HOW Does Asperger's Actually Explain Anything?

Post Reply New Topic

But ToughDiamond, why didn't you just say you couldn't follow the directions the way they were being set (or not being set in this case) in the first place?

Unfortunately when you try and explain your troubles to people, they will think you are stupid or making it up and making excuses because they have never had that problem before so they need a label unfortunately to understand why you have those issues. It tells them your issues are real, not made up.

Reminds me when I told my aunt how I can't just read the instructions about how to make something (cooking) and her response was, "it's easy, you just read them and it tells you what you need and how many cups and measurements and it tells you how to do it" and I didn't say anything else because there was no way I would be able to get her to understand how hard it is for me. I have no idea if it's an aspie issue so I didn't play that card. This is just an example how people still don't get it when you tell them. I even couldn't get the office clerk to understand my issues at my last job. He just expected me to know things and use common sense and couldn't understand I need reminders or else I forget and I can't just look at the list because I forget it's there and that I have written it down so I need to be reminded if I can't do it now. Is it an AS issue, I don't know. But I know most people don't have this issue unless they are really really busy because they are having a really busy day and most people will accept that but if it's more on a daily basis, then people don't accept it and they don't like to remind you. But it's an issue I discovered I had and everyone wants an explanation so they now they are not crazy or lazy or irresponsible and it's a legitimate issue they have and they just need accommodations. Is it so much to ask to be reminded? I think that is taking responsibility.

Without a diagnostic report, I didn't expect to be believed. Others were able to somehow follow the instructions, and I was known to be very intelligent. But the slightest lack of clarity always throws me, and if I'd asked for clarification every time, I think they'd have soon lost patience and said I must be playing stupid.

It wasn't just unclear instructions. The work was a draconianly-imposed add-on that was universally very unpopular, and the management were doing their utmost to bulldoze us into accepting the new situation. They used underhand tactics and threatened us. The leader's manager angrily made it quite clear to us all at a meeting that complaints about the work being too stressful would be given short shrift, and that if anybody had any problems with the leader, he would be "backing her 110%" It was widely agreed amongst the rank and file that the leader and her boss were vindictive and dishonest. They didn't train people, they just made them responsible for big areas of the venture, and pretty much threw them in at the deep end. My colleague and I got the union in to mediate while we expressed our concerns that we couldn't meet the new responsibilities without more support. The leader's manager was furious that we'd involved the union, told the other guy that he'd worked there long enough to be completely au fait with the work. A compromise was eventually reached for the support, but the union never produced any minutes and the thing was kicked into the long grass. There was retaliation. They bullied my colleague right out of his job, reduced him to tears, overloaded him till he went off sick for weeks with stress, and denied making him do things I'd seen them make him do. They played a game or two with me too, and I was pretty scared, but stuck to my guns and resisted it. I wanted us all to challenge them together, but although my colleagues whinged constantly about them, they were too scared of them.

Armed with a diagnostic report from one of the Great and Good, I at last felt able to explain my need for clear, specific instructions, although even then I was apprehensive that they wouldn't want to know. They said that the venture was basically so complex and subject to change that there could be no such instructions. They tried to block my supervisor's idea that I should be moved onto specific tasks, by saying that she had no jurisdiction about it. I countered that the jurisdiction thing didn't stop it being a good idea , and although nobody ever declared it or wrote it down (funny old thing, that), it was implemented.

There might be Aspies who can self-advocate with less anxiety than I get, but the ones I know well have as hard a time with it as I do, and in one case can't seem to do it at all.

Hope that answers your question. I'd like to think that my experiences were rare, but my leaders in the other job I had were little better, and a counsellor reckoned that my chosen profession was a lucky choice, as it was a relatively Aspie-friendly sector.

Without the diagnosis it would be very easy to be accused of being psychotic, schizophrenic, selfish, arrogant, psychopathic, combative, stupid, drugged, criminal, or otherwise ill.
A diagnosis can be efficient and helpful for people to understand and categorize behaviors.

And lazy, rude, insensitive, aloof, and antisocial.

I remember when I was in my first relationship, I thought my ex boyfriend was f*****g around when he said he cannot write stuff down and remember to do it. He would get an idea in his head and want to do it NOW and harass me about it so I got him a notepad finally and set it next to his computer and told him to write down any of his ideas so he will never forget them and they will be right there for him to check so he won't forget. His reason for wanting to do it NOW is because he will then forget about it so I found a solution to his problem but then had another excuse by saying how it wouldn't work with him and I would tell him I will remind him then but he still wanted to do it NOW.

Rather him not being able to see his reminders and then do it after writing them down could have been a legitimate issue he had and I thought then he was making it up and it was one of his other lame excuses. I did not realize some people cannot write stuff down to remember it and then be able to do them such as they can't write down their appointment on the calendar and then remember to go to it that day even though it's written right there for them to see it and check. So this is another example why we need labels to explain our problems. I am not sure how much of his excuses were legitimate.

As a gardener, I really appreciate your analogy - different groups of plants have such different needs, some only thrive in alkaline soil, others must have acid soil - if their environment isn't matched to their needs, they languish instead of flourishing, and when it does match, they bloom. I think it is a great metaphor for autists.

Everybody is talking about using a diagnosis to get other people to believe them or take their problems seriously. So I guess "explain" is being used in the sense of "justify," not in the sense of "tell why or how."

Not everyone, not me.. I used the knowledge of being on the spectrum to figure out what sort of 'plant' I was and what my requirements for optimal functioning were; I didn't share it with anyone outside the family and within the family only with the autist part of the family - not to justify to others but to pool our knowledge and experience so that we could use the knowledge bank for our mutual benefit. Autism itself doesn't explain a lot in terms of solutions - saying that "you have anxiety because you are on the spectrum" doesn't explain why spectrum people tend to have hyperanxious response patterns, nor what to do about them. It's not about justifying, it's about modifying by applied knowledge (at least in our family).

I think there is a split trail with the word "why" happening in this conversation. So in your original example, you say that attributing your looking away when thinking to Asperger's would only explain "why" you do it from the perspective of explaining to others how you are exhibiting a type of behavior that is different from most expect in that situation.

The second trail of the "why" question though, and may be what you're really asking, is how saying that you look away from people's eyes because of Asperger's explains anything regarding the underlying biochemical or psychological processes that give rise to the behavior. Because just saying it's due to Asperger's doesn't say anything about whether it is due to an impairment in neurotransmitter receptors causing less dopamine to be absorbed across synapses that creates the unpleasant feeling, or if it might be prolonged eye contact somehow triggering a release of adrenaline causing an unnecessary stress response, etc.

Is that what you're trying to get to? An explanation of the bio-mechanical or neuro-biology or psychological processes of what gives rise to the behaviors collectively attributed to people diagnosed with Asperger's?

My post(s) told in some detail how and why I was having such trouble in the workplace. If I start feeling thirsty and fainting, and the doc tests me and tells me it's diabetes, that's an explanation, and I would then study the condition and find out how the symptoms occur and how to manage it. Surely any diagnosis is an explanation in terms of how and why?

I think you're seeing stuff here that seems to be about justification because the notion of diagnosis as an excuse was mooted, which is a tempting assertion to discuss, hence my two cents saying that I could be seen as having used my diagnosis as an excuse, but that it was a valid one, i.e. justified. The term "excuse" is often wrongly used to block valid explanations for failure, so I think people just wanted to make sure it didn't go down that way here.

I think it can be a sort of shorthand for a cluster of symptoms/specifications/descriptions.

Also, I was always told "you aren't trying hard enough" and I told myself that, which led to a kind of self-loathing. An example would be I would not recognize people. When I found out about prosopagnosia, that made me not hate myself when I would introduce myself to people I knew.

The label is an explanation but from my perspective it is described that way because of positive association. There are many people without diagnoses who suffer and/or fall behind in one or more aspects of their lives. The only thing differentiating AS from such a person is that AS is a recognized collective of characteristics - it is a label. Asperger's does explain the behaviour, but everybody has a brain. I therefore see the logic of an 'explanation' as applicable to anybody, just that it cannot truly be seen where there is no label for any single trait a person may have.

If the reason were not comfortable, nobody would feel positive associating with the label. For example, while diabetes can 'explain' a set of symptoms, nobody parades their explanation as it tends to be a negative one - they were either born with a genetic deficiency or consumed too much sugar.

I suppose it's the reason personality tests etc. are all so popular - people want to discover their identity, and thus they have an 'explanation' for all aspects of their lives.

Do you mean positive association like some people feel positively about the label of autism?
Or do you mean they feel positive because they believe that the label clears them of fault for their problems in life?

Positive association in a sense that the label:

. Provides a fall-back for unexplained issues: The person is easily able to use their diagnosis to explain why they are experiencing certain problems - similar to religion 1000 years ago I suppose, before there was sufficient scientific discoveries to explain natural phenomena (though this example is exaggerated, same principle).

. An attachment point for identity: If a person is not diagnosed, then by all means they're considered 'normal'. Labels provide so much empowerment (as seen in personality tests), because they distinguish a person from everybody else and provide 'explanations' as to why they may think/behave a certain way. It's obvious that nobody expects a person diagnosed with autism (for example) to have an 'easier life' than a 'normal person'. IMO it's why some people are proud to parade their labels such as depression or bi-polar, because it effectively means 'I am disadvantaged, but look at me go.'.

And yes, clearing of fault and responsibility. This affects most (probably everybody) to a slight degree, but I find those that take this to a damaging level are generally unwilling to improve regardless of the presence of diagnostic labels in the first place. For example, a student may go and get diagnosed with ADHD for lazyness and a lack of discipline that they perceived to be a disorder due to their ego and inexperience in dealing with their issues. They would thus have an 'explanation' for their problems.

If I've unintentionally made all these things (besides the last) sound like horrible things, as I said, unintentional. Everybody seeks happyness.

As I said before, I think that impairments caused by autistic traits can be partial eggsplanation for problems in life, but only partial, as personal decisions and consciously chosen behaviors play a big role too.