The Truth (?) behind TOM and lack of empathy...

Post Reply New Topic

I did mean to clarify, because I knew this was going to come up, that I am speaking only of high functioning Autism, not Classic Autism, but I think you knew that. It doesn't hurt to be clear though.

This should be cleared up though, because it is inaccurate:



Actually, I am well aware that it is not. There is no mention of Autism anywhere in the Act. Here is the link to the actual document from their own web site. You can search it. The word does not appear in it. http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.pdf

Disabilities are not determined via diagnostic terminologies. Disabilities are determined through criteria to determine whether a person has the ability or not, to care for themselves, APART from any medical diagnoses. Simply going to the SS office and declaring "I have ASD" will not qualify anyone for disability. It's not enough. You have to prove that you cannot take care of yourself and/or manage your own life.

The Government itself does not consider Autism a disability based only on the fact that one has it.

EDIT: I didn't mean to sound terse there. It is a common misconception I once held as well. I've only learned this myself within the past year.

Mr. Xxx.

Maybe I should have said : an interest in something is at least partially determined by "ability." If one cannot do something or find it difficult, do they have an "interest" in it? Likely, no, it doesn't yield rewards.

The "blind man" is mind blindness, not to taken literally. Maybe for better clarity: Generally, as a group, and those who are "mild" will have more trouble than someone without ToM deficits. One can say that, " I failed a social abilities test, ( eg. the purse), and thus came up with an alternate, and it moves in the direction of lateral thinking." Nt's would just read it as "thievery." But the quickest and correct answer yields the better rewards in society.

?

I try not to use the Low functioning autism label because there is no clear definition for it. I also try not to use the high functioning label if possible; the only definition that is clear there is of average and above intelligence which doesn't say much for whether or not someone can function in life.

I was very specific in describing exactly what constituted the disability requiring life time support, I understand your objection to the language of HFA, in this context I think I could have presented a fairer representation by stating Autistic people in the workforce without the need for assistance from society to survive instead of invoking the HFA label to describe it since there are indeed those labeled that way that need assistance from society for basic subsistence needs.

If society meets those needs it can be a friend even if it is still considered foe, when they are needed; I'm sorry to hear that you still aren't getting the help you need.

My opinion here is while Autism is perceived as a disability or a difference by some caused by a society that doesn't match their unique ways of being, I don't understand how in cases requiring lifetime support from society, how society can be considered a hinderance rather than a benefit for those people.

I wasn't criticizing your use, just using what you said as a point to say something as well as express my general frustration with some things I was told in therapy last week.



Because society is doing the barest minimum to ensure we survive. When I am approved for SSI, I will be required to remain below the poverty line at all times or I risk losing my benefits. That means having more than $2,000 in savings. Mandatory poverty does not eliminate society's hindrances. It's better than no support at all, but it is not particularly amazing, either.

That puts a mighty different twist in it too. And one I couldn't agree with more



True. I think.(?) I'm more than a little tired at the moment though, so not positive I'm interpreting so clearly right now. But yeah, when you put it this way, I think it makes more sense to my brain.

But, if someone has difficulty accomplishing something it might be of more interest because they want to conquer it. It becomes a challenge.

Thanks for the clarification, when you stated entire spectrum, I really did think you were including kanner's type autism, maybe my TOM is acting up again.

On my part for clarification the ADA is an entirely separate law from the laws that govern Social Security Disability. One does not receive financial assistance if they are covered under the ADA, they can gain reasonable accomodations in the workplace as an adult, and it benefits children with autism, in having the right to reasonable accommodations in the school setting,

To clarify my statement on the ADA, I didn't state that all ASD's were included in the ADA, only that they meet the definition of disability as stated in the ADA. I think it would have been clearer if I provided the following legal regulations that explain the definitions. I understand your general interpretation of the ADA act, but you may not have seen the new regulations to implement the equal employment provisions of the ADA that were put into effect on March 25, 2011.

While the ADA itself does not list disabilities that meet the definition, US Code Title 29 PART 1630—REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT was ammended and put into effect March 25, this year; it does provide a list of impairments that should normally meet the definition of disabilities under the ADA, and Autism is included.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=83e0ea4a62b22c4cc11f8f2fa84b660c;rgn=div5;view=text;node=29%3A4.1.4.1.20;idno=29;cc=ecfr



Major life activities associated with autism, in addition to brain function, include social interaction and communication impairments. They are listed in another area of the law regarding major activities, if you scroll up a few paragraphs in the full text provided by the link.

Virtually all leaves some wiggle room for some of these individuals with these listed impairments not to be covered, but according to these new regulations, I think it is safe to state that an individual with autism assessed for coverage under the ADA, can meet the definition of disability under the ADA.

I agree that the government itself doesn't consider Autism a disability per definitions required to meet permanent disability under the Social Security laws; the ADA considers some of the impairments associated with autism as a legal disability. This can be confusing depending on how it is worded.

It's like the word Autistic that refers to the individual, whereas autism refers to the disorder which is comprised of symptoms, some of which substantially limit important life activities like social interaction and/or communication.

Without that criteria met one does not receive a diagnosis of Aspergers disorder; it's almost identical to the wording in the definition of disability in the ADA, except they use the word major instead of important. It's no wonder that the legal regulations that define disability in the ADA, see Autism as one of the impairments that normally meets the required definition.

Sorry, if I over-clarified here, but I think it is a pretty complicated issue, that may need this kind of clarification for future reference, if someone wants to go into the detail to explain it again.

Last edited by aghogday on 20 Jul 2011, 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No problem, I sympathize with you.

When one connects with their self, it's a sign they have empathy for themselves. I'm convinced there are people living in the woods that have empathy for themselves as well as the animals in nature and that is enough for what they experience as contentment. Most people can't do it, but there are some that can.

I'm also convinced that a person can be surrounded by people that care, and completely lose their feelings of empathy because of stress. And in your case too many people could certainly be a cause of stress, if it overwhelms you.

I don't see anything strange about what you are saying. In my view it sounds like you require solitude instead of isolation. When I think of isolated, I think of someone that doesn't connect with people, lives alone, and feels isolated, but that's just my personal opinion of the word. It sounds like you have a mix that works for you; that's great.

There is possibly another area of dispute when it comes to defining empathy. It comes down to a monopoly of meaning and generalisation. I don't think it is enough for an NT group to be able to state " we all know what empathy is, we don't need to define it or examine it further" .

Here we get into tautology : ToM contains its own implicit definition, at a most basic level it is the ability to build a model of another rpersons thinking, behavior and emotional state, - it is both an intuititive and intellectual 'theory' we hold of others.

This is fine, but because it is a catchall , it allows for an extension of the NT playground game where the NT players define the rules of the game but the rules are variable and applied to exclude those for reasons deeper than the game itself and because we are 'stupid aspies', always trying to figure the rules , and the rules are plastic, the game to some extent becomes "exclude the aspie by applying different aspects of the rules".

This is the function of a non-specific rule and a flexible definition. The definition of empathy and the adult version of this game being played here is an extension of "we're it, you aren't," and it may be more about reinforcing the identenity of the research group and wider society than actually defining us in mutually acceptable terms.

A second factor is , and I'm using empathy here toward our own kind, I can only imagine a kid who has
already been through "we're it, you aren't" being subjected to testing by adults who are playing essentially the same game- of course those kids are going to be using rational processing to figure out the rules because they are not just trying to figure out the rules of Sally Anne they are going to be trying to figure out the wider social contex of the tests and the motives of those doing the testing and wondering why adults are playing the same game as the kids in the playground and how to respond so as not to produce a negative response from those adults.

By creating a definintion of empathy with a variable meaning SBS team can cover themselves by saying "this is empathy" but shifting their definition when it is required to support the theory. This slieght of hand . basic social magic trick is the one learned in the playground. All you guys here can empathise with this, no problem.

"We're it, you're not, out..." amplified to one of our kids, or adults through all the trappings, rituals and behaviours of a psudo religion that is psychology and related sciences. What's that child/sdult going to do? I know what I'd do: I'd shut the hell down and get rational survival head on.- So maybe that's one aspect of what SBC's crew are measuring.


Meme.

Hmm. I do remember using the phrase "entire spectrum," but can't recall exactly what it was in reference to. This has been such a long conversation, with so many of you, it's getting harder to keep track of what I said about what, which parts were meant as flat statements, and which were intended as conjecture. Let me see if I can find it.

Here is the only place in the thread that I used the phrase "entire spectrum"



In that statement I WAS Including Kanner's and all forms of Autism. Yes, I do think they are all disabilities, however what differs is HOW I define the term, as opposed to how the medical field might, or the Government.

And that is part of the difficulty associated with the rest of this post. What constitutes a disability can be very subjective.



Actually, that's exactly what you said, in so many words.



Bolding and capitalization added to point it out. My intention isn't to nit pick, just to help clarify the point. I think what you meant to do at this point, in your last post clarifying this, is to say that what you actually said wasn't what you meant. I'm sure I've probably done it myself somewhere in this thread.

The only reason I pointed that out is because there are a lot of people who think they are qualified for disability by simple virtue of the fact that they are diagnosed ASD. I just wanted to be sure those who do think so and read this, are properly informed.



This is why what the laws actually say and mean can become so confusing. That site, while it does appear to contain the entire text of the regulation, also contains a great deal of commentary that is not part of the regulation. The actual official electronic version, with nothing but the regulation itself can be found here: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... 29;cc=ecfr

On that page, you will find only one reference to Autism, and it is used only as an example along with some other disorders. It's not really a list meant to be taken as a complete and all inclusive "list of included disorders."

As the first section of the regulation itself states:



In other words, neither the ADA nor Title 29 Part 1630 actually define or list what does or does not qualify for a disability.

Examples are given, and one of them is ASD, however nowhere in either document are any clear lists given of disorders that are "automatically" disabilities. Downs Syndrome isn't even mentioned. Think about that. I don't think anyone would argue that Downs Syndrome is a disability.

The purpose behind both the law and the regulation was never to "define" disability. That has always been left up to the medical field.

EDIT: Sorry, that's wrong. "Define" is not the right word. They have defined the term, but the definition is about ability vs. inability, not about what qualifies to be called a disability. It should read:

"The purpose behind both the law and the regulation was never to provide lists of specific conditions that automatically qualify as disabilities."

@aghogday

Maybe, instead of debating what exactly the laws and regulations say and mean is the wrong way to go about this. Perhaps a better approach (ToM) is to specifically ask what you actually THINK.

If you are saying (as I have been inferring), that "If you have been diagnosed with Autism, the law covers you." then I would have to disagree, because it doesn't necessarily.

If you are saying, "If you have been diagnosed with Autism, you stand a chance of being covered under ADA, then I agree.

I do know for a fact that you can't just waltz into the Dept. of Health and Human Services, Social Security, or your employer's Human Services office and expect special treatment based solely on the diagnosis alone.

What you can expect is to be tested, based on the diagnosis, to determine whether your personal experience with Autism presents a significant reduction in quality of life, or reduces your ability to perform certain work related tasks. If testing, usually done by medical professionals, does find that your diagnosed condition does present significant reduction in quality of life and/or job performance, and the determination is accepted by the agency you are dealing with, then yes, the law covers you.

Ergo: Autism does not necessarily preclude disability in the eyes of the law, but it helps get things going with getting further testing and evaluations that will determine whether it constitutes a true disability.

Maybe we're actually in agreement on this, and I'm missing it.

If not, perhaps we should just agree to disagree, because I feel we're starting to stray off topic. (?)

Either way, it's been a good discussion.

Ever read "Games People Play?" or a better one that is right on topic with this is "I'm Okay, You're Okay." The latter is all about exactly what you're talking about. The game you're talking about is "I'm okay, you're okay, they're not."

This specific game is, probably predictably, all about people looking for alliances in others, only to use those alliances against a perceived mutual "enemy."

I read the book when I was about fourteen, in 1974, and still remember how appalled I was that anybody would play a game like that. One of those "moments" I recall that qualifies as but one of the many puzzle pieces that once all put together spelled "Asperger Syndrome."

BTW, there's another book, spoofing that one, called "I'm Okay, You're Not So Hot." It was hilarious. I wonder now if the guy that wrote it might have been on the spectrum.

This is a good point.

I really believe it's not the difficulty of a task that determines whether an Autistic is motivated to do or not do it. I really believe the important factor is perceived reward to one's self. (Self-ism, i.e. Aut-ism).

That can simply be the pleasure derived from doing the activity, or, once we become old enough to finally realize their can be long term benefits and rewards (that we actually value), the end reward.

For some of us, I'm sure, the challenge itself is enjoyable and motivation enough.

Yes I did! years ago , thanks for reminding me. Eric Berne That's what it is ! I'm Ok - you're not OK- we're OK -You not OK-

Thank you-

I got to say that as well I really don't do the harmful stuff-can't see the point of it- it's stupid and sensless
to make someone suffer through ridicule and ostracism.

I don't tread on spiders, woodlice or worms or anything like that either.

Having said that ,I take no prisoners if there is a direct threat to people I care about, or someone is deliberately treading on woodlice worms or some kid's foot in the playground.

Meme

That ok-ness or not was quite a meme in the 70's. I remember those books well. As a life philosophy, I prefer this:

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?o ... 3&Itemid=0

I'm not ok, you're not ok, and that's ok.