This Explains So Much...

Post Reply New Topic

Hi Sunshine7,

How does someone stop people from assuming that people with Asperger's Syndrome are below average in intelligence and most skills?

A person who doesn't include their high academic performances and awards on their resumes will be assumed "average" until Asperger's Syndrome becomes involved. Then, the person will be regarded as lower than average intelligence, with perhaps one or two regarded idiot-savant skills. The employer will not later correct prejudicial assumptions, but will merely refuse to discard the assumptions, or will jump to more intangible things (like arrogance, timidity, lack of motivation, too-sure-of themselves, bad attitude, in denial, etc.).

Faking average in structured oral examinations will have the same results.

The previous quotation seems relevant here too:
"Times are tough, and while the economy of people with Asperger's has always been bad, it's just going to get worse in a competitive job market....over 85% of people with AS are without fulltime employment...A lot of us with Asperger's don't always realize what are strengths are because we have been told throughout our lives that these characteristics are flaws...". "Asperger's On The Job" by Rudy Simone (2010), page XIV.

When I took your stance that epilepsy & Asperger's were not "disabilities", but mere handicaps that could easily be accommodated by employers, I was repeatedly informed by Rehab experts that I was in denial, and that I was obligated to apply for SSDI and SSI for subsistence, or I would be in violation of the laws (commonly grouped as "vagrancy") and denied Rehab services. ("Political Correctness" between the words "disabilities" versus "handicaps" continues).

Therefore, I was placed in the Catch-22 of being with the Social Security Administration finding me disabled, while I was trying to obtain gainful employment with reasonable accommodation under the Rehab Act.

As far as being "too full" of myself, that is a problem with employers only when they become aware that Asperger's & epilepsy are involved. While the "too full of yourself" from mentioned performances, versus "below average" from un-mentioned performances, paradox is not as strong here at WrongPlanet, it is still strong. The "idiot-savant" paradox seems to be about the same as with results from the general population. (If you want my bragging, I was the top score in the State of California in one lengthy, high security, employment examination, but, Asperger's & epilepsy nullifies that as revealing my being better qualified than individuals with mere passing scores for any employment too).

The paradoxes make me wonder if the "Lester Maddox Model" of prejudice might come very close as a model of the prejudice encountered with Asperger's, as Maddox would probably assume by prejudice that "uppity Asperger's people" think they deserve the same opportunities & services as "normal people" deserve. If anyone with Asperger's Syndrome told him he was prejudiced, he would give-em what he regarded they deserved with his "Pickrick drumsticks" (axe handles).

Tadzio

I think, from the post last night (a couple above), that I can see a more clear path to how we miss communicated, so thanks for that.

We’ll see if I can possibly clarify, and then I really really really do need to leave this conversation to handle real life obligations that will be building over the next few months.

You miss-attribute the reason I wanted to call BS. When I did that, I quite specifically quoted ONLY your post where you accused me of having no understanding of AS, of trying to hold an Alladin’s lamp, and being an excellent example of all that is wrong with hiring practices. And you ended with the conclusion that it meant tough-sh*t for you. THAT is what I called BS on. That post showed a wish to run from everything I tried to contribute in this discussion because you had already decided I was on the “wrong” side, and also exhibited an apparent attitude that you believe the rest of us were just out to get you. To me, that thinking was utter BS. Do I need to quote that post of yours, since you seem to have forgotten it? I had a right to be pissed off given the way you talked to me in the post I quoted when I called BS.

I had, in fact, previously (in other posts, more connected to your sharing of your experiences) expressed sympathy about the challenges you faced in the job market.

But, yes, I do believe that even when life hasn’t been fair to you, there are ways to work your way around it, and I have little patience for people who get so caught up with those situations that they fail to ever move forward. I truly believe that moving forward DESPITE the unfair things that happen is how we get to where we want to be in our lives, yet I heard you berating that attitude. Everyone has crap to deal with in their lives and probably you got more than your share, but it sounded to me like you were using that as an excuse, even trying to turn the blame to ME, and to me that is BS.

Even now, you want to deny the effect of the words you used when talking to me, and say I called BS because of the ADA and case law history you cited. No, I called BS because of the way you talked to me in the specifically quoted post, and what I felt it showed about your underlying thinking.

Good cut and paste job, though, because you almost had me believing your line of thought. Until I went back and read the ACTUAL line of argument before I said, "BS." You really have to stop doing that; it is misleading, inaccurate, and unfair.



You are linking together a bunch of unrelated events in this paragraph.

I did get wordy after I called BS, but I was understandably pissed after having been directly insulted in the post I’ll call the “Alladin” post, and I wanted to shake you out of that victim mindset I was seeing. Not because you may never have experienced any unfairness, but because I KNOW that a victim mindset will doom you faster than actual prejudice. Those who hold power sometimes even count on it, that you’ll eat yourself into a hole over the little things they’ve done to put you down, and then THEY win, not you. I feel like I’ve managed to win over that sort of garbage that has occurred in my life, and I was hoping you could see it was possible.

NO WHERE did I ever write that anyone should be happy riding the back of the bus, but I DID write that a person can learn to play the game to get what THEY want, and tried to lay out some ways I’ve seen people do that quite successfully, and I also advocated for “alternate” routes to success. Or do you really believe that small business and start ups are the back of the bus? If so, I’m insulted, AGAIN. And you are WRONG. I’d rather ride a private sail boat over a cruise ship any day, and have always been content to leave the cruise ship to generic hoards. I see big corporations and the government much the same way: boring and generic. I’ve worked for companies that became big, and that is when I CHOSE to leave them. Don't you DARE imply it's a "back of the bus" life - I live in the part of the job market where the really cool and interesting stuff happens, and I actually LIKE it that way.

I admit I slipped in a few comments towards you that maybe I shouldn’t have, but I was getting frustrated and, I felt, only responding in kind, actually a lot softer than you had, not that it is an excuse. And I apologized for it. What I wanted you to apologize for wasn’t your arguments, but the very snide, negative and hurtful comments you made TO me, putting the things I tried to share into some very inappropriate boxes, and which were clearly intended as insults (or I wouldn’t have that pm in my box, saying how I should report them). Shall I list some?









I pretty much stopped reading after that, but I guess I’ll add this one:



These aren’t arguments, much as you like to make them appear that way, or an analysis of anything I wrote: they are derisive insults. Downright abusive, actually, if you’ve ever studied verbal and emotional abuse. If you talk like that consistently around here, you get banned.

It is for those types of personal attacks I wanted you to apologize.

Or are you so convinced all you did was speak the obvious truth, that you are incapable of seeing how vile, inaccurate, offensive and insulting you were being? It took a lot of restraint on my part to not attack in kind each time. It still does, actually, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that you had every intention of pushing my buttons and generating an extreme negative reaction, since that is usually the case when people post as you have.



Here I think you read things into my words that I did not say, and misunderstood my point in writing what I did.

Yes, I think you fail to understand the value of non-measurable job skills in the marketplace. In my experience, and knowing how many of those skills I lack, they are extremely important to long term success in a position. Not because an employer wishes to make them into more than they are, but because they actually are essentially to the success of the company. Even for the skills I lack, I’ve seen with my own eyes and through my own experience why and how they would have value, and I had to work hard to fashion my career in a way that the ones I lacked would be less troublesome. This isn’t employers telling me where I fail, it is me seeing clearly as I do the work where I fail. So, intangibles have value and I thought that no matter what the case law says, you needed to understand that. Case law is about opportunity. My focus was on what it takes to achieve success.

But note this: I have yet to work for an employer who hired based on the intangibles, all other things not being equal or near equal, although I should also point out that what you think makes you look good on paper may not be the same as what an employer thinks makes you look good on paper.

I said I could predict success in interviews, but I did not say that those predictions ever prevented an employer from making a job offer to the most qualified candidate on paper. But those paper candidates either didn’t accept the offer, or didn’t like the job once they had it, with the end result being that they would not be there in a year. It is the intangibles that make a person succeed IN the position, and I personally would rather not waste everyone’s time putting people into jobs they won’t be happy with because, in my experience, all these people are capable of finding a job that actually makes them happy and uses their skills, although they may have to dig extra hard to find it. I have seen too many people too miserable in too many jobs not to reach the conclusion that the intangibles matter a LOT. And I have also seen those people consistently leave to find better jobs where they do become happy. My reason for pointing all that out was not to support what is and is not the right or wrong way to hire, but to (a) help you understand how the paper qualifications really are only part of the story and (b) help you look for an alternate path that might be more successful for you.

I was totally serious about the political campaign idea. You would be good at it, and it is probably something you could offer as an independent contractor, start your own consulting business, operate through a website and let your work product be your interview. What was abusive in writing on a message board could be campaign gold for a candidate who wanted to go that negative route. I have a client in the business and it is super lucrative.

That is the kind of out-of-the-box thinking I was hoping to steer your towards. Not because it is the back of the bus, but because I honestly think that is where all the fun work – and the best money - is.

Are you getting any closer to understanding ME, now?

Never said discrimination wasn't tough. If I was debating employers in this thread, you'd be hearing an entirely different side. I tailor what I say for the audience, based on what I think they need to hear. Entirely subjective, and sometimes I miss the boat royally.

I rarely ask the "where do you see yourself" question, btw.

You are right, a subjective interview is a function of the idiosyncrasies of the interviewer, and few people are very good at it. My goal when I do an interview is to match the right person to the job, and if I conduct the interview well, I've noticed that the wrong people figure it out before we make a decision on them. I ask questions about what a good work day looks like, what happened on a day they went home feeling really charged about their job, what they value in a workplace, and so on. There are NO right or wrong answers, just answers that show a "fit" for the company, and answers that don't. In fact, those who give the canned, standard answers are less likely to impress me. My favorite is still the guy who had worked as a shoe salesman in college and told me about the super grouchy customer who no one wanted to deal with, and how working with that man had been his most exciting day on the job. It was all in the way he told that story, it was sincere, and he was so driven by succeeding against the odds, it showed me someone that would tackle anything. That guy was so sure he had failed my interview, but he was my top pick! I work hard to figure out who the candidate is and what drives them, and get them relaxed enough to tell me accurately, because I sincerely believe it serves no one to put people into jobs that they won't actually enjoy doing.

Oh boy, Tadzio is going to love that, won't he? I am soooo good at setting myself up to be miss understood ...

I think there is a way to back test your decision on if you picked the right guy: he does well, you like him, and he likes his job. If those things don't happen, he wasn't the right guy.

I have no idea how an HR person can pick employees without ever having done their jobs or worked in their departments. I interview people who take positions I've moved out of; I can tell them exactly what it is like and what will make them successful.

But lawsuits make companies reluctant to use employees in the field for interviews, since we aren't trained in all the in's and out's of being fair under the law. And I do find that unfortunate, because I actually think you'd have a better chance with me than an HR person, because I'll know when your quirks will work for you, and HR really won't. There is a lot of irony in that, now isn't there?

Is Aspergers a disability? Not in my child, although his co-morbid most certainly is a disability (but easily accommodated, and thus a non-issue). But I would be lying to say that ASD never is a disability, because there are children discussed on the parenting board who are disabled by it, at least in the sense of being able to become self-sufficient. I think that is the problem with the condition: it is a spectrum, and what exactly the label means varies quite a bit. It depends on the precise person, and the general public isn't that well tuned into the broadness of it.

I think employers need a lot more education on what AS is, so that they accurately understand what it means. Most of the time in most jobs an ASD really is a non-issue, and the few potential problems are actually within the range of what I've seen employers allow for from otherwise good employees, label or no label.

And I really need to stop talking. I've got other things to do.

So wait... isn't this also dumbing down the FBI since the police force and entrance to the FBI have a Jesus->God type of relationship? Having dumb cops is bad enough, having dumb FBI is just terrible in national security terms.

I don't know. The FBI does an awful lot of direct recruiting on college campuses. In the way back they told us they had a big need for accountants. To do intell, not keep their records

"Life 102: What to Do When Your Guru Sues You" by Peter McWilliams (1994)

Hi DW_a_mom,

I am sorry, but I am not buying your big bucket of intangibles.

The old Erhard Seminars Training (EST) brochures by Werner H. Erhard were bad enough.

Tadzio

Well, we can probably both agree on hating EST.

And you don't, of course, have to buy anything. We can leave it at "disagree." I'd be content with that.

I also think we need to remember we've often been talking apples and oranges here. I've never worked in government, or anywhere they would be afraid to fire you just because they basically want to (which almost never happens if you are doing good work because that would just be dumb). But it is different in government, because once you are in the door they've practically got you for life. Applicants know this, and expect to be tested in a variety of ways depending on which they are applying for.

But in a job like mine, people turn around and walk away if we say we need them to take a set of tests as part of their application. They are offended, or get a bad taste of the business. My boss would love to give every applicant a sample day of work to do, and he's done it a bunch, but it is awkward and people cringe, and he's been encouraged to drop it in the hopes of appealing to a broader range of candidates (he never did it to me).

And in case you aren't aware, how fast that test gets done was always a part of the evaluation. When you bill your time to people who are price sensitive, it matters.

Point being the differences exist on both sides of the hiring table.

Anyway, that could be part of our problem, not that I intend to delve further into the discussion. Time to move on.

Intelligence is, surprisingly, not one of the key traits employers look out for. They use it as a first-cut sort of thing, then after that there's a black box of traits that will be the final parameters to qualify for the job. I'm still mystified as to why, but it seems to be that way.



Huh...interesting.

Well, as the person sitting on the other side of the chair, it often confuses me because while I think your sort of "get to know you" interview is getting prominent in the industry, interviewees still feel the urge to respond in the way they think the interviewer will like the best, i.e. they're of the impression that there is a right and wrong answer. And in a way, it is a test, because ultimate either I'll get the job or I won't. Can never reconcile the fact that this is a test and isn't at the same time.

I think that one place where people with Asperger's tend to strike out is a failure to show excitement even when we really like a place and really want the job. Even if we feel really good about the position, what the interviewer reads is, "not that interested," because of the whole facial expression thing.

I totally understand that.

Early on, when I tried to pass "the test," I usually failed to get job offers. I didn't understand the process, I was frustrated, and I lost confidence.

Eventually I decided not to care, and to use the interview to get the information I needed, and to just let them know who I was as a potential employee: strengths (smart and quick to solve really difficult issues under fire, solid mentor, rarely makes mistakes), and weaknesses (sluggish with the rote work). I had also, by then, figured out that I really was smarter than 90% of the other people in my field, and that it would be a potential employer's loss if they couldn't figure out how to use that. After all, I realized, someone else would. Anyway, changing my attitude going in made a world of difference on the result. I guess I instantly seemed more confident which isn't surprising: I was more confident.

I do recommend finding people to do "informational" interviews with, when its possible. Those are basically practice, and you usually find people to do them with by working your friends network. You do not expect a job to come from it; both sides know it. It's just meeting people and practicing. From that you start to gather a data base of different styles and different ways of interpreting things, because not all honestly is good honesty (if you think your former boss caused your failure because he didn't like you, for example, it looks bad to talk about blame, but you walk around it by saying things like "it wasn't a very good personality fit").

I don't know if that helps at all, but ...

Do you think sending a note after the interview could help with that?

Our latest hire did that. I did think he was still interested despite all the horrible things I told him about working there, but he erased any doubt by sending an email saying something along the lines of "Thank you for your informative interview and, no, you didn't scare me off at all [I had warned him that sometimes people think I don't like them when I do]. The position sounds more interesting and more challenging the more I learn about it, and I really hope you will recommend me for it."

cuz asians cheat

QFT

Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 2:44 am::::

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:22 pm::::


Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:35 pm:::


Hi DW_a_mom,

With your ***"I'm just an idiot human being running around this earth doing my best to get by, same as everyone else, and I learned long ago there is no better or worse when it comes to traits, talents, disabilities and even personalities - although there is better or worse for the situation"***, morphing into ***" I had also, by then, figured out that I really was smarter than 90% of the other people in my field, and that it would be a potential employer's loss if they couldn't figure out how to use that"***, you must be much better faking the idiot orally than in print.

So you're a self-proclaimed idiot human smarter than 90% of the other people in your field, and I'm in the top 3% of my graduating university class while I'm claiming to be an idiot iurodivyi similar to Prince Myshkin as in Dostoevsky's "The Idiot". But, I have drain bamage resulting in epilepsy & much else, including Asperger's Syndrome.

What's your excuse, besides needing slick marketing as if selling seminars in presenting the latest fad facade of pushing and/or selling intangible techniques???

You do realize that POSITIVE THINKING has limits, and your making impairments the same as "dirty" impairments because the impairments are, at best, for your motives, beyond your range of insight and/or in being knowingly amenable to your bottle of snake-oil? Certainly, involving intractable impairments, Barbara Ehrenreich, in her criticisms of positive psychology "institutes", is much more in the ballpark of reality than your pushed intangible techniques are.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/ja ... cy-ellmann

Tadzio

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp4291664.html#4291664
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:52 am:::

Doing that cut and paste, apples and oranges thing again, eh?

We ALL have our own unique mix of idiocacy and brilliance, and we all can show different sides and seeming inconsistencies depending on the situation. It is called being human.

And, in the grand scheme of things, all humans can be considered idiots - which was the actual context in which I used that term.

Stop twisting my words to justify your preconceived notions, and stop with the personal attacks. They violate the TOS here.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 15 Jan 2012, 2:43 am, edited 2 times in total.