RE: RE: Responses to my post on another list....

[Guest guest]

I am not even sure that being top-social is so highly favored. How do

used car salesmen, insurance policy sellers and the like rate compared

to a highly efficient expert in his field? Being hyper NT is not

necessarily the best. We have to keep in mind that the best qualified

person is always the best for the job - whether he can sell himself well

or not. Society is grateful for efficient people.

It's just always a bit of a laugh at recognition for good placement of a

person with a specific expertise is... transfer to an area that uses

other qualifications, management being one of the obvious ones. I am an

excellent teacher, but doubt I could function as totally well i removed

form the clear context of four walls and a set group of people. Nobody

new enters my classes unannounced with a totally different agenda than

the one I set. I make a lot of parents happy as a teacher, I make a lot

of children intelligent. I would die as a principal.

Hilsen,

christine@...

Æblevangen 17

2765 Smørum

44 66 02 17

24 24 12 17

Re: RE: Responses to my post on another

list....

I've been lurking here, but this dialogue got me thinking about events

from my past

too, so I decided to say something.

Talking about NT perceptions of ability/disability, I have often noticed

how NTs use

social skills to mask their own inabilities. This means that very able

autistic spectrum

people can be excluded in favour of people who are actually less

skilled, but more

able to manipulate others into believing in them. A classic example is

the music

profession, which I had (disastrous) dealings with as a teenager. I

knew several

people who would have qualified as being on the spectrum who were very

competent

musicians but who were basically hounded out by less-able individuals

who

fundamentally had bigger mouths and better self-publicity skills.

The autistic spectrum individuals who did not succeed were not able to

flatter or

wheedle their way to the top of the profession - but I wouldn't

characterise them as

'disabled' for that - I'd characterise them as honest. Some of the NTs

who succeeded

were fundamentally charlatans. The social skills they used were the

same as are used

by confidence tricksters and fraudsters - they were the kind of 'skills'

which, used to

an extreme, land certain types of individual in prison. The problem is

that society

values these superficial abilities above real ability. In a way,

indeed, it is society's

disability, and society's loss, that it cannot see through 'social

skills', which are so

often so ruthlessly deceptive and destructive.

I noticed that this is relevant to the idea that the increase in autism

is costing a lot of

money. I wonder how many autistic spectrum people there are out there

who would

actually be capable of doing certain jobs more successfully and

economically than

NTs, but who are kept out of those jobs because incompetent but

manipulative self-

publicists push their way in? After all, the real skills involved in

doing a job are often

the ones which interviews fail completely to assess. Surely the highest

costs to

society are incurred when the best person for the job is overlooked in

favour of a

hyper-social but unproductive mediocrity!

Sorry to butt into somebody else's debate!

Best,

.

[Guest guest]

A. writes:

What makes it a disability is that it crosses all job boundaries and

limits my advancement. It is something that 99.9% of humans do not need

training in.

Why do we strive for " advancement " . Development is not necessarily

linear. It can happen bredth-wise. I can develop from student to student

teacher to teacher to vice principal to principal (y-axis). Or I can

develop from student to student teacher to teacher (y-axis) to teacher

in special ed or IT or geography (x-axis), to teacher in another school

(another x-axis move), to department head (y-axis) to finding out that

the thing of interest for you in being department head is checking books

and ensuring curricular development but that it drains you to have

personal and political problems on your desktop, and choosing to

sticking to being a teacher that spreads and spreads along the x-axis,

become thcok and juicy in what matters for you: knowledge and subject

competence.

I like being competent in my branch. I'm the best. One of the big

plusses to being autistic: we know we are extremely good at something.

We are definitely not octopi.

Hilsen,

christine@...

Æblevangen 17

2765 Smørum

44 66 02 17

24 24 12 17

Re: RE: Responses to my post on another

list....

Klein wrote:

> acsnag@... wrote:

> In the mind of a white racist, being white

> is a necessary thing to perform in society.

But as you said, it's in the mind. In the case I described it's in the

ability.

> The NT society in which we live is set up around the NT neurology;

> In both cases, the " disability " is in the minds

> of the people that will not accomodate difference.

This is totally untrue. If a manager changed his mind and decided that

because of my skills I could be a supervisor I would still not have the

ability to perform the job. This idea that it's only the attitude of

those around us that causes problems for us is counterproductive and

serves no purpose other than justifying our defeat. It says, " It's not

my fault, I can't help it everyone around me should change then I would

not have a problem " . Don't you see the fallacy in that? It is not about

accommodating difference, It's about what works.

If you decided that cars needed square wheels and you build a car with

square wheels, based on your arguments here, all it would take to make

the square wheeled car work successfully would be for all other cars to

also have square wheels. Then yours would fit in.

> Only because the NTs are so rigid in their insistence that the NT

> way of doing things is the only way. That's the point.

There is no point there. It's not about being rigid. It's about what

works. The idea that the 99.9% should change their way of being so that

the .5% would fit in is absurd.

I'm reminded of the song about the man who was out and would not tell

his wife where he was. He tells her he fell asleep in the hammock in the

yard. She reminds him that she put the hammock into the attic several

weeks ago. There is no hammock in the yard. He goes on to say " That's my

story and I'm sticking to it. " There is a movie with Walter Matthou (sp)

" How to cheat on your wife. " The fellow teaching him the finer points of

this states that if you get caught, deny, deny, deny. He claims that if

you continue to deny long enough eventually you will convince the other

person that they are wrong. I think you have been denying so long that

you have gotten to believe your denial.

AS and autism are handicaps. No amount of denial changes that. We can

learn to work around those handicaps in the sam way a blind person

learns ways around their blindness. Your argument suggests that if all

of us wore blindfolds all the time then the blind person would not have

a handicap. Being blind IS a disability and no amount of acting blind by

the all the rest of humanity will change that.

>

> I would call that " not being suited to the job. " It need not be a

> disability.

What makes it a disability is that it crosses all job boundaries and

limits my advancement. It is something that 99.9% of humans do not need

training in.

> The thing about autistics is that their areas of weakness, relative

> to the whole population (which is 99.5% NT), tend to be in an area

> to which NTs attach undue significance.

The trouble with this argument is that social interaction is mandatory

if we are to live successfully among other people. It is NOT that others

attach undue significance to it. It is very significant.

> With enough coaching, I might be able to overcome not being able to

> weld.

That is true. I would certainly never suggest that not being able to

weld was a disability.

A.

[Guest guest]

Bajard wrote:

> Why do we strive for " advancement " . Development is not necessarily

> linear. It can happen bredth-wise.

Advancement usually translates into increased income. Moving sideways

often translates to reduced income or at least halts increases. Not

moving translates into boredom. I am the best at what I do, now what?

> I like being competent in my branch. I'm the best. One of the big

> plusses to being autistic: we know we are extremely good at something.

Knowing and believing can be very different things. Some of my greatest

struggles are in trying to prove to myself that I am good at what I do

when I am already at the top and there is nowhere else to go. Moving

into supervisory or management would remove that ceiling.

A.

[Guest guest]

> Advancement usually translates into increased income. Moving sideways

> often translates to reduced income or at least halts increases. Not

> moving translates into boredom. I am the best at what I do, now what?

There are options other then supervisor roles when you want to do

something new and better paying.

I am making more now then I did when I was a supervisor, by about 25%. I

found a path that was in demand and which I had aptitude for.

Will I ever make as much as Bill Gates or other high level executives?

No. But neither will most people. That's hardly the fault of my autism,

no more then my autism is at fault for me being unable to become an

Olympic swimmer (even though one of the features of my autism is very poor

coordination).

Do I make a good supervisor? Not really. Is my autism part of the

reason? Absolutely. But of course after working for a few people in my

life (probably 20 or 30 supervisors - never counted them), I've learned

that few NTs have the skills to effectively manage. I also have seen

people promoted to management when they have the skills they need to

manage, even when the " butt kissing skills " weren't there - just because

many (most?) companies don't promote based on competency doesn't mean that

no company promotes based on competency. And I think an AC could be a

decent person to work for, could have management skills, and could be

promoted in some companies.

That said, one thing I've learned in my career is that there is a point

where I have enough money and am doing something I love. At 26, I've got

to the place where I'm able to perseverate 8 hours a day and get paid for

it! If you find yourself in that place, you should stay there and ignore

the myth that says " you will be happier with more money " . I make several

times what I made in college (I'm not in danger of being evicted!), but I

don't think I'm much happier (both now and college were fairly good times

in my life).

I've also met the " want a challenge " need that I have by not necessarily

doing vertical transitions, but by broadening my skills. When I learn

enough in an area to consider myself fairly good at it, I find another

related area. If you have a good boss, and you can find an area that is

relevant to the place you work for, making those types of changes fairly

frequently isn't going to be a problem - keeping a good employee happy is

one thing good managers work hard to do. But if you tie up happiness with

money, then yes things might not be great for you - money is a fairly easy

thing to lose, no matter how much of it you have.

--