Re: How to make NT's understand a bit.

[Guest guest]

>

> Does anyone know how to make a NT understand a bit about autism?

My

> only real friend in school turns out to think that autism is an

> illness and that everyone who is autistic " runs around and doesent

> know anything " . I don't know what to tell him besides that what he

> think's isent true. When I try to tell him about autism he doesent

> listen. I want to have something concrete to show him, like a good

> essay or something. Does anyone have an idea of what to do?

Just don't make a crusade out of it. There are plenty of

good first-hand accounts to share with him. If it is a he, Steve

Shore's book is great. If a she, Temple Grandin's books and Liane

Holliday Willeys books are great. Either way, be patient. You know

how hard it is for us when NTs just push and push to make us think

or act their way. It is no different for them when we do it.

Good luck,

Jerry Newport

[Guest guest]

Katscha wrote:

>Does anyone know how to make a NT understand a bit about autism? My

>only real friend in school turns out to think that autism is an

>illness and that everyone who is autistic " runs around and doesent

>know anything " . I don't know what to tell him besides that what he

>think's isent true. When I try to tell him about autism he doesent

>listen. I want to have something concrete to show him, like a good

>essay or something. Does anyone have an idea of what to do?

My links page http://staff.washington.edu/mjane/links.html has links

to some great pages. Kathleen's is http://www.neurodiversity.com/ and

has links to almost everything, as well as her own essays. 's

site is http://home.att.net/~ascaris1/index.html jypsy's Ooops!

Wrong Planet Syndrome is http://www.isn.net/~jypsy/ This page of the

ANI site http://ani.autistics.us/definitions.html has links to

definitions/experiences of autism by various ANI members.

Jane

[Guest guest]

Did you mention that there's different severities?

How to make NT's understand a bit.

Does anyone know how to make a NT understand a bit about autism? My

only real friend in school turns out to think that autism is an

illness and that everyone who is autistic " runs around and doesent

know anything " . I don't know what to tell him besides that what he

think's isent true. When I try to tell him about autism he doesent

listen. I want to have something concrete to show him, like a good

essay or something. Does anyone have an idea of what to do?

[Guest guest]

Yes, I did.

>

>Reply-To: AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse

>To: AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse

>Subject: Re: How to make NT's understand a bit.

>Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 07:28:38 -0900

>

>Did you mention that there's different severities?

> How to make NT's understand a bit.

>

>

>

> Does anyone know how to make a NT understand a bit about autism? My

> only real friend in school turns out to think that autism is an

> illness and that everyone who is autistic " runs around and doesent

> know anything " . I don't know what to tell him besides that what he

> think's isent true. When I try to tell him about autism he doesent

> listen. I want to have something concrete to show him, like a good

> essay or something. Does anyone have an idea of what to do?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

How to make NT's understand a bit.

Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:30:43 -0000

>

>

>

> Does anyone know how to make a NT understand a bit about autism? My

> only real friend in school turns out to think that autism is an

> illness and that everyone who is autistic " runs around and doesent

> know anything " . I don't know what to tell him besides that what he

> think's isent true. When I try to tell him about autism he doesent

> listen. I want to have something concrete to show him, like a good

> essay or something. Does anyone have an idea of what to do?

>

Perhaps you need to refer him to the website; http://www.tonyattwood.com.au/ It

will shed light on this phenomenon. Or better yet get him Tony Attwood's book on

Asperger's Syndrome.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Did you mention that there's different severities?

I would be careful - who is more " severe " :

The autistic who can't reliably feed himself

The autistic who can't work

The autistic who can't talk

Sometimes all three are present in one autistic and none in another. Some

people, like myself have some of these but not others. And I often find

that my problems are dismissed as " minor " simply because I work and people

thus make assumptions that severity/functioning-level are a

one-dimensional axis.

How much of my ability to work is directly related to the " severity " of my

autism rather then, say, the accommodations made in the workplace, the

shortage of IT professionals, the willingness for me to work at a very

cheap rate (relative to others in the US IT field with my background),

etc? Without these things, I probably *couldn't* work, but that wouldn't

make my autism more severe simply because environmental factors don't

support me as well.

I think rather then saying some of us are more severe then others, it

would be better to say that autistics don't always look the same, don't

have identical evidences of autism, that we have many variations among us,

etc.

If this person the OP is writing about is a friend, I'd stop them and say

something along the lines of:

Look, I am autistic. You don't have to believe it. But if you really are

my friend, you will listen to me.

Of course I know this risks losing a friend. And sometimes a poor friend

is better then no friend.

--

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> I would be careful - who is more " severe " :

> The autistic who can't reliably feed himself

> The autistic who can't work

> The autistic who can't talk

>

> I think rather then saying some of us are more severe then others, it

> would be better to say that autistics don't always look the same, don't

> have identical evidences of autism, that we have many variations among us,

> etc.

>

The very short, concise and correct answer IS some are more severely

affected than others. Just because you can alter how much that severity

affects you does not change the fact that there is a very huge range of

severity. You are arguing semantics and it only confuses the issue.

It is very obvious that the person who can not talk, can not feed

himself and can not work is more severely affected than the person who

can reliably do all three.

Sure practice and training can change that. In reality once that changes

the severity changes. It's called growth and it happens to everyone

except the most severely affected. Often it is hard work but then so are

most other things in this world.

[Guest guest]

>Of course I know this risks losing a friend. And sometimes a poor friend

>is better then no friend.

>

>--

>

For me I would rather be alone than having a friend who dosent understand

me, but I'm gonna give my friend the benefit of a doubt (is that the right

expression?) and talk to him about this. He might not be a bigot, maybe he's

just misinformed.

_________________________________________________________________

Hitta rätt på nätet med MSN Sök http://search.msn.se/

[Guest guest]

> The very short, concise and correct answer IS some are more severely

> affected than others. Just because you can alter how much that severity

> affects you does not change the fact that there is a very huge range of

> severity. You are arguing semantics and it only confuses the issue.

I disagree. " Severity " is no one thing.

It's *NOT* semantics, it is a mater of " how do we see people? " Do we see

people with one axis of ability and ignore their strengths because they

have weaknesses (while ignoring other people's weaknesses because they

have strengths)? This is an issue of stereotyping and discrimination,

hardly " just semantics! "

> It is very obvious that the person who can not talk, can not feed

> himself and can not work is more severely affected than the person who

> can reliably do all three.

I disagree. What about the person who can do all these things, but can't

use the toilet, has tantrums, and engages in self-injury? Are they more

severe? Less severe? Perhaps just different?

You *can* say that someone's autism doesn't affect their ability to hold a

job in their environment as much as someone else's autism affects someone

else's ability to hold a job in a different environment. That's valid.

> Sure practice and training can change that. In reality once that changes

> the severity changes. It's called growth and it happens to everyone

> except the most severely affected. Often it is hard work but then so are

> most other things in this world.

I've yet to meet someone, including those classified as " most severely

affected " that don't grow. But the fact of the matter is that whether or

not people grow over time has nothing to do with my point.

--

[Guest guest]

Red Hot wrote:

> It is very obvious that the person who can not talk,

> can not feed himself and can not work is more severely

> affected than the person who can reliably do all three.

You're no slouch, Red, and believe me, I'm not putting

you down, but I know someone who has difficulty with all

of those things, but can out-think and out-write you (and

me) any day of the week. What I'm saying is - categories,

labels, pigeon-holes, are more than a waste of time, but

are deceiving when you are talking about autistic abilities.

It just isn't that simple to " classify " us, and the attempt

tells more about the person's values than it does about the

person being classified.

Clay

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

> It just isn't that simple to " classify " us,

The bigger problem is that most people make it a simple classification

and my argument is that it is not. My whole point is that not everybody

on the autistic spectrum functions at the same level. Autism is a broad

spectrum of symptoms. all of them can be anywhere from mild to severe.

To suggest that one can not compare severity is to suggest that there is

a distinct line. Anything beyond that line being proof of autism and all

the disabilities that can go with it. That would further suggest that no

one with autism could perform meaningful work because some can not.

The truth is that it is very easy to classify people with autism. Just

like everyone else in the world there are things they are not good at

and other things they are better at. The whole problem and the place

where this conversation started is that some people classify all

autistics as severely dysfunctional when that only applies to the most

severely affected. By far a larger percentage function at a level where

most people don't recognize it as autism. Obviously this is not as much

of a handicap as one who can not talk or eat by themselves.

Red

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

>>It is very obvious that the person who can not talk,

>>can not feed himself and can not work is more severely

>>affected than the person who can reliably do all three.

>

> You're no slouch, Red, and believe me, I'm not putting

> you down, but I know someone who has difficulty with all

> of those things, but can out-think and out-write you (and

> me) any day of the week.

Might I say that you have contradicted yourself here. If this person can

out think and out write us then he can in fact work. Of course you also

have no idea about my thinking or writing abilities.

Red

[Guest guest]

> Might I say that you have contradicted yourself here. If this person can

> out think and out write us then he can in fact work. Of course you also

> have no idea about my thinking or writing abilities.

Actually, no, it isn't contradictory. I don't know who Clay is referring

to, but let's say they strip off their clothes because they can't stand

the feel of fabric. I can think of probably 100 other reasons someone who

is intelligent and able to communicate well might not be able to work.

And, to counter the wrong views held by your words, someone who is not

" intelligent " in the measured sense and who can't communicate with spoken

or written language still very well may be able to work.

That's the objection to your " more severely affected " terminology. I have

NO problem with you saying " some autistics can work and some cannot,

because of the differences in their autism. " I have a *TREMENDOUS*

problem with saying those who cannot work are more severely affected. It

ignores the people who *can* work but have EQUALLY serious problems, just

in non-occupational areas. It tends to form a divide based on one piece

of information on a person, and that isn't acceptable. I object to any

one-dimensional view of autism.

The alternative is *NOT* to say " all autistics are the same, have the same

abilities, same problems, etc. " That is not what *ANYONE* here is

advocating, and is a false dichotomy. The real alternative is to realize

that just about every possible combination of autistic strengths and

weaknesses do exist.

For instance, there are people who don't talk but hold good jobs and can

take care of themselves. There are people who can talk, take care of

themselves, but not work. There are people who can do all three but can't

work a fixed job schedule. There are people who can't talk, can't work,

and can't take care of themselves without non-traditional help - but they

may be very intelligent and have great humor. Yet others who don't have

those problems may not be as intelligent and not have hardly any sense of

humor.

The minute you start trying to compare severity among these types of

people, you are making a value judgment of which problems are really

significant and which ones can be ignored. It would be far better to

simply say " Bob has trouble working and cooking " then to say " Bob is

severely affected with autism " . The first statement tells me something

about Bob's abilities - the second one just causes me to apply my

stereotypes of what someone " severely affected " looks like - and the

problem with that is that my stereotypes and yours probably don't match,

and certainly wouldn't match when looking at the world as a whole.

--

[Guest guest]

Right - one of the " less severely afflicted " autistics I know

collects disability. When she was initially dxed with Asperger's, it

never occurred to me that I could have it because I certainly do not

have it the same way *she* does.

She is extremely extraverted, does not have severe affliction with

sensory issues, and has a life filled with parties and social events -

she knows where all the parties are. However, the same thing that

makes her the life of the party, makes it difficult for her to hold

down work... she is in her 40s and has a hard time with " mature "

professional behavior.

And some of the " most severely afflicted " autistics I've known of, who

are very socially withdrawn, have high paying jobs or even have

doctorates.

There's also context. I come off as socially very " near normal " , but

virtually no job I have ever had has been a good fit - there has been

something different that went wrong in each case. When the job itself

has been a good fit, something about me made my supervisor

uncomfortable enough to not extend me or ask me to come back. And I'm

at my most obnoxious/most " out of control " when I *love* the job. I

can't restrain myself from bouncing in my chair or acting childish if

I'm enjoying myself.

>

>

> > Might I say that you have contradicted yourself here. If this person can

> > out think and out write us then he can in fact work. Of course you also

> > have no idea about my thinking or writing abilities.

>

> Actually, no, it isn't contradictory. I don't know who Clay is referring

> to, but let's say they strip off their clothes because they can't stand

> the feel of fabric. I can think of probably 100 other reasons someone who

> is intelligent and able to communicate well might not be able to work.

>

> And, to counter the wrong views held by your words, someone who is not

> " intelligent " in the measured sense and who can't communicate with spoken

> or written language still very well may be able to work.

>

> That's the objection to your " more severely affected " terminology. I have

> NO problem with you saying " some autistics can work and some cannot,

> because of the differences in their autism. " I have a *TREMENDOUS*

> problem with saying those who cannot work are more severely affected. It

> ignores the people who *can* work but have EQUALLY serious problems, just

> in non-occupational areas. It tends to form a divide based on one piece

> of information on a person, and that isn't acceptable. I object to any

> one-dimensional view of autism.

>

> The alternative is *NOT* to say " all autistics are the same, have the same

> abilities, same problems, etc. " That is not what *ANYONE* here is

> advocating, and is a false dichotomy. The real alternative is to realize

> that just about every possible combination of autistic strengths and

> weaknesses do exist.

>

> For instance, there are people who don't talk but hold good jobs and can

> take care of themselves. There are people who can talk, take care of

> themselves, but not work. There are people who can do all three but can't

> work a fixed job schedule. There are people who can't talk, can't work,

> and can't take care of themselves without non-traditional help - but they

> may be very intelligent and have great humor. Yet others who don't have

> those problems may not be as intelligent and not have hardly any sense of

> humor.

>

> The minute you start trying to compare severity among these types of

> people, you are making a value judgment of which problems are really

> significant and which ones can be ignored. It would be far better to

> simply say " Bob has trouble working and cooking " then to say " Bob is

> severely affected with autism " . The first statement tells me something

> about Bob's abilities - the second one just causes me to apply my

> stereotypes of what someone " severely affected " looks like - and the

> problem with that is that my stereotypes and yours probably don't match,

> and certainly wouldn't match when looking at the world as a whole.

>

> --

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 03:27 PM 11/15/2004, intoned:

>The minute you start trying to compare severity among these types of

>people, you are making a value judgment of which problems are really

>significant and which ones can be ignored. It would be far better to

>simply say " Bob has trouble working and cooking " then to say " Bob is

>severely affected with autism " . The first statement tells me something

>about Bob's abilities - the second one just causes me to apply my

>stereotypes of what someone " severely affected " looks like - and the

>problem with that is that my stereotypes and yours probably don't match,

>and certainly wouldn't match when looking at the world as a whole.

Nice--that's a great way of looking at it.

I can work, too. However, I absolutely, positively could NOT do an adequate

job with my children as a single mother and work more than the most

marginal jobs--taking proper care of my kids required an investment of

energy and thought that left little to use in work.

Of course, not realizing this, I never understood why I couldn't " have it

all " , " pull myself up by my bootstraps " or " complete my education "

HAH!

Z

Z

" What are we going to do tonight, Brain? "

" The same thing we do every night, Pinky. We're going to try to take over

the world!! " ---Pinky and the Brain

Visit me at <www.zolaweb.com>!

ICQ#2048151

[Guest guest]

Right. Husband and I are dealing with these choices right now. The

fact is, I can't do anything very well... and do anything else too.

And I haven't yet found a way to do *anything* well full-time. I seem

to be able to do very short bursts of very intense focus on non-topic

related items, similar to a person with ADHD, but I can't last eight

hours at anything that isn't " my topic " .

Work and school at the same time is out of the question for me. I only

do well full-time in school when I can focus on one single discipline,

but when I'm in upper division and later in grad school, this won't be

a problem.

I don't see how we're going to ever have children. We won't be able to

afford them without being a two income household. The only way I can

see this is if eventually I'm able to be a college professor or

something, which can be done part time.

He is willing to be the " mom " while I go to work - fat chance until I

find something I can do eight hours. That doesn't demand MORE than

eight hours. [Which was my problem in computers - which I was very

good at.]

> At 03:27 PM 11/15/2004, intoned:

>

>

> >The minute you start trying to compare severity among these types of

> >people, you are making a value judgment of which problems are really

> >significant and which ones can be ignored. It would be far better to

> >simply say " Bob has trouble working and cooking " then to say " Bob is

> >severely affected with autism " . The first statement tells me something

> >about Bob's abilities - the second one just causes me to apply my

> >stereotypes of what someone " severely affected " looks like - and the

> >problem with that is that my stereotypes and yours probably don't match,

> >and certainly wouldn't match when looking at the world as a whole.

>

> Nice--that's a great way of looking at it.

>

> I can work, too. However, I absolutely, positively could NOT do an adequate

> job with my children as a single mother and work more than the most

> marginal jobs--taking proper care of my kids required an investment of

> energy and thought that left little to use in work.

>

> Of course, not realizing this, I never understood why I couldn't " have it

> all " , " pull myself up by my bootstraps " or " complete my education "

>

> HAH!

>

> Z

>

> Z

>

>

>

>

>

> " What are we going to do tonight, Brain? "

> " The same thing we do every night, Pinky. We're going to try to take over

> the world!! " ---Pinky and the Brain

>

> Visit me at <www.zolaweb.com>!

>

> ICQ#2048151

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Oh, and let me add, I'd still have to make more than he presently

makes, to make up for the loss of his income plus the difference

between his income and what we could support a family on. We can't

afford kids on his income. I am never going to raise children who are

destined to have ASDs *and* be forced to deal with the public school

system. I would sooner get my tubes tied if I had a guarantee of never

being able to homeschool, send my kids to private school or at least

send to a public school in a better area. It really is that black and

white with me.

> Right. Husband and I are dealing with these choices right now. The

> fact is, I can't do anything very well... and do anything else too.

> And I haven't yet found a way to do *anything* well full-time. I seem

> to be able to do very short bursts of very intense focus on non-topic

> related items, similar to a person with ADHD, but I can't last eight

> hours at anything that isn't " my topic " .

>

> Work and school at the same time is out of the question for me. I only

> do well full-time in school when I can focus on one single discipline,

> but when I'm in upper division and later in grad school, this won't be

> a problem.

>

> I don't see how we're going to ever have children. We won't be able to

> afford them without being a two income household. The only way I can

> see this is if eventually I'm able to be a college professor or

> something, which can be done part time.

>

> He is willing to be the " mom " while I go to work - fat chance until I

> find something I can do eight hours. That doesn't demand MORE than

> eight hours. [Which was my problem in computers - which I was very

> good at.]

>

>

>

>

> > At 03:27 PM 11/15/2004, intoned:

> >

> >

> > >The minute you start trying to compare severity among these types of

> > >people, you are making a value judgment of which problems are really

> > >significant and which ones can be ignored. It would be far better to

> > >simply say " Bob has trouble working and cooking " then to say " Bob is

> > >severely affected with autism " . The first statement tells me something

> > >about Bob's abilities - the second one just causes me to apply my

> > >stereotypes of what someone " severely affected " looks like - and the

> > >problem with that is that my stereotypes and yours probably don't match,

> > >and certainly wouldn't match when looking at the world as a whole.

> >

> > Nice--that's a great way of looking at it.

> >

> > I can work, too. However, I absolutely, positively could NOT do an adequate

> > job with my children as a single mother and work more than the most

> > marginal jobs--taking proper care of my kids required an investment of

> > energy and thought that left little to use in work.

> >

> > Of course, not realizing this, I never understood why I couldn't " have it

> > all " , " pull myself up by my bootstraps " or " complete my education "

> >

> > HAH!

> >

> > Z

> >

> > Z

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > " What are we going to do tonight, Brain? "

> > " The same thing we do every night, Pinky. We're going to try to take over

> > the world!! " ---Pinky and the Brain

> >

> > Visit me at <www.zolaweb.com>!

> >

> > ICQ#2048151

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

> Actually, no, it isn't contradictory. I don't know who Clay is

> referring to, but let's say they strip off their clothes because

> they can't stand the feel of fabric. I can think of probably 100

> other reasons someone who is intelligent and able to communicate

> well might not be able to work.

Basically, yeah. In other words: <sarcasm>Oh yes. Of course. The

only job skills you need to be able to work is " intelligence " and the

ability to write well some of the time. Even if you have to spend

nearly all of your spare energy on the so-called " basics " of getting

through the day, even if you can't write to deadlines, even if you

can't direct what topic you're able to write on, even if the line

between thinking and writing can take months to years. Yes,

absolutely anyone in that position can easily hold a job.</sarcasm>

(Apologies to anyone who can't deal with sarcasm, but I have no other

way at the moment of expressing how wrong those assumptions are.)

, who's considered intelligent (although she doesn't know what

that word means) and a good writer (when writing is possible at all)

and has been evaluated over and over again by professionals who had

strong incentive to say she was employable, but who've said the

prospect of gainful employment in this society -- or even " employment "

in a sheltered workshop -- is laughable at best

[Guest guest]

redhottech@... wrote:

>

>

> Clay wrote:

>

>

>

>>>It is very obvious that the person who can not talk,

>>>can not feed himself and can not work is more severely

>>>affected than the person who can reliably do all three.

>>

>>You're no slouch, Red, and believe me, I'm not putting

>>you down, but I know someone who has difficulty with all

>>of those things, but can out-think and out-write you (and

>>me) any day of the week.

>

>

>

> Might I say that you have contradicted yourself here. If this person can

> out think and out write us then he can in fact work.

Watch that bouncing assumption. I can think and write fine. I can't work

to save my life. People freak me out.

Griff

--

.... Death is merely a chance to roll a new character.

[Guest guest]

-

I know what you mean, because I'm a graphic artist and tried banging

my head at *working* in my field for years. Having a skill isn't the

same as being employable in the skill. I have worked with *far* less

skilled people who were far more employable, because of their ability

to tolerate certain working conditions and my inability to tolerate

those conditions, because of their ability to commute to the jobs and

my inability to do so, because of their ability to deal with some of

the worst kind of managers and my inability to do so, because of their

ability to finish a degree by the age of 24 and my inability to do so,

and because of their ability to present a " hip " image and my inability

to do so. This had nothing to do with 'skills' and my portfolio is

about six times as fat as theirs. Most often, I got one-upped by a

completely entry level 21 year old, sometimes by the totally

inexperienced person I had trained!

I've pretty much given up and decided " WTF " and decided just to make

pretty stuff for its own sake, to please myself, regardless of whether

or not it's going to ever put anything on the table. At least this way

I am happy and give something to the world, and being an artist for

its own sake gives me better feeling about my self-esteem than trying

to bang my head in artistic employment does.

Also, graphic artists and writers still have to work for some of the

most noxious of NT managers... which is why I did better in computer

jobs even though I wasn't as skilled.

>

>

>

> > Actually, no, it isn't contradictory. I don't know who Clay is

> > referring to, but let's say they strip off their clothes because

> > they can't stand the feel of fabric. I can think of probably 100

> > other reasons someone who is intelligent and able to communicate

> > well might not be able to work.

>

> Basically, yeah. In other words: <sarcasm>Oh yes. Of course. The

> only job skills you need to be able to work is " intelligence " and the

> ability to write well some of the time. Even if you have to spend

> nearly all of your spare energy on the so-called " basics " of getting

> through the day, even if you can't write to deadlines, even if you

> can't direct what topic you're able to write on, even if the line

> between thinking and writing can take months to years. Yes,

> absolutely anyone in that position can easily hold a job.</sarcasm>

>

> (Apologies to anyone who can't deal with sarcasm, but I have no other

> way at the moment of expressing how wrong those assumptions are.)

>

> , who's considered intelligent (although she doesn't know what

> that word means) and a good writer (when writing is possible at all)

> and has been evaluated over and over again by professionals who had

> strong incentive to say she was employable, but who've said the

> prospect of gainful employment in this society -- or even " employment "

> in a sheltered workshop -- is laughable at best

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Griff Sanford wrote:

> Watch that bouncing assumption. I can think and write fine. I can't work

> to save my life. People freak me out.

What do people have to do with writing? Most writers are loners and

don't get along with people.

Red

[Guest guest]

a.f.wilson wrote:

> This had nothing to do with 'skills' and my portfolio is

> about six times as fat as theirs. Most often, I got one-upped by a

> completely entry level 21 year old, sometimes by the totally

> inexperienced person I had trained!

Maybe all you are missing is that the things you mention are all skills,

The fact that you don't see them as kills most likely gets in your way.

Portfolios don't get you jobs. Demonstration of skills does. The proper

portfolio is all about highlighting your skills and glossing over what

you are missing.

Red

[Guest guest]

> -

> I know what you mean, because I'm a graphic artist and tried banging

> my head at *working* in my field for years. Having a skill isn't the

> same as being employable in the skill. I have worked with *far* less

> skilled people who were far more employable, because of their

> ability to tolerate certain working conditions and my inability to

> tolerate those conditions, because of their ability to commute to

> the jobs and my inability to do so, because of their ability to deal

> with some of the worst kind of managers and my inability to do so,

> because of their ability to finish a degree by the age of 24 and my

> inability to do so, and because of their ability to present a " hip "

> image and my inability to do so. This had nothing to do with

> 'skills' and my portfolio is about six times as fat as theirs. Most

> often, I got one-upped by a completely entry level 21 year old,

> sometimes by the totally inexperienced person I had trained!

In a word, yeah.

Intellectual/cognitive work is unsustainable for me. So are various

other kinds of work. Right now I volunteer as a librarian at my

Meeting's library. That requires attending one meeting once a month

(which -- oh CRAP! -- is tomorrow and I never scheduled my ride, which

means I haven't the foggiest clue how I'm getting there), and doing

one day of library duty a month (which mostly involves sitting behind

a table). That stretches my abilities pretty close to the maximum.

If I had the stamina, physical labor would be about the only thing I

could sustain (and this was the case in the past when I had more

stamina). But then I would also only be able to do that in certain

environments. I couldn't work in a factory because they're too loud.

I'd have to be doing something physical and repetitive in a quiet or

at least quietish setting that wasn't too overloading. My most

" successful " job was painting fences/barns, feeding animals, and

shoveling animal crap at a ranch that I also happened to live on. If

I were to someday gain the stamina, I would want to learn what it

takes to take care of the grounds one of those places where you can do

that and get room and board for it. That is my ideal job -- living

where I work (less change to deal with) and doing physical labor that

follows a relatively predictable pattern. (I seriously wonder about

this -- I'm from the first generation in my family that *wasn't*

farmers, and that's the side of my family that is the most blatantly

autistic. It's hard work but up until recently it's the *kind* of

work I would've been best suited for, if any, and my dad has said over

and over that if there were any money in it he'd have stayed in

farming himself rather than being an engineer.)

But, as I don't presently have that stamina, and end up overloading

and short-circuiting *very* rapidly, employment isn't remotely a

possibility. (In all the SSI exams I've been through, the examiners

have bluntly stated that it's clearly not even something that's going

to be questioned, and I got it on my first try.) I do think that if I

were for instance the aunt on a family farm I could contribute *some*

to the work without being expected to do as much as some people do (if

my family knew my limitations in that area), but that kind of setup

isn't likely (and the only family farms left in my family are in

Arkansas, where I could easily face other problems).

[Guest guest]

wrote:

but let's say they strip off their clothes because they can't stand

> the feel of fabric.

There is an old saying, " if you are dealt lemons, make lemonade. If you

can't live in clothes, get a job in a nudist camp, or work from home.

Red

[Guest guest]

Red Hot wrote:

> >>It is very obvious that the person who can not talk,

> >>can not feed himself and can not work is more severely

> >>affected than the person who can reliably do all three.

And I replied:

> > You're no slouch, Red, and believe me, I'm not putting

> > you down, but I know someone who has difficulty with all

> > of those things, but can out-think and out-write you (and

> > me) any day of the week.

And then Red said:

> Might I say that you have contradicted yourself here.

You might, but you'd be wrong (again), because I haven't.

I'm one of those " honest aspies " who couldn't lie if his

life depended on it, and I wouldn't give you a bum steer

either. Such a person exists, and you'll have to take my

word for it. I sincerely believe that his/her advocacy

will make a difference in our lifetime.

> If this person can out think and out write us then he can

> in fact work.

I know several people have already refuted this statement,

did so wonderfully, as have a.f. wilson and .

I would suspect that you just haven't actually met that

many other aspies/auties as some of us have. There is a

wide variety reasons why some people don't have the capa-

bility of sustaining a job in the workplace.

> Of course you also have no idea about my thinking or

> writing abilities.

Sure I do, I've been reading you as long as you've been here,

and so far as your writing reflects on your thinking abilities,

I'd say I have Some idea. Actually, I've been very impressed!

I know you're extremely intelligent, (which actually, isn't

very unusual around here), and I also know you're a bit arro-

gant. (Don't feel bad, I'm still not putting you down.) It's

something that often " comes with the territory " of being an

aspie. Even Klein has admitted to being arrogant at

times, and I Know I have been, many others I won't name; and

the thing is, we All have good reason to be arrogant! We do,

but it's also not a good attitude to have, at least not to Show

that we have it, because people don't like to see it, and that's

one of the many reasons why aspies don't get invited places, or

offered friendships.

You left out where I said:

> It just isn't that easy to " classify " us, and the attempt

> tells more about the person's values than it tells about

> the person being classified.

That's worth thinking about awhile, eh?

Clay

PS. I'm also one of those aspies who Has a sense of humor,

though often dry and sometimes wry.