NAS perpetuating autism stereotypes?

longman said:

I agree with Hope and Azalea about the stereotyping. I keep raising this on here and with NAS, but they don't seem to be listening - I suspect that NAS, like some health professionals, - take the view that because we have the condition we are incapable of having a perspective on it, except to be briefed to emulate the stereotype on the odd panel.

It is too simplistic. The stereotypes fit some people, maybe only a few. The rest of us are being prevented from exploring our potential because opportunities are not being created/identified.

Yes we are all different but in the space allowed in pamphlet or an article on a web page you have to give 'typical' features and you can't describe all of the possible behaviours of autism

Of course I don't mean NAS should only list reasons why we might let an employer down and be hopeless - is that this "black and white thinking" sterepotype again?  - either we are good at the stereotypes or hopeless? I despair of certain narrow perspectives based on one autistic life.

I am trying to counter the black and white thinking that says that life is hopeless and NAS is doing nothing to support and assist us. Actually, many people with autism (and I include Hope et al in this) are entirely capable of doing a useful job for somebody. It is hard but it is also hard for the bog standard 19 yo who faces stiff competition in the jobs market. It is hard but not hopeless, there are jobs there for people that are prepared to start at the bottom and do things that they would rather not be doing.

Pandoren is right too - there is this notion amongst health professionals that autism is about not being able to speak properly, and that all this non-verbal stuff is nonsense. On the contrary many people on the spectrum can speak competently. The difficulty is generating the correct non-verbal responses to back this up, and reading other people's non-verbal correctly. It is because of that we miss cues, misunderstand the drift of a conversation, appear rude or insensitive or inappropriate, misunderstand metaphors etc. But somehow these characteristics have got muddled up as being a language deficit. NAS is every bit as guilty of this.

People on the spectrum can speak competently but we often fall into misunderstandings and misinterpretations because our comprehension of the sublties of the language does not match our vocabulary. We mis-categorise words and miss the situations where the other person mis-speaks and uses the wrong word. Non-autistic people will not get tripped up by the occasional wrong word and won't be put off and will still get the correct gist of what is intended. We will tend to take each word literally, assign a single meaning to iot and end up with the wrong end of the stick.

Focussing on detail is valid, but as Hope says missing the wider picture often leads to mistakes, and certainly did for me. With support however some of us can apply some skill in detailed analysis. I just don't know how universal this is, if at all, and I doubt if NAS knows the answer either.

Everybody, autistic or not, makes mistakes. Yes, we may miss the bigger picture sometimes but we can make up for it in other areas. Missing the bigger picture occasionally is not a reason to believe that all is lost. We have to accept fallibility just as no-one celse can claim to be infallible. If you look on the negative side then there are negatives to the condition but that is not a reason to give up all hope.

I keep going on about the computing and numbers thing. Being good at computer games may not be an aptitude for all computing. Some people have excelled in aspects of computing and have found careers doing it. But a lot of other people haven't - so why does NAS keep telling employers this stereotype?  Likewise aptitude for numbers does not mean good at mathematics.

Computing and other branches of engineering are areas that fit many people on the spectrum. When we are working on a problem, similar to if we play a video game, it is just oneself working with a highly rational system that does not depend on our understanding of double-entendres or body language. The computer does not care about those things. It has a vocabulary where words have single, documented and precise meanings. There is richness of detail and intriguing complexity and the subleties arise from the sheer number of permutations of events and combinations of events that require unpicking.

Other careers are available. Christopher Jefferies demonstrated how you can be a successful teacher. His precision with language, his knowledge of the theory and grammar of language enabled him to pursue a successful career as a teacher in a highly structured environment where rules were set down and enforced and he did not have to employ the softer social skills that trip us up.

I think it would, however, be wrong to encourage people with autism into that profession as I am sure that for the occasional one that succeeds there are many that do not. The bog standard comp with its bog standard pupils is likely to be an impossible environment for people like us.

I think it is a crying shame that we are so misrepresented, and denied other possibilities, because NAS cannot be bothered to take this seriously.

That is black and white thinking. You portray NAS as hopeless and indefensible and not taking it seriously. Actually much of what they do is reasonable, definitely not perfect and capable of improvement, but it is not without value. If you want to help Hope et al then please suggest some positive things that can encourage them to look at other professions or careers that are more suited to their abilities. If you reinforce their negative perception then they will continue to believe that life is hopeless.

I am quite sure that they are capable of finding some outlet for the talents that they do have where the talents that they don't have are less important.

longman said:

I agree with Hope and Azalea about the stereotyping. I keep raising this on here and with NAS, but they don't seem to be listening - I suspect that NAS, like some health professionals, - take the view that because we have the condition we are incapable of having a perspective on it, except to be briefed to emulate the stereotype on the odd panel.

It is too simplistic. The stereotypes fit some people, maybe only a few. The rest of us are being prevented from exploring our potential because opportunities are not being created/identified.

Yes we are all different but in the space allowed in pamphlet or an article on a web page you have to give 'typical' features and you can't describe all of the possible behaviours of autism

Of course I don't mean NAS should only list reasons why we might let an employer down and be hopeless - is that this "black and white thinking" sterepotype again?  - either we are good at the stereotypes or hopeless? I despair of certain narrow perspectives based on one autistic life.

I am trying to counter the black and white thinking that says that life is hopeless and NAS is doing nothing to support and assist us. Actually, many people with autism (and I include Hope et al in this) are entirely capable of doing a useful job for somebody. It is hard but it is also hard for the bog standard 19 yo who faces stiff competition in the jobs market. It is hard but not hopeless, there are jobs there for people that are prepared to start at the bottom and do things that they would rather not be doing.

Pandoren is right too - there is this notion amongst health professionals that autism is about not being able to speak properly, and that all this non-verbal stuff is nonsense. On the contrary many people on the spectrum can speak competently. The difficulty is generating the correct non-verbal responses to back this up, and reading other people's non-verbal correctly. It is because of that we miss cues, misunderstand the drift of a conversation, appear rude or insensitive or inappropriate, misunderstand metaphors etc. But somehow these characteristics have got muddled up as being a language deficit. NAS is every bit as guilty of this.

People on the spectrum can speak competently but we often fall into misunderstandings and misinterpretations because our comprehension of the sublties of the language does not match our vocabulary. We mis-categorise words and miss the situations where the other person mis-speaks and uses the wrong word. Non-autistic people will not get tripped up by the occasional wrong word and won't be put off and will still get the correct gist of what is intended. We will tend to take each word literally, assign a single meaning to iot and end up with the wrong end of the stick.

Focussing on detail is valid, but as Hope says missing the wider picture often leads to mistakes, and certainly did for me. With support however some of us can apply some skill in detailed analysis. I just don't know how universal this is, if at all, and I doubt if NAS knows the answer either.

Everybody, autistic or not, makes mistakes. Yes, we may miss the bigger picture sometimes but we can make up for it in other areas. Missing the bigger picture occasionally is not a reason to believe that all is lost. We have to accept fallibility just as no-one celse can claim to be infallible. If you look on the negative side then there are negatives to the condition but that is not a reason to give up all hope.

I keep going on about the computing and numbers thing. Being good at computer games may not be an aptitude for all computing. Some people have excelled in aspects of computing and have found careers doing it. But a lot of other people haven't - so why does NAS keep telling employers this stereotype?  Likewise aptitude for numbers does not mean good at mathematics.

Computing and other branches of engineering are areas that fit many people on the spectrum. When we are working on a problem, similar to if we play a video game, it is just oneself working with a highly rational system that does not depend on our understanding of double-entendres or body language. The computer does not care about those things. It has a vocabulary where words have single, documented and precise meanings. There is richness of detail and intriguing complexity and the subleties arise from the sheer number of permutations of events and combinations of events that require unpicking.

Other careers are available. Christopher Jefferies demonstrated how you can be a successful teacher. His precision with language, his knowledge of the theory and grammar of language enabled him to pursue a successful career as a teacher in a highly structured environment where rules were set down and enforced and he did not have to employ the softer social skills that trip us up.

I think it would, however, be wrong to encourage people with autism into that profession as I am sure that for the occasional one that succeeds there are many that do not. The bog standard comp with its bog standard pupils is likely to be an impossible environment for people like us.

I think it is a crying shame that we are so misrepresented, and denied other possibilities, because NAS cannot be bothered to take this seriously.

That is black and white thinking. You portray NAS as hopeless and indefensible and not taking it seriously. Actually much of what they do is reasonable, definitely not perfect and capable of improvement, but it is not without value. If you want to help Hope et al then please suggest some positive things that can encourage them to look at other professions or careers that are more suited to their abilities. If you reinforce their negative perception then they will continue to believe that life is hopeless.

I am quite sure that they are capable of finding some outlet for the talents that they do have where the talents that they don't have are less important.