble: The Myth and Legacy of the Kallikaks (J. Smith, 1985), I expressed amazement that psychologist Henry Goddard in his study of the “good” and “bad” Kallikak families pronounced that a woman who had an illegitimate child in 1776 was “feebleminded.” This was 136 years after the birth of the child. In fact, Goddard diagnosed entire generations of Kallikaks who neither he nor anyone alive at that time had ever seen, let alone tested with even the most rudimentary of diagnostic techniques. Yet when his study was published in 1912, he asserted with confidence that he had found proof of a genetic basis for intellectual disabilities in these families.
Intellectual and developmental disabilities, 2007 · doi:10.1352/1934-9556(2007)45[405:DMJROD]2.0.CO;2