Why do we fail?

Post Reply New Topic

There is no clear separation between nature and nurture. We can only nurture according to our nature. And our nature changes according to our nurture. It's like the mind/body false separation. Which bit of the mind is *not* in the body? Can you have any perception of body without a mind?

Either way, I fail to see how anyone can really believe we are born 'blank slates'. Children are different, albeit subtly, from the second they are born - even from before they are born. Our physical construction does control our available choices. We are clearly not all born with the potential to be basketball players or theoretical physicists.

I don't believe Aspergers (at least in the consensus view as a 'milder', almost invisible, higher functioning autism), is a 'failing' or necessarily a set of negative traits at all. However, it does appear that way due to the pressures of the environment. I agree that in my experience, the first time I thought of my traits as 'negative' was when being repeatedly humiliated in team sports at age 7. All Phys Ed should be totally optional for all children on the spectrum. There may be a stigma attached to not participating, but I still think that would be better than making it mandatory. Let the child choose.

My experience is also that I took to special interests to try and become of value at a time when it seems I was continually devalued through struggling at the physical activities that "proper little boys" did 'naturally'. As if my 'nature' was less real (less natural?) than that of the majority.

I wonder if this isn't how it develops for many people? The special interests are cultivated to fill a vacuum left through, for a variety of reasons, feeling that you're failing, of no intrinsic value and a burden to your parents.

In my case I remember the "dropped ball" issues but my memory is that it was the social cues that gave me away. I sense that it was the conversational skills or abilitly to interact that led to my identification as an odd duck by 2cd grade. They may have figured it out earlier but that's when I became aware that they knew.

Why do we fail?

Failure - or success for that matter - are not objective quantities.

One cannot measure this with any objective measuring device.

One man's "failure" is another's "success."


I may be successful...and I may be happy...but it is success and happiness as defined by me.

The crowd means little.

.

I agree about the sports thing...it shouldn't be mandatory. Like many others I was never good at sports, and humiliated by my peers from an early age because of it. I think that, along with the fact that I didn't know how to interact with others the "right" way and that I didn't like things most other little girls liked were the reasons other kids didn't want to be around me.

i think most of us fail because we dont get the correct help we need, plus its expencive and im guessing alot of us dont have insurance. given the right tools i think alot of us could be sucessful including myself. i dont wanna be on diability for my entire life and would actually much rather enjoy being a rockhound for a living much like what my homie on ebay does. i just cant seem to move from point A to point B for some reason

LOL, no that is not the consensus today. The current wide-spread opinion is that both innate propensities and environmental feedback are influence the development of the organism. The "tabla rosa" thing is way out of academic fashion; has been for decades.

That's not really true. The extent to which people are competent at directing their self-development varies, both inter personally (from one person to another) and intra personally (from one time to another in a particular individual's lifetime). It's a skill, and like other skills, individual competence most usually, is partially determined by innate potential, and partially determined by environmental feedback. One could suggest that people with AS are more likely to be innately challenged in this area, and even perhaps that some individuals may be innately challenged beyond environmental remediation, but the generalization that we as individuals have no power to make choices in our social development, goes well beyond what can be substantiated. I know I have exerted some choice in my social development for instance.

I disagree.
Not true.

I cannot say it was any different in my experience as a girl.

For this premise to be true, the negative experiences would necessarily pre-date the obsessive tendencies. In my own instance that is just not the case at all. I developed obvious signs of intense and encompassing interests well before I experienced negative feedback socially or in sports.


Perhaps, but they are not symptoms of AS. I was not shy, I was not easily directed in the learning environment, I had more of a reputation as a "problem student" than as a "goody-two-shoes". So firstly we can see that none of these things you describe necessarily coincide with AS, and further they are not necessary for social ostracism to occur.
Apparently so did I, but aside from being crap at sports, I did not arrive at school with the kind of personality or attributes that you seem to be ascribing to both AS and rejection of persons characterized by AS.

Sorry, but I do not agree. In my instance my AS traits were present before I had any opportunity to "fail" at athletic pursuits.

None of which explains symptoms occurring before any athletic activities are engaged in. Further, there are people who do not have AS who were always very poor at athletic pursuits. Evidently, the only research I am aware off the top of my head that examined the rate of motor-impairment in people with AS, found that such impairment occurs for approximately half of us. So where does your "initial failure" leave the other half?

Same here.

I was ASD incarnate at that age, and it didn't go down well with anyone either adults or other youngsters. No one except my mother made any attempt to understand me. Everyone was punitive. School staff wanted me to be normal and know how to behave, and disapproved becuse I didn't do either of those. Other kids wanted me to conform to a VERY narrow set of behaviours, and tormented the hell out of me because I didn't.

I never want to be that age again.

Yeah the one ASD trait I don't have is the severe motor clumsiness. I do move messily and often knock things over or drop things, but if I'm deliberately trying at something physical I do well at it. I did do a lot of dance training as a kid though which probably improved my motor skills.

i agree with you

I agree. By the time he reaches adulthood, a man who is not sociable will - as long as he's reasonably competent at holding a conversation when it becomes absolutely necessary - probably be simply seen as quiet/geeky/very involved with his work. A woman, however, not being sociable is absolutely unacceptable.

Men and boys tend to suffer more if they are 'physically challenged': cannot catch a ball, cannot keep up with the others in tasks involving atheticism and co-ordination. Women and girls suffer more if they are 'socially challenged': have no interest in or ability to chat and gossip, have no fashion sense, cannot empathize with their peers and read their nonverbal signals. It's to do with what (NT) males and females consider important. Men are often prepared to totally or partially overlook some awkwardness if they decide that a man serves a useful practical purpose in the group - i.e., despite his social shortcomings, he's a great football player. Women are not generally much concerned about a woman being shy or clumsy if she's still able to interact with them in the 'correct' way.