ASAN vs. Autism Speaks

Post Reply New Topic

Here is a interim song for enjoyment.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1eOi_RsKWo[/youtube]

Does it need to?

This statement in and of itself has a huge implied value judgment. What guarantee do elections offer to the optimization of outcomes? It can be argued that the leadership of a few unelected individuals is far more effective than an elected board.

It seems to me that debating the structure of the various advocacy organizations is the wrong tack. The important question, and the one that is yet unresolved, is the exact nature of optimal outcomes. For some this means the elimination of autism from the genome. For others it is the polar opposite. I would be more interested in your ideas of optimums than in a discussion on the merits and deficiencies of ASAN and Autism Speaks.

In public relations ASAN as an organization is a risk to itself. As an organization Autism Speaks like other organizations is a risk for it's own behaviors. No organization is perfect. However in self-advocacy groups it is especially at risk due to a lack of collective say. That's what I've learned after 8 years of observing groups and I have devised a model I am going to impliment to prevent risks.

Optimal outcomes can be another post and is part of my free consult service and is based on the general public and advocacy approach. Given unique and macro histologies of other movements and the success of other groups I can do assessments.

This sounds like a plug for your services. But I'm ASD and as such typically inept at interpreting intent. Start another thread?

Everyone seems to have services as a form of free speech. I don't charge money it is volunteer as a service to the community. Anyone that has an opinion does the same even Ari writes articles as the president of ASAN so he offers a self-advocacy service but seems to exclude in those articles, the general website and the company philosophy diverse opinion. That's the risk and not being a human and having opinion.

Intents can be hard but psychosocial histology can be used as I believe ASAN has in strategy but can also be used in the wrong and right ways.

This is an informal conversation. "Services" implies something of entirely different nature. I am not particularly interested in the psychosocial histology of ASAN or Autism Speaks. I am interested in how people define optimal outcomes. Perhaps a conversation for another day.

I am not specifically speaking of ASAN or Autism Speaks but sociology in general. As for services here where I live my organization must provide a service because other organizations use funding for profits hindering optimal outcomes. Also budgets are crashing and to include people and help adaptation innovation is needed. I am not allowed to profit from service based government funding. It's deemed an ethical conflict of interest and risk to outcomes. If you were speaking in context to my strategy where I live it is usually five or more steps ahead as a preservation instinct.

I am not speaking of yours, nor any other organization's, strategy. A strategy is for implementing an already formulated idea. I am more interested in the formation of those ideas and seeing some consensus coalesce around the meaning of 'optimal outcome'. Without a common goal, concerted harmonious effort is impossible. Every wants an optimal outcome. There is not yet enough agreement on just what that means. Strategy is pointless if everyone is pointing in different directions.

Then I'd be happy to help with this. I've devised a generic and encompassing sponsored employment inclusion framework for community based organizing. I am mass mailing chapters of ASA with in in a week. One of my people I employ that has a disability like me has already stamped and hand written the envelopes. This is a good start on my end.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qit3ALTelOo[/youtube]

This helps in giving a hint of what you consider an optimal outcome, but it does not speak to consensus.

I will view the video later. I have limited access from where I am.

Optimal can be an item of ethics. Happiness is optimal and in another view self-sufficiency is. I cannot denote an absolute of optimal just perceptions, macro causals and the influences thereof given histology and interactive experimentation with with the governing collective dynamic on the micro level. It is not an absolute science but studying possibility can induce better probabilities. We need context for this conversation however I must go work now and will be back this evening to reply.

Nathan Young

ci, is on a different planet than me. I honestly cannot track all the divergences in this thread.

Here is the "NET" of ASAN from my observation of a few weeks. ASAN is of the people and by the people. The "people" in this case are of various disabilities but largely low functioning with respect to the levels of functioning that exists at CEO levels of major corporationss. ASAN meetings in this area are a place for people affected by ASD (autism and aspergers, pdd-nos, etc) to get together, meet similar other people and discuss issues. The results of these meetings are usually more social than productive in nature as we are always catering to the disabilities in the meetings.

There are a few "division heads" or "leaders/spokespeople" who do go out and speak for their areas and appear more normal, but even these guys are fairly largely not of the same caliper of folk who sit on the board of an organization such as Autism Speaks. Look at the founders of that organization and tell me how many people in the world (NT or ASD) are in that sort of power and knowledge. In my mind the two organizations are 100% differing while creating similar products. Similar to Dell and Asus. ASAN is more like Asus. It is a product by the people and for the people with very limited funding and struggling to take off. Autism speaks is like Dell. Has the name brand, the company structure, clear agenda, etc. It is the "power" in the game.

Ci's company can be compared to all the little "Mom and Pop" ODM type shops that are all over the world doing their thing.

The point is that all of them can exist and even peacefully coexist. In a business sense, one cannot really exist without the other and they compliment each other.

Don't understand why any of them have to be "understood" or called out.

My organization is not like a mom and pop. The point is if a collective expression is not being made it is not as powerful as a message. The same is true with Autism Speaks as an organization. Organizations of diversity empowering each individual to be heard have more stability, public trust and integrity preservation. My organization is not supposed to be me I just originated it and had to do what I had to do to be effective. Shortly within the next 12 months there will be a transition and I am simply assuring the facilitations equality of say. ASAN I think would be better off enabling universal diversity on macro projection otherwise politically and socially it is generically compromised like other organizations of a political and or strict philosophical nature.

Democracy is public preference.

Compared to the CEO level, I am low functioning. I don't GROK corporate.

It is a paradox I have yet to resolve. I am both very high functioning verbally/intellectually and maddeningly inept socially. This is one reason I appreciate anbuens' disdain for the labels of high vs low functioning. They seem to lack any real descriptive power.

I suspect some advocacy role in my future, but it has yet to take form. I've scarcely come to grips with what autism means to me personally.

Exactly!! ! MOST NT people do not understand that level of govt either BUT to be effective at reaching a mass of people, there has to be that sort of understanding and organization in place. Autism Speaks has that in their founders. ASAN may never have that... (I haven't investigated yet)

And ci, in my specific example of Dell, Asus and Mom/Pop shop (Autism Speaks, ASAN and You), your organization correlates to the Mom and Pop shop in its power and effectiveness. It only exists as something greater in your own head. Seriously, who has heard of you or your organization? You cite a select several thousand of people that you have outreached towards. THAT is comparable to the business done by Mom and Pop shops. It I did a poll of who know who Dell is or Autism Speaks a very large number of people will raise their hands. Same poll with ASUS or ASAN would result in a smaller number of people. USI or your organization would get substantially smaller.

THAT is the power of expanded social consciousness combined with CEO level of leadership skills.

But is Autism Speak's efficacy an artifact of their corporate level skill set, regardless of the nature of their advocacy? An effective organization directed at goals contrary to my best interests serves me poorly. It appears to me that a great deal of the tension among the advocacy organizations is related to underlying motivations and philosophies, not to the quality of their leadership. Frustration arises when an actor the size of Autism Speaks dominates the conversation simply by the qualities of their organization, with no correlation to the actual benefit to the community the deign to serve. Note that I am not accusing Autism Speaks of a failure to serve autistics, but only that their size and organizational capacity does not imbue upon them any particular mantle of superior ideology. They have a fantastic capacity for branding and fund raising, but this means nothing in a world where branding is increasingly about nothing but manipulation of perception. What lies beneath veneer of the brand?