Albert Einstein and LD:
An Evaluation of the Evidence
Marlin Thomas
figures suspected of having learning disabilities are often subjected to retrospective diagnoses. One such figure is Albert
Einstein. Several organizations that promote the interests of individuals with learning disabilities claim that Einstein had a learning disability. A review of biographical sources, however, provides little or no evidence to support this claim. The claim derives its force not
from evidence but from a powerful belief—that the greatest among us suffer from some impairment—and from an equally powerful
Historical
desire to enhance the status of
a
marginalized group by including within it exceptional individuals.
istorical figures are often sub-
jected
JL
to
retrospective analy-
ses that diagnose a disease or
condition that was either not yet discovered or not associated with them
during their lifetimes. These analyses
proceed despite all the difficulties attendant to diagnoses of deceased persons, and they are often advanced to
explain either major
the
achievements
would not diminish their humanity. Including Einstein among persons with
learning disabilities without sufficient
warrant, however, would distort the
truth and thereby do a disservice to
Einstein and to those with learning
disabilities.
or
of death. Albert Einstein, for
has
been the subject of such a
example,
retrospective, one asserting that he had
a learning disability. This article examines that claim, briefly traces its history, and evaluates its merits.
Because disputing the claim that Einstein had a learning disability could be
interpreted as an attack on persons
with learning disabilities, a few words
need to be said about the motives for
examining the claim. The purpose of
this article was to answer the historical
question, &dquo;Is there sufficient evidence
to assert that Albert Einstein had a
learning disability?&dquo; I answer this
question as best I can by examining
available historical evidence and
drawing judicious inferences from that
evidence. The answer is not calibrated
to satisfy any constituency. An affirmative answer clearly would enhance the
social prestige of persons with learning
disabilities, but a negative response
Definitions of
cause
Learning Disabilities
Clinical
The
Definition
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition (DSM-IV;
American Psychiatric Association, 1994)
establishes a clinical definition of
learning disabilities: &dquo;Learning Disorders are diagnosed when the individual’s achievement on individually
administered, standardized tests in
reading, mathematics, or written expression is substantially below that expected for age, schooling, and level of
intelligence&dquo; (p. 46). The manual goes
on to articulate behaviors associated
with learning disabilities, and it enumerates specific consequences of those
disabilities. It mentions, for example,
that &dquo;demoralization, low self-esteem,
and deficits in social skills may be
associated with Learning Disorders&dquo;
(p. 47). It also identifies difficulties
with
employment
and social
adjust-
consequences of learning disorders and cites a 40% school dropout
rate for children and adolescents who
have those disorders. DSM-IV also
notes that learning disorders must be
distinguished from normal variations
in academic development.
ment
as
Legal Definitions
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
established legal definitions of disabilities. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973
uses the term handicapped individual to
refer to a person who &dquo;has a physical
or mental disability which for such individual constitutes or results in a substantial handicap to employment&dquo; and
who &dquo;(i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits
one or more of such person’s major life
activities, (ii) has a record of such impairment, or (iii) is regarded as having
such
impairment&dquo; (§706(7)(B)). The
on to enumerate some &dquo;major
life activities&dquo;: &dquo;caring for one’s self,
performing manual tasks, walking,
seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing,
learning, and working&dquo; (Subpart A,
an
act goes
§104.3). The
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 modified the above in
two minor aspects: It omitted the part
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
150
of the definition that focused
on em-
which is implicitly subsumed under the category of major life
activity and it substituted the term disability for handicap (Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, §3).
ployment,
Social
Definition
In addition to clinical and
legal definiby analytical and descriptive precision, other,
far less formal definitions of learning
disabilities that are based on socially
tions, which
are
characterized
derived, but unarticulated,
norms
writ-
specifically, difficulty reading,
ing, or speech. They carry no prescriptive criteria; rather, they are grounded
in a judgment that something is unconventional about the person’s capacity to process information. By their
very nature, such definitions are in
constant flux, and they lack precision.
Nonetheless, a social judgment that an
individual has a learning disability is
important in evaluating the claim re-
garding Einstein.
Retrospective Diagnosis of LD
The identification of a learning disability in a living person, who is subject to
direct and repeatable clinical examinations, often yields equivocal results.
The vast majority of such diagnoses are
tempered by reservations over the provisional nature of such diagnoses. The
diagnosis of a learning disability in an
historical figure is, necessarily, a more
difficult-if not an impossible-task.
In addition to the difficulty of not being able to administer to the person
specifically designed identify
learning disabilities, there is an almost
inevitable incongruence between the
evidence that is preserved in memoirs
tests
and school
to
reports and the criteria for
learning disability, because the evidence was amassed without regard to
those criteria. For example, to families
and teachers in late-nineteenth-century
a
unheard of, and therefore
no
attention
paid to preserving information regarding them. The preservation of any
was
such information would have been
wholly accidental. Because of these
constraints, retrospective diagnoses
should be advanced only with caution
and with due acknowledgement of
their inherent limitations.
of &dquo;The Things We’ve Been
Taught By Kids With Learning Disabilities.&dquo;
None of these groups asserting the
claim provide any evidence for it, nor
do they cite any source as a reference.
In the preparation of this article, the
author has requested such documentation from each of the groups mentioned above, and none has responded.
ity
as one
History of the Claim
The Claim
Although M. Goertzel and V. Goertzel
of
behavior and evaluation inform this
discussion. These definitions consider
a person to have a learning disability
who has general difficulty in school, or,
in
Germany, when Einstein was in school,
the notion of learning disabilities was
A number of organizations that promote the interests of persons with dis-
abilities claim that Albert Einstein had
a
learning disability. For example,
a company that provides educa-
AGS,
tional materials to teachers, headlined
a 1991 advertisement with the statement, &dquo;Even Einstein Had a Learning
Disability.&dquo; The New York Orton Dyslexia Society (1994) markets a T-shirt
with the logo &dquo;Einstein, Edison and Me.&dquo;
On its home page on the World Wide
Web, the Learning Disabilities Association of Virginia (1997) places Einstein
at the head of its list of prominent persons the association claims had learning disabilities. The Connecticut Association for Children with Learning
Disabilities (1994) advances with considerable detail the claim that Einstein
had a learning disability. Under the
headline &dquo;Some Kids with Learning
Disabilities Do Okay for Themselves,&dquo;
the association writes: &dquo;Years ago there
was a three year old child who couldn’t
learn to talk. At eight he still couldn’t
read. His teachers thought he was retarded. He wasn’t. Albert Einstein had
a
learning disability.&dquo;
The claim has also achieved currency among groups that have no
direct connection with learning disabilities. The American Academy of
for example,
release
titled &dquo;Einpress
stein showed learning disabilities can
be overcome.&dquo; An advertisement sponsored by the United States Fidelity and
Guarantee Company (1987), a large insurance firm, lists the theory of relativ-
Ophthalmology (1997),
issued
a
(1962) articulated the
earliest version
of the claim, Thompson (1971) provided its most historically substantive
basis, and his article is cited by others
in the field, even by those who dispute
it (e.g., Adelman & Adelman, 1987).
Thompson stated that his own work
emphasized the &dquo;more hopeful or
brighter aspect of the problem&dquo; (p. 34)
of reading disabilities.
Although Thompson (1971) provided support for his claim, he included Einstein in his study almost as
an afterthought, and that inclusion
was a tentative hypothesis rather than
a firm assertion. After strenuously advancing the proposition that such individuals as Auguste Rodin, George
S. Patton, Thomas Alva Edison, and
Woodrow Wilson exhibited unambiguous signs of learning disabilities, he
prefaced his short treatment of Einstein with a disclaimer: &dquo;The material
is presented briefly for the reader’s
consideration without any claim of a
final diagnosis&dquo; (p. 42). Thompson also
stated that, with respect to Einstein
and some other historical figures, &dquo;the
search for more details has not been
followed&dquo; (p. 42).
Thompson (1971) provided some
generally, but by no means universally,
accepted biographical evidence-Einstein’s relatively late demonstration of
speech, and some of his putative academic difficulties. His discourse, however, is more hesitant and speculative
than decisive and definitive. His statement that &dquo;Albert Einstein apparently
had some language difficulty in his
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
151
tentative
Wilson, Hans Christian Andersen, and
and vague. He quoted from an undated interview with Albert Einstein,
Jr.: &dquo;’He was even considered backward by his teachers. He told me that
he was mentally slow, unsociable and
adrift forever in his foolish dreams&dquo;’
(p. 42). Thompson also wrote that Einstein’s parents thought he was dull,
and he speculated that Einstein had
difficulty maintaining work after graduation from college (he went through
three teaching positions in 2 years) because of language-based disabilities.
K. Adelman and H. Adelman (1987),
in a broad critique of retrospective
diagnoses of learning disabilities in
general, deemed Thompson’s (1971)
evidence scientifically unsatisfactory
and noted that there were plausible
alternative explanations for that evidence. Adelman and Adelman were
especially critical of the &dquo;readiness of
some in the field to cite any learning
problem noted in the life of a historical
figure as an instance of learning disability&dquo; (p. 270). The low threshold for
a diagnosis of LD runs counter to good
clinical practice, especially as that
practice is articulated in DSM-IV, and
to prudent historical judgment. Adelman and Adelman also detailed the
difficulties that attend the diagnosis
and definition of learning disabilities.
With regard to Einstein, Adelman and
Adelman wrote, &dquo;A survey of Einstein
biographies reveals nothing to support
the claim&dquo; (p. 277).
Although Adelman and Adelman’s
conclusion was sound, there is some
biographical evidence to support the
claim that Einstein had a learning disability. That evidence, however, is
anecdotal, not clinical, and was reported long after the events described.
Such evidence is subject to a tendency
to mold memory to fit a narrative line
or to create a dramatic irony. As Erikson (1982) noted, such data are hard to
evaluate because they can be part of
folklore.
Aaron, Phillips, and Larsen (1988)
rebutted Adelman and Adelman (1987).
Leonardo da Vinci exhibited learning
disabilities by using a matrix of biographical records and cognitive, neuropsychological, and biological characteristics. Aaron et al. based their
defense of Thompson on their own
identification of &dquo;certain characteristics traditionally associated with developmental dyslexia&dquo; (p. 537). Because
these characteristics are traditional and
associational, and thus are indirect,
they carry less evidentiary weight than
immediate characteristics. Aaron et al.
do not, however, support the claim
regarding Einstein, from which one
might infer that the case for Einstein is
weaker than that for the others.
youth&dquo; (p. 42)
is
manifestly
They refashioned Thompson’s (1971)
claim that Thomas Edison, Woodrow
Biographical Bases
for the Claim
The claim
regarding Einstein can be
organized into a series of specific and
general claims: (a) that he was delayed
in speaking, (b) that he was delayed in
learning to read, (c) that he was dys-
family detected an abnormality in him,
expressed fear that he would live a
stunted life, and then were relieved
when his development allayed those
fears. For example, &dquo;at his birth his
mother was shocked at the sight of the
back of his head, which was extremely
large and angular, and she feared she
had given birth to a deformed child&dquo;
(Winteler-Einstein, 1987, p. xviii). The
fear of
physical deformity
pounded by the proximity
was com-
of the de-
formed area to the child’s brain, which
would no doubt suggest intellectual
deformity. In a few weeks, however,
the skull assumed a normal shape. As
will be seen later, other anecdotes fit
this pattern of apprehension followed
by relief.
Her biographical sketch, moreover, has
a defensive quality. Winteler-Einstein
(1987) normalizes some events and
characteristics that on the surface suggest, if not a learning disability, at least
a difference in learning style. The lack
of evidence for a learning disability
from other sources, however, suggests
the reasonableness of her position.
lexic, (d) that he had academic difficulties in school, and (e) that he had difficulties with employment due to
learning disabilities. In the following
discussion, the biographical bases for
each of the various claims are evaluated.
The sources for evaluating the bases
for the claim were a biographical essay
by Einstein’s sister (Winteler-Einstein,
1987), family letters preserved in Einstein’s collected papers (Einstein, 1987),
Einstein’s own recollections (Bucky,1992),
and records of his grades in school and
some samples of his writing, both of
which are also found in his collected
papers. The first source has been frequently cited by biographers and, because of its prominence, its treatment
of Einstein merits some comment.
Maja Winteler-Einstein portrays Einstein as a gifted child, but she avoids
glorifying him. She does provide anecdotes that relate to the claim regarding
learning disabilities, but those anecdotes form a pattern that undermines
the support for the claim. Einstein’s
Delayed Acquisition of Speech
The claim
regarding
Einstein’s late
acquisition of speech is relevant, at
least indirectly, to the question of
whether or not he had a learning disability because &dquo;developmental delays
in language may occur in association
with learning disorders&dquo; (DSM-IV,
1994, p. 47). Such delays, however, are
not
by themselves probative of a learn-
ing disability. Moreover, determining
what exactly demonstrates acquisition
of
speech presents a difficulty. From a
strictly developmental perspective, acquiring speech means consistently
using a sound, any sound, to represent
something. The sound does not have to
correspond to anything in any language. Parents, however, most typically have a stricter meaning: For them,
speech means properly using a recognizable word from the child’s native
language. Thus, parents are apt to
mark the acquisition of speech later
than developmental psychologists.
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
152
Biographers of Albert Einstein, al- again and again of his droll ideas.&dquo; In
though not formally addressing claims contrast to Hoffmann and Dukas (1973),
of learning disabilities, have presented who uncritically accepted the anecevidence regarding his acquisition of dotal testimony regarding Einstein’s
speech. Pais (1982), employing Winteler- late acquisition of speech and thus
Einstein as a source, noted that there placed the &dquo;droll ideas&dquo; outside of
were &dquo;early apprehensions that the speech, Brian interpreted these ideas as
child might be backward because of evidence that Einstein was able to
the unusually long time before it could speak prior to age 3. He reasoned that
speak&dquo; (p. 36). Hoffmann and Dukas ideas in a child can be recognized only
(1973) quoted from a letter written by through speech.
Einstein in 1954: &dquo;’My parents were
Winteler-Einstein (1987) provided
worried because I started to talk com- evidence regarding Einstein’s acquisiparatively late, and they consulted the tion of speech. According to her acdoctor because of it. I cannot tell how count, &dquo;he developed slowly in childold I was at the time, but certainly not hood, and he had such difficulty with
younger than three’ &dquo; (p. 14).
language that those around him
Pais (1982) stated that these parental feared he would never learn to speak&dquo;
fears were unfounded, and he used (p. xviii). This fear proved baseless, for,
Einstein’s own recollections regarding as his sister wrote,
his acquisition of speech: &dquo;When he
When the
was told of the
between two and three, he formed
the ambition to speak in whole sentences. He would try each sentence out
2.5-year-old
was
himself by saying it softly. Then,
when it seemed all right, he would say
it out loud&dquo; (p. 36, quoting E. G.
Straus). This suggests that acquisition
on
of speech was equated with using com-
plete sentences, not merely with using
words correctly. Frank (1947), expressing a minority among biographers, indicated that even as late as age 9, Einstein lacked fluency of speech, and
Jacobson (1982) noted Einstein’s lifelong difficulties in learning and mastering foreign languages. Jacobson also
cited evidence that Einstein’s thought
processes started in a prelinguistic
mode and that he saw language as a
barrier. His interpretations support the
notion that Einstein had learning differences, but they do not lend credence
to the claim of a learning disability.
Not all biographers, however, accept
that Einstein acquired speech abnormally late. Brian (1996) wrote, &dquo;Albert
was certainly a late and reluctant
talker, but not nearly as late as he recalled&dquo; (pp. 1-2). He cited part of a letter, written when Einstein was 2 years
3 months old, from Jette Koch, Einstein’s maternal grandmother: &dquo;We
have fond recollections of little Albert.
He was so dear and good, and we talk
arrival of a little sister with whom he
could play, he imagined a kind of toy, for
at the sight of this new creature he asked,
with great disappointment, &dquo;Yes, but where
are its wheels?&dquo; (Winteler-Einstein, 1987,
p.
xviii)
As this incident predated her birth,
Winteler-Einstein presumably used
her parents as the source. If the account
is accurate, the question that Einstein
asked suggests a precocious grasp of
syntax, even as it evinces either a frail
grasp of anatomy or a desire to render
his sister an inanimate object. In addition, Brian (1996) wrote that, throughout his life, Einstein maintained that
&dquo;he consciously skipped baby babbling, waiting until he could speak in
complete sentences&dquo; (p. 1). Brian thus
undermined the notion that Einstein
was pathologically late in acquiring
speech.
Winteler-Einstein
(1987) provided
other evidence regarding an abnormality in Einstein’s speech: his habit of rehearsing sentences under his breath
before uttering them. She frames her
description of that practice with a
treatment of Einstein’s
early display of
superior cognitive skills, thereby diluting the habit’s abnormality. She depicts
him as an arbiter of disputes among
other children and interprets this
quality as a sign that &dquo;his ability to
think objectively had developed early&dquo;
(p. xviii). Einstein’s sister placed her
account of his rehearsing sentences
within the context of his cognitive abilities : &dquo;His early thoroughness in thinking was also reflected in a characteristic, if strange, habit. Every sentence he
uttered, no matter how routine, he repeated to himself softly, moving his
lips. The odd habit persisted until his
seventh year&dquo; (Winteler-Einstein, 1987,
p. xviii). Despite his sister’s attempt to
make the habit seem unexceptional,
Einstein’s habit seems pathological,
though not disabling. It suggests that
Einstein needed the rehearsal of his utterances in some fashion to reassure
himself. That the habit did not persist
beyond his seventh year indicates that
there was no permanent, lifelong need
for such reassurance. Because genuine
disabilities do not resolve
learning
themselves, whatever the habit was,
it
learning disability.
Erikson (1982), while forthrightly
evading the issue of dyslexia, scrutinized whether Einstein’s slow acquisition of speech and repetition of
was
not
a
defect, difdefiance. He
concluded that they represented diffidence and defiance and thus implicitly
rejected the claim that Einstein had a
language-based speech defect. Erikson
refrained from diagnosing Einstein’s
early difficulties with language as
dyslexia because he has no expertise in
the field of learning disabilities. He
sentences
was a
matter of
ference, diffidence,
or
did, however, write, &dquo;Albert’s speech
development, when noted
down only
terms, could indeed be suspected to be symptomatic of a developmental defect&dquo; (p. 157). Erikson’s
statement is tentative and speculative,
and it does not address the anomaly of
a defect that does not persist beyond
on
its
own
the formative years.
Delayed Acquisition of Reading
Evidence regarding Einstein’s acquisition of the ability to read derives from
his experience with both formal and informal education. Because the former
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
153
relates to the claim of poor performance in school as well as to reading
ability, it will be detailed in a later section.
From the time he was 10 until he was
15, Einstein, under the informal tutelage of Max Talmud (a family friend),
read, among other things, books on
popular science and the philosophical
works of Immanuel Kant (Pais, 1982).
Talmud (cited in Hoffmann & Dukas,
1973) recorded his impressions of the
young Einstein: &dquo;I recommended to
him the reading of Kant. At that time
he was still a child, only thirteen years
old, yet Kant’s works, incomprehensible to ordinary mortals, seemed clear
to him&dquo; (p. 24). This observation suggests not a disability but a considerable
ability in language. Moreover, Hoffmann and Dukas, Pais (1982), and
Clark (1971) produced no evidence
that Einstein could not read when he
was 8, as claimed by the Connecticut
Association for Children with Learning Disabilities (1994).
Dyslexia
the term dyslexia is sometimes associated with Einstein, and although it does have popular currency
as a marker for problems in decoding
and producing written language, it
does not appear in DSM-IV. In this
Although
article, the definition of &dquo;dyslexia&dquo; follows Aaron et al. (1988), who adhered
a difference rather than a dysfunctional model for dyslexia. Using a
to
phenomenological approach, they
identified dyslexia as extreme variations of normal brain functioning, citing written spelling errors, written
syntax
errors,
difficulties in the
se-
quential processing of information,
and a superiority in simultaneous processing of information as evidence for
its existence in
If Einstein
an
individual.
dyslexic, there
would be evidence of it in his writing.
There would be, for example, persistent problems with spelling and word
choice (DSM-IV, 1994). There is some
evidence of a problem with orthography, but, as with much of the evidence supporting the claim that Einwere
stein had a learning disability, it is
scant and unconvincing. Beck and
Havas (1987), the editors and trans-
lators of the English edition of Einstein’s collected papers, described the
contours of a spelling problem that
crops up in Einstein’s writings and
their editorial policy toward it: &dquo;Misspelled names of persons and places
in Einin his scientific
(quite frequent, particularly
stein’s letters and
even
corrected withof
course, could not be maintained in
translation&dquo; (p. xiv). That the spelling
errors are predominantly found in
proper names and are found especially
papers)
are
routinely
out comment;
other
misspellings,
in
personal correspondence suggests a
local rather than a global problem with
orthography. Moreover, the spelling of
proper nouns is subject to more variation than other words. There is no evidence that the spelling problem was so
that it was an impediment to
communication, which suggests the
absence of a disability. Although the
severe
absence of a severe spelling problem
does not necessarily preclude the possibility that Einstein had a languagebased learning disability, it does suggest that he had a command of
language
inconsistent with
a
writing
disorder.
Several writers have addressed the
issue of dyslexia as it relates to Einstein, but none have asserted that he
had dyslexia. Clark (1971) dismissed
the notion that dyslexia was at the root
of Einstein’s supposed late acquisition
of speech and his oral hesitancy: &dquo;Far
more plausible is the simpler situation
suggested by Einstein’s son Hans Albert, who says that his father was withdrawn from the world even as a boy&dquo;
(p. 10), which supports Erikson (1982).
The best evidence for a general problem with writing is Einstein’s writing
itself, especially writing that has not
been subjected to editorial revision or
peer review. The earliest writing that
Einstein composed on his own initiative (rather than in response to a school
or work assignment) dates from sometime between 1891 and 1895, when
Einstein was 12 to 16 years old. (The
writing is thus contemporaneous with
&dquo;reading of popular scientific
his
books,&dquo; which led him
to &dquo;the conviction that much in the stories of the
Bible could not be true&dquo; [Einstein, 1979,
p. 3], which suggests both a mature
reading ability and the capacity to
draw conclusions independently. The
reading, coupled with the writing, suggests an active mind engaged without
difficulty in thought conditioned by
language.) Einstein proved, employing
exclusively, a theorem in solid
words
geometry and wrote a comment on it
(Einstein, 1987). The sophistication of
the language used suggests a command of words for expressing mathematical concepts, and the theorem and
its associated comment display no insecurities in language. During that
same period, he made an equally sophisticated and detailed comment on
Leibnitz’s application of &dquo;ad-infinitum
continuing division of a finite quantity
to matter&dquo; (Einstein, 1987, p. 4). In addition, in 1895, at the age of 16, he composed &dquo;On the Investigation of the
State of Ether in a Magnetic Field,&dquo; his
first scientific paper, an exercise of two
(Einstein, 1987). These writings
strongly suggest a mature command of
the language as well as of the mathe-
pages
matical and scientific material presented. Their quality argues against
any disability regarding written language
production.
Einstein, however, produced evidence that he had some processing difficulties with regard to listening and
writing; he claimed not to have had
&dquo;an orderly and systematic way of
putting down in writing everything
that you hear in class&dquo; (Bucky, 1992,
p. 26). Although there seems to have
been no particular consequence to this
supposed difficulty, what Einstein described is a difficulty common to in-
dividuals with language processing
disorders.
He also expressed test anxiety that is
consistent with that of a person with
LD: &dquo;I would feel under such strain
that I felt, rather than going to take a
test, that instead, I was walking to the
guillotine&dquo; (Bucky, 1992, p. 94).
~~.
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
:
154
Difficulties in School
Einstein acknowledged that he had difficulties in school (Bucky, 1992, p. 26).
He was especially attentive to his difficulties with memorization (a task he
found onerous; Bucky, 1992, pp. 24, 26,
94-96). Because the dominant pedagogy in late-nineteenth-century Germany emphasized memorization, Einstein’s difficulty was a handicap;
however, there is little evidence that it
impaired his learning and performance except minimally. Einstein also
asserted that he was reprimanded in
school for asking too many questions
(Bucky, 1992, p. 26) and that he found
learning difficult (Bucky, 1992, p. 27).
He also claimed to have failed botany,
zoology, and French (Bucky, 1992,
p. 25), but the extant school records do
not
the notion that Einstein performed well in school: &dquo;Yesterday Albert got his grades, once again he was
ranked first, he got a splendid report
tresses
support that memory.
With
regard to Einstein’s perforin school, his sister’s sketch provides reason to believe that he did not
perform with distinction. He entered
primary school at age 7, and with remance
gard to mathematics, he was thorough,
boy was considered only
moderately talented precisely because
he needed time to mull things over and
didn’t respond immediately with the
reflex answer desired by the teacher&dquo;
(Winteler-Einstein, 1987, p. xix). She
also wrote that &dquo;he always confidently found the way to solve difficult
word problems, even though he easily
made errors in calculation&dquo; (Wintelerbut &dquo;the
Einstein, 1987, p. xix).
(1982) produced no evidence to
support the claim that Einstein’s teachPais
thought he suffered from retardation. He even stated that &dquo;the widespread belief that he was a poor pupil
ers
is unfounded&dquo; (p. 38). Pais was especially strong in his refutation of the
myth that Einstein was slow in school.
He described Einstein as &dquo;a reliable,
persistent, and slow-working pupil
also cited an unnamed teacher
of Greek who told Einstein, &dquo;You will
(1973)
never
amount to
anything&dquo; (p. 20).
Clark (1971) attributed
a
similar senti-
headmaster-&dquo;He’ll
card&dquo;
ment to
either the
make a success of anything&dquo; (p. 10)but it is unclear if these were different
individuals.
Brian (1996) wrote that &dquo;teachers
thought him dull witted because of his
failure to learn by rote&dquo; (p. 3), but he
cited no specifics for this claim. Brian
also noted that Einstein was deliberate
in his oral responses in class and that
(Beck & Havas, 1987, p. 3).
Moreover, Einstein’s performance in
school suggests that he could read before his 8th birthday. From the time
he was 7 until he was 15, he attended
the Luitpold Gymnasium, the German
equivalent of an American secondary
school. Hausel (cited in Pais, 1982)
stated, &dquo;In all these years he earned
highest
or
the
next-highest
mark in mathematics and in Latin&dquo;
(p. 37).
Hoffmann and Dukas (1973), in contrast, did provide some evidence to
support the notion that Einstein was
not a stellar student at Luitpold. They
quoted from a letter that Einstein com-
posed in 1955: &dquo;My principal weakness
was a poor memory and especially a
poor memory for words and texts&dquo;
(pp. 19-20). (In the
same letter, howthat he was ahead
of the school curriculum in mathematics, physics, and philosophy.)
Winteler-Einstein (1987) is the earliest source of a much-repeated anecdote. She wrote of a teacher telling the
young Einstein, in essence, that he
would never be successful, but the
words’ bite was softened by the context : &dquo;The clear, rigorous logical structure of Latin suited his talents, but
Greek and modern foreign languages
were never his forte. His Greek professor, to whom he once submitted an
ever, Einstein wrote
poor paper, went so far in
to declare that nothing
would ever become of him&dquo; (WintelerEinstein, 1987, p. xx). As with the evidence regarding spelling, the anecdote
was local and limited and cannot
reasonably be taken to represent a
especially
his anger
a
never
repeated his answers to himself
silently (p. 3). The evidence portrays
he
introverted, distant student, but it
does not support the claim that his
an
teachers thought him retarded.
Other evidence exists to counter any
notion that Einstein was considered to
have retardation. In a letter from Albin
Herzog to Gustav Maier on September
25, 1895, Herzog, the director of the
Federal Polytechnical Institute, in responding to a request to have Einstein
leave his current school and apply to
the institute, referred to Einstein as a
&dquo;so-called ’child prodigy&dquo;’ (Einstein,
1987, p. 7). Although the quotation
marks suggest skepticism, Herzog still
emphasized that Einstein was being
advanced as a prodigy and that that
designation should be acknowledged.
The Gymnasium routine called for
students to learn algebra and geometry
at age 13, but Einstein devoted a vacation to covering the entire Gymnasium
mathematics syllabus independently
(Winteler-Einstein, 1987, p. xx). He derived his own proofs for theorems, and
he even discovered an original proof
for the Pythagorean theorem (Einstein,
1979; Winteler-Einstein, 1987). Einstein
himself supports the notion that he
learned mathematics independently,
thoughtful, dispassionate assessment including differential and integral calby the teacher. His sister’s account, culus, from age 12 to age 16 (Einstein,
who solved his mathematical prob- however, is undercut in some of its 1987, p. 13). Even allowing for some
lems with self-assurance though not particulars by Einstein’s own recount- exaggeration, his maturity in mathewithout computational errors. He did ing : &dquo;I remember in Munich having my matics argues against his having had a
very well&dquo; (p. 37). A letter dated Au- Latin teacher tell me that I would never learning disability in that area, and
gust 1,1886, when Einstein was 7, from be able to do anything that would that he acquired knowledge in mathePaulina Einstein, his mother, to Fanny make any sense in this life&dquo; (Bucky, matics by reading also argues against
Einstein, one of his grandparents, but- 1992, p. 26). Hoffmann and Dukas his having a reading disability.
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
155
According to his sister, Einstein conindepen-
tinued to learn mathematics
dently and
was
(3)
above average. His lowest score
in French, and that was no
was
worse
than average.
Because
did so well at his autodidactic preparations that at the beginning of October
1895, at the age of only 16’/z, he passed
the entrance examination to the Federal
Polytechnical School in Zurich with the
best outcome in mathematical and scientific subjects but inadequate results in
linguistic and historical ones. (Winteler-
Einstein, 1987, p. xxii)
The institute advised his parents to
have him attend a Swiss secondary
school, where he would almost certainly be granted admission the following year, even though he would be
6 months under the prescribed age of
18. He entered the school in the autumn of 1896.
Einstein’s available grade reports
also present a picture of, at worst, a
moderately successful student. They
do not suggest, whatever learning differences Einstein may have possessed,
a student struggling to master academic
material. For example, Einstein’s (1987)
collected papers transcribe the &dquo;Entrance Report of the Gewerbeschule,
Aargau Kantonsschule&dquo; (p. 7), dated
October 26, 1895. Although the report
indicates some problems with French
and chemistry on his part, it reveals no
substantive academic difficulty, even
though he was only &dquo;provisionally accepted.&dquo; Once admitted to the Aargau
Kantonsschule, Einstein performed well.
Although the October 1895 school report mentions
a continued need for
in French, cheminstruction
private
and
natural
history, as do the
istry,
minutes of a teachers’ conference, he
performed well in his other subjects,
which included history, physics, descriptive geometry, and technical and
artistic drawing (Einstein, 1987). The
final grade report from Aargau, dated
Autumn 1896, which awarded grades
on a 6-point scale, with 6 being the
highest (Pais, 1982), reveals excellent
performance in algebra (6), geometry
(6), and physics (5 to 6; Einstein, 1987).
Even his performance in chemistry and
natural history (he scored a 5 in each)
culties because I should be at least two
years older for it&dquo; (Einstein, 1987, p. 7).
a
learning disability, by
its
very nature, reveals itself and its in-
tractability in a learning environment,
student’s school record is one of the
best indicators of the presence or
absence of a learning disability. The
record in Einstein’s case reveals no severe academic problem and suggests
a
mastery rather than inability. The
school record, in short, provides strong
evidence that he did not have a learning disability. At best, it supports the
conclusion that he was stronger in
mathematics and physics than in other
areas.
The one documented instance of academic failure on Einstein’s part-his
poor performance on the admission examination to the Federal Institute of
Technology (ETH) in Zurich-does little to support a case for a learning disability. ETH enjoys an international
reputation for academic excellence that
predates Einstein’s interest in the
school. Its entrance requirements are
Difficulty with Employment
As indicated earlier, Thompson (1971)
considered it plausible that Einstein’s
difficulties in maintaining employment early in his career (within 2 years
he held three different positions) were
caused by his expressive language
problems. Brian (1996) detailed some
of the difficulties Einstein had with
employment, but he indirectly dis-
puted Thompson’s position by proposing three factors that would have
caused those difficulties: Einstein’s outspokenness, the prevalence of antiSemitism, and his second-class status
as a naturalized Swiss citizen. Whatever his problems with sustaining employment early in his career, they did
not persist, for Einstein was steadily
employed for the rest of his life. There
was thus no &dquo;substantial handicap to
employment&dquo; (Rehabilitation Act of
1973).
commensurately demanding. Not gaining admission is not necessarily an
indication of academic deficiency. Its
such
literary his-
entrance examination covered
subjects
as
political
and
tory, German, French, mathematics,
and the sciences (Pais, 1982). Pais indicated that Einstein studied for the examination on his own and that he did
well in mathematics and the sciences.
His failure was in botany and languages, both of which required memo-
(Hoffmann & Dukas, 1973).
(1971), however, asserted that
that is not the entire truth, and he cited
Einstein’s own testimony that he did
rization
Clark
fully prepare for the examination
the fundamental reason for his failure. Clark also noted (but not as a reason for his failure) that Einstein was
about a year and a half younger than
the normal student sitting for the examination. Einstein himself, in a letter
not
as
on
Koch,
uncle, commented
the age issue: &dquo;I should now enter
to Caesar
an
in Zurich. This
matter encounters considerable diffi-
the
Polytechnikum
Learning Differences
Although little
can
be said in favor of
the claim that Einstein had a learning
disability, there is justification for asthat he learned and thought
differently from other individuals. The
difference was not disabling or pathological, but it could have accounted for
the anomalies chronicled above. Although there is yet no nomenclature to
classify the differences that Einstein exhibited (it may be a syndrome without
a name), terming them disabilities is a
dramatic but inaccurate means of conveying his cognitive peculiarities.
In his Autobiographical Notes, Ein-
serting
(1979), defining thinking in terms
of an organizing element, revealed
stein
how unconventional his view of think-
ing was:
When,
on
the
reception of sense impres-
sions, memory pictures emerge, this is
not
yet &dquo;thinking.&dquo; And when such pic-
tures form sequences,
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
each member of
156
which calls forth another, this too is not
yet &dquo;thinking.&dquo; When, however, a certain
picture turns up in many such sequences,
then-precisely by such return-it becomes an organizing element for such sequences, in that it connects sequences in
themselves unrelated to each other. Such
an element becomes a tool, a concept.
I think that the transition from free association or &dquo;dreaming&dquo; to thinking is characterized by the more or less preeminent
role played by the &dquo;concept.&dquo; It is by no
means necessary that a concept be tied to
a sensorily cognizable and reproducible
sign (word); but when this is the case,
then thinking becomes thereby capable
of being communicated. (p. 7)
ulative nature of all thinking&dquo; (p. 21),
which implies that thinking is severed
from an external reality. The implication from these passages is that, for
Einstein, thinking occurred in a realm
only occasionally connected to verbal structures. This form of thinking
would necessarily lead to some collisions between him and the established,
language-saturated educational structure. Although &dquo;disability&dquo; seems to be
an inappropriate term, &dquo;difference&dquo;
captures the sense of Einstein’s think-
ing
that he may have
that difficulty of
into words.
Einstein
struggled with just
rendering thought
(1979) continued with his
of thinking as primarily
nonverbal: &dquo;Our thinking goes on for
the most part without use of signs
(words) and beyond that to a considerable degree unconsciously&dquo; (p. 4).
Moreover, he discussed his fascination
with a compass in terms of &dquo;the unconscious world of concepts (efficacy
produced by direct ’touch’)&dquo; (p. 9). He
even discussed his appreciation of
geometry in terms of tactility and unconsciousness.
Einstein went on to make a distinction between &dquo;the totality of sense experiences&dquo; and &dquo;the totality of the concepts and propositions that are laid
down in books&dquo; (Einstein, 1979, p. 11).
The connection between the two sets is
&dquo;purely intuitive, not itself of a logical
nature&dquo; (p. 11). He used the phrase
&dquo;the essentially constructive and spec-
description
Probative evidence may yet emerge to
demonstrate or to conclusively refute
the proposition that Einstein had a
learning disability. One source of such
evidence would be the Einstein archives housed at Princeton University.
A detailed examination of Einstein’s
in his
analyses
of
receptors
and synapses
(though the likelihood is minuscule) yield evidence that could be compared with that obtained by conducting similar examinations of the brains
of persons who have received undiscould
puted diagnoses
of
learning
disabili-
ties. The presence in Einstein’s brain of
features
exclusively identified with
with learning disabilities
persons
would lend
that he had
some
a
support to the claim
learning disability.
That
support, however, would have to be
weighed against the absence of observable behaviors associated with
learning disabilities in his adult life.
status.
Future Directions
Two elements stand out in this passage. One is that thinking lies at the
end of a nonverbal progressionthinking does not have to be verbal.
The other is that thinking and communicating are distinct. The latter suggests a condition experienced by many
persons with verbal disabilities: They
struggle to communicate something
that is nearly palpable to them but that
resists verbal formulation. Einstein’s
sensitivity to the distinction between
thinking and communicating indicates
scans, and biochemical and molecular
’
Conclusions
The available
biographical evidence
does not support the claim that Einstein had a learning disability; in fact,
much of that evidence, in that it sug-
hand,
gests precociousness, directly disputes
help solidify the argument one
or
the other. Some of those papers
way
in
appear Dukas and Hoffmann (1979),
and these do not lend credence to a disability involving either English or German. These papers, however, have
been subjected to some editorial revision : &dquo;Some of the items were sent out
in impeccable English, and these we
have quoted verbatim. Other items
were issued in less idiomatic English,
and in presenting them we have made
occasional minor changes while preserving the Germanic flavor that gives
them charm&dquo; (Dukas & Hoffmann,
1979, p. 3). Only a firsthand examination of the actual papers themselves
could determine if the editors have,
consciously or unconsciously, revised
the documents to remove traces of a
that claim. The claim does not meet the
clinical standard set forth in DSM-IV,
for Einstein was not subjected to &dquo;individually administered, standardized
tests&dquo; (p. 46). He did not exhibit the
characteristics that DSM-IV associates
with persons with learning disabilities:
writing, composed
own
would
learning disability.
Another
avenue
of
investigation
would be the physiological examination of Einstein’s brain, which was preserved by Thomas Harvey (Brian,
1996). Although analyses of his brain
to date have not revealed any physiological evidence of a learning disability, three-dimensional X-rays, CAT
demoralization, low self-esteem, deficits in social
skills, difficulties with
employment, and failure to complete
school. Furthermore, the claim does
not meet the legal standards articulated earlier: He displayed no evidence
of
having a &dquo;substantial handicap to
employment,&dquo; nor were his major life
activities impaired (Rehabilitation Act
of 1973); moreover, there is little evidence that in his lifetime he was &dquo;re-
garded as having such an impairment&dquo;
(Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990). Even using a more lax social definition based on anecdotal reports of
behavior does
not result in a reasonable claim for a learning disability. No
evidence has surfaced to suggest that
throughout his life Einstein displayed
any of the symptoms that would meet
a social definition of a learning disability. Although he did display some frail-
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
157
ties with
regard
to
spoken language,
those frailties were not of such a magnitude as to be classified as differences
or disabilities.
Given the meager basis for the claim,
the question arises, &dquo;Why has the claim
lived so long and become so current?&dquo;
Part of the reason is the encouragement it gives all of us to know that
&dquo;even geniuses can suffer from learning disabilities&dquo; (Adelman & Adelman,
1987, p. 270). That Einstein had a learning disability could inspire all of us
and motivate students with disabilities to perform better. The claim also
would enhance the prestige of such
students in the eyes of the rest of the
population-any marginalized group
benefits from having one of its own be
a stellar figure in cultural history.
These are salutary consequences, but
the consequences of claiming that Einstein had a learning disability without
sufficient historical evidence are deleterious. It distorts the historical record
and calls into question the credibility
of other claims regarding the learning
disabilities of prominent persons.
Due to the paucity of evidence supporting the claim that Einstein had a
learning disability, and due to the
abundance of evidence disputing such
a claim, the claim should be withdrawn until convincing evidence sup-
ports
it.
715 North Ave., New Rochelle, NY 10801
(e-mail: [email protected]).
Marlin Thomas is the director of academic
support at the Samuel Rudin Academic Resource Center at Iona College in New Rochelle,
New York. As part of his responsibilities, he
oversees the College Assistance Program, which
provides services to students with learning disabilities. Address: Marlin Thomas, Samuel
Rudin Academic Resource Center, Iona College,
early years: 1879P. Havas, ConsulPrinceton University
bert Einstein: Vol. 1. The
1902
(A. Beck, Trans.;
tant). Princeton, NJ:
Press.
REFERENCES
S., & Larsen, S. (1988).
Specific reading disability in historically
famous persons. Journal of Learning Dis-
Aaron, P. G., Phillips,
abilities, 21, 523-538.
Adelman, K. A., & Adelman, H. G. (1987).
Rodin, Patton, Edison, Wilson, Einstein:
Were they really learning disabled? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 270-279.
AGS. (1991). [Advertisement]. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 24, 87.
American Academy of Ophthalmology.
(1997). Einstein showed learning disabilities can be overcome [Internet]. Available :
www.eyenet.org/ public/ news-
[1997, March 18].
release/learning.html
American Psychiatric Association. (1994).
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC:
Author.
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990,
42 U.S.C.S. § 12101 et seq. (West 1993).
Beck, A., & Havas, P. (1987). "Preface." In
A. Einstein, The collected papers of Albert Ein-
(Vol. 1: The early years: 1879-1902).
(pp. xiii-xiv). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brian, D. (1996). Einstein: A life. New York:
Wiley.
Bucky, P. (1992). The private Albert Einstein.
Kansas City: Andrews and McMeal.
Clark, R. W. (1971). Einstein: The life and
stein
times. New York: World.
Connecticut Association for Children with
Learning Disabilities. (1994). Some kids
with learning disabilities do okay for
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Einstein, A. (1987). The collected papers of Al-
themselves [Poster].
Dukas, H., & Hoffmann, B. (Eds.). (1979).
Albert Einstein, the human side: New glimpses
from his archives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Einstein, A. (1979). Autobiographical notes
(P. Schlipp, Trans. and Ed.). LaSalle and
Chicago: Open Court.
Erikson, E. (1982). Psychoanalytic reflections on Einstein’scentenary. In G. Holton and Y. Elkana (Eds.), Albert Einstein,
historical and cultural perspectives: The centennial symposium in Jerusalem (pp. 151173). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Frank, P. (1947). Einstein: His life and times.
G. Rosen (Trans.). S. Kusaka (Ed.). New
York: Knopf.
Goertzel, M., & Goertzel, V (1962). Cradles
of eminence. Boston: Little, Brown.
Hoffmann, B., & Dukas, H. (1973). Albert
Einstein: Creator and rebel. New York: New
American
Library.
Jacobson, R. (1982). Einstein and the science
In G. Holton and Y. Elkana
Albert Einstein, historical and cultural perspectives: The centennial symposium in Jerusalem (pp.139-150). Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Learning Disabilities Association of Virginia.
(1997). [Internet]. Available: www.ldanatl.
org / virginia/ [1999, November 22].
NY Orton Dyslexia Society. (1994). Enhancing self esteem: New York branch gifts [Ad-
of
language.
(Eds.),
vertising pamphlet].
Pais, A. (1982). ’Subtle is the Lord’: The science
and life of Albert Einstein. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §
706(7)(B).
L. J. (1971). Language disabiliof eminence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4, 34-45.
United States Fidelity and Guarantee Company. (1987). A few of the things we’ve
been taught by kids with learning disabilities [Advertisement].
Winteler-Einstein, M. (1987). "Albert Einstein—A biographical sketch." (Excerpt.)
In A. Einstein, The collected papers of Albert
Einstein. (Vol. 1: The early years: 18791902). (pp. xv-xxii). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Thompson,
ties in
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
men