• (cs) in reply to MJ
    MJ:
    I hate to get up on the PC soapbox here but the answer to your question "Shall we pretend that his behavior is not bizarre?" is YES.

    I hate to slap you back down from that soapbox, but no one here made fun. It was a description of physical and emotional behavior, and nothing more. There was nothing offensive whatsoever.

    I'd suggest, if mere discussion of peculiar behavior by someone suffering from ADD/ADHD/Asperger's troubles you so much, you tune in to the ABC television show Boston Legal. Jerry's representation of an Asperger's sufferer should cause you to have an actual coronary, and then you wouldn't be able to climb on that high horse you seem to want to be on.

  • John (unregistered)

    Everybody would be better off if high functional autists actually would tell that they are when they land a job.

    This would save everybody a lot of annoyance and misunderstanding.

  • MJ (unregistered) in reply to FredSaw
    FredSaw:
    Again and again and again: nobody was ridiculing the guy. Except, of course, the ones who had to try for a reaction check once somebody (you) objected.

    Okay--suppose we've both been assuming that which has been wrong from the beginning: that the incident was cited for humor. Suppose, instead, the submitter was going for this website's namesake. WTF???!!??111One??!!!11

    Sorry, my 1337zz rusty. Plz forgivz me teh codzz.

    Divorced from all humor, will it qualify as a valid WTF?

    Divorced from humor it would qualify for a WTF for the interviewer. But the reason it does it because the interviewer is not prepared to deal with a person with autism. Since autism isn't that common in the adult population I guess that could be understandable.

    However, I don't think items are posted to the site unless they are meant to be humorous so the implication being that the situation and therefore the condition itself are worthy of laughing at. I see no humor in detailing how a person is tripped up by their disability.

    You may think I am just being difficult and that I am over sensitive, and that may well be the case. But there is a serious lack of understanding of what autism is and how many children are affected. 1 in 150 - which translates to about 20,000 children born each year will go on to develop autism.

  • (cs) in reply to MJ
    MJ:
    Divorced from humor it would qualify for a WTF for the interviewer. But the reason it does it because the interviewer is not prepared to deal with a person with autism. Since autism isn't that common in the adult population I guess that could be understandable.

    However, I don't think items are posted to the site unless they are meant to be humorous so the implication being that the situation and therefore the condition itself are worthy of laughing at. I see no humor in detailing how a person is tripped up by their disability.

    You may think I am just being difficult and that I am over sensitive, and that may well be the case. But there is a serious lack of understanding of what autism is and how many children are affected. 1 in 150 - which translates to about 20,000 children born each year will go on to develop autism.

    Please, get over yourself. I personally have found your comments to be by far the most offensive in this particular discussion.

  • suprynowicz2 (unregistered) in reply to Jay

    More likely they had already decided to hire the CTO's nephew, but needed to hop through legal hoops first.

  • (cs) in reply to AndrewB
    AndrewB:
    Confused...:
    Maybe I'm missing something... but why would you say that you're willing to go as low as 35k, if you were not willing to go as low as 35k?
    It goes both ways. Why would a company say that that they're willing to go as high as 60k when they're really not?

    The company here did nothing wrong. They said they'd go as high as $60K, not that they were going to pay $60K. They lived up to what they said they'd do.

    Saying that you would accept as little as $60K, and then refusing an offer of $60K, is wrong. You said you'd do something, that something was proferred, and you didn't do what you said you would - that's wrong.

    I've always believed that your word had to be good in order to maintain your reputation. Someone who says they'll do something and then for no valid reason doesn't do it hasn't kept their word. It's pretty simple.

    It's the same thing as saying to a client, "Sure. I can do that for $50K, and finish it by the first of the month. If you need it a week before that, I'll have to set aside other work and will lose that revenue, so I'll have to charge you an extra $10K."

    The client says, "Ok. The first of the month for $50K is fine." You then do the work and meet with the client on the first of the month, and say, "Ok. Before I can turn this over to you, I need $60K." The client says, "But you said $50K if I'd wait the extra week!" And your response is, "But I didn't mean I'd really do that. I just had you base your whole business plan on the work I was doing for you so I could jack the price up at the end."

    If that's how you practice your business ethics, fine. Don't expect to stay in business too long, though.

    AndrewB:
    Is it sensible to use the bait-and-switch tactic? You could argue that it's not the best strategy, but at least argue it consistently. Don't single out the employee candidates who practice this method while at the same time overlooking the companies who do the same thing.

    But as I explained above, you're comparing apples and oranges. The company didn't practice bait and switch; they did exactly what they said they'd do. The person refusing the salary they said they'd accept because it was too low did not do what they said they'd do. Period. End of story. That individual is an ass.

    AndrewB:
    The idea, right or wrong, is to weed out the companies that are willing to lowball their employees and pay them just enough to hire them with no effective strategy on how they're going to retain them. Before you say "all companies do that," I can assure you that all companies do NOT do that.

    Again, your logic is based on invalid thinking. The company did not lowball. They didn't say "We'll pay at least $60K." They said, "We'll pay up to $60K." There is a difference, and if you can't see it you need to take classes on both reading comprehension and basic logic.

    AndrewB:
    Let's give a salary of, say $60k. Ignore your situation;

    Kill more flawed logic here as well. I'm tired of reading the same nonsense.

    AndrewB:
    Personally, having ended up working for a company that offered me more than my "stated" amount, and having found out that it fits into category B exactly, I can't help but feel some sort of understanding about the guy who turned down the offer that "met" his stated expectations. You can take that for what it's worth.

    And that's the company's choice to offer more than you offered to work for; obviously they felt it was in their best interests to do so. It still has nothing to do with the original point.

    Look, let's try once again to see if you can understand.

    We've all seen the car ads on television that say, "No interest for a full year." We've also seen the small print that says, "For credit qualified purchasers." or "For individuals who meet credit rating criteria" or some such verbiage. That clearly indicates that there are conditions that can make the interest something other than zero, right?

    We've also seen the advertisements offering to buy gold or jewelry or something. There's one running right now in my area where they're trying to get you to sell them gold; a woman says, "I made $5,000 by going through my jewelry drawer, for things I never wear anyway!"

    Do you think that that means that every single person who opens their jewelry drawer and sends in their gold will receive at least $5,000, no matter how many items they send, or whether or not their jewelry happens to be real, or no matter what the quality of the jewelry is? I don't, and the small print at the bottom of the screen indicates this for people who aren't smart enough to figure that out for themselves.

    There are also the "get rich quick by selling crap over the World Wide Web" ads running now, or "you can make a fortune buying and selling foreclosed properties"; in each case, someone says "I made $100,000 in a single month!", while at the same time the fine print at the bottom of the screen says "Results are not typical. Your income may be substantially lower.". Can you see where you might make less than $100K a month here? (I'm suspecting not, based on the flawed logic you insist on above, and in that event I have a bridge in Manhattan I'd like to offer to sell you.)

  • (cs) in reply to AndrewB

    Yeah, I'm bored today with nothing better to do. But anyway...

    AndrewB:
    Consider two types of companies: A) a company that wants to pay you as little as possible but is willing to give in and offer you 60k if necessary, or B) a company that wants to be competitive and attract/retain top talent by giving high initial offers.

    By lowballing your own stated expectations, you have the ability to discern which company falls into category A and which one falls into category B. By stating a salary expectation that is actually fair, you're more likely to get the same or similar initial offer from both companies, and therefore lose the ability to make this distinction.

    You might ask why it matters whether you're working for company A or company B given the same salary of $60k. Well, one can argue that a company in category A is more likely to have poor job security, overly demanding workloads, lower respect towards employees, and fewer opportunities for advancement. A company in category B (by obvious contrast) is more likely to have better job security, more relaxed workloads, better respect toward employees, and more opportunities for advancement.

    I don't buy your whole company A / company B thing. In my first web dev job, I was offered less than I had been led to expect - $25k instead of $30k(NZD). I wasn't all that happy about it, but took it anyway. Turns out it was the right choice - within a year I was on $40k, had been given training in new technologies, and was generally happy with the place (expect the prick of a boss, but that's another story). I left after 18 months to study full-time, while I was there I think 2 people left, both for personal reasons. In short, it was a great place to work, with great people who were respected and wanted to be there. Using your thinking, I would've missed out on one of the best opportunities I could've hoped for.

  • (cs) in reply to aflag
    aflag:
    The OCD guy went a little over the top, but the question was very dumb. How can he give an answer if he doesn't even know what mail server is being run?

    I'd probably answer that first I'd have to learn what's the company e-mail configuration. If I don't even know the servers, how can I give any kind of answer to the marketing guy? Except maybe "is the cable connected? Have you tried turning the machine off and on again?"

    Ummm... Ask?

    Seriously, don't you have the capacity to think? The person being interviewed had some information - he was being hired as a Linux administrator.

    I'm not a Linux person at all (have experimented with it for a few months at home), but let's see... I'd start with finding out what server their email system ran on; that should be documented somewhere.

    Ok. Got the server located. Let's access that server and look at logs. See what's configured to run, and what error messages have been logged. What processes are running now on that server?

    That's just in about two seconds, off the top of my head. Why would you expect someone interviewing for a full time position as a Linux admin to do even less than I would with little or no Linux experience?

    If you didn't come up with any kind of answer other than "Is the cable connected?" or if you even suggested just "turning the machine off and on again" when you knew we were discussing a server, I'd immediately say, "Thanks for coming in. We'll get back to you soon. B'bye now." and show you to the door.

  • (cs) in reply to AnonymousCoward
    AnonymousCoward:
    I once ended up with a job as a Clarion programmer. Apparently it was just like Delphi. I barely escaped with my sanity intact, and I suppose I should be thankful for not landing a CA Visual Objects job a few years earlier.

    Nah, Clarion is nothing like Delphi, except maybe in it's dreams. <g>

    And feel very very very lucky you didn't get that CA VO job. I'd be thanking /insert your deity here/ every single day for that! (From someone who was forced to try and use CA VO to port a Clipper app to Windows back in the mid-90's; I have the gray hair to prove it.)

  • (cs) in reply to MJ
    MJ:
    Regardless, I will say that the situation is humorous if you remove the autism aspect but with it back in I think I am going to have to strongly disagree that it is funny.

    And I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you and suggest that you not visit a site based on having a sense of humor when you so clearly are lacking that same sense.

    You're really starting to sound ridiculous here. The humor is based on something totally other than autism or Asperger's; it's based on the inability of the interviewee to respond appropriately in an interview that he himself requested. Your trying to turn this into a political correctness discussion is ludicrous.

  • Dave (unregistered) in reply to JM
    JM:
    In fact, if you use a font like Georgia, with its distinctive

    ...automatic sentence completion option?

  • (cs) in reply to AndrewB
    AndrewB:
    Making an argument that can't be proven or disproven for the better part of a decade, and being a dick on an internet forum. You seem to have embraced the philosophy of "contribute nothing whatsoever."

    I have to agree with FredSaw here, Andrew. (FredSaw, don't expect that to be a habit. <g>)

    It's not an argument that can't be proven or disproven for a decade; it's the fact that you're showing your obvious lack of adult intelligence and common sense, and your lack of job experience, and it'll probably take you a decade before you lose your juvenile intellect and grow up. At that point, you'll be able to understand how wrong you are. IOW, it's not the proving or disproving that takes a decade; you're wrong now period. It's just you're not mature enough to realize it; that part will take a decade (maybe more, based on your posts so far).

    And as far as being a dick on an internet forum, I think that honor belongs to you. You're the first one that started calling people names, after all.

    You also haven't contributed anything of meaning here. So I guess "internet forum dick who posts meaningless drivel" belongs to you. Congratulations. Your certificate will arrive via USPS in 4 to 6 weeks.

  • (cs) in reply to Tenseiga
    Tenseiga:
    Hunt and peck usually is around 35 to 40 for a decent typist. 20 means he hasnt spent much time at a computer and that for me would count against him badly.(or should)

    No, in this case it means you fail at reading comprehension. He typed 20 wpm because of a physical disability; it had nothing to do with how much time he'd spent at the computer. For all you know, he could have spent the last 20 years writing code at the computer, could design extremely complex algorythms in his head, and had an IQ of 225. All you managed to do is read the part about slow typing.

  • (cs) in reply to MJ
    MJ:
    Not to doubt your knowledge, but asperger's and Autism do have a few differences - the most notable being that people with asperger's does not have any significant impairment in communication just the social aspects of communication. So a person with aspergers would be less likely to misunderstand the question in the post than a person with autism.
    I think the question was well understood, but it's difficult for someone with AS to think in terms of "what if" as opposed to something more concrete and immediate. His thought processes were clearly on the right track, but rather than realizing that perceived impediments could be abstracted away as steps to resolving the problem, he broke down assuming he had been presented with an insoluble problem.

    My son's been diagnosed with AS and he has this type of problem. I see many of similar traits in myself sometimes, and I probably have borderline or mild AS. The situation in that interview room is something I worry about my son being in later in life, something I hope he's able to avoid.

  • Dave (unregistered) in reply to KenW
    KenW:
    Tenseiga:
    Hunt and peck usually is around 35 to 40 for a decent typist. 20 means he hasnt spent much time at a computer and that for me would count against him badly.(or should)

    No, in this case it means you fail at reading comprehension. He typed 20 wpm because of a physical disability; it had nothing to do with how much time he'd spent at the computer. For all you know, he could have spent the last 20 years writing code at the computer, could design extremely complex algorythms in his head, and had an IQ of 225. All you managed to do is read the part about slow typing.

    Yeah, some people think that Stephen Hawking is pretty smart, but I just don't believe that anyone who's apparently been working in Physics for that long would be that slow at typing.

  • ideo (unregistered) in reply to A N Other
    A N Other:
    G Money:
    Schnapple:
    Not Dorothy:
    Been there. The ad said that you could earn 30k as a programmer. But it turned out you had to be promoted to department head to actually get that.

    What situation were you in (location, time frame) that $30K is seen as a good salary?

    What location are you in that you would assume that everyone uses US dollars?

    Ok so £30k do people think that is good?

    Where in the UK are you? What level are you?

    Graduate and that is rather good. Out side London and you can get by on it quite nicely.

  • MJ (unregistered) in reply to Mel
    Mel:
    Please, get over yourself. I personally have found your comments to be by far the most offensive in this particular discussion.

    Ok, I'll bite, which parts of my comments did you find "offensive. Please quote the exact text that bothered you.

  • MJ (unregistered) in reply to KenW
    KenW:
    And I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you and suggest that you not visit a site based on having a sense of humor when you so clearly are lacking that same sense.

    Actually I normally do find the site funny, just not in this case.

    KenW:
    You're really starting to sound ridiculous here. The humor is based on something totally other than autism or Asperger's; it's based on the inability of the interviewee to respond appropriately in an interview that he himself requested. Your trying to turn this into a political correctness discussion is ludicrous.

    And you just don't get autism. Autism IS the "inability of the interviewee to respond appropriately" - the disability is by definition the behaviors. There is no autism without the behaviors and the behaviors are the disability. I don't know how much clearer I can make this.

    A blind person's problem is that they can't see. Your statements are equivalent to saying that we aren't making fun of the blind person, just the fact that he can't see.

    You are saying, we aren't making fun of the autism, just the fact that they have obsessive rituals, have issues with communication, and have issues with appropriate social responses. The point you are missing is that IS autism.

    So when you ridicule those behaviors you are ridiculing autism.

  • (cs) in reply to MJ
    MJ:
    Ok, I'll bite, which parts of my comments did you find "offensive. Please quote the exact text that bothered you.
    Pressed for a quote, I'd go with:
    MJ:
    Regardless, I will say that the situation is humorous if you remove the autism aspect but with it back in I think I am going to have to strongly disagree that it is funny.
    But it's more just your attitude. You seem to be suggesting everyone should pussy-foot around someone who's 'different'. I find that offensive. Saying "you shouldn't laugh, because he's handicapped" is just as bad as laughing at someone's wheelchair tipping over. Which I don't find funny, btw.

    You're saying I should treat this guy differently because he isn't as 'good' as the interviewer, or you or I. Like he's damaged or something. He doesn't deserve or need your pity just because his brain is wired differently to yours, but I feel like you're lavishing it on him. That's what I find offensive.

    And someone pointed it out before, but... noone here was actually laughing at the guy, but the situation. Maybe it's too subtle for you, but there is a difference.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to JM
    JM:
    True, this is an issue with most proportional fonts, but not one I have trouble with in practice. Unless you're talking cryptic command line input, avoiding code that freely mixes "l" and "1", "O" and "0" etc. is good even with a monospaced font (they're not so different even in the extremely popular Courier New, for example, which doesn't use a slashed zero!)

    At a job many years ago, my boss got so tired of all the problems from users trying to type the letter el for one and the letter oh for zero that he simply changed the numeric input routine to interpret els as one and ohs as zero. Changing the software to deal with the user's preconceptions can be so much easier than changing the user to deal with the software's preconceptions!

  • Jay (unregistered)
    One of them replied, "Oh, PHP? Oh yeah, from the job ad. Actually, we just say that to attract people; we only do ColdFusion here."

    After reading this yesterday, it occurred to me: Surely the correct response would have been to say, "Oh, ColdFusion, yes, I'm an expert at that. I know it inside and out." Then when they hire you for the job and it turns out you don't know it at all, just say, "Oh, ColdFusion? Oh yeah, from the job interview. Actually, I just said that to attract job offers; I only know PHP."

  • Jay (unregistered)

    As we've drifted from software development to social commentary, let me throw my two cents in:

    How come calling bizarre or antisocial behavior a "mental illness" suddenly protects the person doing it from criticism? Most of these mental illnesses seem to be defined simply as such-and-such bizarre or anti-social behavior.

    Like, someone routinely screams obscenities at people at the slightest provocation. We used to call this "extreme rudeness" and fired the person or kicked him out of class or whatever. Pretty soon he learned that this behavior was unacceptable and he stopped doing it. But now we call it "Tourret's syndrome" and it's a mental illness and no one is allowed to complain. So now there is no penalty for outrageous behavior and the person continues doing it forever.

    Hey, what if I simply say that my tendency to laugh at people who do stupid things and to refuse to work with people who do antisocial things is a mental illness? I can even make up a fancy name for it, umm, I'll call it Don Rickles Syndrome. Then if anyone criticizes me for this behavior, I'll put on a hurt look and say, "How can you criticize me. I can't help it. I have Don Rickles Syndrome. How cruel of you to make fun of me for my mental illness. etc."

  • (cs) in reply to Mel
    MJ:
    Regardless, I will say that the situation is humorous if you remove the autism aspect but with it back in I think I am going to have to strongly disagree that it is funny.

    Wow, MJ, you're discriminating against him. If he didn't have autism, you'd laugh; if he did, it's not funny. So, you treat him differently because he's disabled than you would an able-bodied person.

    Just as my own 2-cents to this discussion: MJ, the great thing about humor is that it's SUBJECTIVE. You can get offended at a joke about September 11th (I chose something extreme to make a point, for the record), but someone else can find it funny. You may make your own judgments about the laughing person's character, but you can't tell them that they shouldn't find it funny. At least, in America, we have the freedom to think however we choose.

    I've worked with autistic children before (two years of teaching children how to make video games in a summer-camp environment; it attracted a fair amount of autistic/aspbergers/HFA children, in addition to those with other disabilities), and I treated these kids like everybody else.

    In one example, a student with Aspberger's had an issue with the schedule changing from day to day. We had been going to lunch at 12:30, but due to a conflict we had to leave at 1, and he kept telling me what time it was (I did tell the class we were going to lunch later that day). After the third time in 10 minutes, when I called on him, I said "John! It's 12:37! Do you have a question?" (with a smile). He laughed, and the other kids did as well. I took him aside and we had a brief chat about the issue, and then talked to the class as a whole (including "John"), and nobody gave him a hard time about it; in fact, people started conversations with "Ebs! It's 1:52! Wanna see my game?" The parents thanked me at the end of the week for how I handled the situation, and John loved me all week.

    Long story short; people with disabilities shouldn't be given special treatment because of their disability. If you want them to integrate cleanly into our society, treat their disability and their rituals the same way you'd treat someone with a different religion and rituals, and that does permit the occasional good-natured joke, and laughing at awkward situations after the fact. I feel bad that the interviewee didn't get the job, but in a high-stress job situation dealing with people, he probably shouldn't have been in that particular interview to begin with. Just like a Quaker wouldn't be able to work for a Defense Contractor, there are some jobs that aren't suitable for those with certain disabilities.

    Now, I'm going to give the obligatory tl;dr!

  • (cs) in reply to ebs2002
    ebs2002:
    Long story short; people with disabilities shouldn't be given special treatment because of their disability. If you want them to integrate cleanly into our society, treat their disability and their rituals the same way you'd treat someone with a different religion and rituals, and that does permit the occasional good-natured joke, and laughing at awkward situations after the fact.
    Thank you for putting what I wanted to say so eloquently :)
  • Um (unregistered) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    Like, someone routinely screams obscenities at people at the slightest provocation. We used to call this "extreme rudeness" and fired the person or kicked him out of class or whatever. Pretty soon he learned that this behavior was unacceptable and he stopped doing it. But now we call it "Tourret's syndrome" and it's a mental illness and no one is allowed to complain. So now there is no penalty for outrageous behavior and the person continues doing it forever.

    Like, you don't understand what Tourette's syndrome actually is. A person with that disorder does not have control of what they are saying (the vocal outbursts are often accompanied by a uncontrollable physical tic). It simply is not a case of a normal person who does not know better. Indeed, such a person will often be horribly embarrassed after a particular episode has passed. You might as well suggest that a epileptic patient would "learn" to stop having seizures if only people made fun of him every time he had one.

  • (cs) in reply to crystal mephistopheles
    crystal mephistopheles:
    Looking back, the only red flag I should have needed was during the interview when they said, "we've hired a lot of programmers, and they've all left us feeling burned." Maybe if you can't get along with the entire class of people necessary to make your business work, you're in the wrong business.
    Well, that's an easy red flag to miss.

    You heard: "We've hired a lot of programmers, and they've all left us feeling burned." They said: "We've hired a lot of programmers, and they've all left us, feeling burned."

    You can't really fault them for honesty on that one.

  • (cs) in reply to Dave
    Dave:
    KenW:
    Tenseiga:
    Hunt and peck usually is around 35 to 40 for a decent typist. 20 means he hasnt spent much time at a computer and that for me would count against him badly.(or should)

    No, in this case it means you fail at reading comprehension. He typed 20 wpm because of a physical disability; it had nothing to do with how much time he'd spent at the computer. For all you know, he could have spent the last 20 years writing code at the computer, could design extremely complex algorythms in his head, and had an IQ of 225. All you managed to do is read the part about slow typing.

    Yeah, some people think that Stephen Hawking is pretty smart, but I just don't believe that anyone who's apparently been working in Physics for that long would be that slow at typing.

    Clearly you are a know-nothing autistic troll of the highest order.

    How fast do you have to be to type E=mc²? Granted, you might have to swap the golf-ball around for the power of two, but really ...

  • MJ (unregistered) in reply to Mel
    Mel:
    But it's more just your attitude. You seem to be suggesting everyone should pussy-foot around someone who's 'different'. I find that offensive. Saying "you shouldn't laugh, because he's handicapped" is just as bad as laughing at someone's wheelchair tipping over. Which I don't find funny, btw.

    I am not suggesting that everyone needs to "pussy-foot around" someone who has issues or to ignore the fact that some of the behaviors can be unusual. I am saying that you should be aware of the issues involved with the disability and to treat the person with respect. When you laugh at a disability you don't show the person respect.

    You're saying I should treat this guy differently because he isn't as 'good' as the interviewer, or you or I. Like he's damaged or something. He doesn't deserve or need your pity just because his brain is wired differently to yours, but I feel like you're lavishing it on him. That's what I find offensive.

    I don't think he needs your pity and I am not saying that he "isn't as 'good'". As far as treating him differently, do you not normally treat people with a basic level of respect?

    If someone is missing an arm, do you "treat them differently" when you fail to ask them to carry a box for you? Does the fact that you recognize that hey, he is working with different set of abilities and doesn't have two arms mean that you view him as inferior or not as good? No, it means you acknowledge his limitation and work around them.

    And someone pointed it out before, but... noone here was actually laughing at the *guy*, but the *situation*. Maybe it's too subtle for you, but there is a difference.

    I fully understand what you are saying, but you seem to be missing what I am saying. The "situation" is a direct result of behaviors caused by autism.

    Autism IS behaviors.

    It doesn't matter what euphemism you use to indicate that you find the situation or actions or the behaviors or the responses funny you are still saying that the results of autism is funny.

  • MJ (unregistered) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    How come calling bizarre or antisocial behavior a "mental illness" suddenly protects the person doing it from criticism? Most of these mental illnesses seem to be defined simply as such-and-such bizarre or anti-social behavior.

    Go and do some research about autism and try and come back and make that statement with a straight face.

    Jay:
    Like, someone routinely screams obscenities at people at the slightest provocation. We used to call this "extreme rudeness" and fired the person or kicked him out of class or whatever. Pretty soon he learned that this behavior was unacceptable and he stopped doing it. But now we call it "Tourret's syndrome" and it's a mental illness and no one is allowed to complain. So now there is no penalty for outrageous behavior and the person continues doing it forever.

    If you think autism can be cured by simply telling the person to not do it, again, go do your homework.

    Hey, what if I simply say that my tendency to laugh at people who do stupid things and to refuse to work with people who do antisocial things is a mental illness? I can even make up a fancy name for it, umm, I'll call it Don Rickles Syndrome. Then if anyone criticizes me for this behavior, I'll put on a hurt look and say, "How can you criticize me. I can't help it. I have Don Rickles Syndrome. How cruel of you to make fun of me for my mental illness. etc."

    Thank you for the perfect example of why people need to be more aware of autism and what it means. If you think it is anything like you just described in any way, shape, or form you really need to spend some time with people who are actually affected by it and hopefully come to understand why it isn't like you think.

  • (cs)

    Going for the low-hanging fruit, are we, MJ? I'm not trying to bait you with this post, but since you responded to the clearly trolling person who said that Mental Disorders are something people made up, maybe I should act more ignorant so I'll have your attention. ;)

  • Doesn't matter (unregistered) in reply to MJ
    MJ:
    If someone is missing an arm, do you "treat them differently" when you fail to ask them to carry a box for you? Does the fact that you recognize that hey, he is working with different set of abilities and doesn't have two arms mean that you view him as inferior or not as good? No, it means you acknowledge his limitation and work around them.

    Are you saying that you purposely wouldn't ask someone with one arm to carry a box for you?

    You see, I'd call that discrimination based on your own presumptions.

    I thought I'd stick my oar in because I really do only have one arm, and it pisses me off a treat when other people presume what I can and can't do. It's just as bad when people get offended on my behalf about disabled jokes. I even told one myself once, and someone had the gall to say to me "You of all people shouldn't find that funny".

    WTF? If joke made at the expense of someone offends them, fine, apologise, feel bad, don't do it again. If it doesn't, so what? Getting on your high horse feeling offended by proxy for a demographic you don't belong you is somewhat weak, however.

  • An Aspie (unregistered) in reply to MJ

    Wow, MJ, your ignorance knows no bounds, and the first screwup you make is in using "Autism Speaks" (an organization that speaks against autistics, and not for them: nobody on the spectrum gets enough respect from them to participate in any decisions, and their whole mission is to eradicate autistics from being anything but a footnote in history books, while making money in their fundraisers by making autistics look like the absolute worst possible disease on earth) as a reference, and then claiming autism (the more classically-recognized kind) is different from Asperger's and Asperger's isn't autism? Wow...

    I write this from the perspective of being diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, and having an older sister that's more of the classic diagnosis, though she's also quite high functioning (another pejorative term: just because someone isn't verbal in a manner everyone else understands doesn't mean they're "low-functioning" or have a lower IQ) and the reality is that brain wiring is very much the issue of differences that are largely tied to sensory input/output processing, and certain things not being processed in the same manner. You're looking at the outward appearances and describing that as what it means to be autistic: I'm informing you of your ignorance that the outward appearances you mention as "Behavior defining what it means" is, at best, the iceberg approach: you only see the top 10% and assume that there's nothing below the water line.

    Those on the autistic spectrum (it's not all cut and dried, just like there's people that have a low IQ and people that have a high IQ and everywhere in between, autistics also have IQ's all over the map) are all unique, just like everyone else. There are those that many just see as "a little odd" and may not recognize themselves how they're different, if they're not told what constitutes a diagnosis and you don't look too closely into their developmental history. When you get into some profession, hopefully you do it with understanding yourself and what your strengths and weaknesses are, because everyone has them, to some degree or another. If you truly can't tolerate change (I prefer large denomination bills instead, personally) then that greatly limits your options as to what will be a good fit.

    Here's the thing: I find it uproariously funny having been in similar shoes in the past, where I've gotten bent out of shape over things others don't give a rat's rear about being vague. What's really funny to me is this guy was clearly thinking it all through very completely and he was doing a valid analysis with the information he started from. I wager he was in sensory overload (remember my previous mention about brain wiring being the 90% of the iceberg you don't see?) and he probably lost a few things that weren't processed clearly in time during the interview, and he instinctively reacted according to how you can expect to handle things under sensory overload: he didn't realize how loud he was, and didn't come across nearly as well as hoped. Ok, so he choked: HARD! If they'd given him another chance with that in mind, they might find he was definitely worth keeping, with the observation that perhaps he needs to take breaks every so often to escape stupid people like you assuming his behavior is all that defines him, so he could go and recover from sensory overload caused by emotional stress combined with external/internal stimuli. Chances are, he'd get everything working to perfection, inasmuch as the company provided the resources to do so. I think that company missed out on a potentially great worker.

    My personal experience? I've been a developer since 92, and I'm currently working as a white box QA engineer for one of the world's biggest internet companies, working on a MPP database. In short, even though they were not aware of my diagnosis at the time they chose to hire me (first as a contractor, then as a full-time, permanent employee) it seems (in many ways, not all) a mutually beneficial use of my very nature. The thing is, though, that regardless of how capable of understanding the technicalities and reasoning for some particular arbitrary job, I know I won't do well at them for various reasons, one of which may be my poor motor skills. So, if I'm wrong about this guy going into overload (I suspect not) the real WTF on his part is not understanding his limitations for what he can tolerate.

    And no, autism on any part of the spectrum is NOT a "mental illness" so thanks for playing and screaming that we're all defective, all while we keep advancing your computer technology (amongst others) because people like you are too busy socializing and keeping track of silly fashions and other social crap to advance things from the status quo.

    MJ:
    Jay:
    How come calling bizarre or antisocial behavior a "mental illness" suddenly protects the person doing it from criticism? Most of these mental illnesses seem to be defined simply as such-and-such bizarre or anti-social behavior.

    Go and do some research about autism and try and come back and make that statement with a straight face.

    Jay:
    Like, someone routinely screams obscenities at people at the slightest provocation. We used to call this "extreme rudeness" and fired the person or kicked him out of class or whatever. Pretty soon he learned that this behavior was unacceptable and he stopped doing it. But now we call it "Tourret's syndrome" and it's a mental illness and no one is allowed to complain. So now there is no penalty for outrageous behavior and the person continues doing it forever.

    If you think autism can be cured by simply telling the person to not do it, again, go do your homework.

    Hey, what if I simply say that my tendency to laugh at people who do stupid things and to refuse to work with people who do antisocial things is a mental illness? I can even make up a fancy name for it, umm, I'll call it Don Rickles Syndrome. Then if anyone criticizes me for this behavior, I'll put on a hurt look and say, "How can you criticize me. I can't help it. I have Don Rickles Syndrome. How cruel of you to make fun of me for my mental illness. etc."

    Thank you for the perfect example of why people need to be more aware of autism and what it means. If you think it is anything like you just described in any way, shape, or form you really need to spend some time with people who are actually affected by it and hopefully come to understand why it isn't like you think.

  • Doesn't matter (unregistered)

    In the same vein...

    I was talking to someone once who'd asked my lack of left hand, how I coped, blah blah blah, when he comes out with this absolute gem:

    "Yeah, my sister's deaf."

    And there's me going "Err, so what? WTF does that have to do with anything?"

    And he says, straight face, "Well, I know what it's like to live with a disability".

    Yeah, right buddy. Because the problems (or "challenges" as they like to call 'em these days) faced by disabled people are the same across the spectrum, hmmm?

  • MJ (unregistered) in reply to ebs2002
    ebs2002:
    Wow, MJ, you're discriminating against him. If he didn't have autism, you'd laugh; if he did, it's not funny. So, you treat him differently because he's disabled than you would an able-bodied person.

    If he doesn't have a disability that influenced or caused the situation then it would be an average person acting in a manner that is unusual, if the person has a disability that directly contributes to the situation then it is no longer something worthy of humor.

    To use a silly example, when I was younger I was walking down the sidewalk not paying attention to where I was going and walked into a low hanging sign. It knocked me off my feet. Even though it was humiliating (to me) it was funny and worthy of humor - especially since the sign made a loud bonging noise when I hit it.

    Now, if that was a blind person, who was paying attention but couldn't see the sign walking into it and was knocked off their feet, would it still be funny?

    Take it one step further, the story in the post, a non-autistic person fails to understand the interview question either because they just missed it or are having a bad day or for whatever reason. They react badly. That could be accepted as funny.

    Now take a person with autism. They fail to understand the question not because of anything they did or didn't do but because for whatever reason their brain couldn't process the question at that moment. They become stressed and flustered which leads them to a socially inappropriate outburst which they don't have the ability to control at that moment in time. Still funny?

    Just as my own 2-cents to this discussion: MJ, the great thing about humor is that it's SUBJECTIVE. You can get offended at a joke about September 11th (I chose something extreme to make a point, for the record), but someone else can find it funny. You may make your own judgments about the laughing person's character, but you can't tell them that they shouldn't find it funny. At least, in America, we have the freedom to think however we choose.

    Let go with your example, say you are telling a joke about 9/11 and someone who lost a family member on 9/11 walks into the room. They object to the joke as tasteless and you say we aren't joking about your spouse dying, just the situation in which they died, you should stop being so serious about it. Sure you have the "freedom" to say something like that but I would think that most people who understood what 9/11 was about would find it in poor taste. In a similar vein someone whose children who have autism may react poorly to what you think of as just a joke.

    I've worked with autistic children before (two years of teaching children how to make video games in a summer-camp environment; it attracted a fair amount of autistic/aspbergers/HFA children, in addition to those with other disabilities), and I treated these kids like everybody else.

    You should treat them like everyone else.

    In one example, a student with Aspberger's had an issue with the schedule changing from day to day. We had been going to lunch at 12:30, but due to a conflict we had to leave at 1, and he kept telling me what time it was (I did tell the class we were going to lunch later that day). After the third time in 10 minutes, when I called on him, I said "John! It's 12:37! Do you have a question?" (with a smile). He laughed, and the other kids did as well. I took him aside and we had a brief chat about the issue, and then talked to the class as a whole (including "John"), and nobody gave him a hard time about it; in fact, people started conversations with "Ebs! It's 1:52! Wanna see my game?" The parents thanked me at the end of the week for how I handled the situation, and John loved me all week.

    Nice story, I suggest trying it with someone who isn't HFA or an Aspie and see how well it works. In my experience, taking a child with autism aside and attempting to explain something to think will only work if they are able to understand what it is you are trying to say and why their behavior is not appropriate.

    Long story short; people with disabilities shouldn't be given special treatment because of their disability. If you want them to integrate cleanly into our society, treat their disability and their rituals the same way you'd treat someone with a different religion and rituals, and that does permit the occasional good-natured joke, and laughing at awkward situations after the fact.

    I didn't get the feeling that the person interviewed had a good laugh at the situation afterwards, did you? And while I agree that you don't give special treatment you do acknowledge the limitations that they work under and accept them - not laugh at them.

  • MJ (unregistered) in reply to ebs2002
    ebs2002:
    Going for the low-hanging fruit, are we, MJ? I'm not trying to bait you with this post, but since you responded to the clearly trolling person who said that Mental Disorders are something people made up, maybe I should act more ignorant so I'll have your attention. ;)

    I assumed that the post was legit. I have run into people who have seriously used those arguments (sad as that is). Maybe I better get a new troll radar...

  • MJ (unregistered) in reply to Doesn't matter
    Doesn't matter:
    MJ:
    If someone is missing an arm, do you "treat them differently" when you fail to ask them to carry a box for you? Does the fact that you recognize that hey, he is working with different set of abilities and doesn't have two arms mean that you view him as inferior or not as good? No, it means you acknowledge his limitation and work around them.

    I thought I'd stick my oar in because I really do only have one arm, and it pisses me off a treat when other people presume what I can and can't do. It's just as bad when people get offended on my behalf about disabled jokes. I even told one myself once, and someone had the gall to say to me "You of all people shouldn't find that funny".

    WTF? If joke made at the expense of someone offends them, fine, apologise, feel bad, don't do it again. If it doesn't, so what? Getting on your high horse feeling offended by proxy for a demographic you don't belong you is somewhat weak, however.

    If you do have one arm, I apologize, I did not mean to imply that you would be unable to lift a box, it was meant as an illustrative example, perhaps a poor one.

    However, by your own logic, telling me not to get on my high horse goes against your own advice. My children do belong to the "demographic" and it 15 short years it could be them out there trying to get a job and running into an interviewer doesn't understand what autism is and the fact that they are still very capable people even though they have issues that they can't control. And if they have a bad enough day, maybe their interviewer will find it funny enough to submit to WTF so that even more people can get a laugh at their expense.

  • (cs) in reply to MJ
    MJ:
    To use a silly example, when I was younger I was walking down the sidewalk not paying attention to where I was going and walked into a low hanging sign. It knocked me off my feet. Even though it was humiliating (to me) it was funny and worthy of humor - especially since the sign made a loud bonging noise when I hit it.

    Now, if that was a blind person, who was paying attention but couldn't see the sign walking into it and was knocked off their feet, would it still be funny?

    Assuming he wasn't seriously injured, if this were a friend of mine, we probably would joke about it. Not because we're saying "haha you're blind!", but because he ran into a sign. Whether he had any control over the situation is irrelevant. I also laugh when a father is helping his kid ride a bike and the kid blows into his crotch. There was nothing the father could do about it. If the father was seriously bothered by the joke, I wouldn't push it, but I can't promise I wouldn't laugh about it if it came up again. The important distinction is that I'm not laughing at the father, I'm laughing at the situation. With the blind friend, we're joking to make the situation less depressing for him; he wouldn't want my pity, he'd want me to be his friend. With the interviewee, I chuckle because of what must have been running through the interviewer's mind at the time, and because the interviewee didn't somehow prepare himself OR the interviewer for what may (and did) ensue.

    Take it one step further, the story in the post, a non-autistic person fails to understand the interview question either because they just missed it or are having a bad day or for whatever reason. They react badly. That could be accepted as funny.

    Now take a person with autism. They fail to understand the question not because of anything they did or didn't do but because for whatever reason their brain couldn't process the question at that moment. They become stressed and flustered which leads them to a socially inappropriate outburst which they don't have the ability to control at that moment in time. Still funny?

    Yes, because control over the situation has no bearing on my perception of humor. If you disagree, so be it, but you can't tell me what I should find funny and what I shouldn't. I wouldn't mock the person if he was upset, but I'm not convinced that the person wouldn't find humor in the situation after the fact. It's not his fault he reacted that way, but he did. It's not my fault I have ADD and forget that I was cooking a ham, but I did. I can either curse the gods for giving me ADD, request people and myself to just accept that it's just the way I am and ignore the situation, or I can laugh at the charred remains of what was to be a delicious meal and learn from it.

    Let go with your example, say you are telling a joke about 9/11 and someone who lost a family member on 9/11 walks into the room. They object to the joke as tasteless and you say we aren't joking about your spouse dying, just the situation in which they died, you should stop being so serious about it. Sure you have the "freedom" to say something like that but I would think that most people who understood what 9/11 was about would find it in poor taste. In a similar vein someone whose children who have autism may react poorly to what you think of as just a joke.

    I would note that I shouldn't tell this joke when such a person is in the room as I wouldn't want to offend them. I was just trying to say that you can't tell someone else that they're wrong for laughing. Some people don't like Dead Baby jokes because they're tasteless, some because they've lost a child, and some because they don't find them funny. Arguing with someone who just told the joke, however, is futile. You're not going to change their mind no matter how hard you try. That was my point with that paragraph.

    Nice story, I suggest trying it with someone who isn't HFA or an Aspie and see how well it works. In my experience, taking a child with autism aside and attempting to explain something to think will only work if they are able to understand what it is you are trying to say and why their behavior is not appropriate.

    I reminded him that the time for lunch had changed, and that I know he wants to go to lunch right now but if we left now, we wouldn't get to eat because there would be nowhere to sit. I wasn't explaining to him why his behavior was inappropriate, because it wasn't inappropriate. And I'd love to try that with someone who is "lower" on the spectrum, except of course it wouldn't. You treat every situation differently.

    I didn't get the feeling that the person interviewed had a good laugh at the situation afterwards, did you? And while I agree that you don't give special treatment you do acknowledge the limitations that they work under and accept them - not laugh at them.

    I don't know. I would hope so. Kurt Vonnegut said, "Laughter and tears are both responses to frustration and exhaustion. I myself prefer to laugh, since there is less cleaning up to do afterward." I'd like to think he did. If he didn't because of pride or some other human emotion not related to his autism, then...well, as my friends and I say, "sucks to be him", because he's hurting himself. If he didn't because his condition caused him to be incapable of finding any humor in the situation, even after a long period of time, then I think he really shouldn't have been interviewing for that position to begin with, and I still don't feel bad for being under the wrong impression. I'd still laugh at the thought of what the interviewer was going through, though.

    And you're saying "laugh at them" at the end, as if that is what people are doing. They're not (or at least I'm not). Laughing when a blind man walks into a sign is not laughing AT the blind man, it's laughing at the fact that he walked into a sign. Laughing when an autistic person goes into sensory overload and the interviewer is left stammering and confused is not laughing at the autistic person, it's laughing at the effect his erratic behavior is having on the interviewer.

  • Doesn't matter (unregistered) in reply to MJ

    [quote user="MJ"] If you do have one arm, I apologize, I did not mean to imply that you would be unable to lift a box, it was meant as an illustrative example, perhaps a poor one. [/unquote]

    No need to apologize, I'm not actually that offended, mainly because I understand how easy it is to put your foot wrong - but I might have terribly offended, who knows? I think a lot of this discussion hangs on the subjectivity of it all. Something is said which affects Guy A, Guy A is not bothered, that's cool. Something else is said which may or may not affect Guy B, he gets offended (and justifiably so).

    That, I think, is life and something we all just deal with as it comes.

    [quote] However, by your own logic, telling me not to get on my high horse goes against your own advice. My children do belong to the "demographic" and it 15 short years it could be them out there trying to get a job and running into an interviewer doesn't understand what autism is and the fact that they are still very capable people even though they have issues that they can't control. And if they have a bad enough day, maybe their interviewer will find it funny enough to submit to WTF so that even more people can get a laugh at their expense.[/quote]

    I understand your concern for your kids and the desire to not have them endure ridicule. As it's generally not a well understood subject to the layman, you're just going to have to do your best to educate others in the most effective way possible, and also, if possible, see if there's a way your kids can deal with others in the most expedient manner. If it's possible to throw a humourous light on things without upsetting anyone, great. Personally, in a wider sense, I don't think that anyone's exempt from being the butt of a joke, PROVIDED it does not upset them.

    I've had plenty of gags aimed at me over the years, and to be honest, the only ones that upset me were when people were TRYING to upset me.

    I think in this case, the interviewer saw some eccentric behaviour, thought "how odd, this guy just isn't seeing the problem I've described, what on earth is he doing this interview for?" as opposed to "Wow, a mentalist autistic, let's have some fun here."

    Strange behaviour without context is simply that, strange behaviour. I'd hope that if he knew beforehand that the candidate had autism to enough of a degree that it would affect his interviewing skills it would have been possible to structure it somewhat differently to help the candidate. As it was, he observed some outlandish behaviour which admitted no explanation and has shared it with as an "odd interview tale"

  • MJ (unregistered) in reply to An Aspie
    An Aspie:
    Wow, MJ, your ignorance knows no bounds, and the first screwup you make is in using "Autism Speaks" (an organization that speaks against autistics, and not for them: nobody on the spectrum gets enough respect from them to participate in any decisions, and their whole mission is to eradicate autistics from being anything but a footnote in history books, while making money in their fundraisers by making autistics look like the absolute worst possible disease on earth) as a reference, and then claiming autism (the more classically-recognized kind) is different from Asperger's and Asperger's isn't autism? Wow...

    Heres a hint, I am not ignorant of how AS is thought of in parts of the autistic community, I am very well aware of it. Judging from what you are writing I would guess that you are more on the ND side of the debate. I choose to believe that AS is doing some good even though they have issues. You are free to disagree.

    I never said that aspergers isn't autism, it is a spectrum after all and asperger's is on it. However, there are those who would agree that they are distinct conditions.

    I write this from the perspective of being diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, and having an older sister that's more of the classic diagnosis, though she's also quite high functioning (another pejorative term: just because someone isn't verbal in a manner everyone else understands doesn't mean they're "low-functioning" or have a lower IQ) and the reality is that brain wiring is very much the issue of differences that are largely tied to sensory input/output processing, and certain things not being processed in the same manner.

    If you are on the spectrum I think you understand full well the different labels used for the parts of the spectrum and the rationale - even if you don't agree with the reasons.

    You don't have to agree with then but they are commonly used terms in the field and have commonly understood meanings. I was not trying to achieve a high degree of precision in the nuances of autism so I was using terms that would be easier to understand.

    And I think you also understand full well why it is called a spectrum - just about every person on the spectrum presents differently - up to and including identical twins.

    Not every person on the spectrum has sensory issues but it is a common theme. For you sensory issues might be the major problem but for others they are not.

    You're looking at the outward appearances and describing that as what it means to be autistic: I'm informing you of your ignorance that the outward appearances you mention as "Behavior defining what it means" is, at best, the iceberg approach: you only see the top 10% and assume that there's nothing below the water line.

    From a medical diagnosis perspective, the behavior defines the disease. The DSM IV criteria and all of the diagnostic testing refers to the behaviors of autism to make the diagnosis. Since there is no known cause the behaviors are the only defining characteristic.

    I am sure that you know this.

    You may chose to regard the disease as something other than the behaviors, you probably a better perspective on it, at least as far as your particular form goes.

    Nor am I saying that people with autism are only the behaviors, they are clearly much more than that, I am defining the disease as the behaviors. The person isn't autism, austism is a condition that they suffer from.

    But I am sure that you will strongly disagree with that statement.

    Regardless, the point of what I making was in rebuttal to claims that the autism itself wasn't being laughed at, only the behaviors, so the purpose of those statements was to illustrate that the behaviors are autistic and to mock the behaviors is to mock having autism.

    Those on the autistic spectrum (it's not all cut and dried, just like there's people that have a low IQ and people that have a high IQ and everywhere in between, autistics also have IQ's all over the map) are all unique, just like everyone else. There are those that many just see as "a little odd" and may not recognize themselves how they're different, if they're not told what constitutes a diagnosis and you don't look too closely into their developmental history. When you get into some profession, hopefully you do it with understanding yourself and what your strengths and weaknesses are, because everyone has them, to some degree or another. If you truly can't tolerate change (I prefer large denomination bills instead, personally) then that greatly limits your options as to what will be a good fit.

    I think we agree on all that.

    Here's the thing: I find it uproariously funny having been in similar shoes in the past, where I've gotten bent out of shape over things others don't give a rat's rear about being vague. What's really funny to me is this guy was clearly thinking it all through *very completely* and he was doing a valid analysis with the information he started from. I wager he was in sensory overload (remember my previous mention about brain wiring being the 90% of the iceberg you don't see?) and he probably lost a few things that weren't processed clearly in time during the interview, and he instinctively reacted according to how you can expect to handle things under sensory overload: he didn't realize how loud he was, and didn't come across nearly as well as hoped. Ok, so he choked: HARD! If they'd given him another chance with that in mind, they might find he was definitely worth keeping, with the observation that perhaps he needs to take breaks every so often to escape stupid people like you assuming his behavior is all that defines him, so he could go and recover from sensory overload caused by emotional stress combined with external/internal stimuli. Chances are, he'd get everything working to perfection, inasmuch as the company provided the resources to do so. I think that company missed out on a potentially great worker.

    You have the right to find humor in it if you desire. You can obviously function well enough to reflect on your own actions to see the mistakes that were made.

    Would you agree though that the situation was funny if the person in question lacked the ability to reflect on their own actions in that way? And I think you and I both know, even though I am sure you will disagree, that there many on the spectrum who lack that capacity.

    My personal experience? I've been a developer since 92, and I'm currently working as a white box QA engineer for one of the world's biggest internet companies, working on a MPP database. In short, even though they were not aware of my diagnosis at the time they chose to hire me (first as a contractor, then as a full-time, permanent employee) it seems (in many ways, not all) a mutually beneficial use of my very nature. The thing is, though, that regardless of how capable of understanding the technicalities and reasoning for some particular arbitrary job, I know I won't do well at them for various reasons, one of which may be my poor motor skills. So, if I'm wrong about this guy going into overload (I suspect not) the real WTF on his part is not understanding his limitations for what he can tolerate.

    This is one of the biggest myths out there. Having autism does not make you a good techie. Having a logic mind and the proper skill set makes you a good techie.

    And no, autism on any part of the spectrum is NOT a "mental illness" so thanks for playing and screaming that we're all defective]

    I have to disagree with you there. Autism is a disease. That is not the same as saying you are defective.

    However, this is not the time or place for that particular argument.

    all while we keep advancing your computer technology (amongst others) because people like you are too busy socializing and keeping track of silly fashions and other social crap to advance things from the status quo.

    I hate disagree with you but I am also busy with computer technology nor do I spend any amount of time "tracking fashions" or "other social crap (can you add any more cliches btw?). I am too busy trying to help my daughters with autism overcome their condition and learn those "silly" skills like talking.

    Its a good thing you pointed out my ignorance.

  • (cs) in reply to MJ
    MJ:
    However, by your own logic, telling me not to get on my high horse goes against your own advice. My children do belong to the "demographic" and it 15 short years it could be them out there trying to get a job and running into an interviewer doesn't understand what autism is and the fact that they are still very capable people even though they have issues that they can't control. And if they have a bad enough day, maybe their interviewer will find it funny enough to submit to WTF so that even more people can get a laugh at their expense.

    (This paragraph is long to respond to, and I don't want to break it up to keep context, so I'm going to bullet point it. It's not meant to be insulting or anything, it just helps me keep my thoughts organized)

    A. Your children, your friends, and your significant other is not yourself, and getting you are in fact getting offended by proxy. His point was that, unless you yourself are autistic, you shouldn't be speaking about what life is like for an autistic person.

    B. I am glad you are encouraging your children that they are still very capable people. Kudos. To that effect, though, I think there's such a thing as going overboard in this situation. Your children aren't in this situation, and nobody is laughing at them.

    C. If your children are interviewing for a job, and a similar thing has happened to them, then one of a few things must have happened.
    ..1) Your child may not have informed them of his condition (I'm not sure what the P.C. term is to describe autism, I apologize if this is incorrect), for one. Autism is not a visible condition like blindness or one-armedness. You can't reasonably assume somebody will be able to deal with these situations if they aren't aware of them to begin with. The humor is in the miscommunication. ..2) Your child informed the HR person, but the HR person didn't inform the interviewer. The story would still be funny, but because of the miscommunication. ..3) The interviewer was informed of your child's condition, but wasn't able to handle your child well because he's ignorant of what autism is and is not. Then, usually we're laughing at the interviewer.

    D. You can't control what people laugh at. It's unfortunate, but it's a fact of life. People laugh at dead baby jokes, people laugh at slapstick, people laugh at racial jokes, people laugh when others get hurt, people laugh at socially awkward children, people laugh at the poor, people laugh at how others dress, and people laugh at ideas that seem absurd or impossible to them. I hope you're able to one day teach your kids to let the laughter not bother them (I acknowledge that I don't know where your kids are on the spectrum), and as a result to not let it bother you.

    You have control over what bothers you and what doesn't. And your kids will learn to be bothered by the things that bother you. Instead of getting angry, you could recognize that they don't understand, and laugh at them for it. Or you could ignore it, and ensure that your children find a job that is understanding of their behavior and a good fit for themselves.

  • An Aspie (unregistered) in reply to MJ

    Now, you see? That's where the real WTF is: people like you that conclude that anything that isn't "normal" like they presume to be, are clearly a diseased organism! Now THAT'S really funny!

    A cat that doesn't bark and wag its tail like a dog isn't a defective dog, but merely a different animal, and what's "normal" for a dog and a cat aren't very compatible, but they can live together quite well, assuming they don't consider the other type of critter as being diseased and defective, ala "Autism Speaks" which is all about scare-mongering to raise funds for the future world where no autistics are ever born (yes, born) while doing absolutely nothing to assist the existence of those present. And I'll give you a reality check now: autistic children will invariably grow up to become autistic adults, period, unless some of those like the leadership of "Autism Speaks" have their way and kill them off either physically, or mentally do such damage to them that they take their own lives: yes, there's at least one of them that went out of their way to make a video stating they'd rather have murdered their daughter than have her be autistic, with her present and next to her during the taping of it! Now, there's yet another serious WTF, and shows their blatant disregard for those they presume to speak for.

    It's all fine and well to try to defend family from being ridiculed, but by the same token, if you go too far the other way, you make things far worse for them.

    MJ:
    I have to disagree with you there. Autism is a disease. That is not the same as saying you are defective.

    However, this is not the time or place for that particular argument.

  • mdkess (unregistered)

    It sounds more like the interviewee was high on cocaine than autistic.

  • Fnord Prefect (unregistered) in reply to Bruce W
    Bruce W:
    Somehow I still get selected for an interview when they start messing up: 1st Interviewer: "So, this position is a Senior Business Analyst. Is that what you expected?" Me: "Yes" 1st Interviewer: "The position does the following...... Does that interest you?" Me: "Yes" 2nd Interviewer: "Good; the previous candidate was told that the position was completely different"

    Reminds me of a job I went for some time ago.

    The ad I read stated that the hours were from 1pm to 9pm (lots of after-hours processing of data involved). Fine, that suits me perfectly.

    Get to the interview, and pretty much the first question I get asked is whether I am aware of the job hours... turns out that several other candidates had been sent by recruiters, and the recruiters had "forgotten" to mention the odd hours required.

    Stupid recruiters...

  • MJ (unregistered) in reply to ebs2002
    ebs2002:
    You have control over what bothers you and what doesn't. And your kids will learn to be bothered by the things that bother you. Instead of getting angry, you could recognize that they don't understand, and laugh at them for it. Or you could ignore it, and ensure that your children find a job that is understanding of their behavior and a good fit for themselves.

    I understand what you are saying and I am not actually angry or offended at the conversion. The point of the exercise as far as I am concerned to the raise awareness (I hate that phrase) of what autism is and what it looks like so that the future will be better for people like my children.

    Right now it is not a common condition and the public as a whole does not understand it. It is quickly becoming a common condition (although not everyone would agree with that statement) and it will become more common in the future. It is only by more people becoming aware of it or hearing a discussion about it that it will become more understood and accepted. Only 20 years ago it was accepted and common to put these people in institutions for the rest of their lives. 20 years from now I hope that there will be better solutions solutions for the people affected and situations like the one in this post don't have to happen.

  • Fnord Prefect (unregistered) in reply to AndrewB
    AndrewB:
    FredSaw:
    AndrewB:
    It goes both ways.
    No it doesn't. You are so desperately without a clue that you absolutely stink of "I just graduated and therefore know everything".

    Suggestion for a fun learning project: save off this discussion to someplace safe. Return to it in, say, six to ten years. Read it over; break into laughter at your incredible mixture of naivete and arrogance. Then post it on TheDailyWTF to share the laughter all around.

    Making an argument that can't be proven or disproven for the better part of a decade, and being a dick on an internet forum. You seem to have embraced the philosophy of "contribute nothing whatsoever."
    Before you ridicule his suggestion, how about you consider it seriously? Heck, just thinking about my expectations and attitudes 10 years ago versus now, and I'm surprised my first employer kept me on as long as they did. And I doubt that I'm alone in that position - I'm sure plenty of other folks here could give examples of their attitudes/behaviour early on in their careers that would make you laugh and/or cringe.

  • MJ (unregistered) in reply to An Aspie
    An Aspie:
    Now, you see? That's where the real WTF is: people like you that conclude that anything that isn't "normal" like they presume to be, are clearly a diseased organism! Now THAT'S really funny!

    What part my statement that autism != you was difficult to understand?

    So lets try this; you say that you have aspergers. If that is the case then by definition that means that your symptoms developed before the age of three and that you had no noticeable delay in functional language. But you should have noticeable issues with social situations and at least a few stims.

    So, if you wouldn't mind answering the following: what age were you diagnosed, what type of professional gave you the diagnosis, and what diagnostic test did they use to establish the diagnosis?

    A cat that doesn't bark and wag its tail like a dog isn't a defective dog, but merely a different animal, and what's "normal" for a dog and a cat aren't very compatible, but they can live together quite well, assuming they don't consider the other type of critter as being diseased and defective

    Bad analogy, unless you are really claiming that autism is a different species of human. And if you feel that you are I would suggest that you have nothing in common with my children, they are definitely human.

    So lets try this one. How about a person who can't talk, who can't express their thoughts and feeling because the pathways in the brain that would normally allow them to communicate are damaged and don't work?

    How about a child who's immune system is attacking their own body and disrupting the normal development process to the point where they lose skills that they have already mastered?

    How about having so much abdominal pain that you can't sleep lying down for the first 1.5 years of your life? And the good news is you can't even tell anyone what is wrong because you can't communicate.

    How about your body can't absorb the nutrients it needs from food so you have deficiencies in common chemicals needed for the body to function like iron and zinc?

    If none of the above sounds familiar to you then your part of the spectrum is not like the one that I deal with.

    But, but all means, lets ignore all of the above like the ND dogma teaches and concentrate on those cats and dogs. And of course, the boon to the tech sector from all those aspies with good programming skills.

    , ala "Autism Speaks" which is all about scare-mongering to raise funds for the future world where no autistics are ever born (yes, born)

    If there was a cure or prevention of autism that was found that did not involve the wholesale abortions of every child with autism (ala Downs) then I would say whole heartedly that it should be done.

    while doing absolutely nothing to assist the existence of those present.

    I think we agree on that point, Autism Speaks does not do nearly enough to assist people currently living with autism nor do they do enough research into effective treatments.

    And I'll give you a reality check now: autistic children will invariably grow up to become autistic adults, period

    Hate to break it to you, there are people out there who have been "cured" enough that they either have no autistic symptoms or can compensate well enough that you would not be able to tell.

    Have you ever met one any of them? I have.

    unless some of those like the leadership of "Autism Speaks" have their way and kill them off either physically

    You are seriously asserting that the leadership of autism speaks is attempting to assassinate people with autism?

    or mentally do such damage to them that they take their own lives:

    I think you had a better argument with the assassination attempts.

    yes, there's at least one of them that went out of their way to make a video stating they'd rather have murdered their daughter than have her be autistic, with her present and next to her during the taping of it!

    Really, care to provide a link to the video?

  • Jean Naimard (unregistered) in reply to Dan F
    Dan F:
    Is there something wrong with hiring people who specifically know RoR?
    They tend to be autistic...
  • Jean Naimard (unregistered) in reply to ben
    ben:
    a small but telling black mark against him was his preference for a proportional font in his IDE. No-one who does much coding would do that.
    What IDE would allow for such a thing???
  • An Aspie (unregistered) in reply to MJ

    I don't feel like doing all the quote/unquote stuff, so here goes:

    MJ:
    An Aspie:
    Now, you see? That's where the real WTF is: people like you that conclude that anything that isn't "normal" like they presume to be, are clearly a diseased organism! Now THAT'S really funny!

    What part my statement that autism != you was difficult to understand? I understood perfectly what you were saying: I do not agree that it is a component of me that can be separated, regardless of desire. That's why it is called a "Pervasive Developmental Delay" because it permeates how I process things. It affects how my IQ as measured (I won't state what I've heard from when it was tested at age 10: not relevant here) and what I can do, as the same advantages it gives me in certain types of thinking and processing are equally balanced out otherwise for other things. So lets try this; you say that you have aspergers. If that is the case then by definition that means that your symptoms developed before the age of three and that you had no noticeable delay in functional language. But you should have noticeable issues with social situations and at least a few stims.

    So, if you wouldn't mind answering the following: what age were you diagnosed, what type of professional gave you the diagnosis, and what diagnostic test did they use to establish the diagnosis? <b>

    1. 31, on Friday, December 13th, 2002
    2. A psychologist provided by a large church
    3. Many sessions of observation and talk therapy: just what are the proper "formal" methods for diagnosis? Plus, deeply diving into my personal history, as well as consulting others that have known me for many years. It's a pity they couldn't discuss my past with my parents, but they died in 98 and 99, but yes, I most definitely had documented proof (observation) of requisite patterns of behavior before the age of 3. I distinctly remember the earliest instance of severe sensory overload that I can also corroborate with witnesses present at the time: the time I dived into my first birthday's birthday cake with my left hand, and promptly overloaded. All the people speaking in the room sounded rather distorted, too. That hasn't changed all that much in many situations as an adult, and I'm blessed/cursed right now with working in a very diverse office with many different voice ranges and accents from many countries and sublanguages of countries. My parents had taken a picture (don't know where it is these days: I've never been much of a picture-keeper) of me before I could walk, where I balanced a transparent plastic ball that contained a plastic rocking horse in it for very long periods of time on my feet, and somehow never managed to drop it on my head. There are other things, too, but I don't see any point in going into more detail.
    A cat that doesn't bark and wag its tail like a dog isn't a defective dog, but merely a different animal, and what's "normal" for a dog and a cat aren't very compatible, but they can live together quite well, assuming they don't consider the other type of critter as being diseased and defective

    Bad analogy, unless you are really claiming that autism is a different species of human. And if you feel that you are I would suggest that you have nothing in common with my children, they are definitely human. How many analogies are absolutely perfect? That analogy was to make a point, and often you need to exaggerate things a bit to make the point more apparent. A perhaps closer analogy (but also imperfect) would be comparing the neurological processing style as to being closer to that of the characteristics that define an ethnic group you'd often typically associate with clearly visible physical features, but it isn't something that can be determined by looking at a still photograph of someone. Can you tell someone with an IQ of 40 from someone that has an IQ of 180 merely by looking at their still picture?

    So lets try this one. How about a person who can't talk, who can't express their thoughts and feeling because the pathways in the brain that would normally allow them to communicate are damaged and don't work?
    My older sister didn't speak until at least 3 years old: now she won't shut up :) Not everyone develops in exactly the same way, regardless of how they're labeled, as we've already agreed. I believe I spoke at a normal age, with a typical pattern, but... due to sensory issues, I had to undergo many years of speech therapy, and it still isn't quite "perfect" or "normal" in the best of times now, it seems, and it goes down hill rapidly once I start going into sensory overload. I can't sense properly to truly know how I'm moving my body accurately, and my tactile feedback is also whacked, amongst other things, and I have a hard time processing speech sounds even in silent backgrounds, let alone noisy ones, despite my hearing testing as "high normal" according to the very limited standard audio testing, and that's even at this time. Having a degree in electronics, I've actually tested my hearing range at a frequency far above normal human hearing range: for all you know, your kid is also sensitive in the same way (I can speculate) and what you witness for behavior when it hurts the ears for them but you can't tell, may be them hearing harmonics or components you can't.

    The biggest issue (again, I've got the electronics degree combined with lots of personal research into other computer-related stuff) for understanding spoken language and also being able to reproduce it reliably can most accurately be compared to dealing with an audio amplifier that's in a feedback loop, causing more noise than signal: once that noise is at the top level, and the waveform is a single frequency or effectively flat-lined at the top, you can't make sense of anything else: this is the essence of sensory overload: sensory overload is cumulative over time due to the same principles, and is why "quiet time" is needed to recover, combined with the problem that autistics don't have a problem with not having the bandwidth so much as the fact that they can't shut out as much as they'd want to, in order to get only what they need in a given situation: there is no "off" switch and no volume control. How about a child who's immune system is attacking their own body and disrupting the normal development process to the point where they lose skills that they have already mastered?
    You try to shoot me down for one thing that you don't believe fits the criteria, and you bring this up? That's an interesting turn. Well, I most definitely do have immune system problems, with inflammation being a consistent overall pattern: asthma, allergies, perpetual skin problems, intestinal issues (hey, know of anyone else that's passed a kernel of undigested corn out their urinary tract? I did on August 29th, 2003: very memorable, I daresay!). But, the fact of the matter is this: no diagnostic criteria specifies anything about the immune system: that's merely what would be termed "comorbid" and while it may be common, it isn't part of anything that can be defined by observable behavior. How about having so much abdominal pain that you can't sleep lying down for the first 1.5 years of your life? And the good news is you can't even tell anyone what is wrong because you can't communicate.

    How about your body can't absorb the nutrients it needs from food so you have deficiencies in common chemicals needed for the body to function like iron and zinc?

    If none of the above sounds familiar to you then your part of the spectrum is not like the one that I deal with. Believe it or not, I don't believe in the full spectrum of neurodiversity with all the various categories as being valid and normal: if someone is having delusions due to bipolar disorder, is clinically depressed with no psychological explanation as to why, or is schizophrenic or a bunch of other things where they're not fully living an a consistent objective world, then they aren't functioning in an appropriate manner. But, autism has no delusional component, and things are very real and self-consistent, if unpleasant at times, and no unreality is involved. But, but all means, lets ignore all of the above like the ND dogma teaches and concentrate on those cats and dogs. And of course, the boon to the tech sector from all those aspies with good programming skills.

    , ala "Autism Speaks" which is all about scare-mongering to raise funds for the future world where no autistics are ever born (yes, born)

    If there was a cure or prevention of autism that was found that did not involve the wholesale abortions of every child with autism (ala Downs) then I would say whole heartedly that it should be done.

    while doing absolutely nothing to assist the existence of those present.

    I think we agree on that point, Autism Speaks does not do nearly enough to assist people currently living with autism nor do they do enough research into effective treatments.

    And I'll give you a reality check now: autistic children will invariably grow up to become autistic adults, period

    Hate to break it to you, there are people out there who have been "cured" enough that they either have no autistic symptoms or can compensate well enough that you would not be able to tell.

    Have you ever met one any of them? I have. Sure, I can pass off as "normal" with effort, and so can many others on the spectrum. But, deep down, their inner nature is hidden, and if they're under enough stress, it will manifest itself. Been there, done that, seen others do it, too. Oh, it is also stressful to fully emulate "normal" and that wears you down. I'm self-confident enough, though, that I don't try to be "perfect" because of the law of diminishing returns.

    unless some of those like the leadership of "Autism Speaks" have their way and kill them off either physically

    You are seriously asserting that the leadership of autism speaks is attempting to assassinate people with autism?
    You're putting words into my mouth, and I fear my messed-up immune system won't be able to handle that assault of the bad things stuck to them! Please, be merciful! ;)

    or mentally do such damage to them that they take their own lives:

    I think you had a better argument with the assassination attempts.

    yes, there's at least one of them that went out of their way to make a video stating they'd rather have murdered their daughter than have her be autistic, with her present and next to her during the taping of it!

    Really, care to provide a link to the video?

    Here's the link to the 7 minute (there's a longer version that has been produced: note that comments are turned off) and note at about 4:10 into the video: it's there. Sure, there's a lot surrounding it, all explaining the statement, but there's absolutely nothing that's balanced about this video: it is purely negative in the absolutely most extreme way, and was engineered to be so. If these parents can show nothing remotely of a happy or at least neutral nature, they're not fit to be parents. Even if they can (I'd have to hope they can, if they try) Autism Speaks didn't want to have that in there, because it doesn't serve their needs.

    Because I have a sufficient understanding of how people can (mal)function under long-term stress, I can appreciate that sometimes unspeakably bad thoughts will go through the heads of people, where they might do something they wouldn't think of doing while not under stress. I don't for a moment believe it was an accident that her autistic daughter was in the room while it was being filmed: I also don't believe for a moment that it was an accident that the video was released with that being said while her autistic daughter was in the room: on top of that, I don't believe they can conceive of how much damage that is likely to do to her autistic daughter that likely understands far more than they give her credit for, and may very well remember that videotaping until her dying day, much like I remember my first birthday, and my older sister remembers fine details of things at very young ages, too, and internally process all that it means. Furthermore, even if her daughter was blessed to somehow not be able to remember that, and hasn't somehow figured all that out from absorbing everything like a sponge about her mother's thoughts, that video will exist until she's dead, and she may very well have that replay over and over again to taunt her.

    This is a case where the old refrain truly applies: "Think of the children!" and yes, they have, but not in a benevolent fashion, but in a self-serving fashion.

  • An Aspie (unregistered) in reply to Jean Naimard

    Please elaborate on how that's a bad thing: I expect this to be truly entertaining to see you write yourself out of this hole :D

    However, it's far more likely you've aborted looking at/replying to this thread, sadly, or even if you look, you won't respond.

Leave a comment on “How Can You Expect This?!”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article