I find it rather annoying that people like myself get lumped into this as well when such broad definitions are being used.
Do I prefer to be alone/ in a small group most of the time? Hell yes! It's more exclusive and I get more work done. In a social situation, less people means more signal, less noise.
Do I sometimes completely avoid social situations? Of course! But it's solely due to the fact that sometimes, I just can't be arsed to care about dealing with someones trite problems.
When push comes to shove and I need to be social with large groups, there isn't an issue aside from the usual inherent "stage fright", but this is a quality that can affect anyone that doesn't spend the majority of their time as a public speaker.
Some of us exhibit the "qualities" in the article purely by choice, not by challenge. I'm pretty sure at some point in my youth, some poor misguided soul tried to diagnose me with some placement on the spectrum, but I would say that nowadays this incorrect classification is more common than not. Had someone told me every day that I was an autist, maybe I would have ended up exhibiting more of those behaviors simply by association. Maybe we should make a slight effort to stop telling schoolchildren that they're special or different, and more time letting people fend for themselves a bit first.
You clearly don't understand how the diagnosis of these things works.
There is a spectrum of behaviors, raging from healthy to problematic.
Drinking alcohol has a range too: from abstaining to enjoying in moderation to alcoholism. Neither abstaining nor moderate enjoyment are problematic. While the parallel is awkward, just as occasionally having one beer too many doesn't constitute alcoholism, occasionally avoiding social situations is different from always avoiding them (the reasons for avoiding them are important too!).
If you don't understand the criteria for determining when a behavior is problematic enough to warrant a symptom and when it is not, and you read through the DSM-IV (which defines mental disorders), you will think you qualify for many of the disorders listed: in all likelihood you do not qualify for any of them. Why are the definitions written this way? Because mental disorders are often characterized by normal behaviors happening to an extreme degree (being anxious before a big potentially career-altering presentation is healthy, having panic attacks as a result of everyday situations is problematic). Also because the DSM-IV is meant to be used by trained professionals who already understand this distinction.
My issue is not with the vetted characterizations of symptoms in DSM-IV, but with the nature of the original article and pseudo psychologists like some middle school counselors. This is a subject that needs to be treated with some form of scientific rigor, not feel good fluff pieces.
Perversion also has a spectrum. Calling it a spectrum allows you to talk about two people, one with an extreme condition, and another relatively normal, in the same breath. One would wonder why one would be inclined to use language like that, unprofessional almost.
You really hit the nail on the head here and said exactly what I (and probably others here) have been thinking.
As much as it's a very humanly thing to do, I think it's ridiculous to try to lump people into categories, especially when the differences are so minute that it's almost as if there's one way that people should be, and if someone doesn't fit that mold exactly, they must be classified as different. This leads to unnecessary (and unintentional) segregation and gives common folk more reason to disproportionately view and treat certain individuals differently.
It's really not like that though. People with Asperger Syndrome behave and act very different from "normal" people. It's not simply a different personality, an introversion preference or anything like that, they genuinely have a very different brain.
It really is like that though. Most people genuinely do have quite different brains from each other, regardless of whether or not they fall within the autistic spectrum; but that's not reason enough to label them based on some common ground so that people who happen to fall within the majority can have some way to differentiate themselves and explicitly think, "That guy is abnormal because his brain doesn't focus on the all same things mine does."
And I chose the word abnormal because it sometimes has negative connotations and probably best represents the way most people think, i.e., afraid of what they're unfamiliar with. But imagine if the Asperger brain was actually the norm. Would that mean we should label people whose brains focus more on social interaction and reproduction than rules and solving problems?
Maybe I'm just uneducated and the label already exists, but sometimes I feel like we should put some specific label on "normal brained" people (other than the word normal or "neurotypical") to kind of even out the stigma. Perhaps my point of view is distorted but when I see people categorized like they are with Asperger Syndrome, I always get the sense that "normal" people look and treat them like they're aliens or like they're retarded or it's almost as if they're lab rats in some scientific study, all because of the "Asperger Syndrome" label... or even worse now, "Autistic Spectrum Disorder".
The problem with this is that you're thinking that these symptoms define aspergers. They don't - they're just symptoms, resulting out of other issues which you (and everyone else) can't see.
Just like every other medical and mental disorder, just because you have some of the symptoms doesn't mean that you have the actual condition. Jeff Foxworthy has a great joke about this - seeing a program on a disease, his wife says "I have everyone of these symptoms! I've got it..." To which he responds "No, you do not have testicular cancer!"
If you don't have aspergers, great! I'm happy for you; there are many things about being NT that I wish I had as well. But at the same time, don't classify aspergers as not being a real problem just because you share some symptoms without the underlying cause.
The unfortunate thing here is that, as you point out, nobody can see the cause. We have some general ideas, but they're not even very good ideas.
The point that the parent was getting at was that our entire diagnostic process is to measure the symptoms. This is the case for almost all disorders of the brain, and it makes your Jeff Foxworthy quote especially interesting - if the only way that we can determine whether someone has a given condition is self reporting, then what's to say she doesn't? Everyone has a brain.
I think that people who beat this drum are missing an important point - it doesn't matter whether or not someone who doesn't need special treatment or attention has the underlying disorder - by definition, they don't. Brain disorders don't become brain disorders until they have an impact on your life or the lives of the people around you. This is spelled out plainly in the DSM. Even if you have exactly the same chemical condition as someone with Aspergers, unless your life can be improved by treatment, you don't have it. This will continue to be the case until we know for sure what's going on. It's impossible to know how someone else experiences pain, as well, but that doesn't make their suffering less valid.
I agree that the article perpetuates broad over-generalizations about people with Autism Spectrum Disorders.
On the other hand, if you are high-functioning enough for the advice in the article to not apply to you, I would also hope that you are high-functioning enough to tell your manager(s) and co-workers what accommodations you do and don't need.
As someone who was diagnosed with Aspberger syndrome, reading that article made me want to throw up. There can be significant differences between a number of people with the same diagnosis, and generalizing them all under one mocking nickname of "aspie" is disrespectful. My diagnosis is not obvious to anyone talking to me unless I were to disclose it, and I have done very well in school leadership activities; I particularly enjoyed being involved in a debate club. I don't want Aspberger's to define me, and I wish that CNN would be more supportive of people who are working to overcome their disabilities instead of writing a puff piece about how special and disabled we are.
I couldn't agree more - as another person with Aspbergers I feel that this article tried to fit us in to the broken genius pattern, rather than recognize that these kind of syndromes manifest themselves differently in every person.
I am in no way special or helped by my syndrome, I am not difficult to work with, I am not in any way disabled, like normal people I have issues with emotional repression and other peoples point of view, but that being said I am human, first and foremost.
No one (outside of medical and psychological circles) except my girlfriend, mum and best friend know I have Aspbergers, my differences are just a part of my personality.
Without going into detail, there's a lot more going on internally that doesn't meet the eye in addition to varying ticks most folks wouldn't notice outside of spending significant amounts of time around the person.
Completely agreed. I found the article mildly infuriating. Aside from the fact that it manifests in many different ways, I wouldn't even think of Aspergers as a disability in the "traditional" sense; people with Aspergers are just different, it's not like they function any less well than people without Aspergers. I don't have Aspergers myself but a good friend of mine does, and the casual stigma and misinformation I've observed drives me crazy.
> it's not like they function any less well than people without Aspergers
Some do. Some people have more severe symptoms; I read an autobiography by an author with Aspergers where she describes being completely overwhelmed by loud noises or too much visual input. And when some schoolyard bullies told her that "We're going to beat you up every day", she accepted it as another rule among many incomprehensible school regulations, and actually went and reminded them if they forgot to beat her up.
I agree completely about the "disability" description - I think that I became used to calling it that because in situations where I did need to get support for it in college (ie. requesting a single room, which seems to be a natural human need and not just an aspberger issue) it always had to be done through the disability services office, and maybe that definition stuck in my mind. It's good to be aware of how bureaucracy can unconsciously influence our mental thought patterns.
Some of the mass media articles about Zuckerberg have just been absolutely venomous taunting about his Asperger's. You can be the most successful internet billionaire of your generation and average people will still sneer at you for having a mental disorder. The stigma against it is still incredibly strong (even though it has no connection to violent/abusive behavior).
Despite it's sensationalist tone, this article raises certain issues that deserve to be raised.
The link between Aspergers and the infuriating (and abusive) behavior of certain tech companies seems extremely plausible.
Having Aspergers does not make someone an innocent victim, especially if they yield considerable power. People don't dislike Zuckerberg for having Asperger's, they dislike him for his behavior and policies.
> As someone who was diagnosed with Aspberger syndrome, reading that article made me want to throw up.
As another 'Sperg, I can't help but think you're overreacting. Sure, the article was a tad patronizing at times, but the overall tone was positive. It's not a problem that it was a bit of a "puff piece", as you said, because it'll help people perceive us in a more positive light.
> My diagnosis is not obvious to anyone talking to me unless I were to disclose it
I grew up without a clue about Asperger's or having it. It just wasn't known back then, so I operated under the assumption of being just an ordinary (or "normal") person, and despite some quirks, even pulled off the role.
But immediately upon reading about Asperger's, my sister recognized the characteristics in me. The point is that someone who knows the "symptoms", may well recognize them in you. It may even be obvious.
> I don't want Aspberger's to define me
It doesn't, but it inevitably does to an extent. You probably display most of the characteristics, but at least some of them are under your control. For example, sometimes you'll want to "fit in", so you'll refrain from being as blunt as you'd like to.
Upon close inspection, no one is "normal". I'm a little wary to take these syndromes at face value, because every year they discover a different one. Some years ago ADD didn't even existed, nowadays 1 in 2 people would be diagnosed with that.
Maybe Asperger's is just a personality trait. Maybe it's just not putting up with other's people crap. There are days I would be diagnosed as having Asperger's, for sure.
A kid in my CS program and my dorms in college had Asperger's and I'd probably hire him, depending on the company. He is an absolutely brilliant person who would read a textbook in a night and immediately have all of it committed to memory and able to use in a problem. He would program in classes because he already knew everything the professor was lecturing on, only stopping to raise his hand and correct the teacher when they flubbed up or weren't totally clear. (By the end of our program teachers were trying to make sure they didn't have him in their classes.)
He did a few jobs during school and a buddy of mine worked with him at a software development shop. He said that they put him (my co-student with Asperger's), in an office by himself with a computer and a desk phone and gave him assignments of things to code. His code was awesome, but whenever he wanted to ask someone about a project he was working on, people rarely answered him. Being the genius that he was, he figured out how to hack his office phone to be able to transmit his voice through every office speaker in the entire office without anyone having to pick up their phone. They quickly started answering him more.
So my $.02 are the same with working with any individual - understand who they are, what they care about, and give them what they need. My co-student with Asperger's was a total genius in CS (actually he was a CE double major now that I think of it), but ultimately had trouble getting people to just listen to him.
The posed question is kind of offensive and arrogant if you think of it. It is kind of along the lines of 'Will/do you hire someone who is a woman/foreign/handicapped/ugly?' Suddenly the proposed properties are super offensive. "Women are smart", "Women think differently", etc. "Dave Wellman has managed several employees who were women." Eh what?
How about asking "Will/do you hire someone who is good for the job?". The question asked here though is more along the lines of "Will/do discriminate in your hiring process and how much?"
Furthermore the article is pretty biased, for example: "Aspies are intelligent -- and independent".
I have met dumb 'aspies'. I don't know about figures, but I would argue that there are both dumb and intelligent 'aspies'.
> The posed question is kind of offensive and arrogant if you think of it. It is kind of along the lines of 'Will/do you hire someone who is a woman/foreign/handicapped/ugly?'
...
> How about asking "Will/do you hire someone who is good for the job?". The question asked here though is more along the lines of "Will/do discriminate in your hiring process and how much?"
I don't disagree with you, but I think it's important to realize that this article is written to address and correct some common human biases. People whose moral development exceeds a certain level are less likely to subconsciously classify and stereotype people based on a handful of social cues, but are more likely to evaluate people as individuals. This article is not written for such people. It is written for people whose moral model of a person is so simple as to equate "autistic" with "dysfunctional" and ignore the individual characteristics of a person.
It may be offensive or arrogant to discuss autistic spectrum individuals in this way, but it's also necessary because most people are simply going to stereotype and dismiss them unless they're prompted to think more thoroughly about the issue. Decades in the future, when humanity's collective moral reasoning has hopefully progressed, we will be able to look back on articles like this and marvel at how simpleminded people were at the time. But articles like this are a necessary step to getting there.
As others here have pointed out, "Asperger's" covers a broad spectrum of behaviors and it's not fair to a) put this label on anyone who displays some of the behaviors (that covers too many people), nor b) try to minimize the diversity of behaviors by focusing on just a few (the diversity is much, much greater). The same thing happens with the horribly named "gifted" label. People only focus on the high achievers and completely miss the fact that not all gifted or Asperger's fit that stereotype. It's just so easy to label people and move on without really considering what's going on. A great article called the "Misunderstood face of giftedness" on this was just in Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marianne-kuzujanakis/gifted-ch...
Don't worry. Asperger's syndrome will be removed from DSM-5 next month. So next month, the person won't have the syndrome anymore...The syndrome won't even exist anymore...
Much of the DSM is toxic legacy from the dark ages of psychiatry -- an era that we've yet to transcend.
Meanwhile, your conclusion doesn't seem to fit with the text of the article you linked.
You say:
> Asperger's syndrome will be removed from DSM-5 next month.
> So next month, the person won't have the syndrome anymore...
> The syndrome won't even exist anymore...
From the article:
> DSM-V, will come out in May and Asperger’s will be
> notably absent, replaced with the broader definition
> of “autism spectrum disorder.” Previously, Asperger’s
> was thought to be a milder form of autism.
My interpretation is that it's still the generic spectrum disorder that we never really understood, but now the DSM reflects this reality better than it did previously.
Of course, I concede to the prevailing stance of people more experienced in and affected by this decision.
Currently there are several disorders inside the spectrum for high functioning autism (PDD-NOS, Asperger, High functioning classic autism) and the line between them most of the time is very thin, on the other hand therapies for treatment are the same, so DSM just took the obvious decision of put them together in one big umbrella.
The UK has concepts of "Reasonable adjustments". Some things are intrinsic parts of a job. A taxi driver must be able to drive. An accountant does not need to be able to drive. Thus, you can justifiably not employ someone for a taxi driver if their disability prevents them from driving, but you could not justifiably not employ an accountant if their disability meant they could not drive.
> As a manager, you should understand how to handle the unique opportunities and challenges that come with hiring an Aspie.
Wait, what? This is weird. Now tell us what it's like employing Jews.
I generally agree with the intent of the article but it comes over a bit "Oh the proud and noble Aspie".
> They will never accept "no" for an answer without being told the reason for it.
That's probably true, but some people with Asperger's will have given up on asking why, knowing that sometimes people use stupid incomprehensible bizarre sub-optimal reasons. When someone tells me no I tend to just accept it, because I know that asking why leads to a rabbit-hole of bitter argument and disappointment.
I sound overly critical of the article. I don't mean to. Oh well.
Honestly, halfway through the article the question popped up on whether I was reading an Article on understanding "Aspies" or whether I was reading an Article on "Aspie"keeping. "Dog's become agressive when stared into the eyes by humans as for Dog's, this signals a fight" vs. "Many people with Asperger's are challenged by large crowds, looking people in the eye and reading common social cues". I don't mean to bash the article, but if anybody shares that feeling about the language used in it...
Asperger's doesn't particularly exist. IIRC it is being removed from the DSM-V; 99.5% of sufferers are self-diagnosed with information that they found on the internet, and sometimes have confirmed with helpful psychiatrists.
The criteria seems to be that one has a terrible personality, is simultaneously high-maintenance and inconsiderate of others, thinks very highly of one's self, but lacks any other connection with the autism spectrum.
You're mixing in two different things, self diagnosis according to Internet reading, and professional diagnosis which use the DSM for insurance payments. Don't confuse them like this. Professional diagnosis may well be growing faster than you like, but the same is true for prison population which is also based on a very good but imperfect system (juries and trials).
I'm not even sure how to respond to this. For one, there's a distinct difference between Asperger's and High-Functioning Autistics, and while they may have taken it out of the DSM, it doesn't change the fact that these changes in characteristics exist and when diagnosed correctly, can still identify the subset of issues each are facing and how to respond/deal with those issues.
Secondly, people forget that autism, as a spectrum, is being studied further and further and as such, we are finding more reason to believe that it actually does affect a lot of people -- not necessarily that it is grossly misdiagnosed. Furthermore, the number of doctors knowledgeable enough in diagnosing someone at any range of the spectrum is low. As we learn more about it, we are seeing people their 20s, 30s, some even well into their 50s and 60s finally being diagnosed because they were able to adapt well-enough that it seemed nothing was wrong on the outset.
Similarly, females on the spectrum are also often misdiagnosed with anxiety, depression or eating disorders because of how it affects them, and therefore we think that autism primarily affects men even though that may not be the case at all. Society tends to prime girls at a young age to be more sociable (but doesn't frown upon them being shy either), so they are often able hide under the radar, but continue to suffer in other ways. I'm on the spectrum myself, and I've had doctors laugh at me for wanting to be tested because "I 'look' and 'act' 'normal'," to them, which is incredibly insulting. Additionally, those that are trained to detect autism are often pediatricians, not general practitioners that aren't taking into consideration the adult patient's learned-skills over time. This is often what leads people to try to figure out what is wrong with them through other means, and I don't think we should be going around telling other people who they are and aren't. There will always be hypochondriacs, but this is one of those situations where I feel like we should try to take people seriously before we write them off entirely.
So thanks for the armchair neuropsychology, but nobody needs it; we still have a lot to learn.
The DSM isn't armchair psychology, it surveys accepted professional practice. The rest is just my personal opinion: terrible personality isn't commonly considered a medical diagnosis, so I don't think I need a license.
> The criteria seems to be that one has a terrible
> personality, is simultaneously high-maintenance and
> inconsiderate of others, thinks very highly of one's self
If I was a person with Aspergers, I would be extremely annoyed that the term 'Aspie' is used here. Why not, 'for these people,' type of wording? Coining or perpetuating a term like that only serves to isolate anyone that might otherwise have been just a person with Aspergers.
My experience is that the use term "Aspie" divides the people I know who are diagnosed with Asperger's; it's similar to the way people are divided over the use of the word "hacker".
It has negative connotations to some, but if you are precise in the way you define the term, it can be a source of pride.
I thought it was a term of endearment and wasn't considered offensive by Aspergers folks... er.. "those with Aspergers"... seeing why the diminutive label is useful here. What do you call such a person? You don't call them an "Aspergers". "Aspie" seems to work.
I believe with most psychological or mental conditions, the phrase "a person with ..." is used, putting the person before the condition. Just like you don't call a person with mental retardation a "retard."
Reading this post makes me wonder if I have Asperger's...it pretty much described me to a tee.
Extremely uncomfortable in crowds/parties (actually, I pretty much refuse to attend parties at all), always looking at something else when speaking to someone 1 on 1, "rambling" when describing something or telling a story when someone else would only take 1~2 sentences, speaking my mind and a tendency to avoid small talk, and sensitive in terms of how I react to something (I tend to over-analyze and find a reason for everything that involves me).
That being said, does anyone know how accurate his list is?
If you are self-aware of these things and able to make an effort to change or work-around them when they give you trouble, you are extremely high-functioning.
I can rattle off a list of problems that short people have (trouble reaching things, inability to chase down a bus, etc), and realize that I am short, so I have to make extra effort in some parts of life to cope with that. (And in some areas of life my particular height is an advantage.)
Does there is any interest to diagnosis you are aspie or not? From what I read here, it can be very helpfull for children, but it is not clear for adult people.
Unfortunately yes. I don't see how you enforce anti-descrimination laws if the relevant descrimination takes place entirely in the hiring manager's head.
Coming to a blog post, why most computer specialists relate to autism. It is very important to keep in mind there is a broad spectrum. Holding two strong relationships with a total of three children with Asperger's or high functioning autism (ages: 3-6, 7-9, 10-12) and a few here and there, it has really broadened my view on the subject.
First, language is a barrier. Social awkwardness naturally follows that barrier. Trained social reflexes and loosely coupled connections and relationships. From an industry perspective, computer specialists seem to form a deeper relationship and bonds with the logical machine.
Social skills are a technical trait that can be trained... 'why are you looking at me while I use the urinal?' In my experience, these children live on rules, and the rules define them as an adult. Computers are rule based too.
Zoning, stimming, and hyperfocusing seem to be common characteristics in the spectrum. Countless hours spinning objects, humming notes, doing routines, slightly ocd to an extent. Much like the caffeinated nights at the terminal for endless hours.
Multitasking as an obvious detour from an objective. Focus on a, achieve a, move on to b. Multitasking skills are found in the ADHD varieties, but interestingly, my observation has been a determined rigorous approach to solve solutions. Tinker until it is done. Modify. Read the rules manual word for word XOR ignore it completely. We see this behavior in our field.
Egos and emotions. Nothing more to say.
And I too have Asperger's syndrome. I have never been formally diagnosed with testing, partly because it was unheard of in my time. I visited a psych last year and she was shocked that my symptoms had not been tied to the spectrum. Yet, I am a trained individual, hyperfocusing my way to my goals and have been without guidance. My main issues stem from processing/speaking language. I am strong willed, persistent, introverted, curious, clever, quirky, and shy. I've self medicated my Asperger's and ADD with depression and anxiety... ruining my social reflection to the world.
The computer is my relationship. It is my mind, body, and soul. If something goes wrong, it is either my fault, someone's fault, or fixable. No quirky social rules to interpret and apply to the problem. Phone conferences in the phreaking days and IRC had my friends for the longest time.
The question 'is will/do you hire someone with Asperger's syndrome?', and the answer is: 'if they are qualified.'
Some of you will be parents soon. If you see the signs, get your children enrolled in a speech therapy program.
Peak their interests with gears (KNEX), LEDs and motors and batteries, circular/cylindrical objects, simple math/chemistry in the home.
The sooner the rules begin to form, the less the fear applies, grabs hold, and ruins the experience. Warn them about the quadratic equation, Bayes', matrices... years in advance. Eradicate the fear, spawn the curiosity.
As a father with a child with autism spectrum disorder (it is not fully diagnosed until 6-8) I strongly second to have your children tested and enrolled as soon as possible (ideally as soon as you have any doubt or see any sign). Therapies can have almost magical effects if started early, much less as time passes.
This, a hundred times this. Confronting the possibility prior to frontal lobe development can radically redirect a life. In the spectrum, frontal lobe development can almost equate to tabula rasa on certain traits. It annoys me when parents ignore the signs and are literally altering the path of their child. Embrace it, because when the teen years approach and the decade following, they will fall into place and you will most likely get rewarded with the relationship that every parent wants with their grown kids.
I think this goes out to all parents. If your kid does not enjoy the things you want to do with them, set aside time and do some of the things they want to do. You're investing in a lifelong relationship. Years will pass and that opportunity will not come back.
Yes, if you suspect your child has any delays, programs like early start [1] are crucial in not only helping the child, but also helping you in dealing with any issues.
The only reason these programs aren't swamped with participants is because of the feared stigma and actually coming to grips with your child's differences.
Another frequent side effect of Asperger's is the impulse to fix things and make sure everything runs smoothly. (I think this is not limited to Asperger's but is common to many people who are uncomfortable with emotion.) A frustrating aspect of Asperger's is that you don't feel the same emotions at the same times for the same reasons as other people. People ignore you or discount your feelings because the logic behind your emotions seems bizarre to them. And the disconnect goes both ways, of course, since people with Asperger's have a hard time understanding others' emotions and responding to them constructively. For many young Aspies it is a simple bedrock truth that whenever emotion and personal interaction mix, it's a clusterfuck, because engaging with other people emotionally ends in failure and trauma. So you keep your emotions inside, studiously avoid responding to others' emotions, and structure your interactions with other people around what you _are_ capable of doing right, which is fixing things that cause bad emotions in the first place.
In this way, having Asperger's is kind of like the opposite of being a drama queen. This is not to say that people with Asperger's are always emotionally appropriate or easy to get along with. What I mean is that some people love emotional chaos because they deal with emotion very well and always seem to come out on top in emotional confrontations. They relish the chance to stir up chaos because to them it's another chance to put their skills on display and come out ahead. Aspies are not like that at all; when they get into an uncomfortable confrontation, it's a mistake, and they don't enjoy it. People who deal poorly with emotion go around fixing things and (some) people who thrive on it go around breaking things. Sounds like a good reason to hire Aspies to me.
That is a very elegant way to describe one of my most non-human features. I have huge issues with saying "I'm sorry." My brain does not allow me to even consider it as an option. If I am truly sorry, I will masochistically introspect, learn, reiterate, and adjust the scenario until the feeling of saying, "I'm sorry", becomes a moot point due to my effort to correct the situation. Words are quite meaningless without action, but action does not seem meaningless without language.
I think 'normal' people do this too. They just have an easier time of convincing themselves of abstract concepts like love, remorse, etc. Looking at myself, I have very primal emotions and filters. There is much self-interest, but I through repetition I have learned to take others into account. This is due to 'others' being a crucial part of what I consider my identity. Without their language (body, verbal), which I cannot fully utilize/process, I could not exist.
I call it my absurd void philosophy. Given that I was placed in a void, stripped of light, sound, floating around aimlessly... I would lose my identity. Without others, there is no me. If I do not take others into consideration, they will not take me into consideration and I would lose my identity. This is the root cause of my social interactions other than habit.
How does this play in the workplace? I make mistakes, and I bust my arse to not let the behavior happen again. I utilize the experience to warn others of my shortcomings.
As a generous Southern man once said to me, "Jonathan, some people just want a Thank You letter as gratitude instead of an email or phone call." To which I replied, "gratitude, on any medium, is still gratitude, this is a difference of culture, but to disregard my sentiment is to deny my humanity, not just my culture."
I strive to be concrete and universal, because no one does it for me.
This is getting off-topic a bit, but I think the onus is on the person communicating to make an effort to communicate in a way the other person understands. It's up to you to learn to communicate in a shared language and not in an idiosyncratic language that only has meaning to you.
Words are quite meaningless without action.
This is incorrect, especially when it comes to thank you notes and apologies. The gesture is significant in itself, regardless of the sentiment behind it, because the gesture is conventional. When a response is expected, you can't expect silence to mean the same thing as the expected response. Often it means the opposite.
It's like you're trying to rewrite a protocol without consulting with anybody else. If you deploy a bunch of servers that speak your own proprietary dialect of HTTP, don't expect to be able to interoperate with other people's systems.
Edit/continuation:
I think 'normal' people do this too. They just have an easier time of convincing themselves of abstract concepts like love, remorse, etc.
It's true; shared experience gives an illusory reality to feelings. There are emotions (such as fear) that are biologically real in the sense that they are rooted in the structure of the brain; people would be capable of feeling these emotions without any social exposure. There are other emotions whose reality is based on shared cultural experiences, which are difficult for someone from another culture to understand. The subleties of emotions like guilt, shame, and gratitude are very difficult to understand outside a shared cultural context, because they are used to regulate relations between people. People treat them as if they were primal emotions like fear, which is very misleading. They expect that you must experience these feelings exactly the same way they do simply because you are human, but if they were transplanted into another culture they might find themselves as disoriented and "weird" as you. If you see shame, gratitude, and guilt as part of an emotional "language" like English or Spanish or Chinese, which can only arise between people, and which exist in different forms in different cultures, then it is a lot less confusing.
> "gratitude, on any medium, is still gratitude, this is a difference of culture, but to disregard my sentiment is to deny my humanity, not just my culture."
And some people prefer to be compensated in dollars, not bitcoins.
Giving is about giving something that the recipient will enjoy, not about what the giver wants. Gratitude is such a gift.
If I give gratitude, then, you demand a separate kind because it does not suit your tastes seems more rude than my ignorance of what you initially wanted in exchange. The example of currency follows a completely different set of rules than gratitude of the 'thank you' nature for me. I suppose I am not one to judge what is(n't) rude.
This is straw man fallacy because they have not demanded gratitude. They have been given a gift that they do not understand or value, then you've expected them to return their own gratitude.
> Another frequent side effect of Asperger's is the impulse to fix things and make sure everything runs smoothly [... ... ...] (some) people who thrive on it go around breaking things. Sounds like a good reason to hire Aspies to me.
The types of people who get themselves into building new computer systems tend to meet the deadlines but what they build is full of bugs. The aspies, i.e. maintenance programmers, then spend years afterwards fixing the system based on issues raised by the unit testers, i.e. live users of the system.
I sometimes wonder whether the human species would be better off if everyone had a strong case of what we call Asperger's.
So many tribal/cultural conflicts arise because of people's ability to connect strongly... Consider religious zealoutry and jihad, and other culturally-derived sources of conflict.
Our ability and willingness to be led (at a scope unique in the animal kingdom) has been a great organizing force in human history; but it has also been very destructive. The jury's still out as to whether it's a net positive.
If we all had strong Asperger's, would logic and reason rule the day more often than it does? Would that in turn be net positive?
Food for thought: Would we then need to treat non-Asperger's people as having a disorder of their own? The question sharply illuminates the true purpose of medically treating someone with Asperger's and other autism-spectrum "disorders": To help them fit in better with the majority and hopefully be happier. Not to "fix" them.
Asperger's manifests very differently depending on the individual, and does not necessarily block the ability to connect strongly. On average, it may be more difficult for an individual with Asperger's to connect strongly because they are not in tune with the majority of the population, but that's more a function of having trouble finding like-minded individuals than of not being able to connect.
The idea that Aspie individuals are paragons of logic and reason is misguided. The article even mentions individuals with Asperger's having stronger feelings, and there are theories that Asperger's individuals are actually more sensitive in general to everything, resulting in overstimulation both physically and emotionally very quickly. A world of Asperger's individuals does not mean a world of perfectly rational individuals.
I absolutely agree that Asperger's does not make an individual broken or inherently "worse" that others, and that the idea of "fixing" an Aspie through medical intervention is antiquated and harmful at worst, but I don't believe that an world full of Asperger's individuals would be logical, reasonable, or in any way inherent "better" than our current world. It would make the world different - not worse, not better - the same as how it makes the mind of an affected individual.
Based on my limited interactions with people diagnosed on the spectrum, I agree that any notion that such individuals are inherently "more logical" is incorrect and unrepresentative.
Whether a person is logical or not is orthogonal to their position on the autism spectrum. It is useful to delineate between "logic" and "reason" here: reason is arriving at appropriate conclusions given the state of the world, and logic is the means by which we accomplish this. Using logic relies entirely on the premises chosen and assumptions made, which is where the "human element" comes into play. Many people, regardless of psychiatric diagnosis, are quite adept at cherry-picking premises such that, through careful selective ignorance, they arrive at pre-determined conclusions.
So if I had to make a very politically incorrect and anecdotal hypothetical assertion, I'd say that in my experience people on the autism spectrum indeed are more rigorously "logical" but they can also be correspondingly irrational; where someone not on the spectrum might be fine with a few measures of cognitive dissonance, someone on the spectrum might construct a labyrinthine fortress of logic to prevent any sort of uncomfortable or distasteful conclusions, and to reassure themselves that the world conforms to their notions of justice.
This is neither good nor bad, or any kind of judgment. Just supporting the parent comment with anecdata.
"The idea that Aspie individuals are paragons of logic and reason is misguided."
I certainly agree with this; I was simply offering a positive take on some of the "hyperlogical" behaviors described in the article and elsewhere, e.g. building a snowman inside because it's too cold outside.
As someone who is highly social and has two ASD sons, I just want to note that verbal communication (aka "language") takes two. It annoys the fool out of me when people fail to communicate with someone with some mild challenges and then just blame them for it. I always want to say "If you are so fucking socially adept, then surely you can bridge this small gap for the other person."
The 12 year old I mentioned, always misused pronouns. Teachers, friends, and coworkers always approached him differently once he let out this trait. It became a worry/burden of curiosity to understand why this teenager would use incorrect pronouns. All the time, thought, and effort wasted on attempting to correct, blame, and criticize just because of "Me/We" instead of "I". What a waste. The teachers, friends and coworkers were all naturally abstract, but when something falls outside of the model of normal, then the child is breaking a concrete law that must be corrected immediately. Until then, no discourse cannot continue past the misuse of pronouns. They knew what the child was trying to communicate. /rant
My sons often note that most people touting their "social skills" are not social like me. They are social in a competitive "Mean Girls" kind of way. The point is pecking order, not connection. A lot of that crap just royally pisses me off so much.
Sounds like a lot of us here fit the description pretty well.
I'm not convinced this is anything more than the various styles of potential people. Take for example that I don't read or watch fiction. I haven't been able to cope with it my whole life. I read non-fiction and much prefer it.
Is that a preference? Is that some meaningful indication about who I am?
I don't know. I am hearing the spectrum answer from a lot of people. That sounds like an answer with no way to refute it, so the value of it is meaningless.
I really don't know much about this topic, and haven't given it the time to learn. My input is not particularly valuable in this discussion.
However my best guess is that this is trying to explain the range of human possibility with a diagnosis as opposed to simply thinking that there are different people with different traits, and that's all okay.
I used to be "unable" to do a lot of tasks of a business professional and just coded and worked alone.
Then I was promoted until I was unable to do what I was good at, and has to learn how to do the business tasks. Now I am doing them.
It wasn't that I was unable. I just didn't desire to do it on my own, and wasn't in a position where I had to regardless.
I sort of think of all of this like ADHD. The majority of parents I know tell me their kid has ADHD, and many are on medication for it.
And I watch them feed their children coke regularly.
I worked with someone who has Aspergers and I would definitely say it's a legitimate condition and not simply a case of people having "various styles" or "different traits". I think it's one of those things that you can't really understand until you experience it first hand.
To be completely honest, although he was very smart and I understood his condition, I found him extremely difficult and uncomfortable to work with. Which is really unfortunate.
Completely reasonable. I was extremely difficult to work with for a long time until I learned how to change my tactics.
But maybe that's the core difference. I can learn how to change my tactics, even if it took me years to figure it out.
Edit: The real key for me was turning social interaction into a programming problem. Once I did that, I went from completely inept terrible person to work for, to a person who works with C levels regularly, and does upper level VC work.
And all that really happened was I turned the business social interaction into a programming problem mentally. Once I turned it into a game, I started to succeed at it. But it's not organic.
If the consequences weren't so tragic, I would laugh out loud at all this about Asperger's. Consider the following points:
1. Human evolution is still going on, and in the long term, Asperger's might represent a positive evolutionary adaptation, especially in a world increasingly dependent on technology. Only nature knows, and nature doesn't reveal her secrets willingly.
2 After a recent epidemic of overdiagnoses, psychologists are reluctantly abandoning the Asperger's diagnosis -- it's being removed from the DSM. The reason? Too many people wanted the diagnosis -- it was the first truly fashionable mental illness. After all, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Bill Gates are/were thought to have this "disease".
3. There is a positive psychological trait called "Grit":
People who have "grit" tend to focus on a few objectives, or just one, for months or years. It's a "good thing™" -- psychologists say so. But the exact same behavior can lead to an Asperger's diagnosis. Have psychologists resolved this contradiction? Not remotely.
As far as I'm concerned, and in the opinion of an increasing number of psychologists, Asperger's refers to something real, but it shouldn't have been categorized as a mental illness -- unless intelligence should also be listed.
If psychology was a science this might all be different, but there's little hope for that.
Asperger isn't a binary diagnosis; it's more of a continuum.
The skills that make you a good programmer place you a little further out on that continuum almost by definition. [1]
Therefore the real question is: Do you feel you would benefit from the treatments that become available to you were you to receive the diagnosis?
[1] The simplest way to (sort of) get that is this quote from Inventing on Principle: "People we consider to be skilled software engineers are just the people really good at 'playing computer.'" (http://vimeo.com/36579366 @ 17m40s)
It's not so much as a "thing" as it is "shades of grey". Autism is considered a spectrum disorder with a huge range of capabilities included.
I've got some of the tendencies too. I've overcome all the social aspects, but I still often prefer being alone to think. Being social actually takes work but "being the machine" (as the article calls it) is easy.
EDIT: And of course I'll hire someone with Aspergers ... but maybe not for a sales position where schmoozing customers is a big part of the job. The hiring process is the same regardless as you need to evaluate each candidate's suitability in filling the open position.
I love what you said about the spectrum; it can't be re-said enough because I think it's a thing a lot of people don't get.
> ... but maybe not for a sales position where
> schmoozing customers is a big part of the job.
I think that makes sense the vast majority of the time. I think in some cases Aspergian tendencies can be an aid to salespeople.
I've never been diagnosed with Aspergers, but I definitely share some of the tendencies. At some point around junior high / high school (in the late 80's and early 90's, having never heard of "Aspergers") I realized I had to really start putting a lot of effort into figuring out how other people thought because it wasn't something that came naturally to me.
Over the years I got a lot better at it. I certainly get it wrong a lot of the time (who doesn't) but overall I think I'm better than average at it.
To me it's similar to the phenomenon of non-native English speakers often speaking English more properly than native English speakers: the non-native English speakers have often made a conscious effort to learn the language from books and professionals whereas most native English speakers simply pick up an imperfect version of English from their parents at a very young age without conscious effort.
Since understanding others didn't come naturally to me, I had to actually really think about it and work about it for a lot of years!
I think it was precisely because of those "shades of grey" characteristics it was decided Aspergers should be eliminated from the new DSM V.
When it gets released this means no-one will be diagnosed with Aspergers (along with other forms of autism) from then on, it will all fall under the same autism umbrella because of the range of the spectrum.
I'm not sure I disagree with the decision to remove it ... and there's still no proof that all the diagnoses of autism are actually the same disorder (we have a lot of research yet to be undertaken).
On a side note, paging through the DSM can be both amazing and scary. My wife waves it in front of the students in her "Introduction to Psychology" classes just to show how many different types of formal disorders there are. As well as reading selected sections to them. What becomes quickly apparent is that there is no "normal". Everyone has tendencies towards (usually) multiple disorders and it seems (to me ... but I am not a Psychologist) that most of use reign in those tendencies for the benefit of society.
Reminds me of working at Noom. The management were complete crooks. They'd lie in job ads and justify it by saying they get more people to apply, agree to things in public company wide meetings then quash them in private when it didn't look as bad, pirate software then toot their PR horn saying if any employee needs any software for their job they'd buy it, frequently forget to pay you or pay too little unless you fought for the right amount, etc.. Very difficult culture for someone who likes logical connection between things and details that all make sense put together.
I believe, without hard date to support, that the more HR people a company has in general, the less likely they are to hire people with Asperger's. And if those same companies do hire an employee review process that becomes very political/subjective/social is going to filter employees with asperger's out.
If you have a job that fits their skills and don't ding them for not say golfing with the "team" I think there are opportunities to pick up highly talented people that other companies are not chasing who will stick around.
Um, not to hate or anything, but there is a reason it is called autistic syndrome. Autistic people lack the ability to form a "theory of brain", which means they just do not understand other people's intentions that well. You can't ignore this fact and hope it will go away.
Aspergers is a relatively minor form of autism. (Not that the effects on one's life are always "minor", but it's minor compared to e.g. folks with severe autism that require assisted living)
All cases are different, but those with Aspergers can learn to understand others with effort. It's not impossible for them, it just doesn't come very naturally and will perhaps require extra effort and dedication.
It's definitely wider but I wouldn't say JohnBooty has tunnel vision. He was just responding to p6v53as's comment which was about understanding people.
I scored one point less than the minimum to be considered in the Asperger spectrum, and I hadn't had any "symptom" in my infancy, so I wouldn't be surprise if you already had hired an Aspie without knowing.
I was very surprised when I took it too. And I just did it after my son was diagnosticated with PDD-NOS. So I guess it is true it has a genetic component :)
You might need to adjust your leadership style. For example, use hand puppets rather than giving instructions directly. Also start referring to yourself in the third person; that usually helps.
Do I have Aspergers if I fit the description of one almost exactly? The author seemed to be describing me.. I am pretty socially capable and I can look people in the eye, so I don't know.
Strictly speaking, when the DSM-V comes out, no one will have Asperger's _per se_ since they've removed it (under the assumption that people will either be classified under the revised definition of Autism, or not at all).
Under the DSM-IV, one of the criteria reads: "(III) The disturbance causes clinically significant impairments in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." -- generally, it's up to a psychiatrist's professional judgement to determine this. Sometimes it will be obvious; sometimes it won't. Don't self-diagnose.
The main reason why Aspergers is no longer used as a diagnosis is because it's a fuzzy area on a spectrum, not a clearly delineated thing.
So yeah, you could be somewhere along the spectrum. Or you could just have certain personality traits that are somewhat like it. Be careful with labeling yourself unnecessarily. It can be comforting but also limiting.
This brings me to one of the ways in which humans fail. People understand that ethical character is important-- far more important than talent-- but it's also hard-to-impossible to assess at an individual level based on real-world imperfection of information, so they fall back on social polish and low-signal bullshit that might even be negatively correlated with genuine moral decency, autism and psychopathy being opposites of a certain spectrum.
People just don't have the tools to assess others' intentions or real character. Instead of admitting that their machinery for doing this is error-prone, they come up with stories about other people that have no basis in reality. The socially marginal or unskilled get screwed.
If anything, I think that people with Asperger's are, on average, slightly better (morally speaking) than the general population. Most people get stuck at Kohlberg's Stage 3 of moral development (although, in the corporate world, they speak a Stage 4 language, dressing social smears up as "performance problems"). People with Asperger's tend to skip Stage 3 (because they fundamentally don't get it) and land early in 4, which means they have an above-normal likelihood of progressing to 5-6.
That's a great diagnostic. Paint ASPERGER on everyone's back. The ones who don't care to remove the mark are likely to have Asperger's (or be John Asperger).
Do I prefer to be alone/ in a small group most of the time? Hell yes! It's more exclusive and I get more work done. In a social situation, less people means more signal, less noise.
Do I sometimes completely avoid social situations? Of course! But it's solely due to the fact that sometimes, I just can't be arsed to care about dealing with someones trite problems.
When push comes to shove and I need to be social with large groups, there isn't an issue aside from the usual inherent "stage fright", but this is a quality that can affect anyone that doesn't spend the majority of their time as a public speaker.
Some of us exhibit the "qualities" in the article purely by choice, not by challenge. I'm pretty sure at some point in my youth, some poor misguided soul tried to diagnose me with some placement on the spectrum, but I would say that nowadays this incorrect classification is more common than not. Had someone told me every day that I was an autist, maybe I would have ended up exhibiting more of those behaviors simply by association. Maybe we should make a slight effort to stop telling schoolchildren that they're special or different, and more time letting people fend for themselves a bit first.