|
|
Post by Cartertonian on Apr 6, 2024 14:13:17 GMT
Bear in mind that psychiatry is always reaching for grand theories because they don't have any. It is like the situation before evolutionary theory in which being a biologist meant careful record and list keeping A proper line is where a person's approach becomes a detriment to their goals or the reasonable expectations of others. A person who is happy, able to pursue their goals and is achieving the normal expectations of the society they live in, is not autistic by this measure. What about someone who is unhappy, not able to pursue their goals, and yet is still achieving those normal expectations of society? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 6, 2024 14:14:38 GMT
I think that is close to what Prof Baron-Cohen was intimating. The difficulties arise when we seek to specify what is 'normal' and thereafter socially or physically isolate those outside our specified norm. In particular, he was speaking at the first symposium of the Evolutionary Psychiatry Special Interest Group of the Royal College of Psych, and his central hypothesis was that there may be evolutionary reasons for neurodivergence. Perhaps the reason why neurodivergence is problematic is that evolution is multifactorial, and societal influence has a role to play as one of those factors. If there is a neurobiological reason for this evolutionary divergence, have we stifled and suppressed it through our pursuance of agreed societal norms? There are some definite things that nail it as autism. One thing you look at is whether it is in your family because it is a genetic thing. The DSM is the reference. If you have nearly every trait then statistically I think that is pretty accurate. You get normal people with one or two characteristics, like perhaps attention to detail via the kind of work they practice, but if none of the others match then its negative. Autistic people even have a different bone structure. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 6, 2024 14:18:37 GMT
Bear in mind that psychiatry is always reaching for grand theories because they don't have any. It is like the situation before evolutionary theory in which being a biologist meant careful record and list keeping A proper line is where a person's approach becomes a detriment to their goals or the reasonable expectations of others. A person who is happy, able to pursue their goals and is achieving the normal expectations of the society they live in, is not autistic by this measure. What about someone who is unhappy, not able to pursue their goals, and yet is still achieving those normal expectations of society? This person might be autistic, or might not. These conditions need to be bounded by 'something being wrong'. If there is nothing wrong, there is no condition. |
|
|
|
Post by Cartertonian on Apr 6, 2024 14:26:43 GMT
Assuming something is wrong, and it could be ameliorated by positive changes in outlook, then wouldn't it be worth doing?
Simply dismissing it as 'normal' not only misses the point, but also misses out on potential benefits both to individuals and society. It's no surprise that GCHQ have started actively recruiting people with neurodiverse conditions, because their innate tendency towards systematization gives then an advantage in code-breaking and cybersecurity.
I recall, a long time ago, you and I disagreeing about the benefits or otherwise of relying on stereotypes. They can be useful as the basis of generic planning assumptions, but when applied as a universal norm, from which deviation is not tolerated, they become a hindrance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 6, 2024 14:42:54 GMT
Assuming something is wrong, and it could be ameliorated by positive changes in outlook, then wouldn't it be worth doing? Simply dismissing it as 'normal' not only misses the point, but also misses out on potential benefits both to individuals and society. It's no surprise that GCHQ have started actively recruiting people with neurodiverse conditions, because their innate tendency towards systematization gives then an advantage in code-breaking and cybersecurity. I recall, a long time ago, you and I disagreeing about the benefits or otherwise of relying on stereotypes. They can be useful as the basis of generic planning assumptions, but when applied as a universal norm, from which deviation is not tolerated, they become a hindrance. I don't think i have a problem with this approach - people who are really good code breakers are more likely to be 'neuro-divergent' than the rest of the population. However, people who are neuro-divergent are probably no more likely to have this skill set than normal people because more of them would be totally excluded with below average for a range of reasoning skills
It's a little like the intelligence spread between men and women. Men are more likely to have a genius IQ than women, but if you pick a random man and woman, the woman will likely have an edge. Most jobs are not looking for geniuses who can divide patterns out of noise while staring at a wall. However, i have sympathy - i think our society used to be far better at identifying such people and putting them in situations in which they could make gigantic contributions. Unfortunately, we now have a management class who just wants to drive in the middle lane and not make decisions |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 6, 2024 15:17:39 GMT
Assuming something is wrong, and it could be ameliorated by positive changes in outlook, then wouldn't it be worth doing? Simply dismissing it as 'normal' not only misses the point, but also misses out on potential benefits both to individuals and society. It's no surprise that GCHQ have started actively recruiting people with neurodiverse conditions, because their innate tendency towards systematization gives then an advantage in code-breaking and cybersecurity. I recall, a long time ago, you and I disagreeing about the benefits or otherwise of relying on stereotypes. They can be useful as the basis of generic planning assumptions, but when applied as a universal norm, from which deviation is not tolerated, they become a hindrance. I don't think i have a problem with this approach - people who are really good code breakers are more likely to be 'neuro-divergent' than the rest of the population. However, people who are neuro-divergent are probably no more likely to have this skill set than normal people because more of them would be totally excluded with below average for a range of reasoning skills
It's a little like the intelligence spread between men and women. Men are more likely to have a genius IQ than women, but if you pick a random man and woman, the woman will likely have an edge. Most jobs are not looking for geniuses who can divide patterns out of noise while staring at a wall. However, i have sympathy - i think our society used to be far better at identifying such people and putting them in situations in which they could make gigantic contributions. Unfortunately, we now have a management class who just wants to drive in the middle lane and not make decisions Stupid mangers and manageresses are the worst enemy of the autistic person and are hated with a vengeance. The best places for them would be some sort of physics lab in Cambridge where they may well be in the majority and will be warmly welcomed. The smarter the manger the better they understand and if they completely understand it would make work work. Autistic people need the flexibility and freedom to manage themselves without some jobsworth interfering. One of their traits is they are morally responsible, so can be trusted if your back is turned. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Apr 6, 2024 18:12:41 GMT
For example, one criticism I've had at work before is that I lack initiative and the fact that I had done everything asked of me to a high standard was actually used against me because I hadn't also done things that weren't in my job description and I hadn't been asked to do.
This to me seems illogical and unfair but appears to make sense to every neurotypical person I've explained it to.
Criticism makes perfect sense - you lack initiative at work or in trades union terms you work to rule I wouldn't say I worked to rule. I couldn't count how many times I went above and beyond working evenings and weekends, missing out on time with my kids, time I'll never get back. I also frequently volunteered to help colleagues with their workload if I had spare capacity and I took on additional duties when asked. What I didn't do was "play the game", schmooze and kiss management backside because I was too busy doing the job I was being paid to do. As you stated you are criticised at work for not showing initiative in work. I'd agree that criticism is justified , your words ''when asked'' and ''spare capacity'' '' job being paid to do'' are just three examples of that lack of initiative |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 6, 2024 19:40:59 GMT
I wouldn't say I worked to rule. I couldn't count how many times I went above and beyond working evenings and weekends, missing out on time with my kids, time I'll never get back. I also frequently volunteered to help colleagues with their workload if I had spare capacity and I took on additional duties when asked. What I didn't do was "play the game", schmooze and kiss management backside because I was too busy doing the job I was being paid to do. As you stated you are criticised at work for not showing initiative in work. I'd agree that criticism is justified , your words ''when asked'' and ''spare capacity'' '' job being paid to do'' are just three examples of that lack of initiative Autistic people have more initiative than normal people and can easily manage themselves. The problem is the manager expects stuff that the manager does not say he expects. This is because normal people have a more intuitive approach where a lot of stuff is so-called automatic, and guided by non-verbal cues, which autistic people just don't get, hence it is a communication problem, like most problems between the two groups. It gets even worse when the manager suddenly gets it into his head that the autistic person is taking the piss or otherwise lazy. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Apr 6, 2024 20:00:08 GMT
As you stated you are criticised at work for not showing initiative in work. I'd agree that criticism is justified , your words ''when asked'' and ''spare capacity'' '' job being paid to do'' are just three examples of that lack of initiative The problem is the manager expects stuff that the manager does not say he expects. This is because normal people have a more intuitive approach where a lot of stuff is so-called automatic, and guided by non-verbal cues, which autistic people just don't get, hence it is a communication problem, like most problems between the two groups. It gets even worse when the manager suddenly gets it into his head that the autistic person is taking the piss or otherwise lazy. No they don’t . We had an autistic cleaner in my old factory that flipped out when he was told to use different cloths for different surfaces . This ‘ rain man ‘ myth is just that ..a myth. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 6, 2024 21:24:11 GMT
Autistic people have more initiative than normal people and can easily manage themselves. The problem is the manager expects stuff that the manager does not say he expects. This is because normal people have a more intuitive approach where a lot of stuff is so-called automatic, and guided by non-verbal cues, which autistic people just don't get, hence it is a communication problem, like most problems between the two groups. It gets even worse when the manager suddenly gets it into his head that the autistic person is taking the piss or otherwise lazy. No they don’t . We had an autistic cleaner in my old factory that flipped out when he was told to use different cloths for different surfaces . This ‘ rain man ‘ myth is just that ..a myth. It's interesting you mention that. Another trait is they have routines and stick to them. Yes I can well believe he would have flipped out. What I meant is if you give them a job they will work out their own system for doing it. Being antisocial types they spend a lot of time on their own so have to do it all themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Apr 6, 2024 21:31:10 GMT
No they don’t . We had an autistic cleaner in my old factory that flipped out when he was told to use different cloths for different surfaces . This ‘ rain man ‘ myth is just that ..a myth. It's interesting you mention that. Another trait is they have routines and stick to them. Yes I can well believe he would have flipped out. What I meant is if you give them a job they will work out their own system for doing it. Being antisocial types they spend a lot of time on their own so have to do it all themselves. He worked out the wrong system of doing it and flipped out when he was told the right way . That's not ..”Autistic people have more initiative than normal people and can easily manage themselves.” Is it ? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 6, 2024 22:01:46 GMT
It's interesting you mention that. Another trait is they have routines and stick to them. Yes I can well believe he would have flipped out. What I meant is if you give them a job they will work out their own system for doing it. Being antisocial types they spend a lot of time on their own so have to do it all themselves. He worked out the wrong system of doing it and flipped out when he was told the right way . That's not ..”Autistic people have more initiative than normal people and can easily manage themselves.” Is it ? Well it does sound like an autistic person given what you say. However drawing a general conclusion from a specific case is fraught with trouble. With autistic people many traits seem strange. They can get very stressed out, which sounds like what happened in that confrontation. I can't judge who was right and who was wrong. They tend to do stuff in their own way because it suits their minds. A normal person confronting an autistic person is a bit like how a man and a woman can have an argument and neither gets the other's point of view. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Apr 6, 2024 22:07:29 GMT
He worked out the wrong system of doing it and flipped out when he was told the right way . That's not ..”Autistic people have more initiative than normal people and can easily manage themselves.” Is it ? Well it does sound like an autistic person given what you say. However drawing a general conclusion from a specific case is fraught with trouble. With autistic people many traits seem strange. They can get very stressed out, which sounds like what happened in that confrontation. I can't judge who was right and who was wrong. They tend to do stuff in their own way because it suits their minds. A normal person confronting an autistic person is a bit like how a man and a woman can have an argument and neither gets the other's point of view. It was an autistic person. Some Autistic people are far worse . Some can’t function in society. What IS ‘ fraught with danger ‘ is inventing a generalised trope and posting it as fact ….such as “ Autistic people have more initiative than normal people and can easily manage themselves.” |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 6, 2024 22:18:54 GMT
Well it does sound like an autistic person given what you say. However drawing a general conclusion from a specific case is fraught with trouble. With autistic people many traits seem strange. They can get very stressed out, which sounds like what happened in that confrontation. I can't judge who was right and who was wrong. They tend to do stuff in their own way because it suits their minds. A normal person confronting an autistic person is a bit like how a man and a woman can have an argument and neither gets the other's point of view. It was an autistic person. Some Autistic people are far worse . Some can’t function in society. What IS ‘ fraught with danger ‘ is inventing a generalised trope and posting it as fact ….such as “ Autistic people have more initiative than normal people and can easily manage themselves.” They can't work with groups very well. A lot of people overloads the brain. These are common traits no matter which autistic person you hear from.
You keep on giving it the idea the one case throws an entire generalisation into a state of invalidity. If you can't group similar concepts together you wont find anything intelligible.I'm trying to give an overview sufficiently detailed so you can understand it. If I had to qualify everything to the level of your nitpicking it would just slow down communication.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Apr 6, 2024 22:31:24 GMT
It was an autistic person. Some Autistic people are far worse . Some can’t function in society. What IS ‘ fraught with danger ‘ is inventing a generalised trope and posting it as fact ….such as “ Autistic people have more initiative than normal people and can easily manage themselves.” They can't work with groups very well. A lot of people overloads the brain. These are common traits no matter which autistic person you hear from.
You keep on giving it the idea the one case throws an entire generalisation into a state of invalidity. If you can't group similar concepts together you wont find anything intelligible.I'm trying to give an overview sufficiently detailed so you can understand it. If I had to qualify everything to the level of your nitpicking it would just slow down communication.
Nope ..you keep on giving this idea that “Autistic people have more initiative than normal people and can easily manage themselves.” when you are patently wrong . You are peddling a false trope and somehow trying to turn it on me . |
|
