AS-D The view to "Disorder"

Post Reply New Topic

Difficulty socializing can actually make it nearly impossible for you to get a job. Once you get the job, it does actually go beyond your strict duties and nothing more, and an inability to go beyond your duties (say, being able to function socially with your co-workers and supervisors) can actually impede your opportunities for promotion.

One thing that I see a lot of here that I wish people would think about before saying is that what AS is for you may not be the same for everyone. If your AS is indeed so mild for you that it's not impairing, then run with it. It does mean you don't actually have AS, but that's not my point so much.

Others deal with different levels of impairment - to greater or lesser degrees - than you do. Someone with the same diagnosis may have significant difficulties in every area of life.

Well, I am guilty of that.

But, in my humble opinion, I still think we should stop judging ourselves by what we can't do. We could just say that we're all disabled because we need oxygen to breathe. We're only human. Any human, AS or NT, has certain things they can and cannot do.

Everyone and everything is impaired at something. Humans are impaired because we can't breathe underwater. Fish are impaired because they can't breathe above water. Trucks are impaired because they can't go from 0 to 60 in only a few seconds. Sports cars are impaired because they can't haul things. The human brain is impaired because it can't calculate as quickly as a computer. A computer is impaired because it can't reason. An airplane is impaired because it can't submerse underwater. A submarine is impaired because it can't fly.

Everything is built with a purpose. At that task it excels, but at other things, it doesn't. We humans are no different. We are all born with strengths and weaknesses. Most of us here are at least somewhat impaired in the social skills department, but we make up for that in other areas.

Our impairments are mainly caused by society. But how long will it take, before people figure out that by utilizing the uneven skill sets from all neurotypes, we will all be able to accomplish more? We're a bunch of idiots. In an MMORPG analogy, society is mostly (hypothetically) made up of a bunch of tanks. How long will it take before everyone realizes that, to have an effective group, a tank, a DPS guy, and a healer are required? It's just so ironic to me, because it is human nature to exclude outsiders. We're the outsiders being excluded. We're the DPS and healers not being allowed into a team of tanks, yet they need us the most.

This is sort of the basis for the social model of disability: Society accommodates so many things that humans cannot do or cannot easily do without assistance. Assistive devices are everywhere - lamps, fans, computers, automobiles, houses, furniture, supermarkets, and on and on and on it goes, right?

Well, there's gaps in those accommodations. The Wendy's I was in earlier today certainly didn't accommodate me very well - all the beeping and buzzing from the food prep devices (assistive devices!) and the vacuum cleaner (another assistive device!) were pretty overloading for the time I was in the store (about 5 minutes).

My house is actually unusual in that it is actually wheelchair accessible - it has a ramp instead of stairs. Just steps up to the porch and in you go. But the interior - especially the bathrooms and the kitchen - isn't very friendly to anyone who needs a wheelchair.

This is where a part of disability is - the differences from typical expectations that aren't always accommodated. There are elements of disability that aren't social, though - that they aren't disabling just because people don't want to accommodate you - such as Supertrouper pointed out earlier in the thread.

But what I am getting to is that society is built around what humans are expected to be able to do, and the majority of people are able to do these things. Many of us are not and saying "everyone is a little bit disabled" seems minimizing and dismissive (I assume that's not your intent - I am describing my reaction).

That said, it is good to focus on our strengths, too. I myself usually do it in a different context than this forum.

Yes. It makes you look odd, which affects your friendships, relationships and work life. Your work life impacts upon your ability to feed yourself.



Autism isn't a matter of preferences. One of the signs of my autism is that I'm virtually INCAPABLE of working in a group. If it's a simple preference, and your ability to work with people isn't significantly impaired (annoyance is not impairment), then it's probably not part of diagnosable autism, but rather a personality style.



Again, see: preference vs need. If you can't function without your routine because you get stuck (executive dysfunction) or melt down, then yeah, that's pretty disabling. If it's just a preference, then, again: personality style, not diagnosable autism.




To the point where they interfere with your daily living and with becoming independent? If so, yes.



Not understanding the point of lying is a disability; much of human socialisation is built around "saving face"; if you can't manage this, you'll be excluded, which, as in point 1 (not moving your arms) excludes you from relationships and occupational activities. Being qualified for work and not being able to find it because you seem strange is a pretty damn big problem.
Am I disabled because I think the whole concept of social events is stupid?



Yes. It makes you seem untrustworthy, and to lack confidence, which implies that you are incompetent. It is seen as rude. See my above points about the importance of basic social skills/an appearance of normality to matters that can directly affect survival.

Of course, if all those things really are just matters of preference or mild discomfort, then I'd be questioning whether you are actually autistic or whether you just have autistic traits.

I've used "autistic" here to refer to any ASD, including Asperger's.

I can only speak for myself, not all of WP. All I was getting at is that those of us who are different are the most useful. If you saw a weird looking guy with a blank facial expression and a monotone voice walking down the street in an odd way, what would you think? Probably something like, "eww, that guy is a weird freak." Now, what if this guy just happens to be Mr. Spock? Wouldn't that change your perspective a bit? Yeah, sure, he's different, but where would captain Kirk be without him? Kirk, Spock, and McCoy make an amazing team, despite their differences. The Enterprise needs Vulcans, and similarly, society needs aspies.

That is why I, personally, don't believe that I am disabled. But my impairments are much more mild as compared to what's been described. Although maybe not, as I have no idea if I have offended anyone in this discussion, and I have no clue as to whether I should continue with it.

Why would I think that?

I am rather bothered by the idea that it must be necessary to argue that society needs us, too. Getting into the idea of who contributes enough to justify their existence, etc. strikes me as somewhat problematic, especially when you get to people who are perceived as being incapable of contributing at all.



You're still 17, right? My nephew just turned 18, and says that his ADHD doesn't impair him much. Yet he needs constant reminders to get things done (like his schoolwork) and tends to lose things with great frequency. I've been telling him to look into disability services when he gets to university, but I am not sure he will take it seriously until he is at university and unable to keep up because there's nothing or no one to directly and consistently motivate him.

I'm not saying whether you know how severe or mild you are or not. What I am trying to get at is my nephew has never had to deal with the full challenges of being solely responsible for himself. He's never lived on his own, and has always had people around to help keep him focus. My point is: When you find yourself dealing with the demands of being an adult, things might very well turn out to be harder than one might expect. Then again, you might be mild and do okay. I hope it's the latter.

I don't know. It's just part of human nature to be hostile towards the unknown.



Albert Einstein's parents thought he was mentally ret*d. We all know that's not true. I'm not saying that a neurotypical couldn't accomplish what he did, but just because someone appears to be incapable of contributing to society doesn't mean the person actually can't. Everyone is (theoretically) capable, but in different ways.



I don't really know, and it's something that I ponder anxiously at least once a day. Generally speaking, as long as I set up everything systematically, I get things done. But I don't live on my own yet; I have no idea how that will go. I'm just trying to remain optimistic. Optimistic that I will one day be able to get a job as an engineer, despite my inability to "read" people, and my preference to not be around people.

I'm much more likely to be hostile to the known quantities who have already treated me badly than to people I know nothing about beyond what I can see.



I think I failed to make my point, as you seem to have responded as if the ability to contribute is the important thing - am I misreading this?

To me, the fact that each person is a human being worthy of respect and a fulfilling life is the important thing.



Hold onto that and do what you can.

A month or two ago, I was at a meeting for sub-Saharan immigrants. When I was thinking about this issue yesterday night it struck me how much their complaints and arguments were like the ones I read here. They did not understand the way the Dutch job market works and felt that the Dutch did not accommodate their needs or their culture. Because they viewed things differently, they would make social gaffes and they wouldn't get hired. The regular Dutch did not trust them and discriminated against them and did not value them for the contributions they could make, but rather for their skin colour.

So, logically, being an immigrant counts as a disability in the job market.

No, there are similarities, but discrimination is not the same as a disability, although disability often leads to discrimination. I think a better word is disadvantage, as well as discrimination, which applies in both cases.

I'm not a fan of the AS == techie genius assertion. (Despite fitting that profile stereotypically well when I was younger (pre-burnout).)

To be more specific, I question the claims that:

a. ASD people more likely to be talented with technology/technical subjects.

b. The subset of ASD people who are talented with technology/science are on average more talented than the average NT who is talented with technology.

I think (a) might be somewhat true, but not to a degree that is overly useful. But I think that (b) is highly questionable. I've met some highly intelligent and talented people in technical subjects (mostly 20 years ago as a student), and there are few if any that struck me as being ASD. (My radar might not be very good, admittedly.) My point being that there are a lot of very talented, intelligent, "techie" NT's out there. And even if only 10% of the NT population is that way, they still outnumber all ASD people by a factor of 10.

Going off on a tangent here...

IMO, arguing (b) comes from an instinct (and teaching/example) that recognizes that there is a societal system of valuation of people, and that one is on the low end of it. So, people try to come up with an argument -- within the existing rules -- that boosts their status. I.e. "I have impairments, but I'm a great engineer so I am valuable, after all, see!"

And that's a natural thing, as humans always do have systems of valuation of people, and "salesmanship" can matter. (And especially since the consequences of being low-valued can be severe.) But that approach has its limits -- some people can't use it. I.e. are "very autistic" and not a computer genius. (The "salesmanship" tactic also tends to de-value those who can't use it, as per Temple Grandin.)

But that leads to the larger issue of questioning the rules of the system (of valuation) in the first place. Can the rules be wrong? Should they be changed?

Originally, in the USA, only white, property-owning/rich males had status as valuable members of society. Over time that changed. Currently, the common view seems to be that only revenue-generating people are valuable to society, and disabled people are a drain (maybe not quite worthless, but close). (Children seem to safe from the coal mines, for the moment.)

Questioning those societal rules is harder and scarier, though. They won't change easily or quickly (or maybe at all). It's easy to want to say, "that's impossible, so why bother?" -- but I think that comes from forgetting that there are those for whom the rules do not allow any place, regardless of any amount of "salesmanship."

And, I think it's also easy to forget that anyone could find themselves in the "lower functioning" category at some point in life. I.e. "burn out," a stroke, getting older (less energy + greater requirements), brain injury, loss of a supportive spouse or a uniquely well-suited work environment, and a host of other possibilities.

Arguing about ASD people being valuable because of skill with computers/science/math leaves people behind, and doesn't address the bigger picture. So, I think questioning/changing the rules of the system is the only path that ends up helping everyone. (And the more I hear the word "unsustainable," the more I see a POV that is purely ideological.)

Actually, it's not just a matter of discrimination. It's a matter of failed communication as much as anything. These people had no idea how the Dutch people work and how to fit in. Discrimination is only part of it.

So it's entirely up to them to know how the Dutch people work and how to fit in? No Dutch people need to make any effort to work with them? That's where the discrimination comes in - someone is at a disadvantage for a particular reason, and the people who lack that disadvantage don't account for it.

Anyway, my point is that they do not have a disability because they are from a different culture. It's two different things with somewhat similar outcomes. Comparisons like this are actually pretty bad because of how it fails to account for people dealing with both issues - say, being both autistic and an immigrant.

Like being black in Mississipi, 1951, or homossexual in may parts of the world.

Reading your profile, it says "Have Aspergers - Undiagnosed"; what makes you think that you have AS if you don't feel impaired?

That's the weird thing. Because AS is defined by behaviors instead of the underlying cognitive style, it can seem to vary for all sorts of reasons - mood, sickness, expectations of the environment, making an effort to conform, etc - even when nothing has changed in the person's thinking style.

Obviously, you were sick. But I suspect your gut issues had nothing to do with your AS - they just caused physical and emotional stress, and you reacted in an autistic way to that. Now that you're eating right for your gut issues, you are freed up to let the real you shine.

Now, whether your gut issues were related to AS is another question. There are a lot of people with gut issues, many of whom aren't on the spectrum. But it's possible that it's more common among autistics, in which case I suspect it's kind of like heart defects for Down Syndrome. DS primarily causes a different cognitive style. In those cases where DS kids have heart defects, lack of energy may slow their development, but they still have the DS cognitive style even after they get heart surgery. The relationship is that both the DS cognitive style and the heart defect are caused by the same thing - the extra chromosome.



Can't speak for him, but my impression is that many autistics see it as an identity more than a disorder, kind of like coming out as gay. Imagine a bisexual person who has a long-term opposite-sex partner, and no intention of cheating on or leaving that partner, but still comes out as bisexual because he/she sees it as an important part of who he/she is.

Personally I say I'm disabled, but I don't have a disorder. Disorder implies there's some 'order' that my brain is supposed to have and I don't have it, like a broken machine. I'm not a broken machine, I'm a different kind of machine. A Mac instead of a PC, that sort of thing.

But disabled, to me, means you lack certain skills that society assumes everyone has, and the lack of those skills means needing accomodations most people don't get. There are several skills I lack:

I have no sense of time.

I can't tune out annoying or irrelevant sounds.

I don't notice subtle nonverbal signals from most people.

I can't use external motivation as a replacement for a lack of internal motivation.

I can't keep track of all the things I'd need to keep track of if I lived alone, such as laundry and meals and keeping the place clean.

I can't clean up certain kinds of messes due to OCD and sensory sensitivities.

I'm sure there are others I can think of. But another point - I don't want a cure for my autism. My best friend doesn't want a cure for her cerebral palsy, either, even though it means she uses a motorized wheelchair and has difficulty using her hands. Both of us just want to be accepted and given accomodations so we can succeed.

Another thing to remember is that you're only considered disabled if you lack skills that society assumes everyone has. If you lack skills that many other people lack, that doesn't count. I can't fix my own car like my Dad can, but most people can't fix their own cars, so we have mechanics you can hire. You don't have to give them a doctor's note saying you have a disability that makes it difficult for you to fix a car. They don't act like they're giving you special help by fixing your car. They just fix it. and hopefully do a good job. There are many skills that our essential for our society to function as it does, but which only a few people have. Everyone else gets accomodations for those skills as a matter of course.