Autistic Encapsulation----Protecting The Self From Pain

Post Reply New Topic

The reason you keep mentioning the call center scenario is because you simply do not understand what I said and have substituted some other thing for it and are employing that as a straw man to dismiss the idea that anyone would actually truly need this accommodation.

Hi Verdandi. I really don't like being told what my reason for doing something is, and you would not like it if I said this kind of thing to you. No, the reason I mentioned this is the reason I gave above--"The reason I keep mentioning the call room scenario, which was originally brought up on another thread by Verdandi, is that it a situation, just like some kinds of ethical dilemmas, that is not so black and white." To elaborate further, it is a bridge between two different sets of ideas, two different ways of looking at things. Personally I all for disabled people being given help by society. I am just in question about this. I did not realize this particular example would still be so deeply charged for you. Personally I am still working through my understanding about this particular call center example.. I have all kinds of sensory issues but I am not sure I would feel entitled to being given a special room in a call center, though maybe that is not such a bad idea:-) I just might not like it if I were one of those other people who really do not like loud noise either and would love to have their own quiet room. This is not intended to discount that some people have more severe sensory issues than others. I am looking at it all from a different angle than you, that of autistic encapsulation, and you seem to be completely missing it. I think this particular example is a good pivot for enquiry. Certain ethical considerations need to be kind of grappled with, and there is no perfect solution--such as in the issue of abortion, for example, There just isn't a perfect answer.

The rest of this post is not directed at any single person. If it's not about you, it's not about you. If you think it might be about you, maybe think about why that might be the case.

Hmm...let;s see, you seem to be saying that it is not about me, but it might be....that is okay..

I used the call center example because I have worked in a call center and it strained my coping skills well past the limit. I didn't desensitize over time, I became worse and worse until I was unable to work at all - and that this coincided with a week during which I would have worked six days in a row and gone to training from days 2-6, meaning I'd have four hours of training, three hours off work, and six hours working. And I was already taking "too many breaks" because I'd have to get away from the noise and the lighting and the constant calls coming in and dealing with scenarios that didn't fit into the scripts I was given.

And that call center room was surrounded by empty offices and a conference room. It would not have cost anything to provide one of those otherwise empty rooms to me had I known to ask for accommodations (or understood that I might need them).

And I need to reiterate because these objections to providing reasonable accommodations are fundamentally incoherent arguments that rely on societal notions that people should "suck it up" when uncomfortable or that just because people face greater challenges that we do not deserve consideration for those challenges. And that when we want them, it's treated as virtually pathological or an excessive degree of entitlement to just want to be able to work at the same level of efficiency as one's neurotypical or able-bodied co-workers. I realize that people may have rationalized these opinions to the point of sounding reasonable, but the fact is that such an argument is intended to assert that disabled people should just cope with challenges and not expect or assert any need for assistance and accommodation to minimize them, even though doing so would make them a better student or employee.

And somehow the fact that at least in the US legislation exists to provide people a recourse for having accommodations. That's a part of what the Americans with Disabilities Act is all about, and frankly I don't see the point of even trying to argue accommodations when someone's trying to come at this from some kind of "common sense" perspective rather than any degree of familiarity with what the ADA states. The ADA is not a good piece of legislation, and it complicates things when they should be straightforward, but it does allow for accommodations.

This thread is not about this subject you mention above, but about autistic encapsulation, and I feel you are hijacking it for your own political agenda. I do not mind if you mention this subject here, as I said before, if you are able to work it into the topic of enquiry, but you do not seem to be doing that in this instance.

Unfortunately, lately, many posters on this forum do not seem to have a very positive or reasonable perspective on disability, and people who do seem to have their views dismissed and not properly understood. I would say there is probably also a lack of willingness to understand. I mean when I see people arguing against things like reasonable accommodations or dismissing the difficulties that sensory processing issues represent or saying that because something doesn't affect them it doesn't bother them even though it may impact many others, possibly in extremely negative ways, it makes me wonder what this forum is all about. It seems like it's currently mostly about supporting privileged perspectives of Aspies who have had careers, families, moderately "successful" lives, who can't relate to those who have more severe issues (and even openly dehumanizes and dismisses those with more severe issues), or those who deal with co-morbid conditions as well or who deal with other intersections that are typically targeted for other kinds of institutionalized discrimination - such as being a person of color, being trans, being queer, being gay, lesbian, or bisexual, being working class or poor.

A lot of the members here are members of one or more of those groups as well as being autistic, and having co-morbid conditions, but whenever anyone tries to say "You know, it'd be reasonable to respect people who deal with these issues" one gets accused of being "politically correct." As if it is just too damned hard to treat people like human beings when they're not sufficiently like you (that is a general you, not a specific you).

Right. I get it. You are saying you feel you (and others) are not being considered and treated with respect. That could very well be true.

Like this one guy who said that most bisexuals were bisexual because it's "trendy" but when I pointed out that he was wrong, he chose to focus on the word I chose to use (homophobic) and said he couldn't believe I could be so politically correct. Really? I wish I could say it was hard to believe that someone on this forum might say disrespectful or worse things about people not like them, informed by nothing more than basic ignorance, but the evidence says otherwise. Daily.

Yes, people have a lot of opinions about a lot of things, and some of these people are very insensitive and their opinions are wrong.

Many of the autistic people here, I can't relate to.

Same here:-)))

Some of the few I can relate to seem to end up in the position of arguing against the stuff that's been going on here over the past several months, just as I have been (and have been losing interest in). Some are much better at addressing these things than I am, and I respect them for it.

Verdandi, what do I know, but to me you seem quite interested....

So being told that one doesn't deserve accommodations because being autistic shouldn't require them, then I wonder if I even actually really belong here. Because I'm not here to be told the same things that the majority (primarily neurotypical) population seems to delight in telling disabled people. Despite the fact that this is a rather pervasive tone around here lately, I can't imagine most are here for it. I imagine people come here because they have difficulties or need a sense of community. I don't imagine they come here to set other parts of themselves aside for the comfort of the privileged majority or to remain silent in the face of openly declared prejudice.

Well I think you are a deeply sensitive person who has some good points, but to think you are able to control the thinking of so many people is kind of a big stretch. I think it would be nice to start on thread on this subject which is so interesting to you. Maybe you already have. I am willing to discuss it to some degree here if it can be fitted into to the subject of autistic encapsulation and also object relations, but it might be better to keep it kind of simple. Iam not talking on the same topic you are, nor have I ever been, though it may seem so to you. I asked you before if you saw the documentary Neurotypical, and posted the notice all over my threads and this forum. There was plenty of time to watch it. Did you?

Edited to add: The call center question is very interesting to me because it touches on shadow land or the edge between two different frameworks, Much of my writing is about this. I will be writing later, pretty soon, about my own sensory issues[, and already intended to do this before I read this recent message. I also would like to add that you do not rreallyh know how severe my own issues are or have been, as I have not spoken of this too much

I think this comes down partially to the idea of disability.

Disability is not the idea of having a diagnosis, the idea of having a disorder, or the idea of things being unpleasant. Disability is someone being significantly limited because they are significantly impaired in a daily activity.

Someone who wears glasses, is in fact limited. Without their glasses, they can't see as well as a normal person. They are not disabled.

Someone who is blind is disabled. We even have the idea of legally blind. You do not need to be total blind to be blind. There is a cutoff between sighted and non-sighted to a significant extent, because these people, are so limited in their sight.

The same thing is true elsewhere, not just in sight. Someone who is deaf in one ear, is actually not disabled in many contexts, because they can compensate, someone with significantly reduced hearing in both ears, is disabled, because of reduced ability to hear.

Now, when looking at sight and hearing this is easier to talk about in many way, and when you get to neurological and psychiatric disorders its harder to think about. And, as we are people with neuropsych disorders (as that's the best place to classify autism it seems - its a neurodevelopmental disorder) who frequently has psychiatric comorbids, we have to look at these more difficult parts to talk about.

A large portion of the population has a psychiatric disorder at some point in their life, depression and anxiety are at this point frequent it seems. I don't know the actual numbers, but there are quite a few people who have psychiatric disorders at some point in their life.

Having a disorder is not the same as having a disability. When it comes to this category - psychiatric, its actually only about 25% of people who have a disorder who are actually disabled (according to the ADA which is the relevant bit here, there are lots of different disability laws, but I'm sticking with the ADA throughout this).

People struggle, they are impaired, they have things more difficult for them than if they weren't anxious or weren't depressed. They don't manage as much, and don't do as well. But they still manage and still do things. They don't struggle with any of the major life activities. They aren't disabled. This doesn't mean they aren't impaired, or that they wouldn't do better with help. It means that they aren't disabled. They are capable of doing everything. They might not be good at it, but they can do it without significant limitations.

Now others, do have these significant limitations and they are disabled.

Going into neurological, and neuropsych, we have the same type of question. It's harder to see sometimes these cutoffs. I don't have a "25%" like in psychiatric, but some people are impaired, some people are significantly impaired in major life activities. These latter people, are disabled. Not everyone with a disorder.

(If you'd like examples of what is considered significantly impaired by a major life activity I wouldn't mind going into that more for what would probably qualify - what matters here is that major life activities are things like "seeing, hearing, walking, picking things up, speaking, communicating, eating, thinking, concentrating, working" and such, not "going to the store, getting a date", etc)

Now, once we've gone through this idea of disability, these people who are disabled - not everyone who its unpleasant for, and not everyone who has a disorder, but everyone who is disabled qualifies for a reasonable accommodation.

Now, an accommodation needs to be

a) for someone who is disabled
b) specifically helping the disability
c) reasonable

So, for the part where you say "others who really don't like loud noise either" - there is a difference between not liking loud noise, and being disabled by this noise.

Someone who cannot walk, cannot and should not get a separate room to help with the noise. But someone who is that significantly impaired by the noise that they are disabled should. This is not the same as not liking the noise. This is not the same as having a disorder that includes noise sensitivity. This is an individual specifically having a disability that includes having a noise sensitivity severe enough that they are impaired enough that they cannot do major life activities because of noise, and moving them to a separate office allows enables them to better cope with their disability.

This is not an everyday case. This is not even every person with autism should qualify for this. It's an every case should be looked at for what individuals NEED to deal. If Verdandi would need this - and in this description should would - then the ethical, as well as the economically smart, thing to do would be to give her that room.

Onto the economically smart part - I am guessing that most people want everyone with disabilities to perform as much as they can in the economy. If people are given accommodations we are CAPABLE of doing things we are not otherwise physically capable of doing. These shouldn't be given out to everyone just because they want them. They should be given out to people who need them. Whether the current cutoff is too high is a thing some people can argue about. I don't think its a thing I want to get into. I just want to say, people who need them need to get them. It's stupid to prevent people from working when they could with just a bit of help.

Someone cannot be forced to do better than they are capable of by throwing them into the deep end of a pool and telling them if they don't swim then they are a failure and should not work. It will not help them, it will not help society and it will not help with making them not be in some fake encapsulation.

I don't deny that what people think has an effect on what people can do. What people believe has huge effects on what people can do. But a blind person cannot believe and suddenly see, and an autistic person is autistic, and does have autistic traits. Some people do have a lot of other symptoms build up around as they get very anxious because of being aware of what's going on around them. Some people have a lot of issues because of either wanting or not wanting to be autistic and the identity being a curse or a blessing. But its not about being autistic. And denying someone help will not cause that person to do better. It will cause them to sink, and to fail, and to much more likely develop even more of those psychiatric disorders that build up around so many autistic people.

I'm going to go back to this message again: Imo the material in this response is very slanted. I do it, too, in my own way, but I think we should try to look at this kind of thing when it comes up or we just go more and more into a maze:

Is it really pain that a person is attempting to avoid? When I experience the urge to withdraw it seems more brought on by things like embarrassment, noisy or too hectic environment, or just boredom.

I think I withdraw because it is my natural way of being.

Thanks. This is a very important question. No time to go into it right now, but the pain is subliminal in that it is really not pain but the avoidance of pain that moves a person to do what he is doing. This is kind of hard to understand--at least it was for me, but by careful obserrvation of oneself in action, it is possible to see it.

The way ennui or boredom works in relationship to this is very fascinating. A whole major philosophy, existentialism, was built upon the principle of post-industrial revolution ennui in that people lost their understanding of themselves functioning in relationship with the world. They lost a certain meaningful structure into which they fitted in and could understand their own being by making and doing in a way which encouraged individuation, so they sought external orientation and inner direction by seeking external stimulation, but the existential protagonist does not really know how to do it. He only succeeds, and sometimes just barely, (at transcending his paradigm of being trapped in meaningless repetition) by entering a new scenario with different parameters by which he can redefine the meaning of his own existence by making some kind of choice.. Usually the opportunity to redefine his life occurs by chance, and then he seizes the opportunity (which situation can backfire, leading to 'good 'drama:-) or sometimes he just kind of falls into different circumstances and is forced to begin to redefine himself.

Much more to say on this subject.

Last edited by littlebee on 05 Nov 2013, 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

It seems to be a function of civilization to recognize peoples' needs and help them and work together for the benefit of everyone.
In nature, a disabled animal would probably perish, but there is no right or wrong in nature, those are concepts invented my humans for the sake of civilization and community.
Why question that or make it out to be something that it is not?
Throughout history so many people have suffered because of having a disability or being different and have had to struggle to either sink or swim. If accommodations help an individual and help an organization then it is worth recognizing.
Most people have to take the bull by the horns to some degree, but it is the degree that a civilized society will have to come to agreement on. It is natural for one to struggle to have ones needs met if taking the bull by the horns is unreasonably difficult.
Unfortunately, there are and have always been people who are not capable of expressing or recognizing their needs or who don't have enough social awareness to know how to ask for help when they need it.

Indeed. The lack of accommodations cost me my job. There was no "taking the bull by the horns" or "working through some kind of pain by feeling it." There was "functioning at work until I could barely function and lost my job." I think being able to work at that job over the long term would have been a much better outcome than losing the job because I could not cope with the environment.

This has also happened to me for similar-but-not-identical reasons in college, on more than one occasion. Is it really economical for someone like me to try and fail over and over again when it would only take some accommodation to ensure I am able to function in the workplace?

But thanks to repeated decompensations (or maybe I could say "regression" or "adult autistic burnout") due to pushing myself to function in these environments I can't function at all in these environments, and I deal with significant impairments that prevent me from working. So I'll get SSI and probably live well below the poverty line for the rest of my life because of attitudes similar to those expressed in this thread. That's not even mentioning the depression, anxiety, and recurrent panic disorder that I developed from trying to work under those conditions with no accommodations.

I don't know what the intentions are behind these threads, but it seems to be that what's stated is that autistic people really do need to "suck it up," at least those deemed "high functioning." And those deemed "low-functioning aren't even supposed to be involved because of the false assumption that they can't understand what's under discussion. I don't buy it, nor do I buy functioning terms. Don't say that I or anyone else is high-functioning in order to assert that we have to live and function in certain ways. Don't say that anyone is too low-functioning to matter or just mention them as tokens (Like, "I can see why they could be accommodated, but not you."). Functioning labels are rubbish because they are misleading and inaccurate: People make assumptions about what you can and can't do based on what they assume your functioning label to be. This can be seen in littlebee's posts where she says outright that being high functioning means one doesn't really need accommodations and should suck it up.

Anyway, I am not disabled because of my diagnoses. One of my diagnoses barely manages to describe me. I am disabled because, due to the way society is structured, and due to the impairments I experience, I cannot work. These impairments do not need labels to exist, they have existed for a long time. Some have become worse over time, some have become better over time, some fluctuate over time, some exist because of things that were done to me as a child as an adult. But they're all real things that exist independently of the constructed categories of "mental illness" or "neurodevelopmental disorder" or "chronic pain."

These are real parts of my life that I can't just overcome or "take the bull by the horns" with and expect to get anywhere. If I push myself too hard mentally or physically, there will be backlash and decompensation. There are times when people might assume I am NT and able-bodied and there are times when people might assume I am low functioning because of these fluctuations. I am not label or even a set of labels. I am someone who receives the help and assistance I can get because there are labels to describe my difficulties and make them legible and understandable to others who do not experience them. In this case, I mean professionals like therapists, psychiatrists, psychologists, medical doctors, rheumatologists, and my attorney who is handling my SSI case.

I remember two and a half years ago arguing with someone over whether or not I could actually work (as if they could really be an expert on that) and that because the argument was personal and the person was making incorrect assumptions about me I stayed with it despite the fact that typing was quite painful for me on that particular day. The argument was that because I could write so well I could obviously do data entry or some other desk job. And I was unable to let that go even though the typing that itself supposedly betrayed my employability was difficult and painful. This is what people don't see here on this forum is what things are like for any member outside the forum or even while posting.

All anyone sees is what we write. No one sees things left out possibly because mentioning such things in the past has led to judgment. No one sees when someone is at their worst when being at their worst means they can't communicate or possibly can't do anything at all. And at my worst, I can't communicate or do much of anything else at all. I may be dealing with leaden paralysis due to major depression or an autistic shutdown with loss of speech and possibly writing, or maybe even just unable to move at all. Just for a couple examples.

There are no "one size fits all solutions" for any of us.

Something I saw the other day:

(from this blog: http://thats-not-my-pejorative.tumblr.com/)

Given that in this thread one poster has pretty much stated that we should do without accommodations, that's what it means. Telling disabled people to do without is easier than actually dealing with the structural problems that make things difficult for disabled people.

Last edited by littlebee on 05 Nov 2013, 11:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

You know when you mention encapsulating, I keep on getting this mental image... like if you can add a drive system and some armament, it wouldn't be so bad.



I know that is stupid and unrelated, but since it was spawned by this thread, isn't this it's home? Mommy?

(Just kidding )

Imo to know how this principle of encapsulation works, and to learn to use it consciously not just for oneself but for the sake of ones brother, would be to understand the secret of life.

Last edited by littlebee on 06 Nov 2013, 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Do you mean for people on the spectrum, or are you reffering to everyone?

Everyone, but the people reading here are probably smarter and so more likely to understand, and if they do, this could affect other people.. Also, I should add that regarding saying this is the secret of life, maybe that was hyperbole, but it is a very important concept.