treated as intellectual disabled due to having ASD

Post Reply New Topic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_pri ... _Principle

I definitely recognise your experiences but I don't think that's the main reason for it, though I admit I have no idea the impact the change has had, plus you may already be fully aware of what I'm saying and only be referring to the change in treatment since the rules changed.

In my experience the primary reason we are/I am under estimated is because, as usual, "people" use the wrong rules on us so we score badly. Society/most NT's ridged rule set mostly has the right way then everything else, so instinctively they perceive "different" as "worse" because both aren't doing it their way. People don't generally stop to figure out reasons, they go by fixed explanations, and unfortunately we're the exception/minority.

I experience the same limitation/failing just like (mostly) everyone else in underestimating someone not using their native language. I instinctively perceive them as less intelligent until I properly consider this specific situation, because that's the usual reason and I'm reacting before checking.

You may already have the answer from researching the Peter Principle, but effectively, they are 'left' at that level in the sense of abandonment - they do not have the skills or experience themselves to progress beyond that level, and no-one is interested in promoting them (or at least not for the same reasons as the Peter Principle, where a promotion is based on competence at the current job they are in).

It is possible they may still end up promoted further in future, but it will generally be for different reasons - people above them may quit or be fired and promotions may be based on seniority, or there may be a reorganization affecting multiple people, or someone may arrange for their promotion via political maneuvering for reasons of their own. The commonality of these types of promotion are that they are not based on the person's individual merits or effort.

I’ve been on my job 40 years without a promotion.

It’s because they think I have “something wrong with me.”

My ex was competent as a student getting a BA, but at the end of the MA course, she was totally baffled to find that she could not pass on memory work alone - she had to show comprehension by forming an original thesis with the information.
Top executives typically spend a great deal of their time deciding who to promote, and they still make enough mistakes that they have ways to shuffle the mistakes off somewhere else. GM and Firestone got the bright idea of buying up bus companies, so that they had captive markets. Then, they used them as a dumping ground for all their dud executives. Then, the bus companies went out of business, providing a full tax write-off, and causing car sales to boom. They got fined for that one, but similar things still go on.

Lawrence Peter's point was that in a hierarchy, positions tend to become filled with people who are not very good at their jobs, just not bad enough to fire.

That's a form of bullying in the work place and disability discrimination.
In some countries their are laws against such things.
Worth checking up on employment law in the country that you live.

One of the better pieces of business advice I ever heard was that if you have a really good salesman, you can give him a private corner office and secretary, a company Cadillac, free vacations, fabulous medical coverage, and so on, but you Must Not give him a promotion to sales manager. That job requires a completely different skill set. You lose your best salesman and frustrate the rest. Still, it is so often filled by someone with sales experience that the discretionary budget is typically less than 5% of that of the other VPs.

There's no point. I'm retiring in 2 years, anyway.

I'm not in a position where I want to potentially lose my pension....

But thanks for the advice, anyway.