Autistics are less employable than addicts (imo)

Post Reply New Topic

And it's because the system is broken, not the autistic.

Because companies are invariably based on lies.

The last thing a company wants is someone intelligent, observant,
with a social conscience and who actually want to do the work.
In my own experience I have ended up reporting and nearly criminally convicting 3 of my
former bosses. The closest I got was one who ran away. The next closest I was able
to shutdown their use of unpaid labour.
This is just not someone people want to hire.

An alcoholic on the other hand, just takes the money to feed their habit,
and shuts up, crossing any line of integrity to feed their addiction.

Ahh yes, the shame given by others for being a whistleblower. You do the right thing and yet get punished for it. I know that feeling all too well. Many humans are so predictable in being immoral.

I think actually there is some interesting formula that many scams rely on the immorality of the target.
So there is some interesting feedback loop here.

Obviously it's not always the case, and other scams rely on exploiting human goodness,
but there are some more sophisticated ones which rely on ripping someone
else off.

In the United States, "ban the box".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_the_Box

Plenty of jobs require background checks. However, the job interview comes first. During the job interview, the job interviewer determines if the job interviewer likes the job applicant. A large part of how much someone likes someone else depends on personality. Some people only like people that are similar to themselves. Neurotypicals are in the majority. Extroverts are in the majority. Thus, autistics without felony convictions might get to the job interview and not be offered a background check (and no job offer). While neurotypical extroverted convicted felons with "good" personalities (personalities that the job interviewers like), often get offered a background check. As long as the felony conviction does not relate to the job, the applicant could work there if the job interviewer decides that.

Addicts that have "good" personalities fare better in the hiring process than autistics that are neither addicts nor convicted felons, in my opinion. (not a controlled experiment) (not a representative sample). (It is not possible to objectively measure the quality of a personality.) (Correlation does not mean causation).

How about autistic addicts?

Haha, I guess autistic addicts are even less employable.
Depends on the drug I guess though, maybe if the interviewer is
also an addict they would put autistic traits down to the drug and feel
a sense of camaraderie and shared struggle with the autistic addict.

Certainly a person would prefer an addict who is worse than them at the job
than a non-addict who is much more effective.

I have met at least 2 highly qualified and employed addicts of various drugs in my life.

People are afraid to hire us because they're afraid of people who are different.

Painting with a broad brush here..

No two on the spectrum are alike. Many higher functioning are employed.
Many even lower functioning are also employed.

Addiction is complex. There are 'functional' alcoholics. Then there are meth and crack addicts who cannot put 2 coherent sentences together.

Your original argument is kind of silly because how autistics compare to addicts is rarely, if ever considered.

The relative proportion is pretty terrible. The argument is less about what is compared than the functional
of requirements in a capitalist workplace of someone who is obedient with no sense of social justice.

I suppose it is a little disrespectful to place addicts as a "negative comparison"
as these people are probably going through pain, or whatever.

I don't think it's just that. People who have no interest in fitting can be very disruptive to a group's dynamics. People who have learning difficulties can require a much larger investment into training, even if they also possess a high intellect. People who have strong moral foundations might rat on shady behaviour going on within a business, etc.

It's probably not fear of someone who's different so much as fear of what costs might result from those differences.

Following the same logic, a business that's homogeneous in terms of some part of identity might be worried about how disrupting that homogeneity can cause them problems; if it's all guys they don't need to worry if sexism is a problem, if it's all straights they don't need to worry about homophobia, if it's racially homogeneous they don't need to worry about racism in the workplace, etc.

Once someone calls a problem out they eventually have to deal with the consequences, but until then they can just ignore it.