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

[Guest guest]

Ruth,

You are right. The fact that your statement is a negative, i.e., something is

lacking, means it is not an absolute. You are simply saying something is not

there.

To: AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse

From: autisteruth@...

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 17:23:16 +0100

Subject: Re: practicalities of getting important promises

kept (formerly " Introductions " )

> 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]

Either /a/ Ruth absolutely believes that absolutes are always lacking,

or /b/ Ruth doesn't absolutely believe that.

If /a/ is true (if Ruth believes that absolutes are always lacking).

then her statement is absolutist -- it is an absolute negative.

( is incorrect because negatives can be absolute, and they

often are. For example: " Smoking is absolutely prohibited here. " )

If /b/ is true (if Ruth doesn't absolutely believe that absolutes

don't exist), then Ruth believes -- at least somewhat -- that some

absolutes exist (even if she doesn't notice that she believes this).

Which is it, Ruth?

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

> Which is it, Ruth?

>

Simply not that straightforward due to the vagaries of language.

Language is definitely not absolute! But you tell me if that means

language can never acurately define something!

Kate, you seem cross about this. I may be wrong of course. Whichever

way, I'm not messing you around, just trying to use the imprecision of

language to describe the imprecision of experience.

There's no point trying to back me into a corner because there is no corner :-)

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]

For example: " Smoking is absolutely prohibited here. " )

That's not absolute because it means smoking is prohibited here now

but it doesn't mean it always was or always will be. You have a place

context but not a time one. In fact it means there's a law, but it

doesn't mean the law will be enforced (as someone who hates smoking

don't I know it!). What it actually says is someone doesn't want you

to smoke here, but they may not be able to stop you or even willing to

try should they catch you in the act. The word absolutely is

misleading, as it often is. Absolutely prohibited would have to mean

something like you definitely can't do it, I think?

That's where law is pretty much never absolute, because it doesn't

cover what the people enforcing the law don't know about or what they

deliberately ignore. It kind of says, " don't, or else " but often the

" or else " fails to materialise one way or another. Smoking is one of

the best examples of that that I come across day to day, people

smoking where the law wants to say they absolutely musn't, but hey

they still are.

It's also an example of where language falls down. Because according

the legal statutes you cannot smoke here. But in truth most of the

time let's face it you can. Or at least some of the time. I've yet

to see a place that is policed against smoking 24/7.

Another thing about the law is precedent, and sometimes precedent is

stronger than legality. In the UK there was a legal ban on fox

hunting. Fox hunting still happened. Eventually the police decided

not to even try to stop it any more. So the law said you absolutely

must not hunt foxes but people still did, without even the threat of a

negative consequnece. Where's the absolute?

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:

> Simply not that straightforward due to the vagaries of language.

> Language is definitely not absolute!

>

In other words, you're saying that " language is *absolutely* not absolute "

....

But you tell me if that means

> language can never acurately define something!

>

You know as well as I do that that absolute would be false.

>

> Kate, you seem cross about this. I may be wrong of course.

>

You're wrong. I don't feel cross: I feel interested in finding out what you

mean, and in finding out whether what you mean holds true.

Re:

Whichever

> way, I'm not messing you around, just trying to use the imprecision of

> language to describe the imprecision of experience.

>

What do you mean by " the imprecision of experience " ?

Re:

>

> There's no point trying to back me into a corner because there is no corner

> :-)

>

Are you absolutely sure that there is absolutely no corner?

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

> Re:

>

> > Simply not that straightforward due to the vagaries of language.

> > Language is definitely not absolute!

> >

> In other words, you're saying that " language is *absolutely* not absolute "

Not at all. Sometimes language is very precise and absolute.

Sometimes not. It's neither absolutely absolute, nor absolutely not

absolute :-) Fun times.

> ...

>

> But you tell me if that means

> > language can never acurately define something!

> >

> You know as well as I do that that absolute would be false.

I don't know, because I can only work with the language I have in the

cultural and linguistic context I am conditioned by.

>

> >

> > Kate, you seem cross about this. I may be wrong of course.

> >

> You're wrong. I don't feel cross: I feel interested in finding out what you

> mean, and in finding out whether what you mean holds true.

OK, you just come across as a bit aggressive sometimes, and that makes

me think you might be cross. I'll accept that you don't intend

aggression.

>

> Re:

> Whichever

> > way, I'm not messing you around, just trying to use the imprecision of

> > language to describe the imprecision of experience.

> What do you mean by " the imprecision of experience " ?

> >

We experience what we do of the world through our senses, interpreted

through our brains. There is no way that what we experience in a

situation is all there is to experience, and generally no way that our

experience is not conditioned by our language and culture as we

interpret it to ourselves.

Also that two people in the same situation can give very differing but

completely honest accounts of it.

>

> Re:

> > There's no point trying to back me into a corner because there is no corner

> > :-)

> >

> Are you absolutely sure that there is absolutely no corner?

I hold to there being no provability of negative absolutes :-)

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:

That's not absolute because it means smoking is prohibited here now

> but it doesn't mean it always was or always will be.

>

You're certain about that.

Is your certainty absolute?

A lot of people (I guess you, Ruth, are one of them) blur the useful

distinction between what some people call " metaphysical absolutes "

(things which always hold absolutely true in any context, no matter

what:

obviously, there aren't many such things,

and I admit that " metaphysical " is a goofy-sounding name for them)

and the much larger category of contextual absolutes

(things which only hold true in a certain context --

but, within that context, they absolutely do hold true).

As a result, when people say " There are no absolutes, " it's often hard to

tell if they mean that there are no contextual absolutes, or if they mean

that there are no metaphysical absolutes, or if they mean something else.

So what did *you* mean, Ruth?

Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone

http://www.HandwritingThatWorks.com

Handwriting Repair/Handwriting That Works

and the World Handwriting Contest

6-B Weis Road, Albany, NY 12208-1942

518/482-6763 - handwritingrepair@...

BETTER LETTERS (iPhone handwriting trainer app) --

http://bit.ly/BetterLetters

SONGS OF PENDOM -- http://stores.lulu.com/handwriting

POLITICIAN LEGIBILITY ACT Petition --

http://www.iPetitions.com/petition/PoliticianLegibility

Twitter -- http://www.twitter.com/KateGladstone

Facebook -- http://www.facebook.com/KateGladstone

[Guest guest]

> So what did *you* mean, Ruth?

I've explained three different ways now, and our minds aren't meeting

on this so tbh right now I think it's best to drop it. I can't use

language the way I understand it to get the concepts as I understand

them into a form where you understand them. It's a great of example

of what I'm trying to explain, if you think like I do :-)

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]

Kate, this is unbelievable! Are you in the US? They want people to lie and

misrepresent themselves just to prop up their group? Do the members there

have to pay a fee? These people need to be reported, maybe the Better

Business Bureau?

D.

Re: practicalities of getting important

promises kept (formerly " Introductions " )

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

[Guest guest]

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

From: Kate Gladstone

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?

**No way! You're right to stick to your convictions. You have morals and

ethics! Too bad so many other people do not and want to drag others down to

their level. Disgusting!

D.

[Guest guest]

**This conversation absolutely gives me a headache!

(Ruth writes:)

OK, you just come across as a bit aggressive sometimes, and that makes

me think you might be cross. I'll accept that you don't intend aggression.

**Aggressive? How about frustrated? This conversation is making me

frustrated and if it were done face to face, me being in place of Kate, I'd

probably be in tears by now! Talk about beating a dead horse!

Also that two people in the same situation can give very differing but

completely honest accounts of it.

**True.

D.

[Guest guest]

> **This conversation absolutely gives me a headache!

Me too, literally. That's one of the reasons I'm stopping. When

people are trying to dialogue on something intensive but based on very

different paradigms with the best will in the world it can become more

bogging down than helpful. It's all good though, because it gives me

pointers for trying to learn to clarify better to others who don't

share my paradigms, or at the very least some ideas of things to avoid

introducing or overexplaining.

>

> (Ruth writes:)

>

> OK, you just come across as a bit aggressive sometimes, and that makes

> me think you might be cross. I'll accept that you don't intend aggression.

>

> **Aggressive? How about frustrated? This conversation is making me

> frustrated and if it were done face to face, me being in place of Kate, I'd

> probably be in tears by now! Talk about beating a dead horse!

I thought that since Kate kept asking questions she wanted me to keep

trying to explain what I mean? I'm certainly not trying to upset her.

I know it's complicated but i don't think attempts to communicate

ever have to be wasted, even where ultimately they fail there is a lot

to learn on reflection. I may have a headache, but it's a slightly

more informed one :-)

>

> Also that two people in the same situation can give very differing but

> completely honest accounts of it.

>

> **True.

Absolutely? LOL!!!!

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]

> " 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. ...

>

> 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?

Perhaps it limits your opportunities to basically defraud people. I

would feel good about declining and feel good about telling them

that you are unable to do this because it is untrue and untrue

statements are never a part of being a " team player " .

[Guest guest]

> For those who believe that, " well, we should just

> feel okay with it, because that's what people

> like to do " [i'm paraphrasing...],

> I would like to know where you draw the line:

In the case you originally described, I see a difference between

feeling okay with it and how to respond to it. The " how to respond

to it " part is basically what is practical for you to do and what

you think you can get away with.

The response would relate to your desire to get paid, your

professional reputation and perhaps a desire to react to the

department head's actions. There is also the consideration that you

are not beholden to the department head and so you may have been

able to respond differently from people in the department.

That said, it is sometimes unsatisfactory to comment on another's

actions. Thus, you could have let it be known to the audience that

you had visuals prepared but were denied the equipment, but in doing

so, you would have been seen as complaining and making excuses. You

perhaps could have gotten away with saying something to the effect

of, " If we can get Powerpoint video set up..., " but that presumes

you would have expected those particular pranks.

Back to " what people like to do " - You cannot control what other

people like to do; you can only respond accordingly.

- s0

[Guest guest]

Re:

> I would feel good about declining and feel good about telling them

> that you are unable to do this because it is untrue and untrue

> statements are never a part of being a " team player " .

>

Of course I told them that, and of course I feel good about what I did --

but I feel bad about my inability to persuade them to act honestly: because

the situation had initially seemed so promising (special-ed specialists

actually wanting to hear from the kind of person they trained to help!)

I don't even know, though, whether they were telling the truth or lying when

they said that their next step was to find themselves someone who'd be

willing to pose as the " right kind of person with a disability, the kind

that we feel better about " (or words to that effect).

One thing that made it especially hard: a comment that the group's president

gave me later, when I wrote her to let her know how disappointed I felt

regarding the last-minute about-face and the rationales given for making it.

She replied that my feelings of disappointment (and my " failure to

understand why our decision was necessary to benefit our group as a whole " )

" need to be understood as symptoms of your being a person with Asperger's,

because a non-Asperger person would have made sense of the reasons for our

decision and would have shared our feeling that it was necessary to override

the vice-president's recommendation " that I should speak. (The

vice-president -- who does not have Asperger's, as far as I know -- was

nevertheless disappointed, too. She let me know that she felt very

embarrassed, to the point that she would have to stop communicating with me

because the group had made her feel bad about this whole incident and she

couldn't take the painful feelings it was leaving her with. She didn't blame

me -- but she, too, hadn't expected to have to see this kind of treatment

given to anyone.)

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

How abusive and manipulative!! And these people are in charge of " treating "

other autistics? Do they actually aim to create productive, independent

adults, or just little automatons who will parrot whatever party line

they're given? Geez. I can't believe anybody with that kind of attitude is

in charge of the education of any child, never mind a spectrum child who

might actually believe that kind of excrement if told.

Elayne

From: Kate Gladstone

She replied that my feelings of disappointment (and my " failure to

understand why our decision was necessary to benefit our group as a whole " )

" need to be understood as symptoms of your being a person with Asperger's,

because a non-Asperger person would have made sense of the reasons for our

decision and would have shared our feeling that it was necessary to override

the vice-president's recommendation " that I should speak.

[Guest guest]

I wrote:

> > I would feel good about declining ...

> She replied that my feelings of disappointment (and my

> " failure to understand why our decision was necessary

> to benefit our group as a whole " ) " need to be understood

> as symptoms of your being a person with Asperger's,

New addition to DSM-5:

- increased propensity to recognize bullschidt.

- delusions by which individual interprets bullschidt as such.

> because a non-Asperger person would have

.... fewer qualms about participating in the fraud.

> made sense of the reasons for our decision and would

> have shared our feeling that it was necessary to

> override the vice-president's recommendation " that

> I should speak.

Of note, she did not really explain why one would be expected to

share their interest in intentional deception.

> (The vice-president ... She let me know that she felt very

> embarrassed, to the point that she would have to stop

> communicating with me because the group had made her feel

> bad

I presume THAT part relates to autism. I can't figure it out at

all, so it must be my inability to understand social response.

- s0

[Guest guest]

Re

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 13:29, Stan's Computer wrote:

>

>

>

> > made sense of the reasons for our decision and would

> > have shared our feeling that it was necessary to

> > override the vice-president's recommendation " that

> > I should speak.

>

> Of note, she did not really explain why one would be expected to

> share their interest in intentional deception.

>

Actually, she did -- a little. (My previous message summarized a longer

interchange.)

I didn't, though, find the explanation convincing -- which annoyed her.

As she explained it (if you can call it an " explanation " ) --

/1/ " Helping professionals " do a better job of helping when they

are happy.

/2/ Therefore, top priorities for an organization of such

professionals need to include making them happy and keeping them happy, so

that their work will not be affected and they will not wish to leave the

profession.

>

> > (The vice-president ... She let me know that she felt very

> > embarrassed, to the point that she would have to stop

> > communicating with me because the group had made her feel

> > bad

>

> I presume THAT part relates to autism. I can't figure it out at

> all, so it must be my inability to understand social response.

>

The group had made her feel bad by making fun of her (and apparently

bullying her in other ways) for the " crime " of locating and proposing an

" unsuitable " speaker for their little get-together.

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

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

From: Kate Gladstone

/1/ " Helping professionals " do a better job of helping when they

are happy.

/2/ Therefore, top priorities for an organization of such

professionals need to include making them happy and keeping them happy, so

that their work will not be affected and they will not wish to leave the

profession.

**Even if it means lying to them?

The group had made her feel bad by making fun of her (and apparently

bullying her in other ways) for the " crime " of locating and proposing an

" unsuitable " speaker for their little get-together.

**I'd be out of there in a flash! I have zero tolerance for deception.

D.

[Guest guest]

> Of course I told them that, and of course I feel good about what I did --

> but I feel bad about my inability to persuade them to act honestly

An alternate approach -- one that I would have considered, I suppose

-- would have been to proceed with the speaking engagement and then

tell the truth. Expect to be challenged on it, in which case, you

can plan to say,

" Yes, I was told that people wanted me to say I participated in this

program. I was under the impression that meant they hoped I had

participated in it so I could truthfully say I did. I would be very

surprised if they wanted me to be untruthful about it. "

If questioned afterwards, I'd offer as many fake apologies as they

desired, perhaps describing a parallel misunderstanding of what the

group wanted. Regardless, I would have insisted on asserting the

truth of my own statements. " Sorry to give you the wrong

impression, but I really did not receive the xxx therapy. I should

have made that clear, but I wasn't really aware that you thought I

had received xxx therapy. "

The reasons not to go with that approach are if there was some way

you could be blackballed. Fortunately, blackballing is very

difficult for any one group to accomplish.

- s0

[Guest guest]

Re:

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Kate Gladstone

>

> /1/ " Helping professionals " do a better job of helping when they

> are happy.

> /2/ Therefore, top priorities for an organization of such

> professionals need to include making them happy and keeping them happy, so

> that their work will not be affected and they will not wish to leave the

> profession.

>

> **Even if it means lying to them?

>

As far as I could understand her, she somehow thought that it couldn't *be*

a lie, really, if it made them happy. (And she didn't actually " get " why I

disagree.)

> The group had made her feel bad by making fun of her (and apparently

> bullying her in other ways) for the " crime " of locating and proposing an

> " unsuitable " speaker for their little get-together.

>

> **I'd be out of there in a flash! I have zero tolerance for deception.

>

Well, after that I certainly didn't want to speak to them anyway! If, and

only if, the vice-president of that group eventually became the president &

asked me again (WITHOUT imposing similar conditions) could I consider

speaking.

I later learned that a somewhat similar situation prevails within at least

some training-programs for OTs and such-like (e.g., college programs that

provide a major in Occupational Therapy) when the program accepts a student

who him/herself has one or more of the disabilities/other conditions that

the program exists to train people to help with. It happens -- in at least

some programs -- that examinations may require giving " correct " answers that

the person who actually *has* the condition can recognize as partly or

completely incorrect: e.g., an exam may ask

" Explain how the public awareness campaigns and fund-raising activities

of 'Autism Speaks' have been highly beneficial to people with autism "

or " Give at least three reasons that ABA is the best approach to use

with people with autism "

or " Explain why it is unacceptable and unprofessional to use the phrase

'autistic people', why it is important and essential to always use the

phrase 'people with autism' instead. Your explanation should include at

least one of the reasons that the phrase 'people with autism' is preferred

by people with autism themselves "

If one objects to those questions (either as part of writing one's

exam-answer, or in a talk with the teacher/administrator afterward), one

will almost certainly be removed from the program, even if the folks in

charge admit that your objections are even partway valid.

(One of the reasons they may have to " wash you out " of the program is

that, for the past decade or so in the USA, Federally funded

agencies/programs/etc. have to use " people with ______ " language about

disabilities/diagnosable condititions [e.g., " people with autism " ] and stay

away from using " _____ people " language or they lose their funding and

approval: there are actually bureaucrats who do searches through Federally

funded documents/publications to see who is using an " inappropriate " phrase,

and cut their funding. This means that anyone who got through a

training-program and persisted in using " inappropriate language about

disabilities " would not get a job, anyway -- potential employers would be

reluctant to hire him/her as an OT or whatever -- so the training-programs

are reluctant to let such a person get as far as graduating. It's as if

Federal regulations forced people training for positions in

civil-rights-related work -- including black people -- to call black people

" niggers " on the grounds that such people either preferred the word " nigger "

or bloody-well *ought* to prefer it ... )

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

Re:

> An alternate approach -- one that I would have considered, I suppose

> -- would have been to proceed with the speaking engagement and then

> tell the truth. Expect to be challenged on it, in which case, you

> can plan to say,

>

> " Yes, I was told that people wanted me to say I participated in this

> program. I was under the impression that meant they hoped I had

> participated in it so I could truthfully say I did. I would be very

> surprised if they wanted me to be untruthful about it. "

>

> If questioned afterwards, I'd offer as many fake apologies as they

> desired, perhaps describing a parallel misunderstanding of what the

> group wanted. Regardless, I would have insisted on asserting the

> truth of my own statements. " Sorry to give you the wrong

> impression, but I really did not receive the xxx therapy. I should

> have made that clear, but I wasn't really aware that you thought I

> had received xxx therapy. "

>

The one time I tried that (it was with an ASA chapter that had invited me --

a few years before the later, similar incident that I described),

I got to speak, all right --

I said just about what Stan has outlined --

but immediately afterwards, the group's leader and other members made it

plain that

(even though they admitted my workshop

had taught them a lot that they hadn't known

about Aspies and handwriting and possible interventions),

they had found it very upsetting to hear what I'd had to say about the

subject, and they did not think that they would change any of what they were

doing ( " even though we do have to admit that our kids whom you were working

with *did* happen to make a lot of unexpected progress during the two hours

that you were here visiting us today ... " ).

And it is probably no coincidence that they were not just the first, but the

*last*, ASA chapter to ask me to do a workshop (or to stay on the phone

with/answer e-mails from me when I've responded to occasional ASA

announcements that they are looking for adults on the spectrum who might be

interested in speaking at groups/conferences ... )

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

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

From: Kate Gladstone

As far as I could understand her, she somehow thought that it couldn't *be*

a lie, really, if it made them happy. (And she didn't actually " get " why I

disagree.)

**And then they call us dense? Just like so many NTs will tell you " It's

okay " when it really isn't and expect you to know that they don't mean it.

And we're the abnormal ones?

Well, after that I certainly didn't want to speak to them anyway! If, and

only if, the vice-president of that group eventually became the president &

asked me again (WITHOUT imposing similar conditions) could I consider

speaking.

**Yes.

I later learned that a somewhat similar situation prevails within at least

some training-programs for OTs and such-like (e.g., college programs that

provide a major in Occupational Therapy) when the program accepts a student

who him/herself has one or more of the disabilities/other conditions that

the program exists to train people to help with. It happens -- in at least

some programs -- that examinations may require giving " correct " answers that

the person who actually *has* the condition can recognize as partly or

completely incorrect: e.g., an exam may ask

" Explain how the public awareness campaigns and fund-raising activities

of 'Autism Speaks' have been highly beneficial to people with autism "

or " Give at least three reasons that ABA is the best approach to use

with people with autism "

or " Explain why it is unacceptable and unprofessional to use the phrase

'autistic people', why it is important and essential to always use the

phrase 'people with autism' instead. Your explanation should include at

least one of the reasons that the phrase 'people with autism' is preferred

by people with autism themselves "

**These types of questions make my eyes glaze over. To me, there's no

difference between 'autistic people' and 'people with autism'.

If one objects to those questions (either as part of writing one's

exam-answer, or in a talk with the teacher/administrator afterward), one

will almost certainly be removed from the program, even if the folks in

charge admit that your objections are even partway valid.

(One of the reasons they may have to " wash you out " of the program is

that, for the past decade or so in the USA, Federally funded

agencies/programs/etc. have to use " people with ______ " language about

disabilities/diagnosable condititions [e.g., " people with autism " ] and stay

away from using " _____ people " language or they lose their funding and

approval:

**That makes no sense to me.

there are actually bureaucrats who do searches through Federally

funded documents/publications to see who is using an " inappropriate " phrase,

and cut their funding. This means that anyone who got through a

training-program and persisted in using " inappropriate language about

disabilities " would not get a job, anyway -- potential employers would be

reluctant to hire him/her as an OT or whatever -- so the training-programs

are reluctant to let such a person get as far as graduating. It's as if

Federal regulations forced people training for positions in

civil-rights-related work -- including black people -- to call black people

" niggers " on the grounds that such people either preferred the word " nigger "

or bloody-well *ought* to prefer it ... )

<sigh>

D.

[Guest guest]

" To me, there's no difference between 'autistic people' and 'people with

autism'. "

Exactly. There is no difference. I may be going off on a tangent from the

original topic here, but I personally have always had trouble understanding

this whole Political Correctness thing. In fact, I don't even know why they

call it *political* correctness--what does it have to do with politics? Lol

Just like blacks and other minorities here in the US have no trouble with

the phrase " people of color " but can't abide the phrase " colored people " .

(I am considered a " person of color " myself--Hispanic--so I can assure you I

mean no disrespect to anyone.) But I really see no difference in the two

phrases; it's like saying " blue skies " or " skies of blue " . While " skies of

blue " may sound more poetic, it doesn't change the meaning at all.

The same goes for the terms " glass half full " or " half empty " as metaphors

for optimism/pessimism. To me, there is half a glass of _______(water, wine

whatever); if it is an 8-ounce glass, it contains 4 ounces of______. It

connotes neither optimism nor pessimism to me, it just is what it is. I

have been told that makes me a " realist " as opposed to an " optimist " or

pessimist " . I don't actually relate to any of those labels, I'm just a

person! (uh, a " person with autism " ...)

-- Re: practicalities of getting important

promises kept (formerly " Introductions " )

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

From: Kate Gladstone

As far as I could understand her, she somehow thought that it couldn't *be*

a lie, really, if it made them happy. (And she didn't actually " get " why I

disagree.)

**And then they call us dense? Just like so many NTs will tell you " It's

okay " when it really isn't and expect you to know that they don't mean it.

And we're the abnormal ones?

Well, after that I certainly didn't want to speak to them anyway! If, and

only if, the vice-president of that group eventually became the president &

asked me again (WITHOUT imposing similar conditions) could I consider

speaking.

**Yes.

I later learned that a somewhat similar situation prevails within at least

some training-programs for OTs and such-like (e.g., college programs that

provide a major in Occupational Therapy) when the program accepts a student

who him/herself has one or more of the disabilities/other conditions that

the program exists to train people to help with. It happens -- in at least

some programs -- that examinations may require giving " correct " answers that

the person who actually *has* the condition can recognize as partly or

completely incorrect: e.g., an exam may ask

" Explain how the public awareness campaigns and fund-raising activities

of 'Autism Speaks' have been highly beneficial to people with autism "

or " Give at least three reasons that ABA is the best approach to use

with people with autism "

or " Explain why it is unacceptable and unprofessional to use the phrase

'autistic people', why it is important and essential to always use the

phrase 'people with autism' instead. Your explanation should include at

least one of the reasons that the phrase 'people with autism' is preferred

by people with autism themselves "

**These types of questions make my eyes glaze over. To me, there's no

difference between 'autistic people' and 'people with autism'.

If one objects to those questions (either as part of writing one's

exam-answer, or in a talk with the teacher/administrator afterward), one

will almost certainly be removed from the program, even if the folks in

charge admit that your objections are even partway valid.

(One of the reasons they may have to " wash you out " of the program is

that, for the past decade or so in the USA, Federally funded

agencies/programs/etc. have to use " people with ______ " language about

disabilities/diagnosable condititions [e.g., " people with autism " ] and stay

away from using " _____ people " language or they lose their funding and

approval:

**That makes no sense to me.

there are actually bureaucrats who do searches through Federally

funded documents/publications to see who is using an " inappropriate " phrase,

and cut their funding. This means that anyone who got through a

training-program and persisted in using " inappropriate language about

disabilities " would not get a job, anyway -- potential employers would be

reluctant to hire him/her as an OT or whatever -- so the training-programs

are reluctant to let such a person get as far as graduating. It's as if

Federal regulations forced people training for positions in

civil-rights-related work -- including black people -- to call black people

" niggers " on the grounds that such people either preferred the word " nigger "

or bloody-well *ought* to prefer it ... )

<sigh>

D.

[Guest guest]

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

From: Cristina Lara

Exactly. There is no difference. I may be going off on a tangent from the

original topic here, but I personally have always had trouble understanding

this whole Political Correctness thing. In fact, I don't even know why they

call it *political* correctness--what does it have to do with politics? Lol

**Well, I think the root word for 'politics' comes from something to do with

the people? Yeah, I guess it is a fitting term. I could see, in the

beginning, when they made some changes, to reword terrible-sounding things

to more polite-sounding ones, but it got out of hand.

Just like blacks and other minorities here in the US have no trouble with

the phrase " people of color " but can't abide the phrase " colored people " .

(I am considered a " person of color " myself--Hispanic--so I can assure you I

mean no disrespect to anyone.) But I really see no difference in the two

phrases; it's like saying " blue skies " or " skies of blue " . While " skies of

blue " may sound more poetic, it doesn't change the meaning at all.

**True.

The same goes for the terms " glass half full " or " half empty " as metaphors

for optimism/pessimism. To me, there is half a glass of _______(water, wine

whatever); if it is an 8-ounce glass, it contains 4 ounces of______. It

connotes neither optimism nor pessimism to me, it just is what it is. I

have been told that makes me a " realist " as opposed to an " optimist " or

pessimist " . I don't actually relate to any of those labels, I'm just a

person! (uh, a " person with autism " ...)

**Whenever someone calls me a pessimist, I tell them I'm actually a realist.

As a German I can't abide the American hyper optimism anyway.

D.