Poll: Are those that are unaware more successful?

Post Reply New Topic

I am also inclined to agree with this paragraph written by Temple Grandin, (sourced from an article of hers in Autism Asperger’s Digest | January/February 2008)

I have often thought that people on the mild end of the Asperger spectrum may have fit in better years ago than they do today. An eccentric stone mason who designed a cathedral would be admired for his work. A brilliant scientist who preferred the company of mice to humans might have been considered eccentric, but not necessarily labeled socially dysfunctional. In many ways, today’s “always connected” society has put more social demands on people, and a lack of social ability may be seen as more of a handicap than in the past.

I said no such thing nor implied the argument of labels.

That was brought up by others in this thread.

I was simply talking about whatever your society/cultures expectations were for a 'normal' person to achieve.

And yes, I do think most societes have certain expectations they place on people to fulfill to be considered of an 'average' level of success.

A basic example that I provided is there are certain ages in certain nations where it is considered unacceptable to still be living at home and being a 'burden' (in the eyes of society) on your parents, etc.

I'm just suggesting, if you think you are 'normal', you're more likely to believe you have to live up to being 'normal'.

There's far less pressure in life if you're well-aware you're disabled and very sure you can get on your countries disability benefit from social security, than thinking you're 'normal' and would just be 'sucking off the system' if you don't try to be 'normal'.

Australia in partciular has an awful stereotype, 'dole-bludgers' for the unemployed and doesn't take into account individual cases.

Anyway, I'd think if I was undiagnosed I'd be job-seeking right now, or already be attending university. Instead, I'm going through all the legal hoops to get onto disability first. Currently on a 1 month 'exception for looking for work' on grounds that my condition is too severe to work.

But, if you want me to join in on the label debate, who's to say aspies don't get the exact same lables anyway even by those that ARE aware of their diagnosis?

I think it depends on many factors like personality, intelligence, family background, how parents raised you, and many more whether someone will become conventionally successful as adult. Knowing diagnosis may hold back someone who has low motivation to be independent adult, but may also help someone else who has high motivation. There could be increased push to succeed from someone in their own minds becuase they don't know of diagnosis and think of themselves as normal and must succeed, or they do know and think of themselves as autistic and must succeed. Parents might be more lenient knowing diagnosis. Parents may be too pushy not knowing diagnosis. Both could work against a person growing up. Too many factors and interaction of such, I can't say in general whether knowing or not knowing is better.

"I have often thought that people on the mild end of the Asperger spectrum may have fit in better years ago than they do today. An eccentric stone mason who designed a cathedral would be admired for his work. A brilliant scientist who preferred the company of mice to humans might have been considered eccentric, but not necessarily labeled socially dysfunctional. In many ways, today’s “always connected” society has put more social demands on people, and a lack of social ability may be seen as more of a handicap than in the past.[/i]"[/quote]

What a nice unrealistic dream. Let me suggest that Temple didn't know what it was like to grow up unsupported.

Without huge family support the launch of a career for someone (who would have been labeled as "touched" or "weak minded" or some such) to become a cathedral designer or "famous" scientist (especially in medieval days) is highly unlikely. At least it was never in the cards for me.

I grew up in the forties and "weak minded" kids could be put "somewhere" else, for "their own good. I was always on the quiet and introverted side and almost never violent as I recall. This is what kept me at home and just "out of sight" while family continued with day-to-day business. But, although I was at home, no socialization or comprehension occurred.

After testing was pointed out to me, on this site, I tested and it was obvious I'd found the "unknown" I'd lived with my entire 69 years.

I don't think applying a label to me in the '40s and '50s would have made a difference then because there were no programs to "help" at the time. Reading of the terrible struggles some members have had with government and other authority types makes me wonder if any "help" would have been a boon at all. Some of this so called "help" these days is full of misunderstanding. It certainly seems as though very little has been learned of ASD or accomplished in the 73 years of my life span.

During WWII it was all about ending the war and bringing "our fighting men" back home. I doubt any widely accepted "revelation" at this time would have made a difference. It was all about keeping your "nose to the grindstone" to succeed and this is what I did. I worked harder and longer and more accurately than anyone else. I felt there was a disparity that could make a boss favor an NT (didn't know the term them) so I made up for it with dedication, loyalty and very hard work, and always looked for more to do. This is what usually kept me employed while other, perhaps as intelligent but less dedicated, NTs got shown the door.

I've been very lucky.

Not wholly unrealistic perhaps - TG may have been thinking about scientists like Dirac, and Einstein - who were certainly not conventionalists. Einstein's abandonment of his wife and children was a very shocking act at that time, (people forget I think that Einstein was born in the 19th, not 20th century) and it could be said that he epitomised Tony Attwood's observation of the Asperger commitment to truth rather than social convention.. I too grew up 'totally unsupported' (in more ways than one) and even the giftedness was a double edged sword, as it was a magnet for bullies..

I was diagnosed when I was 8 and sometimes I wish I had have been diagnosed in high school.

Before 8th grade, I wasn't really aware that I was autistic at all. I mean I knew I had Aspergers but I was never aware of what it truely was you know what I mean?

Then in 8th grade when I went to Junior High School, they put me in a room full of other autistic kids and at first I thought it was some sort of punishment because I had broken some s**t and ran away from the cops in 7th grade but it was because I was autistic. 8th grade was the year I learned what autism and aspergers truely was and I hated it. I read books about how we're losers, I saw other autistic kids my age getting bullied and made fun of and I thought since I was autistic just like them, then that's how others must see me too. I wanted to get out of that room so bad. As an early teenager, you care A LOT about what others think about you and I was no exception. 2008 and 2009 were some of the worst years of my life. I did good in school because they promised to me that if I made good grades and showed I didn't need help, i'd be out of that room by the second semester but they lied to me. All that hard work for nothing. I remember the last day of 8th grade and the final bell rang, I was running through the halls shouting freedom and hallelujia at the top of my lungs because I had finally gotten out of that s**t hole called Junior High, I guarantee you there were few in that school that hated that year more than I did.


I also hate how I can qualify for certain things all because i'm autistic without them even knowing me. I was in this program for a couple of years that basically gives you a job but you get paid by the program instead of the actual job. I mean yeah, it's always nice when things are handed to you but on the other hand when everything is given to you and then all of a sudden it's cut off, you're f****d. Plus they didn't think I could get a job on my own, but here I am working outside of the program. Also when I turned 18, my "case manager" along with my parents suggested that I get SSI and looking back, I take that as a big insult. It's because i'm autistic so they don't ever give me a chance. Because they don't believe in me. I was happy I didn't qualify.


Hey listen, I will take help when I feel like I need help but when they are putting me on programs when I haven't even been given a chance all because i'm autistic, no I won't put up with that. f**k dem haters.

Hi B19.

" I too grew up 'totally unsupported' (in more ways than one) and even the giftedness was a double edged sword, as it was a magnet for bullies.."

Bullies never like to see people they think below them, get ahead. What memories we have.

But Dirac and Einstein both were obvious exceptions and both were ultimately supported and advanced by their families. I wonder how many older aspies were supported to that extent, from birth, by their families, as I understand TG was. How often will this happen today? I know there are psychologists by the bushel load but are there families that will support their children such as Einstein was supported? I've not heard of such discussion on this forum. Can any of our present top scientists or theoreticians fit the bill (no actors please)?

Interesting point. I have often wondered about Stephen Hawking. The popular focus on his physical disability obscures the observations made about him as a person by the people who knew him best, citing his less than beguiling personality (as it appeared to others) and its impacts on others, particularly his first wife. Hawking was very well supported by his family of origin who held high hopes for him. He is unconventional in so many ways, innovative scientifically, cares little for what other people think of the choices in his personal life, and also fits Attwood's observation about truth being a greater value than social convention for the gifted Aspergers group. Because of his prowess in physics I know/suspect that there will be people who react with oh now he couldn't possibly be because he is so successful - as if HFAs with genius level intelligence can't be successful. That view is nonsense to me, and seems more expressed by younger members here than the wrinkly ones like me.

I think that whether or not early diagnosis is more beneficial than later diagnosis depends entirely on the individual + context.

I also think that it is not necessarily an "either or" type of thing (e.g. one is unquestionably better than the other) -- both late and early diagnosis may have theoretical drawbacks and benefits for a given individual.

Perhaps, looking at the example of Einstein?

I think it was obvious Einstein was not diagnosed nor did he have the ministrations of a psychologist. And yet, with the full support of his family he prospered and developed his abilities unimpeded (except by his own eccentricities).

Do you think this outcome would have been as likely if early in his life he had had psychologists, special teachers or special schools and programs tailored to his "abilities?" Or do you think the better choice would have been to eschew the modern services (should they have been available) and rely on innate ability and family support?

P.S. I know little of the effectiveness of modern services.

What if people with milder issues are less likely to get diagnosed early? In earlier times only people with speech delays and/or severe social issues would tend to get diagnosed, and those people might be less likely to function well in adulthood.

I really can't answer this poll properly. I didn't discover Asperger's until a few years ago. As such, I did have a sort of successful life, but I took on way too much. I started having issues because I was taking on too much, and eventually just shut down. If I had known that I had limitations NT's don't have, I wouldn't have taken on nearly as much as I did, and expecting as much out of myself as I did.

In short, I feel that I would have had a more successful life if I had known I was HFA and not taken on so much.

Kind of what I was getting at.

Let's say you were Einstein. And although you liked to play with ideas you had trouble
in school, especially in Math class. And then someone runs a bunch of tests and it's
found you are autistic. Would this validate your poor performance in Math? Would this
trigger you to not take on big problems? How would you ever know if you didn't try?

If you know you are "disabled" or if you do not know you are "disabled",
* in both cases, you encounter exactly the same difficulties,
* in both cases, you can choose to make efforts or not,
(this doesn't depend on knowing it or not, i think that it depends more on your personality)

What really makes a difference is: if you are regarded as "disabled" or “different”.
If you only look at the apparent "symptoms", you see a disabled person. The difference in autism is not the apparent "symptoms", it is coming from inside. It is a fundamental difference in the way of thinking and functionning.
To my opinion, autism is not a "disability". It is a “disabling characteristic" (not necesseraly a "negative" characteristic).
Autism is disabling only
* because of NT misunderstanding and judging
* and because the social system is not based on that way of thinking and functionning.

May i add that autists are particularly allergic to lies...
And NT wonder if they should lie to them or not about something as important as their autism.
I would respond to those who decide to lie (for ANY reason) that this kind of lie will not be very much appreciated once discovered.

Isn't it more difficult to "learn the NT rules" while having only autists children around you?

I remember starting to understand the basic rules at school with other children (NT children). I was having big difficulties but it was an important learning, a learning which you do not again get the chance to experiment later, because children's rules are more basic and easier to understand than adults' (more hidden and elaborated).

The most affected autist in my family is my eldest grandson, and though he has survived and now thrives with good family support and encouragement (he is highly intelligent and gifted in a particular sport) I think the special ed system hampered rather than assisted him. We would never allow this again to any child in the family. Another grandson who is less affected is doing well in a private school (smaller classes, the best teachers) for which his parents are happy and able to pay the high fees. Yesterday I posted this (I wish we had done the same with my eldest grandson) and though I know one swallow doesn't make a Summer, it is a startling example of a gifted/disabled child who thrived on family support and bypassed the special ed system:

viewtopic.php?t=305211

The problem with special ed for these children is that it caters to their disablement while ignoring their giftedness.