Psychology Today: Biased Asperger's Article!

Post Reply New Topic

I thought you implied it, my mistake.



Is it just genetics that makes us who we are or is it something more like a soul? The thing is though to me it's not as simple as cure vs non-cure. What I want, what I desire is simply to understand the nature of things and existence itself. If altering my genetics to experience different states can enable me to obtain better truths about life, existence and other things then I have to make the journey. For me, it isn't about autism rights anymore it is understanding the why behind it all.

Look at Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. No system can be complete or consistent. If I am to understand more, I have to have a greater self. Do you understand my reasoning?



Maybe it could but does it absolutely have to? What if one could be something better and greater than your current self? If one could discover better truths and achieve enlightenment why would one reject this? Why reject the chance to understand the fullness of existence itself? I don't get it. If we could discover greater truths outside of ourselves why reject this? How do you conclude what you conclude? Imagine this: humanity gets to a point that not only is genetic engineering possible but maybe we would truthfully be able to manipulate the human genome on the subatomic level and even on the quark level. Maybe we can reach Technological Singularity. I want to be better than my current self. I want to know and understand more.



Why not take this "cure" and transform it into doing something even greater for humanity. Imagine if humanity as a whole could achieve technological singularity, love and peace and get to greater truths about itself and existence. Sweetleaf, can you not see the possibilities are endless.



Maybe, but I hope not. I just see so many possibilities though that are wonderful with genetic engineering. It could lead us to an understanding and prosperity never seen before. Metaphorically, Prometheus stole fire from the gods. Maybe it is time we pay Prometheus back and liberate him from the gods.

The article suggests that employers might start looking for strengths that are perceived as peculiar to autistics and try to exploit them.
I think we have something to offer to the community, people just haven't figured out how to appreciate it yet.

I think we do as well.

I am surprised people on the spectrum are even offended. Many of them are unemployed. Even temple Gradin has said the same too. Those who are not unemployed are either very high functioning or mild or have overcome a lot of their traits or it was luck. Good for them. I have held down a job and have been working since I was 18 and have been at my current job for four years now.

Well, I would love to be able to get rid of my worst traits and keep my better traits. If I can get to greater truths and a better understanding of life and existence and genetic engineering can help me why would I reject it? If it would enable me to live my life in a noble and virtuous manner I would use genetic engineering in a heartbeat on myself. If it can enable me to help other people out in the world why would I reject it? There are so many people out in the world in abject poverty and this bothers me and the callousness and cruelty of some people in our country bother me. If I can help people by being genetically engineered why reject this opportunity?

If anyone tries curing me I'll cure them of their need for kneecaps and feet. Eyelids too.

Though I can understand that some people on the spectrum might want (or at least think they want) a cure if such a thing existed. Who would I be to deny them of that?

Equally - the idea of someone sampling an unborn foetus for 'defects' and making a decision to either gestate or flush horrifies me... but I'm not a parent nor will I ever carry a child in my belly. Who am I to even have an opinion on the matter?

Stoopid article BTW.

What the f***!?

The employment issue may very well be true, but that's not what makes the article offensive.
For starters, I'm offended from an academic point of view-- the author claims he did "a lot of research preparing." Then he claims this extensive research amounted to basically hanging around some autistic people for a few hours, reading the wikipedia entry on autism (yes the only named written resource was wikipedia), and name dropping some vague "widely cited article" by Temple Grandin. Said research wouldn't fly in a middle-school paper let alone someone posing as an expert on any subject. The fact that the author has a doctorate from UC Berkeley with such poor research habits astounds me and makes me sad for the college.

Second, replace every mention of autism or asperger's with "black" or "latino" or any other minority-- how well would the article be received? Here's some examples of how condescending it would sound when we replace aspergers/autism with a minority (replacement in brackets []):
"They [Blacks] may have unusual habits such as scavenging through garbage cans to bring home used food scraps."
"If [Latinos] can do a reasonable car wash, many customers may prefer that carwash because it's a painless way of helping less-fortunate people."
"Perhaps before too long, a prevention or cure?perhaps some sort of gene therapy--will allow [Asians] to fully use their gifts."
"While all disability is sad to see, I?m particularly moved by the plight of [women].They are usually intelligent, kind, and eager, yet an accident of fate too often relegates them to a life of dependency."

Finally, as a typical NT he fails to see the larger picture. According to the author the most an autistic should hope for is washing cars, or maybe if we're really super lucky we could do data entry (yay for the self-esteem boost), since we lack social skills. That right there is the problem, not some BS claim of "disability", but the fact that autistics do not fit into social expectations. For virtually any job out there I would be willing to bet there's an autistic that could do it, and a lot of jobs an autistic could do better than an NT, but good luck getting the opportunity to prove it when social convention trumps actual skills, abilities, work ethic, and focus. The work problem generally isn't in any work related disability that an autistic has, it's the fact that an autistic makes the neurotypicals in the work environment feel awkward themselves.

The article did seem a bit under-researched. Most of the evidence is anecdotal - I especially liked the claim that an autistic is more likely to accidently blow up a building.
But with regard to the social aspect of working, this is not the only thing that causes me to struggle in the workplace. There are also other elemts like lighting and sound. The cacophony of beeps and music did me in at one job as a cashier. I was capable of working the cash, but the conditions made it impossible for me to think clearly.

Trouble is if you replace autism/aspergers with racial groups it does not make any sense in those contexts....even so some of it seems a little inaccurate, like the foraging through the garbage can as that is not common as far as I know....but there probably are autistic people that do that, so yeah not the best written article but its not really saying anything that's completely untrue or inaccurate. Also the article says a lot of autistics who end up employed only end up able to do more simple work.....which is true some of us might have technical skills or talents and would do better with more complex work, but the majority of people on the spectrum who struggle with employment don't have those sorts of skills and talents and are only able to do lower level work...again not sure where that is inaccurate since it doesn't say no autistic people can handle more complex work just that the majority seem unable to.

Also there is plenty of evidence to suggest a lot of trouble getting work is directly related to the disability of autism...sure there are problems with social expectations and what not that need to be fixed so maybe autistic people would have a better chance at success instead of society holding them back because they don't interact 'normally'....but things like executive dysfunction, sensory issues, processing difficulties can also get in the way of working even if the job does accommodate the lack of social skills.

Forget qualifiers, did the author outright lie? No, he did not. But he gave a completely biased one-sided account of autism using the most shocking examples he could find, that in effect makes the entire article inaccurate and untrue.

My use of racial minorities is the fact that autistics should in fact look at themselves as such-- a minority. We're different, that doesn't mean we're inferior. Example: I'm overly sensitive to light and prefer to be in dim lit places, that being said my vision is so acute to light that I can navigate on even the darkest of nights. I'm also sensitive to repetitive sounds, like the hum of a motor, a drip from a sink, etc. It drives me crazy. If I were a plumber I bet you I could find a leak before the homeowner even told me he/she had one. It doesn't mean I'm inferior it just means I have a different set of natural skills. I was born this way, I'm not inferior, I'm just different, same as any minority group out there. You saw how racist those quotes sounded with race replacing autism right? Well its the same thing, the author is creating a negative stereotype of an entire group of people based on a few anecdotes from a few people.

I also disagree that the best we can hope for in life is some menial job. In the appropriate setting a lot of autistics can excel, even those that don't have "savant" type qualities. The problem is they never get the chance because most employers (also mostly NTs) have a single litmus test day 1-- how well do you fit in? Don't fit in, not worth my time to keep you on payroll to figure out how to help you adapt. It should be noted I'm not saying every autistic could do any job out there, but I am saying that there's something for a lot of autistics if given the chance and appropriate setting.

ha! he's getting lambasted in the comments on the article--he responded to the criticisms with this comment:

my favourite part is the end where he threatens that our comments make people more likely to be afraid of us and think we might go on a shooting spree or something if employers fire us for being autistic. also where he asks us to thank him for being a condescending ablist w*ker who devoted so much time and research (he looked aspergers up on wikipedia) to writing this wonderful article for us. unbelievable.

Yeah I guess you do have a point....it is true a lot of times autistics are not given the chance to succeed or excell at something that maybe they could do with the right support and environment. I mean it could be the reason why a lot of autistics don't remain employed for long periods of time is its assumed they can only do menial work...so they maybe get bored and discouraged with that kind of work and end up quitting only to end up un-employed and most organizations to help mentally disabled people find work mostly hooks them up with menial labor....which maybe is a better fit for some people but certainly not all with autism.

I guess with the way stuff is currently set up much of the time sets it up to where menial labor almost seems the only option...because of all the social connections supposedly required for a lot of jobs....but I don't agree with it being that way, just seems it does reflect how things are in society at the moment.

Where is the job finding advice in the article in the first place?

What a disturbing thing for him to say. I think this is perhaps the most offensive statement of the whole debacle.

i've never read psychology today, but i thought it was a supposedly respected publication. i have changed my opinion about the magazine accordingly, if this is the sort of crap they publish.

makes one wonder where these people get their PhDs--in all his years of schooling, did he not learn to do proper (read: thorough) research on a subject before writing about it and purporting to be informed on it?

and the arrogance (and rudeness) of his response to people WHO THEMSELVES HAVE THE CONDITION HE IS WRITING ABOUT who are trying to tell him he's misinformed--i hope this fellow's chums in academia (if he has any) shun him, as they should, for being an ignorant fool (and a jerk to boot).