Sending emails, getting no replies (and work in general)

Post Reply New Topic

I find a lot of organisations fail to reply to my emails. I always ensure I reply to emails, as this is something that would be logically expected of me. Do NT's have a much less caring attitude when it comes to this sort of thing?

I know when I was at work I was more meticilous about my tasks than others, yet i was bullied a lot, whilst others did not get the same sort of negative attention by others or the boss. If I had the same 'dont care' attitude as NT's would I actually get by in life better?

That happens to me sometimes.

Probably. But would you be able to live with yourself?

NT bullies usually target people who have integrity, who are ethical and honest, who strive to do their best, and who don't waste time engaging in small talk and gossip. This describes most Aspies.

I'm pretty good at replying to all my emails. I tend to feel annoyed if others don't return the compliment, though not so much these days as I used to. I very often won't contact a person at all if I think they might not reply. Other times I just think of it as a "message in a bottle" that may or may not get seen, and if I feel my hopes of a reply getting raised, I tend to deliberately focus on other things so I won't feel the disappointment so much if it doesn't happen.

The most recent example was the local council who sent me an erroneous demand for a whole year's tax to be paid at once (that's how they try to punish late payers, but they'd got the details wrong in my case, so it was invalid). I emailed them explaining their mistake, and continued to pay the usual monthly amount. Still no reply after 2 months - I've toyed with the idea of winding them up by asking them if they're bad losers or if it's just their usual blend of meanness, stupidity, coarse manners and cowardice, but I guess there's little sense in inviting contempt. Wouldn't look good in court, not that I think it'll come to that.

Don't know if it's an AS v. NT thing or not. I'm definitely sensitive to being pushed away or shunned by anybody. I use strategies to make it difficult for anybody to do that to me too pointedly. I'd make a lousy salesman.

I emailed one municipal department twice and got no reply, then a couple of years later got replies apologizing for the delay. It seems no one was checking that particular email address for a long while. I think that happens a lot with large organizations. I emailed a park recently with questions about trail conditions and haven't heard back either.

On the other hand, I had a supervisor who was so busy and had so much email that he simply screened out most of it and didn't read it. So I would have had to go to him in person (if I could find him) or ignore him and make my own decisions. I should have just made my own decisions, even though he did tell me to show something to him first before sending it out. That was a job I wasn't made permanent on.

Depending on what kind of organizations you are emailing, putting something into writing may have legal implications for them. From personal work experience I can confirm that what may seem like a harmless or even semi-jocular request to the writer of an email can be an existential threat to, say, a small listed company.

Also, when I used to apply for jobs I sometimes got the impression that I didn't receive replies to some of my applications. Not so - every company replied, but sometimes it took them up to two months to do so.

I guess back-covering is an inevitable source of confusion with business correspondence.

My first interview seemed to go well, apart from a very muddled part where this guy mentioned the length of my hair and mentioned that it didn't look very well combed (windy day, no hat). As he took me round the place he pointed out examples of guys of acceptable and unacceptable appearance. Later he suggested we might talk further on the phone about it.

It's hard to believe my naivete now, but I actually thought his vagueness was a good indication that he didn't much mind about long hair (it wasn't particularly long), and as I couldn't fathom what he wanted to talk aout on the phone, well he did say perhaps, so I simply didn't.

There was no letter from him for a week or so. When my youth employment officer phoned to find out why not, he said I was intelligent and receptive but my hair was too long. I think I'd have respected him better if he'd just told me that straight in the first place. Anyway, hope I've not gone too far off topic.

What kind of job was this, that he could legally discriminate against you for your hair?

I'm endlessly frustrated by the lack of replies to the resumes I send out. It would take thirty seconds for the HR person to shoot me an e-mail saying "Okay, I got it". Do they really receive so many applications that they can't do that?

This was around 1971 - a job in the research laboratories of English Steel. Since then there's been a lot more anti-discrimination legislation, though mosttly for ethic groups. They'd probably have to show a reason for a dress code, but the need to avoid scaring rich visitors would probably cut it. I'd agreed to wear safety gear to stop it getting caught in their machines. In those days it was accepted that most "white collar" jobs had a tight dress code. Anyway they went bankrupt while the employer who accepted me was still running when I moved city around 1985.

Back on topic, I think job hunters deserve timely feedback at every turn of an application. I was expecting a clean game I used to wait for the rejection before looking at another job. Soon realised employers weren't often so polite.

Yeh! Important people assume the right for instant attention, so every office (natch) is run by "important" people! So non important people, who turn up in person, are made to wait in line (as they are obviously "unimportant"')?

But what if a competing site discared a post like this:



--- On Thu, 2/10/08, gwynfryn thomas <[email protected]> wrote:

From: gwynfryn thomas <[email protected]>
Subject: Well you did ask! Will you now read the papers and try the test?
To: "Lisa Jo Rudy, About Guide to Autism" <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, 2 October, 2008, 11:35 AM

Good of you to reply, but we've already been through all this! If you bothered to check the links I gave you you would, for example, have read by now, papers like this:

A THEORY OF PERSONALITY BASED MAINLY ON PSYCHIATRIC EXPERIENCE -- ROSANOFF 77 (3): 417 -- American Journal of Insanity

(OK it looks like my link's been buggered, but if you just copy it into a google, it should work, or else go to "google science" and try something like "Aaron Rosanoff 1921", or "Theory of Personality" or similar; You CANNOT consider yourself even "knowledgeable" about autism until you've read this stuff!)

[http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/index.dtl

I just went to the page, and used right click and "copy link location" and it still isn't working (see above). If this seems mysterious to you, I'm well used to this kind of stuff; someone is working very hard to stop this paper (or anything by Aaron Rosanoff, who was a prolific writer, yet hardly anyone today has heard of him! He's as important to autism as Eugene Bleuler is to schizophrenia) being widely known.]


Which describes what autism really means, and it was written in 1921!

Read what Aaron Rosanoff observed re the autistic personality type, and you'll see why Kanner and Asperger borrowed the label to describe certain development disorders; the connection between autism and what is now described as AS (at least by the UK standard; that crap in DSMIV can include just about anyone!) is obvious, as is the apparent tendency to "introvert" (though "autism experts" seem unable to distinguish between chronic withdrawal, and reflection, indicating they are not themselves given to thinking deeply).

I've also pointed out previously that, from observation of the posted results of the Chandler and McLeod" 5 minute on-line" test (just a Mickey Mouse version of their full test, but very effective just the same:

http://chandlermacleod.com/cmbestfit/content/btw.cfm )

that most diagnosed "aspies" report an AE combination (i.e. a combination of Autistic, and Epileptoid personality strengths{sic}, suggesting their evident behavioural issues are the result of hybrid incompatibility, rather than autism as such; those who are predominantly autistic, are just "strange", and rarely get a clinical diagnosis. I took the full version of this test in 1981 {yes, long before anyone heard of Lorna Wing's garbage} and was reported as "very strongly autistic" as well as having a top1% IQ {in three out of four aspects; just top 2% in the other}, very strong on objectivity, analysis, rationality, etc...and off the scale for imagination and creativity, which Rosanoff associated exclusively with the autistic segment of personality, hence the aptitude for scientific thinking).

There have been lots of books by aspies associating their condition with many of the greats of science and philosophy, and with good reason; Newton, for instance is readily identified as such, but if you study Rosanoff's paper you'll soon discover (if you are capable of analysing what you find, without preconceptions; a fundamental requirement for anyone doing "science") that the connection with the autistic aptitudes (according to the original meaning of the term) is even stronger! Every worthwhile invention or new development in science or technology came, unmistakably, from autistic minds.

Start with A for Archimedes; his "Eureka" moment is now often portrayed as apochryphal, but that's just the establishment propoganda machine at work; it's a perfect example of how us autistics "obssess" over a problem, but also of how we know how to let go, so that our subconscious minds can go to work, unhampered by conscious control (a trick you "normals" can sometimes mimic by "sleeping on it"...but you never seem to understand why it works!). This is an esential technique for solving the most taxing problems, that only autistics seem able to deal with. The manner of his death is certainly not apochryphal, and just screams "autistic" (why don't you look it up?).

You can go through the alphabet and note at every turn how all these guys (not women; that's also a clue: autism as Extreme Male Brain) were a bit strange, loners, invariably despised by "authorities", never got rich, honest to the point of being "blunt", different thinking (which should be an obvious clue in itself; "normal" people do not routinely make scientific breakthroughs. This can only be done by people who do not think conventionally) etc et bloody cetra! Why can't you see this? When you report that evidence is scant; "There's a grain of truth in these myths - but just a grain", then what you are full of is not any understanding of what autism is about!

Let's deal with Mozart: OK, I wasn't a child prodigy on the violin, possibly because, at the age of seven, I'd never been in the same room as a viloin (let alone with anyone able or willing to teach me how to play one) but, when going to another house in my street, having been listening to a song on the radio, when I reached the next house (not so many radio stations to chose from back then) my mental humming of the tune would be on tempo, and at the same pitch (and I mean perfectly). I heard a girl in school whistling Jesu joy of man's desire, and years later, the first time I heard it played "properly", realised she'd whistled it note perfect (it didn't, at that time, occur to me as strange that I should be able to recall a tune so perfectly; for me it was perfectly normal). How about his response to the "...too many notes..." critisism? His "blunt" response, with total disregard to the fact his interlocuter could have had him dragged of and flogged (or hanged) is typically autistic! I don't know too much about Mozart's biography, but the characterisation in the film Amadeus must have been based on something, and when you recall that portrayal, you could be looking at me (except I'm taller, and better looking).

Einstein? Unmistakably autistic (and HFA); just google for the overwhelming evidence in his widely reported biography. Another clue is the effort being put in to deny the obvious (articles in unScientific American, several conflicting reports relating to his brain autopsy; the original reported just one "abnormality": denser than usual glial cels! Ring any bells?).

Galileo? He just didn't get it when his friend had to change into an orthodox thinker, on becoming pope (and he nearly lost his life as a result).

Pasteur? Had a habit of systematically drawing correct conclusions, irrespective of seemingly insufficient evidence (reminds me of me) which is again evidence of a subconscious mind being given free rein, and not just by accident.

J C Maxwell? Was frequently subjected to beatings by his head master, but for no clear reasons (me too!) yet was never expelled (ditto; with hindsight my head master hated me for having a mind of my own, which doesn't look good in a written report justifying an expulsion?) and went on to deduce the "most beautiful equations" of all time (to date) which even I can't understand (though I may have done, had I been made aware of them when younger).

Read Rosanoff's description of autism (as Bleuler, Kanner and Asperger understood it) and the biography of any great scientist, and the connection is evident, and understood by many of the movers and shakers in autism research; this is why adult autistics are positively excluded from not just employment in research, but also from being researched. Why else would every web page for an "autism" research centre display a message that positively exclude the self-diagnosed? Given the increasing stigma attached to "autism", why would any able intelligent adult seek to be so labelled, if they didn't already have good reason to think it applies? How would it hurt to examine such candidates? Why, in years of campaigning, has no one other than yourself expressed any interest in my views. Why have my offers to submit to a brain scan all been ignored?

Why do you print lies about a scarceness of evidence, when the evidence is overwhelming?


--- On Wed, 1/10/08, Lisa Jo Rudy, About Guide to Autism <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Lisa Jo Rudy, About Guide to Autism <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: About Autism / Spectrum Disorders: A New Voice on Autism and Vaccines
To: [email protected]
Date: Wednesday, 1 October, 2008, 10:29 PM


um... ok. what are you objecting to, and why? or are you just angry in general?



Lisa Jo Rudy
About.com Guide to Autism Spectrum Disorders
http://autism.about.com

Sign Up For Free Newsletters and E-Courses


www.About.com
About.com is part of The New York Times Company

-----Original Message-----
From: gwynfryn thomas [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 3:47 PM
To: Lisa Jo Rudy - About.com Autism / Spectrum Disorders Guide
Subject: Re: About Autism / Spectrum Disorders: A New Voice on Autism and Vaccines


I just read this: from Lisa Jo Rudy
What is Asperger syndrome? Is it true that children with AS are like "little professors," while adults are like Mozart or Einstein? There's a grain of truth in these myths - but just a grain.

You are so full of s**t!

I think that sometimes it is that people simply get crossed wires or even see emails, letters, etc as an 'existential threat'. However what i would like to do is get to the bottom of this, is is more of an NT thing to be much less caring about input/output in the work place than for people who a re auties or apsies?

That is why I asked asubsidairy question - whether NT's were less bothered about the quality of their output? Perhaps when they bully one of us it is because we are a threat to their 'incompleteness?' They know they are not good but we show them up unwittingly and demonstrate to others that they are not worthy of their position in a job - so perhaps they is why they resort to bullying- because it then shows others that perhaps you or I are not doing somethign right and therefore shouldnot even be in that job.

Really the two questions should be in separate topics, both are very interesting to discuss,and it would also be important to discuss how people like us can get crossed wires or have simple misunderstandings, such as those form Lisa Jo Rudy. I have been to important meetings where aspies met to discuss their rights and there were lots of disagreements, it was very difficult for anyone to see on the same level. Perhaps in the end, all of us being human, have some incorrigibility? As Nietzsche would have said, we are "human, all too human!"