Mini-Rant: Disability vs. Ability

Post Reply New Topic

I've seen plenty of people on WP since I've been here who seem very highly intelligent. I am not one of them. LOL

I think it would be a better idea if I stopped focusing on the number/whatever and focused on just doing what I'd like to do, without the baggage of am/am I not smart.

Rambling, I need sleep.

Based on your written text you seem smart to me.

One is "identified" by what they show the world. If you want to be identified as something, show that thing. If you don't want to be known as "the {boy/girl} with autism" then introduce yourself as the person with the passion/skill you want people to see.

Not meaning to sound harsh, but if you're "fed up" with being "identified" as something, then stop using that thing as "the most prominent part of you that others see" - it's not their fault for seeing what you're showing.

I'm not a guy with ASD. I'm an owner of an awesome dog, a key member of my workplace, a go-to-guy for creative solutions that nobody else would have thought of, I'm a database of films and history. I just happen to have some psychological and physiological differences, but I don't advertise them; nor do I hide them.

I do not completely agree with this.

People with any disability are not just "free" to pursue what they are good at. They need assistance in learning how to overcome their deficits in order to pursue their strengths.

Lets say that developing an area of strength is like driving down a highway. Someone with a disability has something wrong with the car, so either it can't go as fast or it is hard to steer, etc. Or, as he/she suddenly hits a roadblock while driving along.

Assistance should help the person to overcome or decrease hindrances to pursuing strengths. Maybe the car can't get completely fixed, but it can get easier to drive. Maybe the roadblock can't be completely cleared, but enough can be taken away so that the car can drive slowly past it.

We are not talking about obstacles to meeting goals that are common to everybody, such as a lack of money. The problems with the car or the roadblocks are due to something in the very core of our being.

Assistance should very much include "strength training" because if one is left to his/her own, he/she will not be able to figure out how to get around these problems. Looking at strengths will help the therapist/counselor to anticipate what kinds of roadblocks might come about in that area of strength.

I also think that a *great deal* of encouragement is needed to help someone see that their strength is truly a strength, to give him/her confidence to go in that direction. If one feels beaten down by by their disability, how much more he/she needs a boost to overcome it.

I might say more later if I have time.

And this is precisely why they focus on the roadblocks AKA disabilities. This is why you don't get a diagnosis if your severity does not require assistance.

I don't disagree with you, but I think I may not have expressed myself clearly.


And every good therapist will do this. But does this mean the diagnosis should focus the strength when it is the roadblock that is the defining characteristic of the problem?

Why is the diagnostic process focused on the disability. The answer is because you can't design a proper therapy unless you have identified the problem

I agree. Strength training is incredibly important. But the role of the person doing the identifying will dictate whether ability or disability is the identifier.

Livnah writes this above:



That ^ works very well when one is not seeking assistance. In fact, in the above example the poster is actually the one giving assistance ("creative solutions"). If you are seeking assistance, the one giving it needs an identifier that focuses on the weakness, not the strength. Otherwise, what exactly are they assisting with? But then, identifying strengths and using those strengths to address the weaknesses is the best strategy.

If not looking for assistance, livnah's advice is definately words to live by.


Personal example : I am horrible at math (now called dyscalcula, but it wasn't called that when I was a kid) but I am good with words. I routinely failed to understand and solve math problems as a kid and failed math classes. I would have failed grades entirely but managed to eke out the lowest possible "still passing" grades. At the time, special ed help was only for kids with global mental retardation or reading difficulties such as dyslexia, neither of which I had. Teachers and my parents gave me some limited help but the whole concept of dyscalcula as a learning disability didn't yet exist so the help was very limited and usually ended with "try harder" (everybody here knows that refrain).

I appealed to other kids for help which weirdly enough they were able to give me (so I could pass, just barely) far better than the adults. Perhaps it was because they had only recently understood it so "how to wrap your head around this" was still fresh in their minds and they could explain it in shared kid language. "The girl who really sucks at math" was my identifier and that's how it had to be for them to even know how to help me. As an adult I just carry around a calculator and am surrounded by calculators embedded in computers so I can live the livnah way and nobody ever need identify me as "the girl who really sucks at math" unless I suddenly need to do math in the absence of available calculators (it happens sometimes).

I guess the good news for the OP is that the older you get, the more opportunities you have to be defined primarily by your ability since you can choose to put yourself in situations where your ability is important ("go-to guy for creative solutions" in livnah's example). But as Adamantium says, if you need assistance, other people need to know why and what type, so then the disability comes to the forefront.

Totally agree with this Janissy--you have conveyed the ideas I was hoping to express in my earlier post.

I both agree and disagree with the above... If you're struggling with something, it's your choice to explain why you're struggling. Does one need to say "I have difficulties with this because I have Autism"?

If one needs assistance with something that's related to a disability, the disability doesn't need to be at the forefront. You could turn your ability to ask for help (which MANY people, both AS and NT have difficulty with) into your asset.

Why not just say, "I'm having trouble with understanding this, can you help me learn it by showing me it another way"? In such a statement there's nothing bringing a disability to the forefront at all.

This makes me think about a kind of non-specific disclosure suggested by Tony Attwood. He suggested that instead of saying "I am autistic and therefore have problem X which needs some accomodation" you say "I am the sort of person who has difficulty with X. Maybe there is a way that we can do [whatever you need to do] so that X isn't a problem?" Then you are working around the disability without making it a defining characteristic. Of course, this would only be appropriate in some contexts.

It depends on the assistance being sought. Some assistance (government financial assistance, for example) will require not just a statement of autism but documentation of the diagnosis.



You wouldn't have to name the disability as such, but you will have to bring that part of the disability that is causing problems to the forefront. Just saying "I'm having trouble with understanding this, can you help me learn it by showing me it another way"? can get you the wrong help if you don't specify why you are having trouble understanding it. In many cases, saying "autism" probably would also bring the wrong kind of help too, but the specifics of the disability relevant to the problem have to be said.

For example, if it's hard to understand because the instructions aren't fully spelled out and contain ambiguities, the person helping you needs to know that is the problem, otherwise they might give you different but equally ambiguous instructions or might think you need drawings rather than words but drawings can be even more ambiguous. The word "autism" doesn't have to be said but a generic "teach differently" request doesn't say why there's a problem with the current method and what needs to change.

Agreed on all points; the basis of my last comments merely were, only name a disability (or even imply one) if it's DIRECTLY relevant - otherwise it's extraneous information that will only work against your goal of being labelled "disabled".

One doesn't have to "name" the disability unless it will be to one's advantage.

Saying you have Asperger's in a working environment, for the most part, is a pretty useless exercise--unless you're in a field where there's lots of Aspies--like computer programming.

People, in general, often do not have much idea about autism/Asperger's--except ideas which are disseminated in the mainstream media (most of which are reflective of a glaring lack of knowledge).

A glaring example: On a nationally-televised show, a moderately autistic person was having a meltdown. It was apparent that he had abilities which indicated potential. This person's mother held the autistic person down (during the meltdown) while saying, "This is autism." She didn't state that the exhibition of the autistic person's abilities was also "autism."

Yes, it will be more effective if you focus on doing what you want to do instead of the IQ number.
Most smart people doing cool things dont' even know what their IQ number.
You are right that abilities should be recognized and emphasized.
It is also important to use abilities, and focusing on doing what you want to do is the best way to use your intelligence for your own and others' benefit.