Re: practicalities of getting important promises kept (formerly Introductions)

[Guest guest]

>

> What would be the right thing to think, feel, say, and do in such

> circumstances? Just feel OK about it because " people are like that " ?

> Or what?

I haven't read your post in detail because it's long and not broken

into paragraphs (the main part) so it kind of bogged me down very

quickly, but the gist I get is you were asked to do something and

there were a lot of irritations along the way but the event went well?

But from your question it looks like you found yourself left with

upset about the things that happened in the course of preparations?

There's no definitive answer, though I think you're right that not

caring so much in this case might help. And that since it went well

in the end there's a need to enjoy the positive, give that more

attention and energy and even celebration than the negative.

And if you need to go back and work with the the same people then when

you feel calm about it work out what things you could say and put in

place beforehand that might make it go more smoothly, but without

being overly (or even at all) critical because that puts peoples'

backs up.

I think one problem here is if " not caring so much " is misinterpreted

as " being uncaring " . When I say not caring so much I mean not giving

so much attention and mental energy to the things that were negative,

and giving more attention and energy to the things that worked and how

it could work better another time.

I might be able to answer more clearly if there's a way to present the

post in a shorter more broken up form - more paragraphs, less overall

text

Maybe this helps not at all? I dunno.

Ruth

--

" Environmental problems are difficult to solve because Earth is a

" public good " .  Even though we would all be better off if everyone

reduced their environmental impact, it is not in anyone's individual

interest to do so.  This leads to the famous " tragedy of the commons " ,

in which public resources are overexploited and everyone suffers. "

New Scientist opinion article

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: Kate Gladstone

whom you have to meet beforehand [the special-education co-ordinator,

who is also the event co-ordinator] refuses to come to the meeting

because he disapproves your approach ...You do eventually get the principal

to bend the rule for you this

time -- so the workshops go on -- but it takes 4 hours more to get

that far,

And, when the workshops do go on, the man who objected to your

presence does things like making sure you can't have an audio-visual

hook-up, sitting near the light switches and flicking the lights

constantly on and off as you speak, playing loud annoying sounds on

his smartphone while you're talking, etc. etc., etc., (He is also

caught removing all chalk from the room you're using, but of course

you brought your own.) The principal sees what's happening, and comes

up to whisper to you that " of course this is unfair, but you have to

ignore it and appear to be OK with it or he'll quit and we can't

afford that. "

Despite all this, the workshop actually goes rather well.

What would be the right thing to think, feel, say, and do in such

circumstances? Just feel OK about it because " people are like that " ?

Or what?

***OMG! The behavior of that 'special education co-ordinator' was childish

and rude! I hope you got paid the amount they'd promised you and then some,

just for putting up with this nonsense! If not, I hope you complained to the

appropriate authorities! This guy who gave you a hard time, probably hoping

you'd quit in disgust and thus getting out of having to compensate you, has

no business being a special ed co-ordinator! He needs to be taught some

manners and common courtesies! Kudos to you for doing a good job despite all

of this.

D.

[Guest guest]

The way you describe him he sounds disturbed. I'd say pity for him is one

appropriate emotion.

To: AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse

From: handwritingrepair@...

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:54:12 -0400

Subject: practicalities of getting important promises kept

(formerly " Introductions " )

To all those who are urging me to stop caring when important promises

are broken (if that is what you are saying),

I'd like to ask your advice about the following scenario: what would

you have done, how, and why? -- and what feelings would/should you

have about what happened? This scenario is from my own life, like the

other scenario.

SCENARIO:

A school asks you to come to them to do four days of

instructional workshops (for teachers, students, and parents) in a

field where you have expertise. (For me, that was handwriting

instruction -- for a lot of people here, it could be other things such

as a special interest or, of course, autistic advocacy: so maybe

imagine that they want you to do a set of workshops on autism so that

they can hear from a REAL expert for a change!)

The school has had disappointing experiences with past

self-proclaimed " experts " in your field -- but they have researched

you, and they have figured out that you are the real deal and that

they should have contacted you first. (At least, that's what the

principal says when he calls you to ask for your help.) The principal

arranges that the school will pay all your expenses, including plane

fare and lodgings and meals, and the school also is giving you a very

generous payment (several thousand dollars) for your time and

teaching. Actually, you will be spending five days with them, because

on the first day you will be getting to know the school and meet the

different faculty members and so on. (This is partly to give you a

chance to settle in and know the place before you get to work, and

partly because the policy of the school is that the school principal

and several other high-level people -- like the curriculum

co-ordinator and the special-education co-ordinator-- have to meet any

visiting speaker/workshop leader/presenter the day before the event.)

When you get there, you have a great time touring the school and

meeting teachers -- but when the time comes for this meeting that you

are required to have, you are told that one of the high-level people

whom you have to meet beforehand [the special-education co-ordinator,

who is also the event co-ordinator] refuses to come to the meeting

because he disapproves your approach and he also disapproved that the

school would even be hiring a speaker for this field because he

believes that he has all the useful information necessary. The rest of

the school administration disagrees with him, of course (that's why

you're there) -- they knew of this one staffer's disagreement, but

they didn't want to let you know because they were desperate to have

you and they thought that you might not come if you knew that someone

disapproved and that there would therefore be problems.

The immediate problem is that the disapproving official is one of

the people that you are required to meet with before you get started

(he has to sign a paper to show that you met with him) and he refuses

to meet with you. Even though you know that the fellow will get in

trouble with the school over this after you leave (the principal has

assured you of this, and the principal has stated that he finds the

fellow's behavior unacceptable), the problem is that it looks as if

they won't let your workshop happen because you aren't able to get all

of the signatures.

You do eventually get the principal to bend the rule for you this

time -- so the workshops go on -- but it takes 4 hours more to get

that far, because of special extra meetings and paperwork that have to

happen to allow you to speak when this fellow wouldn't come to the

meeting and sign the sheet saying that you were there ... and they

don't want to pay you for those extra hours because that staffer says

he will quit if they do, and in many other ways he is a good employee

and they want to keep him.)

And, when the workshops do go on, the man who objected to your

presence does things like making sure you can't have an audio-visual

hook-up, sitting near the light switches and flicking the lights

constantly on and off as you speak, playing loud annoying sounds on

his smartphone while you're talking, etc. etc., etc., (He is also

caught removing all chalk from the room you're using, but of course

you brought your own.) The principal sees what's happening, and comes

up to whisper to you that " of course this is unfair, but you have to

ignore it and appear to be OK with it or he'll quit and we can't

afford that. "

Despite all this, the workshop actually goes rather well.

What would be the right thing to think, feel, say, and do in such

circumstances? Just feel OK about it because " people are like that " ?

Or what?

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

I don't understand the special ed teacher's motivations for acting the way he

did. Kate, why do you think he acted the way he did?

To: AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse

From: watertiger13@...

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:02:58 -0400

Subject: Re: practicalities of getting important promises

kept (formerly " Introductions " )

----- Original Message -----

From: Kate Gladstone

whom you have to meet beforehand [the special-education co-ordinator,

who is also the event co-ordinator] refuses to come to the meeting

because he disapproves your approach ...You do eventually get the principal

to bend the rule for you this

time -- so the workshops go on -- but it takes 4 hours more to get

that far,

And, when the workshops do go on, the man who objected to your

presence does things like making sure you can't have an audio-visual

hook-up, sitting near the light switches and flicking the lights

constantly on and off as you speak, playing loud annoying sounds on

his smartphone while you're talking, etc. etc., etc., (He is also

caught removing all chalk from the room you're using, but of course

you brought your own.) The principal sees what's happening, and comes

up to whisper to you that " of course this is unfair, but you have to

ignore it and appear to be OK with it or he'll quit and we can't

afford that. "

Despite all this, the workshop actually goes rather well.

What would be the right thing to think, feel, say, and do in such

circumstances? Just feel OK about it because " people are like that " ?

Or what?

***OMG! The behavior of that 'special education co-ordinator' was childish

and rude! I hope you got paid the amount they'd promised you and then some,

just for putting up with this nonsense! If not, I hope you complained to the

appropriate authorities! This guy who gave you a hard time, probably hoping

you'd quit in disgust and thus getting out of having to compensate you, has

no business being a special ed co-ordinator! He needs to be taught some

manners and common courtesies! Kudos to you for doing a good job despite all

of this.

D.

[Guest guest]

Re the various responses --

/1/

Ruth writes at some length --

I haven't read your post in detail ... [etc.] ... Maybe this helps not at

> all?

>

It doesn't help. I can't just care a little, or change the bad feelings into

good ones, or whatever idea you are trying to get across.

Delila writes:

> ***OMG! The behavior of that 'special education co-ordinator' was childish

>and rude! I hope you got paid the amount they'd promised you and then some,

>just for putting up with this nonsense!

I actually did. One of the problems this fellow had with me is that he

disapproves of having special education done (or special-ed students taught)

by anyone who ever received (or should have received) special education.

Another problem was that, when he finally read my web-site and some

articles/Internet stuff by me a few hours before I arrived (the school had

been planning the event for months), he noticed that I disagree with him on

some things about handwriting, and that part of my disagreement is based on

my own experiences as a neurologically atypical person who had once

struggled with the subject in much the same ways that a lot of the kids at

that school were struggling. He didn't want to sign off on my paperwork

unless I could be persuaded to put in writing that the school was already

doing great and didn't really need my help, and that his own choice of

program was already the perfect choice for all students: and this, he had

figured out, I wouldn't do.

suggests I should pity the man. I reserve pity for

people/animals/plants that have run into hard luck and that deserve better:

not for jerks who are inflicting hard luck on others. For someone like that

fellow at the school, the best feelings I can have are disdain and disgust.

As to why he did it: because my existence hurt his feelings. (He was

*very* frank about this when we finally met later on -- the principal had

forced him to attend at least one session or get the sack -- because he

considered that his hurt feelings over my existence entirely required and

justified what he had done.)

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

> suggests I should pity the man. I reserve pity for

> people/animals/plants that have run into hard luck and that deserve better:

> not for jerks who are inflicting hard luck on others.

I don't do pity at all, it doesn't help anyone and is quite a

condescending attitude.

I believe everyone has reasons for what they do that are valid to

them. They may not be reasons I have much or any empathy with, but to

that person they are valid. They may not be admirable reasons, but I

have some non-admirable qualities myself. For instance I once had to

live with a woman who I quickly came to despise for her way of being

in the world. I didn't like myself for despising her but that was my

natural reaction to her, and no matter how I tried to be decent

towards her it couldn't work, we mutually hated and despised each

other despite that neither of us is a particularly amoral person.

People have qualities we like and qualities we don't, they can make

things harder for us or easier, but from their pov the way they react

to us is valid. That's not to say society ought not to punish extreme

social misdemeanour, or that we shouldn't try to avoid those who react

to us badly or bring to justice those that illegally abuse us, but

perhaps to say that below the level at which legalities can be brought

into force people are just gonna be people, valid from their

perspective even if not from ours. And that's where we need to take

responsiblity for our side of things, not just how we behave towards

them, but what we do with how they behave towards us, and our internal

reactions. I think so anyway. Some people get really fired up about

this becuase to them all blame is external, things out there *make*

them feel bad, and they don't want the responsibility of dealing with

their feelings themselves - they really believe all the responsibility

for how they feel is from out there.

My perspective on this is it's kind of sad because actually there's so

much each of us can do to take charge of our minds, our feelings, our

quality of life, even if there's very little we can change about what

happens to us from other people and situations. It does take

practice, it takes starting with little irritations and building up to

the big ones, but when you can take charge of your own emotional and

mental states when big things happen life is amazingly different.

Ruth

--

" Environmental problems are difficult to solve because Earth is a

" public good " .  Even though we would all be better off if everyone

reduced their environmental impact, it is not in anyone's individual

interest to do so.  This leads to the famous " tragedy of the commons " ,

in which public resources are overexploited and everyone suffers. "

New Scientist opinion article

[Guest guest]

Perhaps the summary here is: people aren't nice all the time. Even

you and me. There are people who hate me and people who like me. So

am I a bad or good person? There are people who agree with me and

people who disagree with me, so am I right or wrong? There are laws I

think are good and useful and laws I think are ridiculous. So is " the

law " valid or an ass?

If someone comes into my garden uninvited I might be upset, but if my

cat is missing I might nip into theirs to check if she's there. Am I

two faced?

Absolutes are lacking.

And it's bed time :-)

Ruth

--

" Environmental problems are difficult to solve because Earth is a

" public good " .  Even though we would all be better off if everyone

reduced their environmental impact, it is not in anyone's individual

interest to do so.  This leads to the famous " tragedy of the commons " ,

in which public resources are overexploited and everyone suffers. "

New Scientist opinion article

[Guest guest]

Re:

Absolutes are lacking.

>

Then do you expect me to take that as an absoluite?

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

I don't post on here very often, but this once I feel the need to add my

two cents " , as they say.

While it is (probably) admirable to be able to " direct " your energy

(feelings) in a certain direction and away from the person or event that

hurt you, I personally have never believed people can do that; simply

because we ARE human beings, not machines. It is hardly possible for us to

push a button and " turn off " our feelings, or " re-program " them in another

direction. We are complex human beings--those of us on spectrum more so, I

think--with very real, very human emotions that, by their very nature, as

emotions, are not " programmable " , for lack of a better word for it. I don't

believe we can " decide " how to feel--feelings are not cut-and-dried or

always logical, even. We may know, logically, that we " should " or " should

not " feel a certain way, but we still do, because the feelings come from our

hearts, not our logical minds. It is completely natural for a person to

feel hurt and angry when someone hurts us or commits an injustice toward us,

and if we think we can decide not to feel that way or have that reaction,

it is my opinion that SOME of us manage to bury those feelings down deep

inside, until we think we have " gotten over them " , or even forgotten them,

but they are really still there, under the surface. Some time, maybe much

later, another crisis will come up that will bring all those emotions that

we have " stuffed down " inside us, to the surface once again, and all the

hurt and pain will still be there. In some cases, those bottled-up emotions

can actually cause physical illness--this has been shown medically to have a

connection to ulcers and even heart attacks. That is why it is better to

vent one's feelings than to bottle them up. I personally find I am better

able to eventually " get over " a wrong done to me, if I vent my feelings, if

possible to the very person responsible, but if not, in some other way that

doesn't harm any innocent third parties.

In a case like Kate's situation, I would definitely have looked into filing

a complaint about that man to the proper authorities--one may have to do a

little digging to determine to whom to actually direct the complaint, since

it seems obvious that the man's immediate co-workers were more concerned

about offending him than correcting his behavior--but he does sound

disturbed; in which case his actions should be reported to someone higher-up

and not only for Kate's satisfaction but because a person like that should

probably not be in a position of authority in an educational setting in the

first place. At the very least, he needs to have some kind of counseling or

sensitivity training if he is to have any say in the education of

special-needs students.

Taking some action to possibly prevent a person from doing harm to someone

else in the future can do a lot to ease the pain inflicted on us;

nevertheless, the emotions are still going to be there, they will just get

less " " raw " with time. Denying them or trying to bottle them up will only

do more harm than good in the end, IMHO.

-- Re: practicalities of getting important

promises kept (formerly " Introductions " )

> suggests I should pity the man. I reserve pity for

> people/animals/plants that have run into hard luck and that deserve

better:

> not for jerks who are inflicting hard luck on others.

I don't do pity at all, it doesn't help anyone and is quite a

condescending attitude.

I believe everyone has reasons for what they do that are valid to

them. They may not be reasons I have much or any empathy with, but to

that person they are valid. They may not be admirable reasons, but I

have some non-admirable qualities myself. For instance I once had to

live with a woman who I quickly came to despise for her way of being

in the world. I didn't like myself for despising her but that was my

natural reaction to her, and no matter how I tried to be decent

towards her it couldn't work, we mutually hated and despised each

other despite that neither of us is a particularly amoral person.

People have qualities we like and qualities we don't, they can make

things harder for us or easier, but from their pov the way they react

to us is valid. That's not to say society ought not to punish extreme

social misdemeanour, or that we shouldn't try to avoid those who react

to us badly or bring to justice those that illegally abuse us, but

perhaps to say that below the level at which legalities can be brought

into force people are just gonna be people, valid from their

perspective even if not from ours. And that's where we need to take

responsiblity for our side of things, not just how we behave towards

them, but what we do with how they behave towards us, and our internal

reactions. I think so anyway. Some people get really fired up about

this becuase to them all blame is external, things out there *make*

them feel bad, and they don't want the responsibility of dealing with

their feelings themselves - they really believe all the responsibility

for how they feel is from out there.

My perspective on this is it's kind of sad because actually there's so

much each of us can do to take charge of our minds, our feelings, our

quality of life, even if there's very little we can change about what

happens to us from other people and situations. It does take

practice, it takes starting with little irritations and building up to

the big ones, but when you can take charge of your own emotional and

mental states when big things happen life is amazingly different.

Ruth

--

" Environmental problems are difficult to solve because Earth is a

" public good " . Even though we would all be better off if everyone

reduced their environmental impact, it is not in anyone's individual

interest to do so. This leads to the famous " tragedy of the commons " ,

in which public resources are overexploited and everyone suffers. "

New Scientist opinion article

[Guest guest]

So true.

I've given up on trying to make real friends anywhere. Every bloody time I

think I can trust someone, they leave. Doesnt matter if its IRL, online, in

an MMORPG...anywhere. And I want to shoot the bastards who I see doing the

same thing to my kids who have aspie traits, and so have the same problems.

I just saw someone I had trusted enough to let him talk to my kids, who has

hilarious game related vidios on YouTube, hurt my daughter talking to her

ingame, but he refused to speak to me, and when she had to leave to go

somewhere with my husband, the guy jumped out of the game, to avoid talking

to me.

I really hate so called 'normal' people and their casual cruelty.

-- Re: practicalities of getting important

promises kept (formerly " Introductions " )

> suggests I should pity the man. I reserve pity for

> people/animals/plants that have run into hard luck and that deserve

better:

> not for jerks who are inflicting hard luck on others.

I don't do pity at all, it doesn't help anyone and is quite a

condescending attitude.

I believe everyone has reasons for what they do that are valid to

them. They may not be reasons I have much or any empathy with, but to

that person they are valid. They may not be admirable reasons, but I

have some non-admirable qualities myself. For instance I once had to

live with a woman who I quickly came to despise for her way of being

in the world. I didn't like myself for despising her but that was my

natural reaction to her, and no matter how I tried to be decent

towards her it couldn't work, we mutually hated and despised each

other despite that neither of us is a particularly amoral person.

People have qualities we like and qualities we don't, they can make

things harder for us or easier, but from their pov the way they react

to us is valid. That's not to say society ought not to punish extreme

social misdemeanour, or that we shouldn't try to avoid those who react

to us badly or bring to justice those that illegally abuse us, but

perhaps to say that below the level at which legalities can be brought

into force people are just gonna be people, valid from their

perspective even if not from ours. And that's where we need to take

responsiblity for our side of things, not just how we behave towards

them, but what we do with how they behave towards us, and our internal

reactions. I think so anyway. Some people get really fired up about

this becuase to them all blame is external, things out there *make*

them feel bad, and they don't want the responsibility of dealing with

their feelings themselves - they really believe all the responsibility

for how they feel is from out there.

My perspective on this is it's kind of sad because actually there's so

much each of us can do to take charge of our minds, our feelings, our

quality of life, even if there's very little we can change about what

happens to us from other people and situations. It does take

practice, it takes starting with little irritations and building up to

the big ones, but when you can take charge of your own emotional and

mental states when big things happen life is amazingly different.

Ruth

--

" Environmental problems are difficult to solve because Earth is a

" public good " . Even though we would all be better off if everyone

reduced their environmental impact, it is not in anyone's individual

interest to do so. This leads to the famous " tragedy of the commons " ,

in which public resources are overexploited and everyone suffers. "

New Scientist opinion article

[Guest guest]

Re:

>

> In a case like Kate's situation, I would definitely have looked into filing

> a complaint about that man to the proper authorities--

>

I hadn't thought of that -- but after two years of the school using what I'd

introduced them to (over his severe objections and even serious attempts to

sabotage it), even he decided I'd been right all along.

Re:

>At the very least, he needs to have some kind of counseling or

>sensitivity training if he is to have any say in the education of

>special-needs students.

Unfortunately -- at the time that we met, at least -- he was the fellow who

arranged for all of the school's counseling and sensitivity training and so

on: he had final approval on that, and there was a lot of it. (You could

hardly turn around without bumping into " awareness seminars " or

" consciousness raising " or " anti-bully social intervention groups " or some

such thing.)

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

Unbelievable. Too bad he didn't pay more attention in some of those groups

himself!

At least you now have the satisfaction of knowing he finally came around to

your way of thinking. Maybe it is possible to open some closed minds

sometimes, even if it takes a while to do it.

[Guest guest]

The term " normal " is very subjective.

I have also seen a lot of needless cruelty, for no obvious reason other than

to satisfy some perverse whim of the perpetrator. I see nothing normal

about being cruel to other living beings, whether it be humans or animals;

nor whether the cruelty be physical or mental/emotional.

Sorry, but what is MMORPG?

-- Re: practicalities of getting important

promises kept (formerly " Introductions " )

> suggests I should pity the man. I reserve pity for

> people/animals/plants that have run into hard luck and that deserve

better:

> not for jerks who are inflicting hard luck on others.

I don't do pity at all, it doesn't help anyone and is quite a

condescending attitude.

I believe everyone has reasons for what they do that are valid to

them. They may not be reasons I have much or any empathy with, but to

that person they are valid. They may not be admirable reasons, but I

have some non-admirable qualities myself. For instance I once had to

live with a woman who I quickly came to despise for her way of being

in the world. I didn't like myself for despising her but that was my

natural reaction to her, and no matter how I tried to be decent

towards her it couldn't work, we mutually hated and despised each

other despite that neither of us is a particularly amoral person.

People have qualities we like and qualities we don't, they can make

things harder for us or easier, but from their pov the way they react

to us is valid. That's not to say society ought not to punish extreme

social misdemeanour, or that we shouldn't try to avoid those who react

to us badly or bring to justice those that illegally abuse us, but

perhaps to say that below the level at which legalities can be brought

into force people are just gonna be people, valid from their

perspective even if not from ours. And that's where we need to take

responsiblity for our side of things, not just how we behave towards

them, but what we do with how they behave towards us, and our internal

reactions. I think so anyway. Some people get really fired up about

this becuase to them all blame is external, things out there *make*

them feel bad, and they don't want the responsibility of dealing with

their feelings themselves - they really believe all the responsibility

for how they feel is from out there.

My perspective on this is it's kind of sad because actually there's so

much each of us can do to take charge of our minds, our feelings, our

quality of life, even if there's very little we can change about what

happens to us from other people and situations. It does take

practice, it takes starting with little irritations and building up to

the big ones, but when you can take charge of your own emotional and

mental states when big things happen life is amazingly different.

Ruth

--

" Environmental problems are difficult to solve because Earth is a

" public good " . Even though we would all be better off if everyone

reduced their environmental impact, it is not in anyone's individual

interest to do so. This leads to the famous " tragedy of the commons " ,

in which public resources are overexploited and everyone suffers. "

New Scientist opinion article

[Guest guest]

Re:

Unbelievable. Too bad he didn't pay more attention in some of those groups

> himself!

>

Or maybe the group-leaders said exactly what he wanted them to say. After

all, he approved each and every one of them ...

The law can specify that schools do " sensitivity training " -- but who enacts

the law? To my personal knowledge, some people that sell themselves as

experts will say and do exactly what the expert-hirer instructs them to say

and do: no more and no less.

In Colonial days in the USA, there was a joke about traveling schoolteachers

who would go from town to town, teach in the local schoolhouse for a while,

then move on to the next town on the circuit. Some of them would do

*anything* to get a job in whatever town had asked for a schoolteacher to

stop by ... it seems that one such fellow rode into town, told the head of

the school board " I hear you decided you need a science teacher, " and they

answered " Yes, we do. All we need to know is: According to the best of your

knowledge, is the earth round or is it flat? " The schoolteacher didn't know

how to tell which answer they wanted, so he said: " It's whichever shape

you'll pay me to teach " -- *and* *they* *hired* *him*. (He was the first

applicant to give the " right " answer.)

This kind of thing happens today, too. Not too long ago, a newspaper

interviewing me for a story on handwriting asked me by phone " What's your

opinion on the handwriting program used by the schools in our circulation

area? " -- so I asked what program the schools were using, and the reporter

said: " Just say it's a good program. " I replied that I couldn't consider

saying that without even knowing the name of the program -- and the reporter

dropped me from the story, saying that if I wasn't willing to do that, he

knew half-a-dozen other quotable people who would (endorse a program because

the story outline wanted them to, no matter what), and of course the story

appeared with lots of people saying how great the local program was. (Since

I direct the World Handwriting Contest, I had *seen* entries from students

and teachers in that town -- and ... in my professional opinion, even the

least bad were mostly notable for their partial illegibility and for what I

would have to call their total greatnesslessness. No, I'm not telling you

where this was.)

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

This just gets worse and worse! How can anyone have the nerve to even ask

for " your opinion " and then TELL YOU what to say? That's absurd. Of course

a lot of things in this world are...

-- Re: practicalities of getting important

promises kept (formerly Introductions)

Re:

Unbelievable. Too bad he didn't pay more attention in some of those groups

> himself!

>

Or maybe the group-leaders said exactly what he wanted them to say. After

all, he approved each and every one of them ...

The law can specify that schools do " sensitivity training " -- but who enacts

the law? To my personal knowledge, some people that sell themselves as

experts will say and do exactly what the expert-hirer instructs them to say

and do: no more and no less.

In Colonial days in the USA, there was a joke about traveling schoolteachers

who would go from town to town, teach in the local schoolhouse for a while,

then move on to the next town on the circuit. Some of them would do

*anything* to get a job in whatever town had asked for a schoolteacher to

stop by ... it seems that one such fellow rode into town, told the head of

the school board " I hear you decided you need a science teacher, " and they

answered " Yes, we do. All we need to know is: According to the best of your

knowledge, is the earth round or is it flat? " The schoolteacher didn't know

how to tell which answer they wanted, so he said: " It's whichever shape

you'll pay me to teach " -- *and* *they* *hired* *him*. (He was the first

applicant to give the " right " answer.)

This kind of thing happens today, too. Not too long ago, a newspaper

interviewing me for a story on handwriting asked me by phone " What's your

opinion on the handwriting program used by the schools in our circulation

area? " -- so I asked what program the schools were using, and the reporter

said: " Just say it's a good program. " I replied that I couldn't consider

saying that without even knowing the name of the program -- and the reporter

dropped me from the story, saying that if I wasn't willing to do that, he

knew half-a-dozen other quotable people who would (endorse a program because

the story outline wanted them to, no matter what), and of course the story

appeared with lots of people saying how great the local program was. (Since

I direct the World Handwriting Contest, I had *seen* entries from students

and teachers in that town -- and ... in my professional opinion, even the

least bad were mostly notable for their partial illegibility and for what I

would have to call their total greatnesslessness. No, I'm not telling you

where this was.)

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

That's awful! That guy sounds very disturbed. it sounds like he was acting like

a kid who lacks maturity and self control, not like an adult or a staff member.

I would have stopped talking and looked at him, just looked at him. That's how

I deal with students who behave inappropriately in the classroom and often this

gets them to stop. Other things that help are saying something like " Sir, I

need you to stop playing with the lights (phone, chalk, etc) please. " Then when

he stops say " Thank you. " Sometimes if a student continues to disrupt class I

ask them to leave (this is the advantage to teaching college; you can't ask kids

who are bound by the truancy laws to leave.) I had one student who loved to

steal the erasers so when I figured out who was doing it I went to him privately

and said, " I have a job for you - I need you to make sure we have erasers. "

Of course while all this is going on it's very annoying, but if he's doing this

in a childish bid for attention he " wins " if you show annoyance. So I would

take a few deep breaths and deal with him as I would deal with a student who is

disrupting class. Ignoring them works sometimes; telling them gently yet firmly

to stop whatever inappropriate thing they're doing works sometimes; asking them

to leave is a last resort, etc.

None of this is easy, especially for autistics, as it requires complex social

interaction. But it can be done. (I'm over 50 years old and I've only in

recent years figured this out.) It can be done more easily if one keeps a cool

head, which is where practice of mindfulness or the Five Mahalos comes in. I

think of it as a war where I " win " if I accomplish my purpose and can feel good

about what I have done, and they " win " if they prevent me from accomplishing my

purpose and/or if they otherwise " ruin my day. "

Another thing to understand is, you have a right to feel however you feel. So

if you're angry, that's ok, you have a right to be angry. But for the sake of

my own well-being I don't dwell on negative aspects of an experience. Your

mileage may vary.

-

> And, when the workshops do go on, the man who objected to your

> presence does things like making sure you can't have an audio-visual

> hook-up, sitting near the light switches and flicking the lights

> constantly on and off as you speak, playing loud annoying sounds on

> his smartphone while you're talking, etc. etc., etc., (He is also

> caught removing all chalk from the room you're using, but of course

> you brought your own.) The principal sees what's happening, and comes

> up to whisper to you that " of course this is unfair, but you have to

> ignore it and appear to be OK with it or he'll quit and we can't

> afford that. "

> Despite all this, the workshop actually goes rather well.

>

> What would be the right thing to think, feel, say, and do in such

> circumstances? Just feel OK about it because " people are like that " ?

> Or what?

>

>

> Kate Gladstone

>

[Guest guest]

" Massively multiplayer online role-playing game "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game

My husband, kids and I play several ones, and have for several years. The

only time we really get anything done is when we work together as a squad,

because most of the time we work with other players we wind up being robbed,

hurt or things just go wrong.

With my disabilties, I cant go out anywhere now, so my only contact is

through my computer now. And that is worse than trying to talk to people

face to face, in its own ways.

Sorry. Just really depressed tonight,and hurting

Gail

-- Re: practicalities of getting important

promises kept (formerly " Introductions " )

> suggests I should pity the man. I reserve pity for

> people/animals/plants that have run into hard luck and that deserve

better:

> not for jerks who are inflicting hard luck on others.

I don't do pity at all, it doesn't help anyone and is quite a

condescending attitude.

I believe everyone has reasons for what they do that are valid to

them. They may not be reasons I have much or any empathy with, but to

that person they are valid. They may not be admirable reasons, but I

have some non-admirable qualities myself. For instance I once had to

live with a woman who I quickly came to despise for her way of being

in the world. I didn't like myself for despising her but that was my

natural reaction to her, and no matter how I tried to be decent

towards her it couldn't work, we mutually hated and despised each

other despite that neither of us is a particularly amoral person.

People have qualities we like and qualities we don't, they can make

things harder for us or easier, but from their pov the way they react

to us is valid. That's not to say society ought not to punish extreme

social misdemeanour, or that we shouldn't try to avoid those who react

to us badly or bring to justice those that illegally abuse us, but

perhaps to say that below the level at which legalities can be brought

into force people are just gonna be people, valid from their

perspective even if not from ours. And that's where we need to take

responsiblity for our side of things, not just how we behave towards

them, but what we do with how they behave towards us, and our internal

reactions. I think so anyway. Some people get really fired up about

this becuase to them all blame is external, things out there *make*

them feel bad, and they don't want the responsibility of dealing with

their feelings themselves - they really believe all the responsibility

for how they feel is from out there.

My perspective on this is it's kind of sad because actually there's so

much each of us can do to take charge of our minds, our feelings, our

quality of life, even if there's very little we can change about what

happens to us from other people and situations. It does take

practice, it takes starting with little irritations and building up to

the big ones, but when you can take charge of your own emotional and

mental states when big things happen life is amazingly different.

Ruth

--

" Environmental problems are difficult to solve because Earth is a

" public good " . Even though we would all be better off if everyone

reduced their environmental impact, it is not in anyone's individual

interest to do so. This leads to the famous " tragedy of the commons " ,

in which public resources are overexploited and everyone suffers. "

New Scientist opinion article

[Guest guest]

> Re:

> Absolutes are lacking.

> >

> Then do you expect me to take that as an absoluite?

I'm not sure what you mean? Language is much more messy than we like to think!

Ruth

--

" Environmental problems are difficult to solve because Earth is a

" public good " .  Even though we would all be better off if everyone

reduced their environmental impact, it is not in anyone's individual

interest to do so.  This leads to the famous " tragedy of the commons " ,

in which public resources are overexploited and everyone suffers. "

New Scientist opinion article

[Guest guest]

Well, see, now you can take immense satisfaction in saying, " I told you so,

I told you so, you childish, petty little wanker! " J

Elayne

From: Kate Gladstone

I hadn't thought of that -- but after two years of the school using what I'd

introduced them to (over his severe objections and even serious attempts to

sabotage it), even he decided I'd been right all along.

[Guest guest]

Re: practicalities of getting important

promises kept (formerly " Introductions " )

> suggests I should pity the man. I reserve pity for

> people/animals/plants that have run into hard luck and that deserve

better:

> not for jerks who are inflicting hard luck on others.

I don't do pity at all, it doesn't help anyone and is quite a

condescending attitude.

I believe everyone has reasons for what they do that are valid to

them. They may not be reasons I have much or any empathy with, but to

that person they are valid. They may not be admirable reasons, but I

have some non-admirable qualities myself. For instance I once had to

live with a woman who I quickly came to despise for her way of being

in the world. I didn't like myself for despising her but that was my

natural reaction to her, and no matter how I tried to be decent

towards her it couldn't work, we mutually hated and despised each

other despite that neither of us is a particularly amoral person.

People have qualities we like and qualities we don't, they can make

things harder for us or easier, but from their pov the way they react

to us is valid. That's not to say society ought not to punish extreme

social misdemeanour, or that we shouldn't try to avoid those who react

to us badly or bring to justice those that illegally abuse us, but

perhaps to say that below the level at which legalities can be brought

into force people are just gonna be people, valid from their

perspective even if not from ours. And that's where we need to take

responsiblity for our side of things, not just how we behave towards

them, but what we do with how they behave towards us, and our internal

reactions. I think so anyway. Some people get really fired up about

this becuase to them all blame is external, things out there *make*

them feel bad, and they don't want the responsibility of dealing with

their feelings themselves - they really believe all the responsibility

for how they feel is from out there.

My perspective on this is it's kind of sad because actually there's so

much each of us can do to take charge of our minds, our feelings, our

quality of life, even if there's very little we can change about what

happens to us from other people and situations. It does take

practice, it takes starting with little irritations and building up to

the big ones, but when you can take charge of your own emotional and

mental states when big things happen life is amazingly different.

Ruth

--

" Environmental problems are difficult to solve because Earth is a

" public good " . Even though we would all be better off if everyone

reduced their environmental impact, it is not in anyone's individual

interest to do so. This leads to the famous " tragedy of the commons " ,

in which public resources are overexploited and everyone suffers. "

New Scientist opinion article

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: Kate Gladstone

I hadn't thought of that -- but after two years of the school using what I'd

introduced them to (over his severe objections and even serious attempts to

sabotage it), even he decided I'd been right all along.

**I'm glad things turned out well after all!

D.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: Kate Gladstone

In Colonial days in the USA, there was a joke about traveling schoolteachers

who would go from town to town, teach in the local schoolhouse for a while,

then move on to the next town on the circuit. Some of them would do

*anything* to get a job in whatever town had asked for a schoolteacher to

stop by ... it seems that one such fellow rode into town, told the head of

the school board " I hear you decided you need a science teacher, " and they

answered " Yes, we do. All we need to know is: According to the best of your

knowledge, is the earth round or is it flat? " The schoolteacher didn't know

how to tell which answer they wanted, so he said: " It's whichever shape

you'll pay me to teach " -- *and* *they* *hired* *him*. (He was the first

applicant to give the " right " answer.)

**In other words, they want them to 'play ball'. Screw that!

This kind of thing happens today, too. Not too long ago, a newspaper

interviewing me for a story on handwriting asked me by phone " What's your

opinion on the handwriting program used by the schools in our circulation

area? " -- so I asked what program the schools were using, and the reporter

said: " Just say it's a good program. " I replied that I couldn't consider

saying that without even knowing the name of the program -- and the reporter

dropped me from the story, saying that if I wasn't willing to do that, he

knew half-a-dozen other quotable people who would (endorse a program because

the story outline wanted them to, no matter what), and of course the story

appeared with lots of people saying how great the local program was.

**Good for you to stand by your principles!

D.

[Guest guest]

Re:

>

>

> On 16 July 2010 23:50, Kate Gladstone

<handwritingrepair@...<handwritingrepair%40gmail.com>>

> wrote:

> > Re:

> > Absolutes are lacking.

> > >

> > Then do you expect me to take that as an absoluite?

>

> I'm not sure what you mean?

>

Which part of the sentence didn't you understand? I'll make it simpler:

Do you regard your statement

(that " absolutes are lacking " )

as an absolute?

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

> Which part of the sentence didn't you understand? I'll make it simpler:

>

> Do you regard your statement

> (that " absolutes are lacking " )

> as an absolute?

>

I went away and thought about it while out and about today, and I

think I get the confusion. The statement was actually a specific

rather than an absolute because it was referring to a specific

situation. Like if I say there are absolutely no apples in the

kitchen, it's actually a specific situation referring to a particular

time and place, not a generalisation that there are not and never will

be apples, anywhere or or even anytime in my kitchen. Using the word

" absolute " or a derivitive therof doesn't mean the statement is an

absolute in it's overall meaning. Or something. Maybe I got confused

more. But no the statement was not an absolute, it's questionable

whether you can have a negatve absolute anyway, if you look at science

- you can say " absolutely not possible " but on the whole you mean not

possible at this time and place with the technology we currently have.

Urgh, blur, tiredness, just back from Leeds for the second time this

week which is over an hour journey each way plus the Leeds based

activities in between. And the busyness of Leeds and Leeds station,

which I'm not used to, being a village dweller who mostly uses the

small towns nearby.

Ruth

--

" Environmental problems are difficult to solve because Earth is a

" public good " .  Even though we would all be better off if everyone

reduced their environmental impact, it is not in anyone's individual

interest to do so.  This leads to the famous " tragedy of the commons " ,

in which public resources are overexploited and everyone suffers. "

New Scientist opinion article

[Guest guest]

Re:

>

> Well, see, now you can take immense satisfaction in saying, " I told you so,

> I told you so, you childish, petty little wanker! " J

>

>

>

That's nice when it happens.

Of course, sometimes it doesn't happen.

For those who believe

that, " well, we should just feel okay with it, because that's what people

like to do "

[i'm paraphrasing something that a lot of people tell me about this sort of

thing],

I would like to know where you draw the line:

do you recognize any particular point where such behaviors cross a line and

can no longer just be dismissed as " what people like to do " ?

Or must we just " smile and like it all, no matter what " ? (another thing I

get told a lot)

Here is a stronger example (or, at least, an example where I didn't succeed

in changing the situation).

This is also an actual situation:

in this particular situation (described below), a therapist told me that I

shouldn't have minded what happened " because the other people needed it to

happen the way it did: they had very strong emotional needs that you were

not meeting. "

THE SITUATION:

Several years ago, a small group of " special ed " specialists (it included

occupational therapists and some others) was looking for a speaker for a

conference that they were trying to pull together. Because one theme of the

conference would be " positive outlooks for adults with neurological

conditions " (I think they called it) they were looking for speakers who were

NOT therapists or other specialists -- speakers who themselves had such

conditions and who had succeeded in some important area where success had

seemed unlikely. So the vice-president of that group called me (I accepted),

she talked to her group's president and the speaker selection committee (and

they accepted -- and the president in fact seemed very happy when she looked

at my web-site and then called to check me out over the phone) ...

.... but then ...

.... right at the last minute -- literally as I was making my travel plans --

the person who'd proposed me as a speaker (the vice-president) called back

and said that she'd been given the sad job of telling me that the group had

very suddenly changed its mind because they'd figured out (from my chat with

their president) that not only didn't I follow their favorite therapy

approach to handwriting issues

(they said they could " sort of " have dealt with that, to an extent,

even though the members wouldn't have loved my disagreement),

but -- more " importantly problematic " for them --

I was also not willing to be " compliant " as a speaker in another and

bigger way that they considered necessary for all their speakers. (Namely, I

was unwilling to present myself as a " successful graduate " of any of the

particular forms of training/ " special ed " that they favored: because I had

never been in their particular kind of program.)

It went beyond their just saying " Sorry, we can't have you " -- they went

further and said something like:

" It is deeply important for our members to feel validated: to hear

that their preferred approach is the approach that is being used

and that it is working and is being enjoyed by the clients.

Our members come to meetings and conferences to feel supported

and agreed with, NOT to be contradicted and left out in the cold by

people who won't play along. "

Then she said that they were " solving " the problem by finding someone else

-- I don't know who -- who was willing to *pretend* to be the " adult success

story " they all wanted to hear from:

" If you are not going to be a team player on this [the president said],

that leaves a last-minute hole in our schedule and you should think twice

before inconveniencing others in such a like that. If necessary, we will

just have to quietly find some actor or similar person who is willing

to present himself or herself to the membership as a person with

disabilities who has been benefited by our approach. "

Similarly, other individuals/groups/schools (in the so-called " autism

world " and elsewhere)

have told me " up front " that they would consider me " appropriate " and hire

me if (and only if)

I could bring myself to claim -- falsely! -- that I'd improved (in any

area) via their favorite approach & that I used that approach myself.

Of course, I don't -- and of course this has an effect on my life (because

it limits my opportunities, and I cannot always combat it.) Is this

something I should just " feel OK about, " too?

Kate Gladstone