How did you learn to become independent?

Post Reply New Topic

I had to get away from home. My mother babied me my whole life, so in order to learn skills I had to be away from her so she couldn't do things for me.

She actually indirectly threw me out, when she came home and said "Hey! Guess what? I found you an apartment (I was 26 and in college at the time)". She and my eventual stepfather wanted to live together, and it wouldn't have happened had I been living there. She helped me financially until I graduated from college. Then I moved to Houston (about 100 miles away from home), and there I really learned to take care of myself. And even though I didn't know about ASD at the time, living by myself helped me to find my way. It was scary, but I found talents and skills I didn't know I had. Plus, my AS traits weren't a problem because I lived alone and they weren't bothering anyone. Now, I'm back at home (for financial reasons this time), and the I'm sensing the cycle repeating itself. Mom is babying me again -- waiting on me, acquiescing to me, volunteering to do things for me (laundry, shopping, etc. ) that I can easily do myself. And she complains quite a bit about my more obtrusive traits. I know she's just wanting to feel needed -- and apparently sees me as more afflicted than I feel I am -- but I feel like I'm becoming more dependent and sort of backsliding in my development because of this new living arrangement.

The best strategy makes me think of tossing a baby bird out of the nest so it learns to fly.

Really, you have to put yourself in a situation where only you will get a job done. You either learn to do it, or you don't. As you realize you are able to do something without someone holding your hand, your confidence to try other things on your own grows.

You may discover absolute boundaries you can't breach, but you also find where you can do things for yourself.

Or it doesn't learn to fly and you get baby bird squash...hence if you put yourself out there and don't have the skills to deal with it, and no one else who can help it doesn't necessarily end well.

Evolution through natural selection, brutal yet effective.

If someone tosses the baby bird out of its nest.....I fail to see how that has anything to do with natural selection, so do elaborate.

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 25 Apr 2014, 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

My parents taught me how to be independent around the time I exited middle school. They gave me a curfew and boundaries and instructed me to always have my money and phone on me, and they would increase my boundaries every year. Now I'm at the point where I can get where I need to be without their help.

Having a set boundary and having it slowly increase can help ease you into it, and no one has to set it for you. You can set it for yourself if you want.

Since we're sticking to the bird analogy: what if it's time to migrate? Are the parents expected to freeze to death with the baby bird that couldn't learn to fly? I fail to see how that's better, now you have three birds dead instead of one.

It's natural selection because the bird's survival is essentially tied to it's ability to fly (assuming this entire analogy is based on a flying species), thus if the bird can't learn to fly it's death is a result of it not being able to compete in it's natural environment/niche. The bird parents that are forcing the baby out of the nest are doing so out of necessity, not some form of cruelness-- if the bird can't fly it can't feed, it can't migrate, and it can't breed (all hallmarks of life). Nature isn't near as kind as society-- if animals have "disorders" in the wild they tend to die, unless that "disorder" helps them out compete the competition at which point it would be called a beneficial "mutation".

I'm not advocating it's the appropriate approach for modern human society, I was merely pointing out the method is effective. A human example would be Sparta. The Spartans submerged newborn babies in a cauldron of wine for four breaths, if the child survived they believed it was strong enough to be of use to the society, if it died all the better since their society didn't have the resources to support those that couldn't contribute. I mention them because it was extremely effective at creating a race of super soldiers, yet in the end they suffered from population decline that was instrumental in the downfall of their society. So yes brutal and effective, but with it's own drawbacks.

Usually birds, teach their offspring to fly...like cats teach their offspring to hunt a mom cat doesn't just hunt for her kittens in private bring them food and then leave them to fend for themselves she teaches them first. Also its funny one would be put in the category of not being able to 'contribute' by not surviving being dunked in a cauldron of wine as a baby. It appears with the spartans in the end it wasn't all that 'effective' since the society collapsed. Brutal, not so effective with lots of drawbacks seems like a more accurate description especially when applied to human societies.

At the heart of the issue, you will only know if you can do something for yourself when there is nobody around to help you do it or do it for you.

At some point, you have to "leave the nest" to see if you can "fly."

It's only then you will see what you can and can't do.

Yes and female dogs (among many other predatory animals) have been known to eat the weakest of their young. They do this to increase the survival chances of the rest of their litter. As for cats they've been known to leave their low-functioning offspring to exposure-- essentially shunning them from the litter to die in the elements. Nature is not pretty, it's very unforgiving-- eat or be eaten. The morals of modern humanity generally conflict with the laws of nature. There are no social support services for animals in the wild, they either adapt and live or the don't and die and it's been that way for at least 540 million years.

As for the Spartans, at the high point of their civilization they were able to fend off an empire 10 times their size due mainly to the selectivity of their society. Who would you rather fight on a battlefield-- 1. an army with a few nerds, a few moderately built soldiers, and a few very large muscular soldiers or 2. an army built entirely of Arnold Schwarzenegger clones?

My point in all of this is that zer0netgain was correct-- a person will never learn to be independent if they're not forced to at some time. They will either sink or they will swim, eat or be eaten, survive or die, so to speak. Modern society being what it is, there are some services out there to help the person if they sink, but said person will never know if they can be independent if they aren't at some point forced to try it. Even if they sink and cannot be independent they will be a stronger person for the attempt if only because they've learned a limitation. In many cases though (not all, but many) the person will come into the situation with a preconceived limitation that proves false when they're forced to confront it.

I think the worst thing you can do to someone with an ASD is say "Oh you have an autism spectrum disorder let's find you some social services and you just sit at home all day and stim." It undercuts what the person with ASD can do and teaches them their life is limited and fruitless. Yes, we have drawbacks, some of us more severe than others, but that doesn't mean we're helpless and hopeless. Even the most severe case of autism, the classic mute who stims by slapping their head, can be productive in their own way if given the proper environment, support, and expectations. If you don't encourage a person to try, chances are they never will.

Or they're traumatized by failed attempts at surviving in a world in which they're fundamentally outmoded. Social intelligence reigns supreme. Only in sheltered workshops would they have a chance to be competitive I think.

Independence... yes, lovely, pay the bills, work the job, drive the car....

I like aristophanes take on this actually. I was shoved out of the nest by not just one set of parents, but two, my original biological parents who gave me up for adoption then my adoptive parents who sent me to college when I could barely complete a regular high school year. I failed SO. HARD. at life, it's not even funny. BUT! I have learned so much about myself, and those things.... limitations, those are seriously real and yes, we can sort of overcome them?! is that what you're telling me here... I feel that I've grown as a person despite limitations, but they will always be there. I still have autism. I still have an anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, ADHD, C-PTSD, etc.

So I get what sweetleaf is saying too, very much.

In conclusion, it seems as though there is a higher moral standard to human society, that the better members of the society support the weaker members for the whole of the society. my parents have a good bit of money so they help me, they donate to charities, they do a lot of volunteer work, they believe that because they are fortunate they owe their fortune to society and thus pay it back. Animals don't do that, humans do, that's the difference.

Identifying your strengths so you can help others will ultimately be of greater good than worrying about whether your financial dependence on society is cause to feel shame or not; and we are talking purely financial independence from what I've read of the thread because people talk about benefits/working.

Real independence is a myth. We are all interdependent not just with our fellow humans, but with all of nature. Nothing exists on it's own.

A song lyric from Delbert McClinton seems appropriate here:

"When I finally found the courage to spread my wings, I found out I could fly."

Yes however being thrown out without being taught to fly would not really serve much purpose....also natural selection would be when you stick a human out in nature alone and see how well they survive....making it in society successfully has little to do with any real natural selection in the first place.

Yes however being thrown out without being taught to fly would not really serve much purpose....also natural selection would be when you stick a human out in nature alone and see how well they survive....making it in society successfully has little to do with any real natural selection in the first place, but rather how well they do in a society constructed by humans.

The spartans still died off in the end.

Also I did try to just go be independent kinda backfired, found many limitations and don't feel it made me a stronger person in any way. All it did was lead to me having to apply for SSI which is a s****y income(not complaining since at least its something to live on) but yeah it would be nice if I where more functional and had been made stronger by all the crap. What was proved false to me was the idea that I could just ignore problems I had or compensate some other way and just get on with my life appearing unaffected by it all by becoming 'successfull'.