Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD, Asperger's) and STEM

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD, Asperger's) and STEM
bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

I was inspired to do a Google search today for "software engineer autism". The second highest ranked result was this:

https://quillette.com/2018/01/05/empathy-gap-tech-interview-software-engineer/

I am finding it very interesting and reaffirming. I thought I would share.

It seems to be one possible link between male-dominance in STEM.

More than that though, I wonder how many other community members may be on the spectrum and not have realized it yet. I haven't had a formal diagnosis yet, but I'm pretty much running with the idea that I am on the spectrum somewhere. I'm going to keep pushing my doctor to get a formal diagnosis, but in the meantime I'm pretty much adopting it and doing what I can to learn more.

Consider this a free-for-all thread for any discussions regarding Autism.

Append:

This is a short thread, but it is also relevant:

https://www.quora.com/How-is-a-software-developer-with-autism-supposed-to-advance-in-his-career

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

So I thought I'd try to echo your former self (probably rather inaccurately): Of course all of this talk about autism is an invention by evil feminists to make real men feel bad. 8-)

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

That's a rather silly claim because an Autism diagnosis is more of an ally for men than an enemy. It can help to explain why you're different and how it is predetermined and somewhat out of your control.

I'm refreshing myself on the whole "Google memo" fiasco years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber

Allegedly the author of the memo that was fired as a result later found out that he was also on the spectrum. Effectively, he stated scientific truths as he understood them, and was fired for having the audacity to suggest that men and women might be different (even though the science backs him up). ::)

It's just so enraging how this world is corrupted by ideals instead of operating on truths.

RmBeer2
Member #16,660
April 2017
avatar

Polybios said:

So I thought I'd try to echo your former self (probably rather inaccurately): Of course all of this talk about autism is an invention by evil feminists to make real men feel bad. 8-)

{"name":"revelation-gif-5.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/7\/4746b2e890e2f4d1781c8d54dd262107.gif","w":450,"h":252,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/7\/4746b2e890e2f4d1781c8d54dd262107"}revelation-gif-5.gif

🌈🌈🌈 🌟 Web of BlackRook 🌟 YouTube 🌟 🌈🌈🌈

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

I guarantee you, you and I both have "something". The question is what.

-----sig:
β€œPrograms should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

amarillion
Member #940
January 2001
avatar

bamccaig said:

It's just so enraging how this world is corrupted by ideals instead of operating on truths.

In this case I would phrase it differently: it's neither truths nor ideals that matter, but the ability to get along. For a large company like Google that's the most important thing. The Google Memo guy really underestimated that.

Somebody in that Quora thread mentions that, for somebody on the spectrum, it's important to focus on gaining interviewing skills. Is that something you would agree with?

--
Martijn van Iersel | My Blog | Sin & Cos | Tegel tilemap editor | TINS 2020

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

For a large company like Google that's the most important thing. The Google Memo guy really underestimated that.

I agree that it's incredibly important for coworkers to get along. That said, I don't think that stating scientific facts (or approximations of that), in good faith, should qualify as being hard to get along with.

Apparently the memo circulated for two months and nothing disciplinary was done to him. I read that it wasn't until people inside the company started leaking it to media outlets two months later and the social media mobs started that Google did something about it.

Most likely, the majority at Google understood what he was saying and either agreed or at least thought he had every right to say it. Once it became a PR nightmare they decided to side with the mob to save face. Which I think is really sad because of all of the corporations on the planet today Google is probably one of the few that could have survived and beaten the mob.

Somebody in that Quora thread mentions that, for somebody on the spectrum, it's important to focus on gaining interviewing skills. Is that something you would agree with?

Yes, definitely. It is something that I have improved on over the years, but I still fail at the bullshit questions part (and still struggle with remaining calm and appearing happy). :P

Though I also think companies should be aware of ASD and interview those candidates differently (and/or specifically target them for what they're great at instead of expecting the same skill set of a neurotypical candidate).

I'm not trying to go all SJW here, but I do think that it's sort of discrimination to expect somebody on the Autism spectrum to behave exactly like a neurotypical person would. While they can learn to consciously do things that neurotypicals get effortlessly, it still may not be good enough, it can be very exhausting, and it distracts from whatever they're doing.

LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

bamccaig said:

While they can learn to consciously do things that neurotypicals get effortlessly, it still may not be good enough, it can be very exhausting, and it distracts from whatever they're doing.

In an interview situation this becomes very important, because in interviews, communication skills are extremely important, and communication is much harder when you have autism.

Add to that the fact that a great deal of adults with autism also have anxiety (especially if the condition was undiagnosed in childhood), and interviews become a nightmare, as it's very hard to try to concentrate on both communicating and managing your anxiety at the same time.

I was lucky in that I used to have an advocate that would come with me to job interviews, to help explain the condition to interviewers. Plus having them there made me less anxious which helped the situation immensely.

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

Being natural is not equivalent to being good. Seeking out a diagnosis shouldn't be done so that you can justify bad behavior, but to best learn how to correct or compensate for it. Compensation can be in the form of something you need to do, or something other people need to do. (e.g. LennyLen's example of bringing in an advocate to an interview - requires reasonable adjustments by both parties.) But having an attitude of "Screw it, I'm autistic, so deal with me! >:(" isn't healthy.

While I don't agree that the gender gap in STEM jobs is primarily due to harassment (although it plays a small role), I also don't think it's because men are genetically predisposed to excel via some autistic link. I think it is more attributed to centuries old gender role issues.

If you are from birth giving girls pink dolls and boys building blocks and construction toys, that leaves a lasting impression. I hear adults tell little girls "You're going to be a good mommy some day" but I don't think I've ever heard "You're going to be a good daddy some day" to little boys. There's nothing sinister at play, but just how western culture has largely evolved. These daily reinforcements of gender roles shapes the future.

I think it's best addressed by aggressively targeting the under represented groups at a young age (e.g. middle school). Unless you are a sexist pig who thinks women aren't as smart as men, then it should be considered a bad thing that so many of them aren't pursuing a job in technology. There's talent being left behind.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that every discipline needs a 50-50 gender split to be fair, because there are physical differences between genders that must in some way alter career preferences. But the 90-10 split of programmers is indicative of a problem that cannot be explained simply by genes.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

If you are from birth giving girls pink dolls and boys building blocks and construction toys, that leaves a lasting impression. I hear adults tell little girls "You're going to be a good mommy some day" but I don't think I've ever heard "You're going to be a good daddy some day" to little boys. There's nothing sinister at play, but just how western culture has largely evolved. These daily reinforcements of gender roles shapes the future.

Studies have shown that baby boys and girls already show a preference before they've been taught any kind of gender roles.[1] Baby boys gravitate towards blocks and soldiers and toys of that nature. Baby girls gravitate towards dolls and kitchen sets. It's wrong to ignore science and assert that boys and girls come out of the womb with a blank slate mind that can be molded however society wants. That's not how humans work, as inconvenient as that is for Feminists.

Unless you are a sexist pig who thinks women aren't as smart as men, then it should be considered a bad thing that so many of them aren't pursuing a job in technology.

Women have had the freedom to go into STEM fields for decades. Just as with toys for infants, woman and men generally like different things. Women are often better at reading faces and body language, and gravitate towards jobs that involve human interactions or helping people. Men gravitate towards machines and systems. It's not that women aren't intelligent enough to go into STEM fields. They are! It's that they generally aren't interested in STEM jobs. There are a few STEM jobs that are even dominated by women.

In societies where women are most free to choose what they want to do the gap is the largest (i.e., Scandinavian countries). Conversely, the countries where we see the greatest balance in STEM between genders are less free (e.g., India).[2]

More research is needed, certainly, but we shouldn't ignore the scientific data just to fit an agenda. I haven't met any women that have told me they wanted to go into STEM, but didn't because of discrimination. Where are all of the women putting their hands up saying they prefer STEM? There are women that do, but they appear to remain a tiny minority. The only way to achieve a near balance in the number of women in STEM would be to force them to do jobs that they don't enjoy. How progressive...

References

  1. E.g., https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/icd.1986 (it's paywalled, but it shouldn't be hard to find other examples of this)
  2. E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox
amarillion
Member #940
January 2001
avatar

bamccaig said:

I agree that it's incredibly important for coworkers to get along. That said, I don't think that stating scientific facts (or approximations of that), in good faith, should qualify as being hard to get along with.

I agree that the memo author was unlucky, in the sense that if it hadn't turned into a media shit storm it would probably have fizzled out. But on the other hand, he was also being naive. The media shit-storm was entirely predictable. Google's reaction was also predictable.

By focusing on scientific facts, you focus on technical details but miss the bigger picture. I have a science background myself and I'd be happy to discuss with you the biological differences between men and women. But what I'm telling you is that in some contexts, these scientific facts are not relevant. Not because they are not true, but because they are not pertinent to the problem that Google has to solve, namely, running a large organization within an even larger society.

Quote:

I'm not trying to go all SJW here, but I do think that it's sort of discrimination to expect somebody on the Autism spectrum to behave exactly like a neurotypical person would. While they can learn to consciously do things that neurotypicals get effortlessly, it still may not be good enough, it can be very exhausting, and it distracts from whatever they're doing.

It's an interesting topic to me because recently I've become involved in the recruitment process of my employer, and I'm now conducting interviews. We hire a broad range, I know several people at our company that I would consider not neurotypical (in various ways). Then again, their symptoms are probably relatively mild.

It's always good to see candidates who show self-awareness (whether that is supported by an official diagnosis or not). I agree with Matthew that a diagnosis should be used to correct and compensate, not as a get-out-of-jail free card. But "being on the spectrum" can also be an advantage in a tech job.

(If you haven't read it yet, check out "The man who mistook his wife for a hat", which also describes people that use mental issues to their advantage)

--
Martijn van Iersel | My Blog | Sin & Cos | Tegel tilemap editor | TINS 2020

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

bamccaig said:

Baby boys gravitate towards blocks and soldiers and toys of that nature. Baby girls gravitate towards dolls and kitchen sets.

I don't believe it. You cannot test a 1 day old baby. By the time some kid is already crawling and able to do something that is worth observing they have already been tainted.

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

bamccaig said:

Studies have shown that baby boys and girls already show a preference before they've been taught any kind of gender roles.

I remember seeing it for lab monkeys, too, but have no source available.

bamccaig said:

That's a rather silly claim because an Autism diagnosis is more of an ally for men than an enemy.

Sometimes I start to feel disadvantaged because I feel so normal (or rather "ordinary").

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

I don't believe it. You cannot test a 1 day old baby. By the time some kid is already crawling and able to do something that is worth observing they have already been tainted.

Female newborns seek eye contact more than males. This isn't even up to debate among actual scientists.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4726418/#:~:text=Sex%20differences%20in%20social%20behavior,crying16)%20and%20imitation17.

Quote:

In humans, sex differences appear at the level of the brain, cognition, and behavior1,2, across numerous domains, including physical and mental health3,4, personality5, and sexuality6. Females, compared to males, exhibit greater social sensitivity7 and stronger verbal ability8, while males outperform females on mental rotation9 and the analysis or construction of systems10. Sex differences in social behavior are already evident in infancy11. Female neonates, compared to males, make more eye contact12, are more likely to orient to faces13 and voices14, are rated as more cuddly15, and exhibit stronger emotion contagion (e.g., contagious crying16) and imitation17. Despite converging evidence of sex differences in social sensitivity early in ontogenetic development, the causes of these differences, and contributions of early experience, remain unresolved.

Here's brain differences in utero. That is, before they've ever been born and "tainted" by the Patriarchy.

Quote:

Researchers conducted MRI scans on human fetuses in the womb, studying the functional connectivity (FC), or the neurological connections between different areas of the brain, for both males and females. They found connections between parts of the female brains that were almost nonexistent in the male brains.

https://angelusnews.com/arts-culture/new-study-shows-differences-between-male-and-female-brains-in-utero/

But feel free being anti-science you flat earther. :P

-----sig:
β€œPrograms should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

But on the other hand, he was also being naive. The media -storm was entirely predictable. Google's reaction was also predictable.

It may have been predictable to normal people or people outside the organization. It sounds to me like Google had a history of welcoming such discussions in the past, and the culture was rapidly eroded by changes in diversity (to be blunt, they probably intentionally hired women to appear more fair, and in doing so invited the poisonous thinking of social justice warriors into the organization).

He may have been under the impression that his colleagues at Google were sufficiently intelligent to discuss it without bringing politics into it. Apparently there was a healthy debate about it for those two months before it was leaked, with several other employees agreeing with the OP. Indeed, it begs the question who among them felt it was inappropriate and leaked private conversations to the media to cause trouble. If anybody deserved to be punished I feel like those parties did.

I have a science background myself and I'd be happy to discuss with you the biological differences between men and women.

I would find that very interesting.

Not because they are not true, but because they are not pertinent to the problem that Google has to solve, namely, running a large organization within an even larger society.

I think that there are two options for running a public organization in the current political sphere: surrender to the demands of emotional activists or rely purely on science to guide you.

Granted, if you rely on science you will be preyed upon by the mobs, but you'll always have the collective human knowledge to back you up. It's not as though Google lacks the resources to hire notable members of the scientific community to defend their actions.

If you surrender to the demands of emotional activists then there's no defense at all to resist change. Whatever the mob demands must be implemented. The mob is not driven by science or even good intentions, but by an agenda that is not the same as Google's agenda. Nobody is really safe from these mobs. They try to "cancel" anybody that they decide they don't like, and there's no defense against it because they don't care about truths or evidence.

Indeed, it sounds like Google currently has a problem with all of their company-wide meetings being routinely leaked to the media. :P

I don't believe it. You cannot test a 1 day old baby. By the time some kid is already crawling and able to do something that is worth observing they have already been tainted.

Scientific papers exist if you care to criticize the methods they used.

To dismiss it just because it disagrees with preconceived notions is ignorant.

Polybios said:

I remember seeing it for lab monkeys, too, but have no source available.

That's right, now that you mention it. I too recall hearing of studies where apes or monkeys were also naturally attracted to gendered toys.

A simple Google search makes related results trivial to find (this was only one such result):

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7269347/Baby-baboons-undermine-gender-neutral-toys-movement-new-BBC-documentary.html

Polybios said:

Sometimes I start to feel disadvantaged because I feel so normal (or rather "ordinary").

That is curious. In what way do you sometimes feel disadvantaged by being normal/ordinary (assuming you are)?

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

Of course I believe in biological differences between the genders; why would that be up for debate? I'm speaking specifically about what drives the large gender gap in STEM, and no, there isn't a study on toddlers' reaction to toys that I would find as a compelling reason.

I think non-biological social norms carries more weight than being biologically inferior to the task at hand.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

biologically inferior to the task at hand.

That's the inherent, sexist part of the modern liberal worldview. That if women don't prefer STEM, they're somehow inferior or been brainwashed to be inferior. But the freer, less sexist, a society is, science has shown, the MORE likely women are to be only in traditional "women" jobs like nursing.

Basically, the reason many women go into STEM is actually what liberals say, but the opposite. Women are pressured... by liberals... TO GO INTO STEM. Either because people tell them "go STEM or you're a bad woman." or, because STEM gives the money that other jobs they WOULD prefer don't offer. So when societies are actually have equality, women go into what they actually prefer.

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with a woman preferring STEM. go whatever you want. What IS wrong is 1) assuming anything other than a 50/50 means "omg sexism/racism" and then, pressuring women into going places they don't want to, to appease your pseudo-religious ideology. It's also wrong to pressure girls into not using "female" toys.

I cannot. count. how many "feminist" types have complained that their new daughters like "female" toys even though they gave them male ones like LEGOs. One recently complained that she took all her two daughters' dolls away... she came back and found them having a tea party with homemade dressed-up firetrucks. That's child abuse. You might as well be punishing your child for being gay, or being straight, for not conforming to your pre-disposed stereotypes of a "proper" child.

A girl that likes dolls is not broken. And liberals have tried their hardest recently to make people ashamed of their biology.

-----sig:
β€œPrograms should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

But the freer, less sexist, a society is, science has shown, the MORE likely women are to be only in traditional "women" jobs like nursing.

Exactly.

Quote:

What IS wrong is 1) assuming anything other than a 50/50 means "omg sexism/racism" and then, pressuring women into going places they don't want to, to appease your pseudo-religious ideology. It's also wrong to pressure girls into not using "female" toys.

Exactly. To be fair, the "pressure" is decisive here. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that there are jobs girls might not have considered.

A self-confident free human being should be trusted to do what they[1] prefer, and not be seen a a victim of dark, (more or less) invisible forces which somehow attaches a sense of unreality to their actual proclivities.

IMHO, you should not limit your daughter's (or son's) toys to typical feminine or masculine ones but rather offer both types and just go with what they like.

Did not read the whole thing, but IIRC the majority of whitch burning did not occur during the Middle Ages, but later (16th, 17th, even 18th century), so numbers up to 1499 might not be the best source to draw on in this regard.

References

  1. This I learned from Aaron.
LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

Polybios said:

Sometimes I start to feel disadvantaged because I feel so normal (or rather "ordinary").

Have you ever seen somebody open up a door for someone in a wheelchair and feel disadvantaged because nobody opens the door for you? Mental disabilities can be as deliberating as physical ones, and what you see as an advantage that the person is getting is just a balancing of the disadvantages they face.

Ever wondered what having autism is like? It's exhausting. Literally. An autistic brain requires a lot more energy to run than a neurotypical brain because it has more neural connections and they're firing more frequently. My brain is running in 5th gear all the time. A lot of it is trying to process sensory input, which we experience a lot more of than a neurotypical person. I have it to a lesser extent with visual input, but mostly with auditory input. Your brain filters out most of the sounds that your ears pick up. Mine doesn't. I'm conscious of every single noise my ears pick up no matter how slight it is. If there are too many noises, my consciousness can't keep up with it and I shut down.

And that's just when I'm doing nothing. Then there's fun things like communicating. A lot of things that your subconscious mind does automatically for you, I have to consciously concentrate on. So when I'm talking to someone, I have to concentrate on looking at their face so that I can read their facial expressions to judge what emotion they're expressing. Likewise I have to concentrate on the tone of their voice for the same reason. But while I'm concentrating on looking at the person's face, I have to be mindful of how long i stare at them, because I've learnt that if you stare too intently for too long it makes people uncomfortable. I also have to try to judge how much I'm then looking away because if you do that to much, the person thinks you're lying to them.

And remember all that constant noise I was talking about earlier? A normal brain is tuned to picking up human speech out of background noise. Mine isn't, so out of all the noises I'm hearing I have to try to concentrate on just one of them so that I can try to decipher the words.

I often fail at that last part, because again the part of the brain that turns noise into words doesn't work in my brain, so all I hear is sounds. If I can't decipher any of what they say, it's not so bad because I can just ask the person to repeat themself. What's worse is when I only miss a word. When this happens to a neurotypical brain (say if the person is hard to hear, or another noise gets in the way), your subconscious will do some fuzzy logic and fill in the missing word for you, often without you even realizing that you didn't actually hear what they said. My subconscious doesn't do that however. Instead I'll have to consciously try to determine what the missing word might be. If I'm lucky, and I've been concentrating hard on the words that they've used so far, I can use context to fill in the missing word, but at other times instead I'll start going through a loop of every possible word that could have been said. Again, if I'm lucky I'll realize I'm stuck in a loop and be able to break out of it, but at other times, I'll just go around and around in my head, completely oblivious to anything else around me. Usually until the other person starts getting loud as they try to snap me out of it.

I also have to concentrate on listening to what words come out of my mouth as sometimes they're different from the words I intended to say. Sometimes instead of words coming out, only weird sounds come out instead, which means that one of those expressions I have to look for on the person's face is confusion.

Are you managing to keep track of all the things I have to simultaneously concentrate on just to have a conversation? And that's while trying not to be distracted by all the extra sensory information. Yup, exhausting. I often avoid talking to people because I'm just too tired to manage the effort.

And all that isn't taking into the account the anxiety disorder I also have. And guess what one of the things anxiety affects is. That's right, the ability to concentrate. Constant anxiety is also very exhausting, but I won't get into that.

So yeah, next time you feel your normality is disadvantaging you, I'll be happy to swap brains for a while. I'd love to find out what chilling out is like.

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

Whoa, no offense meant at all, I really need to put the emoticons more often. :-/

Well, bambam said

bamccaig said:

because an Autism diagnosis is more of an ally for men than an enemy.

I just wanted to "doubt" that in the way that "no symptoms with no diagnosis" would of, course, still be better. It seems your account (which I honestly find very interesting) actually rather confirms my reasoning here.

What I was thinking, given that Bambam seems to be exploring the possibility that he might be "on the spectrum" - but to a lesser extent - (again, no offense, Bambam, I don't want to imply anything here and I don't know about your personal condition), is that not every flaw or weakness must be due to some "special condition, which is just less pronounced with me". One can be socially inept or simply a bit stupid without being special, I fear (no, I still don't mean to refer to anyone particularly here - really).

Background is that I happen to know some teachers who are at times amused to what great lengths parents will go to excuse their children's failures with some "special condition", usually psychological/mental and - in these cases - only slightly pronounced, if at all, and therefore a bit doubtful. But once diagnosed, due to their officially recognized special needs, they will receive special treatment (yes, they will, regardless what the teachers think of it, don't get me wrong here), effectively resulting in better grades for the same performance.

I'm far from denying autism or other mental conditions exists, I'm just saying there seems to be a trend to (over)(-self-)diagnose mental conditions (more), sometimes (only sometimes) perhaps to serve other ends, e.g. get better grades or simply feel better about oneself. This tendency of "instrumental/lifestyle neurosis/victimhood" plays down real problems of people who e.g. are farther out on the autism-spectrum.

Before I continue to increase my political incorrectness and social ineptness scores further, I'd probably better shut up now. :P

LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

Polybios said:

Whoa, no offense meant at all, I really need to put the emoticons more often.

It's ok. I was pretty sure you were only kidding, but I thought I'd say all that anyway as there are a lot of people out there who do think that mental and neurological disorders are just made up, or think it's something that someone who has one should just "get over it."

Quote:

It seems your account (which I honestly find very interesting) actually rather confirms my reasoning here.

Well, since your interested, I also realized while I was at work tonight that my explanation of a conversation was still missing a couple of things.

In many ways, my brain works in the way a small child's would. I take everything said to me literally, so I often won't pick up on things like sarcasm, or I'll misunderstand figures of speech, so sometimes I have to go over what the person has said several times before I can work out what they're trying to say. Also, like a small child, I'll tend to say exactly what I'm thinking, even if it's something considered to be impolite. Luckily I've learnt over the years what you can and can't say to people and I can usually catch myself before I say something I shouldn't.

Also relating to the inability to recognize facial expressions, it's very hard for me to recognize faces. I quite often will be talking to someone for a while, and then they'll go away for a few minutes and when they come back I'll think it's a completely different person (unless they're wearing distinctive clothing, which I can recognize). This can also make watching movies and TV shows tricky sometimes as I'll get characters mixed up. I remember watching The Departed, and I didn't realize until about 2/3 of the way through the movie that Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio were two different people playing different characters. It made the movie very confusing.

Quote:

I'm far from denying autism or other mental conditions exists, I'm just saying there seems to be a trend to (over)(-self-)diagnose mental conditions (more), sometimes (only sometimes) perhaps to serve other ends, e.g. get better grades or simply feel better about oneself. This tendency of "instrumental/lifestyle neurosis/victimhood" plays down real problems of people who e.g. are farther out on the autism-spectrum.

You're right that does happen. And people will conditions like Autism and Tourette's to justify their bad behaviour. I've also come across parents who try to blame their child's lack of disciple on Autism or ADHD.

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

I look at this as the product of how hard you try at something and how natural it comes to you. Some people just don't try so they look like they have the same symptoms as someone who is actually disadvantaged.

I personally struggle with things like facial/name recognition but it has more to do with me not paying attention because I'm constantly processing something else that is more interesting to me. If I shift my focus then it's not a problem.

Go to: