AlienVisitor wrote:
I agree with you, it's nothing like being an autist per the medical community definition.
What career(s) did you have in mind?
I've always wanted (well, since discovering it) to be an academic researcher (scientific research is my strongest passion). The subject in which I qualified was (broadly speaking) physics. Perhaps there will come a time when I can be based at home and still earn a salary doing research.
The quote about academia being particularly suitable was made by the economist, Tyler Cowen, in
this article. You were correct in your comment about how it's nothing like being an autist as currently defined. In trying to encourage people to adopt a view of the diverse nature of autism--such that it is found in subclinical populations--he commits some oversights.
Here are some examples:
Quote:
I've cited some of the more obvious examples, but the underlying biases are much more deeply rooted. A lot of people at colleges are aware of dealing with autism (and Asperger's syndrome; I will refer generally to the autism spectrum) in their "special needs" programs. The more complex reality is that there is a lot more autism in higher education than most of us realize. It's not just "special needs" students but also our valedictorians, our faculty members, and yes —sometimes —our administrators.
That last sentence is not some kind of cheap laugh line about the many dysfunctional features of higher education. Autism is often described as a disease or a plague, but when it comes to the American college or university, autism is often a competitive advantage rather than a problem to be solved. One reason American academe is so strong is because it mobilizes the strengths and talents of people on the autistic spectrum so effectively. In spite of some of the harmful rhetoric, the on-the-ground reality is that autistics have been very good for colleges, and colleges have been very good for autistics.
It's more complex, even, than he describes. E.g., the "special needs" students and valedictorians can overlap (as in my case--but the UK version). He does not make it clear where he draws the line between autistic and non-autistic. Although artificial, such a line, even in a broad sense, is required if he is to make much sense in using the term
autistic, because everyone in the population has some autistic trait or other. Using the current definitions, the second paragraph is generally untrue. That is why he needs to define the terms as he is using them here, as well as back up his arguments, because they appear mostly guesswork.
When discussing biased samples elsewhere in the article, it is good that attention is drawn to the population who might be defined as the broad autism phenotype, but there is no mention of the vast undiagnosed group that consists largely of those who are actually struggling, and no definition of what he considers autism.
Emphasising the cognitive strengths in autism, and its diversity, seems to be his intention. However, in doing so, he frequently distances these aspects from disability, giving the article less credibility because the subject matter is far more complex than represented here.
For example:
Quote:
It turns out that the American university is an environment especially conducive to autistics. Many autistics are disadvantaged or overwhelmed by processing particular stimuli from the outside world and thus are subject to perceptual overload as a result. For some autistics, that is debilitating, but for many others it is either manageable or a problem they can work around. The result is that many autistics prefer stable environments, the ability to choose their own hours and work at home, and the ability to work on focused projects for long periods of time.
Does that sound familiar? The modern college or university is often ideal or at least relatively good at providing those kinds of environments. While there is plenty of discrimination against autistics, most people in American universities are so blind to the notion of high-achieving autistics that one prejudice cancels out the other, to the benefit of many of the autistics in universities.
There is no evidence for such an environment being especially conducive. Instead of emphasising the complexity of the subject, which is claimed to be the article's purpose, here it is reduced to being either debilitating or manageable/work-aroundable. The final line, which appears to originate from a fantasy, implies that the paragraph preceding it was actually referring only to those who are able to get by without being noticed (and therefore unaccommodated). He fails to mention that the aforementioned prejudice would not actually benefit the majority of "high-functioning" autistics in accessing higher education because they would be unaccommodated as a result. It is also not mentioned that even if they escaped the prejudice resulting from a label, they might not escape that resulting from their unlabelled traits.
Aside from one brief mention about respecting the need for possible assistance (towards the end of the article) there is no mention of accommodations. The subject of disability itself, its complexity, and its inadequate accommodation in society, while not the focus of the article, requires more attention for balance and credibility. The following reveals this glaring omission:
Quote:
There is no doubt that many autistic people have very troubled lives and are unable to move into positions of high achievement or even contend for them. Problems, such as very obvious social atypicalities, acquired social anxiety, or various perceptual hypersensitivities —found among many but by no means all autistics —may hamper their ability to obtain ordinary jobs or rise in social status.
He attempts to balance out the emphasis on the strengths by mentioning those for whom the condition is debilitating, but in the process fails to convey the complexity of the subject, revealing that what constitutes disability is generally misunderstood.
16 Sep 2009, 2:50 pm
